Dissent From Darwin

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure the first step is going to have to be establishing that there is anything but natural phenomenon. The rest of your point is just question-begging until thats been accomplished.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how the Supernatural could ever be established scientifically. After all, science is the study of Natural Phenomenon. I also don't see how the Supernatural could ever be established logically. Logic, it seems to me, is another tool for dealing with the Natural World. But Science does not apply subjective experience to its method. Neither does logic. So it makes sense to me that if the Supernatural does exist as an objective reality, our subjective experience is the only place left where we might hope to encounter it. This would all just be theoretical except for the fact that there are an awful lot of people who claim they do just that. You can scoff at them if you like. But you really don't know what the subjective experience is that they are having which prompts such an interpretation. Science doesn't know, logic doesn't know, and neither do you.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

100% question-begging, every word of it. Maybe that doesn't bother you.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
But you really don't know what the subjective experience is that they are having which prompts such an interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is irrelevant. The question is: "Should we allow subjective experience to count towards establishing truth about reality?" And the answer is: "NO, because subjective experience leads different people to contradictory conclusions."

And, again, it would be quite different if religion didn't assert things like gods and immortal souls and the evils of homosexuality to be absolutely real and absolutely true. But it does. So, no matter how subjective its source, we must find a way to judge it in the harsh objective light of reality, along with everything else.

And yes, I realize you're probably not responding to me any more. DID I HURT YOUR FEELINGS OR SOMETHING? SHOULD I APOLOGIZE?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The mistake that's made on both sides is if either insists their respective religious God/No-God conclusion is a scientific one.

[/ QUOTE ]
To state that evolution and common descent requires God is unreasonable and downright silly. To state that evolution and common descent probably doesn't require magic intervention (i.e. God) is perfectly reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you're saying seems to make good common sense. But there's something about it that bothers me. Science assumes that Natural Phenomenon can be explained according to Natural Laws. I don't see why it should ever have to mention anything about the Supernatural. It does a good job at what it does and its results should speak for themselves. It should not have to constantly append all it's statements with the comment that magical forces are not required. The default assumption is that science is not involving itself with magical forces. I'm not sure science would recognize a magical force even if there was one. When science describes gravity does it have to say, no magical forces appear to be required? When science describes a nuclear reaction does it have to say, no magical forces appear to be required? Why is the Scientific Theory of Evolution given such special treatment?

Is it because people making the first statement mean to say that magical forces are required? I don't know. Maybe that's silly maybe it's not. I suppose they can believe that magical forces are at work in gravity and nuclear reaction too. How would we know? The Catholic view is that God sustains the existence of the Universe. So in that sense I suppose you could argue that they believe a magical force is involved in everything. Maybe that's silly, maybe it's not. Whatever it is, the point is that it's not science.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Should poetry, literature, sculpture, art, music, film, theatre, red blooded pornography, all be abandoned just because it's not science?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those aren't truth claims. Religion is. Big difference, DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is quickest to the point for what a lot of people are getting at. So maybe a response to this will address others as well.

One thing religion does is bring together the subjective experiences of a lot of people under one interpretation. I think this is a strength in numbers phenomenon. As I brought up on another thread, there is a Feedback phenomenon at work between a person's subjective experience and the interpretation for it. The person is attracted to the Interpretation because it somehow "rings true" and resonates for him. As he comes to accept the Interpretation, forming a relationship to it, the relationship feeds back to his experience and alters it. In his altering experience the Interpretation resonates more strongly and a subjective conviction grows for the "truth" of the Interpretation. As this Feedback phenomenon has time to work the subjective conviction grows to "belief" and "faith". The Strength in Numbers Phenomenon magnifies the process. In this way the subjective conviction can grow to the point where the person claims "knowledge" of the assertions involved in the Interpretation. It's certainly not "knowledge" in the ordinary sense of the word though. I think an outside observer would consider the use of the word hyperbole for very strong subjective conviction. Maybe we could call it, subjective certainty. In fact, I think that's how NotReady referred to it for his case.

So I think that describes how it commonly works. Like it or not, that's how people come to believe in things beyond the Natural World. The "Truths" they offer about this realm are not really subject to verification by way of the tools we commonly use to study this realm of the Natural World. They are not arrived at in the same way. And those who believe in them are not likely to be swayed by mechanics employing the tools used to study the Natural World. That's the situation. You don't have to like it. But if you intend to delve into it you should undertstand how it's working.

You are free to form your own opinions about these "Truths". You are free to scoff at them. You can correctly point out that they are not scientific truths. You can correctly point out that they cannot be arrived at through logical deductions. Sklansky can argue with them till he's blue in the face about probabilities for or against these "Truths". But all that is basically irrelevant to those who believe them. From their point of view you are like the people Jesus talked about when he said, "They have eyes but they do not see. They have ears but they do not hear".

In my opinion, the approach you should make if you want to engage them is the pragmatic. What are the "Fruits" of their Faith? If their Fruits are criminal, what does it matter arguing how many angels in "Truth" can dance on the head of a pin. Lock them up. If their Fruits fall short of Criminal but are undesirable, point that out to them. It is highly relevant that not all Religions are equal. Your logical arguments will not disturb or deter them. But pointing out that their Fruits are bitter will definitely make them uncomfortable as well it should.

However, if you are going to take this tact honestly, you will also have to recognize when their Faith produces positive, uplifting, and desirable fruits. There are many people for whom their faith provides many good things in their lives.

PairTheBoard

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you really don't know what the subjective experience is that they are having which prompts such an interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is irrelevant. The question is: "Should we allow subjective experience to count towards establishing truth about reality?" And the answer is: "NO, because subjective experience leads different people to contradictory conclusions."

And, again, it would be quite different if religion didn't assert things like gods and immortal souls and the evils of homosexuality to be absolutely real and absolutely true. But it does. So, no matter how subjective its source, we must find a way to judge it in the harsh objective light of reality, along with everything else.

And yes, I realize you're probably not responding to me any more. DID I HURT YOUR FEELINGS OR SOMETHING? SHOULD I APOLOGIZE?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid I've been swamped by replies. I probably should have gone to bed hours ago.

Your point is:

[ QUOTE ]
"Should we allow subjective experience to count towards establishing truth about reality?" And the answer is: "NO,

[/ QUOTE ]

My point, which I tried to make above and which I think was told begs the question is this.

Subjective experience does not establish "Truth" about the Natural World. I don't think it "establishes" truth in any ordinary sense of the word about the Supernatural. What it does do I tried to explain in my last post. It is part of a process that produces, belief, faith, and conviction for the individual. As far as I'm concerned it's anybody's guess as to what might or might not be going on in the hypothetical realm beyond the Natural World that might or might not be playing a part in this. And I think you are perfectly correct to point out things like that, and this:

[ QUOTE ]
And, again, it would be quite different if religion didn't assert things like ... the evils of homosexuality ...

[/ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The mistake that's made on both sides is if either insists their respective religious God/No-God conclusion is a scientific one.

[/ QUOTE ]
To state that evolution and common descent requires God is unreasonable and downright silly. To state that evolution and common descent probably doesn't require magic intervention (i.e. God) is perfectly reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you're saying seems to make good common sense. But there's something about it that bothers me. Science assumes that Natural Phenomenon can be explained according to Natural Laws. I don't see why it should ever have to mention anything about the Supernatural. It does a good job at what it does and its results should speak for themselves. It should not have to constantly append all it's statements with the comment that magical forces are not required. The default assumption is that science is not involving itself with magical forces. I'm not sure science would recognize a magical force even if there was one. When science describes gravity does it have to say, no magical forces appear to be required? When science describes a nuclear reaction does it have to say, no magical forces appear to be required? Why is the Scientific Theory of Evolution given such special treatment?

Is it because people making the first statement mean to say that magical forces are required? I don't know. Maybe that's silly maybe it's not. I suppose they can believe that magical forces are at work in gravity and nuclear reaction too. How would we know? The Catholic view is that God sustains the existence of the Universe. So in that sense I suppose you could argue that they believe a magical force is involved in everything. Maybe that's silly, maybe it's not. Whatever it is, the point is that it's not science.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

When people describe gravity, they are implicitly saying "and also, the infinite number of magical and non-magical possible additional explanations are not required." This isn't usually made explicit, but it is there nonetheless, at all times. There is absolutely no reason that the temperature of my beverage doesn't go up BOTH because of the increased kinetic energy of the molecules AND because Satan is stirring it with his finger. But we don't NEED Satan in order to explain it, so we leave that part out. Still may very well be true, we aren't saying it isn't, but it is unnecessary.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you really don't know what the subjective experience is that they are having which prompts such an interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is irrelevant. The question is: "Should we allow subjective experience to count towards establishing truth about reality?" And the answer is: "NO, because subjective experience leads different people to contradictory conclusions."

And, again, it would be quite different if religion didn't assert things like gods and immortal souls and the evils of homosexuality to be absolutely real and absolutely true. But it does. So, no matter how subjective its source, we must find a way to judge it in the harsh objective light of reality, along with everything else.

And yes, I realize you're probably not responding to me any more. DID I HURT YOUR FEELINGS OR SOMETHING? SHOULD I APOLOGIZE?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid I've been swamped by replies. I probably should have gone to bed hours ago.

Your point is:

[ QUOTE ]
"Should we allow subjective experience to count towards establishing truth about reality?" And the answer is: "NO,

[/ QUOTE ]

My point, which I tried to make above and which I think was told begs the question is this.

Subjective experience does not establish "Truth" about the Natural World. I don't think it "establishes" truth in any ordinary sense of the word about the Supernatural. What it does do I tried to explain in my last post. It is part of a process that produces, belief, faith, and conviction for the individual. As far as I'm concerned it's anybody's guess as to what might or might not be going on in the hypothetical realm beyond the Natural World that might or might not be playing a part in this. And I think you are perfectly correct to point out things like that, and this:

[ QUOTE ]
And, again, it would be quite different if religion didn't assert things like ... the evils of homosexuality ...

[/ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason this is question-begging is because you are talking about all these complicated ways to figure out the qualitites and characteristics of the Supernatural world, and claiming this is the only real way to find out about it. When I ask you how you know there even IS a supernatural world, you tell me that this subjective method of discerning (whether you call it 'finding truth' or not is irrelevant) is why you know there is a Supernatural world. This is almost like claiming the Bible is true because the Bible says so. Either you establish that subjective experience is a reliable tool for discerning the reality of things, and then show how that discerns that this Supernatural World exists, or you determine the Supernatural world exists by some other means and use that to deduce the effectiveness of personal subjective experience. You can't pull supernaturalism up by its bootstraps.

[PairTheBoard]

I think you're saying what you're saying and I'm saying what I'm saying. But you're not seeing what I'm saying so what you say about what I'm saying is not saying what I'm saying. You say I beg your question. I think what's really happening is that you beg my answer. At some point this is going to become tiresome for me and I'll just have to point you back to what I've already written and ask you to read it again more closely.

You say:

[ QUOTE ]
you are talking about all these complicated ways to figure out the qualitites and characteristics of the Supernatural world,

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said anything about "figure out". I described a process that brings people to personal belief, faith, and conviction.

You say:

[ QUOTE ]
claiming this is the only real way to find out about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I said was that If there is a Supernatural World, I would not expect it to be discovered using the tools to study the Natural World. Those tools don't involve personal subjective experience. So it makes sense to me that people who do report beliefs about the Supernatural World would do so based on personal subjective experience. I'm not claiming there is any objective validity to what they report. They haven't "figured out" anything. I am claiming that there's no way for us to know one way or the other, using the tools for studying the Natural World, whether the things that they report have objective validity, reality, or Truth.

[ QUOTE ]
When I ask you how you know there even IS a supernatural world, you tell me that this subjective method of discerning (whether you call it 'finding truth' or not is irrelevant) is why you know there is a Supernatural world.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes me think you really haven't read me closely or objectively. I claim no such thing. I've said that its anybody's guess what a HYPOTHETICAL realm beyond the Natural actually might have to do with the reports people are making based on their subjective experience, IF it indeed exists.


You say:
[ QUOTE ]
Either you establish that subjective experience is a reliable tool for discerning the reality of things, and then show how that discerns that this Supernatural World exists, or you determine the Supernatural world exists by some other means and use that to deduce the effectiveness of personal subjective experience.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that's your position. My position is that subjective experience is NOT a realiable tool for studying the Natural World. I have no way of knowing whether or not it can discern anything reliable or otherwise about a hypothetical realm beyond the Natural. However I can observe the phenomenon of people making claims that they do discern such things. I can also observe that this phenomenon appears to bring about results in people's lives. This prompts me to take a pragmatic view of whether the results are desirable or not.

That's my position. Maybe you don't like it. Maybe you think it "begs the question". Maybe you think it doesn't make sense. That's your opinion. My opinion of your position is that you ask for too much. You insist that proof be given for something we can objectively only speak of hypothetically. I agree that as a hypothetical it is objectively vacuous. So I wouldn't be talking about it. Except for the fact of the phenomenon with people that can be objectively observed.

PairTheBoard