Close-minded vs. Open-minded (again)

[Upchurch]

**sigh**

It seems we are doomed to forever repeat this argument from time to time for the sake of religious newbies to the board who don't understand what it means to be "open-minded".

For example (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870215377#post1870215377)
Originally posted by lifegiver

Do you honestly foresee a time when the establishment of physics might accept 'God' as the source of all material effects?
Originally posted by Upchurch

Yep. It'll happen when (or rather, if) evidence for 'God' is conclusively presented. Unlike you theologians, physicisits (and scientists in general) accept new ideas and reject old ideas all the time. They let the facts dictate truth, not the other way around.

{snip}

Originally posted by Upchurch

Is there anything that would cause you to doubt your faith and view the universe through reason and rationality rather than through supersticion and mysticism?
This is nonsense.

{snip}
Originally posted by Upchurch

I didn't walk into anything. I admited to being open minded enough that if conclusive evidence were presented, I would believe it. That no conclusive evidence has ever been presented means that I do not, but I am still open to the possibility.
Your mind has been closed by the stupor induced upon you by the established modes of teaching.
Now, I would define open-minded (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=open-minded) as being receptive to arguments or ideas and closed-minded as not being receptive to arguments or ideas. The closed-minded will not even consider the possibility that they are wrong or even mistaken, while the open-minded always does.

A good skeptic applies the same level of skepticism to all ideas, even their own. The believer applies skepticism only to other's ideas and then only when they disagree with their own. Another thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31311&pagenumber=4) on this board exemplifies this when a believer accepts portions of a theory that appears to back his particular dogmatic argument and rejects the rest (which contradicts his argument) as unimportant.

[Marc]

Reminds me of an exchange with a woman I know that almost never hear from nowadays. I had spoken out against Naturopathy on a friend's online journal, and got resoundingly insulted and blown off for my trouble. Then this woman sends me an e-mail explaining what was wrong with how I made my statements. She did seem to have some points on how I was comming off in my posts, but she also said I seemed to be not open to discussion. That I had made up my mind, and she urged me to be open minded.

I explained to her I was open minded. I asked if she was open minded too, if she would consider the possibility that she was wrong. (essentially the same thing she was asking me to do) Never got a reply. Seems she wasn't interested in a discussion of evidence either.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Another thread[/URL] on this board exemplifies this when a believer accepts portions of a theory that appears to back his particular dogmatic argument and rejects the rest (which contradicts his argument) as unimportant.
Why don't you explain to these readers the bits which reject my argument in that specific thread? After all, you never actually did so in that thread itself.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Why don't you explain to these readers the bits which reject my argument in that specific thread? Sorry. I was referring to the materialist foundation which rejects your immaterialist assumption as well as the lack of simultaneity (one day, I'll learn to spell that word correctly on the first try) which rejects your concept of a unified whole, or absolute reference.

Funny, it seems to me I did mention this in the other thread, but I suppose I could be wrong.

;)

edited to add:
Dang it, I didn't mean to let this get off topic so quickly.

[lifegazer]

I just realised what a mug you took me for. You completely avoided responding to anything in that post and have, instead, turned this thread into something else.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
**sigh**

It seems we are doomed to forever repeat this argument from time to time for the sake of religious newbies to the board who don't understand what it means to be "open-minded".This is the problem over at the Readers Digest boards on the Does the Soul Exist thread. The fundies over there accuse the skeptics (me, Beleth, Diogenes) of being close-minded to religion because it contradicts our "religion of science".

**sigh** indeed.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I just realised what a mug you took me for. You completely avoided responding to anything in that post and have, instead, turned this thread into something else. You mean this new thread where the topic is the closed-mindedness of believers such as yourself? Your logic astounds me again. :rolleyes:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
You mean this new thread where the topic is the closed-mindedness of believers such as yourself? Your logic astounds me again. :rolleyes:
You asked me questions in that post, whereby I gave a honest and rational response to questions pertaining to my alleged closed-mindedness. Where is the response??

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You asked me questions in that post, whereby I gave a honest and rational response to questions pertaining to my alleged closed-mindedness. Where is the response?? Your response was that there was no possible way that you could be wrong and that I was the closed-minded one for not seeing this. However, as my opening post in this thread states, it is precisely this reason why you are being closed-minded. You have closed your mind to the possibility that you are wrong.

[c4ts]

Since those who are close minded believe that they also have open minds, can you really be certain that your mind isn't closed? I find that those who are close minded are under some sort of illusion or belief and cling to it irrationally, believing that all who are in opposition to it are doing the same thing. They fear the possibility of being wrong, and by going to such great lengths to defend themselves from it, they sometimes reverse right and wrong until they can only see themselves as correct. Being open minded is to be free of this fear, so that if your beliefs come into question, you are obliged to examine them rather than come to their defense, and perhaps even let go of them if they become a problem.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by c4ts
Being open minded is to be free of this fear, so that if your beliefs come into question, you are obliged to examine them rather than come to their defense, and perhaps even let go of them if they become a problem. Agreed. I had to do that waaaaay back when I first joined up when I came to the realization that Franko was correct that atheism can held religiously (not that it always, just that it can be).

Lemmie tell ya what a kick in the *** it was to have to conceed a point to Franko.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by c4ts
Since those who are close minded believe that they also have open minds, can you really be certain that your mind isn't closed? I find that those who are close minded are under some sort of illusion or belief and cling to it irrationally, believing that all who are in opposition to it are doing the same thing. They fear the possibility of being wrong, and by going to such great lengths to defend themselves from it, they sometimes reverse right and wrong until they can only see themselves as correct. Being open minded is to be free of this fear, so that if your beliefs come into question, you are obliged to examine them rather than come to their defense, and perhaps even let go of them if they become a problem.

I think a good way to tell is how personally someone would take attacks on what they hold true.

[Scoobmaster]

Greetings Upchurch!

I experienced the close-minded school of thought when debating religion with my co-worker (for the record he is a Christian fundy). I explained to him that I would certainly accept the existance of (and maybe even worship) his God if scientific proof could be shown. When I reversed the question on him and asked if he would give up his belief if somehow physical evidence proved that Jesus was nothing but a common mortal man (or completely made-up) and there was no God. He replied that he would keep his faith "no matter what". (sound familiar??) I replied to him: "THAT is the definition of CLOSE-MINDED".

[DialecticMaterialist]

Excellent post Upchurch. Its nice to see someone else besides me is tired of all those who for some odd reason equate being open-minded with inetellectual isolationism "everyone has their own beliefs" and gullibility. Open-mindedness means you question beliefs, compare them to others and allow them to change with the evidence. This is essential, as most of what a person will learn will be from other people, not one's-self.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
I just realised what a mug you took me for. You completely avoided responding to anything in that post and have, instead, turned this thread into something else.

Now now Lifegazer, did you read the Women's Studies thread started by SuperCharts/

I think there you will see more argument for argument's sake then I have seen UpChurch engage in.

Perhaps he will respond to you in that thread.

I ahev noticed a tendancy of a great many posetr to just argue through assertion(the irreduibility of qualia for example), , when confronted with another POV, certain posters just assert that they are right.

It would seem that they are set in thier beliefs and are not open to even entertaining other people's notions.

Certain warning signs seem to prevail
-words like preposterous and ridiculous
-phrases like self evident, logical and rational
-ignoring posters responses
-endless repition of the same assertions
-endless name calling in defense of thier position.

Just to make sure Lifegazer is not being singled out I will name Interesting Ian, Titus Rivas and Franko for the immaterialists and
Thai Boxer Ken, Evil yeti and LordKenneth for the materialists.

I personaly do try to doubt all my beliefs on a regular basis and test why I hold them.

[Yahweh]

I try to keep myself open-minded about everything from my Philosophical beliefs to morality to theology all the way up to questioning the integrity of science...

Unfortunately, I dont meet too many people in real life who I'd consider to be open-minded (its funny how nobody has ever said "yeah, I am closeminded, dont even try to use reason on me"...). Highschool isnt really a place to try to debate the existence of a god, its little more than "you cant prove blah blah blah" and "I dont care what you think". Oh well, I wouldnt hold it against the people around me (mostly teenagers) if they've never taken the time to question their beliefs, there really is so many better things to do while you still have the body and energy...

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by c4ts
I find that those who are close minded are under some sort of illusion or belief and cling to it irrationally, believing that all who are in opposition to it are doing the same thing. They fear the possibility of being wrong, and by going to such great lengths to defend themselves from it, they sometimes reverse right and wrong until they can only see themselves as correct. Being open minded is to be free of this fear, so that if your beliefs come into question, you are obliged to examine them rather than come to their defense, and perhaps even let go of them if they become a problem. Thing is, though, don't people at heart, right at the bottom of themselves, hold positions on v important life stuff for emotional, not rational, reasons. We all have base assumptions about the world in fact, we need them in order to just live

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Upchurch,
Your topic reminds me of a fragment of debate I heard twenty years ago:

A:You cannot be rational without learning to be self-critical!
B:Criticizing my view is not my job but yours.

I'm with B. To hell with navel-gazing! You have done your bit, by setting out your argument where your opponent can get at it.

Regards.

[Igopogo]

I tend to believe that open-mindedness goes against general human nature.

In leaders, for example, you look weak and fallible to many when you change your mind on any topic. Like Machiavelli says in "the Prince", it’s more important to be unchanging in your decisions than to be right. By following an unwavering path of action, you will always be proven right eventually, because history will always be on your side, (ie: one can only speculate as to the outcome of alternate choices not taken). Something I’ve heard parroted often in the media in the last couple years is that the Democrats need to get more steadfastly decisive like the Bush administration to make in roads with the public in the next election. I tend to believe that quality debate & democracy follows a different pattern, but I find few these days who share similar views. How many of us have had a discussion with a religious zealot that ends with him/her saying," the main difference between you & I is that you’re unsure about God & I KNOW, therefore – I’m righter than you." This seems to be a basic human attude.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Thing is, though, don't people at heart, right at the bottom of themselves, hold positions on v important life stuff for emotional, not rational, reasons. We all have base assumptions about the world in fact, we need them in order to just live
You are begging the question. Perhaps you base your positions on emotion; I don't.

In order to live, we need oxygen, water and food.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Thing is, though, don't people at heart, right at the bottom of themselves, hold positions on v important life stuff for emotional, not rational, reasons. We all have base assumptions about the world in fact, we need them in order to just live
I disagree, I hardly see a person's beliefs governed by emotional reasoning. Instead, I see the beliefs manifesting themselves as deep inner convictions (its a technical term referring to psychological aspect of "faith", inner convictions develope as a result of environment), from there emotional attachment to said deity or faith will begin to appear.

However, even the strongest inner convictions will give way and eventually break pending the seeds of doubt have been planted properly. Seeds of doubt come in the form of reasoning, questions, scientific evidence, etc.

[Mr Clingford]

Minor thought: I am surprised at you both, arcticpenguin and yahweh, that you are so confident in your impartiality and dispassionate personalities that you state so strongly; we all have subjective views of the world

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Yahweh
However, even the strongest inner convictions will give way and eventually break pending the seeds of doubt have been planted properly. Seeds of doubt come in the form of reasoning, questions, scientific evidence, etc. You seem assured of a materialist world to state this; I am astounded at your confidence that all faith would dissolve. Reasoning and questioning do not = no faith

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Minor thought: I am surprised at you both, arcticpenguin and yahweh, that you are so confident in your impartiality and dispassionate personalities that you state so strongly; we all have subjective views of the world
When you get tired of waving your arms you might try introducing some evidence to abck up your assertions. I won't hold my breath, though.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Minor thought: I am surprised at you both, arcticpenguin and yahweh, that you are so confident in your impartiality and dispassionate personalities that you state so strongly; we all have subjective views of the world
I make an effort to state my views succinctly, I try not to come off as cold-hearted (brrr... my avatar is making me a little chilly) or dispassionate.

At heart, I'm very cynical. On the surface, I try as best I can to speak words of wisdom. I've spent a good lot of my life learning everything there is to be learned. My impartiality only comes from the fact that I know my way around different aspects of psychology, I've answered the same question ("Are our beliefs rooted in our emotions") hundreds of times over. The second paragraph is an observation based in fact (more psychology, actually).

Yeah, we all have subjective views of the world, that is impossible to escape. However we all live and experience the same world, nothing much out of the ordinary if 2 people think alike...

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Thing is, though, don't people at heart, right at the bottom of themselves, hold positions on v important life stuff for emotional, not rational, reasons. We all have base assumptions about the world in fact, we need them in order to just live


Minor thought: I am surprised at you both, arcticpenguin and yahweh, that you are so confident in your impartiality and dispassionate personalities that you state so strongly; we all have subjective views of the world
You did not originally ask about my personality, but about my "positions on v important life stuff". Positions != personality. Do try to keep track of what you say.

For an example, my lack of belief in a god is based on a rational process, not an emotional one.

[Mr Clingford]

Thank you for the civil reply, YHWH.The second paragraph is an observation based in fact (more psychology, actually). But surely the existence of someone who has been exposed to all the seeds of doubt and finds that God still exists proves this wrong?However we all live and experience the same world, nothing much out of the ordinary if 2 people think alike... True, but the thoughts and experiences of a 12th Century Icelandic goat herder will be somewhat different to a 21st C Japanese citizenMy impartiality only comes from the fact that I know my way around different aspects of psychology, I've answered the same question ("Are our beliefs rooted in our emotions") hundreds of times over. I am not quite sure what you are saying here, would you expand it for me

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
You did not originally ask about my personality, but about my "positions on v important life stuff". Positions != personality. Do try to keep track of what you say.

For an example, my lack of belief in a god is based on a rational process, not an emotional one. I see no need for you to be rude to me. Positions are grounded in the personality; what one considers to be evidence, or sufficient evidence for a position will depend on one's life experience, for instance, which are part of the personality

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Thank you for the civil reply, YHWH.
Always a pleasure :).

But surely the existence of someone who has been exposed to all the seeds of doubt and finds that God still exists proves this wrong?
Well, its not a rule written in stone. There are always exceptions.

True, but the thoughts and experiences of a 12th Century Icelandic goat herder will be somewhat different to a 21st C Japanese citizen
Sometimes I'm a little indirect when I stay things. "...nothing much out of the ordinary if 2 people think alike" was referring to articpenguin and I's similar views upon the world, it was a response your "we all have subjective views of the world" statement.

I am not quite sure what you are saying here, would you expand it for me
Quite often on the boards, the question of "where does a person's 'faith' come from" is asked (that is the question that I've answered "hundreds of times over"). Almost always, someone will answer in a way that tries to explain "faith" by one's emotions (in fact, Interesting Ian wrote a very similar post stating something along the lines of "our beliefs are governed by how we feel"). In psychology, this isnt true. A person's beliefs are governed by their inner convictions.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
You seem assured of a materialist world to state this; I am astounded at your confidence that all faith would dissolve. Reasoning and questioning do not = no faith
No system is perfect, there will always be exceptions.

Reasoning and question do happen to = "no faith". "Faith" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith) is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Of course, that is the defintion of "blind faith". Once you have scientific reasoning, scientific rationality, and evidence to support your beliefs, they begin to look less and less like "blind faith".

For instance, you mentioned "you seem assured of a materialist world", I am your typical Evil Materialist. My Philosophy is not a judgement based on faith. See the below article...

From Einstein Theory (http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/History_n2/index_n2/einstein_theory.html):
Next, in April and May [of 1905], Einstein published two papers. In one he invented a new method of counting and determining the size of the atoms or molecules in a given space and in the other he explains the phenomenon of Brownian motion. The net result was a proof that atoms actually exist - still an issue at that time - and the end to a millennia-old debate on the fundamental nature of the chemical elements.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Reasoning and question do happen to = "no faith". "Faith" (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith) is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Oddly enough, both sides agree on this one...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by sparklecat
Oddly enough, both sides agree on this one...

I would think the Materialist point of view where everything that exists can be explained in terms of matter and natural phenomena is probably not the same statement of faith as one who assumes the hypothetical existence of a "supreme being" to explain how and why things occur in the universe...

Edit to add: I think I misunderstood your post. I got the idea you were saying Materialist Philosophy and Religious Faith were similar to each other...

[sparklecat]

No, just that both the have and the have-nots in terms of faith agree that its not based on evidence or logic... especially not wordly logic, whatever thats supposed to be.

I haven't yet asked how far we're supposed to hold faith when it seems to be against the evidence though...

[athon]

I'm tired of being told, as a skeptic, that I'm close minded.

My typical response is this:

'I am prepared to believe what you're telling me if I am presented with an equal amount of evidence as that which it took for me to arrive at my own conclusion.
What would it take for you to change your mind?'

90% of the time, they can't answer you. Humility goes out the window, and they often just repeat 'I'm right' as a mantra. If that isn't close minded, what is?

Athon

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Thing is, though, don't people at heart, right at the bottom of themselves, hold positions on v important life stuff for emotional, not rational, reasons. We all have base assumptions about the world in fact, we need them in order to just live

We all have instincts. Anything beyond that is not necessary just to live.

[Mr Clingford]

Hi YHWHInstead, I see the beliefs manifesting themselves as deep inner convictions (its a technical term referring to psychological aspect of "faith", inner convictions develope as a result of environment), from there emotional attachment to said deity or faith will begin to appear. I have Psychology 'A' level but do not recall "deep inner convictions". If it is too boring to reiterate what they are would you provide a link that I may read Well, its not a rule written in stone. There are always exceptions Thing is, I have encountered many Christians who are intelligent, thoughtful and knowledgable; this is, perhaps, because I have sought them out, but there are many, including scientists and philosophers.Reasoning and question do happen to = "no faith". "Faith" is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence For me, to the best of my ability and honesty, weighing up the evidence of my experiences of God and philosophical, scientific and literary knowledge I am not deceiving myself in coming to the conclusion that I have encountered God. This is where I am coming from; I may have the same questions as regards eg 1. The Bible - what is going on here 2. Evil and suffering - what are you on about God, but if I am being true to myself then these questions are asked in the light of the God that I have encountered

[The Don]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
but if I am being true to myself then these questions are asked in the light of the God that I have encountered

How did you encounter this God ?

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by The Don


How did you encounter this God ? In my head in my bedroom, in other rooms, other buildings, on my own, with another, with many.
I felt his presence, his love. It has been almost 10 years since I felt God like that and so it is difficult to put into words what it was like especially as it was like nothing else I have experienced so I can't compare it readily

I am adding that it was a sort of feeling his presence, an awareness

[Gregor]

Mr. Clingford is certainly correct in his pointing out that we all come into the issue with biases. It's just being human.

However, those with faith have an inherent circularity in their argument. It goes something like this:

1. I am open minded
2. As an open minded person, I am willing to consider differing points of view on numerous issues.
3. However, I have faith in the existence of my god.
4. Faith means belief without objective, irrefutable evidence.
5. I base my faith on personal revelation, which exists outside of physical evidence.
6. Even if you were to show me that the building block of my particular religion was completed fabricated, I would still have my faith in my god, because it is a personally held belief.
7. Thus, the validity of my faith in my god is not a topic on which I am willing to consider differing points of view.

Ergo, I am open minded on many things, except my religion.

[pgwenthold]

"How did you encounter God?"

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
In my head in my bedroom, in other rooms, other buildings, on my own, with another, with many.
I felt his presence, his love. It has been almost 10 years since I felt God like that and so it is difficult to put into words what it was like especially as it was like nothing else I have experienced so I can't compare it readily

I am adding that it was a sort of feeling his presence, an awareness

How do you know it was God and not a powerful deceiver? He has deceived you into thinking that you have encountered God, and hence had led you down a path to damnation?

I know that if I were Satan, the first thing I would do would be to convince everyone that I were God and that the real God was the evil one. I'd pretend to display love, even agape love. Feeble little sheeple would follow me right into the pits of hell. Of course, God makes it real easy for me because he doesn't butt in.

So tell me, how do you know it was God you encountered, and not the deceiver?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by sparklecat

I haven't yet asked how far we're supposed to hold faith when it seems to be against the evidence though...
I've had that discussion a few times, on various specific topics.

For example, after a 30 minute or so discussion with a Young Earth Creationist (who was also a PhD student in molecular biology!) someone says "at least you have to admire him for the courage of his convictions".

My reply: "Review the last half hour of discussion in your head. Every where 'creationism' comes up, substitute 'flat earth theory'. Would you still admire that person for having the courage of their convictions?"

[c4ts]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

You are begging the question. Perhaps you base your positions on emotion; I don't.

In order to live, we need oxygen, water and food.

Well, it goes beyond that. We all need motivation to eat, drink, and breathe, which is what instinct is for. However Mr. Clingford is talking about faith, although there is proof on this very board of people living without faith, it seems that Mr. Clingford is afraid that he will die without his belief. This is the fear of being wrong I was talking about.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Hi YHWH I have Psychology 'A' level but do not recall "deep inner convictions". If it is too boring to reiterate what they are would you provide a link that I may read

From Dilemmas of the Self (http://www2.pfeiffer.edu/~lridener/courses/GIDDENS.HTML):
In such circumstances, we might argue, the false self overrides and blankets out the original acts of thinking, feeling and willing which represent the true motivations of the individual. What remains of the true self is experienced as empty and inauthentic; yet this vacuum cannot be filled by the 'pseudo-selves' brought into play by the individual in different contexts, because these are as much stimulated by the responses of others as drawn from the person's inner convictions. Ontological security in this situation is as weakly founded as in the case of the rigid traditionalist. The individual only feels psychologically secure in his self-identity in so far as others recognise his behaviour as appropriate or reasonable.

Other links include:
Psychology from and Empirical Standpoint (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/brentano.htm)
Psychology and Spirituality (http://www.i-breathe.com/thb11/WhatisB.htm) (Not worth reading, but it does mention "inner convictions stem from childhood").

"Inner convictions" are a technical term describing a person's personal beliefs. I cant find information worth devoting some time to, there is nothing written on the subject on "inner convictions" alone.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
We all have base assumptions about the world This assertion of mine does not appear to have been discussed. I am saying that all worldviews, whether, say, materialist or theist, are based on unprovable assumptions. we do not know that the universe will continue as it has done so far; logically the fact that 'the sun has risen' everytime so far does not prove that it will do tomorrow; it is fair to assume that it will, but it is still an assumption. It is the problem of induction.

c4ts - I am not sure what you are talking about. Everyone looks at the world through an interpretative framework that is based on assumptions

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
This assertion [we all have base assumptions about the world] of mine does not appear to have been discussed. I am saying that all worldviews, whether, say, materialist or theist, are based on unprovable assumptions. It's true. However, some assumptions are made for pragmatic reasons and are often backed up by consistancy of results.

It is often the immaterialist claim that all we know for sure is that our minds exist and that we don't know that the world we perceive external to ourselves actually exists. Materialists, they say, are merely assuming that there is an external world responsible for those perceptions. In the strictest sense, that is true.

Oddly enough, some immaterialists, while denying one set of perceptions as potentially illusionary, themselves assume that another set, those perceptions that give them a sense of identity and mind, are not potentially illusionary. These immaterialists, which in my experience is all of them, fail to see or admit the hypocracy and inconsistancy inherent in this assumption. However, I digress.

So, yes, ultimately, materialists do assume that our perceptions are representative of an external, material world. However, it has thus far been a relatively safe assumption as all of our perceptions of this external world has been entirely self-consistent (with the possible exception of the quantum level of that external world).

Theists, in general, have a much wider range of assumptions, so it is difficult to compare materialists with the generic category of "theists". However, if we assume (no pun intended) that the common theist assumption is "God exists", we at least have something to work with.

Of itself, this assumption holds no significant impact on our study of the world as it can be assumed or not assumed and reach the exact same results, as long as the study is conducted objectively. There are some things, perhaps, that could be described using the theist assumption that a purely materialistic assumption wouldn't cover. Good/bad luck, for example or maybe happiness. However, it present, it isn't clear that these things can't be explained through by a purely materialistic assumption, just that it hasn't yet.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
This assertion of mine does not appear to have been discussed. I am saying that all worldviews, whether, say, materialist or theist, are based on unprovable assumptions. we do not know that the universe will continue as it has done so far; logically the fact that 'the sun has risen' everytime so far does not prove that it will do tomorrow; it is fair to assume that it will, but it is still an assumption. It is the problem of induction.


This is quite true but it dodges the question:
Why would you assume that the sun won't rise tomorrow?

Some assumptions are based upon appearances, such as the fact the the 'external world' looks as though it is incredably old. I will grant you that it could have been created to look that way.

There are some limits to induction, and that is very true, and unfortunately most of the sceptics here will not even experiment with the spiritual process so they make an unwarranted assumption that there are no spiritual processes.

How ever, we may not assume that the universe will carry on as it has tomorrow, but that is an untestable hypothesis. There are good reasons to believe that isotropy(the biggest assumption of science) is real thing that extends through space and atleast back ten billion years.

I will grant you that it is based upon the appearance of the physical world. But I haven't really seen good proof that material science is full of holes yet.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Dancing David


This is quite true but it dodges the question:
Why would you assume that the sun won't rise tomorrow?

Some assumptions are based upon appearances, such as the fact the the 'external world' looks as though it is incredably old. I will grant you that it could have been created to look that way.

There are some limits to induction, and that is very true, and unfortunately most of the sceptics here will not even experiment with the spiritual process so they make an unwarranted assumption that there are no spiritual processes.

How ever, we may not assume that the universe will carry on as it has tomorrow, but that is an untestable hypothesis. There are good reasons to believe that isotropy(the biggest assumption of science) is real thing that extends through space and atleast back ten billion years.

I will grant you that it is based upon the appearance of the physical world. But I haven't really seen good proof that material science is full of holes yet.

"It's possible that the world was created over the course of 6 days 6000 years ago, but it doesn't look like it."

The day that the "isotropy" fails in any perspective, it will have to be reconsidered.

And you are mistaken about skeptics (at least this skeptic) and "spiritual processes." It's not an assumption that there are no spiritual processes, it's an issue of not having any reason to think there are. Thus, there is no reason to bother with the possibility. It's not an assumption against the spiritual processes, it is an observation that if there are spiritual processes, they aren't having any effect on anything. I might as well be considering hutrinazes.

[Mr Clingford]

Why would you assume that the sun won't rise tomorrow? It can not be proved logically that the sun will rise rise tomorrow; although all the evidence may show that all swans are white it is not logically valid to be able to generalise that all swans are white because some may be found that are blackThere are good reasons to believe that isotropy(the biggest assumption of science) is real thing that extends through space and atleast back ten billion years. I agree - I am no YEC

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


"It's possible that the world was created over the course of 6 days 6000 years ago, but it doesn't look like it."

The day that the "isotropy" fails in any perspective, it will have to be reconsidered. The point, though, is that it is still and assumption - it is not provable

And you are mistaken about skeptics (at least this skeptic) and "spiritual processes." It's not an assumption that there are no spiritual processes, it's an issue of not having any reason to think there are. Thus, there is no reason to bother with the possibility. It's not an assumption against the spiritual processes, it is an observation that if there are spiritual processes, they aren't having any effect on anything. I might as well be considering hutrinazes. I have reason to think there are spiritual processes because they have been part of my life experiences and are therefore data to be dealt with as they have had an effect on me

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
The point, though, is that it is still and assumption - it is not provable

I have reason to think there are spiritual processes because they have been part of my life experiences and are therefore data to be dealt with as they have had an effect on me

A lot of studies point to there being a "spiritual" part of the brain. I remember seeing studies where stimulating this part of the brain produces profound religious experiences in people. I don't see how this would be proof of anything religious.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
It can not be proved logically that the sun will rise rise tomorrow;
I dont know what kind of logical proof you are looking for...

Empirical evidence: The Sun has risen and set continuiously for the last 4.5 billion years. The conditions to observe a sun rise and sun set are no different than yesterday, the conditions also predict a sun rise and sun set.

Scientific evidence: Assuming you are at a latitude to see a sun rise and sun set in a 24 hour period, the sun will rise tomorrow as predicted by Conservation of Angular Momentum (breaking the Laws of Physics is a big no-no...).


Of course, it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty (I cant know if everyone around me exists, is a p_zombie, figments of my imagination, illusions being projected by aliens, a bored brain in vat inventing its own reality, etc. etc. etc.), that's why everybody should be a Solipsist.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


"
And you are mistaken about skeptics (at least this skeptic) and "spiritual processes." It's not an assumption that there are no spiritual processes, it's an issue of not having any reason to think there are. Thus, there is no reason to bother with the possibility. It's not an assumption against the spiritual processes, it is an observation that if there are spiritual processes, they aren't having any effect on anything. I might as well be considering hutrinazes.

You just proved my point!

A priori , you define spirituality as something, then why would you investigate it.

I don't recall defining spirituality, but you already have, another point showing bigotry.(Most likely not intentional but still a prejudice.)

Why not define spirituality as a set of human experiences including relaxtion, conection to others and positive visualization.

It's not an assumption against the spiritual processes, it is an observation that if there are spiritual processes, they aren't having any effect on anything.


have you tried meditation? have you tried anything that might be called mystical? You can be a sceptic and still use the techniques, then you can decide for your self if meditation, compassion and other spiritual experiences have value.

You haven't tried so you don't know, I know athesist who are very spiritual, you jst rule it out without even exploring.

I garuntee you the effects of even Prayer Are Real! They cause a change in the mind set of the person making the prayer, they have thier effect in the arena of human perception as do all 'spiritual processes'.(No, angels don't hustle to get you the winning lottery ticket, that is silly!)

Thanks for just proving the argument, you rule out something based upon a whacked out definition, you might try exploring first.

If you drive, I highly recomend relaxtion and blessing of those who piss you off, you get to your destination much more calmly. I wouldn't say that the benefit comes from the actual blessing, but the mind set where you wish positive things for people who annoy you, it doesn't hurt them and it certainly makes for a more pleasant journey.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by RussDill


A lot of studies point to there being a "spiritual" part of the brain. I remember seeing studies where stimulating this part of the brain produces profound religious experiences in people. I don't see how this would be proof of anything religious.

Would that not prove that spiritual experiences are part of the human brain process?

That would prove that religion is like seeing, having an orgasm, a part of the human experience.

I don't believe in quarks becaus ethey can never be tested for, but they are useful all the same!

Spiritual experiences are part of human life , and when your friends die or the dinosaur eats your spouse they are a very useful coping skill.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Would that not prove that spiritual experiences are part of the human brain process?

That would prove that religion is like seeing, having an orgasm, a part of the human experience.

I don't believe in quarks becaus ethey can never be tested for, but they are useful all the same!

Spiritual experiences are part of human life , and when your friends die or the dinosaur eats your spouse they are a very useful coping skill.

Then I wouldn't call them spiritual or religious, maybe my definition of spiritual is different than yours, which surely would be no reason to disagree.

Meditation: yes, this is definately very good for the mind and body. Many people never endulge in this. Of course, many people connect meditation with spirutuality, and by my own definition of spirituality, I would disagree.

Prayer: This one, I don't get at all, how would speaking to a diety that one does not believe in help? While it would be mentally supportive for those that do believe, it means nothing for someone who does not. I think positive words and good tidings can pass along the same effect

You define spirituality as: "human experiences including relaxtion, conection to others and positive visualization." I suppose that definition largely hinges on what you mean by "connection to others". Personally, I would disagree with your definition, I think I would add in more about connecting with people on a "spiritual level", whatever that means, and also connecting with a "higher being".

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I don't believe in quarks becaus ethey can never be tested for, but they are useful all the same!

From Jefferson Lab - Glossary of Scientific Terms - Quarks (http://education.jlab.org/qa/quark_04.html):
. It took experimentalists nearly 30 years to find proof of the existence of all six quarks. The Top was the last quark discovered in two experiments called CDF and D0 at a sister lab to Jefferson Lab, Fermilab, outside Chicago. They announced their discovery in April, 1994.
It took 30 years, but it was eventually done...

From the same article:
Many particles have been discovered by accident during an experiment looking at something else. The experimenter then gets to name that particle, therefore a lot of particles have awfully silly names.
:)

[Zero]

When discussing science vs faith, I like to avoid terms like 'true' and 'false', and stick to the more easily defendable position of usefulness and practicality. the rational materialist worldview has a leg up on other worldviews, not because of any arbitrary truth value, but because it can and always has been used to make accurate predictions about the future. While it is possible, for instance, that the Sun won't rise tomorrow, it is neither a useful or practical view of the universe, because there's not really any reason to change our plans on that slim chance. So, I am close-minded to that idea, simply because it is impractical for me to embrace it.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Zero
When discussing science vs faith, I like to avoid terms like 'true' and 'false', and stick to the more easily defendable position of usefulness and practicality. the rational materialist worldview has a leg up on other worldviews, not because of any arbitrary truth value, but because it can and always has been used to make accurate predictions about the future.


In other words, it's practical. Exactly.

It has nothing to do with being a "provable" position or absolute truth. That's irrelevent. It has to do with what works. When I step out of bed in the morning, I expect the floor to hold me up. Not because I have any proof that it will, just that it always has in the past and there is no reason to expect it not to in the future.

Now, if it was something that I could not establish by experience, e.g. it sometimes fell through with no reason, then I wouldn't be able to expect it and I'd have to resort to some other approach.

Who cares about "absolute truth"? For all we know, we could all be subjects of a 5th grade science experiment. So what? It doesn't look that way, so why should we bother worrying about it?

There are infinite possible things that we "could be" that have as much going for them as the 5th grade science experiment or "god." I don't worry about them, either.


While it is possible, for instance, that the Sun won't rise tomorrow, it is neither a useful or practical view of the universe, because there's not really any reason to change our plans on that slim chance. So, I am close-minded to that idea, simply because it is impractical for me to embrace it.

I wouldn't even call it closed minded. It's just a waste of time to worry about it.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by RussDill


Then I wouldn't call them spiritual or religious, maybe my definition of spiritual is different than yours, which surely would be no reason to disagree.

Meditation: yes, this is definately very good for the mind and body. Many people never endulge in this. Of course, many people connect meditation with spirutuality, and by my own definition of spirituality, I would disagree.

Prayer: This one, I don't get at all, how would speaking to a diety that one does not believe in help? While it would be mentally supportive for those that do believe, it means nothing for someone who does not. I think positive words and good tidings can pass along the same effect

You define spirituality as: "human experiences including relaxtion, conection to others and positive visualization." I suppose that definition largely hinges on what you mean by "connection to others". Personally, I would disagree with your definition, I think I would add in more about connecting with people on a "spiritual level", whatever that means, and also connecting with a "higher being".

And again this just proves my point further, it is the definition of 'spiritual process' that hangs people up. True spirituiality comes down to some core values and practises, if you look at all things spiritual. they always come down to the same basic things.

If you go and say 'this can not work because of the religous framework', then you have denied yourself the ability to experiment and decide for yourself if the practises work.


Personally, I would disagree with your definition, I think I would add in more about connecting with people on a "spiritual level", whatever that means, and also connecting with a "higher being".

I did give a deliberately small definition because my perception of 'the meaning of life' is going to be radical different from yours. I used a shortened version of my own.


Prayer: This one, I don't get at all, how would speaking to a diety that one does not believe in help? While it would be mentally supportive for those that do believe, it means nothing for someone who does not. I think positive words and good tidings can pass along the same effect


Do you have to believe that there are electrons for the method to work, what if the pwoer in prayer us merely from cognitive restructuring/mediation and not dependant upon a 'higher' power?

I am just saying that there are many components of 'spirituality' that can be incorporated into a secular and atheistics lifestyle, but most people exclude them from the get go, without experimentation.

I am just pointing out how materialism cuts itself off from an important arena of human experience because of the definitions they assign to world like 'spiritual', it sure doesn't mean that the Invisible Pink Elephants at the Core of the Earth actualy anser prayers!

I am popojnting out that the behaviors and attitudes can be used without all the window dressings!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Yahweh


From Jefferson Lab - Glossary of Scientific Terms - Quarks (http://education.jlab.org/qa/quark_04.html):

It took 30 years, but it was eventually done...

From the same article:

:)

;P

Sorry Yaweh, but quarks are only theorhetical models, they have showed that the model has useful predictions but by definition you can not reduce naything to a quark. I was pointing out the usefulness of predictions from induction and reduction that can not be directly verified.(like the sun rising tomorrow)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


In other words, it's practical. Exactly.

It has nothing to do with being a "provable" position or absolute truth. That's irrelevent. It has to do with what works. When I step out of bed in the morning, I expect the floor to hold me up. Not because I have any proof that it will, just that it always has in the past and there is no reason to expect it not to in the future.

Now, if it was something that I could not establish by experience, e.g. it sometimes fell through with no reason, then I wouldn't be able to expect it and I'd have to resort to some other approach.

Who cares about "absolute truth"? For all we know, we could all be subjects of a 5th grade science experiment. So what? It doesn't look that way, so why should we bother worrying about it?

There are infinite possible things that we "could be" that have as much going for them as the 5th grade science experiment or "god." I don't worry about them, either.



I wouldn't even call it closed minded. It's just a waste of time to worry about it.

Bravo bravo, author author, bravo

[Mr Clingford]

YHWHI dont know what kind of logical proof you are looking for... I was just wanting to see whether people understood that all positions are based on assumptions. Logical proof is different to scientific as the latter contains assumptions
Of course, it is impossible to know anything with 100% certainty I agree

[lifegazer]

How's the patting-each-other on the back convention going? Just popped in for a cuppa.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by lifegazer
How's the patting-each-other on the back convention going? Just fine and certainly much easier than trying to pat onself on the back, I imagine.

[Dancing David]

I really like the new sound sytem in the Ivory Tower too..


Jeesh Lifegazer, if you had read the thread you might have noticed some discussion going on!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Just fine and certainly much easier than trying to pat onself on the back, I imagine.
Coffee... black... hint of sugar. Please.
I don't congratulate myself for a truth that belongs to God. But it's certainly amusing watching a bunch of skeptics bolster their confidence in their poor philosophies. Please continue whilst I sup my coffee.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by Dancing David
IJeesh Lifegazer, if you had read the thread you might have noticed some discussion going on! Exactly! I'm a god-damned believer!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Exactly! I'm a god-damned believer!
*Pats Mr Clingford's back*

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Coffee... black... hint of sugar. Please.
I don't congratulate myself for a truth that belongs to God. But it's certainly amusing watching a bunch of skeptics bolster their confidence in their poor philosophies. Please continue whilst I sup my coffee.

eye:mote, mote:eye


You are the only one to make the claim that the debate makes you stronger, ugh sugar in the coffee, well at least there is no cream in it.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Mr Clingford
Exactly! I'm a god-damned believer!

I am glad for you, it must be hard to put up with the assaults that pass for argument here. i am suprised that no one has countered the 'spiritual processes' idea I presented. Please feel free to believe!

[cosmic]

Interesting thread.

Why are critical thinkers wary of "spiritual processes"? Going by the examples laid out for this term in this thread it seems that spiritual processes invlove personal experiences formost. Problems of induction aside, one main aspect of science is that we have come to know that personal experiences are often very misleading, while at the same time a very powerful persuader to the one having the experience.

As pointed out in Tom Gilovitch's book "how to Know What itsn't so" there are many, many pitfalls in personal experience. Seems that our brain is so constructed that it often finds pattern where there is none. Blind and double blind studies, peer review, and random controlled studies are just some of the safegardes developed to mitigate the misperceptions generated by unchecked personal experience. In fact testimonial evidence is often regarded as the least reliable type of evidence, as demonstated by the number of turnovers of convictions with new DNA tests. Yet many a deep personal conviction rests upon personal experience.

I would prefer a more open interpretation of spiritual process. I for one find reading about the big bang and the structure of the universe as it unfolds under our current research as a profoundly spritual process, one the makes me marvel at life and where we find ourselves. Call me a spritiual materialist...

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by lifegazer
How's the patting-each-other on the back convention going? Just popped in for a cuppa.

Lifegazer...you're the sort of guy who would take a nice big s*** in the middle of a nice parade aren't you?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


Lifegazer...you're the sort of guy who would take a nice big s*** in the middle of a nice parade aren't you?
No. But your doorstep might be a possibility.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
But it's certainly amusing watching a bunch of skeptics bolster their confidence in their poor philosophies.
Quite an interesting double standard...

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

In order to save science we cannot be open-minded about quackery!

You all know I'm right!

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Coffee... black... hint of sugar. Please.
I don't congratulate myself for a truth that belongs to God. But it's certainly amusing watching a bunch of skeptics bolster their confidence in their poor philosophies. Please continue whilst I sup my coffee.

It's even more interesting to watch a deluded believer like yourself laugh at skeptics who are your intellectual superiors in every way possible.
Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

[Disbeliever]

^ And so begins another war of words with lifegazer. Will this seemingly endless debate, this constant barrage of philisophical debunking ever cease?

I sure hope not.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
In order to save science we cannot be open-minded about quackery!

You all know I'm right!

Why? Being open-minded about quackery is recognizing that it really is quackery. When you encounter false things, it is not open minded to accept them as true.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Disbeliever
^ And so begins another war of words with lifegazer. Will this seemingly endless debate, this constant barrage of philisophical debunking ever cease?

I sure hope not.

The last thing I look forward to is more of Lifegazer attempting to defend his pseudophilosophy as if it somehow had intellectual value to it. But then I could always opt to make fun of it...

[epepke]

Originally posted by c4ts
Since those who are close minded believe that they also have open minds, can you really be certain that your mind isn't closed?

Do you have evidence to support this?

My experience that there are a lot of people who, when pressed, will admit that nothing could change their minds. This was brought home by a thread on alt.atheism, crossposted to several religious groups, a couple of months ago. It eventually degenerated into a flame war, of course, but before that happened, essentially all of the religious respondents, a couple of dozen at least, said that, no, there was nothing that would change their beliefs. This surprised me, as many religious believers will admit to having had crises of faith, but even a substantial number of these will dismiss the idea that it could happen in the future.

As for open minds in general, while it is in general good to have an open mind, that doesn't mean it should be so open your brains fall out the hole.

[cosmic]

Swift quote: "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a
thing he was never reasoned into."

Applicable?

Also: seems that many crisses of faith are resolved by a deep and meaningful personal experience. An experience that is held up as strong evidence, yet goes unquestioned. Confirmation bias is just something true believers only look for in others.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Dancing David
And again this just proves my point further, it is the definition of 'spiritual process' that hangs people up. True spirituiality comes down to some core values and practises, if you look at all things spiritual. they always come down to the same basic things.

If you go and say 'this can not work because of the religous framework', then you have denied yourself the ability to experiment and decide for yourself if the practises work.

Personally, I would disagree with your definition, I think I would add in more about connecting with people on a "spiritual level", whatever that means, and also connecting with a "higher being".


All right.

When I see the term "spirituality" used, what it always seems to come down to is something on the order of Cartesian dualism; which I don't happen to believe in. So I avoid the term.

You're entitled to use it a different way if you want; but don't you see that what you're getting all excited about boils down to semantics?

It's not necessarily that people think that meditation, compassion, etc. have no value; it's simply that they don't call it "spiritual."

When you say that it's about connecting with people on a "'spiritual level,' whatever that means," then I don't know what the heck it means any more than you do. Nor "higher being." What is that supposed to mean?

It just all seems like "googlymush" to me, whatever that means.

Freenied, orenimber-bengid goodlymush at that.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by epepke


Do you have evidence to support this?

My experience that there are a lot of people who, when pressed, will admit that nothing could change their minds.

That doesn't necessarily contradict the point, that they believe they have open minds.

They have a pretty messed up view of what is meant by "open-mind" of course, but they still think they are the open-minded ones.

[Dancing David]

mmm....googlymush.... with maple syrup.

I agree that there is an awful lot of crap that passes under the term of spirit. But there are real processes that all can contact if they wish that are contained under that rubric. Yet when it comes to wishful thinking, gross ignorance of experience and bizzare delusions there is no more wonderful rug for sweeping under that the spirit rug.

Connection to people and other objects is useful, although difficult to define, there are many who need the skills under 'spirituality' that are without them when tragedy comes to thier lives. Sometimes atheist even get born again!

You can still find the merit in the practise even if you take it on as a secular psychological activity. I really recomend blessing those who torment you when you drive!