Now we're down to silly word games?
rem
Posts by rem
-
369Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
-
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
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 -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
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 -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
Hehe... you know I'm just pushing your buttons! :)
Actually I meant to say "most probably delusional"... I don't want to come accross too dogmatic now.
Cheers,
rem -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
Oldsoul,
>> What I take issue with is not Science exploring material reality. I take issue with people who infer that spirituality is delusional. That would make the majority of the world's population, including many scientist's who don't support young earth, delusional.
So what if it does? If they are interpreting a materially caused perception as a bonafide spiritual experience, then they *are* deluded. It may not be possible to prove, but the preponderence of evidence and Occham's razor is on the side of the materialists.
>> If delusions are as Psychiatry define, "falsifiable beliefs" then those who believe in a spiritual realm are not delusional. Are they, rem? Tetrapod.sapien? Cygnus? Caedes? kid-A?
Not just for believing in the spiritual realm - that's just irrational (belief without evidence). Delusion can be mistaking a physical perception for a spiritual one. Some instances can be proven as delusion, some can only be deduced.
Seeing that spiritual perceptions can be induced by physical stimulus to the brain (electric, chemical, and mechanical) in my opinion there is not much hope of finding any so-called spirit realm. Seeing that there are so many physical explanations I take the position that people who experience spiritual perceptions (and regard them as truly spiritual and without material cause) are delusional until every other physical avenue can be eliminated as a possibility.
rem -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
Oldsoul,
>> Ockham's Razor? Please, use it. What is gravity?
Why should I be concerned with what gravity *is*? I only care about what it *does* and how it *works*. "Gravity" is just a label we use for the phenomenon so we can talk about it... a shorthand if you will. It's much more convenient than saying, "the apple fell from the tree because of the invisible force that affects matter based on the following rules... blah blah blah..."
If you want to play philisophical word games, be my guest. Is gravity the combined actions of an infinite number of angels all predictably working in concert? Maybe, but who cares? It doesn't change how gravity works, nor does it offer any more explanatory power.
Also, we can use Occham's razor to give us hints into the relative probability of the existence of other unseen realities. We can hopefully all agree on what we do know something about... our material reality - the one we have evidence of. We have learned from this material reality that the human mind is easy to fool - our perceptions of physical events are many times incorrect (that is, they cannot be corroborated by third parties).
How much more suspect is a human's perception of some other reality? Occham's razor comes in to play and shows us, based on what we know of *this* reality, that the person with these perceptions is most probably beeing fooled. And even if they are not being fooled and they really are experiencing some other reality... how reliable is that experience? The chances are good that they are not even really perceiving what they think they are in that reality - especially considering their lack of experience in that reality.
So how could I ever trust someone's subjective experience of the "other side" when I can't even trust their subjective experiences on this side? I realize you have repeatedly said you are not set out to prove anything, but I do believe you need to be reminded of the imperfections of your own perceptions - especially when they cannot be verified.
rem -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
Hooberus,
>> I disagree, -the above theory can make predictions- for example: Combining the observed fact that in the living biota discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent and that all 30 phyla of living animals are separated from each other by a discontinous gap (Mayr What Evolution Is page 189) with the previous theory that: "God created the basic animal types separately and distinctly" we are thus thus able to generate predictions about what will be and will not be found in the living and fossil world such as: 1) All future animals discovered will be shown to belong to separate and distinct phyla in the living world 2) All animal phyla will be found to remain separate and distinct in the fossil record and not emerge other phyla.
It is not a logically coherent theory unless your definition of god has no creativity or intelligence. Basically what you are saying with your "theory" is that god is *incapable* of doing any different than what you have observed in the past. For instance, if god created a combination of a zebra and a fish tomorrow, where would that leave your theory? It really wouldn't falsify it unless your theory consists of a god with no creative (as in intelligent) capability. It has to be a rule-following machine. Can you guarantee that your god won't step outside of the rules? If you can, then your definition of god is not very godlike at all.
Evolutionary theories are different. They are falsifiable in principle because you don't have to worry about an intelligence changing his or her mind in the future. We are just dealing with slavish, rule following algorithmic processes. This is what allows us to model future predictions within computer simulations.
Can your theory be modeled in a computer simulation? If it can, then your god is no more intelligent than the algorithms programmed into the computer.
>> And, as I said previously, such a theory does not also require that God is also defined "out of a personality or any capacity for creativity" - It is simply a potentially falsifiable/predictive theory as to how creation occurred.
Even if you define your theory this narrowly it is not predictive or falsifiable. It is a "just so" story. You keep saying it's falsifiable, but what exactly would you be able to falsify? Falsifying a scenario is not falsifying the theory - you must be able to falsify the mechanism, and your mechanism is God. So how can you falsify your mechanism? You can't.
The fact is that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a predictive and falsifiable theory is.
rem -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
>> at any rate, science may not be able to explain your experiences. but since you are an organism on planet earth, i am sorry to say that it's explanation still does fall under the auspices of science, sooner or later.
There is a high probability that people with such "extra-dimensional" perceptions are simply delusional. We really do know a lot about the brain and perceptual illusions. It is very likely that such a person has succumbed to such known phenomena. Where pure materialistic science breaks down in explanatory power, Occham's razor comes in as a powerful tool.
It's just pragmatic... otherwise you can spend page after page debating whether or not angels really do fit on the head of a pin.
rem -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
>> A theory such as "that God created the basic animal types separately and distinctly" (which is thus potentially able to generate predictions about what will be and will not be found in the living and fossil world), does not also require that God is also defined "out of a personality or any capacity for creativity" - It is simply a potentially falsifiable/predictive theory as to how creation occurred.
There's the thing, Hooberus... you've just described exactly the opposite of a falsifiable theory. Basically the creation theory as you describe it is not falsifiable until you take God's intelligence away because it's impossible to have predictions. There's nothing to guarantee that you wont have some strange chimera of an animal *in principle* if you have an intelligent creator - it doesn't logically follow. That's why Evolutionary mechanisms are falsifiable - you can't just make up unfalsifiable exceptions to the rule to get out of sticky situations.
By the way, what *has* creation predicted and how has it helped increase our knowledge and understanding in various scientific disciplines? What tangible benefits has this theory brought to mankind?
rem -
369
Why naturalism is irrational
by Shining One inirrational naturalism (#201) .
by henry morris, ph.d. .
abstract .
-
-
rem
Hooberus,
>> Yes, creation theories involving God can be predictive (if written specifically and properly): For example: theories that hold that God created the basic animal types separately and distinctly are potentially able to generate predictions about what will be (and will not be found) in the living and fossil world.
Not unless your definition of god is an entity that always follows predefined rules in an algorithmic, robotic fashion. Ultimately you define god out of a personality or of any capacity for creativity - only then can such a theory be truly predictive. Otherwise you can just say god made an arbitrary decision if the predictions don't match up. Congratulations - you've just defined an unintelligent natural process just like Natural Selection.
rem