Why naturalism is irrational (page 19)

rem

LT,

You know I think you're a great guy, but yes, I have to admit that I believe you are delusional. Though, seeing that I believe the majority of humans on this planet are delusional it's not much to get worked up about. ;)

>>Do you really think we've come to the limit of our evolution?

I don't see any spiritual goal to evolution. In fact there is no "goal" to evolution... it's just change over the generations. Is there some selective pressure toward tuning into this so-called spirit realm that I'm missing?

>>Also, do you accept that it's theoretically plausible that there are other dimensions beyond the four that we generally measure with science?

Sure, anything is possible. The thing is, though, that if you can't measure it with science, then it probably can't affect us in any way. It's like asking what is beyond the visible universe (the part where light hasn't reached us yet). Maybe there is stuff out there and maybe there isn't. But I know that it is pretty improbable for something from that realm to interact with us, so from a pragmatic standpoint it might as well not exist.

>> Bad choice of words. It could easily be mistaken identity, causing the building of a false paradigm, but that isn't "delusion" per se as it needn't be pathological.

Oh, but I believe it has reached the level of pahology in the human species. We've gone to great lengths to preserve our superstitions and validate our mistaken perceptions. We've created mythologies, religions, laws, etc. that are based on these cognitive illusions. In my opinion this is far more than simply a false paradigm.

Cheers,

rem

Cygnus

I believe the majority of humans on this planet are delusional

Yep yep, uh huh, yep yep. What's the figure, 59%, of Americans believe the prophecies of Revelation will occur in the future? I want to post more but I'm watching the end of the Sabes/Islanders game and hoping that Jesus likes the Sabres better.

OldSoul

LittleToe: You're argument is neglecting the "invisible" affect of radiant heat (eg. from the sun) affecting atmospheric conditions.

Oh. I didn't say photons? I thought I said photons. Oh well, edit that to include photons as the major cause of wind. Well, that and refritos. And baked beans.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

rem:

Again, perceptions that are not provable is not the definition of delusion. You see, delusion is a word in the English language. In that language, it has a meaning. It means "falsifiable belief," which is, as you can probably comprehend, much different from "undemonstrable belief." Now, unless you are trying to intimate that you can demonstrate the non-existence of God and a spirit realm, I suggest you find a word that means what you want to communicate.

As it stands, I do not believe you are capable of falsifying my belief, although I invite you to try. Unless you are, I suggest you stop lowering yourself to improper use of the language. You may find your opinions discredited by overuse of inflammatory and, most damningly, incorrect ad hominem.

OldSoul

Caedes,

Mutual pleasure, I assure.

Caedes: Last century your question could have been "what is electricity?"

Um, actually this one is still valid. Again, we know it effects but we don't know what it is. And right now the question is very fitting of quantum entanglements.

See, that is why I stress the danger in thinking we know what something is just because we have a name for it. You have proably not considered what electricity is since grade school, because EVERYONE knows. And still, the only way to describe electricity is to describe its effects.

I have no problem with Science trying to interpret what it finds in physical reality, I just wish they would stop pretending they know more than they do. Just because I have a name I call fire, that doesn't mean I know what it is.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

Cygnus

I have no problem with Science trying to interpret what it finds in physical reality, I just wish they would stop pretending they know more than they do.

Wow, what a sweeping generalization. Science is opinions based on studied evidence and argument. If someone pretends to know more than they do, they will get called on it.

I think this whole issue is simple, really. Our thoughts and our id are neuro-chemical transmitters that fire based on what we put into our bodies or how we perceive our environment. Nobody, so far, has found any ghost in the machine that can perceive anything else. People that do and "can" perceive alternate realities and senses that most people can't are............... different. That's all.

rem

Oldsoul,

Yes, I caught that... that's why I corrected myself to say "probably deluded" as in, "those people most probably have false beliefs, though it's impossible to prove it".

The distinction is not really necessary in everyday language, though. For instance, I reserve the right to regard someone who believes they have an invisible pink unicorn in their head as deluded.

Thanks,

rem

OldSoul

Cygnus: People that do and "can" perceive alternate realities and senses that most people can't are............... different.

And happily so, in my case. I only want accorded to myself the respect and dignity I accord the scientific community. I don't think that is too much to ask. The two minds are not diametrically opposed to each other, however much some with a scientific bent may believe.

Just because I believe God did certain things does not mean I am lacking in curiosity about how it was done. I am avidly interested in pursuing scientific inquiry, and have been for as long as I can remember. I attribute a cause, does that rob me of curiosity? To date, I must admit, for discovery of physical reality the Scientific Method is the best method I know of. And I REALLY enjoy discovery.

TS said earlier something to the effect that science encourages discovery more than theism. I completely disagree. I think such a view eliminates much of what we know of history. Just because the Europeans (dark ages, middle ages) were relatively late starters down a path of discovery doesn't mean the history of the great Arab cultures should be ignored. The attributed causes may be different but the desire to know comes built in .

Odd isn't it? We are the only species that have a curiosity this well developed, it should have gotten us killed long ago. We must have something cats don't.

Respectfully,
OldSoul

OldSoul

rem:

The distinction is not really necessary in everyday language, though. For instance, I reserve the right to regard someone who believes they have an invisible pink unicorn in their head as deluded.

I wonder if you see the contradiction in what you write:

If you regard a person as deluded when you cannot falsify their belief, your belief that they are deluded is automatically falsified by the definition of the word "delusion." Doesn't that make you deluded?

Either way, I have no control over how you regard me, however deluded you allow your perceptions to be. It is when you infer to others that I am or may be deluded that you then have a responsibity to either retract, or falsify my belief, as a function of proving your claim.

Have fun trying.

Regards,
OldSoul

rem

Now we're down to silly word games?

rem

OldSoul

I was under the impression that words are important in that this is the means by which we convey ideas. I also believe that our use of them reinforces or modifies our perceptions of the world around us, perforce making our choice of words important as well.

Am I deluded?

Let's test my theory: If I wrote a paper on the subject of seven, and undered every God monkey where it sat. Could clacking foam physically want ham with fickle bastings?

Did you understand what I just wrote?

OldSoul

P.S. Lighten up, you'll live longer.

Why naturalism is irrational

Share this