Ancient Hebrew Cosmology

I'm not ignoring them; On the otherhand, I'm certainly not telling them how to live or artificially trying to advance their culture to make it more like mine.

Like yours?  People starve in your culture too, people hate and kill just to hate and kill in your culture too.  These are things that need to be remedied all around the world.  Problems like people killing just to kill and people starving on the streets don't solve themselves, much as you may want to think so.

I'd say religion gives A motivation to war, however its more like the issue of a tool which could be used for good or evil. Science gives as many motivations to war as religion and as such one cannot judge either in relation to each other based off this metric.

Present a war where the motivation was simply that one side was more technologically advanced.  Not, one side was more advanced and had motivation to go to war already, just an unproductive war whose motivation was who had the better guns.

Religion is not necessary to a person. Its a necessity to a large percentage of people that would have easily killed themselves or would be otherwise making themselves unproductive and enemies of society without it.

And all of those people could be consoled or motivated by secular means presuming religion was never instilled into them.  Many can be consoled by secular means even though it was, but religion is just the quickest and easiest at the time.  So I'll grant you that religion can fix the issues of individuals more quickly than many secular means, but that's not to say secular means can't convince a suicide jumper not to jump.

A sick mind is a mind discontent with its view of the world or which is unable to . These usually ends in some sort of crisis, psychosis, existential crisis, or other catastrophic mental breakdown.

I feel like you got cut off at 'unable to', so I'll address these as they stand unless you meant something else.

A discontent mind can be remedied by secular means.  Usually a discontent mind is upset at the flaws of the world at large, and religion doesn't solve these flaws.  Activism does, and religion can inspire activism.  But so can simply being discontent.

People being discontent with their own lives is a common occurrence.  It happens in most every person, and even has it's own reason, the hedonistic treadmill.  The solution to this is to teach people to value everyday life as a pleasurable experience.  To solve more problems with the world that can discontent an individual, teach altruism as something to be enjoyed.  Religion isn't required for either of these, just better teachings of morals and ideas of pleasure.  Not as easy as it is simple, but it's hardly impossible without religious means.

I live in the south too.  Again, I would draw a distinction between the organizations of religion and the base religious experiences from which they are derived. Your point is taken and I will always say that religion is imperfect, or at least our understanding of it.

Please define base religious experiences.

I'm grateful that I could get the point across that religion isn't a solve all for society's problems, if only because religion itself can easily instill an us and them mentality.

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 12:30:05 PM

Those weren't ad homs. I was simply stating what makes it such a wonderful place. As a grateful and non-bigoted being it has more than enough to live happily for the rest of my life if such is my choice. Its not my business how their culture is run, and its not my place to act as a noble and judge it or guide it. As a place, Pakistan has food, water, air, heat, etc.

You actually had not stated that what it was that made it a great and wonderful place. You still have not, apart from the vague 'it has enough food, water, air and heat for me to live happily,' a statement which was true for Slaveowners pre-civil war (with a different 'air'), and yet, I would not describe the American South at that time, which was highly religious and justified slavery though religion as being 'great and wonderful.'

Additionally, you should watching your phrasing, as it implied that anyone who did not see Pakistan as great and wonderful would be ungrateful and bigoted, and those would be ad-hominems

My phrasing says no such thing innately. It talks about me and why it is great and wonderful to me. Any logical extensions and assumptions are made by the reader. IO talk of me, not you. Because I am not ungrateful or a bigot, x is true for me. This does not mean that x is true for you or another, or that if they are ungrateful or a bigot x is false.

I could say the American South at the time was great and wonderful - though I try to avoid use of the word "great" due to its ambiguity from particular angles. It would just require a worldview that is outside my time. For example, relative to an earlier point of view one could see the American South as amazingly great - for example from the compared view of Jewish Nazi Germany .

Both places are full of wonder and have their own "great"ness. By what metric are you trying to measure this?

pyro, I'll post a reply likely tonight or tomorrow when I have some time.

pyro, I'll post a reply likely tonight or tomorrow when I have some time.

Looking forward to it.

Not to get too off-topic, but do you have to be ungrateful or a bigot to think that Burkas are repressive tools used by males to subjugate women?

no, though on some level you do - you must bigot repressiveness from its opposite and so on.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 01, 2013, 11:47:01 AM

Not to get too off-topic, but do you have to be ungrateful or a bigot to think that Burkas are repressive tools used by males to subjugate women?

no, though on some level you do - you must bigot repressiveness from its opposite and so on.

Well that level of bigotry is extremely tolerable.  I am just against things that are unhealthy for humans which are forced upon them.

Quote from: hewholikespie on August 01, 2013, 01:04:41 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 12:30:05 PM

Those weren't ad homs. I was simply stating what makes it such a wonderful place. As a grateful and non-bigoted being it has more than enough to live happily for the rest of my life if such is my choice. Its not my business how their culture is run, and its not my place to act as a noble and judge it or guide it. As a place, Pakistan has food, water, air, heat, etc.

You actually had not stated that what it was that made it a great and wonderful place. You still have not, apart from the vague 'it has enough food, water, air and heat for me to live happily,' a statement which was true for Slaveowners pre-civil war (with a different 'air'), and yet, I would not describe the American South at that time, which was highly religious and justified slavery though religion as being 'great and wonderful.'

Additionally, you should watching your phrasing, as it implied that anyone who did not see Pakistan as great and wonderful would be ungrateful and bigoted, and those would be ad-hominems

My phrasing says no such thing innately. It talks about me and why it is great and wonderful to me. Any logical extensions and assumptions are made by the reader. IO talk of me, not you. Because I am not ungrateful or a bigot, x is true for me. This does not mean that x is true for you or another, or that if they are ungrateful or a bigot x is false.

I could say the American South at the time was great and wonderful - though I try to avoid use of the word "great" due to its ambiguity from particular angles. It would just require a worldview that is outside my time. For example, relative to an earlier point of view one could see the American South as amazingly great - for example from the compared view of Jewish Nazi Germany .

Both places are full of wonder and have their own "great"ness. By what metric are you trying to measure this?

Ah, the semantics come out. Given that you agree all these places are 'great' and 'full of wonder' (and not wonderful, a word with a different coloquial meaning in this context, so I'll accept that you don't they they are), I'm curious to determine how you are determining that they are.

Can I also take it that you believe in total moral relativism, or is that something you are adopting just for the sake of the argument?

You are using circular definition in place of circular reasoning. Just because a word eventually defines itself does not make it invalid.

A word can't define itself.  When a word defines itself it is a tautology not a definition.  The statement "a cat is cat" is vacuous, it doesn't communicate anything.  A tautology isn't a definition and it doesn't have any meaningful content so it is invalid as far as definitions are concerned.

And I do not base my claims on reason I use observations that I have made and that others have made to justify reason.

If you base your claims on observation and not reason then you should never employ any form of inductive reasoning.  Your statements should be entirely derivable from just your observations.  That means you should never make any statements of the form "All Xs are Y" unless you have observed all Xs.  You shouldn't ever state that F = ma as a universal truth because you haven't observed all the physical objects to which it can possibly apply and you never will do so because you have a finite lifespan.  Similarly you shouldn't cite Ohm's law as a universal truth because you haven't observed all circuits and neither have the people that write about Ohm's Law.

Proof is observation. When I say proof I mean reality, I mean what can be observed and what can be seen.

The concept of proof pertains only to deductive logic as per mathematical proof.  Outside of maths and logic we speak of evidence not proof.  We do so because an inductive argument can never supply proof it can supply only confirmatory evidence.

Again if you confine your evidence only to what you and others have observed then you should never make statements of the form "All Xs are Y" unless you have observed all Xs.  You need inductive logic to make the jump from a limited number of observations to universal generalisation.

When I can see/observe/gain evidence/gain proof of something than my logic is justified and holds water. If I go about claiming a simple logical statement like I see smoke then there must be fire, I must demonstrate fire underneath the smoke or my logic does not follow and is unjustified. Logic can only be justified if there is proof/observation/evidence to back it up, not if it is logical simply because it is logical.

You don't understand the problem of induction nor the foundational issues of a worldview supposedly predicated entirely on reason.  I am not questioning the validity of inductive and deductive logic I am questioning the claim that you are implicitly making that logic and reasoning are somehow self-justifying.  They aten't and they can't be.  With respect to your example, how do you know that all fires produce smoke?  Since you haven't observed all fires and you never will how can you justify the claim that all fires produce smoke?  That is the essence of the problem of induction.  Your example relies on inductive logic.  I am not arguing that inductive logic doesn't work so your earlier statement about the success of science is irrelevant and it is also an inductive argument so it begs the question.  The argument is that there is no justification for inductive logic that is not question begging so your claim that your worldview is based on logic/reason/observation is foundationless.

Also, you claim you cannot use proponents of something to disprove something (using theories of the scientific method to prove its false)...why not? I am not seeing the circularity there. I am seeing evidence against something. You are making a claim based on no evidence, only based on logic which by your own claim makes it invalid.

No I didn't say that.  What I said was that you can't provide a justification for a methodology in terms of that methodology because that would be begging the question.  Specfically, the scientfic method can be used to justify the scientific method and trying to do so begs the question.

Also, nowhere did I say that logic is invalid so stop repeating that.

EDIT: Assume you are right for a second. Logic is based on logic, reason on reason, and the circular definition of logic becomes circular reasoning...science still would have produced amazing things. When has reasoning based on faith cured millions of disease or brought about a new commuter? Science gets results and it does not matter what the justification for its methods are because the results are there.

Indeed science and technology have produced amazing things I agree; and such a justification is an inductive argument so again it begs the question, i.e. you are assuming the validity of inductive reasoning rather than demonstrating it.  You have finally arrived at my actual argument.  Scientific method and scientific culture are ultimately justifiable only in purely pragmatic terms, i.e. in terms of the extremely useful knowledge and technology they produce not -- as you claim -- in terms of logic and reason.  That has been my point all along.  Thank-you for finally acknowledging my point.  The point is that even the metaphysical naturalist/scientific materialist (or whatever you want to call it) worldvew isn't entirely based on logic and reason, at bottom logic and reason are unjustified except in terms of their results.  We don't really have a sound non-pragmatic justification for logic and reason they assume an axiomatic role in science.  I repeat once again, that doesn't amount to a claim that science and reason are "invalid", it is a claim that logic and reason are unjustified (except in pragmatic terms).  My ultimate point is that you put logic and reason (as you understand them) at the root of your worldview and they are essentially unjustified.  The Biblical literalist puts the Bible at the root of his/her worldview and that too -- like logic and reason -- sits essentially unjustified.  You say that logic/science are better foundations for a worldview (even though they may be unjustified) because they produce science which produces good things.  The Biblical literalist doesn't completely reject logic and reason rather (s)he subordinates them to the Bible.  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris Henry Morris] for example was a YEC and a engineer.  The YEC/Biblical literalist doesn't completely reject logic and reason rather (s)he rejects the idea that they can yield all truth.  To the educated YEC like Morris the choice isn't between an ultimately unjustified worldview and justified worldview  it is between two worldviews that ultimately rest on something which can't be completely justified or can be pseudo-justified only in circular, self-referential terms:  logic/reason on the one hand and the Bible on the other.

The problem here being, science can at the very least to be shown, as a method, to work in terms of results. Evidence can be provided, theories can be tested and falsified, predictions made.

What evidence do religions have? Certainly, their central tenets are nearly always supernatural and unalsifiable, and attempting to test them is often seen as a grievous affront.

No, seriously, if we speak of evidence and inductive reasoning, what have you that your god, that any god, that anything supernatural is real?

The problem here being, science can at the very least to be shown, as a method, to work in terms of results. Evidence can be provided, theories can be tested and falsified, predictions made.

Indeed and at no point did I dispute that.  That is beside the point I have been making.  My concern is with foundational issues.

What evidence do religions have? Certainly, their central tenets are nearly always supernatural and unalsifiable, and attempting to test them is often seen as a grievous affront.

The philosophy of religion is a huge topic so I can't summarise every argument that has ever been made for/against the existence of a deity and it would be irrelevant anyway.

From a YEC worldview point-of-view your question misses the point. Your question is predicated on your worldview and loses its significance when brought into a YEC worldview.  The Biblical literalist recognises special revelation  as a third method of acquiring knowledge in addition to reason (rationalism) and observation (empiricism).  If you ask for justification of special revelation then I return to the argument for the justification of logic/reason, neither are ultimately justifiable in terms of logic/reason.

No, seriously, if we speak of evidence and inductive reasoning, what have you that your god, that any god, that anything supernatural is real?

Richard Swinburne presents an inductive argument for the existence of a god if you want one but a Biblical literalist worldview doesn't rely on one.  The Biblical literalist view is predicated on the idea that the Bible is the product of special revelation.  The Biblical literalist believes that the faculty of reason is limited and incapable of revealing the ultimate nature of reality.  If you ask "where is the evidence for that?".  The response to that is the previous arguments I have presented in relation to the foundations of logic/reason.  It is an inductive argument that logic/reason have been successful with respect to A, B, C, D, E, F, G so it will be effective in relation to Z and as I have explained there is no non-question begging justification for inductive logic so that argument will not do the required work.  Your position ultimately boils down to a faith that logic/reason is capable of producing all the answers.  The Biblical literalist lacks that faith and instead places it in the specially revealed status of the Bible and subordinates logic/reason to that faith.  Is that reasonable? I don't know.  Is an inductive argument that logic/reason/observation can access all knowledge reasonable?  I don't know.  Logic and reason don't seem to help us arrive at a definitive answer because we can't justify logic and reason in a non-circular, non-question begging manner.  The only residue that I can see is faith i.e. an unjustifiable confidence in both cases.  Again -- because you have the tendency to jump to conclusions my arguments don't warrent -- that isn't to say that reason and logic are "invalid" or that science and technology are worthless.  Rather it is to say that logic and reason are limited and incapable of providing answers in relation to ultimate reality.  You argue that it can, the YEC says it can't.  Neither of us have good reasons for that fundamental belief.

Your foundational belief is based on an unknowable, untestable by design premise, and really just smacks of special pleading.

My foundational belief is that reality is self consistent, and as such, can be understood through study, reason, and testing.

Additionally, as you are getting on my case about putting words in your mouth, know that you are putting words into my mouth that I have not said and assume of me positions I have not stated I hold.

Your foundational belief is based on an unknowable, untestable by design premise, and really just smacks of special pleading.

My foundational belief is that reality is self consistent, and as such, can be understood through study, reason, and testing.

There is no special pleading.  Where is the special pleading?

Your foundational belief begs the question.  You don't know that "reality is self consistent", that is an assumption and it is an assumption that can't be justified in terms of reason or evidence.  It is certainly an assumption because we don't have an exhaustive knowledge of the universe.  It can only be either derived from an inductive argument (based on observed cases of self-consistency) -- in which case it is ultimately unjustifiable -- or it is a direct statement of faith which is also unjustifiable.  There is no free lunch here.

Your foundational assumption will only be confirmed with certainty when we have arrived at the exhaustive understanding of the universe which would permit such a generalisation.  Your foundational belief is practically untestable and unknowable because if an exhaustive knowledge is possible it will be thousands of years away and if exhaustive understanding  isn't possible we will only know so in thousands of years if at all.  So where exactly is the epistemic superiority of your foundational belief?

The YECs foundational belief will at least be confirmed or refuted on his/her death.

My foundational belief is that reality is self consistent, and as such, can be understood through study, reason, and testing.

I believe that the same holds of the Christian Indoctrinated. Millennia of writings, discussion, and observation have developed the understanding of the Christian God. I've not talked to anyone that claims to know everything, but last I heard, they haven't stopped writing books on the subject.

To be honest, I'm tired of people getting on their "science" high horse. The Christian Indoctrinated have documented millions of observations, which are merely shrugged aside by "scientists" simply because they just don't believe it. In a similar way, the Round Earth Indoctrinated shrug aside the experiments of the Flat Earth Society, and are perfectly willing to reference other people's experiments and use them as "proofs". They even use thought experiments and think that they are valid arguments.

In other words, I'm not right just because you're wrong.

Quote from: hewholikespie on August 01, 2013, 10:37:22 PM

My foundational belief is that reality is self consistent, and as such, can be understood through study, reason, and testing.

I believe that the same holds of the Christian Indoctrinated. Millennia of writings, discussion, and observation have developed the understanding of the Christian God. I've not talked to anyone that claims to know everything, but last I heard, they haven't stopped writing books on the subject.

To be honest, I'm tired of people getting on their "science" high horse. The Christian Indoctrinated have documented millions of observations, which are merely shrugged aside by "scientists" simply because they just don't believe it. In a similar way, the Round Earth Indoctrinated shrug aside the experiments of the Flat Earth Society, and are perfectly willing to reference other people's experiments and use them as "proofs". They even use thought experiments and think that they are valid arguments.

In other words, I'm not right just because you're wrong.

Which experiments would these be?

Quote from: hewholikespie on August 01, 2013, 10:37:22 PM

My foundational belief is that reality is self consistent, and as such, can be understood through study, reason, and testing.

I believe that the same holds of the Christian Indoctrinated. Millennia of writings, discussion, and observation have developed the understanding of the Christian God. I've not talked to anyone that claims to know everything, but last I heard, they haven't stopped writing books on the subject.

To be honest, I'm tired of people getting on their "science" high horse. The Christian Indoctrinated have documented millions of observations, which are merely shrugged aside by "scientists" simply because they just don't believe it. In a similar way, the Round Earth Indoctrinated shrug aside the experiments of the Flat Earth Society, and are perfectly willing to reference other people's experiments and use them as "proofs". They even use thought experiments and think that they are valid arguments.

In other words, I'm not right just because you're wrong.

Well said.

Quote from: hewholikespie on August 01, 2013, 10:37:22 PM

My foundational belief is that reality is self consistent, and as such, can be understood through study, reason, and testing.

I believe that the same holds of the Christian Indoctrinated. Millennia of writings, discussion, and observation have developed the understanding of the Christian God. I've not talked to anyone that claims to know everything, but last I heard, they haven't stopped writing books on the subject.

To be honest, I'm tired of people getting on their "science" high horse. The Christian Indoctrinated have documented millions of observations, which are merely shrugged aside by "scientists" simply because they just don't believe it. In a similar way, the Round Earth Indoctrinated shrug aside the experiments of the Flat Earth Society, and are perfectly willing to reference other people's experiments and use them as "proofs". They even use thought experiments and think that they are valid arguments.

In other words, I'm not right just because you're wrong.

Muggsy, here's the thing about evidence from Christian apologists and indoctrinates.  None of their evidence is reproducible.  That's why it's swept aside.  The same can be said of the evidence for a flat Earth.  No evidence which doesn't point to a round Earth as much a flat Earth can be reproduced.  Evidence being actual experiments, and not justifications of how things hypothetically could work on a flat Earth, as in models with UA and celestial gears amongst other presumptions.

The closest thing to experimental evidence for a flat Earth is ENaG, and it's seemingly intentionally vague.  For instance, the Bedford Experiment apparently having factored in refraction without stating how it was done.  A report of the Southern Cross and Polaris being seen at 23.5 degrees latitude, without citing 23.5 north or 23.5 degrees south, as at 23.5 degrees north it would be entirely possible during the northern summer and spring.

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 12:30:05 PM

I'm not ignoring them; On the otherhand, I'm certainly not telling them how to live or artificially trying to advance their culture to make it more like mine.

Like yours?  People starve in your culture too, people hate and kill just to hate and kill in your culture too.  These are things that need to be remedied all around the world.  Problems like people killing just to kill and people starving on the streets don't solve themselves, much as you may want to think so.

I wouldn't say they solve themselves so much as society brings forth what needs to be remedied. If starving on the streets reaches a certain level riots ensue. Heads get chopped off. The society, in essence, has a redefining of its existence. You are right, as was rama, that I need to assess this mindset into the mindset that I am a part of these societies and not an enemy or objector. However the weight of such action and ill is far too much for me to carry alone or to even act on alone. Not until society is ready will any action be reasonably possible. Until then, it is beyond my rights to act as it could cause further paradox.

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 12:30:05 PM

I'd say religion gives A motivation to war, however its more like the issue of a tool which could be used for good or evil. Science gives as many motivations to war as religion and as such one cannot judge either in relation to each other based off this metric.

Present a war where the motivation was simply that one side was more technologically advanced.  Not, one side was more advanced and had motivation to go to war already, just an unproductive war whose motivation was who had the better guns.

Oil use is entirely due to science, and as such is responsible for any wars caused for oil. Much like one would blame the Crusades on the peoples religious motivation.

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 12:30:05 PM

Religion is not necessary to a person. Its a necessity to a large percentage of people that would have easily killed themselves or would be otherwise making themselves unproductive and enemies of society without it.

And all of those people could be consoled or motivated by secular means presuming religion was never instilled into them.  Many can be consoled by secular means even though it was, but religion is just the quickest and easiest at the time.  So I'll grant you that religion can fix the issues of individuals more quickly than many secular means, but that's not to say secular means can't convince a suicide jumper not to jump.

I honestly believe some need religion beyond secular means at times - though thats not to say that secular experience can not be defined as religious experiences at times further muddying the issue.

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 12:30:05 PM

A sick mind is a mind discontent with its view of the world or which is unable to . These usually ends in some sort of crisis, psychosis, existential crisis, or other catastrophic mental breakdown.

I feel like you got cut off at 'unable to', so I'll address these as they stand unless you meant something else.

A discontent mind can be remedied by secular means.  Usually a discontent mind is upset at the flaws of the world at large, and religion doesn't solve these flaws.  Activism does, and religion can inspire activism.  But so can simply being discontent.

Religion is one of the only sources that we have (and have had in the past) for solving these flaws. A religious worldview solves several issues that academic research hasn't. For example, reincarnation solves the outstanding issue of lucky morality. Much of modern psychology can be found throughout the religion of the ancients as well as the texts of various buddhist sects.

People being discontent with their own lives is a common occurrence.  It happens in most every person, and even has it's own reason, the hedonistic treadmill.  The solution to this is to teach people to value everyday life as a pleasurable experience.  To solve more problems with the world that can discontent an individual, teach altruism as something to be enjoyed.  Religion isn't required for either of these, just better teachings of morals and ideas of pleasure.  Not as easy as it is simple, but it's hardly impossible without religious means.

The issue in part is that these ideas are destined to change with time as we better grasp the issues. Religious experience is the natural phenomenae, I believe, that deals with this on a personal level - that triggers a reorganization of the mind and how it views the world - whether pleasurable or discontent. Now this could be described in psychological or physical terms, but in essence it  If this is true on the level of how the mind functions, it is likely true on a higher level. It is quite possible that science needs to have a crisis of its own existences and view to improve itself.

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 12:30:05 PM

I live in the south too.  Again, I would draw a distinction between the organizations of religion and the base religious experiences from which they are derived. Your point is taken and I will always say that religion is imperfect, or at least our understanding of it.

Please define base religious experiences.

I'm grateful that I could get the point across that religion isn't a solve all for society's problems, if only because religion itself can easily instill an us and them mentality.

I never thought religion was a solve all for societies problem, though if used properly it can be the solution to all a persons problems.

Religious experiences I would define as those experiences that are removed from the mundane life. Examples include : Night Terrors, Automatic writing, revelation, conversion, mysticism, or even a eureka moment. This is in contrast to the organization of religion and those in such organizations indoctrinated or otherwise holding to beliefs given by those religions which are almost more of "echos" or ripples of the original experiences that lead to the organizations. It may be outside the reach of some to have a religious or non-mundane experience themselves and so they reach for it through established social organizations that attempt to (in part) endow this.

In short the difference between religion and experiences to me is one is the reaction of an individual to irreconcilable truth, and the other is the reaction of a society to this individuals truth.

There is an order to religion and religious experiences and as such we should be searching for a better religious science.

Quote from: muggsybogues1 on August 02, 2013, 05:44:39 AM

Quote from: hewholikespie on August 01, 2013, 10:37:22 PM

My foundational belief is that reality is self consistent, and as such, can be understood through study, reason, and testing.

I believe that the same holds of the Christian Indoctrinated. Millennia of writings, discussion, and observation have developed the understanding of the Christian God. I've not talked to anyone that claims to know everything, but last I heard, they haven't stopped writing books on the subject.

To be honest, I'm tired of people getting on their "science" high horse. The Christian Indoctrinated have documented millions of observations, which are merely shrugged aside by "scientists" simply because they just don't believe it. In a similar way, the Round Earth Indoctrinated shrug aside the experiments of the Flat Earth Society, and are perfectly willing to reference other people's experiments and use them as "proofs". They even use thought experiments and think that they are valid arguments.

In other words, I'm not right just because you're wrong.

Muggsy, here's the thing about evidence from Christian apologists and indoctrinates.  None of their evidence is reproducible.  That's why it's swept aside.  The same can be said of the evidence for a flat Earth.  No evidence which doesn't point to a round Earth as much a flat Earth can be reproduced.  Evidence being actual experiments, and not justifications of how things hypothetically could work on a flat Earth, as in models with UA and celestial gears amongst other presumptions.

The closest thing to experimental evidence for a flat Earth is ENaG, and it's seemingly intentionally vague.  For instance, the Bedford Experiment apparently having factored in refraction without stating how it was done.  A report of the Southern Cross and Polaris being seen at 23.5 degrees latitude, without citing 23.5 north or 23.5 degrees south, as at 23.5 degrees north it would be entirely possible during the northern summer and spring.

Just because science works in terms of reproducible ends does not mean religious experience or religion should. In fact religious events are more meaningful when they are not reproducible. Its not a matter of a dualistic fight between science and religion but a great tapestry that has holes in it some of which need to be filled with science and some with madness.

I guess it comes down to this. We are all trying to live in the situation that best fits our natural needs. We all want society to progress, for the most part, and for the most part we all want to progress ourselves.

Damning science or damning religion or any other worldview is silly as any other form of bigotry. When you come down to it, we have two (I'm simplifying here) ideas that humans feel are worthwhile to pursue to the so called good life, our survival, or at least to a "meaning of life." It would be foolhardy to put all our eggs in one basket, even if the other basket has had issues in the past that have been resolved or will be resolved. Especially since no matter how much we cry that the other camp is being silly it will do nothing to change their mind. If someone marches to another drum, let him. Or better yet - march to both drums.

I suppose its a bit discordian, but I've always appreciated (and now to a greater degree) the idea of filters presented in the Principia Discordia. Under the Christian filter some things make sense, some don't. Under the science filter others make sense and others don't. Neither are true, persay, but both are an attempt to abstract the truth. A numberline is not a description of numbers that is entirely accurate, and yet it serves its purpose as an imperfect abstraction of the truth. I contend all worldviews are imperfect abstractions of truth, perfect only to an individual at a certain time. This perfect time|worldview overlap can be known to an individual as his or her enlightenment of that worldview.

While religion is an opiate to the masses (A very useful function!) it also is the heart of a cruel and head-serving society.

I wouldn't say they solve themselves so much as society brings forth what needs to be remedied. If starving on the streets reaches a certain level riots ensue. Heads get chopped off. The society, in essence, has a redefining of its existence. You are right, as was rama, that I need to assess this mindset into the mindset that I am a part of these societies and not an enemy or objector. However the weight of such action and ill is far too much for me to carry alone or to even act on alone. Not until society is ready will any action be reasonably possible. Until then, it is beyond my rights to act as it could cause further paradox.

I'm all for inciting activism through greater evils when necessary, but it's not necessary to feed the starving and to stop killers.  The argument that, because society isn't responding to the issue neither should you, is entirely fallacious.  You are a part of society, so you not responding to the issue is part of the reason isn't responding to the issue.  Do you see how ridiculous that is?

Oil use is entirely due to science, and as such is responsible for any wars caused for oil. Much like one would blame the Crusades on the peoples religious motivation.

But science itself didn't motivate wars, science uncovering a new combustible substance did.  A war over resources, not ideology as in religion or who has the better way to perform experiments and processes.

I honestly believe some need religion beyond secular means at times - though thats not to say that secular experience can not be defined as religious experiences at times further muddying the issue.

Again, we must be using different definitions here.  Secular, as in not overtly or specifically religious, is how I intended that.

As for some people needing religion, perhaps.  There haven't been any studies stating for or against such, so I hold that any religious solution can be mirrored in a secular solution with proper effort and ingenuity.

Religion is one of the only sources that we have (and have had in the past) for solving these flaws. A religious worldview solves several issues that academic research hasn't. For example, reincarnation solves the outstanding issue of lucky morality. Much of modern psychology can be found throughout the religion of the ancients as well as the texts of various buddhist sects.

But again, it doesn't solve the flaws, it only makes people feel better about them being there and perhaps inspires activism.  I'll grant you that science hasn't in the past and by it's nature likely can't or won't solve psychological issues.  But the scientific approach isn't the only secular approach.  Trial and error is generally a terrible way to do science, but it works very well for psychology and requires no religion to speak of.  I'll also grant you that many Buddhist sects got psychology right, but that still doesn't mean Buddhism is required to do so.

The issue in part is that these ideas are destined to change with time as we better grasp the issues. Religious experience is the natural phenomenae, I believe, that deals with this on a personal level - that triggers a reorganization of the mind and how it views the world - whether pleasurable or discontent. Now this could be described in psychological or physical terms, but in essence it  If this is true on the level of how the mind functions, it is likely true on a higher level. It is quite possible that science needs to have a crisis of its own existences and view to improve itself.

I'm afraid you've lost me for a bit here.  I was speaking about how teaching enjoyment of everyday life and altruism can make for more contented masses.  This will obviously not work for everybody, but it doesn't have to and really shouldn't or humanity would stagnate.  Those who it doesn't work for will go onto become the innovators, those that change everyday life and how we enjoy it.  In other words, a solution in the form of teaching different morals and behaviours isn't a solve-all, but nothing should be.

I never thought religion was a solve all for societies problem, though if used properly it can be the solution to all a persons problems.

Again, if that were true, society would have no problems.  Each person's problems contribute to the next person's, and societal problems are the problems of large amounts of individuals.  As it is, religion can't give a starving man a meal, can't stop the oceans acidifying, can't do a great many things.  It can motivate people to give a man a meal, and to work to stop pollution, but the means themselves aren't religious.

Religious experiences I would define as those experiences that are removed from the mundane life. Examples include : Night Terrors, Automatic writing, revelation, conversion, mysticism, or even a eureka moment. This is in contrast to the organization of religion and those in such organizations indoctrinated or otherwise holding to beliefs given by those religions which are almost more of "echos" or ripples of the original experiences that lead to the organizations. It may be outside the reach of some to have a religious or non-mundane experience themselves and so they reach for it through established social organizations that attempt to (in part) endow this.

In short the difference between religion and experiences to me is one is the reaction of an individual to irreconcilable truth, and the other is the reaction of a society to this individuals truth.

There is an order to religion and religious experiences and as such we should be searching for a better religious science.

I feel like you use a different definition of religion than I do.  My definition of religion being something along the lines of, worship or observance of the supernatural.  Your examples of night terrors, automatic writing, and a eureka moment are all explainable by secular and even scientific means without requiring the supernatural.  Technically mysticism, revelation, and conversion don't require anything supernatural to occur either, only for one to believe such happens and so can be explained as secular processes to reach these conclusions.  They're all rather mundane, if not common, occurrences even though some are fueled by a belief in the supernatural.

The only truth is objective truth, and here's where I think we hit a snag in the conversation.  Morality, opinions, hallucinations, and subjective truths, are not true any more than a thought is a physical object.  This is simply demonstrable by having two different people have conflicting views at the same time, with as much evidence for one as the other.  Both sides are true with mutually exclusive truths, which makes no logical sense.

I would agree that it would befit humanity to better study psychological occurrences, but I wouldn't claim that they have an order to them more so than the cause or are religious in any way.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 02, 2013, 08:39:55 AM

Quote from: muggsybogues1 on August 02, 2013, 05:44:39 AM

Quote from: hewholikespie on August 01, 2013, 10:37:22 PM

My foundational belief is that reality is self consistent, and as such, can be understood through study, reason, and testing.

I believe that the same holds of the Christian Indoctrinated. Millennia of writings, discussion, and observation have developed the understanding of the Christian God. I've not talked to anyone that claims to know everything, but last I heard, they haven't stopped writing books on the subject.

To be honest, I'm tired of people getting on their "science" high horse. The Christian Indoctrinated have documented millions of observations, which are merely shrugged aside by "scientists" simply because they just don't believe it. In a similar way, the Round Earth Indoctrinated shrug aside the experiments of the Flat Earth Society, and are perfectly willing to reference other people's experiments and use them as "proofs". They even use thought experiments and think that they are valid arguments.

In other words, I'm not right just because you're wrong.

Muggsy, here's the thing about evidence from Christian apologists and indoctrinates.  None of their evidence is reproducible.  That's why it's swept aside.  The same can be said of the evidence for a flat Earth.  No evidence which doesn't point to a round Earth as much a flat Earth can be reproduced.  Evidence being actual experiments, and not justifications of how things hypothetically could work on a flat Earth, as in models with UA and celestial gears amongst other presumptions.

The closest thing to experimental evidence for a flat Earth is ENaG, and it's seemingly intentionally vague.  For instance, the Bedford Experiment apparently having factored in refraction without stating how it was done.  A report of the Southern Cross and Polaris being seen at 23.5 degrees latitude, without citing 23.5 north or 23.5 degrees south, as at 23.5 degrees north it would be entirely possible during the northern summer and spring.

Just because science works in terms of reproducible ends does not mean religious experience or religion should. In fact religious events are more meaningful when they are not reproducible. Its not a matter of a dualistic fight between science and religion but a great tapestry that has holes in it some of which need to be filled with science and some with madness.

You're right, religion doesn't have to work in terms of reproducible evidence.  It's results are invalid if it doesn't, though, because reality does work in terms of reproducible evidence.  And, for the matter of religion versus science, you're right in calling it a false dichotomy.  It's religion and irreligion, and as of yet most any religious experience can be reproduced and explained through irreligious means.

I guess it comes down to this. We are all trying to live in the situation that best fits our natural needs. We all want society to progress, for the most part, and for the most part we all want to progress ourselves.

Agreed so far, excepting the outliers and greedy.

Damning science or damning religion or any other worldview is silly as any other form of bigotry. When you come down to it, we have two (I'm simplifying here) ideas that humans feel are worthwhile to pursue to the so called good life, our survival, or at least to a "meaning of life." It would be foolhardy to put all our eggs in one basket, even if the other basket has had issues in the past that have been resolved or will be resolved. Especially since no matter how much we cry that the other camp is being silly it will do nothing to change their mind. If someone marches to another drum, let him. Or better yet - march to both drums.

Damning religion is no more bigotry than damning the concept of slaveowners and slavery, or that of eugenics.  It has caused significant strife with the only results being consolation to some people that may or may not be reached through secular means.

There is no meaning to life, speaking only in terms of objectivity.  Life only continues because of reproduction, and so that could be called the purpose of an organism.  But what purpose each individual feels they serve is their own to decide and act upon, as well as what they've acted as in the past.  This also addresses the portion calling all eggs in one basket foolhardy.

I suppose its a bit discordian, but I've always appreciated (and now to a greater degree) the idea of filters presented in the Principia Discordia. Under the Christian filter some things make sense, some don't. Under the science filter others make sense and others don't. Neither are true, persay, but both are an attempt to abstract the truth. A numberline is not a description of numbers that is entirely accurate, and yet it serves its purpose as an imperfect abstraction of the truth. I contend all worldviews are imperfect abstractions of truth, perfect only to an individual at a certain time. This perfect time|worldview overlap can be known to an individual as his or her enlightenment of that worldview.

I've never read Principia Discordia, so I can't say how well it describes reality.  As it stands, I have yet to find something that an irreligious worldview can't explain. 

Again, truth is objective.  A number line accurately gives the progression of given numbers in a visual fashion, and isn't intended to serve any other purpose.  I can say, definitely, that something is beautiful because your brain interprets it as such due to your preconceived notions of beauty.  Your contention is only true of subjective worldviews.  Worldviews with objective reality as their basis are consistently true, consistently give facts or extrapolation of facts when relevant.

While religion is an opiate to the masses (A very useful function!) it also is the heart of a cruel and head-serving society.

I would hardly say a numbing of the flaws apparent in the world is useful.

And while science gives us tools to do with as we please, human nature is flawed in such a way that we have a pack mentality.  And so we use these tools to fight 'them' when we feel peace isn't a viable option.

Damning religion is no more bigotry than damning the concept of slaveowners and slavery, or that of eugenics.  It has caused significant strife with the only results being consolation to some people that may or may not be reached through secular means.

There is no meaning to life, speaking only in terms of objectivity.  Life only continues because of reproduction, and so that could be called the purpose of an organism.  But what purpose each individual feels they serve is their own to decide and act upon, as well as what they've acted as in the past.  This also addresses the portion calling all eggs in one basket foolhardy.

I've never read Principia Discordia, so I can't say how well it describes reality.  As it stands, I have yet to find something that an irreligious worldview can't explain. 

Quite poorly, its a funny little book.

Again, truth is objective.  A number line accurately gives the progression of given numbers in a visual fashion, and isn't intended to serve any other purpose.  I can say, definitely, that something is beautiful because your brain interprets it as such due to your preconceived notions of beauty.  Your contention is only true of subjective worldviews.  Worldviews with objective reality as their basis are consistently true, consistently give facts or extrapolation of facts when relevant.

I was referring to the abstract of a number line as say defined by Peano axioms and more so the evolution of what we see as "numbers" over time. I'd argue that any worldview that is stable, and some religious wviews are, gives consistently true or relevant facts. If they didn't people would not hand money to the church and it would die just as a store selling cups with no bottoms would quickly lose all its customers to another cup vendor. The is a greater order to the chaos that can be abstracted countless ways. Science mostly deals with what it sees as the simplest and fastest route as revealed through its axioms.

I would hardly say a numbing of the flaws apparent in the world is useful.

That's one opinion. Certainly other views see a use to it.

And while science gives us tools to do with as we please, human nature is flawed in such a way that we have a pack mentality.  And so we use these tools to fight 'them' when we feel peace isn't a viable option.

My only issue with that worldview (as described above in the entire post) is that it by nature removes the "reason for living" from those who do not believe in objective truth or at the very least a subjective meaning to life.

While I happen to believe in a subjective meaning to life, I also believe a society and a race has a subjective meaning to life based off the social memory of that society. If the parts have a subjective meaning, the whole must as well. Survival, while a base and necessary meaning is not always the meaning - nor is a will to power.  In the end we aim to fill in all holes in our reasoning. Science is unable and unwilling to deal with religious experience as it simply doesn't fall within its realm.

The damning of religious experience is a damning of an entire way of seeing the world that may or may not be correct or at the very least partially correct. Its when we look from all angles we see the truth, not when we ignore data based off of personal indoctrines. The abstracts for anything hold in the right context, and it is from abstracts we build everything. While its fine to have ones own worldview, it should not encroach on the rights of another's worldview. While its not the best route, its certainly not a useless route or a route that needs to be removed from our sphere of knowledge.

While useless at making computers, its very useful at healing sick soles. Especially when secular means are out of reach to the individual due to class differences and circumstances.

Science is unable and unwilling to deal with religious experience as it simply doesn't fall within its realm.

Here, we've hit the crux of the issue.  Your statement that science can't explain something is false if only because we have no proof of such.  That being said, what religious experience has science not explained as of yet?

Quote from: John Davis on August 02, 2013, 02:14:21 PM

Science is unable and unwilling to deal with religious experience as it simply doesn't fall within its realm.

Here, we've hit the crux of the issue.  Your statement that science can't explain something is false if only because we have no proof of such.  That being said, what religious experience has science not explained as of yet?

The issue is that science takes religious experience down to medical materialism. However, medical materialism does not take away the meaning and fruit of illogical and sacred experiences despite the claim it does. In science the source of information matters. In religious matters it is bunk information. Knowing that a seizure or other disease may have been responsible materialistically for Paul's conversion from Saul when the scales fall from his eyes is mostly useless information. The worth of these is not the materialistic origin but the spiritual worth not only to Paul and his companions (who claimed visions of light etc). One can't say the religious fruit of these experiences are mundane (at least in way which is meaningful religiously) when their fruit is unquestionably useful (as evidenced by not only its worth to Paul and his followers but also to his writings and their worth to followers.)

Religious experience can be described physically, but its explanations are at a very low level of understanding. We find the weakest of the sciences dealing with social issues, morality, the mind, and action - with the least probabilisticly correct answers.
 
Man has a sense of the sacred and the mundane. Why would we evolve eyes if not to see, and why would we evolve this sense if not to use it to an evolutionary gain?

That all said, the real crux of the issue is this: more men at any time will die for religion than any empire or any science. They have a say in the direction of their society, and their say should not be bigoted or devalued based of the view of the remainder - or vice versa.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on August 02, 2013, 02:46:46 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 02, 2013, 02:14:21 PM

Science is unable and unwilling to deal with religious experience as it simply doesn't fall within its realm.

Here, we've hit the crux of the issue.  Your statement that science can't explain something is false if only because we have no proof of such.  That being said, what religious experience has science not explained as of yet?

The issue is that science takes religious experience down to medical materialism. However, medical materialism does not take away the meaning and fruit of illogical and sacred experiences despite the claim it does. In science the source of information matters. In religious matters it is bunk information. Knowing that a seizure or other disease may have been responsible materialistically for Paul's conversion from Saul when the scales fall from his eyes is mostly useless information. The worth of these is not the materialistic origin but the spiritual worth not only to Paul and his companions (who claimed visions of light etc). One can't say the religious fruit of these experiences are mundane (at least in way which is meaningful religiously) when their fruit is unquestionably useful (as evidenced by not only its worth to Paul and his followers but also to his writings and their worth to followers.)

That's all it is, though.  A mundane experience to the right person at the right time for them to feel it as influential.  Between psychology and physiology, we can quite easily explain why Saul converted.

Religious experience can be described physically, but its explanations are at a very low level of understanding. We find the weakest of the sciences dealing with social issues, morality, the mind, and action - with the least probabilisticly correct answers.

I've gotten several explanations of the physical aspects of religious experiences.  Euphoria, clarity, intense pain, it varies on what the person finds motivating to change their outlook on life.  We find the weakest of the sciences in social and moral issues, because most social and moral issues aren't scientific issues.  Not necessarily religious, either. 

For sciences dealing with the mind and action, we understand fairly well why many people do the things they do.  I agree we could potentially learn a lot more, but on a physiological level we understand why and how people think and act, and on a psychological level we understand usually why people think and act as they do.
 

Man has a sense of the sacred and the mundane. Why would we evolve eyes if not to see, and why would we evolve this sense if not to use it to an evolutionary gain?

Man has no inherent sense for the transmundane.  It's a taught behaviour.  Even if it weren't, vestigial behaviours and body parts aren't uncommon.  Why do we still think in an 'Us and them' mentality, when we acknowledge ourselves as a single group?  Why are signs of prosperity often considered better than knowledge that you help your fellow man?  Why do men still have nipples, and why do people still get goose bumps?

That all said, the real crux of the issue is this: more men at any time will die for religion than any empire or any science. They have a say in the direction of their society, and their say should not be bigoted or devalued based of the view of the remainder - or vice versa.

Men willing to die for their supernatural beliefs isn't necessarily a good thing!  It's just a likely to result in a pointless slaughter of both sides as anything gained from either.

If the issue is men having a say in their society, democracy has completely nullified the point of religion.  To the point of people's say being devalued based on their beliefs, I've done no such thing.  Religions does so, quite often in fact.  But I feel the belief is the thing to be devalued, not the influence of the person believing it, unless they act in a manner that revokes their say anyway.  To clarify, a crime that would end them in jail.  Religion should not have enough say to cause half the conflicts that it has, though.