God and the supernatural have no objective existence...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

First, what I actually said was that I’m only “immune” to the extent that I cannot falsify the reasoning for the things I do believe.

Second, your charge of scientism is pretty much the mother of all the straw men you attempt (admittedly from an extremely crowded field) given that I’ve never said anything that would suggest that I subscribe to it, and moreover given that I’ve endlessly rebutted the charge only for you to run away each time I’ve done it.

Are you still hanging around playgrounds in your spare time by the way? After all, if you insist on making up shit about me I see no reason for it not to be a two-way street.     

Then – as so often – you think wrongly. What I actually mean is what I actually say - namely that science (and the reasoning that supports it) is the only verifiable means I know of test truth claims about the nature of the universe. If ever you manage to find another method to do that to test the various religious claims you make, by all means tell us what it is.   

More lying isn’t helping you here. I have no idea whether or not your religious “stories” are true but – and here’s the point – nor have you. Your reliance on fallacious reasoning and unqualified assertions tells me that I have no reason to accept them, but if ever you manage to produce something more robust than that for justification I’ll examine your reasoning on its merits. I won’t be holding my breath though.   

You’ve collapsed into incoherence again. Is there a coherent sentence in there somewhere trying to escape your mangled prose? 

Find yourself someone who actually argues for it then if you can and have it out with him. You seem to have forgotten by the way that the last time you tried to make your case by citing Wiki re scientism it blew up in your face because it didn’t mean what you thought it meant at all.   

I don’t “suspend” it, I explain to you why it’s bollocks – albeit that the explanation always fall on deaf ears.

By all mean though if you fancy swapping your persistent lying , straw men, false reasoning and unsupported assertions for actual sound arguments then – finally – try sharing them here.

Good luck with it.

Blimey, and all this before I come to the bit where I actually disagree with your suggestion that religion is best described as explanatory stories that science has proved wrong and that we can dismiss spirituality.
Spirituality is about the inner experience, and how to grow and develop it. It’s about the bit you know intimately but the rest can’t see or adequately measure, it’s about quality and quality.

It’s that which allows Cox to enjoy the wonder of the universe, sagan’s Sense of cosmos,Dawkin’s waxing lyrical about all the people that never existed.

You might think PSR is bollocks but that doesn’t stop you depending on it to argue it’s bollocks.

As I said religion isn’t just failed science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The trouble with this statement is that the "supernatural" is an incoherent class of phenomena. As soon as a supernatural phenomenon can be demonstrated to exist to the satisfaction of the sceptics, it stops being part of the supernatural and starts being part of the natural.

I think the term supernatural sprung forth from those insisting they were naturalists. I suppose I’m saying they are themselves responsible for any problems they have with a word they invented.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nothing here that couldn't apply to humanism or a materialism.

Well we were discussing religion, so your comment isn't really relevant.

However, to answer your point - yes and no.

Some of the elements I mentioned would apply to humanism and/or materialism, others not. An example of one that potentially would is Control and Humanism, given that the latter is effectively an ethical framework. Were there to be a embedded humanist society it is reasonably to think that adherence to humanist principles might be used as control - in other words that that society may expect adherence to humanist principles. However there is a difference with religion - while it is plausible that a humanist society may place 'in the here and now' sanctions on those that do not adhere to humanist principles, I cannot see how humanism can be used to control in the manner that religion often does - effectively 'behave as we dictate or you will be damned for eternity after you die'.

Others - well I don't see how they apply given that, for example, I don't think that people actually define themselves as 'materialist' in the manner that they do for religion, or even humanism. So I don't really see how materialism can be used for most of the elements I mention. True materialism provides tools to create stuff, but that is really a tool and just as valuable for building a religious building as a shopping mall.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well we were discussing religion, so your comment isn't really relevant.

However, to answer your point - yes and no.

Some of the elements I mentioned would apply to humanism and/or materialism, others not. An example of one that potentially would is Control and Humanism, given that the latter is effectively an ethical framework. Were there to be a embedded humanist society it is reasonably to think that adherence to humanist principles might be used as control - in other words that that society may expect adherence to humanist principles. However there is a difference with religion - while it is plausible that a humanist society may place 'in the here and now' sanctions on those that do not adhere to humanist principles, I cannot see how humanism can be used to control in the manner that religion often does - effectively 'behave as we dictate or you will be damned for eternity after you die'.

Others - well I don't see how they apply given that, for example, I don't think that people actually define themselves as 'materialist' in the manner that they do for religion, or even humanism. So I don't really see how materialism can be used for most of the elements I mention. True materialism provides tools to create stuff, but that is really a tool and just as valuable for building a religious building as a shopping mall.

Put simply a humanism wishing to exert control can threaten what Humanist UK, I believe, refer to as, “The one life we have”, a threat that has had great success worldwide in recent times.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Blimey, and all this before I come to the bit where I actually disagree with your suggestion that religion is best described as explanatory stories that science has proved wrong and that we can dismiss spirituality.

You seem to have forgotten to apologise for telling me I subscribe to scientism. Never apologise, never explain – just move on to the next suite of lies eh?

Oh, and speaking of your lies - I haven’t suggested of course that science has “proved wrong” the stories of religions. Only when religions make scientific claims and science has provided more robust explanations has it demonstrated (not "proved") that.

Oh, and yes you can “dismiss spirituality” until anyone comes up with an agreed meaning for that term, for the same reason that you would “dismiss” uho87*&%^0.   

Spirituality is about the inner experience, and how to grow and develop it. It’s about the bit you know intimately but the rest can’t see or adequately measure, it’s about quality and quality.

No, “spirituality” is typically freighted with all sorts of woo characteristics. If you’re trying to say instead that it’s just being reflective and self-aware sometimes, then say that. 

It’s that which allows Cox to enjoy the wonder of the universe, sagan’s Sense of cosmos,Dawkin’s waxing lyrical about all the people that never existed.

You don’t suppose it’s just because they are (or were) intelligent and curious people then? Why stick the “all things to all men” woo of “spiritual” onto that? What does it add?   

You might think PSR is bollocks but that doesn’t stop you depending on it to argue it’s bollocks.

Naturally you’ll be along so to justify that unqualified claim – perhaps with, you know, some reasons?
Maybe you could start with defining what you mean by the term? 

As I said religion isn’t just failed science.

No-one said otherwise. It often is failed science, but it’s often failed philosophy, failed medicine, failed… etc too. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You seem to have forgotten to apologise for telling me I subscribe to scientism. Never apologise, never explain – just move on to the next suite of lies eh?

Oh, and speaking of your lies - I haven’t suggested of course that science has “proved wrong” the stories of religions. Only when religions make scientific claims and science has provided more robust explanations has it demonstrated (not "proved") that.

Oh, and yes you can “dismiss spirituality” until anyone comes up with an agreed meaning for that term, for the same reason that you would “dismiss” uho87*&%^0.   

No, “spirituality” is typically freighted with all sorts of woo characteristics. If you’re trying to say instead that it’s just being reflective and self-aware sometimes, then say that. 

You don’t suppose it’s just because they are (or were) intelligent and curious people then? Why stick the “all things to all men” woo of “spiritual” onto that? What does it add?   

Naturally you’ll be along so to justify that unqualified claim – perhaps with, you know, some reasons?
Maybe you could start with defining what you mean by the term? 

No-one said otherwise. It often is failed science, but it’s often failed philosophy, failed medicine, failed… etc too.

Occams razor tells us that ultimate reasons or reason are the order of the day.

Reason has been given as to why there should be an ultimate entity. There literally is nothing to stop it existing except perhaps itself. Your rejection of the PSR is rejection of reasons which don't suit your weltbilt IMHO.

One last thing, I'm curious to know what you did with your antitheism prior to Dawkins and the Internet. What forums did it manifest itself in?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Bluehillside said

No-one said otherwise. It often is failed science, but it’s often failed philosophy, failed medicine, failed… etc too.

Medicine is science. What philosophy are you thinking about.

Your statement just looks like an"Religion equals everything which is bad and wrong" statement.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Occams razor tells us that ultimate reasons or reason are the order of the day.

No it doesn’t. Occam’s razor actually tells us that the explanation with fewer assumptions is generally to be preferred to the explanation with more assumptions.

You do realise that you can actually look this stuff up to avoid falling flat on your face here don’t you? 

Reason has been given as to why there should be an ultimate entity.

But it’s a false reason because more logically robust reasoning falsifies it.

There literally is nothing to stop it existing except perhaps itself.

There literally is nothing to stop leprechauns existing either. So what though?

Your rejection of the PSR is rejection of reasons which don't suit your weltbilt IMHO.

No, it’s a rejection of reasons that are demonstrably various fallacies – perhaps if you stopped running away from this problem every time it’s explained to you you’d reduce the likelihood of continually embarrassing yourself here?

One last thing, I'm curious to know what you did with your antitheism prior to Dawkins and the Internet. What forums did it manifest itself in?

I didn’t need to do anything with it because religion didn’t impact much on my life.

So about your apology for accusing me of scientism…? And while you're about it how about addressing the problems you gave yourself with your claims about "spirituality" that you've just ignored?

Something? Anything?     

[ekim]

...but humans have a religious capacity and need, so let's practice religion for its own sake and not worry about its objective truth.
Discuss.

I would be inclined to divide 'religion' into two aspects one being the 'mystical' element which invites the individual to transcend the mental and physical aspects of existence and discover an inner unity (oneness) by a variety of techniques, the other being organised religion which over time has used those techniques to indoctrinate and create 'flock think' as a means of control much like politics, marketing and internet influencers.

Example quotations from the 'mystical' side might be:-
William Law   [17th C. Christian Mystic]   This pearl of eternity is the Temple of God within you, the consecrated place of divine worship, where alone you can worship God in spirit and in truth.

Richard of Saint Victor [12th C Scot.  Philosopher]   If you wish to search out the deep things of God search out the depths of your own spirit.

Swami Ramdas [d 1963 Hindu Bhakta]   The path to the source of your and the world’s Being is not without.   You have to go within yourself.

Swami Sivananda [d 1963 Hindu authority on meditation]   The mind like a thief is always lying in wait.

Huang Po [9th C Ch.  Zen Buddhist Master]  Those who seek the truth by means of intellect and learning only get further and further from it.   Not until your thoughts cease, not until you abandon seeking for something, not until your mind is as motionless as stone will you be on the right road.

Bayazid al Bishtami [9th C Persian Sufi mystic]  Forgetfulness  of Self is remembrance of God.

Jesus (L18/17)   Whosoever shall not receive the Divine State as a little child will not be able to enter therein.
Jesus (L17/20) - The Divine State cannot be observed with the eyes neither can it be pointed to because it is within you. 

Sri Ramakrishna [19th C Hindu saint] So long as one does not become simple like a child one does not get divine illumination.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Medicine is science.

Not when religions have attempted it is isn’t – asserting that the plague was caused by “sinful” behaviour for example.

What philosophy are you thinking about.

Try the knots religions often tie themselves in to explain away the problem of “evil” when there’s (supposedly) a benign god for starters. 

Your statement just looks like an"Religion equals everything which is bad and wrong" statement.

No it doesn’t. It actually looks like a “when religions step into areas that are empirically falsifiable, more robust fields of human endeavour typically show it to be wrong”.   

[ProfessorDavey]

Put simply a humanism wishing to exert control can threaten what Humanist UK, I believe, refer to as, “The one life we have”,

True, and I've not denied it. But this is hardly equivalent to indoctrinating people into believing that unless they live in a particular way, determined by a powerful religious elite that they will be subject to eternal damnation after death. Nor that if they live as others dictate that they will be rewarded with eternal paradise after death.

This threat in a purported afterlife has been used to get people to accept living miserable, impoverished, denigrating lives on the promise of paradise once they die. And of course over history those teaching people to accept their terrible lives are usually those completely buffered from those lives, living elite lives of plenty and of power.

Now it is rather hard to get people to accept an appalling life in this world on the promise of better in the next life if you also teach that this life is all we have.

a threat that has had great success worldwide in recent times.

Really - examples please of countries (or other jurisdictions) that have formally espoused a humanist approach and forced that on their populace whether they wished it or not. I can think of many, many theocracies over history that have imposed theocratic dogmas on their people, I'm really struggling to think of an equivalent 'Humanist' jurisdiction. But I'm sure you'll help me out Vlad!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

True, and I've not denied it. But this is hardly equivalent to indoctrinating people into believing that unless they live in a particular way, determined by a powerful religious elite that they will be subject to eternal damnation after death. Nor that if they live as others dictate that they will be rewarded with eternal paradise after death.

This threat in a purported afterlife has been used to get people to accept living miserable, impoverished, denigrating lives on the promise of paradise once they die. And of course over history those teaching people to accept their terrible lives are usually those completely buffered from those lives, living elite lives of plenty and of power.

Now it is rather hard to get people to accept an appalling life in this world on the promise of better in the next life if you also teach that this life is all we have.
Really - examples please of countries (or other jurisdictions) that have formally espoused a humanist approach and forced that on their populace whether they wished it or not. I can think of many, many theocracies over history that have imposed theocratic dogmas on their people, I'm really struggling to think of an equivalent 'Humanist' jurisdiction. But I'm sure you'll help me out Vlad!!

The threat of an afterlife no more adequately describes religion than “Explanatory stories”, in fact the latter Dawksplanation is better Imho.
I think we have to sort out the difference between a threat to conform in this life and a warning of what happens if the inner dimension receives zero or negative nourishment. In spiritual terms  we are talking about the death, the final death or second death or regress of the soul in religions with reincarnation. It is interesting that Humanism slogans that we are good without God The benign interpretation is that we are inately good, though some Humanists think they are better and improvement is through, you’ve guessed it, becoming atheist, being more scientific etc, knowing more facts, in short renouncing religion. In some countries not renouncing religion has led to threats rather than warnings.

Religion has also talked of final release from tyranny, indeed Marx chide it for it’s optimistic message which he likened to an opiate.
Ideally then religion can cause people to live as if there is a higher power for good. For the humanist it’s the vagaries of law and zeitgeist which is what they must commit body and mind to.

[Outrider]

I'm not sure what inherently meaningless means?

It's not based on anything, it's referring to something that not only doesn't exist, but is so vaguely defined and liberally interpreted that you can't rule out anything.

I get that 'spiritual' is a bit all things to all people but it's surely a genuine attempt to convey something about the human experience, and as such I'm not sure that it can inherently lack meaning.

It means what any one person wants it to mean, and if the definition is that fluid it's useless.

O.

[Steve H]

The trouble with this statement is that the "supernatural" is an incoherent class of phenomena. As soon as a supernatural phenomenon can be demonstrated to exist to the satisfaction of the sceptics, it stops being part of the supernatural and starts being part of the natural.

Good point. However, you could say the same bout God. I think, though, that God is intrinsically undemonstrable.

[jeremyp]

I think the term supernatural sprung forth from those insisting they were naturalists. I suppose I’m saying they are themselves responsible for any problems they have with a word they invented.

I don't care where ir sprung from. Supernatural phenomena divide into two classes:

1. phenomena that are imaginary
2. Phenomena that we haven't figured out how to observe in a repeatable objective way.

The latter class is really of natural phenomena temporarily labelled incorrectly.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Good point. However, you could say the same bout God. I think, though, that God is intrinsically undemonstrable.

If you think that something is "undemonstrable", why think it exists at all?

[Steve H]

SteveH,

If you think that something is "undemonstrable", why think it exists at all?

I don't. Read the OP. However, God could be beyond conclusive evidence but likely on the balance of probabilities.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't. Read the OP. However, God could be beyond conclusive evidence but likely on the balance of probabilities.

That would mean you would have a method of measuring the probability of a god claim,. Do you have one?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

I don't. Read the OP. However, God could be beyond conclusive evidence but likely on the balance of probabilities.

NS has got there before me, but how would you propose to determine the balance of probabilities absent a method to demonstrate a god's likely existence or not?   

[Nearly Sane]

If a god does exist then by definition I would have objective existence. Hard solipsism means that I don't think I can claim anything outside me exists objectively, and given that my self perception  is based on the idea that that there is an external world, then it's not clear that I can be sure of my own existence in the way that I perceive. As I've said before O think the cogito overstated it  i cannot say that zi think therefore I am but there would certainly appear to be thinking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't. Read the OP. However, God could be beyond conclusive evidence but likely on the balance of probabilities.

If something is contingent on observation, it is, well, contingent. A necessary entity cannot therefore be observed physically.

If your mind is “locked physicalist”, you cannot conceive of a necessary being

[Nearly Sane]

If something is contingent on observation, it is, well, contingent. A necessary entity cannot therefore be observed physically.

If your mind is “locked physicalist”, you cannot conceive of a necessary being

Thar's just assertion

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If something is contingent on observation, it is, well, contingent.

Every claim of an objective truth is contingent on observation. How else would you know that it’s there?

A necessary entity cannot therefore be observed physically.

Non sequitur. Why not?

If your mind is “locked physicalist”, you cannot conceive of a necessary being

Anyone can “conceive” of such a thing. Your problem is to find an argument that isn’t crap to take you from conceiving of something to demonstrating it. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Every claim of an objective truth is contingent on observation. How else would you know that it’s there?

How are you defining observation here.

Anyone can “conceive” of such a thing. Your problem is to find an argument that isn’t crap to take you from conceiving of something to demonstrating it.

I’m afraid, although you seem to think you are the arbiter of a good argument and good reason, the fact is there is no intellectual oversight of this forum.
We have to look therefore to other arbitration and I frequently look to Sean M. Carroll the atheist cosmologist. When he says he will devote effort into disproving the principle of sufficient reason we can take it that it hasn’t been disproved yet and that your assertion that “It’s bollocks” is probably untrustworthy.

So no Hillside. I think many of the things you call crap arguments, the things you think you have buried are
alive and kicking

[Stranger]

When [Sean M. Carroll] says he will devote effort into disproving the principle of sufficient reason...

[citation missing]