Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Precisely. My spouse and I went to the botanical garden last weekend, and after almost twenty five years of marriage it was declared the best date we ever had. Where is the science that proves that?
This morning I'm distracted and worried, even though my spouse and I are going on a waterfalls tour that could rival last weeks' trip to the botanical garden... because my good friend and sister-in-faith is recovering from major surgery. Where are the mathematical models for distraction and worry, which can accurately predict why the surgery of one person causes a certain effect and someone else's surgery causes a different effect?
Next week the chair of our worship team will suffer a loss, as her child and grandchildren move abroad. Prove, with science, that there is a loss. Doesn't science dictate laws of conservation that prove that there will be no loss?
There's a piece of porcelain in my china cabinet (which originally cost about $3). If there is a fire in the house, protocol is that my spouse grabs one cat, I grab the other, and then I grab that piece of porcelain. The rest can all burn to the ground. How does science prove the value of that piece of porcelain.
Science would try to fully explain such things with talk about stimuli and synapses firing, and that's all true, but it doesn't tell the whole store. Clearly science is irrelevant to explain certain things.
You are quite right. Science doesn't explain the soul or spirit...yet. But what it does is better validated than claims that are not supported by science, and really, if the sold was real, wouldn't you suppose that science could have shown it to be so? If it did, nobody would be more delighted than me. I don't mind or object to a soul. I just have no evidence for it.
What I do have evidence for is a supernatural instinct, a survival instinct and increasing information about the capacity of humans to delude themselves. So Science may be able to explain that all right.
These are empiricals that are true for one and demonstrable as true for all. There are a lot of conflicting superstitions and religions, but only one science.
So really your personal impressions, feelings preferences about people and things, about art or music, are personal preferences and in that sense is explainable by science, but not the business of science to prove or disprove your particular feelings about it. None of that is relevant in a debate about souls, hods or afterlifes, let alone Internet atheism!
I think I know what may going on though. There is this idea of knocking the mind off -balance. make it doubt everything it thought it could rely on Question the basics of logic. Prove that numbers don't actually exist. Suggest that everything might be a huge computer - game or just some individual's imagination.
Whether the idea then is to sell the distracted listener the false claim that unsupported claims are just as likely to be true as supposed scientific facts, or to just frighten the listener so much that they can be peddled the reassurance of a God that nevertheless has it all under control.
I don't know, because I've never seen it work, so far.
Science would try to fully explain such things with talk about stimuli and synapses firing, and that's all true, but it doesn't tell the whole store. Clearly science is irrelevant to explain certain things.
Indeed science does not explain or even engage with all aspects of existence. It is the wrong tool for the job if you want some objective validation that your visit to the gardens was the best ever. But you don't need any validation, evidence, substantiation or logical argument for that because it is strictly an agreement between you and your spouse that's not binding on me, me and my spouse, or anyone else. And you are not making a general truth claim about it and thus taking on a burden of proof for yourself. You are not suggesting that every couple who wants to have a best-ever date must go to the same gardens you did.
So it is really not something you need science or anything else for, including faith. You simply need your spouse to agree that it was a subjectively pleasant experience for you as a couple. Happily, it appears that she does.
Do we need an explanation then for why this particular date was particularly good? I don't see any mystery here. It is something that happened to float both your boats in the right way. Science doesn't explain it in some detailed mechanistic way, but then neither does the supernatural or the spiritual or god. A certain percentage of things we do with our spouses will be more mutually memorable and pleasing than others. What other explanation is needed?
Do you need an explanation for the countless unremarkable and mundane experiences you've shared, too? No? Why not? Just because they are not perceived by you as extraordinary doesn't inherently make them more explicable and less mysterious. How is brushing your teeth or stubbing your toe qualitatively different in such a way that those experiences don't demand "explanation" and your visit to a garden does?
increasing information about the capacity of humans to delude themselves. ....
.
why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that other people know a lot about stuff that you don't know about?
because you seem to inhabit only one of two places: there seems to be only "my way is right" and "everything else is delusion"
can you not see the problem in that?
it's like people speaking a language that you don't understand. what is the huge obstacle for you in saying "they speak a language i don't understand" instead of saying "they are delusional"
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-28-2016 at 11:57 PM..
retreating from ANY effort to get you to lead me to whatever evidence or knowledge you have been pretending to have on this topic.
"Therefore I suspect you are making it all up".....
All I am asking YOU to do is tell me what the substantiation behind your assertions is.
a person validates it in their own life, through their own experience and participation and exploration and experimenting. your own life is the laboratory. it is inner work which affects how your outer life unfolds.
it is not the same for everyone. what works for one person, may not work for another,
in accessing the wisdom of your own soul, in being in relationship with the Divine.
tools that are helpful are: honesty with self about motivation and intention; willingness to observe closely your own thoughts and feelings; capacity for silence; capacity for listening; valuing and paying attention to your own thoughts, feelings, beliefs, intuition and the data they deliver to you; seeking connection with the part of your self that sees your life from the soul perspective rather than the limited human perspective. those are a few examples.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-28-2016 at 11:50 PM..
Sure....anybody that doesn't accept unsubstantiated assertions must have flawed character.
no, what buu was getting at, and I agree, is that for someone to take the stance
"science can't prove it" so "therefore you are making it up" and "you know you are making it up" and "it's not that you don't have a brain if you would pick it up and use it"
exhibits the traits of arrogance and superiority and condescension, which are character flaws
with regards to the opening post, my observation is that for those who take that stance, there is also along with it often an unwillingness and resistance to address offensive behavior; and in addition to rejecting others religious views, they also often ridicule and reject counseling, therapy, and other tools for self-improvement. So although they may stridently argue "don't need religion to be a good person" their online behavior does not demonstrate this.
good point buu
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-29-2016 at 01:57 AM..
no, what buu was getting at, and I agree, is that for someone to take the stance
"science can't prove it" so "therefore you are making it up" and "you know you are making it up" and "it's not that you don't have a brain if you would pick it up and use it"
exhibits the traits of arrogance and superiority and condescension, which are character flaws
I understand that's the point bUU was making but it's a strawman and self-righteous argument. And a position he doesn't adhere to himself consistently enough to make himself the arbiter of such behavior.
Quote:
with regards to the opening post, my observation is that for those who take that stance, there is also along with it often an unwillingness and resistance to address offensive behavior; and in addition to rejecting others religious views, they also often ridicule and reject counseling, therapy, and other tools for self-improvement. So although they may stridently argue "don't need religion to be a good person" their online behavior does not demonstrate this.
good point buu
In my experience, the most genuinely good people I've known have never felt the need to tell me how good they are, nor how bad others are.
why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that other people know a lot about stuff that you don't know about?
because you seem to inhabit only one of two places: there seems to be only "my way is right" and "everything else is delusion"
can you not see the problem in that?
it's like people speaking a language that you don't understand. what is the huge obstacle for you in saying "they speak a language i don't understand" instead of saying "they are delusional"
Oh, I know that. But the practicality is that we do rely every day on 'science'. That is, it is stuff that we understand (or somebody does) and we know how it works and can describe it in books.
Then we get to the supernatural, spiritual, religious and fringe-science and alternative history claims and we realize that there is nothing substantial there. So the upshot is, Tzaph, that these people at least don't in fact know anything more about what is the reality (in that area) than I do, and perhaps less, because I am aware of alternative explanations and they are not, because they don't want to hear them.
Instead, they reverse the position (as is common ) and say I don't want to hear the truth, but that isn't it at all. I want to hear what they have to back these claims up, and I should think it superfluous to state now that there is nothing but faith -claims and rhetorical tricks to try to make it stick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
wrong tool for the job
it's like trying to use a wooden ruler to measure whether someone is telling you truth.
do you do that?
Yes. In fact...I am putting up shelves in an alcove and buying boards to do it.
"That's..uh a nine -footer..thirteen pund."
"Surely seven feet?"
We get a ruler to see who was right ("telling the truth" implies an intent to deceive). For another job we need another tool. And to judge the truth, correctness or whatever of a claim, we use reason and evidence when we can get it. And this ruler shows that you came up short in trying to use a far too loose "Ruler' analogy to prove something about much wider claims. One problem is that logic and reason is the only method with a reliable track record in getting veracity about anything. If you claim it can't be used to judge the soul or spiritual matters, that is effectively accepting that such claims are unverifiable.
That means they remain unknowns, unprovables and thus unbelievables until validated. But the Other problem is that those who believe unverified claims, do it on Faith and then try to use unverified methods like revelation, Inspiration and Faith as a Ruler for the unverifiable claims. But the Doof might have well used an invisible ruler of his own to prove the plank was whatever he claimed it was, and dismissed my ruler as 'not wanting to believe'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
no, what buu was getting at, and I agree, is that for someone to take the stance
"science can't prove it" so "therefore you are making it up" and "you know you are making it up" and "it's not that you don't have a brain if you would pick it up and use it"
exhibits the traits of arrogance and superiority and condescension, which are character flaws
with regards to the opening post, my observation is that for those who take that stance, there is also along with it often an unwillingness and resistance to address offensive behavior; and in addition to rejecting others religious views, they also often ridicule and reject counseling, therapy, and other tools for self-improvement. So although they may stridently argue "don't need religion to be a good person" their online behavior does not demonstrate this.
good point buu
I would say wrong on two counts.
(1) It is valid to say that 'science can't prove it', or since the burden of proof is on the claimant, "You can't prove it using science". Since that is the only valid tool we have for validating fact, the claim is thus without any substance and it cannot be credited. 'Making it up' is a bit harsh, unless some other similar but conflicting claim (1) is made which shows that someone has made something up. But at least 'making it up' is a valid alternative explanation, and in fact empirically supported because of a lot of such claims are shown to be unsound.
(2) When this gets pointed out, so often we get a refusal to accept it, a restatement of the invalid claims and ongoing efforts to try to get other Methods (Revelation, Inspiration, Faith) accepted as tools for proving such speculation and guesswork claims. When this is done, it is hard to avoid pointing out the flawed reasoning and refusal to be reasonable. Then the bod gets angry and accuses us of being rude, arrogant and close -minded. It is another handy ploy for finding an excuse not to listen.
(1) different religions is an obvious one.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-29-2016 at 06:03 AM..
..."You can't prove it using science". Since that is the only valid tool we have for validating fact, the claim is thus without any substance and it cannot be credited.
which is why your understanding is limited
you rely solely on science.
so you are limiting yourself to only that which science can address.
however other people have greater understanding than you do in the area of spirit or soul, because they recognize the value and importance in using tools and data and information that you dismiss, or reject out of hand.
it's like a computer game with lots of different levels, and to get to the next level a person has to do something like pick up a key and insert it in a door and then they are on the next level. you keep using the key science because it has allowed you to find lots of treasures on this level and your bag is full of useful artifacts. however now in the chat room people are talking about how cool the stuff is on level 2 or 3 or 10 or 19. you're saying how'd you get to the next level. they're saying it's a different key, not the science key. you don't want to use a different key, therefore you decide they are "making it up" and there really aren't any other levels.
science is useful in physical realty, that's like the first level in a computer game. but once a person's done all there is to do on the first level, it's knd of boring, the more advanced levels are always more engagng and require more and different skills and artifacts. there are always more levels. but you don't get there if you stay stuck on the frst level.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 05-29-2016 at 10:52 AM..
You would have to explain to me what the tools are that you would use there, and convince me that they were reliable. Speculation is fine, but it proves nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are quite right. Science doesn't explain the soul or spirit...yet. But what it does is better validated than claims that are not supported by science, and really, if the sold was real, wouldn't you suppose that science could have shown it to be so? If it did, nobody would be more delighted than me. I don't mind or object to a soul. I just have no evidence for it.
) and say I don't want to hear the truth, but that isn't it at all. I want to hear what they have to back these claims up, and I should think it superfluous to state now that there is nothing but faith -claims and rhetorical tricks to try to make it stick.
