Why naturalism is irrational

by Shining One 369 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

rem

Yeah, it makes my head spin!

I think I've said enough to damn myself to the 7th demension of hell on this thread so I'll leave it to you intellectuals to hash the rest out. :)

Cheers, mate

rem, deluded class
Cygnus

Rex, thanks for the apology. I've found that in the past few days my head hasn't been very clear so I might take a few days off and watch hockey. In fact I'm at friends' house right now and that's what we're gonna do for the rest of the night.
hooberus

hooberus

Abaddon, there is no requirement that in order to credibly quote or reference a source for specific points that a person must also be in agreement with everything else that the source advocates.
No, no requirement, just an expectation of clarity and openess in scientific debate.
There is nothing in my references to ReMine that goes against "an expectation of clarity and openess in scientific debate."
ReMInes's beliefs as regards chronology directly contradict the possibility of your beliefs regarding chronology being true being true.
Personally I would not quote from someone in that way; quoting someone who thinks your beleifs regarding chronology (or whatever) are impossible without stating it when you do so is sloppy and deceptive, even if you didn't mean it to be.
First of all I doubt that Remine would consider my beliefs regarding chronology to be "impossible." More importantly, since I have not quoted from ReMine in regards to any specific chronology at all (but instead referenced him on issues such as population genetics and evolutionary theory), your accusation that my actions are "sloppy and deceptive" even if I "didn't mean it to be" is fallacious.
It is EXACTLY the behaviour in selective and partial quotation that the JW's get slammed for, and that I and others have criticised many Creationists for.
On every issue that I have referenced ReMine on I have represented his views accurately, therefore your accusation that I have engaged in "selective and partial quotation" is fallacious. The mere fact that on other issues (ie: chronology) he takes a different position than myself is no evidence of misrepresentation on my part. I'm sure that you will find that evolutionists themselves frequently reference the works of other evolutionists for specific points -despite not agreeing with every other point of belief on other different issues- and without bringing up the disagreement on the other different issues.
Abaddon

Rex
>Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and certainly don't meet the standards Rex mentioned.

That's too general of a statement. You also need to prove they are impeachable, case by case.

Too general a statement? Have you READ some of your posts? Anyhow, you are stating that eyewitness testimony is reliable. That is "too general a statement" too.
>This analogy, I think, corresponds very well to experiences of the supernatural. While there are thousands of recorded incidents, many of them contradict one another.
The question is this, do they contradict one another regarding the same specific incident?
Well, if we look at the supernatural incidents described in the life of Jesus, yes, actually, they do contradict each other regarding specific incidents.
If they appear to do so, can they be reasonably reconciled?
Define 'reasonably reconciled' and explain how one can guard agains belief making one too likely to accept a half-plausable explanation about accounts of Jesus' life differing, when one would laugh at the same explanation offered over a similar discrepancy in a story told about a politician today.
>While some see the Virgin Mary, others are given evidence that Allah is the one true god, while others are abducted by aliens. Even those who encounter the same deity are often given different instructions.
Case by case, Derek. That is too general of a statement. BTW, Allah is the Islamists name for God. You can attempt to dismiss accounts of the Virgin Mary, Allah, Jesus, Grey Aliens, whomever, but to be intellectually honest you need to consider each accounts on its own merits, just like we do in a court of law.
So, are you saying you put your beliefs regarding god in the same catagory of reliability as of those people who saw little grey (or green) men?
And, yes, Allah is the Muslims word for god (it is not a name), but in this case it falls under the statement "Even those who encounter the same deity are often given different instructions" that Derek made.
Have you got an explanation for differing instruction coming from the 'devine' if all claimed instuctionsfrom the 'devine' are from the same 'devine'?
Or do you believe there are different 'devines' or heirachies of 'devines'?
Or do you believe one can accurately filter the messages from the 'good' devine out from all the messages put out there by the 'opposition' to the 'devine'. If so, how so?
If so, how does one explain (if there is a single devine) how belief and outcome are inextricably linked to place of birth and upbringing. How does one explain the lack of fairness if the devine has a deterministic judgemental attitude towards our behaviour even if we don't know the right 'devine' but think we know the right 'devine'?
What makes your beliefs different from a man in a loin-cloth with a bone through his nose sacrificing a chicken to a rock? He would likely claim similar subjective experiential validations, historical origins and validations of belief as you.
Please accept my apologies if you are dressed in a loin-cloth with a bone through your nose and have or intend to sacrifice a chicken to a rock. I am not criticising animists, just pointing out how little difference there is between an animist and the Pope (mostly clothes).
Old Soul
Mmm, maybe I mistook the trend of the argument you are presenting. It seemed to be designed purely to allow one the luxery of beliving what one wanted, based on always questioning whether anything was certain orf demonstarbly wrong
unless I can falsify their belief it is not "delusion"— it is difference.
And we have roughly the same approach. Dellusional is the insistance one can prove a subjective experience or belief without or in oppostion to any facts. Believing you had a subjective experience, and knowing that you cannot prove this without facts is not dellusional. Beliving that you can disprove a subjective experience is dellusional (at best you can cause a reappraisal ("I never realised helicopters could do that, damn, it wasn't a UFO")). Beleiving that there is true objectivity is also dellusional.
hooberus
First of all I doubt that Remine would consider my beliefs regarding chronology to be "impossible."
Ah, so ReMine belives that OEC's and YEC's can both be right at the same time? I don't think so hooberus. He might have his faults, but I don't think holding two incompatable chronologies to be true at the same time is one of them. That would be cogntive dissonance, and since when have Creationists (large C = the literalist infalable Bible brigade) suffered from that?
More importantly, since I have not quoted from ReMine in regards to any specific chronology at all (but instead referenced him on issues such as population genetics and evolutionary theory), your accusation that my actions are "sloppy and deceptive" even if I "didn't mean it to be" is fallacious.
You used him to support your argument when you must think he is wrong and decieved due to his beliefs in OEC chronology. To comapre this, as you did earlier, to an evolutionist quoting someone (he didn't agree with fully) to support evolution is not a sound comparison.
You believe you (and those who share your beliefs) are right and every other possible interpretation of the Biblical Creation account, all other creation myths, and general evolutionary theory are wrong? Correct?
An evolutionist might disagree over a particular theory but will generally not refuse the possibility that other theories might be right, just favour one over others. Thus for 'Mark' to quote 'Fred' about Proto-Ceratops when he thinks 'Fred's' thoughts on the Velociraptor to be wrong is not a problem, as 'Mark' will conceed that 'Fred' or indeed 'Janet' might be right about the Velociraptor.
As a Biblical literalist YEC, you don't have that latitude. YOUR interpretation (which you assume is the same as the actual intended meaning) is the only definiton you can accept to be true.
You say you only quoted ReMine for "population genetics and evolutionary theory", but ReMine's theories on those areas are incompatable with your beliefs.
You are quoting what you believe to be wrong to support an argument.
Can you see why I don't think it's good behaviour?
hooberus

You say you only quoted ReMine for "population genetics and evolutionary theory", but ReMine's theories on those areas are incompatable with your beliefs.
You are quoting what you believe to be wrong to support an argument.
Can you see why I don't think it's good behaviour?

Which of ReMine's theories on the issues that I have referenced him for are "incompatible" with my beliefs?
funkyderek

Shining One:
>Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable, and certainly don't meet the standards Rex mentioned.

That's too general of a statement. You also need to prove they are impeachable, case by case.

No. You need to prove they are true, case by case.
>Now, of course, there are a lot of eyewitness accounts, which would certainly be taken into account in a law court. If fifty people say they saw the same person committing a crime, then a conviction is likely, even without physical evidence. However, if fifty people all disagreed about who they saw committing the crime, and the details of when, where and how it happened, then their evidence would likely be dismissed.

That's a false delimma. The evidence would be sifted and weighed by several factors and most likely used to convict. I know, I have surved on a jury!
It wasn't really meant to be a dilemma at all, just a simplification. It's no good using an abundance of eyewitness accounts as evidence of something, if those accounts don't agree with one another. Obviously, the evidence has to be considered — if there is any.
>This analogy, I think, corresponds very well to experiences of the supernatural. While there are thousands of recorded incidents, many of them contradict one another.

The question is this, do they contradict one another regarding the same specific incident? If they appear to do so, can they be reasonably reconciled? This is just what Christian 'apologia' is all about!
It's not just a matter of reconciling them. Even if you can create a compatible set of events from several eyewitness accounts, that is not proof that those events occurred.
>While some see the Virgin Mary, others are given evidence that Allah is the one true god, while others are abducted by aliens. Even those who encounter the same deity are often given different instructions.

Case by case, Derek. That is too general of a statement. BTW, Allah is the Islamists name for God. You can attempt to dismiss accounts of the Virgin Mary, Allah, Jesus, Grey Aliens, whomever, but to be intellectually honest you need to consider each accounts on its own merits, just like we do in a court of law.
I'm all for considering things on a case by case basis, but I was responding specifically to LittleToe's apparent claim that the sheer number of eyewitness accounts constituted evidence in itself. My main claim was - and is - that there are many apparently supernatural events, some of which have been witnessed by hundreds of people, which are incompatible with one another. Of course, some claims may be true, and others false, but I have seen no reason to believe any of them. If you have evidence, then I will consider it case by case.
LittleToe

Derek:

I'm all for considering things on a case by case basis...

It would have to be done this way, since various claims attribute various sources. For example, you can't lump all the Christ-sightings together with the demon-sightings or you'll get your rags all singed!
...but I was responding specifically to LittleToe's apparent claim that the sheer number of eyewitness accounts constituted evidence in itself.
Of course it does. It might be deemed "weak" evidence, by comparison to the hard facts of scientifically substantiated "fingerprints", but nonetheless it is admissable in a court where the preponderance of data can be corrulated.
Why do you think Christians like getting together to swap stories? To try and outdo each other, to drink coffee, or to construct some other paradigm that will mess with everyone elses' heads?
There is a great deal of commonality of experience out there, yet most folks aren't interested enough to listen.
Rex:
Gyles wrote: Please accept my apologies if you are dressed in a loin-cloth with a bone through your nose and have or intend to sacrifice a chicken to a rock. I am not criticising animists, just pointing out how little difference there is between an animist and the Pope (mostly clothes).
You've surely gotta see the light side of this delicious imagery?
funkyderek

LittleToe:
Why do you think Christians like getting together to swap stories? To try and outdo each other, to drink coffee, or to construct some other paradigm that will mess with everyone elses' heads?

So you've colluded with other witnesses before the trial. I'm going to have to ask that your testimony be struck from the record.
There is a great deal of commonality of experience out there, yet most folks aren't interested enough to listen.
Yes there is. People in Catholic countries often have very similar visions of the Virgin Mary, or other saints. Other Christians often have very similar experiences of being "overcome with spirit", especially in the Bible Belt of the USA. Jehovah's Witnesses often have similar experiences of demonic possession after buying second-hand items. Hindus often experience similar visions of lights and colours while meditating.
It seems remarkable to me that almost every alleged supernatural experience corresponds to a person's culture. Animist shamans don't have visions of the risen Christ, Muslims don't become filled with the Holy Spirit, the Amish never communicate with their dead ancestors.
That's why "commonality of experience" isn't enough to convince me, not because I'm not interested.
LittleToe

Derek:
So you've colluded with other witnesses before the trial. I'm going to have to ask that your testimony be struck from the record.

LOL
That's why "commonality of experience" isn't enough to convince me...
But here's an interesting thing, which gave ME pause for thought (I'm not suggesting for one moment that it's compelling evidence for YOU). In my own case I had never heard the "Christian stories", as I'd been closeted away as a JW all my life, and the subject never came up on peoples' doorsteps.
After I left the JWs and started telling people about my own "experiences" they nodded their heads and at other times related theirs. The points of commonality were pretty remarkable. Sure they were differences also, just as you'd expect variety from a bunch of people who had been raised differently and had wildly different life-experiences.
I hear the stories of new Christians, these days and see the same things coming out time and again (people who never heard my story, incidentally, and like me often had heard no other stories, either).
Of course there are other explanations, like "Collective Consciousness", etc. Choose your paradigm. However they all rise above the level of evidence that is usually being called for by sceptics. The only thing I find a little strange is the general consensus among sceptics to bash that which they haven't experienced, even though so many folks are telling them something similar...
Abaddon

hooberus
For those that don't know, ReMine believes the number of mutations that would arise from a common ancestor in the amount of time since a common ancestor is not sufficient to cause the difference between humans and that common ancestor (a take on the so called "Haldane's Dilema").
However, in doing so he does LOADS of stuff you'd not accept, (even if you ignore him accepting a FAR longer chronology than you hooberus).
For example he puts dogs, wolves, coyotes, jackals and foxes in what he calls a 'monbaramin' (his definition of this is "a group containing only organisms related by common descent"). By doing so he is placing 12 genera and 34 species together and claiming common ancestry. He thus endorses macro-evolution, (even if he doesn't realise it himself), as not all of the species in his group are interfertile, and thus are different 'kinds' in Creationist-speak.
You, unless I am wrong, refuse to accept evolution beyond the boundaries of an interfertile 'kind'. Thus you endorsing his arguements by citation is actually endorsing arguments that contradict your own claims on several different levels.
Any clearer on why I think you quoting someone that diverges from your opinion to that extent is wrong?
~~~
.... a little cartoon which can probably be seen as amusing by both Creationists and evolutionists for completely different reasons
Looking at the histoey of paranormal experience, one can see trends.
We now see UFO's in the sky. People used to see armies marching in the sky and mythical beasts or entities fighting. The history of UFO encounters and what is seen can be tracked against the depiction of UFO's in books, newspapers, films and on TV. The classic 'grey' only really began to be seen in UFO sightings after the image was widely know through the media. Likewise the classic 'flying saucer' shape.
In the past there were witch crazes... were they actually outbreaks of witches, or social trends whereby people saw witches where ther were none? With exorcisms and people claiming they are demonised, specific behaviours only began to be reported widely when they had become notorious as a centre-piece of a film.
Now, either demons and aliens are influenced in their appearance or behaviour by human media, or human's perceptions are influenced by human media.
We know you stick a 'hat' that buzzes the brain in the right places on someone's head they will experience 'the devine' in some way. Even RIchard Dawkins or Lord Robert Winston (don't remember who I saw it being done to on TV but they were a tad offput).
So we know one can feel the 'devine' in a lab as an experiement even if one is a poster-boy for atheists.
Human perception is notoriously unreliable. We are a bio-electronic 'machine'. We don't actually 'see' what we see, we 'percieve' it and 'interpret' it. And there is many a slip betwix lip and wrist.
It is also interesting to note that despite the proliferation of video cameras and such like, paranormal entities from the Sasquatch to 'grey' aliens have still NEVER been caught on film or video in an unambiguous manner.
Likewise, despite the plethora of claims of an anecdotal nature, not one religious experience has ever been scientifically proved to be anything other than something on the inside of someone's skull.
Of course, one can despute the reality of something like that until the cows come home, but you are as likely to 'prove' someone that they didn't experience 'x' as you are to 'prove' their allegiance to a certain football team is 'wrong'. Both 'god told me to invade Iraq' and 'Steelers are almighty' are beliefs, (NFL winning seasons and objective manisfestations of devine will being the exception to this example).
For someone to think the ''hasn't happend to me, no evidence for it" arguement is going to make people with real (to them) experiences in their head suddenly say "oh, it wasn't god" is silly, as silly as it would be for someone with a personal experience they see as proof of 'god' or whatever to expect someone to believe that is as real to others as it is to them without any facts.
What we can all agree on is that people who sincerely think a hand-grenade is a haddock are dellusional. That's not a difference of opinions, that is a difference of facts.

Why naturalism is irrational

Share this