|
Post by rational on Jan 25, 2016 11:37:26 GMT -5
Most science IS dogmatic thinking. If the possibility of a creator God exists, then why do they not include this possibility in their investigations? It is a matter of probability. Since there is a probability for most things, investigating all aspects/events for which there is a probability is very large, if not infinite. Considering a large number of possibilities, including the possibility that the big bang was caused by a spotted red newt, there would be no forward progress. Investigation has to proceed along lines that have some evidence to support the claims being made.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 25, 2016 11:40:41 GMT -5
The exact origin of the universe is unknown, but the leading theory of how the universe came to be is called The Big Bang Theory. science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/
I can not truly grasp the size, and all the wonders in the universe, and neither can anyone else. What caused the universe to form in the first place is also unknown. In short; I don't know, You don't know, and none of the man made gods know either. Life is full of mystery.OK, What does the "evidence" (there is an overwhelming amount of it to consider) point YOU to? "I don't know" is a cop out. Do you believe it just might point towards a supreme creator being, i.e. God, or don't you want to admit that?
You state life is full of mystery, right? Is it just possible that that mystery just might include a supreme being, a creator God? If so, add that possibility to the sheer volume of evidence in the natural world and things start to look a heck of a lot more likely to the common sense, logical, unbiased mind.
When I don't know, I say; I don't know. That keeps life simple. As for the knowing and not knowing, this is the way I see it; The known unknown’s far outnumber the knowns, & the unknown unknown’s, far out numbers the known unknown’s. When some theists don't know, some say they know because the bible say ... , or at their best say I don't know, but god knows everything. A better answer but to me this is the cop out. An atheist does not claim there is no god, but if I were to speculate, I can imagine a being(s), which if I knew, I would call them god(s). I can also easily imagine god(s) much greater, and more just than the god of the bible. But again, this is wild speculation, not based on any evidence. You see the wonder of the universe like myself, each have spent years immersed in the bible and its' culture, and both took the leap of faith to believe in that god. What’s different is in my search for truth along the way I lost belief in that god, due to new evidence like; what I have learned about the 2x2 beginnings, other Christian denomination beliefs, other religions, science, and life experience, and the easy of information in the internet era. When that happened, it would have been much easier to stay in the 2x2, and pretend to believe when I did not. That price was to become a 2x2 hypocrite, and that price was too high for me to pay. I could have also went to weak denomination like UU or such, but I chose to identify as an atheist because that is the most truly identifies what I believe. It is also the one with the most downside, at least here in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 25, 2016 11:49:23 GMT -5
The one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. An atheist does not make the claim there is no god, they just reject the theist claim there is a god.
Now if the theist can back up their claim with some convincing evidence, then they would provide a reason for one to believe their claim, but until then the atheist withholds belief of the theist claim. To believe without a good reason is credulity, and delusion.
So far you are clearly adopting the tactics of avoidance rather than applying fair logic. You have an agenda. Already the arithmetic of evidence and possibility point towards the probability of there being a God, unless you can categorically prove there is no God. When you consider the "possibility" of a creator God and then add the sheer volume of evidence, then even "probability" becomes a conservative consideration. I can not disprove god do not exist, any more than you can not disprove Russell's teapot does not exist. It been covered by thousands of minds, for thousands of years. You should give it up on this tactic, and move on to some thing you have a better chance winning. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 25, 2016 11:58:44 GMT -5
Your proof so far is lacking any evidence except for; the wonders of nature so god did it, and evidence coming from a book being true, which is true because the book says its true. That makes just as a convincing argument as the One True Napkin Religion.
No my friend, you have yet to grasp the important information that "real" evidence conveys. The natural world points to either 1) a creator God, or 2) some other origin. I asked you for your opinion and you tell me no one knows how the natural world came into being. You avoid possibility one without providing proof to disclaim it. By the way, I DO KNOW how the world came into being. The Bible tells me so. You see, when you consider the sheer volume of natural evidence along with the possibility of there being a God, you can only arrive at one outcome. The Bible then makes perfect sense in this regard. Your position is merely one of denial rather than the proper consideration of the overwhelming amount of evidence that backs up the existence of God. All you need to do is to accept the possibility of there being a God and you have the lead that you are looking for. It may not be what you want, but it is there!
There are many earth creation myths, or creation stories. Each adherent truly believes their myth is the one and only true account of how earth was made. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_mythsI do not question the sincerity of your belief in bible creation story, but I don’t believe the bible story of earth’s creation. This bible position is the least defendable of all your ideas, as there is scientific evidence to disprove the bible creation story.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 25, 2016 12:12:37 GMT -5
Science has answers which should always be questioned, while religion has answers which can not be questioned. Science is the opposite of dogmatic thinking. Most science IS dogmatic thinking. If the possibility of a creator God exists, then why do they not include this possibility in their investigations?
Science follows the evidence. Science cannot investigate the supernatural or paranormal, except for when they make claims about the natural world. The James Randi foundation for many years held out a $1,000,000 USD prize to anyone who could provide evidence of intervention into the natural world. Many tried, none ever produced evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2016 12:25:22 GMT -5
Most science IS dogmatic thinking. If the possibility of a creator God exists, then why do they not include this possibility in their investigations? It is a matter of probability. Since there is a probability for most things, investigating all aspects/events for which there is a probability is very large, if not infinite. Considering a large number of possibilities, including the possibility that the big bang was caused by a spotted red newt, there would be no forward progress. Investigation has to proceed along lines that have some evidence to support the claims being made. Why does that large number of possibilities NOT include a creator God? There is overwhelming evidence that the natural world could only have been created by or brought about through intelligent design. Surely the procedure should not exclude the possibility of God? The question should not be "does God exist?" but who is he? Or, what is he? The search should be for knowledge of God (this is scientific practice!), NOT excluding God and (pointlessly?) searching for possible alternatives. In all my time, I have seen the quest to try and understand the origins of life, etc., as really being an inadvertent search for how God brought everything into being, rather than how things started without God. I have yet to hear of a more credible option of how everything was brought into being, than the simplicity of God created it all! If one exists, please enlighten me?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2016 12:33:30 GMT -5
The one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. An atheist does not make the claim there is no god, they just reject the theist claim there is a god.
Now if the theist can back up their claim with some convincing evidence, then they would provide a reason for one to believe their claim, but until then the atheist withholds belief of the theist claim. To believe without a good reason is credulity, and delusion.
I can not disprove god do not exist, any more than you can not disprove Russell's teapot does not exist. It been covered by thousands of minds, for thousands of years. You should give it up on this tactic, and move on to some thing you have a better chance winning. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapotDiscomfort has a habit of desiring the other party gives up. It allows a continuance in the comfort zone. I will accept the following: 1) You cannot disprove the existence of God, which supports my earlier statements with regards to the sum of possibility and evidence. 2) I accept I cannot disprove that Russell's teapot does not exist. You stew over the existence of God and I will stew over the tea!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2016 12:37:12 GMT -5
The exact origin of the universe is unknown, but the leading theory of how the universe came to be is called The Big Bang Theory. science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/
I can not truly grasp the size, and all the wonders in the universe, and neither can anyone else. What caused the universe to form in the first place is also unknown. In short; I don't know, You don't know, and none of the man made gods know either. Life is full of mystery.When I don't know, I say; I don't know. That keeps life simple. As for the knowing and not knowing, this is the way I see it; The known unknown’s far outnumber the knowns, & the unknown unknown’s, far out numbers the known unknown’s. When some theists don't know, some say they know because the bible say ... , or at their best say I don't know, but god knows everything. A better answer but to me this is the cop out. An atheist does not claim there is no god, but if I were to speculate, I can imagine a being(s), which if I knew, I would call them god(s). I can also easily imagine god(s) much greater, and more just than the god of the bible. But again, this is wild speculation, not based on any evidence. You see the wonder of the universe like myself, each have spent years immersed in the bible and its' culture, and both took the leap of faith to believe in that god. What’s different is in my search for truth along the way I lost belief in that god, due to new evidence like; what I have learned about the 2x2 beginnings, other Christian denomination beliefs, other religions, science, and life experience, and the easy of information in the internet era. When that happened, it would have been much easier to stay in the 2x2, and pretend to believe when I did not. That price was to become a 2x2 hypocrite, and that price was too high for me to pay. I could have also went to weak denomination like UU or such, but I chose to identify as an atheist because that is the most truly identifies what I believe. It is also the one with the most downside, at least here in the USA. Probably in many ways we have had similar journeys. I certainly don't trust man made religion. Like yourself, there was a point when I could easily have gone the other way. Instead I have come back stronger, but sought out my own beliefs. I have found that it is better to trust God than to have confidence in man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2016 12:40:09 GMT -5
Your proof so far is lacking any evidence except for; the wonders of nature so god did it, and evidence coming from a book being true, which is true because the book says its true. That makes just as a convincing argument as the One True Napkin Religion.
There are many earth creation myths, or creation stories. Each adherent truly believes their myth is the one and only true account of how earth was made. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_mythsI do not question the sincerity of your belief in bible creation story, but I don’t believe the bible story of earth’s creation. This bible position is the least defendable of all your ideas, as there is scientific evidence to disprove the bible creation story. I believe the Biblical account. To the modern human mind it may be a foolish idea, but I have confidence it will prove to be accurate in its right time, irrespective of man's conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 25, 2016 12:41:41 GMT -5
I can not disprove god do not exist, any more than you can not disprove Russell's teapot does not exist. It been covered by thousands of minds, for thousands of years. You should give it up on this tactic, and move on to some thing you have a better chance winning. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapotDiscomfort has a habit of desiring the other party gives up. It allows a continuance in the comfort zone. I will accept the following: 1) You cannot disprove the existence of God, which supports my earlier statements with regards to the sum of possibility and evidence. 2) I accept I cannot disprove that Russell's teapot does not exist.You stew over the existence of God and I will stew over the tea! We agree on the above.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 25, 2016 12:46:30 GMT -5
Probably in many ways we have had similar journeys. I certainly don't trust man made religion. Like yourself, there was a point when I could easily have gone the other way. Instead I have come back stronger, but sought out my own beliefs. I have found that it is better to trust God than to have confidence in man. As long as another's belief causes no harm, I support their right to belive what they do and live life as they so choose. Thomas Jefferson said it well. "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
|
|
|
Post by xna on Jan 25, 2016 12:49:22 GMT -5
There are many earth creation myths, or creation stories. Each adherent truly believes their myth is the one and only true account of how earth was made. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_mythsI do not question the sincerity of your belief in bible creation story, but I don’t believe the bible story of earth’s creation. This bible position is the least defendable of all your ideas, as there is scientific evidence to disprove the bible creation story. I believe the Biblical account. To the modern human mind it may be a foolish idea, but I have confidence it will prove to be accurate in its right time, irrespective of man's conclusions. It's nice to live in a country where there is freedom, not all are so lucky.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Jan 26, 2016 19:36:56 GMT -5
placid-void I value the insights and efforts of individuals, including Daniel Dennett, who are courageous enough to venture into new frontiers and who ignore the shocked reactions of those seeking to defend their stance. Your critique of this interview and expectations of content would have imposed a prolonged engagement. Maybe you could listen to Daniel Dennett's presentations where he elaborates on the key points made in the video on this thread. It appears you have taken great offense by accusing Dennett for being "egregiously hostile" when he stated that religion inhibits inquiry or "gives people a gold-plated excuse to stop thinking". Such a claim provides an opportunity for further research. Is there an intended irony in your request for me to present evidence which supports Dennett's assertion that religion impacts cognition, as thinking is required to do so placid-void your request for any scientifically valid data: Discerning fact from fictionShrinking the brainTemporal lobe functionI am interested to know if you made the same plea for "actual evidence to support the contention. Is there any scientifically valid data in the peer reviewed scientific literature" to those who have claimed that prayer works; biblical miracles occurred; Jesus rose from the grave; God is the creator and there is a supernatural dimension.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 27, 2016 20:24:12 GMT -5
placid-void I value the insights and efforts of individuals, including Daniel Dennett, who are courageous enough to venture into new frontiers and who ignore the shocked reactions of those seeking to defend their stance. Your critique of this interview and expectations of content would have imposed a prolonged engagement. Maybe you could listen to Daniel Dennett's presentations where he elaborates on the key points made in the video on this thread. It appears you have taken great offense by accusing Dennett for being "egregiously hostile" when he stated that religion inhibits inquiry or "gives people a gold-plated excuse to stop thinking". Such a claim provides an opportunity for further research. Is there an intended irony in your request for me to present evidence which supports Dennett's assertion that religion impacts cognition, as thinking is required to do so placid-void your request for any scientifically valid data: Discerning fact from fictionShrinking the brainTemporal lobe functionI am interested to know if you made the same plea for "actual evidence to support the contention. Is there any scientifically valid data in the peer reviewed scientific literature" to those who have claimed that prayer works; biblical miracles occurred; Jesus rose from the grave; God is the creator and there is a supernatural dimension. Good evening Joanna and thank you for responding to my earlier post. In particular, I appreciate the three links you provided. Neither of the references you provided really address the claim made by Professor Dennett but to the very limited extent that I understand this area of scientific research, I found the types of questions being addressed to be of interest. So far I have only read the two abstracts and the open-source paper. Is this an area of research in which you have expertise? If so, I would be interested in your assessment of the current direction of the research. Like you, I also value the efforts of individuals committed to basic research who labor at the frontiers of their chosen disciplines. I guess I have been fortunate to know brilliant individuals who have a command of their disciplines and are confident enough not to feel the need to ignore the opinions of those who hold opinions or interpretations different from their own. Regretfully, for the remainder of your post I am unclear if you have an interest in a serious and constructive discussion of the Dennett/Moyers video and some of the specific concerns I raised in my earlier post. For clarity, I have not “taken great offense” rather I have expressed the opinion that the declarative statement “religion gives people a gold-plated excuse to stop thinking” is egregiously hostile because a) it is unfounded, b) it is not rational, and c) it is rude to attack a peer’s mental processes in a civil discourse without provocation. You expressed rhetorical interest in knowing if I have made similar pleas for scientific evidence regarding a variety of other topics, none of which have any relevance to the Dennett/Moyers video you recommended in your OP. I am certain that you know the answer to your rhetorical question is – “No”. My interest in the sources of validation for Dr. Dennett’s statements is based on the positivism philosophical position that undergirds his arguments. I do not personally subscribe to the philosophy of positivism. Perhaps you intended to ask why I had not sought such data. The answer to that question is self-evident, there is no known methodology (at this time) capable of unambiguously answering any of the issues you mention. In my opinion, the inability to reduce all concepts of human interest to empirical categories does not suggest that concepts falling beyond the purview of empirical validation are rendered invalid.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Jan 28, 2016 19:23:53 GMT -5
‘You know what they call alternative medicine which has been proven to work? - Medicine” T. Minchin. Medical science is an appropriate example to use in this context given most of us have, or do rely on evidenced-based medical interventions. Quackery undermines ‘medicine that works’ as alternative medicine promotes the 'quick fix', thus taking advantage of gullible persons typically when at their most vulnerable. For example, dying persons are lured by false claims and will part with their much needed funds to pay charlatans who thrive due to the existence of those who share the approach which you expressed placid-void: In my opinion, the inability to reduce all concepts of human interest to empirical categories does not suggest that concepts falling beyond the purview of empirical validation are rendered invalid. We have the freedom to be actively engaged in developing critical thinking skills. Humans are prone to delusional thinking, the antidote to which is learning how to think, not what to think.Applying the critical thinking process provides us with “a defence against the Dark Arts” (ref to Harry Potter's world) The adoption of scepticism is fundamental. Michael Shermer defines scepticism as "a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas: no sacred cows allowed" Scepticism is a method and not a quest. When developing our critical thinking skills, we tend to display bias by placing caveats so as to resist having our deep-seated and valued beliefs exposed by scepticism and critical thinking processes. We will filter our sceptical approach to protect ideas which we hold sacred. Incongruity is avoided by being consistent in our values and attitudes. Scepticism is supported by the scientific method; rational-based inquiry; critical thinking methods and empirical thinking, and it fair to state that all of us benefit on a daily basis from those who use these techniques to advance the natural world: eg. access to computer technology. Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking SkillsThe Scientific MethodThe best thinkers have these 7 thinking dispositions(I do not work in the cognitive science research field)
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 28, 2016 20:19:31 GMT -5
‘You know what they call alternative medicine which has been proven to work? - Medicine” T. Minchin. Medical science is an appropriate example to use in this context given most of us have, or do rely on evidenced-based medical interventions. Quackery undermines ‘medicine that works’ as alternative medicine promotes the 'quick fix', thus taking advantage of gullible persons typically when at their most vulnerable. For example, dying persons are lured by false claims and will part with their much needed funds to pay charlatans who thrive due to the existence of those who share the approach which you expressed placid-void : In my opinion, the inability to reduce all concepts of human interest to empirical categories does not suggest that concepts falling beyond the purview of empirical validation are rendered invalid. We have the freedom to be actively engaged in developing critical thinking skills. Humans are prone to delusional thinking, the antidote to which is learning how to think, not what to think.Applying the critical thinking process provides us with “a defence against the Dark Arts” (ref to Harry Potter's world) The adoption of scepticism is fundamental. Michael Shermer defines scepticism as "a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas: no sacred cows allowed" Scepticism is a method and not a quest. When developing our critical thinking skills, we tend to display bias by placing caveats so as to resist having our deep-seated and valued beliefs exposed by scepticism and critical thinking processes. We will filter our sceptical approach to protect ideas which we hold sacred. Incongruity is avoided by being consistent in our values and attitudes. Scepticism is supported by the scientific method; rational-based inquiry; critical thinking methods and empirical thinking, and it fair to state that all of us benefit on a daily basis from those who use these techniques to advance the natural world: eg. access to computer technology. Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking SkillsThe Scientific MethodThe best thinkers have these 7 thinking dispositions(I do not work in the cognitive science research field) I yield.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Jan 29, 2016 6:46:34 GMT -5
placid-void I value the insights and efforts of individuals, including Daniel Dennett, who are courageous enough to venture into new frontiers and who ignore the shocked reactions of those seeking to defend their stance. Your critique of this interview and expectations of content would have imposed a prolonged engagement. Maybe you could listen to Daniel Dennett's presentations where he elaborates on the key points made in the video on this thread. It appears you have taken great offense by accusing Dennett for being "egregiously hostile" when he stated that religion inhibits inquiry or "gives people a gold-plated excuse to stop thinking". Such a claim provides an opportunity for further research. Is there an intended irony in your request for me to present evidence which supports Dennett's assertion that religion impacts cognition, as thinking is required to do so placid-void your request for any scientifically valid data: Discerning fact from fictionShrinking the brainTemporal lobe functionI am interested to know if you made the same plea for "actual evidence to support the contention. Is there any scientifically valid data in the peer reviewed scientific literature" to those who have claimed that prayer works; biblical miracles occurred; Jesus rose from the grave; God is the creator and there is a supernatural dimension. I have not watched anything in the OP however I skimmed: Shrinking the brainWas there any reason that you chose to share this particular study? It's not a fantastic p-value, however, I see that people with no religion were associated with greater left hippocampal atrophy than the "non born-again Protestants". Perhaps we should all become protestant but not report any rebirths or baseline changing religious experiences
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 29, 2016 9:37:28 GMT -5
It's not a fantastic p-value, however, I see that people with no religion were associated with greater left hippocampal atrophy than the "non born-again Protestants". Perhaps we should all become protestant :P but not report any rebirths or baseline changing religious experiences So no more OMG! experiences??? The study produced interesting results (I can feel my hippocampus shrinking as I type). It will be interesting to see if the data and trends can be replicated.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 29, 2016 16:14:52 GMT -5
placid-void I value the insights and efforts of individuals, including Daniel Dennett, who are courageous enough to venture into new frontiers and who ignore the shocked reactions of those seeking to defend their stance. Your critique of this interview and expectations of content would have imposed a prolonged engagement. Maybe you could listen to Daniel Dennett's presentations where he elaborates on the key points made in the video on this thread. It appears you have taken great offense by accusing Dennett for being "egregiously hostile" when he stated that religion inhibits inquiry or "gives people a gold-plated excuse to stop thinking". Such a claim provides an opportunity for further research. Is there an intended irony in your request for me to present evidence which supports Dennett's assertion that religion impacts cognition, as thinking is required to do so placid-void your request for any scientifically valid data: Discerning fact from fictionShrinking the brainTemporal lobe functionI am interested to know if you made the same plea for "actual evidence to support the contention. Is there any scientifically valid data in the peer reviewed scientific literature" to those who have claimed that prayer works; biblical miracles occurred; Jesus rose from the grave; God is the creator and there is a supernatural dimension. I have not watched anything in the OP however I skimmed: Shrinking the brainWas there any reason that you chose to share this particular study? It's not a fantastic p-value, however, I see that people with no religion were associated with greater left hippocampal atrophy than the "non born-again Protestants". Perhaps we should all become protestant but not report any rebirths or baseline changing religious experiences “Greater hippocampal atrophy was observed longitudinally in this study among born-again Protestants, Catholics, and those reporting no religious affiliation, compared with non born-again Protestants. These findings may reflect potential cumulative stress associated with being a member of a religious minority.” Interesting statement from the Discussion part of this paper, that I might tend to re-word as “These findings may reflect potential cumulative stress associated with the perception of being a member of a religious minority.” It was a mind-blowing experience for me (In the Oliver Wendell Holmes sense of “The mind, once expanded to the dimensions of larger ideas, never returns to its original size”, when I first glimpsed the supreme self-confidence of the world view of my husband (a buffet Catholic), having never been a (perceived) member of a religious minority. Now, from personal experience, I understand that Western Canadian Catholics are very different from Eastern Canadian Catholics – and both of these are likely to be very different from Catholics elsewhere (which of course, is cited as one of the limitations to this study “ geographically and religiously constrained nature of the sample (largely Southeastern Protestant Christians).” When, during one of the endless dialogs on this board about Jesus being God, I asked my husband his opinion about Jesus being God, and he looked at me pityingly and said “Of course not. You really do need to read the (A.N. Wilson) book on Paul.” Now, my husband is going to live and die and be buried as (his perception) of a Catholic. And I am not ever going to say or do anything to the contrary. But, I think this is critical to how we show up here, right here, right now – our perception of being a member of a religious minority - or having being able to transcend it (somehow).
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 29, 2016 16:54:17 GMT -5
‘You know what they call alternative medicine which has been proven to work? - Medicine” T. Minchin. Medical science is an appropriate example to use in this context given most of us have, or do rely on evidenced-based medical interventions. Quackery undermines ‘medicine that works’ as alternative medicine promotes the 'quick fix', thus taking advantage of gullible persons typically when at their most vulnerable. For example, dying persons are lured by false claims and will part with their much needed funds to pay charlatans who thrive due to the existence of those who share the approach which you expressed placid-void : In my opinion, the inability to reduce all concepts of human interest to empirical categories does not suggest that concepts falling beyond the purview of empirical validation are rendered invalid. We have the freedom to be actively engaged in developing critical thinking skills. Humans are prone to delusional thinking, the antidote to which is learning how to think, not what to think.Applying the critical thinking process provides us with “a defence against the Dark Arts” (ref to Harry Potter's world) The adoption of scepticism is fundamental. Michael Shermer defines scepticism as "a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas: no sacred cows allowed" Scepticism is a method and not a quest. When developing our critical thinking skills, we tend to display bias by placing caveats so as to resist having our deep-seated and valued beliefs exposed by scepticism and critical thinking processes. We will filter our sceptical approach to protect ideas which we hold sacred. Incongruity is avoided by being consistent in our values and attitudes. Scepticism is supported by the scientific method; rational-based inquiry; critical thinking methods and empirical thinking, and it fair to state that all of us benefit on a daily basis from those who use these techniques to advance the natural world: eg. access to computer technology. Your Deceptive Mind: A Scientific Guide to Critical Thinking SkillsThe Scientific MethodThe best thinkers have these 7 thinking dispositions(I do not work in the cognitive science research field) I yield. I have a weird mind/head/brain/whatever. That is a given – you can never offend me on that point. But I would argue the benefits of being skeptical about skepticism. I totally embrace rational thinking and empirical data as the basis of constructing the rules of a society in the material world. To my mind, there is no other reasonable way of approaching this. I would also argue the limitations of rational thinking/ empirical evidence in answering the really big questions in life (Who am I? Where did I come from? Where I am I going? What should I do while I am here?). I think Wisdom Traditions still help us ask the really “big questions” -however you are capable of conceptualizing them – or however you try to push them down. I always found it interesting that I never particularly liked Daniel Dennet or Richard Dawkins. And yet, I always liked Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Sam Harris recently released a talk (you might have to pay for it, if you were not a part of the original promotion) where he argues for the necessity of a secular based spirituality. I get this. I really get this. Now, Sam has meditated for a lot of years, though I personally (previously) thought he probably should have meditated for a few more decades before writing “Waking Up”. I like Neil Degrasse Tyson’s reported view on spirituality: : "For me, when I say spiritual, I’m referring to a feeling you would have that connects you to the universe in a way that it may defy simple vocabulary. We think about the universe as an intellectual playground, which it surely is, but the moment you learn something that touches an emotion rather than just something intellectual, I would call that a spiritual encounter with the universe.” I get this.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 30, 2016 3:44:51 GMT -5
I would also argue the limitations of rational thinking/ empirical evidence in answering the really big questions in life (Who am I? Where did I come from? Where I am I going? What should I do while I am here?). I think Wisdom becomes a "BTraditions still help us ask the really “big questions” -however you are capable of conceptualizing them – or however you try to push them down. You have brought this up before. What you see as the "big questions" that Wisdom Traditions can help with perhaps become "big Questions" for you because you have attached meanings to them that have no support beyond faith. I know you find it odd but these are not big questions to everyone. Personaly, I am going to die and that will be the end of life for me. Sure, I could speculate on other possibilities but until there is something to support that idea it is not a "big Question". And if the spirituality is stripped from the other "big questions" they also turn out to be simple questions. "Where did I come from?" only becomes a "Big Question" if you consider yourself different from the millions of other species that have existed.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Jan 30, 2016 7:53:11 GMT -5
Hopefully you consider and value yourself,and other humans, as different than other species. Some people dont, and kill humans the same as any other "species".Alvin
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 30, 2016 9:52:15 GMT -5
Good morning Rational and a mighty fine morning it is indeed.
I note with delight that your rapier wit remains as sharp as ever. Unfortunately, I also note that your editing "cut and paste" tools may be losing their edge, perhaps a consequence of extensive use. In your recent post, please observe that my "avatar" is associated with comments I did not make. If you could address this issue forthwith, I would be most appreciative.
I wish to make it clear that my own thoughts resonate most assuredly with the sentiments expressed by SharonArnold. However, considering the precision of expression expected by some "Thought Police" here on TMB, I prefer not to be charged with the crime of plagiarism inadvertently.
Respectfully, yknot
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 30, 2016 11:32:13 GMT -5
Good morning Rational and a mighty fine morning it is indeed. I note with delight that your rapier wit remains as sharp as ever. Unfortunately, I also note that your editing "cut and paste" tools may be losing their edge, perhaps a consequence of extensive use. In your recent post, please observe that my "avatar" is associated with comments I did not make. If you could address this issue forthwith, I would be most appreciative. I wish to make it clear that my own thoughts resonate most assuredly with the sentiments expressed by SharonArnold. However, considering the precision of expression expected by some "Thought Police" here on TMB, I prefer not to be charged with the crime of plagiarism inadvertently. Respectfully, yknot Not a 'cut/paste/ issue but poor editing of the BBCode! Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Jan 30, 2016 12:00:49 GMT -5
Good morning Rational and a mighty fine morning it is indeed. I note with delight that your rapier wit remains as sharp as ever. Unfortunately, I also note that your editing "cut and paste" tools may be losing their edge, perhaps a consequence of extensive use. In your recent post, please observe that my "avatar" is associated with comments I did not make. If you could address this issue forthwith, I would be most appreciative. I wish to make it clear that my own thoughts resonate most assuredly with the sentiments expressed by SharonArnold. However, considering the precision of expression expected by some "Thought Police" here on TMB, I prefer not to be charged with the crime of plagiarism inadvertently. Respectfully, yknot Not a 'cut/paste/ issue but poor editing of the BBCode! Thanks. NP If you have the chance sometime show me a smile. yknot
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Jan 30, 2016 16:30:54 GMT -5
I would also argue the limitations of rational thinking/ empirical evidence in answering the really big questions in life (Who am I? Where did I come from? Where I am I going? What should I do while I am here?). I think Wisdom Traditions still help us ask the really “big questions” -however you are capable of conceptualizing them – or however you try to push them down. You have brought this up before. What you see as the "big questions" that Wisdom Traditions can help with perhaps become "big Questions" for you because you have attached meanings to them that have no support beyond faith. I know you find it odd but these are not big questions to everyone. Personaly, I am going to die and that will be the end of life for me. Sure, I could speculate on other possibilities but until there is something to support that idea it is not a "big Question". And if the spirituality is stripped from the other "big questions" they also turn out to be simple questions. "Where did I come from?" only becomes a "Big Question" if you consider yourself different from the millions of other species that have existed. The questions of “Where did I come from?” and “Where am I going?” only become trivial/insignificant because your answer to “Who am I?” is “My physical body.” That’s your belief/opinion, and you are entitled to it. (BTW, I do not consider myself essentially different from any other species that has ever existed, but that is going off on a tangent that is a little off topic for the moment.) However, in believing that you are just your physical body, I would think that would make the “What should I do while I am here?” question even more significant. Carl Sagan famously said: ““We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers”. (Care to take your own shot at outlining some of life's big questions?) For myself, as I sit here typing, the only thing I am sure of is the fact that I am experiencing at this moment. Fingers on the keyboard, washing machine humming in the background, sleeping dog at my feet, valley/mountain vistas through the window, mind chuckling. To me, that is indisputable. (When you think of it, that is all any sentient creature needs to establish the full reality of consciousness.) It is clear to me that consciousness is the one thing in this universe, including the universe, that cannot be an illusion. This is all I am sure of. Everything else is open to question. And I mean everything.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jan 30, 2016 20:56:10 GMT -5
It is a matter of probability. Since there is a probability for most things, investigating all aspects/events for which there is a probability is very large, if not infinite. Considering a large number of possibilities, including the possibility that the big bang was caused by a spotted red newt, there would be no forward progress. Investigation has to proceed along lines that have some evidence to support the claims being made. Why does that large number of possibilities NOT include a creator God? It could. Usually the premise is considered is there is some data presented as a starting point. The last I heard this was considered false. Do you have any of the overwhelming evidence? Let's discuss it. I haven't looked at Behe, Dembski, et al. for some time. I wonder if they have new theories. Present some plausible evidence and people will flock to examine your premise. Is god does not exist the questions are moot. Oddly enough, the alternatives have evidence to support the claims. I assume you are aware that self-replicating proteins have been created using different chemicals than those found in DNA. Of course, you could say god was guiding the scientists. If you read the post to which you are responding I provided you with a simple solution with as much validity as you claim of god being the agent -"...including the possibility that the big bang was caused by a spotted red newt..."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2016 4:47:02 GMT -5
Can you provide an example of "life" being produced by non-life?
If we are excluding the "theory" of God then we must exclude all other theories and concentrate on proven fact.
I don't doubt for a moment that you will agree that the overwhelming evidence of the natural world around us, but its very complex character and nature is proof that something caused it or brought it into being. It is a formality to accept that life is responsible for life, through production and reproduction.
|
|