tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post2417773987861689655..comments2024-03-29T01:14:19.030-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Argument From the Religious a PrioriJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13294327169502876332022-10-05T14:01:53.979-07:002022-10-05T14:01:53.979-07:00Joe (in a subsequent discussion): Religion being j...Joe (in a subsequent discussion): <i>Religion being justified on it own terms does not mean anything one believes is true just because one believes it. It means the truth of religion as a whole has to be jugged by issues related to existentialism not science.</i><br /><br />So your "Argument From the Religious a Priori" is that the truth of religion as a whole has to be judged by issues related to existentialism not science.<br /><br />Not actually an argument at all.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-24482561850431440602022-10-05T02:46:13.136-07:002022-10-05T02:46:13.136-07:00Joe: You missed the whole thing. Science is not th...Joe: <i>You missed the whole thing. Science is not the only way to know things. period. ...</i><br /><br />I agree. But clearly you need to fight this strawman to hide how vacuous your argument is.<br /><br /><br />Joe: <i>You missed the whole thing. Science is not the only way to know things. period. that means religion has its own form of knowledge what science says says about that is unimportant,</i><br /><br />Okay. But nothing there suggests religious knowledge is true or has any value. I am not saying religious knowledge is necessarily false and has no value, only that the argument presented here does not tell us it is true.<br /><br />Pix: <i>So why does your post not say that right at the top, instead of your points 1 to 5?</i><br /><br />Joe: <i>It did.</i><br /><br />Are you looking at the different post to me? What I see at the top of this post is your points 1 to 5.<br /><br />Joe: <i>they are not in contradiction to the UTE thing.</i><br /><br />I never said they are. I only said that if your argument boils down to the UTE thing, then that is what should be at the top of your post.<br /><br />Joe: <i>It's an extension from the five points. point 5 says: "<br />(5)Therefore, religious belief is justified on its own terms and not according to the dictates or other disciplines." These ae its own terms. UTE is the justification pf which point five speaks.</i><br /><br />But point 5 says nothing about the UTE! Read it carefully Joe. I amnot saying they contradict or even they are unrelated. I am saying if the point of your post is the UTE, you should have that at the top, rather than your straw man rant against scientism.<br /><br />I think the reason you presented your 1 to 5, rather than the UTE, was to disguise the lack of actual argument. And I therefore predict that next time you trot this out it will still have those points 1 to 5 at the top, and not the UTE thing.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-20463971159411006682022-10-04T23:40:09.620-07:002022-10-04T23:40:09.620-07:00Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Yes it does. The...<br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...<br />Yes it does. The source is God since the content is God. <br /><br /><b>No. The content has been defined as mystical/God. The source is unknown.<br />It could be God. It could also just be our own brains/minds.</b><br /><br /><br />Modal logic does. It doesn't seek to understand the mysteries of God, just the fact that God exists and it does prove that.<br /><br /><b>Within the structure of Modal Logic, were God to exist, God would be necessary. What requires all necessary things to exist?</b><br /><br /><br /><br />It does. Obviously the game has to be fixed since it's so improbable. I am will to be you never base anything on unreasonable, I am betting you live in accord with reason why should this be different? <br />do you play on the freeway because you don't trust probability?<br /><br /><b>No. It’s not obvious the game has been fixed. Improbable is not the same as impossible.<br />We don't know that ours is the only game in town. We could be one in a multiverse or one of an endless regression of universes. We have no way of knowing the probability of the main physical forces, that are the basis of our universe, being other than they are. <br />It sounds like the puddle argument. You are conflating the serendipity of our existence with intention.</b>Cuttleboneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06022203266007803962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-21578182694886041882022-10-04T12:00:40.560-07:002022-10-04T12:00:40.560-07:00Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: show mw where? ju...Anonymous Anonymous said...<br />Joe: show mw where? just because I don't genuflect when I see a white lab coat doesn't mean I don't appreciate science.<br /><br />This discussion is you doing just that.<br /><br />???<br /><br />Joe: Your reaction demonstrates the need to say that<br /><br />My reaction is that you should drop points 1, 2 and 3 because they are irrelevant. If you want to argue that there are alternatives to science, do so, but do not make it part of your basic logic, because it is irrelevant to that.<br /><br /><b>You missed the whole thing. Science is not the only way to know things. period. that means religion has its own form of knowledge what science says says about that is unimportant,</b><br /><br /><br />Joe: Only if you have a comic book understanding of religion. You think religion is a big bully boy in the clouds and you better do what he says then know nothing about religion. My statement boils down to there is ultimate transformative experience that resolves the issue in the human problematic and gives meaning to existence. One such example of this transformative experience is the feeling of utter depdnece. That feeling justifies the need to resolve the problematic,<br /><br />So why does your post not say that right at the top, instead of your points 1 to 5?<br /><br /><b>It did.</b><br /><br />Joe: you don't understand it<br /><br />Right, because I looked at you points 1 to 5 at the top of your post. You have just admitted that what your post boils down to is "ultimate transformative experience that resolves the issue in the human problematic and gives meaning to existence", which is very different to the logic you presented.<br /><br /><b>Not a bit you just don't the same associations I do.</b><br /><br />And yet I can guarantee that in a year or so you will trot out this argument yet again with those same five points at the top.<br /><br /><b>they are not in contradiction to the UTE thing.</b><br /><br />Joe: obviously it's the atheist use of science as the religion slayer that creates the need to mention it.<br /><br />I am not saying do not mention it, I am saying it should not be part of the logic at the top, because it has no place there.<br /><br /><b>It's an extension from the five points. point 5 says: "<br />(5)Therefore, religious belief is justified on its own terms and not according to the dictates or other disciplines." These ae its own terms. UTE is the justification pf which point five speaks.</b><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-54151433523906372382022-10-04T11:34:43.448-07:002022-10-04T11:34:43.448-07:00Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Cody first we ca...Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...<br />Cody first we can now study mystical experience in a controlled fashioned and use more scientific methods, we study the effects of the experience not the content, WE can't study a subjective feeling but we can study the effect of having the feeling,<br /><br />We have defined frameworks for categorising and cataloguing "mystical experience".<br />It gets us no closer to understanding the source of those experiences.<br /><br /><b>Yes it does. The source is God since the content is God. </b><br /><br />Second we have modal logic such as Hartshorne's modal argument.<br /><br />Internal logical consistency proves nothing. Mental game play only.<br /><br /><b>Modal logic does. It doesn't seek to understand the myteries of God, just the fact that God exists and it does prove that.</b><br /><br /><br />We have hard scientific data that proves the fine tuning argument.<br /><br />We really don't. We may have scientific data that life would likely not have arisen if the characteristics of our universe were other than they are. We have nothing to show purposeful creation of those conditions.<br /><br /><b>It does. Obviously the game has to be fixed since it's so improbable. I am will to be yo never base anything on unreasonable, I am betting you live in accord with reason why should this be different? <br />do you play on the freeway because you don't trust probability?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-17484158598327626252022-10-03T23:40:04.607-07:002022-10-03T23:40:04.607-07:00Joe: show mw where? just because I don't genuf...Joe: <i>show mw where? just because I don't genuflect when I see a white lab coat doesn't mean I don't appreciate science.</i><br /><br />This discussion is you doing just that.<br /><br />Joe: <i>Your reaction demonstrates the need to say that</i><br /><br />My reaction is that you should drop points 1, 2 and 3 because they are irrelevant. If you want to argue that there are alternatives to science, do so, but do not make it part of your basic logic, because it is irrelevant to that.<br /><br />Joe: <i>Only if you have a comic book understanding of religion. You think religion is a big bully boy in the clouds and you better do what he says then know nothing about religion. My statement boils down to there is ultimate transformative experience that resolves the issue in the human problematic and gives meaning to existence. One such example of this transformative experience is the feeling of utter depdnece. That feeling justifies the need to resolve the problematic,</i><br /><br />So why does your post not say that right at the top, instead of your points 1 to 5?<br /><br />Joe: <i>you don't understand it</i><br /><br />Right, because I looked at you points 1 to 5 at the top of your post. You have just admitted that what your post boils down to is "ultimate transformative experience that resolves the issue in the human problematic and gives meaning to existence", which is very different to the logic you presented.<br /><br />And yet I can guarantee that in a year or so you will trot out this argument yet again with those same five points at the top.<br /><br />Joe: <i>obviously it's the atheist use of science as the religion slayer that creates the need to mention it.</i><br /><br />I am not saying do not mention it, I am saying it should not be part of the logic at the top, because it has no place there.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-8518950831012225962022-10-03T22:21:35.659-07:002022-10-03T22:21:35.659-07:00Anonymous said...
Joe: The fact that see an attack...Anonymous said...<br />Joe: The fact that see an attack on the ideology of scientism as an attack on science tells me you are into scientism.<br /><br />No Joe, it shows I have been debating with your too long, and know you conflate the two.<br /><br /><br /><b>show mw where? just because I don't genuflect when I see a white lab coat doesn't mean I don't appreciate science.</b><br /><br />Joe: what rules? the idea that science is the only form of knowledge is not scientific but ideological. you don't make the rules of knowing, It is not making new rules but discovering old rules.<br /><br />So why bother to say it? Your points 1, 2 and 3 are irrelevant - they are there purely to hide how vacuous your argument is.<br /><br /><b>Your reaction demonstrates the need to say that</b><br /><br />Joe: how could that not follow? You are saying if A then B, A therefore B is wrong, think about how ideological that is to deny basic logic because it threaten your ideology;<br /><br />The conclusion does not follow. If you want evidence of that, look at any religious belief that is wrong. How about the existence of Thor? If your argument is right, then the belief that Thor controls thunder "is justified on its own terms". Do you really think that is the case?<br /><br /><b>Only if you have a comic book understanding of religion. You think religion is a big bully boy in the clouds and you better do what he says then know nothing about religion. My statement boils down to there is ultimate transformative experience that resolves the issue in the human problematic and gives meaning to existence. One such example of this transformative experience is the feeling of utter depdnece. That feeling justifies the need to resolve the problematic,</b><br /><br /><br />Joe: His scientism is really showing, He thinks examining any alternative form knowledge is an attack on science<br /><br />No, Joe, I think your argument is nonsense.<br /><br /><b>you don't understand it</b><br /><br />I would be less scathing of it if you could present it without mentioning science. However, it is clear that you need to attack science to distract from the simple fact that your argument is just nonsense. Seriously, Joe - see if you can present your argument without mentioning science. I predict you will not be able to.<br /><br /><b>obviously it's the atheist use of science as the religion slayer that creates the need to mention it.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-5470612661090985042022-10-03T20:14:51.498-07:002022-10-03T20:14:51.498-07:00Pix said: "How about the existence of Thor? ...Pix said: "How about the existence of Thor? If your argument is right, then the belief that Thor controls thunder "is justified on its own terms". Do you really think that is the case?"<br /><br />This question has to do with the cultural constructs of religion, which are different from the direct experience of the divine which is the source of religious belief. What Joe said (and quoted) was: "The Culturally constructed nature of religion does not negate the a priori. 'Even though the forms by which religion is expressed are culturally conditioned, religion itself is sui generis .. essentially irreducible to and undeceivable from the non-religious.'"<br /><br />Thor is a cultural construct of a certain religion. Religion itself is not about answering questions like "what makes thunder?" It's about the sense of the numinous, the "feeling of utter dependence," that lifts the human above the mundane. "What makes thunder?" may once have been answered in religious terms because of a lack of knowledge-- but that doesn't mean that religion is reducible to such conjectures. Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-84907223287705018672022-10-03T19:50:50.193-07:002022-10-03T19:50:50.193-07:00Joe said: "Hey Kristen I knw of your experien...Joe said: "Hey Kristen I knw of your experiences, I hope I didn't seem to imply it only works one way."<br /><br />On the contrary, I think the fact that it worked this way for me is evidence that supports your argument. You quoted Schleiermacher and said: "S...contends that belief in God is pre-theoretical, it is not the result of proofs and demonstration, but is conditioned solely by the modification of feeling of utter dependence. Belief in God is not acquired through intellectual acts of which the traditional proofs are examples, but rather from the thing itself, the object of religious experience." <br /><br />Very well, then. I am a case in point. My belief in God was clearly acquired not from traditional proofs, but from the "object of religious experience." Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-67919838580358255682022-10-03T13:50:25.520-07:002022-10-03T13:50:25.520-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-43296112236849438112022-10-03T13:48:41.731-07:002022-10-03T13:48:41.731-07:00Cody first we can now study mystical experience in...Cody first we can now study mystical experience in a controlled fashioned and use more scientific methods, we study the effects of the experience not the content, WE can't study a subjective feeling but we can study the effect of having the feeling,<br /><br />Second we have modal logic such as Hartshorne's modal argument.<br /><br />We have hard scientific data that proves the fine tuning argument.<br /><br />We can make use of logic i analyzing cosmological evidence.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-18089766102819105982022-10-03T11:42:38.768-07:002022-10-03T11:42:38.768-07:00Joe: The fact that see an attack on the ideology o...Joe: <i>The fact that see an attack on the ideology of scientism as an attack on science tells me you are into scientism.</i><br /><br />No Joe, it shows I have been debating with your too long, and know you conflate the two.<br /><br />Joe: <i>what rules? the idea that science is the only form of knowledge is not scientific but ideological. you don't make the rules of knowing, It is not making new rules but discovering old rules.</i><br /><br />So why bother to say it? Your points 1, 2 and 3 are irrelevant - they are there purely to hide how vacuous your argument is.<br /><br />Joe: <i>how could that not follow? You are saying if A then B, A therefore B is wrong, think about how ideological that is to deny basic logic because it threaten your ideology;</i><br /><br />The conclusion does not follow. If you want evidence of that, look at any religious belief that is wrong. How about the existence of Thor? If your argument is right, then the belief that Thor controls thunder "is justified on its own terms". Do you really think that is the case?<br /><br />Joe: <i>His scientism is really showing, He thinks examining any alternative form knowledge is an attack on science</i><br /><br />No, Joe, I think your argument is nonsense.<br /><br />I would be less scathing of it if you could present it without mentioning science. However, it is clear that you need to attack science to distract from the simple fact that your argument is just nonsense. Seriously, Joe - see if you can present your argument without mentioning science. I predict you will not be able to.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-49504643409183243402022-10-03T10:06:41.569-07:002022-10-03T10:06:41.569-07:00Internal religious phenomenological analysis does ...Internal religious phenomenological analysis does stand out to me as a possible valid source of data, but it would only ever appear to me as such if there were several other naturalistic lines of evidence that supported it. The best kind of abductive reasoning should bring as many different types of possible evidence into consideration as it can. The God hypothesis is the hypothesis of that which should be relevant to all spheres of existence and all types of evidence, and I've found through considering all of these that there are more connections between these than can be reasonably denied. If you try to leave any part of this out then it stands to weaken the overall picture in favor of it - the gestalt if you will.Codynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-58255771861131512242022-10-03T10:05:54.025-07:002022-10-03T10:05:54.025-07:00I like to say that it's never one unequivocal ...I like to say that it's never one unequivocal demonstration of scientific data that ever proves anything. Convincing data does not exist in a vacuum. It's always being compared to other data, and it's the strength of the collected argument according to an ongoing Bayesian analysis against all other possible explanations that bears out the likelihood of its accuracy. This is the only reason I changed my mind from being an atheist to a theist. Not one single point of data could do this for me, which I would freely admit.<br /><br />Codynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-85575243412098612972022-10-03T07:36:23.985-07:002022-10-03T07:36:23.985-07:00His scientism is really showing, He thinks examini...His scientism is really showing, He thinks examining any alternative form knowledge is an attack on science. It seems like proof of my old observation, that science functions as God for the atheist. Like their view of religion one is not permitted to reason about the role of science in knowing.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-72031985384147873262022-10-03T07:27:59.196-07:002022-10-03T07:27:59.196-07:00Kristen said...
Exactly. I became a Christian beca...Kristen said...<br />Exactly. I became a Christian because of the experience of God's presence, and not the other way around. I began experiencing this at a very early age, around six or seven years old.<br /><br />9:49 PM Delete<br />Anonymous Anonymous said...<br />Joe: (1) Scineitifc reductionism loses phenomena by re-defining the nature of sense data and quailia.<br />(2)There are other ways of Knowing than scinetific induction<br /><br />And real argument for a hypothesis can stand on it own two feet. The fact that you have to start off by denigrating science tells me this argument is nonsense.<br /><br /><b>The fact that see an attack on the ideology of scientism as an attack on science tells me you are into scientism.</b><br /><br />Joe: (3) Religious truth is apprehended phenomenoloigcally, thus religion is not a scientific issue and cannot be subjected to a materialist critque<br /><br />And you point 3 is claiming we should change the rules for religion.<br /><br /><br /><b>what rules? the idea that science is the only form of knowledge is not scientific but ideological. you don't make the rules of knowing, It is not making new rules but discovering old rules.</b><br /><br />Joe: (4) Religion is not derived from other disciplines or endeavors but is a approch to understanding in its own right<br /><br />(5)Therefore, religious belief is justified on its own terms and not according to the dictates or other disciplines<br /><br />In fact there is not content here, is there? Take of the anti-science ranting and we are left with<br /><br /><b>If science really means only one form of knowledge then science sux, I don't think it really says that, If that is science then we need to attack it. But I don't think that's science.</b><br /><br />1. Religion is an approach to understanding in its own right<br />2. Therefore, religious belief is justified on its own terms<br /><br />The conclusion does not follow, but that is fine, you have added enough window-dressing to hide that.<br /><br /><b>how could that not follow? You are saying if A then B, A therefore B is wrong, think about how ideological that is to deny basic logic because it threaten your ideology;</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-18691294957541288302022-10-03T07:15:51.675-07:002022-10-03T07:15:51.675-07:00Hey Kristen I knw of your experiences, I hope I di...Hey Kristen I knw of your experiences, I hope I didn't seem to imply it only works one way.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-5345093261532571572022-10-03T04:39:51.831-07:002022-10-03T04:39:51.831-07:00Joe: (1) Scineitifc reductionism loses phenomena b...Joe: <i>(1) Scineitifc reductionism loses phenomena by re-defining the nature of sense data and quailia.<br />(2)There are other ways of Knowing than scinetific induction</i><br /><br />And real argument for a hypothesis can stand on it own two feet. The fact that you have to start off by denigrating science tells me this argument is nonsense.<br /><br />Joe: <i>(3) Religious truth is apprehended phenomenoloigcally, thus religion is not a scientific issue and cannot be subjected to a materialist critque</i><br /><br />And you point 3 is claiming we should change the rules for religion.<br /><br />Joe: <i>(4) Religion is not derived from other disciplines or endeavors but is a approch to understanding in its own right<br /><br />(5)Therefore, religious belief is justified on its own terms and not according to the dictates or other disciplines</i><br /><br />In fact there is not content here, is there? Take of the anti-science ranting and we are left with <br /><br />1. Religion is an approach to understanding in its own right<br />2. Therefore, religious belief is justified on its own terms<br /><br />The conclusion does not follow, but that is fine, you have added enough window-dressing to hide that.<br /><br />PixAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-91347105098576859182022-10-02T21:49:14.987-07:002022-10-02T21:49:14.987-07:00Exactly. I became a Christian because of the exper...Exactly. I became a Christian because of the experience of God's presence, and not the other way around. I began experiencing this at a very early age, around six or seven years old. Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.com