The Resignation of Alexandra Levy

[Yahzi]

I found this to be a compelling read - a Jewish person renouncing religion in favor of a Jewish humanism. Her arguments against God are couched in terms far stronger than I or Dr. X would ever dare to use.


Warning: the parapragh that begins "What was this? A Jew resisting a German?" is as brutal a piece of writing as I have ever seen. Rendered all the worse, of course, because it is true history. Not for the faint of heart.

http://www.thefuturejew.com/tfj4.ch2

My fellow Jews, if our ancestors in the ghetto of Lodz or the death camp of Auschwitz could have held a seder on Passover night, could they have uttered those words without embarrassment or hypocrisy? The answer is yes, they could have, because they were still alive and could still hope for deliverance. The Jews in Auschwitz while they yet breathed and dreamed could hold out for rescue, but what of the Jews who gathered on Passover nights after Auschwitz, who knew that Auschwitz had existed and that no deliverance came for the vast, vast majority of Jews there?

From the website about the book:

http://www.thefuturejew.com/tfj2.ch2

Who are the Future Jews?
They declare emphatically and insistently that God is a fantasy.

The future Jews are those who have read the writing on the wall of reality. And they are the Jews who hold resolutely to zachor, remembrance. They refuse to forget the European genocide of the 1940s and they take instruction from it. During the murder of the six million no merciful Almighty arrived to redeem the innocent. The future Jews interpret that absence as history's most compelling evidence that no Supreme Being exists. [my emphasis added] They say that the role of Judaism now is to free people from the barren seductions of the supernatural. This effort to put God into retirement, into the gallery of former idols, is a repercussion of the Holocaust that will resound through all time. It aims to be the marker in history that will forever recall the Holocaust.

[Q-Source]

Quite interesting. The main reason that she found to deny the existence of a God was a tragic event (the Holocaust) which proved that they were not the chosen people and no God would save them from the inevitable.

I was reading the site and found that Humanistic Judaism (http://www.thefuturejew.com/tfj3.ch2) have ten principles. Two of them called my attention:


1. ON NATURE AND REALITY - Human beings are part of the evolving natural universe which we view through our senses and understand through rational thought. The universe exists on natural laws, independent of supernatural intervention. There is no evidence supporting any conscious life after death.

...

4. ON THE NATURE OF TRUTH - Uncertainty is a condition of life and our conceptions of truths evolve as our knowledge and understanding deepen. Truths can be discovered through reason via scientific method and empirical evidence, not through faith or by intuition alone. Truths are universal, not ethnic, and the value of ideas is judged by their truth, not their Jewishness.

Wow, the future Jew is an Atheist.

Who is Alexandra Levy?, does she have any political or social influence?

I wonder why they still use "jewish" as an adjective. Do they consider themselves as a race?. I thought that "jewish" was related to religious beliefs only.

Q-S

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Q-Source

Wow, the future Jew is an Atheist.

From the description, I would say scientific materialist. Atheism is just a side-effect of it being naturalistic, although I suppose they could go with Deism instead. The distinction between Deism and atheism is, in my opinion, mostly a semantic one anyway.

I wonder why they still use "jewish" as an adjective. Do they consider themselves as a race?. I thought that "jewish" was related to religious beliefs only.

Jewish people do consider themselves a race, as do many other people. I have several Jewish friends who happen to be atheists, and one of them is even a Buddhist. They still refer to themselves as being Jewish, though.

Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

1. ON NATURE AND REALITY - Human beings are part of the evolving natural universe which we view through our senses and understand through rational thought. The universe exists on natural laws, independent of supernatural intervention. There is no evidence supporting any conscious life after death.



Why can't materialist/atheists ever get their facts straight? There is an absolutely phenomenal amount of evidence for the survival hypothesis. Take a look at the following web page for a brief adumbration of the various types of evidence.

http://www.nidsci.org/articles/grosso.html

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
[B]Q-Source



Atheism is just a side-effect of it being naturalistic,



Justification please.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Why can't materialist/atheists ever get their facts straight? There is an absolutely phenomenal amount of evidence for the survival hypothesis. Take a look at the following web page for a brief adumbration of the various types of evidence.

As usual, when a materialist says "evidence" they mean reliable evidence. Not anecdotes and subjective interpretations of personal experiences.

Atheism is just a side-effect of it being naturalistic,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justification please.

Naturalism rules out the possibility of a Supernatural God. This leaves only the possibility of a Naturalistic God. Since there is no reliable evidence indicating the existence of a Naturalistic God, there is no logical reason to believe one exists. Hence Atheism.

Dr. Stupid

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

From the description, I would say scientific materialist. Atheism is just a side-effect of it being naturalistic, although I suppose they could go with Deism instead.

As far as I know, Levy denies the existence of God. She is not proposing Deism.


The distinction between Deism and atheism is, in my opinion, mostly a semantic one anyway.

How so?. I see a huge difference between deism and atheism, besides semantics.

Atheism simply denies the existence of God. There is no place for God in the Universe before or after the BB.


Jewish people do consider themselves a race, as do many other people. I have several Jewish friends who happen to be atheists, and one of them is even a Buddhist. They still refer to themselves as being Jewish, though.


Well, this is interesting. However, the word "jewish" carries a strong religious connotation.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why can't materialist/atheists ever get their facts straight? There is an absolutely phenomenal amount of evidence for the survival hypothesis. Take a look at the following web page for a brief adumbration of the various types of evidence.

http://www.nidsci.org/articles/grosso.html

You are joking, considering that link and all? Aren't you? :(

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Q-Source,

From the description, I would say scientific materialist. Atheism is just a side-effect of it being naturalistic, although I suppose they could go with Deism instead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I know, Levy denies the existence of God. She is not proposing Deism.

My point was that those 10 principles do not make any mention of God at all. The implied Naturalism could lead one to either Deism or Atheism. Levy has chosen Atheism, as have I, but if somebody believes that the scientific evidence indicates the existence of some sort of Creator, then they would go with Deism instead, and still be completely consistent with those 10 principles.

The distinction between Deism and atheism is, in my opinion, mostly a semantic one anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How so?. I see a huge difference between deism and atheism, besides semantics.

Atheism simply denies the existence of God. There is no place for God in the Universe before or after the BB.

It is largely a semantic difference because Deists do not attach any anthropomorphic characteristics to their conception of God. To a Deist, God is simply whatever caused the existence of the Universe.

As an atheist, I do not deny the possibility that the Universe has a cause of some sort. I simply do not think that the available evidence indicates that it did.

Both Atheism and Deism deny the existence of a personal God, which is what Theism is a belief in. As always, definition of terms becomes a subtle issue. Most people would define Theism to be a belief in a personal God, which would make Deism atheistic, and not theistic. Others would define Theism in such a broad way as to make the notion of atheism nonsensical, for example, people who define God to be the totality of existence. Does such a belief qualify as theistic?

What is really important is what the person actually believes, and how it affects their lives. In this respect, there is little, if any, difference between Deism and Naturalistic Atheism.

Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Ian,



As usual, when a materialist says "evidence" they mean reliable evidence. Not anecdotes and subjective interpretations of personal experiences.



You cannot continually redefine words at whim. And I suspect you haven't really studied the evidence to come to the conclusion that it's unreliable. In what sense is it unreliable? I think the more important issue to address is whether there are alternative hypotheses apart from survival to account for the evidence.





Naturalism rules out the possibility of a Supernatural God.



Agreed.



This leaves only the possibility of a Naturalistic God. Since there is no reliable evidence indicating the existence of a Naturalistic God, there is no logical reason to believe one exists. Hence Atheism.

Dr. Stupid

[/quote]

But surely evidence for a God, even though not reliable evidence, is enough to at least make us question that there is no God? Perhaps an infinite consciousness is associated with the Universe as a whole in a similar manner that consciousnesses are associated with brains. Why is this so unlikely?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by shecky
Why can't materialist/atheists ever get their facts straight? There is an absolutely phenomenal amount of evidence for the survival hypothesis. Take a look at the following web page for a brief adumbration of the various types of evidence.

http://www.nidsci.org/articles/grosso.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are joking, considering that link and all? Aren't you?


No not at all. We need to look at all the data and come to the best hypothesis to explain it.

[Yahzi]

However, the word "jewish" carries a strong religious connotation.
Yes, but it is also a cultural identity. I would have to say the majority of Jews I have known personally were atheist. About half of them kept Kosher anway, just because.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Both Atheism and Deism deny the existence of a personal God, which is what Theism is a belief in.



Er . . .surely theists can believe in an impersonal God??? If not what would you call them? Not deism if you believe that reality as a whole is a ongoing manifestation of god's activity.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No not at all. We need to look at all the data and come to the best hypothesis to explain it.

http://www.baltobluegrass.com/bbggraph/monkey.gif

[hgc]

Yahzi:

However, the word "jewish" carries a strong religious connotation.
There are 2 relevant terms:

Judaism = religion
Jewishness = racial and/or cultural heritage

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

As usual, when a materialist says "evidence" they mean reliable evidence. Not anecdotes and subjective interpretations of personal experiences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You cannot continually redefine words at whim.

I am not redefining anything. The point is that usually when people say "evidence" they are referring to reliable evidence, since unreliable evidence is of no relevance.

And I suspect you haven't really studied the evidence to come to the conclusion that it's unreliable. In what sense is it unreliable?

In the sense that no tests done under controlled conditions have ever given any indication of consciousness after death.

I think the more important issue to address is whether there are alternative hypotheses apart from survival to account for the evidence.

Since the only "evidence" for the survival hypothesis is anecdotal and subjective interpretation of experiences, there is a very simple hypothesis to account for the evidence. That hypothesis is simply that in all cases the people in question were either lying, or mistaken in their interpretation of the experience.

That is why such evidence is unreliable. As long as you cannot rule out the possibility of deliberate deception, delusion, hallucination, and any of the other known possible sources of the "evidence", you cannot conclude that there is anything other than these sources involved.

This leaves only the possibility of a Naturalistic God. Since there is no reliable evidence indicating the existence of a Naturalistic God, there is no logical reason to believe one exists. Hence Atheism.

Dr. Stupid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But surely evidence for a God, even though not reliable evidence, is enough to at least make us question that there is no God?

No evidence of any kind is necessary for us to question that there is no God. Question it all you want. What I am saying is that unreliable evidence, however plentiful it may be, does not constitute a reason to believe that there is a God.

Perhaps an infinite consciousness is associated with the Universe as a whole in a similar manner that consciousnesses are associated with brains. Why is this so unlikely?

Likelihood has nothing to do with it. The question is whether there is any logical reason to believe it is true? You could spend the rest of your life dreaming up scenarios like that one. What's the point?

Both Atheism and Deism deny the existence of a personal God, which is what Theism is a belief in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Er . . .surely theists can believe in an impersonal God??? If not what would you call them? Not deism if you believe that reality as a whole is a ongoing manifestation of god's activity.

Go back and read my entire post. I already said that whether or not an individual is considered a Theist or Atheist depends entirely on how broadly you define the term "Theism". Hence my original claim that the distinction between Deism and Atheism is largely a semantic one.

Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As usual, when a materialist says "evidence" they mean reliable evidence. Not anecdotes and subjective interpretations of personal experiences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You cannot continually redefine words at whim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am not redefining anything. The point is that usually when people say "evidence" they are referring to reliable evidence, since unreliable evidence is of no relevance.



The question of whether the evidence is reliable should not be decided a priori but should be investigated. Of course the evidence is unlikely to be reliable, but reliable evidence for some hypothesis would tend to be considered proof rather than evidence. Besides the whole concept of "reliable evidence" is seriously dodgy. No, what we should do is look at the evidence as a whole and come to the most rational conclusion based on all the evidence.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I suspect you haven't really studied the evidence to come to the conclusion that it's unreliable. In what sense is it unreliable?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In the sense that no tests done under controlled conditions have ever given any indication of consciousness after death.



That's irrelevant as we are not talking about whether there is proof of life after death, but whether there is evidence. Clearly there is evidence, which means all the Skeptics (not sceptics) are lying.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the more important issue to address is whether there are alternative hypotheses apart from survival to account for the evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Since the only "evidence" for the survival hypothesis is anecdotal and subjective interpretation of experiences, there is a very simple hypothesis to account for the evidence. That hypothesis is simply that in all cases the people in question were either lying, or mistaken in their interpretation of the experience.



How extensively have you studied the evidence to come to this conclusion??




That is why such evidence is unreliable. As long as you cannot rule out the possibility of deliberate deception, delusion, hallucination, and any of the other known possible sources of the "evidence", you cannot conclude that there is anything other than these sources involved.



Indeed, I have no quarrel with this. This indeed is a possibility. But how plausible is this possibility when we consider all the evidence?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This leaves only the possibility of a Naturalistic God. Since there is no reliable evidence indicating the existence of a Naturalistic God, there is no logical reason to believe one exists. Hence Atheism.

Dr. Stupid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But surely evidence for a God, even though not reliable evidence, is enough to at least make us question that there is no God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No evidence of any kind is necessary for us to question that there is no God. Question it all you want. What I am saying is that unreliable evidence, however plentiful it may be, does not constitute a reason to believe that there is a God.



Why not?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps an infinite consciousness is associated with the Universe as a whole in a similar manner that consciousnesses are associated with brains. Why is this so unlikely?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Likelihood has nothing to do with it. The question is whether there is any logical reason to believe it is true?



Is there any logical reason to suppose other people are not p-zombies?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Atheism and Deism deny the existence of a personal God, which is what Theism is a belief in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Er . . .surely theists can believe in an impersonal God??? If not what would you call them? Not deism if you believe that reality as a whole is a ongoing manifestation of god's activity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Go back and read my entire post. I already said that whether or not an individual is considered a Theist or Atheist depends entirely on how broadly you define the term "Theism". Hence my original claim that the distinction between Deism and Atheism is largely a semantic one.



So you admit you're wrong and that theists can actually believe in an impersonal God?

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

I am not redefining anything. The point is that usually when people say "evidence" they are referring to reliable evidence, since unreliable evidence is of no relevance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question of whether the evidence is reliable should not be decided a priori but should be investigated.

Then investigate it. I am not saying that nobody should be doing research into the possibility of life after death. What I am saying is that, so far, there is no reliable evidence to support the hypothesis that there is life after death. All we have so far is anecdotes, and subjective interpretations of personal experiences.

Of course the evidence is unlikely to be reliable, but reliable evidence for some hypothesis would tend to be considered proof rather than evidence.

You seem to be confused about what "reliable" means. Saying that evidence is reliable does not mean that what the evidence indicates is true, nor does saying that it is unreliable indicate that what it indicates is false. The evidence is either reliable or unreliable, depending on whether it controls for external biases.

Besides the whole concept of "reliable evidence" is seriously dodgy.

That's your opinion. Somehow I would say that the vast success of science, which is all based on the concept of reliable evidence, indicates that your opinion is simply wrong.

No, what we should do is look at the evidence as a whole and come to the most rational conclusion based on all the evidence.

Exactly. Unfortunately, things like anecdotes and subjective experiences cannot be given any credibility in such assessments, because they are demonstrably unreliable. Given the actual evidence that is currently available, there is way a rational and unbiased person could reach the conclusion that any of these accounts of life after death are valid.

In the sense that no tests done under controlled conditions have ever given any indication of consciousness after death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's irrelevant as we are not talking about whether there is proof of life after death, but whether there is evidence.

What, exactly, do you think scientific proof is??? If you have a small amount of evidence supporting a hypothesis, then that constitutes a reason to believe it may be true. Substantial evidence constitutes a reason to believe it is probably true, and overwhelming evidence constitutes a reason to be confident that it is true (proof).

But in order to be relevant at all, the evidence must be reliable. It doesn't matter how many anecdotes and personal testimonial you have. Such "evidence" is known to be unreliable, and therefore they do not support any hypothesis.

Clearly there is evidence, which means all the Skeptics (not sceptics) are lying.

Clearly you are blowing smoke out of your ass. Redefining the word "evidence" to include crap that no skeptic (or any other reasonable person with a basic knowledge of scientific methodology) would accept as evidence, does not mean that those people are lying when they claim there is no evidence.

Bottom line: There is no reliable evidence. There is no relevant evidence. There is absolutely no logical reason to believe that consciousness survives the death of the brain.

Since the only "evidence" for the survival hypothesis is anecdotal and subjective interpretation of experiences, there is a very simple hypothesis to account for the evidence. That hypothesis is simply that in all cases the people in question were either lying, or mistaken in their interpretation of the experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How extensively have you studied the evidence to come to this conclusion??

I don't need to extensively study it to know that anecdotal evidence and subjective interpretation of personal experience are unreliable. If that is all you've got, why should I waste my time studying it? Am I supposed to listen to every crackpot who has a story to tell, and spend my whole life debunking all of their claims?

Show me some real scientific evidence, that means reproducible results acquired under controlled conditions, and I will take interest.

That is why such evidence is unreliable. As long as you cannot rule out the possibility of deliberate deception, delusion, hallucination, and any of the other known possible sources of the "evidence", you cannot conclude that there is anything other than these sources involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, I have no quarrel with this. This indeed is a possibility. But how plausible is this possibility when we consider all the evidence?

Extremely plausible, as anybody with a good knowledge of psychology and neurophysiology will tell you. There is a reason that the entire scientific community considers this to be a complete non-issue, you know.

No evidence of any kind is necessary for us to question that there is no God. Question it all you want. What I am saying is that unreliable evidence, however plentiful it may be, does not constitute a reason to believe that there is a God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not?

Because it is unreliable? The evidence is unreliable because it does not logically indicate a conclusion. That is what unreliable means. If it does not logically indicate a conclusion, then you cannot logically draw a conclusion from the evidence.

Come on, Ian. This isn't rocket science here.

Likelihood has nothing to do with it. The question is whether there is any logical reason to believe it is true?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there any logical reason to suppose other people are not p-zombies?

Of course there is, assuming that you are willing to make the basic axiomatic assumptions required to apply the scientific method. And if you are not, then there is no logical reason to believe any claim (other that purely abstract logical ones).

Go back and read my entire post. I already said that whether or not an individual is considered a Theist or Atheist depends entirely on how broadly you define the term "Theism". Hence my original claim that the distinction between Deism and Atheism is largely a semantic one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you admit you're wrong and that theists can actually believe in an impersonal God?

Are you blind, or just illiterate?

Look, let me spell it out for you nice and simple-like:

I define the word "Theism" to mean belief in a personal God, and furthermore I would say that this is by far the most common usage of the term.

When I made the comment that people like Deists and Pantheists, who believe in something they call God, but which is not a personal God, are not Theists, I made it very clear that this statement was based on the definition of Theism that I provided.

I even went on to explicitly point out that different people may define the term Theism differently, precisely to avoid any ridiculous semantic arguments like this one.

Go back and read what I said again, and try to keep it in context. I made the statement that I considered the difference between Deism and Atheism to be primarily a semantic one, and when asked to clarify, I did so.

I know that you are desperate to find any fault you can in anything I say, but this is just ridiculous.

Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not redefining anything. The point is that usually when people say "evidence" they are referring to reliable evidence, since unreliable evidence is of no relevance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question of whether the evidence is reliable should not be decided a priori but should be investigated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Then investigate it.



Why when I'm convinced of the reality of life after death anyway? I'm more interested in any evidence against life after death. Is there any?

But anyway, how can you say the evidence is no good without being acquainted with it?



I am not saying that nobody should be doing research into the possibility of life after death. What I am saying is that, so far, there is no reliable evidence to support the hypothesis that there is life after death. All we have so far is anecdotes, and subjective interpretations of personal experiences.


I don't believe that is true. And btw, I don't understand what you mean by "reliable" evidence. Either evidence exists or it doesn't. Are you denying the actual occurences which constitute evidence? Or are you saying that although the alleged events occur there are many possible hypotheses to account for the evidence? How do you know all this without looking at any of the evidence?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

And btw, I don't understand what you mean by "reliable" evidence. Either evidence exists or it doesn't. Are you denying the actual occurences which constitute evidence? Or are you saying that although the alleged events occur there are many possible hypotheses to account for the evidence? How do you know all this without looking at any of the evidence?

Ian, in an amazing display of intellectual duplicity, you manage to dispute any good papers cited to you, even proudly proclaiming your utter disdain and utter disinterest in understanding how science works. And now you decry the qualification "reliable" evidence.

You wish to cherry-pick. You wish to cite where it suits you. You wish to discount when it doesn't suit you.

Several of us have offered, over and over again, post after post explaining how science works, that not all papers are worthwhile, that anecdotes are not good evidence and on and on and on. Listen, go to a flea market and buy a brain. I know flea brains are rather small, but they are clearly bigger than what you are working with, sir.

Cheers,

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course the evidence is unlikely to be reliable, but reliable evidence for some hypothesis would tend to be considered proof rather than evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You seem to be confused about what "reliable" means.



Yes that's right. I have no idea in what sense you are using this word and many many others.



Saying that evidence is reliable does not mean that what the evidence indicates is true, nor does saying that it is unreliable indicate that what it indicates is false. The evidence is either reliable or unreliable, depending on whether it controls for external biases.



So essentially reliable evidence equates to scientific evidence? But still it remains the case that "unreliable" evidence, as you have defined it, may nevertheless render some hypothesis as almost certainly being true.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides the whole concept of "reliable evidence" is seriously dodgy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's your opinion. Somehow I would say that the vast success of science, which is all based on the concept of reliable evidence, indicates that your opinion is simply wrong.



Overwhelming success of science?? That must mean why every scientific theory that ever has been proposed has been eventually abandoned :rolleyes:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, what we should do is look at the evidence as a whole and come to the most rational conclusion based on all the evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Exactly. Unfortunately, things like anecdotes and subjective experiences cannot be given any credibility in such assessments, because they are demonstrably unreliable.



It is possible they could be given credibility if it is not a single isolated incidence. They most certainly can be given credibility if the evidence in question has been observed throughout human history and across all cultures. Some phenomena it would seem undoubtely occur. The question is what is the best explanation to account for any particular phenomenon.





Given the actual evidence that is currently available, there is way a rational and unbiased person could reach the conclusion that any of these accounts of life after death are valid.



They might be deemed to be highly suggestive of the survival hypothesis.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the sense that no tests done under controlled conditions have ever given any indication of consciousness after death.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's irrelevant as we are not talking about whether there is proof of life after death, but whether there is evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What, exactly, do you think scientific proof is??? If you have a small amount of evidence supporting a hypothesis, then that constitutes a reason to believe it may be true. Substantial evidence constitutes a reason to believe it is probably true, and overwhelming evidence constitutes a reason to be confident that it is true (proof).

But in order to be relevant at all, the evidence must be reliable.



Why? You're just defining reliable evidence as scientific evidence. It is absurd to suggest that any other type of evidence is of no value whatsoever!




It doesn't matter how many anecdotes and personal testimonial you have. Such "evidence" is known to be unreliable, and therefore they do not support any hypothesis.



This just simply does not follow.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

The question of whether the evidence is reliable should not be decided a priori but should be investigated.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then investigate it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why when I'm convinced of the reality of life after death anyway?

Because testing your beliefs, rather than just dogmatically asserting that they are true, is what seperates an open minded individual from a religious zealot.

I'm more interested in any evidence against life after death. Is there any?

All of the evidence supporting the hypothesis that consciousness is a physical process in the brain is evidence against life after death.

Of course, if you a-priori assert that consciousness is not physical, and that the physical processes that I call consciousness are not really consciousness at all, but instead just correlates of some type, then of course there is no evidence that this hypothetical consciousness doesn't survive death. How could there be, when there is no evidence that it exists at all?

But anyway, how can you say the evidence is no good without being acquainted with it?

Iam well aquainted with the standards of reliable evidence. If a peice of evidence does not meet those standards, then that is all I need to know.

If somebody walks up to you, and says that he recieved a message from God in a dream the night before, do you really need to listen to his description of the dream, before concluding that his "evidence" is unreliable?

I am not saying that nobody should be doing research into the possibility of life after death. What I am saying is that, so far, there is no reliable evidence to support the hypothesis that there is life after death. All we have so far is anecdotes, and subjective interpretations of personal experiences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't believe that is true. And btw, I don't understand what you mean by "reliable" evidence.

Evidence gathered under controlled circumstances, in accordence with the scientific method.

Either evidence exists or it doesn't. Are you denying the actual occurences which constitute evidence? Or are you saying that although the alleged events occur there are many possible hypotheses to account for the evidence?

That is exactly what I am saying.

How do you know all this without looking at any of the evidence?

If the evidence wasn't gathered under controlled conditions, then I don't need to look at it in detail to know that it is unreliable. Furthermore, none of the studies that were done under controlled conditions have produced any positive results.

Can you name a single experiment, done under controlled conditions, which gave statistically significant results supporting the existence of life after death?

Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Several of us have offered, over and over again, post after post explaining how science works, that not all papers are worthwhile, that anecdotes are not good evidence and on and on and on. Listen, go to a flea market and buy a brain. I know flea brains are rather small, but they are clearly bigger than what you are working with, sir.

Cheers,

Your insults are noted. I have given full and comprehensive rebuttals to most of any relevant points you have raised in the past.

Oh yes, and I have never denied that anecdotes do not generally constitute good evidence.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


It is possible they could be given credibility if it is not a single isolated incidence. They most certainly can be given credibility if the evidence in question has been observed throughout human history and across all cultures. Some phenomena it would seem undoubtely occur. The question is what is the best explanation to account for any particular phenomenon.



Herein lies the problem. Even if what you contend (that anecdote can be given credibility) is allowable, it still can't be used with respect to religion. Yes, people have been believing in a God or gods for thousands of years. But every couple hundred years, the ideas undergo some extensive renovation. Sure, he's still called "God", but what he does, or can do, how he wants to be worshipped, if he wants to be worshipped, or who he thinks is the "chosen" people, or if he's even a he, or if he's even personal - is constantly fluctuating. The anecdotes are all inconsistent. People calling themselves "Christian" now would have disagreed vehemently with people who called themselves "Christian" a hundred years ago. Some religions have completely failed, some new ones have risen.

About the only thing any of these religions has in common with each other (or even itself at an earlier date) is the idea that Man is not the absolute be-all, end-all of the universe. Perhaps that's what the Baha'i mean when they talk about the "fundamental truth behind all religion". Whether that which is greater than Man is sentient or just another "thing", of course, can't be agreed on by us at this time.

[Q-Source]

Is anyone here talking about the resignation of Alexandra Levy? :rolleyes: :D

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Saying that evidence is reliable does not mean that what the evidence indicates is true, nor does saying that it is unreliable indicate that what it indicates is false. The evidence is either reliable or unreliable, depending on whether it controls for external biases.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So essentially reliable evidence equates to scientific evidence? But still it remains the case that "unreliable" evidence, as you have defined it, may nevertheless render some hypothesis as almost certainly being true.

How? How can a body of evidence logically render a hypothesis as being almost certainly true, when the evidence does not control for biases and external effects which could result in the evidence being consistent with the hypothesis being false?

There is a reason that the scientific standards of evidence are what they are. it is not just arbitrary. They are that way because anything less would not be sufficient to logically draw conclusions from the evidence.

That's your opinion. Somehow I would say that the vast success of science, which is all based on the concept of reliable evidence, indicates that your opinion is simply wrong.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overwhelming success of science?? That must mean why every scientific theory that ever has been proposed has been eventually abandoned

The sheer ignorance of that statement is both profound and depressing. It is also incredibly ironic, coming as it did from somebody typing on a computer.

Exactly. Unfortunately, things like anecdotes and subjective experiences cannot be given any credibility in such assessments, because they are demonstrably unreliable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is possible they could be given credibility if it is not a single isolated incidence. They most certainly can be given credibility if the evidence in question has been observed throughout human history and across all cultures.

This is nothing more than an appeal to popularity. "A million people can't be wrong". Nope, sorry, but they can, and often are.

Some phenomena it would seem undoubtely occur. The question is what is the best explanation to account for any particular phenomenon.

There is no question that people have the types of experiences that you are talking about. The question is what the best explanation to account for
those experiences is. The point is that, as of right now, the best explanation available for so-called Near Death experiences is hallucination and/or dreams resulting from brain trauma, oxygen deprivation, and shock.

Given the actual evidence that is currently available, there is way a rational and unbiased person could reach the conclusion that any of these accounts of life after death are valid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

They might be deemed to be highly suggestive of the survival hypothesis.

Why? If they are consistent with the dying brain hypothesis too, then why would you claim that they are more suggestive of the survival hypothesis?

What, exactly, do you think scientific proof is??? If you have a small amount of evidence supporting a hypothesis, then that constitutes a reason to believe it may be true. Substantial evidence constitutes a reason to believe it is probably true, and overwhelming evidence constitutes a reason to be confident that it is true (proof).

But in order to be relevant at all, the evidence must be reliable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? You're just defining reliable evidence as scientific evidence. It is absurd to suggest that any other type of evidence is of no value whatsoever!

Why is that absurd? Scientific evidence can be clearly demonstrated to be reliable. Can you cite any other form of evidence which is demonstrably reliable? Scientific evidence is reliable because it takes subjective bias into account, and controls for external influences. It is those two things which define the scientific method. Can you explain how any method which does not do those things could possibly be reliable?

Dr. Stupid

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Is anyone here talking about the resignation of Alexandra Levy? :rolleyes: :D

Who is Alexandra Levy? :confused:

;)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Oh yes, and I have never denied that anecdotes do not generally constitute good evidence.

Balderdash. From the twisted book of Ian's logic:
Thus if a single individual witnessed a phenomenon which clearly contravened our understanding of the world, and moreover that phenomenon had never ever been reported by anyone else, then that would be extremely unreliable. However, if a pheonmenon were reported by numerous witnesses, and moreover this phenomenon had been reported throughout human history and across all cultures, then we can have a fairly high degree of confidence it really occurred, even though it may have a underlying "normal" explanation.

The repeated anecdotes, throughout history and across cultures is not reliable evidence. Here, however, you have claimed that one anecdote is not reliable, but many are. This is dead wrong. Your epistemology here reduces to another form of the ad populum.

Cheers,

[Akots]

If I've been shot with a gun, i can try to go to a hospital for medical care. If i think i've been shot, but aren't certain, i can go to a hospital for an examination.

Should i do this every time i suspect i've been shot? Or maybe take the examination once a day, just to be sure? I have never been shot; and therefore can not know if i have been. i have only anecdotal evidence from others describing the experience. Plus, the point of the test is to see if i've been shot without my being aware of it. And if i wasn't aware of it, i'd need an external test for certain.

I imagine proving God's existance scientificaly would have a massive impact on the world. And, we don't know what the experience would be like. But that does not warrant investigation into every single claim.

I am not saying that evidence of God would be blindingly obvious at first glance... we can't know how obvious or subtle any kind fo evidence will be before we discover it. But it's wasteful to investigate claims that can be explained quite naturaly. And if a person has an experience that can be explained naturally, it is their responsability to bring something new to the table.

[Interesting Ian]

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly there is evidence, which means all the Skeptics (not sceptics) are lying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stimpy

Clearly you are blowing smoke out of your ass. Redefining the word "evidence" to include crap that no skeptic (or any other reasonable person with a basic knowledge of scientific methodology) would accept as evidence, does not mean that those people are lying when they claim there is no evidence.




So in fact they meant there is no scientific evidence. In that case why do they not make this important distinction rather than lying??

Moreover, where are they getting this information that there is no scientific evidnece?? From the Skeptics perhaps?? :rolleyes:



Bottom line: There is no reliable evidence.



As I have explained, even if true, this is irrelevant.



There is no relevant evidence.



Explain how each alleged phenomenon does not constitute evidence.



There is absolutely no logical reason to believe that consciousness survives the death of the brain.



There is every reason in the world. Why do you suppose it ceases to exist?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the only "evidence" for the survival hypothesis is anecdotal and subjective interpretation of experiences, there is a very simple hypothesis to account for the evidence. That hypothesis is simply that in all cases the people in question were either lying, or mistaken in their interpretation of the experience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


They might well all be mistaken, but in order to assess this likelihood we need to carefully examine all the evidence.



How extensively have you studied the evidence to come to this conclusion??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't need to extensively study it to know that anecdotal evidence and subjective interpretation of personal experience are unreliable.



As I have explained, the fact that it is "unreliable" is irrelevant. A rational person does not dismiss all evidence other than scientific evidence. Only retards do that.




If that is all you've got, why should I waste my time studying it? Am I supposed to listen to every crackpot who has a story to tell, and spend my whole life debunking all of their claims?



Nope, simply investigate that phenomena which has universally been reported.



Show me some real scientific evidence, that means reproducible results acquired under controlled conditions, and I will take interest.



If you have no interest in the evidence for survival, then it necessarily follows that your opinion regarding both the survival hypothesis, and the quality of the evidence, is utterly irrelevant.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is why such evidence is unreliable. As long as you cannot rule out the possibility of deliberate deception, delusion, hallucination, and any of the other known possible sources of the "evidence", you cannot conclude that there is anything other than these sources involved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Indeed, I have no quarrel with this. This indeed is a possibility. But how plausible is this possibility when we consider all the evidence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Extremely plausible, as anybody with a good knowledge of psychology and neurophysiology will tell you. There is a reason that the entire scientific community considers this to be a complete non-issue, you know.



Yes, they are hopelessly "brainwashed" into unthinking, unquestioning acceptance of the materialist metaphysic.

[BillHoyt]

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have another nomination for April. It is from Ian, and replaces one from... Ian.

Ding ding ding!

Cheers,

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Clearly you are blowing smoke out of your ass. Redefining the word "evidence" to include crap that no skeptic (or any other reasonable person with a basic knowledge of scientific methodology) would accept as evidence, does not mean that those people are lying when they claim there is no evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in fact they meant there is no scientific evidence. In that case why do they not make this important distinction rather than lying??

Maybe because they thought that anybody reading what they said would be intelligent and well educated enough to understand that they meant scientific evidence?

Moreover, where are they getting this information that there is no scientific evidence?? From the Skeptics perhaps??[/quote]

Possibly from the profound lack of such evidence? If there were actually any scientific evidence for life after death, it would be the most important scientific discovery ever.

I am through arguing about this with you, Ian. You just keep making the same unjustified assertions over and over again, and never acknowledge any arguments anybody else makes. I might as well be arguing with a brick wall.

Dr. Stupid

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
I might as well be arguing with a brick wall.

Dr. Stupid

I demand you show me the evidence that you aren't!

Cheers,

[Akots]

Ian, I'm sorry if this sounds annoying, but I was under the impression that "Scientific" evidence is that evidence proven through scientific means. Therefore, evidence is only scientific evidence if it can be proven.

What is the diference between evidence that can be proven, but might take an obscenely unreasonable amount of time or resources to do so (say, something about the closure of the universe), and evidence that can not be proven? Can we really say that evidence that is effectively impossible is more believable than evidence that is literally impossible, purely on hte basis that it is possible, however astronomically unlikely?

I really would like to know your thoughts on the matter.

[Interesting Ian]

Stimpy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No evidence of any kind is necessary for us to question that there is no God. Question it all you want. What I am saying is that unreliable evidence, however plentiful it may be, does not constitute a reason to believe that there is a God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because it is unreliable?



Irrelevant under your defition of reliable/unreliable. We have no reliable evidence that other people are conscious but it would be strange to believe that other people are not conscious! :eek:





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Likelihood has nothing to do with it. The question is whether there is any logical reason to believe it is true?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there any logical reason to suppose other people are not p-zombies?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Of course there is, assuming that you are willing to make the basic axiomatic assumptions required to apply the scientific method. And if you are not, then there is no logical reason to believe any claim (other that purely abstract logical ones).



Then name those logical reasons. Name any scientific eveidence that other peoplle are not p-zombies ie do so without presupposing that materialism is correct.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Go back and read my entire post. I already said that whether or not an individual is considered a Theist or Atheist depends entirely on how broadly you define the term "Theism". Hence my original claim that the distinction between Deism and Atheism is largely a semantic one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you admit you're wrong and that theists can actually believe in an impersonal God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Are you blind, or just illiterate?

Look, let me spell it out for you nice and simple-like:

I define the word "Theism" to mean belief in a personal God, and furthermore I would say that this is by far the most common usage of the term.



Where do you get this information from? BTW do deists agree with you that their position is indistinguishable from the atheists?



When I made the comment that people like Deists and Pantheists, who believe in something they call God, but which is not a personal God, are not Theists, I made it very clear that this statement was based on the definition of Theism that I provided.



I find it quite remarkable how anxious atheists are to define what theism means. I suppose it makes their task that much easier :rolleyes:

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Where do you get this information from? BTW do deists agree with you that their position is indistinguishable from the atheists?



With the sole exception being that Deists believe the universe was created and atheists don't, there isn't much difference. It's classical Humanism vs. secular Humanism - they're nearly indistinguishable. In fact, I discussed this very point with a friend of mine yesterday, when he explained that he thought I was a secular Humanist.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
I am through arguing about this with you, Ian. You just keep making the same unjustified assertions over and over again, and never acknowledge any arguments anybody else makes. I might as well be arguing with a brick wall.

Dr. Stupid [/B]

Huh :confused: I trust you haven't put me on ignore?

Ok, let's get to the nitty gritty (er . .is that the right expression?)

OK, I said



So essentially reliable evidence equates to scientific evidence? But still it remains the case that "unreliable" evidence, as you have defined it, may nevertheless render some hypothesis as almost certainly being true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To which you replied:




How? How can a body of evidence logically render a hypothesis as being almost certainly true, when the evidence does not control for biases and external effects which could result in the evidence being consistent with the hypothesis being false?



Because by personnel experience someone can just be implicitly aware that something is true. This is especially so if the same something has been experienced by people throughout history, and across all cultures, and on a frequent basis. You claim that all such reports are either all lies or/and mistakes. Now I think the idea that everyine is simply lying is somewhat far-fetched. I do however believe that everyone has simply been mistaken is a much better candidate.

So your position is that if there is no scientific evidence for some particular putative phenomenon or occurence, we should deem it not to exist until such a time as there might be scientific evidence. This is no matter how frequently it has been reported, and no matter how much people may be utterly convinced that the alleged phenomenon actually occurred, and no matter the fact that it has always been reported at all places throughout history. Are you genuinely not aware of how preposterous your position is??

But allow me to supply a specific example where anecdotes both overwhelming suggested the existence of some phenomenon, and yet theis phenomenon was rejected by the scientific community.

A 100 years ago people very frequently reported dreams where within the dream, they were actaully aware they were dreaming. I believe that the reporting of this phenomenon was both common and universal. But scientists rejected the very existence of what has become to be called "lucid dreams". They claimed that such dreams were impossible. Now your position would have been to claim that all the evidence for lucid dreams at that time was worthless, despite the fact that people were absolutely quite aware they were dreaming, and yet were aware in the dream state that they were dreaming. Now I ask you, how stupid can scientists be? Breathtakingly stupid it would seem. My time on these forums just reinforce that conviction.

[Akots]

Ian, a lucid dream could just as easily give you the illusion of control. Why is thsi not possible? If your own brain fools you, then you wouldn't realize your control was just an illusion.

Science acknowledges the fact that people can fool their own selves. And they can do it on a massive group scale. Surely this must be taken into account.

[BillHoyt]

So your position is that if there is no scientific evidence for some particular putative phenomenon or occurence, we should deem it not to exist until such a time as there might be scientific evidence. This is no matter how frequently it has been reported, and no matter how much people may be utterly convinced that the alleged phenomenon actually occurred, and no matter the fact that it has always been reported at all places throughout history. Are you genuinely not aware of how preposterous your position is??

Are you genuinely not aware that this is precisely the position taken by science? Are you genuinely not aware that this is the meaning behind "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?"

How many Indians reported sightings of the "monkey man" some months ago? How many Indian media reported it? How many investigations were there for putative incident after putative incident.

Even if you don't accept science, surely even your flea brain (you did buy one, didn't you?) can comprehend that this is the thinly veiled ad populum argument? It must be true, look how many have said it has happened to them?

This not merely nonsense evidence from a scientific standpoint. This is nonsense evidence from a purely logical standpoint. This is bathroom wall graffiti: "Eat sh**. Ten billion flies can't be wrong."

Cheers,

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Akots
Ian, a lucid dream could just as easily give you the illusion of control. Why is thsi not possible? If your own brain fools you, then you wouldn't realize your control was just an illusion.

Science acknowledges the fact that people can fool their own selves. And they can do it on a massive group scale. Surely this must be taken into account.

It's not the control which is the crucial factor. It is the recognition that one is dreaming. How can one be mistaken about this? If it is characteristically exactly like a dream in all other respects, then they are dreaming by definition. One cannot possibly be mistaken about this.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So your position is that if there is no scientific evidence for some particular putative phenomenon or occurence, we should deem it not to exist until such a time as there might be scientific evidence. This is no matter how frequently it has been reported, and no matter how much people may be utterly convinced that the alleged phenomenon actually occurred, and no matter the fact that it has always been reported at all places throughout history. Are you genuinely not aware of how preposterous your position is??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Are you genuinely not aware that this is precisely the position taken by science? Are you genuinely not aware that this is the meaning behind "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?"



It is the materialists who assert that such claims are extraordinary. What sort of person cares what materialists thinks? Only materialists I reckon! Justify your stance that they are extraordinary claims. Why is lucid dreaming deemed to be extraordinary?



How many Indians reported sightings of the "monkey man" some months ago? How many Indian media reported it? How many investigations were there for putative incident after putative incident.


This monkey man has not been reported frequently across all history and cultures. Moreover the reports were not independent. They were no doubt influenced by other sightings making them more psychologically prone to report they'd seen a mokey man in turn.



Even if you don't accept science, surely even your flea brain (you did buy one, didn't you?) can comprehend that this is the thinly veiled ad populum argument? It must be true, look how many have said it has happened to them?



It is not a logical fallacy to suppose the more independent witnesses there are to a particular characteristic phenomenon, the more likely we should judge the phenomenon to have genuinely occurred. You misunderstand the nature of this ad populum logical fallacy.

Most people on here don't believe in life after death. Does that make it likely that there is no life after death? No, that would be a logical fallacy of the ad populum nature. This is because they do not have any coherent reasons or evidence opposing the survival hypothesis.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


With the sole exception being that Deists believe the universe was created and atheists don't, there isn't much difference. It's classical Humanism vs. secular Humanism - they're nearly indistinguishable. In fact, I discussed this very point with a friend of mine yesterday, when he explained that he thought I was a secular Humanist.

There are more than one exception to distinguish between an Atheist and a Deist. In fact, the implications that follow from asserting that it was God who created the Universe instead of nothing are more important. Why don't you just call yourself atheist if the difference is so indistinguishable?

[BillHoyt]

It is the materialists who assert that such claims are extraordinary.
No, it is the scientistif community that asserts this. Scientist generally ignore metaphysical positions and posturing. This has been explained to you ad nauseum.
What sort of person cares what materialists thinks? Only materialists I reckon!
Ad hom.
Justify your stance that they are extraordinary claims. Why is lucid dreaming deemed to be extraordinary?
Wasn't discussing lucid dreams, sir. Red herring.
This monkey man has not been reported frequently across all history and cultures. Moreover the reports were not independent. They were no doubt influenced by other sightings making them more psychologically prone to report they'd seen a mokey man in turn.
What a beautiful logical trap you've laid for yourself. You claim knowledge of numerous cross-cultural and cross-temporal anecdotes and then do a 180 on the monkey man example by claiming that one sighting could influence others. Bandage your foot sir and buy another pair of shoes.
It is not a logical fallacy to suppose the more independent witnesses there are to a particular characteristic phenomenon, the more likely we should judge the phenomenon to have genuinely occurred. You misunderstand the nature of this ad populum logical fallacy.
The fallacy is as I described it. The fact that many people assert something to be true does not and cannot alter the veracity of the assertion.

Cheers

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Q-Source

Joshua
With the sole exception being that Deists believe the universe was created and atheists don't, there isn't much difference. It's classical Humanism vs. secular Humanism - they're nearly indistinguishable. In fact, I discussed this very point with a friend of mine yesterday, when he explained that he thought I was a secular Humanist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Q-Source
There are more than one exception to distinguish between an Atheist and a Deist. In fact, the implications that follow from asserting that it was God who created the Universe instead of nothing are more important. Why don't you just call yourself atheist if the difference is so indistinguishable?


__________________




I agree Q that if this is the only distinction it would be more sensible to be an atheist.

By the way Joshua, I have to confess I think deism is ridiculous. Why should God be required to set the Universe in motion but not be required to keep the Universe in existence on an ongoing basis? In other words what is so special about the initial creation of the Universe in contrast to any other stage in the history of the Universe?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

By the way Joshua, I have to confess I think deism is ridiculous. Why should God be required to set the Universe in motion but not be required to keep the Universe in existence on an ongoing basis? In other words what is so special about the initial creation of the Universe in contrast to any other stage in the history of the Universe?

It is not a requirement. It is, in part, a recognition of one of the axioms of science. The universe's rules don't suddenly and capriciously change. Gravity doesn't suddenly blip out at noon, reverse itself at 1 and return at 1:15. Momentum isn't suddenly not conserved. If I move 10 feet that away I don't have to suddenly investigate brand new operating rules.

Deism, then, takes the position that if there was a god, what he set up he no longer tinkers with.

Cheers,

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the materialists who assert that such claims are extraordinary.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No, it is the scientistif community that asserts this.



{Shrugs} They're almost all materialists to the man aren't they?



Scientist generally ignore metaphysical positions and posturing. This has been explained to you ad nauseum.



This then explains why they're so crap at philosophy then.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What sort of person cares what materialists thinks? Only materialists I reckon!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ad hom.



No I'm afraid it isn't. Not in the actual context which I used it, which as usual you conveniently left out. Try to obtain a better understanding of informal logical fallacies.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justify your stance that they are extraordinary claims. Why is lucid dreaming deemed to be extraordinary?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wasn't discussing lucid dreams, sir. Red herring.



The scientific community did consider them to be extraordinary claims before they were proved conclusively they definitely occurred. Presumably the fact that they have been shown to occur doesn't somehow magically make them any less of an a priori extraordinary claim??

Seems that you really don't understand your informal logical fallacies! :eek:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This monkey man has not been reported frequently across all history and cultures. Moreover the reports were not independent. They were no doubt influenced by other sightings making them more psychologically prone to report they'd seen a mokey man in turn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What a beautiful logical trap you've laid for yourself. You claim knowledge of numerous cross-cultural and cross-temporal anecdotes and then do a 180 on the monkey man example by claiming that one sighting could influence others. Bandage your foot sir and buy another pair of shoes.


How can anyone take you seriously when you refuse to listen? I have never claimed that a limited number of anecdotes, over a brief period of time, in a particular setting, should not be treated with a great deal of caution. But are you genuinely unable to see any distinction in that case compared to any phenomenon which has been reported frequently across all history and cultures?? Compare lucid dreaming to this monkey man. if a phenomenon has NOT been universally reported it is obviously going to be much more suspect than a putative phenomenon which has been.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not a logical fallacy to suppose the more independent witnesses there are to a particular characteristic phenomenon, the more likely we should judge the phenomenon to have genuinely occurred. You misunderstand the nature of this ad populum logical fallacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The fallacy is as I described it. The fact that many people assert something to be true does not and cannot alter the veracity of the assertion.


It does if they are also independent witnesses to the phenomenen in question.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
[B]

It is not a requirement. It is, in part, a recognition of one of the axioms of science. The universe's rules don't suddenly and capriciously change. Gravity doesn't suddenly blip out at noon, reverse itself at 1 and return at 1:15. Momentum isn't suddenly not conserved. If I move 10 feet that away I don't have to suddenly investigate brand new operating rules.

Deism, then, takes the position that if there was a god, what he set up he no longer tinkers with.



I know what deism means. But the fact that the Universe can be described by physical rules doesn't invalidate theism. It's a "god of the gaps" theism you have in mind. I find the noition of a "God of the gaps" as silly as deism.

Do you think that the idea that our behaviour can be described by physical rules negates the idea that our behavior is a result of consciousness? If not why cannot the behaviour of the Universe as a whole be a result of a much vaster consciousness?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


{Shrugs} They're almost all materialists to the man aren't they?

This then explains why they're so crap at philosophy then.

No and no.

No I'm afraid it isn't. Not in the actual context which I used it, which as usual you conveniently left out. Try to obtain a better understanding of informal logical fallacies.[/quote
Try looking up ad hom.
[quote]The scientific community did consider them to be extraordinary claims before they were proved conclusively they definitely occurred. Presumably the fact that they have been shown to occur doesn't somehow magically make them any less of an a priori extraordinary claim??
When will you cease the practice of making up facts as you go along? As far back as Freud, lucid dreams were recognized by science. Freud didn't see much relevance to them because they didn't alter his ideas about the symbolic content of dreams. One of ths splits between Freud and Jung later occurred because Jung viewed them as far more significant.

You continue with this red herring. Now you manufacture facts.

How can anyone take you seriously when you refuse to listen? I have never claimed that a limited number of anecdotes, over a brief period of time, in a particular setting, should not be treated with a great deal of caution. But are you genuinely unable to see any distinction in that case compared to any phenomenon which has been reported frequently across all history and cultures?? Compare lucid dreaming to this monkey man. if a phenomenon has NOT been universally reported it is obviously going to be much more suspect than a putative phenomenon which has been.
...

It does if they are also independent witnesses to the phenomenen in question.
I 'm sorry about the hole in your foot. But this deflection isn't going to help. Neither is the straw man. You said reports can influence other reports. You even put it in the context of a geographically restricted and short time frame. Look down at your shoe, the blood is your own. You now need an antibiotic.

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I know what deism means. But the fact that the Universe can be described by physical rules doesn't invalidate theism. It's a "god of the gaps" theism you have in mind. I find the noition of a "God of the gaps" as silly as deism.

Do you think that the idea that our behaviour can be described by physical rules negates the idea that our behavior is a result of consciousness? If not why cannot the behaviour of the Universe as a whole be a result of a much vaster consciousness?

I likened the concept to one of the axioms of science, sir. The universe does not now act, and has never been seen to act in a capricious manner. If you wish to suggest that god is now trapped in his own machine, then so be it.

Cheers,

[edited to add:

And this is largely Levy's argument. If God is there, and if he is interested in good, then why did he allow the holocaust to occur?]

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
I know what deism means. But the fact that the Universe can be described by physical rules doesn't invalidate theism. It's a "god of the gaps" theism you have in mind. I find the noition of a "God of the gaps" as silly as deism.

Do you think that the idea that our behaviour can be described by physical rules negates the idea that our behavior is a result of consciousness? If not why cannot the behaviour of the Universe as a whole be a result of a much vaster consciousness?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BillHoyt

I likened the concept to one of the axioms of science, sir. The universe does not now act, and has never been seen to act in a capricious manner.



You think that if "God" exists, then he ought to act capriciously? I disagree. I think that "God" would allow his behaviour to be able to be discerned by sentient beings so as to be able to interact with their environment and predict it. I think "God's" behaviour is of such a nature, that the more intelligent and rational those sentient beings are, the more proficiently they can predict and control their environment. This they do through science. It is also the reason why reality is vastly more intricate than it straightforwardly appears to be (ie the nature of reality painted by science). It is also the reason why a total theory of everything does not exist (otherwise wih sufficiently rational and intelligent beings, they will come a point when there are limits in what technologically can be acheived).

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You think that if "God" exists, then he ought to act capriciously? I disagree. I think that "God" would allow his behaviour to be able to be discerned by sentient beings so as to be able to interact with their environment and predict it. I think "God's" behaviour is of such a nature, that the more intelligent and rational those sentient beings are, the more proficiently they can predict and control their environment. This they do through science. It is also the reason why reality is vastly more intricate than it straightforwardly appears to be (ie the nature of reality painted by science). It is also the reason why a total theory of everything does not exist (otherwise wih sufficiently rational and intelligent beings, they will come a point when there are limits in what technologically can be acheived).

And you wonder why you drive correspondents away. Look, little boy, I'm not playing anymore. Go to another sandbox, find somebody equally immature, and play there. Maybe survival science.


Jeers,

[Interesting Ian]

Here's an interesting article about life after death which reflects my sentiments exactly.

http://www.myions.org/Online%20Library/nsrev/review_archives/issue61/r61grossman.htm

[Akots]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Here's an interesting article about life after death which reflects my sentiments exactly.

http://www.myions.org/Online%20Library/nsrev/review_archives/issue61/r61grossman.htm

Why, that's just the perfect seguay into the topic of the resignation of Alexandra Levy. Sort of a full circle thing.

I've never seen people be so immature. Not that maturity is nessecarily a good thing anyways. :p

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Here's an interesting article about life after death which reflects my sentiments exactly.

http://www.myions.org/Online%20Library/nsrev/review_archives/issue61/r61grossman.htm

I find this bit particularly interesting:

{quote}
"One of my earliest encounters with this kind of academic irrationality occurred more than twenty years ago. I was devouring everything on the near-death experience I could get my hands on, and eager to share what I was discovering with colleagues. It was unbelievable to me how dismissive they were of the evidence. “Drug-induced hallucinations,” “last gasp of a dying brain,” and “people see what they want to see” were some of the more commonly used phrases. One conversation in particular caused me to see more clearly the fundamental irrationality of academics with respect to evidence against materialism. I asked, “What about people who accurately report the details of their operation?”

“Oh,” came the reply, “they probably just subconsciously heard the conversation in the operating room, and their brain subconsciously transposed the audio information into a visual format.”

“Well,” I responded, “what about cases where people report veridical perception of events remote from their body?”

“Oh, that’s just a coincidence or a lucky guess.”

Exasperated, I asked, “What will it take, short of having a near-death experience yourself, to convince you that it’s real?”

Very nonchalantly, without batting an eye, the response was “Even if I were to have a near-death experience myself, I would conclude that I was hallucinating, rather than believe that my mind can exist independently of my brain.” "
{unquote}

Very revealing don't you think? At least his colleagues tried to explain away the evidence. Not like a lot of people in this forum! Materialists will never believe, no matter how overwhelming is the evidence. It is most interesting.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Q-Source


There are more than one exception to distinguish between an Atheist and a Deist. In fact, the implications that follow from asserting that it was God who created the Universe instead of nothing are more important. Why don't you just call yourself atheist if the difference is so indistinguishable?

As I said, the two are nearly indistinguishable. As an exercise, can you tell me the difference between a Deist and an atheist, besides the fact that one believes the universe was created and one doesn't? Is there any difference at all in day-to-day philosophy, morality, etc?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I agree Q that if this is the only distinction it would be more sensible to be an atheist.

By the way Joshua, I have to confess I think deism is ridiculous. Why should God be required to set the Universe in motion but not be required to keep the Universe in existence on an ongoing basis? In other words what is so special about the initial creation of the Universe in contrast to any other stage in the history of the Universe?

Think of the universe as a washing machine. Does the person or assembly-line robot that originally built it need to be present and constantly fiddling with it in order for the thing to run?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Think of the universe as a washing machine. Does the person or assembly-line robot that originally built it need to be present and constantly fiddling with it in order for the thing to run?

Please pardon any delays in his response. He is in the rinse cycle.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Please pardon any delays in his response. He is in the rinse cycle.

:D

Or perhaps the spin cycle?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


As I said, the two are nearly indistinguishable. As an exercise, can you tell me the difference between a Deist and an atheist, besides the fact that one believes the universe was created and one doesn't? Is there any difference at all in day-to-day philosophy, morality, etc?

You have a very own personal definition of what a Deist is.
That's why Franko called you an atheist and he called himself a Deist.

Spinoza's definition of God is from the POV of a deist, God in this case still has an active role in the Universe because God is substance, is all there is in the Universe. This is quite different to the atheist's assertion that God does not exist.

[whitefork]

At the risk of awakening the elephant, I suggest that Spinoza was a pantheist (god = the universe; deus sive natura) not a
deist.

Added - most of the deists I've read are of the "god created the universe and then left it alone" variety, rather than "god is creating the universe all the time" or "god is identical to the universe" variety.

But Mr. Korosi surely does not need me to act as his mouthpiece.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Q-Source



Spinoza's definition of God is from the POV of a deist, God in this case still has an active role in the Universe because God is substance, is all there is in the Universe. This is quite different to the atheist's assertion that God does not exist.

I agree with whitefork...that's as good a definition of "pantheism" as you can get anywhere.

And indeed, Deism today seems to center mostly around the concept of a God that no longer interferes with the universe.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Think of the universe as a washing machine. Does the person or assembly-line robot that originally built it need to be present and constantly fiddling with it in order for the thing to run?

But you still need to maintain that the start of the Universe is a special event in the way that any other epoch in the Universe isn't.

Events are continually occurring throughout the Universe all the time. What is distinctive about the very first event?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by whitefork
At the risk of awakening the elephant, I suggest that Spinoza was a pantheist (god = the universe; deus sive natura) not a
deist.

Added - most of the deists I've read are of the "god created the universe and then left it alone" variety, rather than "god is creating the universe all the time" or "god is identical to the universe" variety.

But Mr. Korosi surely does not need me to act as his mouthpiece.


What about Hegel? Was he a pantheist, or would the term panentheism be more appropriate in describing his position?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi

Please pardon any delays in his response. He is in the rinse cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Or perhaps the spin cycle?



I think your unkind attitude is uncalled for.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But you still need to maintain that the start of the Universe is a special event in the way that any other epoch in the Universe isn't.

Events are continually occurring throughout the Universe all the time. What is distinctive about the very first event?

The thing that seperates the very first event in the universe from every other event in the universe is the fact that no natural event took place before it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
But you still need to maintain that the start of the Universe is a special event in the way that any other epoch in the Universe isn't.

Events are continually occurring throughout the Universe all the time. What is distinctive about the very first event?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The thing that seperates the very first event in the universe from every other event in the universe is the fact that no natural event took place before it.


__________________


So all events in the Universe, apart from the very first one, are "caused" by prior events and therefore do not require a conscious agent. But note here you are implicitly embracing a type of physical causality which is generative ie physical causality represents a power in nature necessitating that A follows B if there is a causal connection between the 2. I think you're readinmg more into reality than is justified. It is much more elegant to suppose that all change in the Universe (apart from those events inniated by finite sentient beings) is a manifestation of a metamind.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


So all events in the Universe, apart from the very first one, are "caused" by prior events and therefore do not require a conscious agent. But note here you are implicitly embracing a type of physical causality which is generative ie physical causality represents a power in nature necessitating that A follows B if there is a causal connection between the 2. I think you're readinmg more into reality than is justified. It is much more elegant to suppose that all change in the Universe (apart from those events inniated by finite sentient beings) is a manifestation of a metamind.

More elegant, perhaps - but what exactly is it about my model of the universe that necessarily precludes said "metamind"? Let's suppose for a moment that "God" is a consciousness. Can not a consciousness decide that certain things should be done in a certain way? Couldn't the "metamind" have just set up the dominoes in the beginning, and is now simply watching them fall? Of course, the universe as I see it doesn't necessarily include a metamind, either.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What about Hegel? Was he a pantheist, or would the term panentheism be more appropriate in describing his position? To call Hegel either is, I believe, to vastly oversimplify his metaphysics.

One big spirit evolving dialectically - can't we just call him a "Hegelian"?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by whitefork
To call Hegel either is, I believe, to vastly oversimplify his metaphysics.

One big spirit evolving dialectically - can't we just call him a "Hegelian"?

Yes, I would be tempted to label myself as a panentheist, but that would be to vastly oversimplify my position as well :)

[whitefork]

How about "Ianian", then?

Nice and reflexive, perhaps self-referential, too.

And based on some of the things I've read, not far off the mark.

[A_Feeble_Mind]

I'm sorry to barge in here with actual comments about the resignation, so please disregard and continue with the flame war, if you desire. ;)

Alexandra's athiestic "testimony" to the Jewish audience was very courageous. Could anyone imagine addressing an audience for a cause for which you are the president of with a message which was in complete contradiction with the core set of beliefs? I am impressed.

The logic applied was intriguing. If the Jews are "God's chosen people," why would they be left to the devices of the Nazis? Compared to the Holocaust, the imprisonment by the Egyptians was a picnic. To ignore the Holocaust, but still celebrate the deliverance from Egypt does seem strange now that it is addressed.

Still, I doubt anyone in that room actually thought, "Well, yeah, not that you mention it, there is no God!"

[Socrates]

Originally posted by Q-Source

Quite interesting. The main reason that she found to deny the existence of a God was a tragic event (the Holocaust) which proved that they were not the chosen people and no God would save them from the inevitable.


I haven't read this book, and I trust your feelings about the emotional impact it had on you. My response is directed at the above quote.

The Theodicies and the problem of Evil are old stuff. From a Jewish perspective, you have the story of Job on one hand and the Holocaust on the other.

From a Theistic point of view (which would include orthodox Judaism), to reject God means to reject that which is:

Omniscient
Omnipotent
All Good
Transcendent yet Personal
And, (most importantly to this discussion) the Ground of Being and Value.

Either your faith is in God and "He" is your Ground of Being and Value (as is the case with Job), or your feelings about your personal perceptions and experiences are your Ground of Being and Value. If the latter is the case, then by definition you have deified yourself (in a sense) and have already rejected God, as defined above, prior to the proclamation of rejection.

Using your personal feelings about the Holocaust as the basis for rejecting God seems weak. It boils down to--"I reject God as the Ground of Being and Value; therefore, I reject God (which is the Ground of Being and Value)."

It seems a bit redundant and circular in construction.

What really seems said here is: "I reject God because I can't make sense of Him." This would be more honest and less neurotic, but it probably wouldn't make a very good book.

Love,
Socrates

[Yahzi]

Using your personal feelings about the Holocaust as the basis for rejecting God seems weak.
Tell me: what possible expierence would convince you that God did not exist? If the Holocaust wasn't sufficient, then you are simply committed to believing in God regardless of all empirical evidence.

At this point a baseball bat to the side of the head is generally called for. I find that Reason and Logic can be produced with only one blow 95% of the time.

[Socrates]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Tell me: what possible expierence would convince you that God did not exist?


It is impossible to argue a negative, so I don't know what would prove that God didn't exist.

Furthermore, you take my quote out of context. In my post, I clearly argue from the Theistic perspective. If one subscribes to the Theist notion of God being the ground of Being and Value, then one must be as Job was and accept God's judgment not to intervene in the Holocaust because God is the Ground of Being and Value by definiton.

If you want to argue from the non-secular or atheistic point of view, then you can use your own feeling about events as the ground of value. But, at this point, one would have already rejected God by definition--independent of the Holocaust. So, why say you waited until the Holocaust to reject him? That is not exactly what I would call intellectual honesty.

My comment wasn't about God's existence, my comment was about the dubious nature of the reasoning used to reject God's existence because of the Holocaust by a Theist--particularyly a Jewish Theist that had undoubtedly gown up with the story of Job.

It is that reasoning in context of the Theistic worldview that I find weak.

Love,
Socrates

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It is not a logical fallacy to suppose the more independent witnesses there are to a particular characteristic phenomenon, the more likely we should judge the phenomenon to have genuinely occurred.

If you are using the number of witness who say the same thing to assert that the event occured, it is a logical fallacy, called an appeal to popularity (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm).

[scribble]

On the actual TOPIC...

You don't see a whole lot of Jews being opressed by Nazis these days. *Who says* God didn't deliver the Jews from the Nazis?

[Yahzi]

Socrates
dubious nature of the reasoning used to reject God's existence
But you see, the Jewish god, the god of the Bible, the same god that Christians and Muslims worship, is not Ground and Being. He is Jehovah (or Allah, if you prefer).

You can redefine God to mean "cheese grater," and then laugh at the silly atheists who deny the obvious existance of cheese graters, but you might notice no one is laughing with you.

It is obvious from context that we are talking about the god of the Jews, not your particular idiosyncratic made up retarded definition.

Scribble
On the same note, we should remark on God's incredible mercy and compassion. After all, he could have let Hitler kill 9 million Jews!

:p