Evoluiton can't account for higher-level animal behaviour

[NBB]

Anyone can make claims, that doesnt make them true.

You say you don't have claims that you are sure of, but can't prove?

 

[Tinker Grey]

You say you don't have claims that you are sure of, but can't prove?

If I do, I want someone to point them out so I can rectify the situation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You say you don't have claims that you are sure of, but can't prove?

In science, you can't (strictly speaking) be 100% certain of observations or prove theories, you have levels of confidence, and quality & quantity of supporting evidence, respectively. 'Beyond reasonable doubt' is probably as high as scientific confidence gets - but I'm not 100% certain...

 

[NBB]

If I do, I want someone to point them out so I can rectify the situation.

Like i said to another poster,
LIke your feeling towards another person? people die because of them, but can they prove them? no.

 

[VirOptimus]

You say you don't have claims that you are sure of, but can't prove?

Science doesnt ”prove” things.

But man being an ape is a fact.

Facts are facts, scientific theories explains facts and data. Learn the basics.

 

[VirOptimus]

Like i said to another poster,
LIke your feeling towards another person? people die because of them, but can they prove them? no.

Non sequitur.

 

[NBB]

Non sequitur.

He said to me to point to him if he had claims he can't prove so...

 

[VirOptimus]

He said to me to point to him if he had claims he can't prove so...

Heh, my point stands.

 

[NBB]

Heh, my point stands.

You can't CLAIM you have feelings for someone? why?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Like i said to another poster,
LIke your feeling towards another person? people die because of them, but can they prove them? no.

But this is silly. My feelings are proof of themselves to me. I have them. What would it mean for me to think I had a feeling but didn't actually have it. Cogito ergo sum. It's like saying that I should doubt myself when I say I like bourbon. I am the sole arbiter of what I feel. I am proof of my feelings to myself.

Too, these aren't claims at all. They are me. Am I a claim I make to myself?

 

[VirOptimus]

You can't CLAIM you have feelings for someone? why?

This is a science subforum and with science debates. You want to talk sbout feelings there are other parts of the site for that.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You can't CLAIM you have feelings for someone? why?

If someone doubts my feelings for someone, I point to my behavior. My behavior should be consonant with those claims.

I endeavor to by consistent in my behaviors. That's all the proof one can have at present. It might be possible in the future to gather a statistical sampling of FMRIs that comprise what a brain should look like if X is true. As such, a feeling could be evidenced beyond a reasonable doubt should it be necessary to do so.

If a man claims to love his spouse but beats the living daylights out of his partner, call him a liar. If he cares, contributes, commiserates, supports, etc., you have your proof.

 

[NBB]

If someone doubts my feelings for someone, I point to my behavior. My behavior should be consonant with those claims.

I endeavor to by consistent in my behaviors. That's all the proof one can have at present. It might be possible in the future to gather a statistical sampling of FMRIs that comprise what a brain should look like if X is true. As such, a feeling could be evidenced beyond a reasonable doubt should it be necessary to do so.

If a man claims to love his spouse but beats the living daylights out of his partner, call him a liar. If he cares, contributes, commiserates, supports, etc., you have your proof.

There is 'circumstancial' evidence like that for a lot of stuff that can't be proved.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is 'circumstancial' evidence like that for a lot of stuff that can't be proved.

What would the kind of proof you're asking for look like, i.e. what would you accept as proof?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If there was evidence faith wouldnt be necessary. So you are in error again.

You seem to be using the definition of faith provided by "analytic philosophy" i.e faith is belief without evidence - its not the only one.

In Islam there can be indirect evidence of the truth of the creed (and 'iman' or belief / trust in it), especially from the insider i.e. for the practicing believer. Who sees the world in terms of "signs" (ayat) like the earned grace of peace of heart and mind, the phenomena of the heavens, peoples folly and demise, trials and tribulations... all through the lens of the Koran and an Islamic understanding, such that one has corroborative experiences.

There can be no direct evidence in Islam, of God, but there can be signs of the realities of faith.

Or, if you take evidence to be "strict scientific evidence, capable of testing by instruments" it (i.e. the definition of analytic philosophy) may be true.

 

[VirOptimus]

You seem to be using the definition of faith provided by "analytic philosophy" i.e faith is belief without evidence - its not the only one.

In Islam there can be indirect evidence of the truth of the creed (and 'iman' or belief / trust in it), especially from the insider i.e. for the practicing believer. Who sees the world in terms of "signs" (ayat) like the earned grace of peace of heart and mind, the phenomena of the heavens, peoples folly and demise, trials and tribulations... all through the lens of the Koran and an Islamic understanding, such that one has corroborative experiences.

There can be no direct evidence in Islam, of God, but there can be signs of the realities of faith.

Or, if you take evidence to be "strict scientific evidence, capable of testing by instruments" it (i.e. the definition of analytic philosophy) may be true.

As I said, you are in error.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You seem to be using the definition of faith provided by "analytic philosophy" i.e faith is belief without evidence - its not the only one.
...
Or, if you take evidence to be "strict scientific evidence, capable of testing by instruments" it (i.e. the definition of analytic philosophy) may be true.

That's not really the definition of analytic philosophy, it's more a subset, logical positivism, which has pretty much been abandoned by the mainstream. Modern analytic philosophy is (supposed to be) characterised by its rigour, clarity, precision, and thoroughness, often using formal logic.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

That's not really the definition of analytic philosophy, it's more a subset, logical positivism, which has pretty much been abandoned by the mainstream. Modern analytic philosophy is (supposed to be) characterised by its rigour, clarity, precision, and thoroughness, often using formal logic.

OK, assess this. Corroboration essentially means to "make robust" (etymology of corroborate).
My faith claims it will strengthen me and the believers, if we practice our faith. See here for quotes on the topic:
Welcome to the Multilingual Quran and Hadith Search Engine - SearchQuran.com

In the absence of direct evidence for God, and because the faith is a means of protection (taqwa) from harm and the alleged 'wrath of God', I can at least claim that I am protected and strengthened by acts of faith. ( please see the definition of taqwa (piety) in the last text box...)

Therefore if I am pious, and piety strengthens my hand in life, this is a form of corroboration (to make robust).

Now, the secularist will probably say ok, that's kind of consistent, maybe too ambiguous, but is your strength being the result of "divine intervention" really the best explanation of that strengthening? (cf abductive reasoning)....

So, I ask you in return, is there any threshold where you may accept that "Ok, that (strengthening) is kind of unusual and so could be from God."

If extraordinary claims depend of extraordinary evidence, then at what threshold would faith related states and actions ..... (like developing inner peace, having well directed community spirit, expressing pro-social behaviour, freedom from harmful addictions, learning self-discipline and self-control - and these all together amongst the believers) .... when could these be be counted as extraordinary?


Or, are all unfalsifiable claims equally (eg "there is a God") unlikely and immune to reasoning???


Is the fact that humanists may meet in a pub as was my experience, and Muslims in a mosque instead, not at least aesthetically, socially and intellectually significant (i.e. as ayah Āyah - Wikipedia )? A sign. And potentially "extraordinary evidendce" considering how backwards thinking the faithful are meant to be.

But, if its all about 42 ism (42 (number) - Wikipedia )and Humean ethics, I suppose, why even care? Yet, wouldn't carelessness undermine strength? And therefore "weakens" "disallows" or "undermines" or even "pathologises" personal confidence in secularity???

Allah is the Protecting Guardian of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein. The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

If atheism and secularity are streets ahead, then isn't it a Humean miracle (outrageously preposterous breach of the laws of nature) that they are weaker than the faithful in at least some respects? See the idea of Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia (ie the idea that secularity is a stronger position seems absurd in a some contexts at least, because it doesn't really even commit to a belief in strength in the first place)

And pelase comment on the consistent-with-that claim that God weakens the plot of the unbelievers The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation)...

Prescient, maybe? If Hume is your patron - protector or 'false deity', then why bother to be bothered with anything? A weak position indeed.

Or am I mixing the physical, moral and social strength of a community with "epistemic strength in a supernatural claim" which is entirely divorced from such things out of necessity, i.e. a priori???

Taqwa (piety) defined:

An ascetic was asked what Taqwa is. He said: “What will you do if you enter a piece of land full of thistles?” The one who had asked the question said: “I will keep away myself from it.” the ascetic said: “Do the same in world, it is Taqwa.”

source

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK, assess this. Corroboration essentially means to "make robust" (etymology of corroborate).
My faith claims it will strengthen me and the believers, if we practice our faith. See here for quotes on the topic:
Welcome to the Multilingual Quran and Hadith Search Engine - SearchQuran.com

In the absence of direct evidence for God, and because the faith is a means of protection (taqwa) from harm and the alleged 'wrath of God', I can at least claim that I am protected and strengthened by acts of faith. ( please see the definition of taqwa (piety) in the last text box...)

Therefore if I am pious, and piety strengthens my hand in life, this is a form of corroboration (to make robust).

Now, the secularist will probably say ok, that's kind of consistent, maybe too ambiguous, but is your strength being the result of "divine intervention" really the best explanation of that strengthening? (cf abductive reasoning)....

So, I ask you in return, is there any threshold where you may accept that "Ok, that (strengthening) is kind of unusual and so could be from God."

Not sure what this has to do with analytic philosophy; but faith and/or belief in something, or commitment to something, can lead people to do extraordinary things, both wonderful and dreadful.

What reason is there to invoke the supernatural, if what people do can be explained naturally? If you think people are doing what is not possible to explain naturally, experience suggests that the most likely explanation is that either they're fooling you or you're fooling yourself. Nevertheless, by all means give examples.

If extraordinary claims depend of extraordinary evidence, then at what threshold would faith related states and actions ..... (like developing inner peace, having well directed community spirit, expressing pro-social behaviour, freedom from harmful addictions, learning self-discipline and self-control - and these all together amongst the believers) .... when could these be be counted as extraordinary?

See above.

... are all unfalsifiable claims equally (eg "there is a God") unlikely and immune to reasoning???

I don't think they're all equally unlikely or immune to reasoning. Just about every scientific theory makes unfalsifiable predictions that we can reason about, and the fact that such theories are well-evidenced and well-tested gives us a degree of confidence in those predictions.

Unfalsifiable claims that have no evidential or theoretical basis can only be assessed in the light of general knowledge and experience of the world; e.g. the claim than one of my distant ancestors had a dragon as a pet seems less probable than the claim that one of my distant ancestors had a lisp.

Is the fact that humanists may meet in a pub as was my experience, and Muslims in a mosque instead, not at least aesthetically, socially and intellectually significant (i.e. as ayah Āyah - Wikipedia )? A sign. And potentially "extraordinary evidendce" considering how backwards thinking the faithful are meant to be.

Significant how? people meet in convenient and culturally appropriate places, so what?

But, if its all about 42 ism (42 (number) - Wikipedia )and Humean ethics, I suppose, why even care? Yet, wouldn't carelessness undermine strength? And therefore "weakens" "disallows" or "undermines" or even "pathologises" personal confidence in secularity???

I'm going to treat that as 'thinking' aloud...

If atheism and secularity are streets ahead, then isn't it a Humean miracle (outrageously preposterous breach of the laws of nature) that they are weaker than the faithful in at least some respects? See the idea of Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia (ie the idea that secularity is a stronger position seems absurd in a some contexts at least, because it doesn't really even commit to a belief in strength in the first place)

Streets ahead in what respect?

And pelase comment on the consistent-with-that claim that God weakens the plot of the unbelievers The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation)...

It's just a claim - in what sense is the plot of unbelievers weakened, and what is the evidence for this?

If Hume is your patron - protector or 'false deity', then why bother to be bothered with anything? A weak position indeed.

Hume isn't my patron, protector, or false deity, he's a philosopher who made important contributions to philosophy, and his formulation of the is-ought problem was relevant to our discussion.

Or am I mixing the physical, moral and social strength of a community with "epistemic strength in a supernatural claim" which is entirely divorced from such things out of necessity, i.e. a priori???

Probably. What do you see as the epistemic strength of supernatural claims?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Not sure what this has to do with analytic philosophy; but faith and/or belief in something, or commitment to something, can lead people to do extraordinary things, both wonderful and dreadful.

What reason is there to invoke the supernatural, if what people do can be explained naturally? If you think people are doing what is not possible to explain naturally, experience suggests that the most likely explanation is that either they're fooling you or you're fooling yourself. Nevertheless, by all means give examples.

First thanks again FB for the thoughts!

Ok, natural explanations cannot explain the natural in toto. So so they must fall short at times.

But for me the way into faith wasn't about high order arguments. Firstly it was religious experience, and latter (from the inside as a Muslim) I am beginning to see how smart a system it is.



Maybe its my lack of wit, and common sense, but to a fool like me actually surviving, never mind being free from this or that harmful sin (as is also the case, alongside survival) is a bit of a 'miracle'. Not a literal breach of natural law, but a "sign" or a "wonder". Something I wouldn't normally expect, something significant, indicating a protective influence etc.


I suppose if I'm to be sceptical, invoking the supernatural is a practical necessity - as it brings so many goods, and without it I'd not have access.

But the "spiritual" (or, psychological) goods which the faith brings are also great too. Its kind of compelling. I'm not just being crafty, I'm being wise.

7.177 says:
"Evil as an example are people who reject Our signs and wrong their own souls..."

I don't think they're all equally unlikely or immune to reasoning. Just about every scientific theory makes unfalsifiable predictions that we can reason about, and the fact that such theories are well-evidenced and well-tested gives us a degree of confidence in those predictions.

Unfalsifiable claims that have no evidential or theoretical basis can only be assessed in the light of general knowledge and experience of the world; e.g. the claim than one of my distant ancestors had a dragon as a pet seems less probable than the claim that one of my distant ancestors had a lisp.

Ok, I think in terms of moral and aesthetic corroboration. Plus the phenomenology of that faith from the inside. In Islam we have a concept of "fitra" or nature. Believing the basics of the creed etc. are all meant to be natural to us. Its less of a struggle to believe in a transcendent God, than it is to be confident in the powers of a man-made statue.

Also, we have verses like the following, which when habitually believed, well, its like opening up the heart to a true reality. I sometimes read from Buddhist text on spirituality, and I can sympathise with some of what they suggest about spiritual states. After salat, too, with the blood having been to the head in prostration - that's part of the loop so to speak.

67.3 "He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of (Allah) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw?"

Being at the bottom end of those heavens, in prostration, its quite something!


If you're Humean and disbelieve in moral claims, than that's your perspective. But (and this in no aggressive threat) if Hell were real, and you were sent there, would you complain God were being immoral?

If you died and there were a "future state" at what experiential prompting(s) would you say "this is religious" rather than holding in principle to a natural explanation like "I'm in a weird computer program".

Also, with the problem of evil, a common argument of atheism is that a "Good God" wouldn't allow so much evil as we can see. What is the take of a Humean on this???

Also, I wonder about Clifford's "Ethics of Belief" - the idea being belief without sufficient evidence is immoral. If you cant go from is to ought, whither the Ethics of Belief? Into the bin?

Significant how? people meet in convenient and culturally appropriate places, so what?

Streets ahead in what respect?

I thoght strets aheal epistemologically, philosophically etc. You're (atheists) as a whole meant to be the chiefs of reason.

It's just a claim - in what sense is the plot of unbelievers weakened, and what is the evidence for this?

Going from personal experience I am far better off being faithful. Piety involves prayer etc. but also - by definition of piety - it includes avoiding harm, trouble and discord. The faith is a systematic way of achieving these ends. I think that's consistent with secular ethics like the desire for flourishing, safety, happiness, etc. but there is also a systematic way of getting there. Afaik the greatest secular "organiser" was Marx's revolutionary socialism - and what has that achieved?

Probably. What do you see as the epistemic strength of supernatural claims?

I'm taking things holistically. A moral, aesthetic, social complex of mutually supporting claims, states of mind, regularities and expectations etc.

The world of experience, scientifically, is "underdetermined by theory" when it comes to the existence of God. No empirical data (objective test or measurement) can prove God to exist, or disprove it....

So we tend to left with a choice between atheism (which often uses Occam's Razor, and incompatability between science and some faith-claims) or theism (which for me invokes signs, and indirect evidence like aesthetic or moral "superiority", skilful social organisation, the experience of spiritual states etc).

I am saying what these "signs" can suggest (not must, but can suggest) makes Occam's razor less than 100% pure, perfect and tenable across the range and scope of empirically consistent realities. Theism is a viable option.