Evoluiton can't account for higher-level animal behaviour

[GrowingSmaller]

Superstitions are not empty, they have meaning and a rich history

It's a conditional form of affirming the consequent; fallacious reasoning all the same.

Not so, God is possible - meaing God has not been ruled out.

If its raing the streets will be wet. The streets are wet (ie theyre not dry). Ergo, it could be raining.

The problem with that kind of logic is that you can use it to prove anything.


If God doesn't exist, then we should see no evidence for God's existence, and the world should appear to be entirely natural. We see no evidence for God's existence, and the world appears entirely natural. Therefore God is more likely not to exist than to exist.

See? anyone can do it.

Pt 1: Yes, similar process: so its a case of double standards then? Theists are fallacious, atheists use logic and reasoning.

Similar process. Its not the what but the "who" that counts?

Pt 2: The problem with abductive reasoning is its not conclusive. Its meant to suggest further hypotheses. Applying it to science is ok, because we can test hypotheses. Observe, think, theorise, test.

But with religion, the ultimate truth (or 'faith claims'): it's not testable.

Science can falsify a claim (like, "its raining" is falsified - because the streets are dry.... that's sound reasoning) but you cant do that with religion or 'faith claims'.

Pt 3: So, we have.... lots of arguments.

Endless "kaleidoscopic" self-referentiality (assume a faith, then : observations proving we ought to treat observations the way we treat them, because that's what evidence from treating them that way suggests etc. until we change a faith, then repeat) , and from then on turtles all the way down.

Turtles all the way down - Wikipedia

Pt 4: Like a Rorschach test, faith tells us us about ourselves, in a different way to science telling us about reality.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Or, maybe its a case of "Elephants all the way down!"

Anekantavada - Wikipedia (parable of blind men and the elephant)

What you see or the reality picture you paint for yourself depends on which part of the "elephant" you believe yourself to be!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Also, an analogy:

Data goes crazy. Meaning, science has its limits and yet we wont give in. Religions are limitless, and yet (or, thank God) they're not scientific.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If "scientific knowledge is most reliable" is not a scientific statement, then what? Is it less reliable than science?

(A) All S are better then non-S in terms of R.
(B) R(A) is non-S.

(C) So the claim (A) is worse in terms of R than is S.


Ergo. Any positive estimation of science's reliability is less reliable than science.

Yet, some atheists reject faith because.... wait for it... its less reliable than science!

But wait for it: S is fallible and provisional, capable of being over turned. So the claim (A) is worse than fallible, provisional and capable of being overturned?

Isnt this what we should be doing, its part of the scientific method, trying to demolish science?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Husserl is a phenomenologist. I think he'd day value is a phenomenon. Like existence, we have to deal with it. No matter what our (non phenomenological) philosophy of it is, its there.

cf: Epoché - Wikipedia

It would be a discussion if you described what you think in response to my post rather than telling me about Husserl.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not so, God is possible - meaing God has not been ruled out.

God, as a hypothesis, was possible all along; not ruling out the possibility of God doesn't support God's existence.

P1: If God doesn't exist then it is likely that God beliefs will be varied and often contradictory, and that there may be conflict and violence between adherents of different beliefs.
P2: God beliefs are varied and often contradictory, and there is conflict and violence between adherents of different beliefs.
C: It is likely that God doesn't exist.

Pt 1: Yes, similar process: so its a case of double standards then? Theists are fallacious, atheists use logic and reasoning.

Straw man. I made no general point about theists and atheists, I just pointed out that the flawed logic you presented can be used to prove anything.

The problem with abductive reasoning is its not conclusive. Its meant to suggest further hypotheses.

Abductive reasoning is intended to find the hypothesis that best explains the observation.

But with religion, the ultimate truth (or 'faith claims'): it's not testable.

That's a major problem, often compounded by making a virtue of belief in the untestable (gullibility).

I have a bridge to sell you; my bridge is the real one, unlike the fake bridges others are offering; my bridge will really enable you to cross the undetectable river and reach the hidden paradise.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It would be a discussion if you described what you think in response to my post rather than telling me about Husserl.

I go along with Husserl.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Part of my reason for being Muslim is feeling trashed by Western Civilization.

It's "Get out of the way! Money! Cars. Attack Islam. We need brains, soldiers, clever immigrants - sorry, so sorry, but not you!!!"

Life at the mosque is a little more laid back and respectful than that.

I'm reminded of a quote from "Old Goriot " by Balzac:

"Now and again there are tragedies so awful and so grand by reason of the complication of virtues and vices that bring them about, that egotism and selfishness are forced to pause and are moved to pity; but the impression that they receive is like a luscious fruit, soon consumed. Civilization, like the car of Juggernaut, is scarcely stayed perceptibly in its progress by a heart less easy to break than the others that lie in its course; this also is broken, and Civilization continues on her course triumphant."

Note I was born in the 70's just about the time when the word "trash" took off in popularity. (see here)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I go along with Husserl.

OK, never mind.