Religion III: Skeptical Evangelism, Psychedelic Shamanism, and other Religions of Us Hairless Apes

[Gears of the Beast]

Oh there isn't? So, when you're arguing about God's existence, you already "know" there isn't evidence that can demonstrate it. Making such arguments pointless, except for the usual sorts of self-patting-on-back ego stroking that I've maintained they're really about.

Uhh, actually I said "probably", I made no claims about certainty or knowledge.

but actually, I believe there is not sufficient evidence for god. Which is why I'm an atheist. It's actually not pointless because the person I'm talking to might actually realise they have no justification for their belief and re-evaluate their position or someone sitting on the fence reading the discussion may have a better idea of which position is rationally justified.

[Stubby]

I didn't say no one “knows how electricity works.” I said no one “knows what electricity is.” Two completely different things. And I didn't say it had anything to do with god. And I don't tell my children any bible stories. And I voted for Obama.

If you aren't going to answer questions we are not having a discussion.

You have ignored two questions so far:

1. What outcomes can you predict using religious belief?

2. On that last bit, do you agree with me when I say that is a bad idea to stick a steel fork into a wall socket?

And I'll add one more. How the fuck is who you voted for relevant?

[Stubby]

No, there is a fundamental difference. This is the difference between the scientific approach, ie accepting we don't know things; and trying to apply logic to a system where it doesn't fit.

A conundrum is an artefact of logic, an open and currently unanswerable question is a core aspect of science.

Or, as Dara O'briain put it:

"Science knows it doesn't know everything. Otherwise, it'd stop". ;)

[Wise Fool]

Uhh, actually I said "probably", I made no claims about certainty or knowledge.

but actually, I believe there is not sufficient evidence for god. Which is why I'm an atheist. It's actually not pointless because the person I'm talking to might actually realise they have no justification for their belief and re-evaluate their position or someone sitting on the fence reading the discussion may have a better idea of which position is rationally justified.

It's why I was an atheist too. But, well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I got extraordinary evidence. But not from a conversation or argument. Maybe because they are far too ordinary mediums?

I also liked your reasoning about the debate still being worthwhile: the idea that some unknown third party is going to watch the debate from afar, and conclude (based on my arguments that I won! of course), and that this will affect their life, their beliefs etc. I never saw any evidence of that happening, but it's still a nice thought to have if you're an idealist who really wants to change people's lives for the better.

[Gears of the Beast]

As to the final point in that post, I realised I was an atheist after reading debates on this very forum.

I also liked your reasoning about the debate still being worthwhile: the idea that some unknown third party is going to watch the debate from afar, and conclude (based on my arguments that I won! of course), and that this will affect their life, their beliefs etc. I never saw any evidence of that happening

Furthermore, I chose to participate in these debates because I value intelligent discourse, the free exchange of ideas, my ideas being challenged. If this isn't something you value then great. If you think it's something I shouldn't participate in because you don't value it, then I would kindly tell you to go away (or fuck off, whichever sounds better).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RMR,

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be arguing solipsiticly that we can't truely "know" anything and that on that basis everything, to a lesser or greater extent, is based on faith?

Wise Fool,

This is the distinction I draw about faith experiences, they can be rational but I don't believe they can be empirical. I can have an experience that, rationally, encourages my belief in God. What I cannot do is repeat that experience such that I can guarantee another will experience what I experienced. Therefore, personally, my belief is rational but because it is not repeatable for others it is not emperical. Does that square with your assertion ?

[The Mance]

RMR,

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be arguing solipsiticly that we can't truely "know" anything and that on that basis everything, to a lesser or greater extent, is based on faith?

Wise Fool,

This is the distinction I draw about faith experiences, they can be rational but I don't believe they can be empirical. I can have an experience that, rationally, encourages my belief in God. What I cannot do is repeat that experience such that I can guarantee another will experience what I experienced. Therefore, personally, my belief is rational but because it is not repeatable for others it is not emperical. Does that square with your assertion ?

I think you'd have to be a bit more explicit about your standard for rational for that stance to have any merit.

[Gears of the Beast]

Yeah I'm not sure what a rational justification would be for deeming the experience a "faith experience" rather than a psychological effect. The human brain is fallible and subject to many cognitive phenomenons like apophenia and hyperactive agency detection plus general illusions/hallucinations. I would probably at least want some kind of independent verification (if it were me with the experience).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mance, GotB,

Which is why I'm drawing a distinction between rational and empirical. If I see an Ivory Billed Woodpecker but don't get a photo it is perfectly rational for me to then believe the species is not extinct. However, I can clearly not say that I can show it to not be extinct with empirical evidence. Could I have been mistaken about what I saw, sure, but my belief is not irrational.

Likewise I can have an experience I percieve as real that I cannot show empirically. The belief based upon that experience is rational, I perceived it, but not empirical as I cannot share that experience with anyone else.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Mance, GotB,

Which is why I'm drawing a distintion between rational and empirical. If I see an Ivory Billed Woodpecker but don't get a photo it is perfectly rational for me to then believe the species is not extinct. However, I can clearly not say that I can show it to not be extinct with empirical evidence. Could I have been mistaken about what I saw, sure, but my belief is not irrational.

Likewise I can have an experience I percieve as real that I cannot show empirically. The belief based upon that experience is rational, I perceived it, but not empirical as I cannot share that experience with anyone else.

If we shift the extinct animal in question- Ivory Billed Woodpeckers are only very recently extinct, if extinct at all and thus it would be reasonable for you to believe they were not extinct if you spotted one- say you 'see' a Dodo. It's much more rational to conclude that what happened is you misidentified what you perceived as a Dodo than to conclude that the Dodo is in fact not extinct, despite there being no additional evidence for centuries that this is the case.

[Castel]

Mance, GotB,

Which is why I'm drawing a distinction between rational and empirical. If I see an Ivory Billed Woodpecker but don't get a photo it is perfectly rational for me to then believe the species is not extinct. However, I can clearly not say that I can show it to not be extinct with empirical evidence. Could I have been mistaken about what I saw, sure, but my belief is not irrational.

Likewise I can have an experience I percieve as real that I cannot show empirically. The belief based upon that experience is rational, I perceived it, but not empirical as I cannot share that experience with anyone else.

Well...assuming that your vision can be trusted.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

I'm not suggesting others would believe my perception is rational I''m saying non-empirical evidence is not, by definition irrational.

Castel,

My post addresses that. The possiblity of misperception does not make believe what I clearly saw is real irrational.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

I'm not suggesting others would believe my perception is rational I''m saying non-empirical evidence is not, by definition irrational.

But my point isn't just that others shouldn't believe your perception (though they shouldn't)- you shouldn't believe your perception, when, as in the Dodo hypothetical, your perception is in complete conflict with all available evidence. It's more rational to doubt your own perception than it is to believe that the hundreds of years of no one producing any evidence of Dodos' existence was just a fluke.

[Castel]

Castel,

My post addresses that. The possiblity of misperception does not make believe what I clearly saw is real irrational.

Just to be clear: you're saying that perception alone makes belief rational regardless of the possibility of that you are wrong and the likelihood of you being wrong?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Castel,

Yes, but rational non-empircial evidence is less inhereantly trustworthy than empirical evidence that others can review.

OAR,

And if I walk up and touch the Dodo confirming its reality, but have no way to document my perception, why should I doubt it?

[Castel]

Castel,

Yes, but rational non-empircial evidence is less inhereantly trustworthy than empirical evidence that others can review.

But aren't some forms of experience also less trustworthy than others as maps of the world?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

And if I walk up and touch the Dodo confirming its reality, but have no way to document my perception, why should I doubt it?

If you can lay your hands on a Dodo you should seize it, present it to the world, and enjoy your 15 minutes of fame :P

More seriously, it is more rational to doubt your perception, even tactilely felt perceptions, when they conflict with all observable and verifiable evidence. Put another way, what you're essentially choosing to do is to not doubt your perception of the Dodo in favor of doubting all of the observable reality that conflicts with that perception. Rationally, given everything we know about Dodos and wildlife observation (Dodos lived in a specific habitat, and relatively large land animals are quite noticeable), it would be extraordinary in astounding degree for the Dodo to have escaped all verifiable observation for centuries. So extraordinary that you'd have to then doubt the correctness of everything you'd previously thought about Dodo habitats and wildlife observation. It's far more plausible, and far less extraordinary, that there has been an error on your part (or a real physically caused disturbance of your senses), than it is for there to have been a massive and unlikely failure of all other observation. It's more rational to go with the explanation that is more likely and requires, actually, less doubt about perceived reality.

[rawmilkmike]

If you aren't going to answer questions we are not having a discussion.

You have ignored two questions so far:

1. What outcomes can you predict using religious belief?

2. On that last bit, do you agree with me when I say that is a bad idea to stick a steel fork into a wall socket?

And I'll add one more. How the fuck is who you voted for relevant?

I've been answering your question about “religious belief” over and over. The answer was even in my opening statement. “I have a much broader definition of god and religion.” Later I said that I felt my belief that I know what electricity is, is a religious one since in reality I really don't.

A wall socket has 3 openings 2 are at ground potential. The third has a 120 volt AC potential. Most surfaces in a home are non-conductive. I would be happy “to stick a steel fork into” it for you. I have faith that nothing will happen.

This feels like a political debate at times. We argue about God but the issue seems to be the church and the power it has to control our lives.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

And if I'm in an area where Dodo's used to live would to be more like the Ivory Billed Woodpecker example? Further, what if I don't care to tell the world I saw one? Is my perception of it still irrational?

I recognize that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What if no one is making a claim? Does that make their perceptions irrational?

[rawmilkmike]

RMR,

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be arguing solipsiticly that we can't truely "know" anything and that on that basis everything, to a lesser or greater extent, is based on faith?

Wise Fool,

This is the distinction I draw about faith experiences, they can be rational but I don't believe they can be empirical. I can have an experience that, rationally, encourages my belief in God. What I cannot do is repeat that experience such that I can guarantee another will experience what I experienced. Therefore, personally, my belief is rational but because it is not repeatable for others it is not emperical. Does that square with your assertion ?

Maybe faith is the mortar and god is the earth quake.