Coggins7 wrote:As to religious claims, I can tell you exactly, barring your own unique needs, how you can know for yourself, with perfect certainty, that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the Church is what it claims to be.
Absolute balderdash! You cannot KNOW for yourself with perfect certainty that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ or that the Mormon church is what it claims to be. How exactly are you supposed to tell someone else how to know for themselves that which you don't know yourself and that which, in fact, cannot be known? Ridiculous.
You have nothing but personal subjective belief that God exists and that Jesus is the Christ. In spite of overwhelming hard evidence to the contrary, you still believe Mormonism is what it claims to be. That shows me you're the one performing mental masturbation, Coggins. You think so much of yourself - that you're so special - that you know what the rest of us cannot know. You've got some inside sure knowledge that causes you to disregard the plain and obvious truth that the Mormon church is a fraud. Why don't you give us a break and get over yourself?
Coggins7 wrote: This is utterly circular, and indicative of precisely the vastly truncated and self referential mental set that infects the secularist mind, especially in its more severe manifestations. This entire argument assumes, a priori, that the material universe that is accessible to human empirical observation and experiment is all that exists. This assumption is not scientifically verifiable, nor is it derivable from any known scientific facts.
And again, we need to point out (not that I really expect you to suddenly understand this since you've likely read it a million times) that the burden of proof lies with the people who assert that there is more to the universe than what "is accessible to human empirical observation and experiment." Since no proof if forthcoming, why would intelligent people waste their time with it?
Coggins7 wrote: I appreciate that God is not accessible to verification by independent observers in an objective empirical sense. However, the problem we have here is scientific methodology driven from a methodology to a metaphysics; from a means of apprehending the phenomena of the observable world to a philosophical and metaphysical prescription about phenomena well beyond the reach of its methodology or intellectual tools.
That scientific methodology can tell us nothing directly about God is only a barrier to belief in God if one also accepts the assumptions of scientism; the preconceived meta-scientific claims about the ultimate nature of the universe and reality that are not derivable from scientific knowledge per se but are philosophical claims made within an interpretational framework that interprets scientific data and bodies of knowledge in a certain idiosyncratic way. This interpretatinal framework is much more a function of the psychologies and cultural milieus of scientists than of what may be safely extrapolated from science itself.
Replace 'god' in what you just said with any made up thing and you arrive at the same question:
"That scientific methodology can tell us nothing directly about the Tooth Fairy is only a barrier to belief in the Tooth Fairy if one also accepts the assumptions of scientism; the preconceived meta-scientific claims about the ultimate nature of the universe and reality that are not derivable from scientific knowledge per se but are philosophical claims made within an interpretational framework that interprets scientific data and bodies of knowledge in a certain idiosyncratic way. This interpretatinal [sic] framework is much more a function of the psychologies and cultural milieus of scientists than of what may be safely extrapolated from science itself."
So what? Why should anyone in science care to study the figments of the imaginations of a group of people in any context other than "here is the imagination of a group of people"? Certainly, it would/should not be studied as though it's a reality. That would just be plain stupid.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Previously: The supernatural in religion is faith based not evidenced based.
Coggins: Define both "faith" and "evidence" as you are using those terms here.
Well when I refer to religious faith, I’m referring to mainly belief in the supernatural, in the assumption of something as fact which goes against consensus knowledge of physical laws of nature. The person with religious faith doesn’t require or expect evidence for their belief in the supernatural.
By evidence I’m referring to the same sort of evidence offered up by science, so it doesn’t have to be direct quantifiable evidence but it has to be strong enough to convince an impartial objective audience, it has to fit in with the knowledge of the physical laws of nature, not outside those laws.
previously: There is no way that I can think of to evaluate one God claim from another to determine which is more likely true.
Coggins: As long as you are limited to purely rationalistic, empiricist methods of analysis, you are essentially correct.
Do you have any other means by which one can fairly, objectively evaluate one God claim from another such that a reliable determination can be made of one being true, while other claims are false? What do you offer for a means to evaluate claims?
Previously: God beliefs offer no predictive power which can be verified, no explanations of nature open to critical objective evaluation.
Coggins: Upon what basis need they do so?
It’s not a matter of needs. It’s a matter of finding a means to evaluate religious claims to determine if one is better, perhaps more useful, perhaps more reliably true than another. What do you offer or any religious organization offer as a means to evaluate their claims if not a rationalistic empiricist method. If religious supernatural claims are simply a matter of assertions without any means to evaluate, than one claim is equal to another in all measures. And in effect, none of them are reliable as to what they claim and none have any greater merit than any other. There is then no reason to choose one over another, and each have no merit.
previously: So what exactly is there necessary to study? Religious claims of the supernatural throughout history and world wide are authoritative claims absent evidence open to objective verification to support those claims. Religious supernatural claims are therefore vacuous for critical evaluation, and hence there is nothing for Dawkins or any scientist/critical thinker to study with regards to supernatural claims. I'm not sure what you mean by Dawkins is a materialist, reductionist and a positivist, so not comment there unless you want to elaborate further on what you mean. [/quote]
Coggins: This is utterly circular, and indicative of precisely the vastly truncated and self referential mental set that infects the secularist mind, especially in its more severe manifestations. This entire argument assumes, a priori, that the material universe that is accessible to human empirical observation and experiment is all that exists. This assumption is not scientifically verifiable, nor is it derivable from any known scientific facts. I appreciate that God is not accessible to verification by independent observers in an objective empirical sense. However, the problem we have here is scientific methodology driven from a methodology to a metaphysics; from a means of apprehending the phenomena of the observable world to a philosophical and metaphysical prescription about phenomena well beyond the reach of its methodology or intellectual tools.
Mormons have a very different God belief than Christians. God beliefs have varied historically and at particular points in time among mankind. How is Dawkins supposed to evaluate these claims as to which is most reliably true? Truth is what Dawkins is interested in. Don’t blame him that nothing is offered up for him to evaluate claims of the supernatural. If they can’t be evaluated as likely true, none are more reliably true than any other.
Coggins: That scientific methodology can tell us nothing directly about God is only a barrier to belief in God if one also accepts the assumptions of scientism; the preconceived meta-scientific claims about the ultimate nature of the universe and reality that are not derivable from scientific knowledge per se but are philosophical claims made within an interpretational framework that interprets scientific data and bodies of knowledge in a certain idiosyncratic way. This interpretatinal framework is much more a function of the psychologies and cultural milieus of scientists than of what may be safely extrapolated from science itself.
Science is the best game available of offering reliable knowledge and a means of evaluation of that knowledge of the natural physical world. Science says nothing about God. The burden of proof of what God is, and which God claim is most reliably true rests on those who makes their God claims. You seem to think mere assertion of a God and any particular attributes a religious organization makes of it should not be questioned. By what justification do you offer than one should not question religious claims? The problem is not with science, the problem rests with those making supernatural claims, that they offer no means for evaluation.
**(For brevity I’m skipping the discussion on “intelligence.” I’m not sure there is much disagreement between us there.)**
Previously: I think people who have a good appreciation of the scientific method, the process of critical thinking are more likely to be less taken in by religious organizations and authorities.
Coggins: The above begs to many questions to go into here, and assumes a number of things you have not openly stated. The number of competent scientists who have a perfectly good appreciation of the scientific method but who nonetheless have been taken in by AGW belies your assertion here (and numerous examples could be added to this, if not so colorful).
I have no idea of the acronym AGW. Keep in mind Coggins, that there is a difference between the dogma put out by the authorities of religious organizations who claim specifics regarding an interfering sort of God versus the notion of a sumpreme non interfering force, or creator of the universe. I specified “religious organization and authorities.” Logically all religious organization can not be correct about their God claims, their afterlife claims etc, because they contradict one another. A critical thinker who appreciates the value in questioning claims, questioning authority, who has respect for their own thinking and who appreciates how a claim is formulated by the authoritiy backing it, will be a much more difficult individual to convince if no good reasoning is offered to evaluate the particular claim. All I’m saying is that on average when one appreciates what the scientific method entails, what critical thinking entails and has respect for the process, that person is not likely to be the sort of person willing to accept religious dogmatic claims on blind faith. Of course there will be exceptions. Particularly there will be exceptions by those who have been indoctrinated from a young age into a religious organization. An indoctrinated individual even if a critical thinker in most areas may not end up ever rationally with intellectually honest enquiry evaluate the claims of their religious organization. As well, people belong to and attend churches for reason beyond whether or not the claims made by the church are likely true.
marg: They are more likely to overcome indoctrination by authority than someone not trained to think critically.
Coggins: Actually marg, I see no reason to believe that one grounded in the scientific method per se, as applied to the study of the natural world, is any more likely to be resistant to philosophical nonsense in other areas, ideological fanaticism, or political passion that has little intellectual content. I see no historical evidence of this whatever. Some scientists are very resistant, while many others have not been. I really don't think grounding in scientific method, or the methods of formal critical thought, are the deciding mediating factors in this.
A good critical thinker is intellectually honest. They are willing to evaluate their beliefs from a non emotional objective perspective. A good critical thinker does not allow the thinking by authority to supercede their own thinking. That sort of individual is more likely to overcome their childhood religious indoctrination. They might still attend church but that doesn’t mean they necessarily by their attendance accept the claims by the church.
prevously: You seem to be intent on attacking Dawkins. Those who make claims have the burden of proof. When and if a religious organization can offer good reasoning to warrant their supernatural claims, then they will be taken seriously by science. Attacking Dawkins is not justification to warrant acceptance of any religious supernatural claim.
Coggins: Yes, I don't like Dawkins at all. I think Dawkins is a poster child for the worst of what can happen when man begins to worship himself; the creature, instead of the creator, as Paul said. Dawkin's condescending intellectual snobbery is utterly insufferable. The ironic thing is just how far over his head he is talking about God at all, and how oblivious he is to this state of affairs.
Frankly I can’t comment on Dawkins, because I’ve only read a little from him, from one book. I can comment on what science offers and I’m fairly certain Dawkins appreciates science and its limitations well. He is no dummy. Science does not make claim to any absolute knowledge, consequently it does have its limitations. If offers models which help explain phenomenon, it offers descriptions of scientific objects, it help interpret the natural world we all experience. It is the best game mankind has to reach reliable knowledge, best fit explanations of the world given mankind’s experiencial limitations. An appreciation of this, the limitations of science, and the respect of what science can offer, does not mean one then worships mankind, it doesn’t even mean a rejection of a creator. What it means is that claims of a particular God are not reliable without any means to evaluate. Religious organizations are corporations which use “God” among their arsenal as a marketing feature to sell their product. Religious organizations claim truth regarding a “God” their particular God, but offer no means to critically evaluate those truth claims. They take the minds of young people unable to speak for themselves, not yet mature enough to decide for themselves, and plant a belief system in their minds. They often use emotional blackmail, fear, fear of what will happen in an afterlife, fear of what will happen in their life on earth if the individual does not adhere to the belief system. For whatever reason, I don’t have the knowledge to understand this, it’s very difficult for an indoctrinated individual to overcome their lifelong training. To be able to objectively appreciate why they believe as they do, to be able to leave the organization due to their emotional attachment. I think the main concern of Dawkins is the manipulation and control religious organizations have over people such that people suspend willingly the critical thinking faculties and allow the religious organization to dictate what to believe and supercede the thinking of the follower on certain matters.
Coggins: As to religious claims, I can tell you exactly, barring your own unique needs, how you can know for yourself, with perfect certainty, that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the Church is what it claims to be. However, you will, a priori, not accept my methodology, preferring your own and claiming that your own is sufficient to comprehend all possible knowledge (this is scientific method used, not as an intellectual methodology per se, but as an oracle). This is your religious claim, and the burden of proof is on you to verify this as well.
You’ve not offered any methodology. If your methodology was worthwhile it would hold up to examination, irrespective of whether or not I’d accept it. As far as "the burden of proof is on the scientific method", keep in mind Coggins, science does not make claims of absolute universal knowledge. All its laws and theories are open to reevaluation and changes upon new insights and/or evidence. Some of its claims are about actualities/realities of objects which are described and studied, some of its claims are models which are not claims of things actually existing in reality but explanatory models i.e. atoms. So science is knowledge about the world we experience, but it makes no claim to an absolute unchanging universal knowledge. So I have no burden to proof that science "is sufficient to comprehend all possible knowledge". If there is other possible knowledge Coggins then offer it up and give the reasoning why it should be accepted. It is religion which makes claim to absolute unchanging universal knowledge but offers no means for objective evaluation. Your own words reflect this arrogant belief as you say to me "I can tell you exactly, barring your own unique needs, how you can know for yourself, with perfect certainty, that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the Church is what it claims to be. I doubt Dawkins is as arrogant with certain knowledge as you are. Because I'm confident Dawkins unlike you appreciate the limitations of science.
We know, various religious claims contradict one another, which means logically at the very least all can not be true. Which claim might be true, if one is, is anyone’s quess. By what means can we objectively evaluate your claim to certain knowledge to reliably conclude you are correct and others are wrong in their claims?
Mankind is motivated by reward. There is reward for mankind to create religions. Individuals do so for financial gain, ego stroking reward and personal benefits received from followers, ie. Sexual gratification. There is reward for religious organizations to seek followers and wealth, in order to self perpetuate and gain power. Leaders within those organizations may be rewarded by power, ego stroking and financial gain. I’m not mentioning all benefits but these are the main ones which come to mind.
That which gets rewarded gets done. I understand why religions exist, I don't understand how people can accept, truly believe the various claims put out by them.