Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

evidence...that is impossible to bring forth

Yeah, I agree. BUT not to many people are going to worship a God and, more importantly, do as they are told - - unless they are offered life after death. I don't know anyone who would worship a God, with as little as this God gives the in this life, unless they think they'll get to live in a paradise after they die. I've even known some pretty confident atheists that started believing as they got up in their later years, say late 70s early 80s...

well im not so sure i have seen grubs or caterpillars
and they go into a caccoon they go through changes in that afterlife caccoon
then they emerge as butterflies
but i dont know if thats death or near death
and they say delai lama has proof but i didnt meet him before and if i did i didnt know or remember if i have or not
then theirs tales of people seeing ghots and experiences of dying and coming back to tell tales ....many say things that would blow the mind away
then theirs psychic that say they talk to the dead nd they have done police work andhelped solve murder investigations
so i really dont know about giving any proof of after life or none at all
guess its what u choose to beleive

If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise.


wrong. if the claim sufficiently piques my interest, i'll go look for myself.
what the claimant does is not my concern

If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume false until proved otherwise.

Fixed.

nah i just wouldnt even bother i read a few of those words
and the only thing that has ever interested me and others is

does after life really exist not santa
so i didnt even bother to even have a thougth bout santa if he exits or not
on the other hand after life has always interested many people and that caught my eye
and i interpreted that and made a say on here
i wasnt expecting an iq test
so dont worry bout if i say the wrong things i just see or percieve differently to prololy others and yourself

If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume false until proved otherwise.

Fixed.

true. i tweaked and generalized the proposition. this burden of proof is bit of a soundbite
i would do more than assume. i'd probably ridicule too. humiliate if resistant to revision, hang if the mood strikes me
ja
ridicule till the cows came home

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

True.

well sumthing happened in maryborough queensland australia few years back it made the news and streets were shut down till they found a cure

it goes like this
a man had an argument with his mate another guy bout money they guy owed the man
the guy wouldnt pay up and the man needed the cash for his kids
the man took of then came back with ground up chalk
he threw the chalk on the ground and said .......WELL COP THIS THEN.....
the guy got very extremely sick he called the ambulance and the cops came aswell they musta saw the chalk then they got very sick near death so to the ambulance crew
more ambulance were called to help the other ambulance crew and the cops more cops came by this time people were sprawled out all over the outside on stretchers and the ground near dying they near died
the man just crossed his arms and watched the display
one smart fellow did tests on the chalk after attempting to help everyone
he told them all .....that he didnt understand why everyone was sick cause there was no substance in the chalk and couldnt find nothing in tests he did on their blood
everyone even cops and the guy got up feeling better but they were all near death
the man never got arrested cause there was no substnce in the chalk

thats kinda a bit of proof what people can do with the mind
and is in the news papers local papers of maryborough australia
i was there when it happened and also read the papers all me mates talked bout it for ages after

well he nelly sent em to the after life

If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

Well, good for you. But does that also mean that you should ridicule, denigrate or otherwise harrass others who believe differently from you?

If you don't want to believe, then fine. But do you hold that same tolerance for those who might believe differently? Do you allow them to believe as they wish?

Baron Max

I has an afterlife plus a Canada up my mangina. Avatar warned me he doesn't believe me.

If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.


It is all based on faith and beliefs. If you are a true believer in whatever

your faith tells you then you won't need any evidence other than your own

belief.

I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

How does that harm anyone?

Baron Max

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?
Well sure, I mean I dont see why you should have to prove that there is no afterlife.

I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

How does that harm anyone?

Baron Max

Only you with INDIGESTION!! :D

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

Strictly speaking you are correct. The onus is not on the listener to prove anything. The listener may be interested in attempting to verify a claim, but it isn't incumbent on him to do so.

The claimant must always provide evidence or even (as a start) a logical sequence of thought. Take legal cases for example. The defendant never proves the case against himself! It is up to the prosecuting attorney (the accuser or claimant's attorney) to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.

More fundamentally, it is not logically possible to prove the antithesis of a claim. That is attempting to prove a negative...which the listener cannot accomplish.

I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

How does that harm anyone?

Baron Max


The degree of collateral damage caused by your belief is irrelevant. The question asks who has to prove said belief, were it to come into question.

For example...I can tell you that all of your beliefs listed there are ridiculous. I however cannot prove that there is not an afterlife, or there is not coffee and whiskey in not-heaven. If you wish to defend or spread your beliefs (like theists tend to with their doctrines), you must provide the evidence.

Well, good for you. But does that also mean that you should ridicule, denigrate or otherwise harrass others who believe differently from you?

If you don't want to believe, then fine. But do you hold that same tolerance for those who might believe differently? Do you allow them to believe as they wish?

I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

You're appealing to arguments the OP didn't make. He's not arguing that there is harm. Nor is he arguing that those with superstitious beliefs should be ridiculed, denigrated, or otherwise humiliated by publicly demonstrating their ignorance. His argument is that if one makes a bold claim, only the claimant is required to support the claim. Therefore, the audience to the claim isn't required to provide evidence contrary to the claim.

Where in the OP did you find his call for harm? Are you implying that the mere acts of questioning, inquiring and criticizing those that make wacky claims are proceeding with the intent to harm over the intent to demand truth and rational discourse?

While the OP doesn't call for ridicule or denigration, I do. Anyone that is willing to publicly favor superstition over science deserves it, particularly when this superstition impedes education, medicine, and progress in technology and government. Religious superstition is responsible for smart, educated people flying planes into skyscrapers. Its responsible for inspiring assholes to bomb clinics and assassinate doctors who provide medical services to pregnant women simply because their superstition tells them life begins with conception. A fly has far more cells than a blastocyst, yet the Pope calls for pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for medicines like Plan-B. Religious superstition is responsible -directly- for many of the HIV/AIDS deaths in Africa, where religious nutbars who are bishops are telling their "flock" condoms are laced with AIDS virus.

Yeah. Denigration.

The burden of proof belongs on the plaintiff. The existence of God is not a lawsuit. The analogy fails. Besides, you could just as easily claim "there is no God". Now, it's up to you to prove it.

The burden of proof belongs on the plaintiff. The existence of God is not a lawsuit. The analogy fails. Besides, you could just as easily claim "there is no God". Now, it's up to you to prove it.

No one has implied that your god, whichever it may be, is some sort of "lawsuit." Nor is it true that "burden of proof" resides only in courts of law.

This is readily present in every day life and one can find this truth by simply shopping for a used car. If the salesman assures you that the car runs fine and expects you to take his word for it, will you not still demand a test-drive before forking over your money? This same analogy can be applied to countless examples of where ordinary people demand some sort of qualifying evidence before accepting a claim, particularly a far-fetched one, to be true. That isn't to say that there aren't many instances of people accepting wild-ass claims without evidence: religious superstitions, believers in tarot, astrology, fung shei, bottled water, alien abductions, and the effectiveness of garden gnomes as gardeners are but a very few examples.

Moderator's Note: About a page full of off-topic and nonsensical posts were deleted. Please don't clutter up threads in this forum that way. PMs were sent to two of the three members involved and yet they continued to post.

"Burden of proof" is a legal phrase. Get used to it, and stop using it in non-legal settings.

No one is disputing that the phrase is used in circumstances of law. There is a reason, which is because those that make claims have a burden to evidence their claims. This applies in aspects of life that extend beyond law, whether you choose to accept it or not.

well he nelly sent em to the after life :)
I get a big kick watching people who are hypnotized. Probably something like that occurred.


I once watched a guy who was hypothesized (on TV) who then thought he was a bee. He rubbed his butt against a person and then flew around and finally laid down and "died". But he obviously really wasn't dead. The hypnotist asked why he had laid down and one of the camera crew said he "died" and the hypnotist asked why - he hadn't told him he was dead so he should still be a bee and the crew said it's because he lost his stinger when he rubbed his butt against someone "stung it" - even the hypnotist got a huge laugh out of that!

I wouldn't call it the "power" of the mind but I'd say there is something funny about consciousness.

And that's the point. People believe things without needing any sort of proof. Type II errors have probably saved our ancestors since before we were even Hominidae and thus this line of reasoning was written into our DNA by mother nature long ago. For most people there is no amount of "reasoning" that is going to override this type of consciousness - for whatever reasons.

Yes the burden of proof belongs with the claimant but there's little point discussing it with someone who disagrees. They can not think logically about the topic.

Michael

yeah i guess so

commun mob discussion.....the mou(greek--means "my god")...why people stuck on the word (god, christianity, deth, afterlife etc.) everything is placed in the right way of nature. if someone find the proof of the existent of god ( whats kinda difficult), but than he has found the answer of "why me exist). but i think thats not the point. the whole point is to understand and o find an acceptable way to get the knowledge about things are really are. Ask u self whats menkinds way is: burn, growing up, get an adult and being in the position to make another men(kid), getting older and dieing. thats nature way. before and after is just a combination of all descrption of humans mind. just for this.....everything needs power to live and to exist. also human. sokrates said in the composium that god is energy (everywhere).....human exist just to product this energy. how and all the other question needs answers with a lot of time for explaining. ( im trully sorry for my english)

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

I would concur that the presence of an after life is a claim. But that depends on what you mean as an "afterlife". It is another term that is constantly abused by religion. But never mind that. From your perspective yes it does equate to a claim.

I would concur too that the evidence of proof lies on the individual to provided thus. Yet not all situations can be judged accordingly. It establishes an internal conviction for both parties. Which is a claim either way.

While the OP doesn't call for ridicule or denigration, I do. Anyone that is willing to publicly favor science over superstition deserves it, particularly when this superstition impedes education, medicine, and progress in technology and government. Religious superstition is responsible for smart, educated people flying planes into skyscrapers. Its responsible for inspiring assholes to bomb clinics and assassinate doctors who provide medical services to pregnant women simply because their superstition tells them life begins with conception. A fly has far more cells than a blastocyst, yet the Pope calls for pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for medicines like Plan-B. Religious superstition is responsible -directly- for many of the HIV/AIDS deaths in Africa, where religious nutbars who are bishops are telling their "flock" condoms are laced with AIDS virus.

Yeah. Denigration.

In a scientific endeavor, one attempts to prove the null hypothesis, which is the opposite of what one is really trying to prove. In the case of the existence of God the null hypothesis is that God does not exist. One finds evidence to accept or reject that hypothesis.

In a western court of law with the presumption of innocence the same rules apply. In this case the null hypothesis is that the defendant is guilty. Evidence is provided to establish guilt only, accepting the null hypothesis. Rejecting the null hypotheses means finding a person not guilty. The defendant is never found innocent.

In a debate however, which some would like to optimistically think these forums are, both the affirmative and the negative positions must prove anything they assert. Of course there is no real debate here; instead it is mostly ridicule and denigration as our esteemed moderator points out, which is completely against forum rules but hey, he's the moderator. It's his little way of playing god so to speak.

His position is of course also completely false as it is trivial to point out the evils of atheism as well. Just pick up a grocery tabloid any day, or look at the great atheist regimes like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and others. But hey, his biased position rules as he makes the rules. Fortunately there are much better rules to live by.

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof.
...

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

In short, you are entirely correct.

The burden of proof always lies with that view that runs contrary to convention.

Now, that being said, do not that this says absolutely nothing whatsoever as to the veracity of either claim, conventional or otherwise.

In a scientific endeavor, one attempts to prove the null hypothesis,

[...]

His position is of course also completely false as it is trivial to point out the evils of atheism as well. Just pick up a grocery tabloid any day, or look at the great atheist regimes like Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and others. But hey, his biased position rules as he makes the rules. Fortunately there are much better rules to live by.

In a completely fallacious and unsupported argument informed by bigotry, superstition and an apparent substandard education, one equates atheism with evil when there isn't a logical or reasoned argument to be made. The "stalin, mao, pol pot" argument has been destroyed so many times by so many people that it can only be a substandard education that allows such a fallacy to continue. Tsk.

How is an ideology responsible? How do we go about associating a direct cause and effect nature between bad decision making of an individual to his or her being misled by falsehoods? How then do we identify all under the same umbrella of accusation.

You really can't. What you are displaying is an emotional response to acts of violence and destruction. Politics call it the blame game whether it be video games, movies or religion and tabo's.

There is a measure of blame. Don't get me wrong but the Blame Game doesn't seek the complete cause it seeks only a scape goat. It suggest in error by rooming this one single aspect the problem will be cured. It's as though saying man is pure if not for the bad influence of religion. Man is pure if not for the bad inflence of ignorance.

Perhaps it will be a slow realization for those as religion continues to decline but man is not pure.

The Vatican lied through their teeth telling Africans that condoms were porous and of no value in contraception. In their usual style, the did not explain why condoms are banned by them.

Religion plays a similar "blame game" way of thinking with God. In the face of desasterous events pastors will claim God is responsible. When a person dies, whether by violence or natural causes, God is responsible. Yet theire own teachings show he is not.

It's the same emotional reaction Dawkins and other scientist have inversely to religion. It's the tactic of emotional generalization. Let's Identify reasonable responsibility.

Reason means to yield and responsibility is an obligation. So we're looking for a ideology to yield and take an obligation. But of those are actions. Do we expect the Constitution of the United States to yield or take up an obligation? Do we expect Socialism to yeild or take up an obligation? Do we expect Math and Science to yield to and take up an obligation?

Absolutely not. Why? Because these are the things we are supposed to yield to. Only a living thing can yield and take up an obligation. Our boundaries are set by science, religion, math, the Constitution, socialism and etc. Everything can be interpretted to mislead but the obligation not to belongs to man and man alone.

How is an ideology responsible? How do we go about associating a direct cause and effect nature between bad decision making of an individual to his or her being misled by falsehoods? How then do we identify all under the same umbrella of accusation.

You really can't. What you are displaying is an emotional response to acts of violence and destruction. Politics call it the blame game whether it be video games, movies or religion and tabo's.

There is a measure of blame. Don't get me wrong but the Blame Game doesn't seek the complete cause it seeks only a scape goat. It suggest in error by rooming this one single aspect the problem will be cured. It's as though saying man is pure if not for the bad influence of religion. Man is pure if not for the bad inflence of ignorance.

Perhaps it will be a slow realization for those as religion continues to decline but man is not pure.



How is an ideology responsible, you ask. Simple answer. An ideology is a set of beliefs and beliefs inform our actions.

What do you mean by "man is not pure " ? With what are you comparing us ?

It shares a responsibility but it does not take responsibility. Just as a soldier holds his orders as his ideology the burdeon or responsibility is not on the order but the soldier and the commanding officer. Thus...the ideology...the order or that which informs our actions is not a propper excuse for retaining responsibility.

All of the Civilized world shares that perspective to war crimes why should the expectation change with any other ideology? The truth is it doesn't. A court of law of these societies do not excuse soilders for folllowing orders.

Yet you would excuse the people of religion for following orders. That's not a logical application of the burdeon of responsibility.
This is an understood social fallacy and a reprehensible use of logic on a scientific forum.
-----
I mean pure as to say no one of us is fautless. There is no apparent direct comparison.

It shares a responsibility but it does not take responsibility. Just as a soldier holds his orders as his ideology the burdeon or responsibility is not on the order but the soldier and the commanding officer. Thus...the ideology...the order or that which informs our actions is not a propper excuse for retaining responsibility.

All of the Civilized world shares that perspective to war crimes why should the expectation change with any other ideology? The truth is it doesn't. A court of law of these societies do not excuse soilders for folllowing orders.

Yet you would excuse the people of religion for following orders. That's not a logical application of the burdeon of responsibility.
This is an understood social fallacy and a reprehensible use of logic on a scientific forum.
-----
I mean pure as to say no one of us is fautless. There is no apparent direct comparison.

No, religion claims responsibility for what is good ,which it attributes to its god. Evil is ascribed to the Devil. That's truly logical, given that the claim is that god created everything, including Satan.

I am sure you are truly offended by the reprehensible use of logic. When it suits you, that is. Would you care to tell me what is logical about Noah. As a logician, you should have no trouble explaining a few problems I have with the Bible.

Your insight into human nature is truly astounding. You have logically deduced that mankind is fallible. As you have no "apparent direct comparison " can you please stae your premises

You're talking about a singular ideology to which you apply generally. That's another social Fallacy. All religions even of the same root do not share the same ideology. Therefore it's illogical to present one ideology to respresent them all.

I'm sure it is your intention to draw out a debate but would be the logical purpose behind such an endeavor?

You're talking about a singular ideology to which you apply generally. That's another social Fallacy. All religions even of the same root do not share the same ideology. Therefore illogical to present on ideology to respresent them all.

I'm sure it is your intention to draw out a debate but would be the logical purpose behind such an endeavor?

Thank you for pointing out the obvious about different religions. I am not generalizing; I am asking you to explain things from your Christian perspective.

If you are reluctant to debate what you believe in, I think I undetrstand why. Are you frightened by an inability to support your views with reason as opposed to quoting the Bible ?

To what end?

To what end?

You are right. It would be a totally pointless exercise.

why?
faith?

Naming the evils done by both atheists and theists has no bearing on the existence of God or an afterlife. These are ad hominem attacks not welcome here(though the "theist" list is much longer ;). Also, I made this post like six months ago.

why?
faith?

belief v. knowledge.

no common ground

Naming the evils done by both atheists and theists has no bearing on the existence of God or an afterlife. These are ad hominem attacks not welcome here(though the "theist" list is much longer ;). Also, I made this post like six months ago.

Try again in another six months. I wish you luck.

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

i would say that experience is the only way to true knowledge, but also that deductions could be proposed based upon evidence, and that deductions can be incorrect regardless of evidence, because they're based on interpretation.

i wonder though, why is this important to you? what difference does it make to you what happens when you die? why don't you wait until the experience and see for yourself? then you'll know for sure because you'll have the proof.

The real question is not who has the burden, but who gets to set the standards of proof.
Those who have no belief in god, or even a belief in no-god, often seem to think the proof has to be scientific in nature.
I do not see how this is a given.
The god believer can offer much evidence, even proof, but it is not acceptable to the unbeliever.
Who has the burden is immaterial when the methods of acceptable proof differ.
To convince or change the mind of an individual's belief, one is obligated to use the opponent's standards.
To merely show ones own claims have merit, they get to use their own standards. The opponent will, expectedly, remain unconvinced.

The evidence the believer has must be the sort that can withstand scrutiny, verification, testing, replication, or some other quality that provides demonstration of existence in reality.

That's why the "proof" has to be scientific in nature, since no other method has ever been shown to demonstrate existence in reality. All other "ways of knowing" are nonsense.

Further, it must be evidence that, after testing / scrutiny etc, can only be found to support the claim in question (in this case of God existence) rationally above all other claims.

The evidence the believer has must be the sort that can withstand scrutiny, verification, testing, replication, or some other quality that provides demonstration of existence in reality.

That's why the "proof" has to be scientific in nature, since no other method has ever been shown to demonstrate existence in reality. All other "ways of knowing" are nonsense.

So, to you, God MUST be a physical being, in order for such scrutiny and testing to take place. No one believes in a physical person/being known as God (not through scriptures anyways), so your request falls by the weyside.
The person/being known as God in every scripture is described as the source of everything, so how do you think it could be possible to conclude existence using science (the source of which is....)

Jan.

So, to you, God MUST be a physical being, in order for such scrutiny and testing to take place. No one believes in a physical person/being known as God (not through scriptures anyways), so your request falls by the weyside.
The person/being known as God in every scripture is described as the source of everything, so how do you think it could be possible to conclude existence using science (the source of which is....)

Jan.Then the question becomes how you rationally claim to know he exists? - given that everything we currently know to exist is physical, whether it be as a solid object or as images within our brain caused by some neurological process etc.

Sarkus,

Then the question becomes how you rationally claim to know he exists? -

The question is only relevant to the claimant.

....given that everything we currently know to exist is physical, whether it be as a solid object or as images within our brain caused by some neurological process etc.

And we 'know' this only in relation to others who have the same or similar knowledge, and even then we don't really know that. I know that orange juice is nice, my neighbour knows that it is foul, who is right?

The correct position (IMO) of a theist is that he/she believes God exists, and knows why he/she believes, and the opposite can be defined as atheist.

Jan.

If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume false until proved otherwise.

Fixed.

Why? There might very well be some sentient being living clear across the universe with the unlikely name of Santa Claus. Hell, i know severla Santa Clauses that are living in the US.

You have to be more careful how you put things.

The question is only relevant to the claimant.No - it is relevant to those wishing to understand the position of the claimant. To accept the claimant on his word is to commit a logical fallacy.

And we 'know' this only in relation to others who have the same or similar knowledge, and even then we don't really know that. I know that orange juice is nice, my neighbour knows that it is foul, who is right?Both are right as like/dislike is purely subjective.
Existence is not.

The correct position (IMO) of a theist is that he/she believes God exists, and knows why he/she believes, and the opposite can be defined as atheist.The correct position (IMO) of a theist is that they claim God exists - but can not provide the evidence to support this claim. Theists know why they believe, but "knowing why they think something exists" is not evidence for that thing existing.
I know why I thought England would beat Wales in the 6-nations the other week. But they didn't.

Sarkus,

No - it is relevant to those wishing to understand the position of the claimant. To accept the claimant on his word is to commit a logical fallacy.

If the claimant claims he/she knows that God exists, then your question is relevant, otherwise, in the case of theism it has no bearing.
Also, to claim to know that God exists, doesn't mean one believes in God.

Both are right as like/dislike is purely subjective.
Existence is not.


All conclusions are subjective, some more than others.

The correct position (IMO) of a theist is that they claim God exists - but can not provide the evidence to support this claim.

To my knowledge there is not one definition of theism which asserts a claim to know that God exists. Theism is a position of belief in God.

Theists know why they believe, but "knowing why they think something exists" is not evidence for that thing existing.

I don't recall saying it was, and in the same breath knowing why one doesn't believe is not evidence for that thing not existing.

I know why I thought England would beat Wales in the 6-nations the other week. But they didn't.

Hardly the same thing.

Jan.

Jan Ardena To my knowledge there is not one definition of theism which asserts a claim to know that God exists. Theism is a position of belief in God.Some Deists claim to know there is a god.
Whether Deism is form of Theism, I will let ou decide.
Deists are not an organized group so certainly there are a great variety of beliefs within the group.
Some would claim to use reason to know there is a god.
Some would use personnel experience as a means to know there is a god.
Some would intuit a god.

Many (most) Deists reject the supernatural. God the creator is just part of the system, a primal cause.
Deists are all products of the Enlightenment (historically), and have a fondness for reason.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist based on his beliefs, although he made no public pronouncements that he was Deist.

He rejected all supernatural events, did not believe Jesus ever meant to declare himself a god, that all religions are of equal value, and he had little good to say for the clergy of most churches. He favored the Unitarians as an organized religion.
To my knowledge he never made a rational argument for the existence of god, he just assumed, whether a priori or intuitively.

I see some who favor the scientific type of evidence. This is one viewpoint, but a choice among many. I believe god is knowable by scientific methods, although I doubt that we are close to having that skill in the near future. I expect science to break a lot of new ground in the next few hundred years.

Scientifically based knowledge has the advantage of being easy to transfer, from one person to another.

Other types of knowing are more personal, not as easily transferred.

I would say that knowledge is based on what actually exists. Others would insist that we add, “yes, but it must not only exist, we must have convincing scientific evidence that it exists.”
This position is based on the assumption that science today is mature, and has all of the tools and knowledge it needs to detect or make contact with god. This is a very large assumption.

I would say a more reasonable assumption is that science is in its infancy, and there will be many new discoveries in the coming centuries, discoveries that are not even speculations at this point. This is certainly not an argument for god, merely an argument for agnosticism.

Using the standards of science for convincing evidence, there is no convincing evidence that there is no god. Most atheists would say there is no evidence for god, so they have no belief in god. This is an easy position to defend.

Less easy to defend is the position that science demonstrates that there is no god. I have never seen this position successfully defended, from a scientific, rational or empirical position.

If one argues from a scientific position, I think it is easy to argue against any one particular religion, except Deism. Actually, calling Deism a religion is using the term freely. Under stricter definitions, Deism does not meet key elements of a religion.
Buddhism is also not a religion under traditional usage of the word. Many Buddhists are atheists, so unless we consider atheism a religion, Buddhism is not a religion.


Some would say if it cannot be substantiated by scientific evidence, there is no way to know if it is true.
Certainly this is a rational approach, and appeals to many.

Others would say they can know by personal experience. That which we experience, is certainly real to ourselves. Convincing others of what we experienced is a different matter. Others can always deny the authenticity of our experiences. This does not make it any less real, only lacking evidence that convinces some others.

Some people believe if they cannot convince like-minded people something is truthful, then it must be mistaken.
They are not comfortable accepting as true, something which does not have convincing evidence, according to their belief system. This group would include the vast majority of persons, including myself.



If we experience Truth, this is not changed by the beliefs of others. The Truth, or actual existence, of something is not dependent on the belief of individuals.

The others can of course, claim it is not Truth, rather some subjective perception, perceived to be Truthful, when it is not. Their evidence will be that it cannot be substantiated by scientific means. From their position, they are of course correct. For them, something is not true, unless it can be shown to be true, using scientific verification.

This can lead to not believing true things, not due to reality, not because they are false, but due to the limited available knowledge or verification process.

If the claimant claims he/she knows that God exists, then your question is relevant, otherwise, in the case of theism it has no bearing.So theists generally don't claim to know God exists? Are you therefore claiming most theists to be Agnostic Theists?

Also, to claim to know that God exists, doesn't mean one believes in God.If by "believe in" you mean "accept the word of" etc then sure - I can believe that the King of Denmark exists, but I don't "believe in" him.
But the question here is that theists "believe God to exist", not whether they merely "believe in" God.

All conclusions are subjective, some more than others.Conclusions are, objective truth is not.

To my knowledge there is not one definition of theism which asserts a claim to know that God exists. Theism is a position of belief in God.How can one "believe in" God without claiming "belief in the existence" of God. It's like saying that you believe in the television programme Eastenders, but you're not claiming that television exists.
One implies the other.

I don't recall saying it was,I apologis if the implication I read in your statement was not intended.
and in the same breath knowing why one doesn't believe is not evidence for that thing not existing.Of course it isn't - and I have not said it is. I am an atheist, and like many others I do not believe God to either exist or not-exist.

Hardly the same thing.Is this the extent of your rebuttal of the analogy? You'll have to do better.

Sarkus
(and others)


Can you point out disagreement with any of these statements below?
I consider them to be characteristics of belief, and am looking for additions or corrections.

I realize there are many words which might have several meanings, so just apply your own meanings as you see fit.

Belief:
Something the mind accepts as true.
It may exist only in the mind.
It may be representative of reality.
It may be consistent with existence, actual things or events.
If enough other people share the same belief, it might be considered, by the group, to be knowledge.
If the belief has a lot of scientific supporting evidence, it might be considered by some groups, to be knowledge.
If the belief has enough supporting evidence, as accepted by a particular group, that group will consider it to be knowledge.

The difference between belief and knowledge, is the amount of acceptable supporting evidence that can be provided

Can you point out disagreement with any of these statements below?
I consider them to be characteristics of belief, and am looking for additions or corrections.

I realize there are many words which might have several meanings, so just apply your own meanings as you see fit.

Belief:
Something the mind accepts as true.
It may exist only in the mind.
It may be representative of reality.
It may be consistent with existence, actual things or events.
If enough other people share the same belief, it might be considered, by the group, to be knowledge.
If the belief has a lot of scientific supporting evidence, it might be considered by some groups, to be knowledge.
If the belief has enough supporting evidence, as accepted by a particular group, that group will consider it to be knowledge.Not all these can be characteristic of the same understanding of "belief" or "knowledge".

If it exists only in the mind, there is no scientific supporting evidence, etc.

Furthermore - why is "knowledge" only a group based attribute?
If an individual doesn't have knowledge but has a belief, but a group of people with the same lack of knowledge (on an individual level) but the same belief come together - why does it suddenly become "knowledge"?

And if they are not claiming to know, then their statement of "belief" must be one of probability based on the evidence.
And, as far as I am aware, there is no rationally-attributal evidence for God - hence "blind faith".

Which is why we ask the question: please provide the evidence.


The difference between belief and knowledge, is the amount of acceptable supporting evidence that can be providedAlmost. Knowledge is more commonly understood to be a "justified true belief" (although even this has its critics - such as Gettier) - i.e. a belief that is not only true but able to be justified. The level of acceptable supporting evidence certainly helps with this, but it is not the only thing.

My contention is that most religious adherents don't merely have a belief that God exists, but claim a knowledge of God - sufficient for them to know that God exists.
i.e. most theists will not be agnostic on the matter.

And those that claim knowledge - my challenge to them is show how their belief is (a) true, and (b) justified - to thus qualify as knowledge. And the easiest way to do this is to put forward the evidence so that we may justify the belief.

It also begs the question of what one means as "true".
But that's another matter. ;)

I don't think you can actually prove it wrong. The only way to prove that there is an afterlife, is to prove Islam, Christianity, or another religion that believes in them.

Sarkus Not all these can be characteristic of the same understanding of "belief" or "knowledge".

If it exists only in the mind, there is no scientific supporting evidence, etc. I believe the confusion is because I am giving characteristics of both our own beliefs, and the beliefs of others, all beliefs, not just mine or yours.

Some beliefs (that others have,) are only in the mind. There are people who believe in leprechauns (or other gremlin type beings). You and I would probably agree these beings have no existence in reality, therefore they only exist in the mind (from our perspective).

Furthermore - why is "knowledge" only a group based attribute?
If an individual doesn't have knowledge but has a belief, but a group of people with the same lack of knowledge (on an individual level) but the same belief come together - why does it suddenly become "knowledge"?Certainly this is only one meaning, and other meanings are possible.
I believe you put your meaing to the word below.

And if they are not claiming to know, then their statement of "belief" must be one of probability based on the evidence.But they are claiming to know. In their mind, their belief is based on reality.

And, as far as I am aware, there is no rationally-attributal evidence for God - hence "blind faith".Not all evidence is rationally based. You have a belief that only rationally based information is valuable.
This is a value judgment. It may be true, it may be false.
By use of circular reasoning, you can show it to be true. This will convince yourself and others who share your belief system.


Which is why we ask the question: please provide the evidence.As I explained in a previous post: “ To convince or change the mind of an individual's belief, one is obligated to use the opponent's standards.”
I am obligated to use your standards if I expect to convince you. Using your standards, I cannot convince you.
I understand what you value as evidence.
Surely you realize your standards are not shared by everyone.


Knowledge is more commonly understood to be a "justified true belief" (although even this has its critics - such as Gettier) - i.e. a belief that is not only true but able to be justified. The level of acceptable supporting evidence certainly helps with this, but it is not the only thing.These types of meaning just push the question one step further. Now we have to put meaning to justified. All who have a belief, believe they are justified in their belief.

My contention is that most religious adherents don't merely have a belief that God exists, but claim a knowledge of God - sufficient for them to know that God exists.
i.e. most theists will not be agnostic on the matter.You and I agree.

And those that claim knowledge - my challenge to them is show how their belief is (a) true, and (b) justified - to thus qualify as knowledge. And the easiest way to do this is to put forward the evidence so that we may justify the belief.You left out the most important part, they must do it by your standards. This is only fair and reasonable for you to require, but please be honest and mention it. If you are to be convinced, it is your standards which must be used.
Those who arrived at the decision there is a god, did not use your belief system.
Your belief system limits what can be known (that is, a justified true belief, according to science) , to the capabilities of the current level of knowledge and tools of science. Many things which correspond with reality and are therefore true, may be a justified true belief for you in a hundred years, but not today.

It also begs the question of what one means as "true". True in this usage always means 'corresponds with reality'. Do you know another meaning that fits here?

I believe the confusion is because I am giving characteristics of both our own beliefs, and the beliefs of others, all beliefs, not just mine or yours.Understood.

But they are claiming to know. In their mind, their belief is based on reality.No - their belief is based on an interpretation of reality. There is no actual knowledge here - just belief.

For example, if two people see a strange light, one might interpret it as a reflection, another as a ghost. Both might "believe" they know what it is, as it fits their interpretation of reality.

Not all evidence is rationally based.Are you sure you know what I'm referring to here?
You have a belief that only rationally based information is valuable.It's not a belief... I just have not encountered evidence to the contrary. :)

As I explained in a previous post: “ To convince or change the mind of an individual's belief, one is obligated to use the opponent's standards.”
I am obligated to use your standards if I expect to convince you. Using your standards, I cannot convince you.
I understand what you value as evidence.
Surely you realize your standards are not shared by everyone.No, they're not - but then not everyone is as logical and rational in such matters. To not follow the evidence rationally is surely to conclude an irrational position.
These types of meaning just push the question one step further. Now we have to put meaning to justified. All who have a belief, believe they are justified in their belief.Justified = rationally concluded. One can always claim to be justified when one is irrational in where the evidence leads...
A can put the kettle on to boil.
A therefore believes in God, as a result of their ability to put the kettle on.

Is A's belief justified?
They might consider it so.

You and I agree.:D

You left out the most important part, they must do it by your standards. This is only fair and reasonable for you to require, but please be honest and mention it. If you are to be convinced, it is your standards which must be used.It is not MY standard - it is rational thought. Why are others allowed to use different thought processes and claim their conclusions as rational?
Believers of God claim their position to be rational... yet they do not follow rational thought from the evidence to the conclusion.

Those who arrived at the decision there is a god, did not use your belief system.No - they didn't use rational thought.

Your belief system limits what can be known (that is, a justified true belief, according to science) , to the capabilities of the current level of knowledge and tools of science. Many things which correspond with reality and are therefore true, may be a justified true belief for you in a hundred years, but not today.Knowledge IS limited to what can be achieved at present (or induced thereof), but I never shut the door on what might become known in the future.
How can one have KNOWLEDGE (i.e. a justified true belief) if there is no current means of verifying it, evidencing it, justifying it?

I won't have a belief in some possible future knowledge due to the lack of current evidence.
This is the rational position.
Yes, it remains a possibility (until proven not) - nothing more.
So I will also not have a belief that the future-knowledge is impossible / unobtainable - unless proven to be so.
I.e. I do not have the belief that God exists, but I do not have the belief that God does not exist.

Anyone who "believes" based on knowledge-not-yet-achieved MIGHT be proved right in the future - but their current belief is irrational.

True in this usage always means 'corresponds with reality'. Do you know another meaning that fits here?Sorry - was being flippant with this comment.

“Rational evidence” can mean two things.

It can mean evidence arrived by a rational (reasoning) process, or it can mean evidence that it would be rational (reasonable) to accept.

Empirical evidence is not rational evidence, but it is reasonable and rational to accept empirical evidence. Empiricasl evidence is non-rational.

Evidence that it would not be rational to accept, is irrational evidence.

Our belief systems determine what evidence is acceptable.

There are many types of rational-empiricists. Their variations will be in the relative strength they put on one compared to the other.
Evidence that is not rational in nature or origin, would be non-rational evidence, but not necessarily irrational.

If I observe you are standing in front of me, I have empirical evidence you are standing in front of me, which is not rational in nature, but it would be rational to use this evidence to determine if you are standing in front of me.


Sarkus No - their belief is based on an interpretation of reality. There is no actual knowledge here - just belief.All beliefs are based on an interpretation of reality. Some conform to reality, some do not.
You have the belief that reality can only be realized by rational or empirical evidence. This may be true, or it may be false. You believe it conforms to reality, because of your belief system.
I believe it does not conform to reality, because of my belief system.


BHN: You have a belief that only rationally based information is valuable.
Sarkus It's not a belief... I just have not encountered evidence to the contrary.
I should also add that you probably accept empirical evidence, but seem to be weighted heavily on the rational side of being a rational-empiricist.
You only accept rational/empirical evidence. This is your belief system.
You believe this because of your rational/empirical evidence. Like all belief systems, yours is self supporting.

If you accept that only rational or empirical if valid, then naturally all is rational or empirical.
Some people accept empirical evidence as being stronger than rational evidence. If they see it, they believe it, even if does not fit what they know to be rationally true.
It is easy to reason that ghosts do not exist. If someone believes they saw a ghost, they have to weight this empirical evidence against the rational/reasoned evidence. Someone who has a strong belief in no-ghosts, will probably determine their rational evidence is stronger than their empirical evidence. Someone who has a close friend that had a firm belief in ghosts, and is deceased, and the ghost has the appearance of their friend, might think about accepting the empirical evidence.

You have parameters on what you accept as valid evidence. These parameters predetermine what you find acceptable.

You have a belief that your standards conform to reality. Like everyone, you believe your beliefs are true, and you use your own standards to make this determination.
When you say
“I just have not encountered evidence to the contrary”, you have no convincing evidence of this, except you own belief system.
You say first ‘Only rational or empirical evidence is acceptable’, then conclude that there is no evidence except rational or empirical. Circular reasoning.
Of course you have good, rational, reasons for believing this.

You can easily convince someone with a similar belief system, that yours is acceptable.

You cannot convince me that your belief system is true, because you would have to use my standards to convince me, and using my standards, there are other ways of attaining knowledge besides rationalizing or believing empirical evidence.

I happen to not accept sacred texts as a means of acquiring special knowledge (they may have good moral lessons, but this is not special knowledge). But I have friends who do.

Let us say I accept sacred texts as a means of knowing god.
Using my standards, you cannot convince me your beliefs are true. From your perspective, you have knowledge, from my perspective, you have false beliefs.
This is the way it always is.
Our own beliefs are true, those who disagree are mistaken.


It is not MY standard - it is rational thought. Why are others allowed to use different thought processes and claim their conclusions as rational?
Believers of God claim their position to be rational... yet they do not follow rational thought from the evidence to the conclusion.”Rational thought” is a standard. Non-rational thoughts is a different standard.
Your belief system demands that non-rational processes such as faith in sacred texts are not acceptable.

Your belief system demands that only what has convincing scientific evidence is true, and rational/empirical evidence is the only means for acquiring convincing scientific evidence.

Conclusions flow from the pillars of our belief systems.
Belief systems have certain pillars that are not provable. We accept certain things as true.
You cannot convince me your belief system is true. We have different pillars. Any attempt you make will be circular reason.

You only accept what you can arrive at rationally or empirically, because you only accept what is rational or empirical.


Anyone who "believes" based on knowledge-not-yet-achieved MIGHT be proved right in the future - but their current belief is irrational.Those who believe do have knowledge right now, and these beliefs might be non-rational, but not irrational.
Faith is non-rational, but it is not irrational to accept faith, when faith is a pillar of a belief system.

BeHereNow,

An Oasis fan eh!
Good band.

Some Deists claim to know there is a god.
Whether Deism is form of Theism, I will let ou decide.
Deists are not an organized group so certainly there are a great variety of beliefs within the group.
Some would claim to use reason to know there is a god.
Some would use personnel experience as a means to know there is a god.
Some would intuit a god.

Many (most) Deists reject the supernatural. God the creator is just part of the system, a primal cause.
Deists are all products of the Enlightenment (historically), and have a fondness for reason.

From a point of view of scriptoral religion, Deism is atheism.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist based on his beliefs, although he made no public pronouncements that he was Deist.

He rejected all supernatural events, did not believe Jesus ever meant to declare himself a god, that all religions are of equal value, and he had little good to say for the clergy of most churches. He favored the Unitarians as an organized religion.
To my knowledge he never made a rational argument for the existence of god, he just assumed, whether a priori or intuitively.

Based on your brief description it would be difficult to determine his world view.

I believe god is knowable by scientific methods,...

I don't see how, unless God is a natural being, and if that were the case he wouldn't be God, as nature would eventually consume him.

Scientifically based knowledge has the advantage of being easy to transfer, from one person to another.

It all depends on what is being transferred and by whom.

Other types of knowing are more personal, not as easily transferred.

Knowledge has to be understood regardless of whether it is personal or scientific, so i can't see how it matters as to what format it comes in.

I would say a more reasonable assumption is that science is in its infancy, and there will be many new discoveries in the coming centuries, discoveries that are not even speculations at this point. This is certainly not an argument for god, merely an argument for agnosticism.

I agree that there may well be some great discoveries to come, but based on the current scientific trend, I see a 'going away from God', and a steady, gradual shift (gathering momentum) toward full blown materialism.

Using the standards of science for convincing evidence, there is no convincing evidence that there is no god. Most atheists would say there is no evidence for god, so they have no belief in god. This is an easy position to defend.

How would they identify the evidence if it was (for the sake of argument) presented?
It would seem they would have to have a pre-concieved idea of God. Don't you think?

Less easy to defend is the position that science demonstrates that there is no god. I have never seen this position successfully defended, from a scientific, rational or empirical position.

Such a position can never exist, because God is not a material being, by any description, and as such falls outside of the science radar as a direct perception.

Some would say if it cannot be substantiated by scientific evidence, there is no way to know if it is true.


I think that is correct, if you decide that science is the be all end all, in knowledge regarding God.

Some people believe if they cannot convince like-minded people something is truthful, then it must be mistaken.
They are not comfortable accepting as true, something which does not have convincing evidence, according to their belief system. This group would include the vast majority of persons, including myself.

I'm not comfortable accepting something as true without convincing evidence, in fact I don't know anyone who is, although I suspect there are people who are. The fact is, either I believe in God, or I don't. Either way we still live out our existence. According to ANY scripture, God is the sourse of everything and to try and understand that from the point of view of material science must be like trying to find a particular needle in a universe.

If we experience Truth, this is not changed by the beliefs of others. The Truth, or actual existence, of something is not dependent on the belief of individuals.

I think I agree with that.

The others can of course, claim it is not Truth, rather some subjective perception, perceived to be Truthful, when it is not. Their evidence will be that it cannot be substantiated by scientific means. From their position, they are of course correct. For them, something is not true, unless it can be shown to be true, using scientific verification.

And this is what it boils down to. If God is, as described, the ultimate, absolute truth, then it is ultimately an individual quest not a concerted one.

This can lead to not believing true things, not due to reality, not because they are false, but due to the limited available knowledge or verification process.

This is why it is good to acquire intelligence for good discrimination, and is the point of science, philosophy, and even art. :)

Jan

Sarkus,

So theists generally don't claim to know God exists? Are you therefore claiming most theists to be Agnostic Theists?

Theism is, a belief in God, do you agree?
If a theist claims to know God exists, I strongly suspect it would be based on the grounds of their particular reasoning.
If one has faith in science, one could pre-empt an act based on the weather forecast, so in a sense they would "know" what the weather will be like tommorow. But it wouldn't mean they actually "know".

If by "believe in" you mean "accept the word of" etc then sure - I can believe that the King of Denmark exists, but I don't "believe in" him.
But the question here is that theists "believe God to exist", not whether they merely "believe in" God.

"Belief" being the operative word, not "know".

Is this the extent of your rebuttal of the analogy? You'll have to do better.

Why? The analogy fell outside the context.
To think God exists, is not the same as to believe God exists.
You came to the conclusion that England would win, your conclusion was mistaken, that is the accepted nature of things, most of us understand that.
God's nature is also accepted by some, which forms the basis of theism.

Jan

If one has faith in science, one could pre-empt an act based on the weather forecast, so in a sense they would "know" what the weather will be like tommorow. But it wouldn't mean they actually "know".So they can use the word "know" - but mean it to be "not actually know"??
How confusing your use of language seems to be.

"Belief" being the operative word, not "know".So again - are you claiming most theists to be Agnostic Theists?

Why? The analogy fell outside the context.
To think God exists, is not the same as to believe God exists.
You came to the conclusion that England would win, your conclusion was mistaken, that is the accepted nature of things, most of us understand that.
God's nature is also accepted by some, which forms the basis of theism.This, at least, is a better explanation of your thoughts rather than "Hardly the same thing".
If you're going to rebut a comment - please have the decency to explain your thinking at the same time rather than have them ask you to explain afterward.

How can one think something to be the case and yet not believe it to be the case, or know it to be the case?
Or can you believe something without thinking it???
Or believe it without knowing it?
Or know it without thinking it?

To "think God exists" is not the same as "to think God might exist".

There is an abundance of confusion in the language being used here... and I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the words used.

Sarkus,

So they can use the word "know" - but mean it to be "not actually know"??
How confusing your use of language seems to be.

To actually 'know' that God existed beyond a shadow of doubt, would mean that one has personally interacted with 'actual' God. This would mean that God does exist. Do you think Jesus believed God existed, or knew God existed, by scriptoral account?
One can know God through such a person, but not directly, like the person.

So again - are you claiming most theists to be Agnostic Theists?

I am claiming that a theist is a person who believes in God, if an individual moves from that position to actually knowing God exists, then IMO, it falls outside of the definition, and quite rightly so. Unless of course there is such a thing as a strong theist.

This, at least, is a better explanation of your thoughts rather than "Hardly the same thing".
If you're going to rebut a comment - please have the decency to explain your thinking at the same time rather than have them ask you to explain afterward.

I would have thought the thinking was obvioius.

How can one think something to be the case and yet not believe it to be the case, or know it to be the case?

Very easily.
Actors do it all the time.

Or can you believe something without thinking it???

Can you perform any physical activety without using a muscle?

Or believe it without knowing it?

I think, we have to "believe" something because we are not in full knowledge of that thing, as the weather forecast analogy implies.

Or know it without thinking it?

Is it possible not to think?

To "think God exists" is not the same as "to think God might exist".

Anyone can think anything.

There is an abundance of confusion in the language being used here... and I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the words used.

I'm quite sure the confusion is coming from you, as it seems, you are not prepared to use standard definitions.

Jan.

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

That is the only basis on which a rational debate can take place. It is not known to most of the religious and pseudo-scientists you will meet on here

I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

How does that harm anyone?

Baron Max

It doesn't until you start banging on about ID, stem cell research and anything else that would improve our knowledge.

You are wrong about the moon; it is made of GREEN cheese

To actually 'know' that God existed beyond a shadow of doubt, would mean that one has personally interacted with 'actual' God. This would mean that God does exist. Do you think Jesus believed God existed, or knew God existed, by scriptoral account?
One can know God through such a person, but not directly, like the person. So really you are relying on heresay and anecdotal evidence (i.e. of Jesus - the one who it is claimed DID have direct contact), having no other evidence what so ever to support the belief??

I am claiming that a theist is a person who believes in God, if an individual moves from that position to actually knowing God exists, then IMO, it falls outside of the definition, and quite rightly so. Unless of course there is such a thing as a strong theist.So you ARE claiming that the majority of theists are agnostic.
Thanks. That's cleared it up.
Have you asked many theists whether they know God exists or not?

I would have thought the thinking was obvioius.If it was obvious, do you think I would have made the original analogy - the one you so deftly rebutted with "it's hardly the same thing" (or words to that effect)?

I think, we have to "believe" something because we are not in full knowledge of that thing, as the weather forecast analogy implies.But you do have SOME knowledge? So you do know SOME things about God?
And how is it possible to know SOME things, and yet not KNOW whether he exists or not... or is it a case of "IF God exists, we know this about him/it/her/whatever"?

Is it possible not to think?You tell me.

Anyone can think anything.No they can't. Or please think of the precise chemical details for a verified cure for cancer. You can't?? Gosh.

I'm quite sure the confusion is coming from you, as it seems, you are not prepared to use standard definitions.SO, given that philosophers have been arguing about it for centuries, what is your understanding of "knowledge", and of "belief".
Answer those and then maybe we can see if our understanding is the same.

Sarkus,

So really you are relying on heresay and anecdotal evidence (i.e. of Jesus - the one who it is claimed DID have direct contact), having no other evidence what so ever to support the belief??

What my position is, is not the point. The point is that a theist is a person who believes in God, and that he exists. If you have a problem with that then I suggest you take it up with every credible dictionary.

So you ARE claiming that the majority of theists are agnostic.
Thanks. That's cleared it up.
Have you asked many theists whether they know God exists or not?

I'm claiming that the definition of theism is belief in God, not knowing God exists, especially in a way that they could show physical evidence that could satisfy your question.

If it was obvious, do you think I would have made the original analogy - the one you so deftly rebutted with "it's hardly the same thing" (or words to that effect)?

Well I am curious why you did.

But you do have SOME knowledge? So you do know SOME things about God?
And how is it possible to know SOME things, and yet not KNOW whether he exists or not... or is it a case of "IF God exists, we know this about him/it/her/whatever"?

What one knows can strengthen of ones belief.

You tell me.

The question was directed at you in response to your point.
I cannot imagine not being able to think.

No they can't. Or please think of the precise chemical details for a verified cure for cancer. You can't?? Gosh.

Let me think.....pixie dust

SO, given that philosophers have been arguing about it for centuries, what is your understanding of "knowledge", and of "belief".
Answer those and then maybe we can see if our understanding is the same.

I am working with standard definitions. That is all you really need to know.

Jan Arden I'm claiming that the definition of theism is belief in God, not knowing God exists, especially in a way that they could show physical evidence that could satisfy your question.This is a very strange way to use belief.

If you have a belief in something, you accept it as true.
If someone else has a belief in anything, they accept it as true.

Belief does not mean you do not know if it is true.
The one who has the belief does believe it is true, it is just that others disagree. The person themselves has no doubt (not that doubt is impossible, just not necessary).

Additionally, the one who has the belief is not able to convince unbelievers.

When all are convinced, the belief becomes a recognized fact.

I have a belief Washington D.C. is the capitol of the united states. If everyone agrees with me, my belief is raised to the status of a fact or truth (depending on the usage of truth).

For the one experiencing a belief, it is the same as a fact or truth. It is just not a universal fact or truth, so others call it a belief.

Many times I will say “I believe….”. This does not mean I have any doubts, it simply means I realize others may disagree, so it would be very arrogant for me to say “I know…..”, when I realize the other person “knows” with the same certainty, quite the opposite.

We call own truths beliefs, out of respect for others.

I am sorry to say I am having many of the same problems experienced by Sarkus, as to your use of terms and words. They are unconventional.

BeHereNow].

If you have a belief in something, you accept it as true.
If someone else has a belief in anything, they accept it as true.

This is true, and to accept something means it must have been offered, meaning it comes from another source.


Belief does not mean you do not know if it is true.

No, it means you accept it as true. This acceptance is based not having the full picture, or not knowing what actually is. If one had full knowledge of something, there would be no need to accept other versions of truth, as one would already know.

Buffalo is the capitol of the US.
Are you prepared to consider it as a truth, or are you not, based on what you know?

The one who has the belief does believe it is true, it is just that others disagree. The person themselves has no doubt (not that doubt is impossible, just not necessary).

But it is all based on belief, which can be altered at any moment.

Additionally, the one who has the belief is not able to convince unbelievers.

Whether they can or can't, is not the point. Everybody believes according to their understanding.

I have a belief Washington D.C. is the capitol of the united states. If everyone agrees with me, my belief is raised to the status of a fact or truth (depending on the usage of truth).

You don't have such a belief, Washington D.C. is the capitol of the united states. You know it, and as such there is no room or need for belief, you have come to the end of knowledge regarding the subject.

For the one experiencing a belief, it is the same as a fact or truth. It is just not a universal fact or truth, so others call it a belief.

Not in my experience.

Many times I will say “I believe….”. This does not mean I have any doubts, it simply means I realize others may disagree, so it would be very arrogant for me to say “I know…..”, when I realize the other person “knows” with the same certainty, quite the opposite.

That is just a figure of speech.

I am sorry to say I am having many of the same problems experienced by Sarkus, as to your use of terms and words. They are unconventional.

As I said to Sarkus, I am happy to use standard definitions. This way there should be no confusion.

Jan.

Jan Ardena You don't have such a belief, Washington D.C. is the capitol of the united states. You know it, and as such there is no room or need for belief, you have come to the end of knowledge regarding the subject.I believe this is our disagreement in a nutshell.
If I accept something to be true, I have come to the end of the chain of knowledge. I have realized the final, ultimate, immutable truth. That is what belief means to me.

If I believe something, I have a belief about it being true, and that belief has had sufficient evidence to convince my mind it is true.

I have no special fondness for dictionary definitions, and readily agree they have limited use, but the first definition of belief is “acceptance by the mind that something is true or real,”.

If the mind accepts something as true, it has reached the pinnacle of understanding that something conforms to reality.
What you call belief, I would call (self admitted) opinion.
I believe your position is similar to Kant’s.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Vkothii
I can’t help feeling that the speaker has truths, whereas their opponent has beliefs.
Other than that, I believe the criteria is the same.

BeHereNow,

I believe this is our disagreement in a nutshell.
If I accept something to be true, I have come to the end of the chain of knowledge. I have realized the final, ultimate, immutable truth. That is what belief means to me.

Then I would say that you no longer believe Washington D.C is the capitol of the U.S, as you now know it to be. I would say that your belief now rests in your knowledge and understanding of the fact.
Would you honestly consider my belief, that Buffalo state is the capitol of the U.S.?

If I believe something, I have a belief about it being true, and that belief has had sufficient evidence to convince my mind it is true.

There are two positions here;
a) truth
b) belief in the sufficient, and convincing, evidence.

I think it is reasonable to assume that there must be a truth, a correct knowlege and understanding of everything. In my mind.
Our beliefs are based on trying to understand what this "truth" is, and is strengthened by sufficient evidence.
This evidence is a form of knowledge, and this knowledge is basis of our belief. The confusion lies in mistaking this knowledge as the "truth", instead ofto a truth.

I have no special fondness for dictionary definitions, and readily agree they have limited use, but the first definition of belief is “acceptance by the mind that something is true or real,”.

I am of the same mind regarding dictionary definitions, but, it acts as a common language of referance and understanding, in a reasonable discussion. The other alternative is to posit our personal definitions and opinions, which ultimately leads to no reasonable conclusions.
Accepting that something is true, does not make it true, which is why it is labelled "belief". This is my understanding.

If the mind accepts something as true, it has reached the pinnacle of understanding that something conforms to reality.
What you call belief, I would call (self admitted) opinion.
I believe your position is similar to Kant’s.

If the mind accepts something as true, there doesn't have to be any understanding. With regards to God, this would be labelled as blind-faith.
One can be of a certain opinion without invoking a belief or understanding, so I would tend to disagree with your first analysis.
With regards to likening my position to Kant's, I agree that there are heavy similarities.

Jan.

Jan Arden I think it is reasonable to assume that there must be a truth, a correct knowlege and understanding of everything. In my mind I cannot understand how a concept of randomness could account for what we percieve. I cannot think, or even imagine, how it could be. Our beliefs are based on trying to understand what this "truth" is, and is strengthened by sufficient evidence. This evidence is a form of knowledge, and this knowledge is basis of our belief. The confusion lies in mistaking this knowledge as the "truth", instead of a truth.
We have a common goal: To know, realize or understand, objective reality.

Your approach is what I would call the scientific approach. Information or data passes through a series of ‘truth filters’, progressing up a defined path towards pure objectivity, what we can call a correct knowledge and understanding.

The problem is, this goal is never reached, it is at best, extremely close, but never actually there.

As evidence of what I say:

I have been told, by one who more of these things than I do, : BeHereNow, you seem to think that Science deals with "proof". It doesn't. (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1755043&postcount=7)


And by another: Scientific theories cannot be proven true.. . . we accept them as "true beyond a reasonable doubt," but that is the language of the law, not the language of science. . . .We casually refer to them as "truth" when speaking to laymen, but that is just dumbing down the language for laymen. (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1755043&postcount=7)

And by another:
Yes - there is no "proof" - only a very high probability (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1756882&postcount=17).

All of these statements are of course, true, for the science minded. This proof of a correct knowledge and understanding of everything, does not occur, by scientific enquiry. You can’t get here from here, by science.

Implied in this are some other truths of science.

Science is inherently without morals or ethics. There are sets of internal guidelines, such as how to deal with colleagues or intellectual content, but not a morality or ethics in regard to the world outside of science. Just as it cannot judge the material world for absolute truth or proof, it cannot judge itself as to rightness or wrongness of its actions.
Outsiders must apply external morality and ethics to the field of science, to give it direction and purpose.

There are many examples in recent history where grave inhumanities where done to humans, in the name of scientific advancement. The information gathered from the Nazi experiments were considered by many to be not worthy for retention or study. From a purely scientific point of view, data is data, and it can be as useful from the suffering of other humans, as if it can from watching a summer storm.
Data has no morality, and its existence causes no ethical problems. Please note that I said from a purely scientific point of view. . .

Naturally science does not operate in a vacuum. Moral and ethical restrictions are imposed on science, to keep it in line, as it were. To a large extent they are permitted to self regulate, peer to peer judgment.

Science is a wonderful thing, and in many endeavors, it is without equal.

But it never gives us proof, never gives us truth. It brings us to the edge, and we have to jump over, or stagnate. If we jump over, we may land at various points.

I do not believe reaching the correct knowledge and understanding of everything, has to be done scientifically, through a series of truth filters.
I am not sure what you mean by “correct”. It may be objectivity, or it may be an ideal subjectivity, relating to mankind’s relationship with it. I do not think it matters much.

I believe this same correct knowledge and understanding can come by methods other that the purely rational or empirical. I believe in those areas where science has no authority, other means can and must be successfully used.

I believe it is self evident, that other disciplines must have their own standards of truth judging, so as to be able to judge the actions, progress and goals of science.

These various methods are considered by science to be substandard in determining proof of objectivity, or a correct knowledge and understanding of everything.

I believe the mind can grasp what science is unable to touch.
I believe the mind can determine the correct moral action, according to an absolute moral law, that is not dependent on any particular religious group, any more that the physical laws are dependent on particular scientific group.

I believe in the field of science and mathematics, a correct knowledge and understanding is possible, by intuited truths, which withstand the scrutiny of science. Intuited truths bypass rational thought processes, and arrive immediately at the truth,at the understanding of reality.

When I believe something, I take it for truth, because I believe the mind is capable of knowing the truth.

If I can be proven wrong (which is probably not possible, scientifically speaking), then I was mistaken.

When science can make no judgment concerning the veracity of a belief, the mind can make absolute judgment.
Some would rather make no judgment than the possibility of making an incorrect judgment.

Others would rather have an absolute judgment (with the possibility of error), rather than an unknown judgment (‘Right or wrong, no one can say.’)

Yes, your usage of belief fits well in a scientific model.
For myself, it doesn’t fit well with my beliefs.

Ok something I want to explain is the burden of proof. Something like an afterlife is a claim, a hypothesis if you will, until proven true. The arguement "You can't prove there is an afterlife, but you also can't prove there isn't" is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. If I were to tell you santa claus was living on some remote planet billions of miles away, you would assume it were false until I proved otherwise. Same logic applies to any claim. If you're going to tell me there is an afterlife I am going to want some hard evidence to support it.

So what do you guys think? Am I wrong here?

This may seem trite to you, and it may very well be, but here goes. Please explain, I apologize for the hypothetical, why this preceding analogy is different than your requirement of the proof of the afterlife.

Without the use of scientific technology prove that Atoms exist.

So I suggest you can't, though you may have a way of doing this. So maybe 200 years ago you would say the same thing (burden of proof) to a scientists claiming that Atoms exist. And that would be fine, he would be encouraged to do so and would diligently pursue his investigation. But why, to prove it to you? Would that be why? Do you think that people that believe in the afterlife actually think that that belief is an end, a state of belief to exist in? Or do they think of it more as a beginning? As maybe a scientist wondering what matter was composed of, or how small the building blocks were, rather than accepting that powdered rock is as small as it gets.

Your spiritual existence and that of your existence after your body dies cannot be seen, held, or measued in a conventional way, normally. A microscope does not exist to look at it. Does that make it less worthy of investigation? If I told you that consciousness is proof of the afterlife, what would you say? If the human body is just a a vessel to express the consciousness, and without the body, it cannot be expressed in our world, how do you prove that?

Show me that Atom without a microscope and I will strive to come up with a way to "prove" to you the "afterlife".

My belief is our free will is the microscope we are given to have eyes to see.

If someone close to you died (God forbid) and appeared to you after death, would you believe in the "afterlife"? I propose that you would not. Or at least not in the way you believe in gravity. So what proof would you need? And better yet what good would proof do for you? Imagine for a minute, believe it, that there is an afterlife. What would you change about your life? Why would you make these changes? Does the existence of an afterlife mandate you to be altruistic? Why would that be? Does the death penalty stop psychopaths?

I propose that you would change nothing. Because the fact there is an afterlife should not matter. What matters is who you are, what you do, and how you relate to this world. Afterlife and Atoms aside. God sending Jesus to help us realize this must have really irked him. Peace.


"belief" in the "afterlife" is the beginning of the journey to awareness.

This may seem trite to you, and it may very well be, but here goes. Please explain, I apologize for the hypothetical, why this preceding analogy is different than your requirement of the proof of the afterlife.

Without the use of scientific technology prove that Atoms exist.

So I suggest you can't, though you may have a way of doing this. So maybe 200 years ago you would say the same thing (burden of proof) to a scientists claiming that Atoms exist. And that would be fine, he would be encouraged to do so and would diligently pursue his investigation. But why, to prove it to you? Would that be why? Do you think that people that believe in the afterlife actually think that that belief is an end, a state of belief to exist in? Or do they think of it more as a beginning? As maybe a scientist wondering what matter was composed of, or how small the building blocks were, rather than accepting that powdered rock is as small as it gets.

Your spiritual existence and that of your existence after your body dies cannot be seen, held, or measued in a conventional way, normally. A microscope does not exist to look at it. Does that make it less worthy of investigation? If I told you that consciousness is proof of the afterlife, what would you say? If the human body is just a a vessel to express the consciousness, and without the body, it cannot be expressed in our world, how do you prove that?

Show me that Atom without a microscope and I will strive to come up with a way to "prove" to you the "afterlife".I think you miss the point of the post...
There IS proof, or at least evidence, to support the existence of the atom.
The one who made the claim that atoms exist provided that proof / evidence.

The same should be true of anyone claiming existence of the afterlife.


Noone is saying categorically that it does not exist - only that if you claim it exists then you should provide evidence for it.

Your challenge, to prove that atoms exist without the use of a microscope is pathetic.
It has no bearing on the argument or discussion.
The fact remains that atoms have been shown to exist - and the ones claiming their existence were able to demonstrate it.

There is no evidence of an afterlife - none for its existence, none for its non-existence.
But the one making the claim should, as it is oft said: "either put up or shut up".



My belief is our free will is the microscope we are given to have eyes to see. Does this even make sense?

If someone close to you died (God forbid) and appeared to you after death, would you believe in the "afterlife"?If there was no alternative rational explanation, it would certainly be good evidence.

I propose that you would not. Or at least not in the way you believe in gravity.I don't "believe" in gravity.
Gravity is a fact. It has gone so far beyond mere "belief". If you feel otherwise there is always a tall building you could walk off in an attempt to prove me wrong?

So what proof would you need? And better yet what good would proof do for you? Imagine for a minute, believe it, that there is an afterlife. What would you change about your life? Why would you make these changes? Does the existence of an afterlife mandate you to be altruistic? Why would that be? Does the death penalty stop psychopaths?The last question is another pathetic argument - a logical fallacy. Just because one group of people, with sever mental disorder, do what they do is an irrelevancy.

I propose that you would change nothing. Because the fact there is an afterlife should not matter.The proof of an afterlife would massively change the way people behave, in my opinion. Imagine an interview: in one scenario you are told that it is merely for fun, nothing within the interview will ever have an effect on your life - and in another you are told that your dream job will be a possible result.

What matters is who you are, what you do, and how you relate to this world.Who does it matter to? Why does it matter?
I'm not disagreeing with you - I just want to know more about where this statement comes from.

God sending Jesus to help us realize this must have really irked him.And your evidence for the existence of God? And for Jesus being sent by him?

"belief" in the "afterlife" is the beginning of the journey to awareness.Belief without evidence is irrational.
If "awareness" is arrived at through irrationality... what value "awareness"?

I think you miss the point of the post...
There IS proof, or at least evidence, to support the existence of the atom.
The one who made the claim that atoms exist provided that proof / evidence.

The same should be true of anyone claiming existence of the afterlife.


Noone is saying categorically that it does not exist - only that if you claim it exists then you should provide evidence for it.

Your challenge, to prove that atoms exist without the use of a microscope is pathetic.
It has no bearing on the argument or discussion.
The fact remains that atoms have been shown to exist - and the ones claiming their existence were able to demonstrate it.

There is no evidence of an afterlife - none for its existence, none for its non-existence.
But the one making the claim should, as it is oft said: "either put up or shut up".



Does this even make sense?

If there was no alternative rational explanation, it would certainly be good evidence.

I don't "believe" in gravity.
Gravity is a fact. It has gone so far beyond mere "belief". If you feel otherwise there is always a tall building you could walk off in an attempt to prove me wrong?

The last question is another pathetic argument - a logical fallacy. Just because one group of people, with sever mental disorder, do what they do is an irrelevancy.

The proof of an afterlife would massively change the way people behave, in my opinion. Imagine an interview: in one scenario you are told that it is merely for fun, nothing within the interview will ever have an effect on your life - and in another you are told that your dream job will be a possible result.

Who does it matter to? Why does it matter?
I'm not disagreeing with you - I just want to know more about where this statement comes from.

And your evidence for the existence of God? And for Jesus being sent by him?

Belief without evidence is irrational.
If "awareness" is arrived at through irrationality... what value "awareness"?


Pardon me for interrupting your discussion. Your response to my post varies somewhat in an interpretation of the threadstarter's views and then an explanation of your own. In betwixt I am not sure how to respond.

Suffice to say there is no "proof" of "the afterlife" and the "proof" is everywhere. You, are in fact, "proof of the afterlife". I propose there is no empirical "proof of the afterlife" that the world would agree on. So what the poster is asking is for personal proof that he would believe in.
How does that differ measureably than me asking for proof of an Atom without a microscope?

Sarkus Belief without evidence is irrational.
If "awareness" is arrived at through irrationality... what value
"awareness"?Logical fallacy here.
You are using evidence in two different ways.
Those who have a belief in afterlife, have evidence that is consistent with their belief system. Their belief is not without evidence, just without evidence you accept. You refer to their evidence, which is obviously different than yours, and yet you equate it with yours. It is not the same. Two different kinds of evidence.

Their belief is not arrived at irrationally, by their standards. Therefore their awareness is not arrived at through irrationality.
If they want to convince you, they would need to use your standards, no disagreement there.

Logical fallacy here.
You are using evidence in two different ways.
Those who have a belief in afterlife, have evidence that is consistent with their belief system. Their belief is not without evidence, just without evidence you accept. You refer to their evidence, which is obviously different than yours, and yet you equate it with yours. It is not the same. Two different kinds of evidence.

Their belief is not arrived at irrationally, by their standards. Therefore their awareness is not arrived at through irrationality.
If they want to convince you, they would need to use your standards, no disagreement there.Okay - let me correct myself:

"Belief without evidence that can rationally be attributed to the thing being believed in is irrational."

And their belief IS arrived at irrationally, if it is based on evidence that can not be rationally attributed to the thing they believe in (i.e. more rationally attributed to an alternative - or more rationally NOT attributable at all).

Once they have accepted the evidence as such then I accept that the thought process from there to the "belief" can be rational - but if they assign evidence to their item of belief irrationally then everything that follows is irrational - albeit due to being based on the irrational attributing of evidence to their item of belief.


So, bringing it back on topic, the burden of proof requires the evidence to be put forward AND for the demonstration that the evidence is rationally attributable to the item under investigation.

Pardon me for interrupting your discussion. Your response to my post varies somewhat in an interpretation of the threadstarter's views and then an explanation of your own. In betwixt I am not sure how to respond.

Suffice to say there is no "proof" of "the afterlife" and the "proof" is everywhere. You, are in fact, "proof of the afterlife". I propose there is no empirical "proof of the afterlife" that the world would agree on. So what the poster is asking is for personal proof that he would believe in.
How does that differ measureably than me asking for proof of an Atom without a microscope?Hmmm - I have reread the opening post... and I see no reference or implication of "personal proof" required for belief.
However, I do apologise if my response to your post did not take into account the possibility of a different understanding / interpretation.

"Proof" is something more than mere evidence - but a sufficiency of evidence to be beyond any reasonable doubt. If one thus considers "proof" to be personal (i.e. sufficient for the individual to accept the claim beyond any reasonable dount) then they leave themselves open to accepting irrational claims if they don't analyse the evidence sufficiently.
And then "proof" becomes purely subjective and, ultimately, pointless - when one person's "proof" is "Well, why not - I heard Joe Bloggs in the pub say it - and he had only had 10 pints to drink!" and someone else's proof is only satisfied after years of dedicated study.

And how am I "proof of the afterlife"?

If your issue is one of "proof" or "evidence" requiring to be empirical in nature, and that this thus discounts all things of a "non-empirical" nature - then the burden is on you to demonstrate / prove / provide evidence that there exists something that is "non-empirical".
It might seem a non-sensical request (asking you to provide evidence for something which you are saying is unevidencable) - but until such time as one can demonstrate the existence of the non-empirical, and can differentiate between existence of the non-empirical item and a mere claim of existence of the non-empirical... the burden of proof will lie with you (or the one making the claim of non-empirical existence).

Sarkus Okay - let me correct myself:
"Belief without evidence that can rationally be attributed to the thing
being believed in is irrational."

And their belief IS arrived at irrationally, if it is based on evidence
that can not be rationally attributed to the thing they believe in
(i.e. more rationally attributed to an alternative - or more rationally
NOT attributable at all).

Once they have accepted the evidence as such then I accept that the
thought process from there to the "belief" can be rational - but if they
assign evidence to their item of belief irrationally then everything
that follows is irrational - albeit due to being based on the irrational
attributing of evidence to their item of belief.


So, bringing it back on topic, the burden of proof requires the
evidence to be put forward AND for the demonstration that the evidence is
rationally attributable to the item under investigation.Of course what you say is true. If I am trying to convince you of something. I must use your standards, or it will not be convincing to you.
However, If you tried to convince me of something, you would have to use my standards.

For example, I see your belief system as being irrational. Like all belief systems, which are either based on their own principles, guilty of circular reasoning, or self supporting, or they are based on so many weak suppositions it is like a house of cards.

Your belief systems appears to be of the former, a narrow and strong base, justified by circular reasoning, although it could have a different weakness or fallacy.

When I see logical fallacies, I disregard it as the truth unless stronger evidence is available that overrides the fallacious argument.

Do you have any nonfallacious arguments that your belief system is free of irrationality?


***************

For example, I see your belief system as being irrational.Firstly... what is my "belief system", as far as you see it? And then why do you see it as irrational?

Do you have any nonfallacious arguments that your belief system is free of irrationality?Again, you'll need to tell me what you see as my "belief system".

Personally I need no argument to demonstrate that my "belief system" is free of irrationality - because to me "belief" is, by definition, irrational - and I try not to hold beliefs. I do when I am not thinking critically but, when pointed out to me, I try to correct my position.

Does this help answer your question(s)?

Sarkus

I’m saying everyone has a belief system. Conscious or unconscious, developed or weak, but everyone has one, and they are all based on at least one fallacy, generally circular reasoning.
One only has to be irrational once, and the remainder can flow from that, as being quite logical.

I do not need to read your mind to say you have a belief system and it is based on at least one fallacy.

Sarkus

I’m saying everyone has a belief system. Conscious or unconscious, developed or weak, but everyone has one, and they are all based on at least one fallacy, generally circular reasoning.
One only has to be irrational once, and the remainder can flow from that, as being quite logical.

I do not need to read your mind to say you have a belief system and it is based on at least one fallacy.:D
But surely this belief of yours is based on a fallacy - and as such should be disregarded?
Or is there a non-fallacious argument to support your claim?
;)

Sarkus But surely this belief of yours is based on a fallacy - and as such
should be disregarded?I did not say all beliefs are fallacious.

I said all belief systems have at least one fallacy as a basis.
My statement that everyone has a belief system, is not a basis of my belief system.
It is merely the opinion of all reasonable philosophers, and most unreasonable philosophers as well.
Tell me, do you actually believe you have no belief system?

Tell me, do you actually believe you have no belief system?You still need to explain what you mean by "belief system" - so that I may accurately answer such a question.

I certainly don't believe I have no beliefs... as explained - I'm sure I do when not thinking critically about them.
But I do try not to hold beliefs.

Let’s make it simple and just say that a belief system is the system a person uses to decide what is true or important.

Those 'beliefs', even at their simplest, should be evidenced based.

i.e I "believe" my cup of tea is hot. I come to that belief on the basis that there is steam rising from it and it burnt my lip.

The 'system' one generally uses to decide what is true or important is 'evidence gathering' - apart from the ridiculous claims typically made by theists.

Those 'beliefs', even at their simplest, should be evidence-based.That is science. The formal discipline of science is only five hundred years old. Other belief systems are not scientific.I "believe" my cup of tea is hot. I come to that belief on the basis that there is steam rising from it and it burnt my lip.Other beliefs are more powerful. These were named "archetypes" by Jung. They are instinctive beliefs preprogrammed into our synapses during evolution. Some instincts serve survival, like caring for children. Some were obviously survival-related at in the past, like fear of predators before they were all locked up in zoos and fear was tamed into thrill. Others are more difficult to understand and may simply be the result of a mutation passing through a genetic bottleneck.

Nonetheless, regardless of the reason, a certain set of instinctive beliefs in the power of a supernatural universe and its inhabitants occurs in all cultures in all eras, and collections of these beliefs with their various embellishments become "religions."

It's important to understand that these beliefs feel true and therefore are stronger than beliefs that are the result of experience, teaching or reasoning. Since, in addition to that, they are also a source of comfort, they are exceedingly difficult to unseat.The 'system' one generally uses to decide what is true or important is 'evidence gathering' - apart from the ridiculous claims typically made by theists.As noted, these archetypal beliefs are codifications of ones we were born with, so we never go through the process of choosing them, A person has to become highly rational, highly skeptical, and finally downright iconoclastic--a course which generally requires quite a bit of discomfort with his life--before he will consider the need for evidence gathering to justify an archetypal belief.

Let’s make it simple and just say that a belief system is the system a person uses to decide what is true or important.Surely this is called evidence gathering, as Snakelord has suggested - and then hopefully rational thought - both in interpreting the evidence (i.e. assessing what it is actually evidence for) and then in using that evidence.

How many people do not use such a system, based on evidence?
And do they still try to consider those systems "rational"?

What other systems are there?

What is YOUR system?

That is science. The formal discipline of science is only five hundred years old. Other belief systems are not scientific.

That's not science, that's mankind - (and even animal kind). It is through experience, training and 'evidence' that lions learn to hunt, otters smack nuts on rocks and is used continuously throughout everyones life be they scientific minded or not.

They are instinctive beliefs preprogrammed into our synapses during evolution. Some instincts serve survival, like caring for children. Some were obviously survival-related at in the past, like fear of predators before they were all locked up in zoos and fear was tamed into thrill.

These are not 'beliefs', (unless you were to use the word so loosely as to render it pointless). Chemical responses and so on are no more a 'belief' than blinking or breathing is. They are instinctual mechanisms and most certainly not 'beliefs' in any real sense of the word.

Nonetheless, regardless of the reason, a certain set of instinctive beliefs in the power of a supernatural universe and its inhabitants occurs in all cultures in all eras, and collections of these beliefs with their various embellishments become "religions."

Nobody will contest that people now and especially in the ancient past had 'beliefs' in many bizarre and wonderful things from gods to leprechauns, from mermaids and banshees to hobgoblins and anal probing alien abduction but you would most certainly have a very hard task ahead of you trying to support your claim that any of these are 'instinctive'. It's easy for you to say such a thing while ignoring the thousands of years of indoctrination that have gone into providing you with such beliefs - stemming from those early people with less knowledge of universal workings than a decapitated sea sponge, through the centuries of murder against those that didn't believe, through forced schooling and so on.

It's important to understand that these beliefs feel true and therefore are stronger than beliefs that are the result of experience, teaching or reasoning.

I don't understand in what context you're using the word 'stronger'. Kindly explain.

that, they are also a source of comfort, they are exceedingly difficult to unseat

Indeed, and that's probably more of a valid suggestion as to why they appear in all eras etc than those beliefs are "instinctive".

As noted, these archetypal beliefs are codifications of ones we were born with

Your evidence for that claim is...?

...Other beliefs are more powerful. These were named "archetypes" by Jung. They are instinctive beliefs preprogrammed into our synapses during evolution. ...Although Jung described (I think) "archetypes" essentially as beliefs /ideas/ concepts etc. I am not sure they are. Perhaps they are more "behaviors."

I am not a "behaviorist" as most scientists were for nearly 5 decades at start of last century. Certain linguistic behaviors (not only Chomsky’s "grammar", but that too) especially "spoonerisms" are very destructive to the pure behaviorist's stimulus / response POV as applied to speech.

I do not want to detour too much the surprisingly civil exchange in progress, but need to note that "Archetypes" are not necessarily "beliefs" at all.

As you know a lot about birds, perhaps you already know of an old experiment with the Baltimore Oriel? - Eggs taken to a large cage with many other birds in region where no bird made the hanging nest the B.O. makes. Yet, later when adults, these transported B.O.s made their unique nests from their generically stored instructions. I suspect this was a "behavior" not a "belief" they got from their genes. They probably had a strong "good feeling" when it was done, so that also does not make a behavior into a belief. (Lots of related studies about unique bird songs, most, but not all, birds do need to hear them.) For some, how to "sing" their song is genetic information / again a behavior, more than a "belief."

I know many other animal examples: monkeys fear* snakes instinctively, etc. Why should complex genetic encoded human behaviors be called "beliefs"? The experiments with "split-brain" humans show how easily and sincerely man instantly creates a "belief" from his observation of his behavior.
-------
*Yes "fear" is more of a belief than a behavior, but perhaps the behavior came first, was self observed and then "understood" as fear - like the sequence the split brain humans exhibit.

Sarkus Surely this is called evidence gathering, as Snakelord has suggested No. This misses the point. The belief system decides what is evidence.

The belief that science, and only science, can gather evidence, is a belief system (or part of).
The belief that science can validate all truthful things, is also.

The application of the scientific method requires certain things, such as examining competing models or explanations. In order to justify the scientific method as a stand alone belief system, and being fallacy free, it needs to compare itself against competing models.

In the everyday use of the scientific method, it is not expected to compare itself to religious explanations. However, at the very top, to validate the method itself, surely it needs to be compared to competitive models. I’m not talking about woodland fairies and unicorns. I’m talking about belief systems held by over half of the world. When choosing a belief system, science sometimes competes against religion. It is another choice, honored by many people, and if advocates of science ignore it, they has failed to examine competing models.

The problem is, most models competing against the scientific process, use non-rational tools to find the truth.

Science is based on the rational, so has no way to test the non-rational.
It can only test by rational means, and by definition, the non-rational will fail a rational test.

Accepting sacred texts as a basis for a belief system, is non-rational. Science cannot prove their sacred truth (or lack). Science cannot comment on the truthfulness of sacred texts. It cannot comment on them, except in a historical context. If it cannot comment on their spiritual truth, then it has failed to examine a reputable competing model. Any decision arrived at to accept this particular model is based on a fallacy, because the scientific method itself, was not able to validate it, one way or the other.

- and then hopefully rational thoughtI believe everyone would agree that at some point, rational thought becomes part of the validation process, but not everyone puts it at the top of the list.


- both in interpreting the evidence (i.e. assessing what it is actually evidence for) and then in using that evidence.

How many people do not use such a system, based on evidence? Everyone’s system is based on evidence, but certainly not the same meaning of the word.

And do they still try to consider those systems "rational"?The importance of rationality is part of a belief system. Many people would rather be right than rational. Some, such as yourself, would say one cannot be right, if one is not rational. Other disagree.

What other systems are there?One for every person.

What is YOUR system?I believe that knowledge was acquired before the scientific method, before science. I can see no argument against this.
I believe this is convincing evidence science is not needed to discover truth. Again, to me this is an undeniable truth. Science’s primary role is validation of truth, and discovery is secondary.
I believe that science has the potential to validate all truth that exists or will exist, but that it has a long way to go. A long was as in we are at the very beginning, not even the tip of the iceberg.
I believe the human mind is capable of things no scientist even imagines.
I believe some shamans have had mystical experiences which revealed truth, that science is not currently capable of validating, not because it if false, but because science lacks the maturity. (Not a supernatural mystical, as I do not believe in the supernatural.)

~ ~ ~

Very Important:

All belief systems have a fallacious basis.
Not all fallacious arguments are false.

The belief that science, and only science, can gather evidence, is a belief system (or part of).
The belief that science can validate all truthful things, is also.
I would add to this that there is a common assumption that the most rational thing to do is not to believe in something unless it has been proven by scientific methodology. This is an epistemological belief, but also a belief about lifestyle. In other words if you with some regularity use other methods to determine what is true or what you believe in, you are making a mistake both in terms of methodology and lifestyle.

Enjoyed the whole post.

No. This misses the point. The belief system decides what is evidence.


At it's ultimate core one might state that everything is a 'belief', but such a statement is both misleading and corrupt.

Evidence at it's basic is the repeated testing and the 'confidence', (not belief), that the same result will continue to occur. A small baby for instance goes about chewing everything - from socks to the dogs toy, from books to sofas gathering evidence on what is an is not edible.

A level of 'confidence' develops from that evidence gathering. The young baby comes to the conclusion that socks do not taste nice and are ultimately inedible from repeated chewing on them. The 'belief', (which is a highly misguided word here), does not come before the evidence gathering.

Indeed it seems a case of using the word 'belief' in the place of 'confidence level achieved due to available evidence'. They're not the same thing unless one uses the word 'belief' in an incredibly lax manner.

The belief that science, and only science, can gather evidence, is a belief system (or part of)

Most certainly. Who stated such a thing?

I’m not talking about woodland fairies and unicorns. I’m talking about belief systems held by over half of the world.

Now there's a 'belief', (Most typically espoused by theists), which equates to: "The more proponents a belief has the more true it is". It's bullshit at best. Furthermore, you were indeed arguing that science must compare itself to "competing models" which would include woodland fairies and unicorns absolutely irregardless to how many people believe in them. And, purely as a side point, the bible features unicorns. These same "half the world" must, if they are to live up to their claims of belief, also believe in unicorns, (along with giants etc).

You simply cannot come to the conclusion that something needs to be considered because it has many followers.

Snakelord You simply cannot come to the conclusion that something needs to be considered because it has many followers.Then please tell us how to find models competing with a scientific belief system.
Or is it that you have no interest in considering opposing viewpoints?

If I had a creed, this might be it:

'A special transmission outside the scriptures;
Depending not on words and letters;
Pointing directly to the human mind;
Seeing into one's nature, one becomes a Buddha.'

Then please tell us how to find models competing with a scientific belief system.

My apologies, I don't quite get what you mean by 'find'. One can find models *trying* to compete with scientific 'understanding' all over the place. For instance, there is one such model that claims that everything was created by the noodly appendage of a rather large flying spaghetti monster. At what stage would you suggest this 'model' be given real consideration? At the claim stage or at the evidence stage?

Ok, so there is none, it's an issue for sure. Ultimately is it wrong because of that complete and utter lack of evidence? No, there might very well be a large flying spaghetti monster that exists and created the universe using his noodly bits, (regardless to how many followers the notion has). But, given my point that we are a species that gathers information by using evidence as opposed to "belief", it cannot be considered valid, or if you prefer, 'real' until it satisfies that criteria, because that is how humans work and have done since they were born.

The difference is that evidence shows us what is, (to the best of it's ability, it is never an absolute), while 'belief' merely shows us what might be. One draws conclusions based upon what it wants to be true or what might be true whereas the other draws conclusions, (and levels of confidence), based upon what is shown to be true.

Right now, and I hate to sound rude, but god[s] have zilch.

Or is it that you have no interest in considering opposing viewpoints?

This statement always seems to crop up the second someone actually disagrees to something as if disagreement somehow ultimately means they simply have no interest in other views. It is silly and uncalled for, especially given that I did even agree to something you said, which can be seen with the "Most certainly" that featured on my last post. I understand that I am quite blunt, but that does not hint at lack of interest or that I do not take on board other viewpoints. I simply return a comment with what the evidence suggests. That evidence in this case, (if you take a look at a newborn), suggests that they gather evidence first and foremost. The same seems true of adults from crossing the road to taking a dump. One could certainly consider it a 'belief' or, (disgusting word that it is), "faith" if that person just walked out into the road without looking, but that's not typical of people [or even animals for that matter]

I find the issue here most likely to be one of the difference between 'belief' and 'level of confidence based upon the evidence'.

It is through experience, training and 'evidence' that lions learn to hunt, otters smack nuts on rocks and is used continuously throughout everyones life be they scientific minded or not.Much hunting behavior is instinctive. Watch kittens at play long before their momma has had a chance to demonstrate hunting techniques.These are not 'beliefs', (unless you were to use the word so loosely as to render it pointless). Chemical responses and so on are no more a 'belief' than blinking or breathing is. They are instinctual mechanisms and most certainly not 'beliefs' in any real sense of the word.Children who have never lived in an environment where fear of predators was taught "believe" that a large animal with both eyes pointed forward is going to eat them, whereas one with eyes on the side of its head is a prey animal that might accidentally step on them but is not going to hunt them. There is no conflict between the words "instinct" and "belief."Nobody will contest that people now and especially in the ancient past had 'beliefs' in many bizarre and wonderful things from gods to leprechauns, from mermaids and banshees to hobgoblins and anal probing alien abduction but you would most certainly have a very hard task ahead of you trying to support your claim that any of these are 'instinctive'. It's easy for you to say such a thing while ignoring the thousands of years of indoctrination that have gone into providing you with such beliefs.Jung and especially his star pupils, perhaps most notably Joseph Campbell, have studied the religious (and other) motifs of peoples who have no chain of communication for fifteen thousand years or more, and thus no opportunity to keep "indoctrination" stories straight, at a time when they would have to pass them down orally. Yet the same ones appear with great consistency from South America to Africa to Europe to Australia, such as the virgin birth, the flood that covers the earth, and the creature rising from the dead.I don't understand in what context you're using the word 'stronger'. Kindly explain.I'm using it in the sense "more difficult to unseat." It's harder to talk an individual or a community out of an archetypal instinctive belief for which they have no evidence, than one that they have been taught logically."As noted, these archetypal beliefs are codifications of ones we were born with." Your evidence for that claim is...?That underneath the culture-specific codifications that dressed up ancient religions, they all had the same fundamental beliefs. All of the ancient polytheistic peoples had the same pantheon with different names. So do the dramatis personae of any of Shakespeare's plays and the list of the main characters in any soap opera. They point to humans unconsciously organizing themselves into 23 "spirits" or personalities, which take precedence as needed by circumstance (some days you have to be the Healer, some days the Lover) but which also have varying levels of influence in each of us (I have a strong urge to be the Teacher but very little to be the King).

My most strident condemnation of Abrahamism is its pathetic one-dimensional model of the human spirit. Rather than accept the evidence that we have all of these influences inside us competing for attention, and teaching us how to mediate among them and give each his or her appropriate time in the sun, Abraham insists that we and everything we do falls on a linear spectrum from "good" to "evil." Some of those influences end up being suppressed and after they fester in resentment long enough they burst out uncontrollably. This is a perfect metaphor for the way the kind, meek Abrahamists live in peace and harmony for several generations, and then, almost as regular as clockwork, they rise up in unity and commit acts of irredeemable evil, like obliterating entire civilizations.Although Jung described (I think) "archetypes" essentially as beliefs /ideas/ concepts etc. I am not sure they are. Perhaps they are more "behaviors."Actually I'm oversimplifying and limiting myself to the context of this thread. Archetypes are motifs. Some are expressed as ritual behaviors (e.g. rites of passage), some as visions (often in artworks), some as stories (legends) and some in more than one way.Why should complex genetic encoded human behaviors be called "beliefs"?I agree that it's a point of semantics. We don't credit birds with a lot of cognitive power (mistakenly, in my experience) so we call their way of building a nest a "behavior." Yet it's based on the "belief" that this particular shape will attract the most desirable female, or perhaps give that female's eggs the best protection. (I don't know which sex builds the nest among orioles, sorry.)In the everyday use of the scientific method, it is not expected to compare itself to religious explanations. However, at the very top, to validate the method itself, surely it needs to be compared to competitive models.And it is. For 500 years the scientific method has been tested and peer-reviewed. During that time it has uncovered an enormous number of truths about the way the universe works. These truths have enriched our lives with safer living conditions, lower infant mortality, closer communication with distant loved ones, and a host of improvements that are universally welcomed. During that same time religion has uncovered nothing, and in fact many of its most treasured hypotheses are steadily disproven.The problem is, most models competing against the scientific process, use non-rational tools to find the truth. Science is based on the rational, so has no way to test the non-rational.No, but humans as individuals and groups test the entire methodology of irrationality against science and science consistently proves itself more able to solve their problems.All belief systems have a fallacious basis.I disagree. The belief that underlies science is that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. This is not based on a fallacy. The scientific method is recursive, and it itself is continually subject to testing and peer review. It has never been falsified. Individual theories are occasionally disproven but individual theories are never claimed to be true, merely that they have a very low probability of being falsified. And the rarity of their falsification bears out that claim.I would add to this that there is a common assumption that the most rational thing to do is not to believe in something unless it has been proven by scientific methodology.First off, science does not prove its theories. Only mathematics does that because its theories are pure logic and abstraction and do not have to be validated by the natural universe. (E.g., we'll surely never find a place where the rules of Lobachevskian geometry obtain, but we still know they're correct.) Science accumulates evidence, and when enough evidence is accumulated ("enough" is not well defined and this is at least a big problem in the communication between scientists and laymen and at worst a stumbling block in the scientific method) a theory is accepted as having an acceptably low probability of ever being falsified, or to use the language of the courtroom "true beyond a reasonable doubt."

Secondly, there is nothing wrong with people believing in things that lack convincing evidence. We are all free to act on our hunches and that is often what drives science. What's wrong is to believe in something when there is not only no evidence for it but there is lots of evidence against it. What is also wrong is to try to convince someone to believe your hunch when you can't present them with any evidence. Hunches are personal.Or is it that you have no interest in considering opposing viewpoints?One of the principles that underlies the scientific method is, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence before anyone is obligated to treat them with respect." The stereotypical theist claim that we're all thinking of is something like, "Science is wrong and we will do better to follow the advice of a book that is a compendium of Stone Age folklore." This is an extraordinary claim because it contradicts the entire canon of science, which has been painstakingly built up for centuries, has been tested continuously, and is robust enough to withstand the occasional falsification of a theory. This claim must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence or we indeed have no obligation to treat it with respect.

We don't always take the option because it's good to periodically show students and the general public why religion is a woeful substitute for reason, and to demonstrate the scientific method in action in order to demystify it. But we only do this at rare intervals. The rest of the time it's perfectly acceptable scientific practice to laugh religionists out of the academy.

[Secondly, there is nothing wrong with people believing in things that lack convincing evidence. I think a significant portion of the communication here, including condescension, psychoanalysis - without evidence - of those with certain beliefs and aggressive critique of other ways of gaining knowledge are evidence that not all hold your beliefs here. (I realize the last pattern is open to criticism of what is aggressive).
But I am glad you have this belief.

I believe that knowledge was acquired before the scientific method, before science. I can see no argument against this.
I believe this is convincing evidence science is not needed to discover truth. Again, to me this is an undeniable truth. Science’s primary role is validation of truth, and discovery is secondary.Logically flawed argument... just because "knowledge was acquired before the scientific method" does not mean that the scientific method was not used - even if it was not understood to be as such.

Take the discovery of fire... the first man to come across it probably put his hand near it - and found it to be hot. This was observation. He then tried again. Again it was found to be hot, and he kept testing, probably beyond the point of burning himself. And in doing so he established knowledge that fire was hot - and hotter than he liked if he got too close. He probably went and told other people (or grunted to them).

This, in essence, IS the scientific method, despite there being no ability to formulate his process, or for him to write it down etc. The observation, theorising and testing/re-testing and re-theorising.

As more evidence becomes available, theories arrived at become adjusted, overturned, amended etc. This is true not only of formal science but of every person's assessment of their experiences, whether they understand what they're doing or not.
Even Pavlov's dog was able to demonstrate this to an extent - ring the bell and the dog knows there's food. And then new evidence arrives (no food) and the dog has to reassess its position - probably slower than most humans would, but it demonstrates the point. You could argue that the dog would "believe" there to be food - but this is only an assessment of probability rather than belief without evidence.

But admittedly it is up to the individual whether they apply rationality to the evidence / observation.

I believe the human mind is capable of things no scientist even imagines.
I believe some shamans have had mystical experiences which revealed truth, that science is not currently capable of validating, not because it if false, but because science lacks the maturity. (Not a supernatural mystical, as I do not believe in the supernatural.)You confuse the scientific method with the scientist.
If a shaman had a "mystical experience" then surely it is testable.
The fact that it hasn't been is NOT a fault of the method - but of the people choosing not to wield the method in that direction.

Sarkus Logically flawed argument... just because "knowledge was acquired
before the scientific method" does not mean that the scientific method was
not used - even if it was not understood to be as such.So your rebuttal is, that the scientific method has existed as long as mankind, hey, maybe even before. The scientific method is a developement of nature, not a development of man.
An unusual perspective.

So your rebuttal is, that the scientific method has existed as long as mankind, hey, maybe even before. The scientific method is a developement of nature, not a development of man.
An unusual perspective.My rebuttal is that the scientific method, as currently understood, is a formalisation of the most rational and efficient method of gathering understanding - a method that has existed informally (and only performed subconsciously) since man started gathering an understanding of the world around him.

My rebuttal is that the scientific method, as currently understood, is
a formalisation of the most rational and efficient method of gathering
understanding - a method that has existed informally (and only
performed subconsciously) since man started gathering an understanding of the
world around him.I don't suppose you have any reliable scientific evidence to support that.
I suppose we could take it on faith.

I think that the scientific method is not simply learning from experience as Sarkus suggest in post 103 with the example of some, probably pre-human creature, learning that fire is hot, get too close and it will burn, cause long lasting pain etc.

The scientific method involves construction of a theory / model / set of relationships (Fitting facts into a web of beliefs), and then making predictions based on this model and testing them, whenever possible quantatively and with an associated math model.

For example, the chemical law of definite proportions for compounds is a model or theory developed by the "scientific method." As I recall mercury oxide was formed and decomposed to test this sort of fixed relationship between Hg and O2 etc. A relative weight scale of the atoms developed, etc.

Calorimetric measurements and the scientific method lead to the false Phlogiston model, which quantatively worked very well for many years. Fire made material more finely divided and thus could not hold as much phlogiston as a solid log could, so some heat / phlogiston escaped to take up residence in other material etc. The concentration of phlogiston would always decrease, if change was possible. (Heat flows for hotter to colder object, in more modern terms.) This all worked well, and quantatively until Lord Kelvin was in charge of a factory making cannons. - The workers (not by scientific method) knew that the boring of the barrel was facilitated by some "cutting oil" and water poured in occasionally to keep the drill bit cool. Kelvin new about phlogiston and used the scientific method's prediction and testing aspects as well was a good observer. "Where the hell is the phlogiston coming from to keep evaporating that water?" he must have asked himself. Perhaps work can make phlogiston he then thought. If true, then a certain amount of work should make a certain amount of phlogiston. Lets test that model /idea/ hypothesis by quantative measurement. He did and found it took about 4 joules of work to make a calorie of phlogiston (4.186, if memory serves me well) Thus the amount of phlogiston in the universe was not, as previous thought, a fixed quantity. Slowly it was recognized that there was really no evidence for the existence of phlogiston - heat was just another form of energy. That is the scientific method in action. The workers’ knowledge about cutting oil and cooling water is not. That is only accumulated experience, like fire is hot and burns.

SUMMARY: The "scientific method" is a relatively recent advance of mankind, which has greatly accelerated his power over things that happen in the world. It remains to be seen, whether or not this is a curse on almost all living things, including man. If one takes an evolutionary time scale, my money / bet is on it being a "curse," but I tend to see black clouds, and prepare for their storm, if possible, and then be happy when the sun shines instead.

Much hunting behavior is instinctive. Watch kittens at play long before their momma has had a chance to demonstrate hunting techniques.

Most certainly, the issue here comes in the form of trying to equate instinct to 'belief'.

Children who have never lived in an environment where fear of predators was taught "believe" that a large animal with both eyes pointed forward is going to eat them, whereas one with eyes on the side of its head is a prey animal that might accidentally step on them but is not going to hunt them.

Is there source data for this? My child has never thought her large pet dog is going to eat her, absolutely regardless to the positioning of its eyes. Nor has she ever thought anything is going to step on her. So where does this data come from?

There is no conflict between the words "instinct" and "belief."

There most certainly is and that is clearly where the issue lies. The first relates to something done 'automatically' because repeated testing constantly yields the same result vs the notion that something is true without that testing.

Jung and especially his star pupils, perhaps most notably Joseph Campbell, have studied the religious (and other) motifs of peoples who have no chain of communication for fifteen thousand years or more, and thus no opportunity to keep "indoctrination" stories straight, at a time when they would have to pass them down orally. Yet the same ones appear with great consistency from South America to Africa to Europe to Australia

Let me pull out a couple of phrases:

1) no opportunity to keep "indoctrination" stories straight

2) Yet the same ones appear

Your usage and context of "straight" seems to imply that the stories remain exact but that's clearly and undeniably not the case. People have changed, places have changed, gods have changed, circumstances have changed, etc etc which, I must be frank, does not mean a story has been kept "straight" or is the "same" - but indeed has suffered from Chinese whispers as any oral story tends to do over time, (written too for that matter). It is pertinent to state that stories will be handed on from person to person and thus account for similar tales across the globe. From trade routes, nomads, etc etc.

It's harder to talk an individual or a community out of an archetypal instinctive belief for which they have no evidence, than one that they have been taught logically.

Any specific examples or sources for this? No disrespect but you haven't even established that these beliefs are instinctive as opposed to taught yet. But let's look at what we do have:

1) We do not see untaught children espousing belief in gods of any kind.

2) We do not see untaught children instinctively praying to some such entity.

3) We do not see untaught children instinctively doing any other religious belief based things.

We see none of that at all. There is nothing to suggest that humans have an instinctive belief in gods but plenty to suggest that humans do have the ability to be imaginative and to share/borrow stories. I've been on this planet for a few decades now and still and never have had any belief in gods of any kind, (even though people have tried their best to indoctrinate me). Of course that might not be true if I had have been born 5,000 years ago but is that because I lack this claimed instinct or because 5,000 years ago they had no answers to any of the questions humans might ultimately come to ask?

That underneath the culture-specific codifications that dressed up ancient religions, they all had the same fundamental beliefs.

Not really, no, and it's somewhat corrupt to try and dismiss the extreme multitude of differences in such fashion when trying to argue that these things are "the same". However, perhaps it is wiser considering what kind of questions people, (ancient and modern), would ask and look for some similarity there instead.

All of the ancient polytheistic peoples had the same pantheon with different names.

That cultures borrow from others is not argued.

... let's look at what we do have:

1) We do not see untaught children espousing belief in gods of any kind.
2) We do not see untaught children instinctively praying to some such entity.
3) We do not see untaught children instinctively doing any other religious belief based things.

We see none of that at all. There is nothing to suggest that humans have an instinctive belief in gods but plenty to suggest that humans do have the ability to be imaginative and to share/borrow stories. I've been on this planet for a few decades now and still and never have had any belief in gods of any kind, (even though people have tried their best to indoctrinate me). Of course that might not be true if I had have been born 5,000 years ago but is that because I lack this claimed instinct or because 5,000 years ago they had no answers to any of the questions humans might ultimately come to ask? ...You make some good points, but 3 above may not be true:

Wife called me at work one day about noon to tell daughter's guinea pig had died, asking me what wife should do. I said: "Do nothing, let her do what she wants till I get home." Five or 6 year old daughter (I forget exact age.) put it in shoe box with soft rag blanket and some of its food. Then spent couple of hours decorating INSIDE of box lid with crayons. Next she decided to supplement the dry pellets with some lettuce leaves and picked some clover from yard spot it had played in for it by time I got home.

She had never seen or heard of any funeral procedures (I think) AND HAD NOT BEEN TOLD THERE WAS AN "AFTER LIFE" IN HEAVEN, ETC. as neither wife nor I believed that. I explained we would need to go to woods and bury it. She immediately accepted that plan, but wanted to have her best friend participate. (She clearly understood it was dead, not just sleeping, would never to run around in it cage wheel again, etc.) So we three buried it, and fearing that she might find hole later or worse, see dogs digging it up, I made my only suggestion: "Go get some get some rocks from the (near by) creek to cover him up with so no dogs dig him up." We were filling in the hole and I was spreading leaves over to hide the exposed dirt when some also young boy entered the woods. I suggested we leave the area before they come near. She agreed and, skipping hand-in-hand with friend, we left the woods. Reason I remember this well is as when we stopped at the creek to cross, Daughter said:
"That was fun. Can we dig him up and do it again tomorrow?"

BHN The belief system decides what is evidence.
Snakelord Evidence at it's basic is the repeated testing and the 'confidence', (not belief), that the same result will continue to occur. Well, a Christian accepts the bible as the basis of their belief system. As you say, they repeatedly test it, and indeed find that it is true. All things predicted come to pass. All warnings are realized. It just describes the whole world as it is. The evidence is indeed convincing evidence and provides confidence, because it is faithfully true, describes the past and predicts the future.

This is the way of all belief systems.
The evidence is accepted, and supports the belief system, which validates evidence.

This demonstrates my point that the belief system determines what is acceptable evidence.

I will not deny that the two go hand in hand. If certain evidence builds extreme confidence in a young mind, a particular belief system might follow. As the belief system develops, it further supports the acceptable evidence.


snakelord My apologies, I don't quite get what you mean by 'find'. One can find models *trying* to compete with scientific 'understanding' all over the place. For instance, there is one such model that claims that everything was created by the noodly appendage of a rather large flying spaghetti monster. At what stage would you suggest this 'model' be given real consideration? At the claim stage or at the evidence stage?Satire can hardly be considered competetion. This model has an insignificant number of actual supporters, and we both know it.

If we say we will accept models which have supporting evidence, who gets to decide what is acceptable evidence. If one wants to eliminate all possible competition, with the slightest effort, then we will use the evidence provided by the one looking for completion. If all completion must pass my test, we have no competition to worry about.
If it passes all of my tests, it is my system.

It is the nature of completion that other things are offered, considered and of importance.
The completion should be able to provide its own evidence, conducted by using its own tests. I cannot see that it can be any other way.

But, given my point that we are a species that gathers information by using evidence as opposed to "belief", it cannot be considered valid, or if you prefer, 'real' until it satisfies that criteria, because that is how humans work and have done since they were born.Your ideas seem to assume that evidence is universal, and it certainly is not.

We had a brief decision about the moral conduct in handling and respecting the remains of indigenous peoples.
Is there any evidence science can provide that says special treatment is called for?
The spiritual truths (you may call them beliefs, since you do not agree with them) of the descendents can provide overwhelming evidence that great respect is necessary, movement is not allowed, if their belief system is to be respected, and their evidence is to have merit.

You assume evidence is what you want it to be.
Do I have it wrong?


I find the issue here most likely to be one of the difference between 'belief' and 'level of confidence based upon the evidence'.With due respect, this statement carries little meaning, because for you, evidence is only what your belief system accepts.

What is fairy tales to some, is a truth worth death, for others.
Someone says “I have evidence here that is irrefutable, and cannot be denied.”, and the reply comes back, “Some 4000 year old book, you must be kidding.”
Someome’s belief system will tell them how much truth is in each statement, based on the evidence they accept.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fraggle Rocker And it is. For 500 years the scientific method has been tested and peer-reviewed. During that time it has uncovered an enormous number of truths about the way the universe works. These truths have enriched our lives with safer living conditions, lower infant mortality, closer communication with distant loved ones, and a host of improvements that are universally welcomed. During that same time religion has uncovered nothing, and in fact many of its most treasured hypotheses are steadily disproven.I am no supporter of organized religion, so I have a hard time disagreeing with what you write.
Still, there is a “spiritual” (not the supernatural kind) side of man that gives truth science has no interest in.
The trained mind is capable of feats science does not understand except in a very broad way. It is capable of feats science cannot duplicate.

I have no interest in a ‘choose this or that’ discussion.
My point is, there are ways of knowing that science is not interested in, and not capable of. Non-rational processes that directly reveal truths, particularly about mankind. Like science, some of it is junk, and some of it has value.
Science gives much truth, but not all of it.

The belief that underlies science is that the natural universe is a closed system, whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior.This is based on premises that have no evidence, except that derived from the system itself. We both know the bible can prove the bible inside out. We know that systems that are based solely on assumptions and evidence of the system itself, are fallacious.

What is the convincing evidence it is a closed system? I say this is a convenient assumption, with little supporting evidence (conjecture is not evidence, is it?).

What is the evidence that all true theories will be derived from logically based empirical observation?
I say your answers to these questions will be logically fallacious.



One of the principles that underlies the scientific method is, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence before anyone is obligated to treat them with respect." The stereotypical theist claim that we're all thinking of is something like, "Science is wrong and we will do better to follow the advice of a book that is a compendium of Stone Age folklore." This is an extraordinary claim because it contradicts the entire canon of science, which has been painstakingly built up for centuries, has been tested continuously, and is robust enough to withstand the occasional falsification of a theory. This claim must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence or we indeed have no obligation to treat it with respect.Again you and I share many views, but let me find the differences.

The responding stereotypical atheist claim is “If Science cannot support it, it has no value as truth.”
On the surface is the obvious objection that there is a whole universe of truth out there and science has not a shred of evidence to reveal it.
Also, it is no secret that sometimes science gets it wrong.

Science itself has very limited interests, and sees no benefit is exploring what might be called the spiritual side of mankind.


Among indigenous peoples there is a nearly universal respect for the earth that is nearly absent in atheistic science (as opposed to other types of science). Is this perceived connection real, or imaginary. As far as I know, there is no scientific study to even try to answer questions such as these. These types of questions have the potential for being much more important than ‘Is hair spray killing the planet?’.

I have no objection to a scientific model being the predominant belief system of society.
I believe we do ourselves a grave injustice if the science model stifles all competing models.
There is bad science, and there is bad religion (I prefere spiritual beliefs rather than the loaded term religion).
Give me the best of both.

Well, a Christian accepts the bible as the basis of their belief system. ... It just describes the whole world as it is. The evidence is indeed convincing evidence and provides confidence, because it is faithfully true, describes the past and predicts the future.Problem with this assertion is that for it to be true, some very solid "facts" and "Physical laws" discovered by science must be violated. For example, the writers of the bible could and did claim the sun stood still for some hours until a battle could be concluded, without any conflicts within their belief system. Most now know, with about as much certainty as is ever possible, that the sun appearing to rise and set is the consequence of the huge amount of angular momentum stored in the Earth. More generally, the bible is full of accounts where science is contradicted, called "miracles"

The fundamental belief of the scientific method is that there are no miracles.

Thus, you can only supplement your scientific beliefs with others which are not testable with the scientific method. The number of such beliefs is probably infinite, but many, such as the sun standing still, are becoming impossible to reconcile with the discoveries of science. Of necessity, "religious beliefs" must deal only with unobservable, if the fundamental basis of the scientific method is believed. You may not logically have your cake and eat it too.

...there is a “spiritual” (not the supernatural kind) side of man that gives truth science has no interest in. ... Non-rational processes that directly reveal truths, particularly about mankind. Like science, some of it is junk, and some of it has value. Science gives much truth, but not all of it. ...I think truth is not subject to my beliefs about it. Science can never be certain it has discovered "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" we agree, but the same "truth" is normally believed by all who find truth by the scientific method. Admittedly at times later it was learned that all were wrong, so number of believers is not important for knowing truth.

This contrast sharply with the "truths" non-rational processes directly reveal. In fact, there is a strong tendency, at least historically, for all of these “truths” to fractionate into mutually contradicting versions. For example, is "true Christian baptism" achieved by a few drops of water, or only via total emersion? This is why I cannot call any one of the thousands of mutually contradictory versions a "truth" yet do recognize that man does have an innate drive to be "religious" or "in awe" of the things he sees especially when he does not understand them scientifically. In many ways, science has shown just how much more than the writers of the bible, etc. does exist to feel this Awe about. In that sense, science is supporting that version of religion, while exposing the nonsense of "truths" that comes from sources like the bible.

Wife called me at work one day about noon to tell daughter's guinea pig had died, asking me what wife should do...

This is an interesting point and one I decided to talk to my wife about. Our house is, and always has been, like a zoo and my children have on occasion faced the death of some of those animals. The question is, and something my wife seemingly agrees with me upon, is whether they understand 'death' or get upset over and understand that they are not going to see the animal again? I have seen many children cry as passionately over a lost toy as they do a lost dog. My daughter cried as much as when our cat died as she did when the neighbours moved. So I ask whether that is understanding of 'death', (something my wife claims is not the case from her experiences with our own children), or whether it's merely a learnt understanding of what happens when one takes away or loses a liked possession. I think, although I could be wrong, that the latter would be more supportable.

Reason I remember this well is as when we stopped at the creek to cross, Daughter said "That was fun. Can we dig him up and do it again tomorrow?"

Doesn't this ultimately hint at a lack of understanding of death?

Well, a Christian accepts the bible as the basis of their belief system. As you say, they repeatedly test it, and indeed find that it is true.

Test what? Do note I am not specifically disagreeing with you, I am simply asking. What is tested exactly and how?

Do note that those christians that claim jesus or god speaks to them are doing no testing. Have they tested to see if that voice is but a delusion? If so, how?

All things predicted come to pass.

Really? Like what? Any honest theist would admit that what.. 90% of their prayers never come true.. but they simply dismiss that evidence and claim that their god knows whats best and works in funny ways.

This demonstrates my point that the belief system determines what is acceptable evidence.

In the theist belief system, yes.

Satire can hardly be considered competetion. This model has an insignificant number of actual supporters, and we both know it.

1) You have absolutely no position to be claiming it as not true because the same can be said of anything you would regard as competition, (i.e anything that has a competing view).

2) Once again it needs to be stated quite clearly that something does not become true or 'more true' the more people that believe it is. It could have one follower and be true or a billion followers and false.

If we say we will accept models which have supporting evidence, who gets to decide what is acceptable evidence.

That's where science comes into play. Without going too much into it, testability is a big part of it.

It is the nature of completion that other things are offered, considered and of
importance.

But to be frank, "god did it" offers nothing. And, if that is what is offered, other than 5 seconds consideration, what is it worth? Can it be tested? Can you ask this being to give you a tour of the creation factory?

The completion should be able to provide its own evidence, conducted by using its own tests

"Evolution isn't true, so sayeth the evidence gathered from my ouija board"? Do me a lemon.

Your ideas seem to assume that evidence is universal, and it certainly is not.

Really? Care to cite some examples of peoples that do not use evidence as a means with which to learn things?

We had a brief decision about the moral conduct in handling and respecting the remains of indigenous peoples.Is there any evidence science can provide that says special treatment is called for?

Many studies and tests could be done to determine the emotional impact of handling bones disrespectfully, the damage done to bones handled incorrectly, the existence of morals and reasons for them, how to move the remains, why they need moving etc etc and so on and so forth all without stating "[a] god did it". So yes, basically.

You assume evidence is what you want it to be.
Do I have it wrong?

Absolutely not. I am more than happy for the evidence to show that I am wrong or that ideas need to be ammended etc, but I do absolutely demand that there be some evidence. Feel free to offer some criteria of what evidence should entail, but do not be fooled into thinking that "have faith buddy" is an acceptable example.

With due respect, this statement carries little meaning, because for you, evidence is only what your belief system accepts.

Not really, no. It is the method that I, every person I know and every child I have observed uses to come to conclusions. Testability is of massive importance. However, feel free to express the value that whatever it is you espouse actually has to anything. Can you explain how "I have a feeling", or "I heard a voice in my head tell me so" can be
considered as viable evidence of anything?

What is fairy tales to some, is a truth worth death, for others.

That is quite undeniable, but a feeling someone has is not evidence of anything other than their emotional state and personal feelings. Nothing more.

Billy T The fundamental belief of the scientific method is that there are no miracles.Well, miracles are supernatural events. Tell me if I am incorrect, but science only studies natural events. I will agree that during its investigations it assumes there are no supernatural events, but if we are to be truthful, science simple says there is no evidence, so no reason to assume there are supernatural events.
By definition, supernatural events are beyond the domain of science.

Your argument is one of Christians (for example), having irrational beliefs.
My claim is that they have the beliefs I describe, your claim is that they shouldn’t.

Two different arguments. You have switched horses.
Now if you care to argue that Christians do not have the beliefs I describe, we will be back on track.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Snakelord

Your coments take the same direction as Billy T.

I am more than happy for the evidence to show that I am wrong or that ideas need to be ammended etc, but I do absolutely demand that there be some evidence. Feel free to offer some criteria of what evidence should entail, but do not be fooled into thinking that "have faith buddy" is an acceptable example.
Not really, no. It is the method that I, every person I know and every child I have observed uses to come to conclusions. Testability is of massive importance. However, feel free to express the value that whatever it is you espouse actually has to anything. Can you explain how "I have a feeling", or "I heard a voice in my head tell me so" can be considered as viable evidence of anything?

For some people “have faith biddy”, is evidence. You do not accept it. That is my point.

How naive are you?
Do you not believe me if I tell you some people hold the bible in their hand and say “Here is all of the evidence I need”.
Do you believe I am trying to trick you?
Must I pull posts from other threads or boards to convince you. Surely you know what I say is true.

You want me to justify their basis for accepting the bible, and the supernatural. The justification is not the issue. I say many such people have such beliefs. If you want to argue that they do not have such beliefs, present your case.

If you want to argue that you do not accept such evidence, you will be making my point for me.

These issues of testability, your comments baffle me.
It seems no one has ever said to you “Prayer works, I know because. . . . “
I have had these words spoken to me, lets just say tens of thousands of times, and be conservative.

Surely you believe as I do, that these people have these beliefs. You only wish to show they are incorrect.

You wish to defend your belief system, because it has real evidence. Evidence you will accept. You will accept any real evidence, and of course that is evidence that conforms to your belief system.
If my aunt says “God spoke to me.”, you say fine, I will accept that evidence, all we have to do is subject the event to some scientific tests and I will accept it.
Your conditions, get it.
She says “Evolution, fine I will accept it. Just show me in the bible where it says so, and I will accept it.”
Her evidence, get it?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Everyone believes their belief system is correct, and is based on convincing evidence.

Everyone believes their belief sysetem is based on real evidence.

It naturally follows that everyone believes opposing belief systems are mistaken.

These are truisms. There is no argument against these statements.
Or so I would argue.

~ ~ ~ ~

Here is an interesting question that never occured to me before.

Would it be highly desirable for everyone to have the same belief system?
Not miniscule the same, slight differences of course.
Maybe better worded as "Would it be desirable for everyone to accept the same evidence for truth?"
Would this be a good and desirable thing?

Not only that their belief system is correct
but that the relevence
or liklihood of what others believe is true
can be resolved using their own methods.

One thing this does is rule out a variety of correct interpretations of a phenomenon.
Another is it rules out that several different things are possible in what seems like or are single conditions.
Another is that an explanation that works is an explanation that proves a specific metaphysics is universal and correct, ruling out others.

Few consider that beliefs may have a creative role in what happens. Or to put this another way, that one's beliefs localize one in a specific metaphysics. (note: beliefs are not all conscious and are deeply ingrained in the unconscious. It is not a matter of changing the words in one's head.)

Last point: both sides posit certain phenomena as miracles. The religious assume they are real. The scientists assume they are unreal. That they are natural but as yet not able to be tracked by current technology, interest or ingenuity is generally set aside.

Every era confuses its knowledge with final knowledge, even when it knows better.

sowhatifit'sdark

I wish I could have said it so well myself.

For some people “have faith biddy”, is evidence. You do not accept it. That is my point.

The point is, whether they accept it as 'evidence' or a large green onion doesn't detract from the fact that it isn't evidence. The difference is that evidence points at what is, faith and belief point at what might be, or want we want to be.

Next time you're near a road close your eyes, say "have faith buddy" and see how far that gets you. By it's very nature, 'faith' entails no evidence gathering. That's not to say it is ultimately wrong, maybe the road happens to be devoid of cars at that moment, but that it is not evidence is the fact of the matter.

How naive are you?
Do you not believe me if I tell you some people hold the bible in their hand and say “Here is all of the evidence I need”.

Of course they do, but that is not the issue. To go back to one of my earlier statements that I have said a couple of times now:

"The difference is that evidence shows us what is, (to the best of it's ability, it is never an absolute), while 'belief' merely shows us what might be. One draws conclusions based upon what it wants to be true or what might be true whereas the other draws conclusions, (and levels of confidence), based upon what is shown to be true."

Someone can believe in something, for instance a god, because they want comfort or because they are convinced by the words in a book, but that can never be qualified as "evidence". It is belief and faith and that is the difference between sipping your tea and just pouring it down your throat. One is a belief or faith, the other is an example of evidence gathering.

These issues of testability, your comments baffle me.
It seems no one has ever said to you “Prayer works, I know because. . . . “
I have had these words spoken to me, lets just say tens of thousands of times, and be conservative.

Certainly. I have actually won £20 on a scratchcard when I specifically used a coin picked up off the floor. Now, one could say that's adequate testing to say that coins found on the floor are lucky coins but they would be a fool. Now let's be honest here, has anyone ever claiming that a prayer has been answered also claimed that it works all the time? How many times a day or week does this person pray and what is the success rate? I'd be literally amazed if it was anything greater than 1% of all prayers, (and I'm being generous). If they were to examine the evidence it would be hard not to recognise the probability that they just got lucky once or twice, but no - they make continual excuses to try and keep that which has no evidence alive in their mind. "Sometimes god says yes, sometimes later, and sometimes no, he knows what's best", but don't realise that the very same thing can be said of my tea cup, (I mention tea a lot, I'm English), and will undoubtedly have the same percent success rate.

That they accept their own claims and beliefs as real is fine, but it cannot be confused as 'evidence'. Belief, as you keep mentioning, yes.. evidence based.. no.

If my aunt says “God spoke to me.”, you say fine, I will accept that evidence, all we have to do is subject the event to some scientific tests and I will accept it.
Your conditions, get it.

Not my conditions, that's what 'evidence' entails.. testing. If I accept it without that testing then that's also fine, but we'd have to find a word other than 'evidence' to use. "I have faith that what you say is true", for example.

She says “Evolution, fine I will accept it. Just show me in the bible where it says so, and I will accept it.”
Her evidence, get it?

No, her "faith" or willingness to believe without evidence.

Look, you can see a guy playing tennis and say he's playing football but that does not detract from the fact that he isn't playing football regardless to what you want to call it.

Well, miracles are supernatural events. Tell me if I am incorrect, but science only studies natural events. I will agree that during its investigations it assumes there are no supernatural events, but if we are to be truthful, science simple says there is no evidence, so no reason to assume there are supernatural events.
By definition, supernatural events are beyond the domain of science.

Your argument is one of Christians (for example), having irrational beliefs.
My claim is that they have the beliefs I describe, your claim is that they shouldn’t.

Two different arguments. You have switched horses.
Now if you care to argue that Christians do not have the beliefs I describe, we will be back on track.You must have a reading (or thinking) difficulty.
Here is what you posted:
Well, a Christian accepts the bible as the basis of their belief system. As you say, they repeatedly test it, and indeed find that it is true. All things predicted come to pass. All warnings are realized. It just describes the whole world as it is. The evidence is indeed convincing evidence and provides confidence, because it is faithfully true, describes the past and predicts the future.I certainly agree that the followers of most religious belief system, consider them "true" with conveniencing (if somewhat circular) evidence of that truth. It was your claim, made bold above, the Christian belief:

"...is faithfully true, describes the past and predicts the future."

That I objected to by noting that not even within the Christians is there agreement as to any unique truth. - Illustrating with fact some Christians think a few drops of water can be a "true baptism" and others believe that false as total emersion is required.

Again, truth is truth - it cannot be a thousand different mutually contradictive beliefs, regardless of how convinced some of the followers of one of the contradictory variations are.

With your recent post, it is you who have "switched horses" I continue to note that the truth is unique, perhaps unknown, but certain not thousands of mutually contradictions.

Well, miracles are supernatural events. Tell me if I am incorrect, but science only studies natural events.Science only studies natural events because only natural events can be studied. The basic premise of science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be understood and predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior.

A supernatural universe, external to the natural universe, is by definition unavailable for observation. In addition, although this is perhaps not mandatory in theory, in practice the supernatural universes postulated by the most commonly encountered religions are not bound by the rules of logic. Everything from cause and effect to probability theory to conservation of energy and mass to infinity as an absolute limit--even the sheer abstractions of syllogism, fallacy, induction, deduction, arithmetic and geometry, which are not derived from observation but pure reason--are suspended in the supernatural universe of gods and miracles.

We cannot study a supernatural universe, but we can take the first step toward that study by studying the probability of the existence of a supernatural universe. If that probability is non-zero, then we must devise a way to study the supernatural universe itself. However, that probability is indeed zero. Not because it defies empirical observed evidence, which always leaves at least a tiny chance of being contradicted, but because it defies reason, the only universal truth.I will agree that during its investigations it assumes there are no supernatural events, but if we are to be truthful, science simple says there is no evidence, so no reason to assume there are supernatural events.As noted, we have more to base our rejection on than lack of evidence: lack of reason, which is far more damning because unlike evidence it is absolute. Nonetheless we have even more. We have five hundred years of evidence of the validity of the scientific method. It has been tested and peer-reviewed intensively since the end of the Dark Ages, and it has never been falsified. For five hundred years the scientific method has steadily unlocked the secrets of the natural universe. Occasionally one of its theories is falsified, but the scientific method allows for self-correction of its canon so long as the falsifications occur rarely enough that the canon itself does not collapse.

On the other hand, during those five hundred years the "religious method" of scholarship has unlocked no secrets of the natural universe. In fact many of its basic premises--its own canon--have been falsified to the point that it is a shadow of its former self. An increasing portion of religious people have simply adapted to this and restrict their religious discourse to things philosophical that don't attempt to explain the natural world, or at least don't try to gainsay science. The supernatural in their paradigm is a universe of metaphor and they find that their fables work just as well or better as metaphors than they did as increasingly laughable accounts of history.By definition, supernatural events are beyond the domain of science.Not exactly. If there is no evidence of a supernatural event it is beyond the domain of examination. But if in addition the account of the event violates the abstract rules of reason which are not artifacts of the natural universe but simply universal truths, then the probability of the event having occurred becomes zero. At this point it is no longer an "event" at all, but something else, such as a metaphor, a fairytale or just a really good story that gets us thinking. These things are the province of literature and psychology, not physical science.Your argument is one of Christians (for example), having irrational beliefs. My claim is that they have the beliefs I describe, your claim is that they shouldn’t.I can't really pick up somebody else's argument and I never exactly said that. However I have said that people are free to believe whatever they want, even if there's no evidence to support it and now, in light of my previous argument, even if it is illogical and therefore, to use blunt terminology, "downright stupid." And I was criticized as being condescending. Duh! If I said they don't have the right to believe something that's just plain stupid, what would you have called me then, some sort of Nazi? As an American I understand the reason that freedom of religion must be upheld regardless of the problems it causes, because suppression will invariably cause worse problems. I'm a pacifist so I'm not going to go so far as to say that I will defend to the death somebody's right to believe in an unobservable, illogical irrational universe, but I will proudly defend that right in verbal arguments and have done so many times. That's not the same as defending the belief itself, and if that's condescension then I'm guilty but it's far better than being guilty of the only alternative available to me as a rational person, which is to deny that right.Would it be highly desirable for everyone to have the same belief system? Not miniscule the same, slight differences of course. Maybe better worded as "Would it be desirable for everyone to accept the same evidence for truth?" Would this be a good and desirable thing?Interesting question. I doubt that there's any way to learn the answer except through experience. As I've said before, it may be twelve thousand more years before the human race finally frees itself from religion. So this could be a really long wait.

It is a pleasure to read your well written posts. Thank you for them, especially the longer ones....The basic premise of science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be understood and predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior. Much more complete, and a positive definition compared to my simple, but negative summary:
"The fundamental belief of the scientific method is that there are no miracles."

Always better to state what something is, rather than what it is not, when defining something; however, in this thread especially, I do like "belief" better than "premise" as it more honestly admits that to some extent even science is "faith based," at least initially - before zillions of confirmations without even one exception. Are you by any chance a lawyer?

BTW, I think it wise that you allowed for the theories to be explicit functions of time. I.e. the "physical laws" that the observables follow need not have always been the same, but the evidence available in the spectra of distant stars and supernova, seems to indicate that the observables are still following the same "rules" as they did 10 or more billion years ago. This suggesting that any intervening "God" died or went away a long time ago.

A supernatural universe, external to the natural universe, is by definition unavailable for observation. In addition, although this is perhaps not mandatory in theory, in practice the supernatural universes postulated by the most commonly encountered religions are not bound by the rules of logic. ....
We cannot study a supernatural universe, but we can take the first step toward that study by studying the probability of the existence of a supernatural universe. If that probability is non-zero, then we must devise a way to study the supernatural universe itself. However, that probability is indeed zero. Not because it defies empirical observed evidence, which always leaves at least a tiny chance of being contradicted, but because it defies reason, the only universal truth. As noted, we have more to base our rejection on than lack of evidence: lack of reason, which is far more damning because unlike evidence it is absolute.The first part above wisely allows for a "rule governed" or rational supernatural universe, but one not accessible to us. The second, and remainder of your post, I believe, is correct only for the logically inconsistent supernatural universe. Its "lack of reason" is thus by assumption. For example, perhaps "external" to our universe there is some "super space" in which our "bubble of space time" is growing along with other universes, perhaps even some ones will different or even highly dynamic "governing laws" so that we would consider it to be filled with "miracles," if we could somehow be magically transported into it. I am not suggesting this is the case, only noting that this "supper space" with other universes seems to not be impossible or illogical.

Everything from cause and effect to probability theory to conservation of energy and mass to infinity as an absolute limit--even the sheer abstractions of syllogism, fallacy, induction, deduction, arithmetic and geometry, which are not derived from observation but pure reason--are suspended in the supernatural universe of gods and miracles.This text, now slightly displaced, reminded me of dreams. The "logic" of dreams is very relaxed, especially WRT time. You can, for example be teaching your young father how to ride a bike, but there are rules that are followed even in dreams. (They have been studied. - Only one I remember just now is there can only be one of you in the dream. E.g. you cannot be teaching yourself to ride a bike.)

No one knows why most animals sleep. The "too consolidate / clean up memory" POV advanced especially by Sr. F. Crick is gaining ground, but was suggested earlier by people working with what I prefer to call "connection computers," but I lost that battle long ago so you know them as "neural networks," which they definitely are not. I have forgotten many other ideas I have had as to why we sleep. One that makes a lot of evolutionary sense to me is: “To think outside the box.” Many times, I have gone to sleep pondering some "insoluble problem" and awaken the next day with a new way to avoid some "road block" in my prior day’s thoughts. Ironically, "Why we sleep?" is one of the more common "insoluble problems" I ponder while falling asleep.

I quit here as clearly drifting way off thread. Thanks again for another well developed text.

BeHereNow,

We have a common goal: To know, realize or understand, objective reality.

I agree to a point, but I doubt that objective reality can be realised or understood, in its entirety, at least within our individual lifetimes, and such a pursuit could possibly be a waste of time.

Your approach is what I would call the scientific approach. Information or data passes through a series of ‘truth filters’, progressing up a defined path towards pure objectivity, what we can call a correct knowledge and understanding.

It is partly scientific, which is why I am interested in science. I believe we gain knowledge though other avenues, such as philosophy, art, and religion.

The problem is, this goal is never reached, it is at best, extremely close, but never actually there.

It depends what your goal is.

Science is a wonderful thing, and in many endeavors, it is without equal.

It is without equal in its own field, and very important in gaining information out the material world.

But it never gives us proof, never gives us truth. It brings us to the edge, and we have to jump over, or stagnate. If we jump over, we may land at various points.

I believe that is because it is a part of something, not the thing itself.
I don't think truth is something you can know, and still remain the same person, as such. I think truth is your position, how you percieve things.
How many times have you thought something was really difficult, only to find out was easy all the time. It was how you looked at it. As a musician, I come face to face with that understanding on a regular basis. But nevertheless it becomes an important thing to understand, in your everyday life, because it teaches you how to look at certain situations. This type of knowledge will not be found in any science book, but is most profound.

I am not sure what you mean by “correct”. It may be objectivity, or it may be an ideal subjectivity, relating to mankind’s relationship with it. I do not think it matters much.

By "correct" I mean, it has happened, therefore it must have come about, and there had to be some kind of order to get to this stage. However it came about, is the "correct" explanation of it.

Yes, your usage of belief fits well in a scientific model.
For myself, it doesn’t fit well with my beliefs.

I like the way you see things, you seem honest and intelligent.

Jan.

Hi Jan:

I can agree with all your comments in post 120, except:

"I think truth is your position, how you percieve things."

I think what you are calling "truth" is a personal POV. For me truth does not depend upon my POV or anyone else's. I admit there can be "personal truths" - Things that are consistent with your set of beliefs and inconsistent with beliefs of others, which are equally well founded, but these are not the absolute truths of our universe. Many of those have been discovered by the scientific method in the last 500 or so years, but admittedly a few many be incomplete or a tiny few even totally wrong, if one extrapolates from historical facts.

For example Phlogiston was a totally wrong "truth" discovered by the scientific method, but the advantage of that method, is that it is self correcting. Faith based truths do not have this aspect. In fact, they tend to be “self splitting” into ever more diverse and mutually contradictory versions of the "truth."

Let me make a non-religious example:
I am in court and under oath to tell the truth. I say: "I saw the blue car go thru the red traffic light and hit the green car." because that was my perception - it is my truth. However, the security camera film shows that it was the green car that ran the red light and hit the blue car - that is the real truth.

Again, truth does not depend upon my POV, is not my beliefs, etc. Truth is absolute, even if sometimes unknown.

When the scientific method has established a "truth" with many confirmations, many things explained by it, many predictions of the associated theory confirmed, then the” burden of proof” is on those claiming otherwise. Usually, faith based "truths" vary widely with who is stating them and many contradict the truths established by the scientific method. Clearly they have an enormous "burden of proof." At this point in time and man's knowledge the Bible's story of how the sun stood still for a few hours is simply impossible to defend as are many other claims of the Christians and other religious faiths.

Here is the position I have presented:

Everyone has what is referred to as a Belief System (other names might have virtually the same meaning).
Everyone believes their belief system[/b] is truthful, in regards to reality, objectivity, truth, whatever your favorite term happens to be.

They reject opposing belief systems as being incorrect, not truthful.
Everyone believes they have very good, what we might call convincing evidence, that they are correct.

In fact, all belief systems have a fallacious basis.
Because they all have a fallacious start, it cannot be argued that one particular belief system is logically and undeniably truthful.

The reply now comes from Billy T and Snakelord that they have proof that their belief system is in fact truthful. Undeniable and convincing evidence (my words) their particular belief systems are truthful , and thus logically sound.

This wonderful convincing evidence is that they do not agree with the belief systems of opposing views.

Additionally, if they are allowed to use the rules of their belief system, they can show their opponents have false beliefs.

How is it sound logic that if B is false, A must be true?

If you wish to take a position counter to my own, you must not show others are incorrect, as I have already said that is the only possible outcome. I made a generalization, and you add evidence for my point.
If you want to show your belief system is not based on a fallacy, you must use the belief system of others to prove your point.
That is the point of this thread. Who has the burden of proof?.

If a theist says, I can show god exists, they have the burden of proof, and must use the belief system of the opponent to be convincing.
If a non-theist says I can show there is no god, they have the burden of proof, and must use the belief system of the opponent if they want to be convincing.
Anyone can show their belief system is truthful by using their own belief system.

Some people believe what we might call a scientific~ atheist belief system.
Additionally they believe it is value free, therefore neutral, and prima facie, objective.

I say all of these people will belong to the belief system of scientific~atheism, so naturally they believe these things.
A scientific~atheist belief system is based on a various premises that cannot be verified [i]except by use of its own system. As soon as other belief systems are applied to the premises, the premises are falsified.

There is assumed to be a closed system, because this is convenient.
If one assumes an open system, with supernatural occurrences possible, the scientific process falls apart, anything is possible. It is based on the assumption of a closed system, so that it can do what it wants to do. It seems to work, and as long as it works it will continue to be used. As soon as the model fails, another model will be assumed, and accepted, with conviction equal to the discarded model. This is not a bad thing. It works.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


Fraggle Rocker Science only studies natural events because only natural events can be studied. This is your belief. The Talmud has beem the basis of supernatural study for more years that the study of any science.
Any preacher or Doctor of Divinity I know of would say the New Testament is a study of the supernatural.
Science only studies natural events because science can only study natural events. That is the Truthfulness of the matter. What you propose is conjecture.

The basic premise of science is that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be understood and predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its past and present behavior.We agree.

A supernatural universe, external to the natural universe, is by definition unavailable for observation.Again, I refer you to other beliefs systems that disagree. What you say is true within your belief system.

In addition, although this is perhaps not mandatory in theory, in practice the supernatural universes postulated by the most commonly encountered religions are not bound by the rules of logic. Everything from cause and effect to probability theory to conservation of energy and mass to infinity as an absolute limit--even the sheer abstractions of syllogism, fallacy, induction, deduction, arithmetic and geometry, which are not derived from observation but pure reason--are suspended in the supernatural universe of gods and miracles.Their belief system differs from your own. No disagreement from me. As I said above, it is certainly much more convenient to study science is an assumed closed system, whether this is truthful or not, cannot be proven, only assumed.

We cannot study a supernatural universe, but we can take the first step toward that study by studying the probability of the existence of a supernatural universe. If that probability is non-zero, then we must devise a way to study the supernatural universe itself. However, that probability is indeed zero. Not because it defies empirical observed evidence, which always leaves at least a tiny chance of being contradicted, but because it defies reason, the only universal truth.For myself, I have no belief in the supernatural. As a Deist I, see god as part of the whole process, not external, not supernatural in any normal sense of the word. When I say I believe the time will come when contact with the creator is validated, my comment may make more sense.

I do however accept the ability of the mind to know truth by non-rational means. This belief has no acceptance in the purist position of scientific~atheism. It is accepted by the more broadminded in the scientific community.


As noted, we have more to base our rejection on than lack of evidence: lack of reason, which is far more damning because unlike evidence it is absolute. Nonetheless we have even more. We have five hundred years of evidence of the validity of the scientific method. It has been tested and peer-reviewed intensively since the end of the Dark Ages, and it has never been falsified. For five hundred years the scientific method has steadily unlocked the secrets of the natural universe. Occasionally one of its theories is falsified, but the scientific method allows for self-correction of its canon so long as the falsifications occur rarely enough that the canon itself does not collapse.

On the other hand, during those five hundred years the "religious method" of scholarship has unlocked no secrets of the natural universe.Some of us argue that morals are part of the natural universe. Science adds nothing to the determination of morals. Surely that dead horse needs a rest.

You say all of the secrets of the natural universe have come from belief systems other than the “religious method”, and yet by your count the scientific method is only 500 years old.
Is it your position that there was nothing known before the scientific method, or that there was another system, not religious, and not scientific, and if so, what happened to that system?

When science defines what are secrets of the universe, only science will find them.
When those who have some non-rational beliefs define what are secrets of the universe, science will not find them.

In fact many of its basic premises--its own canon--have been falsified to the point that it is a shadow of its former self. An increasing portion of religious people have simply adapted to this and restrict their religious discourse to things philosophical that don't attempt to explain the natural world, or at least don't try to gainsay science. The supernatural in their paradigm is a universe of metaphor and they find that their fables work just as well or better as metaphors than they did as increasingly laughable accounts of history.You are arguing against the supernatural and we have no disagreement, as our belief systems have much commonality.
As previously stated, How is it sound logic that if B is false, A must be true?

~ ~ ~ ~


Jan Arden I don't think truth is something you can know, and still remain the same person, as such. I think truth is your position, how you percieve things.Yes. Each of us “knows” our belief system is truthful. It therefore yields truthfulness. “We” are able to recognize truthfulness where others only have beliefs.
For myself, truth is congruent with reality, and individuals can have a direct connection with reality, and this happens across belief systems.
Everyone gets to have a piece of the pie, and everyone thinks they have the whole pie.

If a theist says, I can show god exists, they have the burden of proof, and must use the belief system of the opponent to be convincing.

If a non-theist says I can show there is no god, they have the burden of proof, and must use the belief system of the opponent if they want to be convincing.

Anyone can show their belief system is truthful by using their own belief system.

Excellent point!

...The reply now comes from Billy T and Snakelord that they have proof that their belief system is in fact truthful. ...That is gross distortion. I made no such claim. In fact in several post, 121 being the most recent, stated just the opposite. There I said:

"For example Phlogiston was a totally wrong "truth" discovered by the scientific method, ..."

What I have claimed, is that the truths discovered by the scientific method always have many successful experimental tests and remain "truths" only so long as there are no "failed tests." For example, in the case of Phlogiston many quantatively tested were passed, the concept that Phlogiston always flows higher concentrations (temperature) to lower concentrations (colder object) etc was also confirmed millions of times without exception, but the postulated, and not directly observable Phlogiston concept was abandoned when it was realized that it was not conserved, but producible by work in a fix ratio to the work done. I.e. the scientific method is self correcting of it mistakes. This is in stark contrast to faith based "truths" - they come in at least a 1000 different mutually contradictory versions.

Consequently, as only one at most can be true, I do not accept any as proven or even well confirmed "truth," especially when their claims contradict well established truths discovered by the scientific method. Such has the sun standing still, or water transforming into wine in a few seconds because of some words said. Etc.

That is all I said - nothing resembling the words you placed in my mouth about a claim that my truths were always valid or that your faith based one could be proven false.

The reply now comes from Billy T and Snakelord that they have proof that their belief system is in fact truthful. Undeniable and convincing evidence (my words) their particular belief systems are truthful , and thus logically sound.


This is simply incorrect. For starters I never use the word 'proof' or imply that such a thing is attainable outside the realm of mathematics or alcohol. While one might say that it can be 'proven' that there is such a thing as people for example, we might ultimately not exist but merely be the dream of a giant invisible space mushroom - so no, 'proof' is not something that is attainable.

My issue is with the way you are throwing around the word 'belief', to be honest with you, rendering devoid any valued meaning. The same is true indeed with 'evidence' that by its very nature does not change to satisfy the desires of personal 'belief' - with anything from crossing the road to believing in omnipotent sky fairies.

That is not to say that one cannot be convinced by words in a book or the unexplained disappearance of a verruca, but that is not by any means 'testing', indeed it is accepting without testing.

And yes, in many ways we all do it - we often accept things people say as true without testing their claims, (because such a thing is ultimately beyond our ability), but then with people we know testing is always done and a confidence is reached based upon that constant oberservation and testing.

As for the burden of proof, yes.. it lies with the one doing the claiming - but must invariably succumb to the demands of.. humans, (not atheists or scientists - just humans). The method is used by every human from the moment they're born and throughout their life in every single aspect of it with exception to the things emotion gets in the way of.

Do note: That does not mean that any claims that don't have supportive evidence are wrong.

There might very well be an invisible guy living in the sky, but words and claims that there is cannot be considered 'evidence' whether someone personally accepts the claim or not. That is 'belief' in the context it has been used.

I do not 'believe' my cup of tea is hot, I have a level of confidence that it is because there's steam rising from it, it burnt my mouth and I just poured the water from a boiling kettle. I do not 'believe' my computer is switched on. The slight fan noise, the blinking led and that I can see these words that I am typing on it gives me a level of confidence that it is.

I belief that the afterlife is all the pepperoni pizza with lots of mushrooms ...all you can eat, any time you want to eat. And in heaven, there's plenty of coffee and Irish Whiskey to drink any time I choose. And that the moon is made of cheese.

How does that harm anyone?

Baron Max

It doesn't and you should be left in peace UNLESS you want the theory of a green cheeese moon given the same prominance in the classroom as selinography. That is when you must be confronted.

It doesn't and you should be left in peace UNLESS you want the theory of a green cheeese moon given the same prominance in the classroom as selinography. That is when you must be confronted.100% correct and well put, but I respond to ask when did the Baron make that post? I am afraid he is no longer with us, and I for one miss him. I often disagreed with him, but he had some good points at times and was quite direct / crude in making them - not bothered by PC restriction.

BHN The reply now comes from Billy T and Snakelord that they have proof that their belief system is in fact truthful. ...
Billy T That is gross distortion. I made no such claim. In fact in several post, 121 being the most recent, stated just the opposite. There I said:

"For example Phlogiston was a totally wrong "truth" discovered by the scientific method, ..."

What I have claimed, is that the truths discovered by the scientific method always have many successful experimental tests and remain "truths" only so long as there are no "failed tests." For example, in the case of Phlogiston many quantatively tested were passed, the concept that Phlogiston always flows higher concentrations (temperature) to lower concentrations (colder object) etc was also confirmed millions of times without exception, but the postulated, and not directly observable Phlogiston concept was abandoned when it was realized that it was not conserved, but producible by work in a fix ratio to the work done. I.e. the scientific method is self correcting of it mistakes. This is in stark contrast to faith based "truths" - they come in at least a 1000 different mutually contradictory versions.

Consequently, as only one at most can be true, I do not accept any as proven or even well confirmed "truth," especially when their claims contradict well established truths discovered by the scientific method. Such has the sun standing still, or water transforming into wine in a few seconds because of some words said. Etc.

That is all I said - nothing resembling the words you placed in my mouth about a claim that my truths were always valid or that your faith based one could be proven false.Should I conclude from your rebuttal of my claim, that you, in truth do not believe your belief system is truthful, or at the very least you do not have convincing evidence that would allow you to make that claim? That is to say you do not think there is any undeniable truth that your belief system is correct?

Since you disagree with my statement that you claim to have “proof” your belief system is truthful, you must claim that you have no “proof”, (I should have said convincing evidence). Is there some other way I should take your denial of my claim?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


SnakeLord As for the burden of proof, yes.. it lies with the one doing the claiming - but must invariably succumb to the demands of.. humans, (not atheists or scientists - just humans). The method is used by every human from the moment they're born and throughout their life in every single aspect of it with exception to the things emotion gets in the way of.It seems to me you just brought anthropology into the discussion. Intended or not, there it is. “Every human from the moment they’re born. . “ is anthropological in nature pure and simple.

If you want us to consider what every human considers, the fact is that god has been an explanation for everything without ever giving it a second thought, for 100 times as long as science has been around.

If you want to bring up the innate ability of humans to be aware of the cause of things, god is right up there with science, even in the year 2008, let alone the last few million years.

God is the easy answer for every generation of every nation of peoples with a self-conscious mind that have ever walked this planet .

This is not evidence of truth to me, but you brought it up, not me.
You brought it up and if we are to accept your premise, than god is the answer “every human” (your words, not mine) has chosen.

This science of yours might end up being a flash in the pan. An interesting spark in the development of human knowledge. The quirky little side trip that stifled real progress for a millennium. The answer to religious rhetoric, that became a religion itself, doomed to the same self confidence that their priests alone could give truthful answers to problems.

What convincing evidence do you have that in 500 years current science will not be the stuff of folklore and fables, snickered at by the academics.
One trip through a wormhole and Alice comes alive.

If you want us to consider what every human considers, the fact is that god has been an explanation for everything without ever giving it a second thought, for 100 times as long as science has been around.

You have seemingly misunderstood what I am saying. Needless to say, once again, this isn't 'science' it is about humans and how they, from the moment they're born, gather evidence through testing. The realm of 'belief' is different because it works on an emotional level.

That is the only distinction I have tried to point out. Whether gods are real or not is not the issue, it is about the difference between evidence gathered data and 'belief'. Time and again your post actually reflects that difference:

"god has been an explanation for everything without ever giving it a second thought"

"God is the easy answer.."

This is not evidence of truth to me

You're right, that isn't, it's "belief" which is what I was saying. 'Evidence of truth' is found through testing, not believing. That's the difference.

What convincing evidence do you have that in 500 years current science will not be the stuff of folklore and fables, snickered at by the academics

That depends. Maybe apples will begin to float in the air thus rendering the evidence that they fall to the ground moot, but nothing changes because this isn't an issue of what is ultimately right or wrong, (which I have repeatedly stated), but merely how one goes about gathering evidence and its difference to "belief".

Should I conclude from your rebuttal of my claim, that you, in truth do not believe your belief system is truthful, or at the very least you do not have convincing evidence that would allow you to make that claim? That is to say you do not think there is any undeniable truth that your belief system is correct?Only a tautology is 100% absolutely true. E.g. A + A = 2A is true. Everything else, that I currently think is true, has some possibilty of being false.

Since you disagree with my statement that you claim to have “proof” your belief system is truthful, you must claim that you have no “proof”, (I should have said convincing evidence). Is there some other way I should take your denial of my claim?Not sure what "claim" your are referring to here, but you seem to be assuming only the extremes ("Proven true" or "proven false") are possible. -That is silly.

I have made it clear what I have said, several times and you have distorted my statements -to put it kindly. More accurately: You have fabricated statements in direct contrast to what I have several times posted and claimed I said your fabrications.

I have a rather extensive "web of knowledge." It all fits together without any internal inconsistencies, but admittedly some "facts" of that web I believe to be true, may indeed be false. My believe is that most of that web of knowledge is true, and furthermore many things stated in the Bible, will not fit into that web, so, for example, I do not believe the sun stood still, Johna spent days in the whale's belly, water changed into wine in a few seconds, or other miracles because they would conflict with that web of knowledge and lack the "extraordinary" evidence required for accepting those "extraordinary claims." In fact there is no evidence at all for any of these Biblical miracles -other than "hear-say" reports passed down thru 2000 years of translational errors.

Billy T,

I think what you are calling "truth" is a personal POV. For me truth does not depend upon my POV or anyone else's. I admit there can be "personal truths" - Things that are consistent with your set of beliefs and inconsistent with beliefs of others, which are equally well founded, but these are not the absolute truths of our universe. Many of those have been discovered by the scientific method in the last 500 or so years, but admittedly a few many be incomplete or a tiny few even totally wrong, if one extrapolates from historical facts.

There has to be the "truth", otherwise what is the point of acquiring knowledge?
What I am calling "truth" is truth itself, what is, which has to be separate to our personal POV's, while simultaneosly entwined with them.
Do you think the purpose of the scientific method is to give us truth?

For example Phlogiston was a totally wrong "truth" discovered by the scientific method, but the advantage of that method, is that it is self correcting. Faith based truths do not have this aspect. In fact, they tend to be “self splitting” into ever more diverse and mutually contradictory versions of the "truth."

You are taking sides without really understanding the true objective of either side. The truth is the truth, no matter who you are.

Let me make a non-religious example:
I am in court and under oath to tell the truth. I say: "I saw the blue car go thru the red traffic light and hit the green car." because that was my perception - it is my truth. However, the security camera film shows that it was the green car that ran the red light and hit the blue car - that is the real truth.

It wasn't a personal truth, it was the truth from your perspective, but your perspective was based on imperfect senses. Had 1000 truthful people seen it from your perspective, they would have concured with you.
Nevertheless, you told the truth, and that was what you promised to do.
The truth IS, regardless.

Again, truth does not depend upon my POV, is not my beliefs, etc. Truth is absolute, even if sometimes unknown.

You have in effect created a straw man, as I did not say or mean this.

When the scientific method has established a "truth" with many confirmations, many things explained by it, many predictions of the associated theory confirmed, then the” burden of proof” is on those claiming otherwise. Usually, faith based "truths" vary widely with who is stating them and many contradict the truths established by the scientific method. Clearly they have an enormous "burden of proof." At this point in time and man's knowledge the Bible's story of how the sun stood still for a few hours is simply impossible to defend as are many other claims of the Christians and other religious faiths.

I take it that by establishing "a truth" you mean body of knowledge/information regarding a specific subject, based on evidence. This is not the same thing as "truth". Truth, I believe, is the aim of honest enquiry.
To ask for evidence of God, is a dishonest enquiry, or one based in ignorance.

Jan.

...You are taking sides without really understanding the true objective of either side. The truth is the truth, no matter who you are. hard to follow your point as that is exactly what I said in the second sentence* of mine, which you even quote to open your post.

Perhaps you need to read my post before commenting on it?
----------------
*I.e. my "For me truth does not depend upon my POV or anyone else's." = your "The truth is the truth, no matter who you are."

Billy T,

I was refering to the flavour of this paragraph.

"For example Phlogiston was a totally wrong "truth" discovered by the scientific method, but the advantage of that method, is that it is self correcting. Faith based truths do not have this aspect. In fact, they tend to be “self splitting” into ever more diverse and mutually contradictory versions of the "truth."

Faith based truth must be related to any truth found via the scientific method. How we interpret that truth is, as you say, our POV.
But I was not talking about the interpretation of truth, but truth itself, which must exist.
I don't think truth is "out there" waiting to be discovered, what I think is out there is knowledge and information which can bring us to the understanding of the truth of our situation. But we have to be prepared in order to understand it.

It seemed as though you were comparing, apologies if I misunderstood you.

Jan

In the first instance, what makes you think we can know truth? In the second, how do we prepare ourselves to understand it ?

Can you say what you mean by truth ?

Billy T: "For example Phlogiston was a totally wrong "truth" discovered by the scientific method, but the advantage of that method, is that it is self correcting. Faith based truths do not have this aspect. In fact, they tend to be “self splitting” into ever more diverse and mutually contradictory versions of the "truth."

JA: ... I was not talking about the interpretation of truth, but truth itself, which must exist. I don't think truth is "out there" waiting to be discovered,...I think we have slightly different meanings for "truth." Your "truth itself" is, I think, more what I would call "the facts" or the "physical reality" or the "physical relationships of nature" that unlike you, I do believe is "out there" for man to try to discover.

When I speak of "truth" it is slightly different from the "physical reality" etc. in that it is also a very well confirmed, via the scientific method, not "faith" belief. Perhaps I should always call my "truth" the "known truth." Thus I could, and did speak, of the "false truth" of Phlogiston. At any stage in man's intellectual advance there is a set of such well confirmed scientific truths. They all fit together without conflict in what I (and many others) call a "web of knowledge." The "burden of proof" is always on someone wanting to pull one of these truths out of the web of knowledge and destroy it and that requires "extraordinary evidence" at least now that the web is so large and all interconnected. If they only want to modify in limited areas, where one of these truths has not been tested, then the burden of truth is not so large.

For example, at extremely large separations, some suggest that gravity is not an inverse square law. They do so as some cosmological facts can be interpreted as due to a slight* deviation from inverse square law, instead of what the majority of physicists think is a more likely explanation. Thus minor adjustments to the truth are constantly being suggested (If later proven to be more correct, may get you a Noble prize.) Again as I use "truth" it also encompasses some aspects of well confirmed beliefs. Thus about 250 years ago it was a truth that Phlogiston existed. About 25 years ago, it was a truth that CPT was conserved. I bet in next 250 years, at least one of my current truths will be at least modified.

The fact that I may be wrong, science has been wrong, in no way temps me to rip up most of my web of knowledge to insert the Biblical "fact" that the sun stood still, or Jonhna spent days in the belly of a whale, or that Christ turned water into wine in a few seconds, etc. I.e. I reject all Miracles. I would do this even if others universally believed this nonsense, but probably keep my mouth shut as although I am old, I am still too young to foolishly get burned at the stake. But of course most Christian do not believe this non-sense now (it is "Just allegorical") but even if they all did based on their faith in the Bible, they are countered by many other "Holy Book" accounts. There is no reason to prefer one of these fictions as truth over the others, except to not argue with your parents, community etc. Accident of birth plus early childhood indoctrination usually determines which fairy tale you believe, if you believe one.

-----------------
*So slight that its effects with in solar system separations would be far below any observation abilities.

Myles,

In the first instance, what makes you think we can know truth? In the second, how do we prepare ourselves to understand it ?

Because there cannot be anything but truth. We can deny the truth but we cannot stand outside of it.
As for preparation, it depends on the individual, but I would start with humility, empathy, compassion, honesty.

Can you say what you mean by truth ?

The actual facts, without blemish.
What actually is.
Absolutely correct.

Jan.

Because there cannot be anything but truth.

You mean—or you should mean—actuality.

We can deny the truth but we cannot stand outside of it.

To "deny" is an admittance of a value-judgment, hence one can stand outside anybody's values—including one's own; that is, if they are temporarily eclipsed by another value. Because truth is an appearance. Otherwise, it's an actuality. Dead cold actuality.

Because there cannot be anything but truth.

Then everything is true.
It's like saying, What is, is.


We can deny the truth but we cannot stand outside of it.

If there cannot be anything but truth, how then could there be a denying of truth?


The actual facts, without blemish.

Do you think that beings and phenomena exist as separate, independent entities, "objectively", in and of themselves?

Myles,



Because there cannot be anything but truth. We can deny the truth but we cannot stand outside of it.
As for preparation, it depends on the individual, but I would start with humility, empathy, compassion, honesty.



The actual facts, without blemish.
What actually is.
Absolutely correct.

Jan.

I asked how we can know "truth" and you tell me there cannot be anything but truth. That is your definition. I want you to tell me how we can know truth.

What does it mean to deny truth. If I don't know what it is , how can I deny it.

The rest is just your personal definition of truth. It sound good but , to attribute properties to truth, you must know what it is you are talkig about. So we come back to how you know all this and how I can get to know it also,

You mean—or you should mean—actuality.



To "deny" is an admittance of a value-judgment, hence one can stand outside anybody's values—including one's own; that is, if they are temporarily eclipsed by another value. Because truth is an appearance. Otherwise, it's an actuality. Dead cold actuality.

That makes sense.



greenberg,

Because there cannot be anything but truth. ”

Then everything is true.
It's like saying, What is, is.

Things may be true, but not the truth.
The car crash analogy by Billy T, explains my thoughts.

“ We can deny the truth but we cannot stand outside of it. ”

If there cannot be anything but truth, how then could there be a denying of truth?

Because we have the capability to choose.

“ The actual facts, without blemish. ”

Do you think that beings and phenomena exist as separate, independent entities, "objectively", in and of themselves?

I don't understand the question in the context of my point. Could you elaborate?

Myles,

I asked how we can know "truth" and you tell me there cannot be anything but truth. That is your definition. I want you to tell me how we can know truth.

I don't understand your question. Truth, is. We gain knowledge to understand truth.

What does it mean to deny truth. If I don't know what it is , how can I deny it.

What do you mean you don't know truth. Is everything in your life, your whole perception, understanding, knowledge, not truthful in the slightest?
Are you aware of your situation?

The rest is just your personal definition of truth. It sound good but , to attribute properties to truth, you must know what it is you are talkig about. So we come back to how you know all this and how I can get to know it also,

How is it possible to attribute properties to truth, outside of stating what it is?
Which part of my definition of truth do you not agree with, and why?

Jan.