"n principle, we can get evidence for or against the existence of a goddy entity in just the same way as we get evidence of very small entities (quarks), very distant entities (neutron stars), or entities that existed only in the distant past (trilobites). If these entities interact with the world of the senses and leave traces in some reasonably consistent way, we can infer their existence. If they fail to act as predicted, we can infer their non-existence and look for a better hpothesis. We could easily have evidence for or against the existence of certain gods, ghosts, or ghouls.
What we can’t do is make progress when the believers in these things claim that they exist but that they act capriciously, or deliberately act so as to elude us, and so on. If someone wants to go on believing in goddy or ghostly entities using these resorts, we can’t prove otherwise, but we can be very suspicious about what is really motivating them.
I don’t understand what’s so difficult about this. I’ve been abused on my own blog for pointing out that this is how it works, and have had a vendetta conducted against me across the internet by one person for saying it. But it’s perfectly logical. There seems to be a head-in-the-sand dogmatism around regarding the in-principle immunity of religion to scientific scepticism, and most of it seems to be coming from the people you’d least expect."
While it seems to be that many/most of the theists I've interacted with on the interwebs would not accept this stance as legitimate, I don't see on what grounds they're able to claim this is the case *sigh*
35 comments:
"Comment moderation has been enabled."
WTF?
"I don't see on what grounds they're able to claim this is the case "
...because their god of choice tells them so. Well, their mind does - same thing
Lee
Lee, a couple of posts ago, the commenter was going round in circles (as he's done on his own blog for the last 2 years). I told him to stop repeating himself and dancing around the issue and provide a straight answer or I'd stop him doing it. The only "tool" I have is comment moderation, so I was simply not going to post any further redundant comments from him.
He seems to have decided to simply ignore the thread (and those on his own blog), which is what I've come to expect, so I'll disable moderation :-)
Lee: ...because their god of choice tells them so. Well, their mind does - same thing
A couple of comments down from Russell's someone says theists inevitable fall back on an ineffable (much like that put forward by Karen Armstrong) when confronted, but as soon as the questioners back is turned, get right back to traditional theism. Basically what you're suggesting - they use any out they can, and tend to rely upon equivocation to carry the day.
ps. Good to "see" you still about :-)
Aye - still around, causing trouble where I can.
It is becoming a little 'samey'
The theist offers nothing new, so I have been wondering what is the point.
Then I remember, it is good to talk :-)
Glad to see your blog is still going. I've not had the time (or reason) to update my own.
Lee
From what I can tell, it's been "samey" since at around Hume, if not earlier :-)
And I've only recently resurrected my blog, after much more than 3 days (It's a miracle!) ;-)
It is good to talk, and I enjoy it when I'm intellectually challenged, but going over the same stuff again and again, with absolutely no recognition from the believer that they're being inconsistent/irrational/etc can be tiresome and frustrating ;-)
Oh Havok,
I'm thrilled I have pushed you to bring in the comment moderation! And to make you start publishing your own material, well not really your own, but a start. ;-)
I have not ignored the thread, but again this is your misguided assumption.
P.
Typical substance less post from you Phil.
You may notice that moderation has been removed again. And funny that you gloat about moderation here, but it's the rule at your blog, isn't it?
But yes, thanks for getting me to blog again (well, at least this one anyway).
From another comment on that post, and relevant to the "ongoing" discussion we've been having, Phil:
"Sigh. It all boils down to definitions again, it seems. What is science?
If it is defined as dealing with nature only and the existence of some ill circumscribed “super”natural realm that needs no evidential justification is simply assumed, well duh, then science is by definition unable to examine the supernatural. However, the question then is: what other methodology can examine the supernatural, whatever it is, in a way that leads to internally consistent and universally acceptable results (= knowledge in the only meaning of the word that makes any sense at all, or justified beliefs)? Is there any reliable way of generating knowledge about the existence (!!!) (i.e., not only logical consistency, but actual existence) of something in the universe that is not science?"
I'm thrilled I have pushed you to bring in the comment moderation!
You are proud of that?
Well done you...
Lee
@ Havok and Lee,
Sorry I was being sarcastic, thought you would have got it.
My Bad!
Phil.
Sorry Phil. I coudn't tell the difference between your humour and your sneering ;-)
@ Havok,
Wow! Pushed a button there didn't I?
I'm sure you'd like to think so :-)
@ Havok,
Umm, I do think so, was I wrong. Oh you'll claim that your were being sarcastic?
Phil.
Hi Phil
Sorry I was being sarcastic, thought you would have got it.
It is hard to read humour in replies on the internet without a little hint i.e. :-)
Anyway... you call yourself Reverend Phillip Brown - is this also humour?
Thanks
Lee
Sadly for the people he ministers to at his parish, it is no joke.
Or perhaps the joke is on them?
@ Havok,
You said,
Sadly for the people he ministers to at his parish, it is no joke.
Or perhaps the joke is on them?
My Reply,
Getting a little nasty aren't we, someone is a sore loser.
@ Lee,
You said,
It is hard to read humour in replies on the internet without a little hint i.e. :-)
My Reply,
I figured you slang i.e. "Comment moderation has been enabled."
WTF?
Gave a light hearted flavour. But Havok is clearly getting distressed and a little angry and personal. I thought he was above it but clearly his feathers are getting ruffled.
P.
No Phil, I honestly feel sorry for the people who trust you to provide guidance.
Given the level of argumentation and reasoning you display on your own blog and here, it's quite obvious that their trust is sorely misplaced.
@ Havok,
Thanks, but I doubt there sorry for reasoned and logical positioned thinking. So the only person you can be sorry for really is yourself!
YOu said,
Given the level of argumentation and reasoning you display on your own blog and here, it's quite obvious that their trust is sorely misplaced.
My Reply,
Yes it shows that when you cannot give an answer you just have a go at the person. I actually feel sorry for you and you do, hey look something we agree on.
Hi Phil
I figured you slang i.e. "Comment moderation has been enabled."
WTF?
Gave a light hearted flavour.
It was in humour and to Havok who 'knows' me enough I hoped to see it was in humour.
Of course, without the smile it could have been taken as an aggressive remark.
Such is the internet.
Is this leading anywhere?
And I take it (from Havok's response) that you are a real 'Rev'?
Out of interest can you tell me where? (Just a rough idea - I do not plan coming down to your church... unless invited and within 10 kms of my home) Or at the very least the ‘type’ of church… (so I might know your position better)
Take care
Lee
Hi Havok
it's quite obvious that their trust is sorely misplaced.
I blame the parents... not the Rev
Lee
@ Lee,
Well done Havok does need some help but really parenting is that it Lee? Surely you have a point in here somewhere rather than having a go at either my occupation or my
Phil.
@ Havok,
Experiencing administration problems on my blog, if you see the flew post records 12 comments but its only showing 6, cannot publish other comments either, looking into it. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Phil.
Phil, it looks to be a general blogger issue, as there are some strange things happening here (and on other blogs)
@ Havok,
Thanks,
I cannot do anything on mine very frustrating. Thinking of switching to word press? Got any suggestions? Your seems fine you can post I see?
Phil.
No ideas, sorry.
The comments here were being held up/not appearing, so I was quite surprised when they started appearing (though not all of them are appearing - my snarky remark about your parishoners trust being misplaced, for example for example).
I've also commented on other blogs where it hasn't appears (all on blogger).
Perhaps an email to the admins?
As for why comments are appearing here, could have something to do with having moderation turned off, but really I have no clue.
Thanks,
Sorry our dialogue has been interrupted. I don't trust turning off moderation as I got burnt with porn links being posted from overseas.
Will let you know changes as soon as I can work it out.
Phil.
Have a play with these, as they're germane to most of the discussion we're having on your site. I was going to like to them anyway :-)
http://just-say-know.blogspot.com/2010/07/genesis-scientifically-validated.html
http://just-say-know.blogspot.com/2010/07/god-as-origin-of-universe.html
This one I already linked to, regarding your moral theory (or lack thereof)
http://just-say-know.blogspot.com/2010/06/god-and-morality-god-as-source-of.html
@ Havok,
Looks like things are getting back to normal,
Will comment soon as possible.
Phil.
Hi Phil,
Well done Havok does need some help but really parenting is that it Lee?
You misunderstood me… Not sure if Havok needs any help from me or his parents. That was not my point.
Surely you have a point in here somewhere
Yes, it was that I blame the parents for not teaching their children to think critically. Parents should teach their children how to think, and not what to think.
I don’t think Christianity holds up to critical enquiry, but you probably could guess this. So I suspect if more children were taught how to think critically there will be a few less sheep in your flock.
And for the record – I think you should be free to preach to any consenting adult you like.
(Not sure if my tax money should pay for such preaching, but that is for you to justify – do you think religions should get tax-free status just because they are a religion? Or should they justify they tax exception like any other charity?)
Preaching to children? This is open to debate… one I am happy to have. Preaching on subjects that have not been shown reliable (and/or likely true) is one thing, but to preach it to innocent children as if it is the only answer – no, I don’t think that is right.
As for my questions regarding your church – just wondering what version of Christianity you are following, that’s all.
Message ends
Lee
Phil, since it appears I'm no longer welcome on your blog, I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for evidence in favour of your particular supernatural entity?
since it appears I'm no longer welcome on your blog
Does this mean questions are a sin?
Lee
It wasn't so much the asking of questions, but a request that the answerer show integrity and admit a mistake *sigh*
Post a Comment