defensive ploys, religion, science

[_beefcalf]

This is what science in religion have in common.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Scenario 1:

Some guy has or claims to have had a spiritual experience and then there is a spin off affect.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Scenario 2:

Some scientist had or claims to have made some discovery and then there is a spin off affect.

_______________________________________________________________________________

In both cases the person may have been wrong, making everything based on their findings a bunch of crap.

Wrong.

A man says "God has spoken to me. You must give me your daughter as a polygamous wife. Your refusal will damn you in the hereafter. Your submission to God's will shall bring you great blessings in the hereafter."

A man says "I have discovered a way to produce nuclear fusion at room temperatures. Our energy problems will be solved."

In the first case, there is no way to refute his claim... no way to know until after death. If he is lying in order to get sexual access to your daughter, you may never know for sure. If he is telling the truth, you may never know for sure.

In the second case, anyone can attempt to reproduce his results with experiments of their own. If the experimental results cannot be reproduced, the man is relegated to the status of a charlatan and a laughingstock (see Fleischmann and Pons). As more and more experiments reproduce the results, and no other simpler hypothesis can explain those results, the theory gains support and validation. If, at any time, any person can show experimentally why the theory is incorrect or the results invalid, you go back to square one.

Science is not just another religion. It is fundamentally different from the very premises of religion.

[_Simon Belmont]

So is there no way to know for certain that Joseph Smith existed? What about your wife? Your children? Is this the same logic you apply in your day-to-day life? I doubt very much that it is.

We take available evidence + faith and come to the best conclusion we can.

[_Simon Belmont]

Simon,

Let me clarify...

When I ask the question 'Do you know you exist?' - I'm not saying you have to be absolutely correct (or 'know') about the 'nature' of your existence.

i.e. I'm not asking if you 'Know' you are a human being living on the spinning rock known as 'Earth'.
I accept that for the purposes of this discussion, you could actually be:

* Plugged into 'The Matrix'
* A brain in a vat of chemicals
* Some kind of advanced A.I. routine...
* An abstract set of thoughts somehow magically floating around inside a 'void' (and your sense of 'reality' is just a self-generated dream...)

..or whatever else our imaginations can conjure up. I accept that you can't KNOW that any of the above is or isn't true.

I like the advanced A.I. routine idea. I think science is getting closer to making such an algorithm.

But in all the above situations, 'You' still exist.

How do you 'Know'? Because you are having thoughts!
You think, therefore you are

Well, I suppose that we need to first understand your definition of existence. It is a hard idea to define, no doubt. But consider this: how do I know I am having thoughts?

Thoughts don't require sensory inputs that you can claim you don't totally trust. So why doubt - to any extent - your own existience?!

You can confirm that you are thinking right now. Can't you? Can't you Know that?
If not, then your position - as far as I can teill - is even BEYOND Solipsism!
Quite astonishing... (And even more astonishing that you seem so pleased with yourself for arriving at such a - frankly insane - conclusion...)

I've arrived at no conclusion. I am open to many (perhaps infinite) possibilities. My only points have been 1) the importance faith plays in our every day lives -- even faith in mundane things like when we sit in a chair it won't collapse on us, and 2) the ratio of things we know or think we know to things we don't about the universe is incredibly unbalanced. We don't know anything; we're just puny grains of sand in an infinite sea. So when people like Buffalo claim to be able to measure consciousness, I have to set them straight. When people like Tarski and others assert with confidence that there is nothing beyond that which we know -- no supernatural, I have to inquire more about why they believe all is known.

But don't worry - I'm sure it's pretty much every serious thinker who has every lived that's full of ****. Not you... :)

Well, Ren, you can't really use that argument. If you could, I could use the argument that hundreds of real scientists, historians, and other academics over on Mormon Scholars Testify believe in the truth claims of the LDS church, but they are full of crap, not you.

Ermm - you'd better speak for yourself buddy ;)

I DO Know I exist. With a captial K. Legitametly.
I can completely distrust every single one of my senses, and yet still KNOW this.

Do you understand why? Hmm - I guess not... :/

I understand your position better.

[_Tarski]

Tarski and others assert with confidence that there is nothing beyond that which we know

no no no no no no no NO!

WTF?

I do not assert that there is nothing beyond what we know. In fact I assert (contra Mr Bukowski) that there is plenty beyond what we know.

However, I do assert that it is irrational to adopt specific detailed beliefs without good evidence or without good reason.

That there are things we don't know doesn't warrant belief in Scientology (err..or Mormonism).

To put it bluntly, just because we haven't checked out every star doesn't mean we should believe in Kolob.

[_Simon Belmont]

no no no no no no no NO!

WTF?

I do not assert that there is nothing beyond what we know. In fact I assert (contra Mr Bukowski) that there is plenty beyond what we know.

It seems like you do. There is so much we don't know -- in fact we don't know how much we don't know! We're just puny quark-sized beings in an infinite universe. We are trying to understand our place in it, but we haven't even begun. To be as confident as some are (I'm thinking Buffalo here) that current science and human understand have all the answers is beyond absurd.

However, I do assert that it is irrational to adopt specific detailed beliefs without good evidence or without good reason.

I agree.

That there are things we don't know doesn't warrant belief in Scientology (err..or Mormonism).

To put it bluntly, just because we haven't checked out every star doesn't mean we should believe in Kolob.

Stars that actually are known to exist can be called by many different names.

[_Tarski]

Stars that actually are known to exist can be called by many different names.

It was a quip Simon.
Try not to be so literal and then you may get the rather obvious point.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So is there no way to know for certain that Joseph Smith existed? What about your wife? Your children? Is this the same logic you apply in your day-to-day life? I doubt very much that it is.

We take available evidence + faith and come to the best conclusion we can.

But that's not really the case w/r/t the Church, is it? Because the "available evidence" is pretty sorely lacking. Having "faith" that your wife is real versus having "faith" that the Lamanites and Nephites once inhabited huge cities in Latin America is quite different, no?

[_Ren]

Simon,

I appeciate the reasonable tone of your reply, and I apologise for the 'insane' jab in my last post.

Well, I suppose that we need to first understand your definition of existence. It is a hard idea to define, no doubt. But consider this: how do I know I am having thoughts?

This honestly feels like a tautology to me - or at the very least 'flirting' with being one. (I'd appreciate it if any of our resident philosophy experts could confirm or deny...)

You ask the question: "How do I know I am having thoughts?"
My response is: "It requires thought to ask ones-self such a question. Therefore, you have thoughts"...!

I've arrived at no conclusion.

...?

Let me quote you from earlier in this thread:

I do not know I exist, and neither do you.

That sounds like a definative conlcusion to me. You do not know you exist.
Not only did you definately conclude that, you then went on to conclude (again, without quivication) that I do not know that I exist...!

My only points have been 1) the importance faith plays in our every day lives -- even faith in mundane things like when we sit in a chair it won't collapse on us

Meh. I don't deny that you can yank this kind of usage out of the definition of the word 'faith' if you really want to. *shrug*
I doubt we disagree too much on the literal idea you are driving at. I would just state it as accepting that life works based on constatly assessing probabilities (whether consiously or not).

I wouldn't call that 'faith' - because I don't think using the word 'faith' properly represents the vast disparity between these 'probabilities' we face on an every-day basis.

But I can see you're quite attached to this usage - so, ermm - I guess go right ahead... (?!)

2) the ratio of things we know or think we know to things we don't about the universe is incredibly unbalanced.

Interesting that in some cases you describe your state of knowledge as literally zero, and in other cases it's just 'incredibly unbalanced' (which I read as 'incredibly small').

For instance, immediately after making the above statement, you then say this:

We don't know anything

Now, if pretty much anybody else had said this, I would read it as over-stating to emphasise a legitamete point. But in your case, I have a feeling I really should be taking it literally.

i.e. you really believe that none of us know literally anything.

So which is it? Is the ratio to know / don't know just 'incredibly unbalanced'? (Which seems to imply some non-zero value for 'know'). Or do you, me and and everybody else know literally nothing?

So when people like Buffalo claim to be able to measure consciousness, I have to set them straight.

I want to be very sure I'm understanding you right here.

Is the reason you deny that we (i.e. humankind, generally) have 'measured consiousness' is because 'we don't know much'?

I have a feeling there have to be other reasons for that conclusion. Because that one reason - in and of itself - doesn't seem to make sense.
I can come back with a counter-example if you like, but I want to make sure I'm understanding you first.

When people like Tarski and others assert with confidence that there is nothing beyond that which we know

I think Tarski has already corrected you on this point.

no supernatural

Well, I can 'deny' there is a supernatural realm (as commonly defined by religious people, new age-ers etc.) without KNOWING it doesn't exist.

That's certainly only as far as I'd go. Can't speak for others...

Well, Ren, you can't really use that argument. If you could, I could use the argument that hundreds of real scientists, historians, and other academics over on Mormon Scholars Testify believe in the truth claims of the LDS church, but they are full of s***, not you.

Ermmm...

Firstly, there was no argument made. It was just a cheeky comment ;)

Secondly, I won't deny that even Mormonism is a more respectable, defendable position than the one you've been describing in this thread...!
i.e. how many 'serious thinkers' (Mormon or otherwise) can you find who defend even just Solipsism, much less the stance you've described which goes even beyond that?
Can you find any 'serious thinkers' (Mormon or otherwise) who would deny they can know they exist...?!

Thirdly, Mormonism still loses if you consider all 'serious thought' - worldwide.

Whatever point you were trying to make here, I think it fails on many levels.

When it comes to some of the extreme stances you are advocating, you have next to no company - including amongst your fellow Mormons.
Of course that doesn't make you wrong, but it's still something worthy of note and consideration.
That's the only point I was making. And I don't think you are going to be refuting that anytime soon...

[_Sophocles]

Scientists used to classify Pluto as a planet, now they don't.

Meanwhile, astrologists have always considered Pluto to be the ruling planet of Scorpio (I mean they have ever since its existence was made known to them by, um, scientists) and associate it with the god of the underworld, wealth, and alchemy. And they continue to do so.

Simon, is this kind of consistency a point in astrology's favor?

[_hatersinmyward]

This is what science in religion have in common.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Scenario 1:

Some guy has or claims to have had a spiritual experience and then there is a spin off affect.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Scenario 2:

Some scientist had or claims to have made some discovery and then there is a spin off affect.

_______________________________________________________________________________

In both cases the person may have been wrong, making everything based on their findings a bunch of crap.

Wrong.

A man says "God has spoken to me. You must give me your daughter as a polygamous wife. Your refusal will damn you in the hereafter. Your submission to God's will shall bring you great blessings in the hereafter."

A man says "I have discovered a way to produce nuclear fusion at room temperatures. Our energy problems will be solved."

In the first case, there is no way to refute his claim... no way to know until after death. If he is lying in order to get sexual access to your daughter, you may never know for sure. If he is telling the truth, you may never know for sure.

In the second case, anyone can attempt to reproduce his results with experiments of their own. If the experimental results cannot be reproduced, the man is relegated to the status of a charlatan and a laughingstock (see Fleischmann and Pons). As more and more experiments reproduce the results, and no other simpler hypothesis can explain those results, the theory gains support and validation. If, at any time, any person can show experimentally why the theory is incorrect or the results invalid, you go back to square one.

Science is not just another religion. It is fundamentally different from the very premises of religion.

Not all science that is widely accepted and built upon isn't always based off of a correct method. sometimes those finding aren't ever challenged. Scientists don't always go back to square one.