Reality as Construct

[DogmaHunter]

I apologise if my writing is a bit difficult. Not everyone is a wordsmith. You can look up any words you don't understand, though.

That sentence though: Intersubjectivity means just what it says - Inter/Subject/ity - the ability to determine between two subjective views a commonality. For all of our views are subjective, as the only experience you actually have is your own. All supposed 'objective' values are cobbled together from subjective viewpoints, via intersubjectivity. So intersubjectivity that 'actually exists', as opposed to a solipsistic view (as in only my own experience is verifiable) view thereof, has to work by an assumed framework of reality from within which both subjective perceptions function. To have a logical validity, to be a coherent idea, any human experience, empirically derived or otherwise, requires a common framework that these things are assumed to be experiencing (or perceiving therefore). Either there is only solipsism or there is commonality, for my solipsistic experience cannot verify yours, so a intersubjectivity composed solely of solipsisms, cannot be logically coherent or valid.

I hope that helps you understand better.

Ok.

The common framework, is that which can be empirically verified in objective ways.

Seems simple enough.

I can't "experience" how you "experience" gravity, true.
But we sure can both agree that if we let go of our keys, they'll drop to earth and not fly into space, yes?

We also can both agree on the laws of motion, escape velocity, and whatever other objective empirical calcuations we can make for gravity and agree on the outcomes of those, as well as use those equations and outcomes in everyday applications, yes?

I'm looking at a can of coca cola here. It's red.
When you see the color "red", do you experience it in the same way as I do? Is "red" for me the same as "red" for you? I don't know.

But does it matter, if both of us can independently from eachother identify this can of cola as being "red"?

I say that it does not.

Empirical verifiable and objective reality. Seems like a good enough framework to look at the world and agree with others about it.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Infants develop the notion of object permanence on their own.

Citation? A big part of childhood angst is the impermanence of things, hence parental reassurance that everything is still normal, that there is no monster that materialised under the bed.

We don't naturally develop empiricism or belief in the scientific philosophical worldview. It needs to be taught.
Why We Don’t Believe In Science

At best you can say it is a notion that they formalized or developed, but they did not conceive of it.

Wrong. It was proposed by Roger Bacon and Grosseteste as the philosophical background to support their idea of Scientific Method. It was an explicitly stated system, elaborated by Francis Bacon, as opposed to other philosophic paradigms then current.

LOL.

Christianity:
1.) Compelled beliefs
2.) Forbidden beliefs
3.) Belief without evidence is a virtue
4.) Virtually all core beliefs are, scientifically speaking, impossible

Hmm, yes, I see how science came out of that.

Obfuscation instead of addressing the substance of the argument.

Yes it is.

Who is peddling sheer belief now? All evidence shows systematic scientific enquiry follows Aristotle essentially. Check out The Lagoon, by Marie leRoi, who explains this in depth.

I think the point there is that it isn't physical matter which is what makes things seem solid, but forces. And in that regard, atoms are not vacuous. Forces are everywhere.

That makes no difference to what I said.

This is why the elimination of bias is important. I don't see where this idea is present in Christianity.

"Beware of false teachers"? Regardless, this is obfuscation as you are not addressing the substance that it is the Sciences that are disrupting our perception of reality, though.

Right, but has it ever occurred to you that we can still just do the best we can? You seem to prefer to just toss up your hands and scream, "Nothing is real!"

Never said "nothing is real". I said that even if it is, by what we have discovered, we can only conceive it through an abstraction thereof. That is quite a difference. Maybe read the OP? I explained quite a lot of neurophysiology there.

I'd love to see you attempt to demonstrate this.

You yourself said it is about forces. How are forces described and articulated? Via mathematics and modelling, no?

I have an idea for a drinking game. Bust out quotes of Jesus that NO ONE ON EARTH abides by. You went first, so I'll take a drink. My turn:

Yes alas, we are all sinners.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

My point was to highlight the crescendo of skepticism not, as you suggest, misrepresent it as beginning with Descartes. Plato was no skeptic though. He was a Platonist in that he thought that the abstract forms were the design patterns for what existed in the world. He thought that concepts such as "the good" really existed! Abstract objects like the number 2 actual exist on Platonism. Plotinus builds out idealism further.

My point is that we seem to have more reasons to believe in realism by virtue of our experience of the real world than of anti-realism/idealism. Namely, our exerience of the external world and other minds. The reason I brought up Descartes is that he inaugurates a modern discussions on these polar opposite epistemically inferences. He is the first to claim that all we can know is the contents of our mind or consciousness. So he is the correct focal point.

Bishop George Berkeley suggested that no one has any direct or unmediated knowledge of the world. God is the efficient cause of all our perceptions. He is the extreme in the idealist camp.

Why not instead, think that we have a real world that we can perceive more fully over time? That insight is given to biblical authors and Mystics alike that is valuable for us to reflect on in our own journey.

It seems that this approach equally values the Mystics at the same time avoiding the self-refuting claims around knowledge and the recalcitrant facts of idealism.

My argument has never been for Idealism as opposed to Realism. People are really misunderstanding me here. I sincerely apologise for that.

My argument is that even if the world exists, our perception of it, by what we have discovered, would remain in the form of abstracts. This is perhaps why so many philosophers supported some form of Idealism, and it is the de facto method how perception must occur, in some sense - whether what is perceived exists or not. This was why my OP went into so much neurophysiology, to explain this, and thereby to argue not for the primacy of the Idea, but that its validity requires external reality beyond the simply material, in some sense - either through a commonality of our perceptions of an actual reality, or from a shared one. Either way, if intersubjectivity exists, it suggests something up and beyond it, or otherwise solipsism or unverifiability. I hope I have cleared it up now.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Ok.

The common framework, is that which can be empirically verified in objective ways.

Seems simple enough.

I can't "experience" how you "experience" gravity, true.
But we sure can both agree that if we let go of our keys, they'll drop to earth and not fly into space, yes?

We also can both agree on the laws of motion, escape velocity, and whatever other objective empirical calcuations we can make for gravity and agree on the outcomes of those, as well as use those equations and outcomes in everyday applications, yes?

I'm looking at a can of coca cola here. It's red.
When you see the color "red", do you experience it in the same way as I do? Is "red" for me the same as "red" for you? I don't know.

But does it matter, if both of us can independently from eachother identify this can of cola as being "red"?

I say that it does not.

Empirical verifiable and objective reality. Seems like a good enough framework to look at the world and agree with others about it.

Exactly. Now reread the OP about how we perceive our sense-data. To determine whether something is Empirically verfiable, that is the problem. Because we both agree something is red, does not mean it is. Our perception thereof is modulated, as would be a colourblind individual or a Schizophrenic.
So to assume an 'Objective Reality' as you do, while acknowledging that it is created via Subjective experience, is the problem. This assumes a commonality of Subjectivity. If we base this merely on our observations, we create a Petitio Principii which we label 'Objective'. This is all fine and dandy for everyday life, but is not valid when we are seeking to determine if something is empirically verifiable, or to exclude that which we cannot 'verify' thereby.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Exactly. Now reread the OP about how we perceive our sense-data. To determine whether something is Empirically verfiable, that is the problem.

I disagree. I'll point you to my two examples again....
We can both independently from eachother calculate the force required for a given object to achieve escape velocity.
We can also both independently from eachother determine the color of a coca cola can.

What is the problem here?

Because we both agree something is red, does not mean it is. Our perception thereof is modulated, as would be a colourblind individual or a Schizophrenic.

The fact that you can even say what a colourblind or schizophrenic individual is, seems like evidence that contradicts your case....

The very fact that we can determine colourblindness, implies that we understand what colours are, how to identify them and how to tell when this "perception" is malfunctioning in certain individuals.

So to assume an 'Objective Reality' as you do, while acknowledging that it is created via Subjective experience, is the problem.

I didn't acknowledge anything of the sort.
The equations of phsyics, which allows for calculating outcomes based on given parameters, is not subject to our subjectivity. These equations are as objective it gets.

This is why we can independently from eachother calculate the force needed to achieve escape velocity. Because it isn't subject to our subjective experience.

It doesn't matter what your "perception" is. The amount of fuel a rocket engine needs to do what it does, is not dependend on your, or anyone else's, perception.

This assumes a commonality of Subjectivity. If we base this merely on our observations, we create a Petitio Principii which we label 'Objective'. This is all fine and dandy for everyday life, but is not valid when we are seeking to determine if something is empirically verifiable, or to exclude that which we cannot 'verify' thereby.

So, what is your actual point?
That nothing is objective? That we aren't able to identify things that are empircally verifiable? That empiricism is unreliable? That we can't differentiate subjectivity of objectivity?

What is your point? What are you saying? What, exactly, are you objecting to?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I disagree. I'll point you to my two examples again....
We can both independently from eachother calculate the force required for a given object to achieve escape velocity.
We can also both independently from eachother determine the color of a coca cola can.

What is the problem here?

No we can't. I can determine it. You can determine it. I can hear from you what you had gotten as the result, but what you said to me, is again merely determined by my own senses and my neurophysiology. I cannot confirm your independant derivation, without assuming a priori, that it is independant.

The fact that you can even say what a colourblind or schizophrenic individual is, seems like evidence that contradicts your case....

The very fact that we can determine colourblindness, implies that we understand what colours are, how to identify them and how to tell when this "perception" is malfunctioning in certain individuals.

Not at all. It contradicts nothing. It only shows that we are assuming a commonality of our perceptions and assuming that perceptions running contrary to this, must be faulty. Besides, we use to argue people that tasted the Fifth flavour of Umami were mistaken, until Medicine came around to think it accurate. Similarly, we exclude mentally ill states not on objective criteria, but subjective DSM criteria. This is why a Pentocostal speaking in tongues is not ill, or a Sangoma communing with the Ancestors not Schizophrenic, etc. This is why 'uppity women' and slaves that ran away from their masters, used to be labelled mentally ill. It is highly subjective - case in point this Transgenderism: I have diagnosed gender identity disorder less than 5 years ago, only for the diagnosis to go up in a puff of smoke.

I didn't acknowledge anything of the sort.
The equations of phsyics, which allows for calculating outcomes based on given parameters, is not subject to our subjectivity. These equations are as objective it gets.

This is why we can independently from eachother calculate the force needed to achieve escape velocity. Because it isn't subject to our subjective experience.

It doesn't matter what your "perception" is. The amount of fuel a rocket engine needs to do what it does, is not dependend on your, or anyone else's, perception.

Current Science denies the existence of objective measurements. We need to assume measurements are, for practical means and to test hypotheses, but this is by convention. If pressed, all measurements are not unequivocally objective, so ideas like Drift, Specificity, Bias, etc. are employed to minimise this as much as possible.
Everything we do is determined by other factors. Hence, by relativity theory, length and time changes depending on speed, etc. That my measurement of a meter is the same as yours, is suspect. Even our supposed standards, such as Caesium-133 radiation iterations for a second or the speed of light for a meter, are assumed values that we attempt to make as accurate as possible. A lot of our physics are based on fudges and rough approximations, such as the Perfect Gas Laws - which no gas perfectly follows. Even our attempts to correct for molecular weight or weak nuclear forces and such, has never allowed us to perfectly model what we see in practice.
There is also the idea that the very act of observing something, fundamentally impacts what is observed. This is especially true in quantum physics.

So you are wrong here, I am sorry.

So, what is your actual point?
That nothing is objective? That we aren't able to identify things that are empircally verifiable? That empiricism is unreliable? That we can't differentiate subjectivity of objectivity?

What is your point? What are you saying? What, exactly, are you objecting to?

I was trying to explain the sentence you were having trouble with. For my argument, see the OP. I am not going to rewrite it. Just let me know what you do not understand, and I shall try and explain it to you.

 

[KCfromNC]

Disingenuous.

Ancient Egypt believed the sky was the body of Nut that swallowed the Solar barque, or that the sun was pushed by the scarab Khepri, or was birthed by Hathor, or was merely the Solar barque transporting Ra. That hardly allows for systematic examination of reality nor that it is consistent.

Despite this, they managed to build some pretty impressive structures though studying the reality you claim they didn't believe in. What to believe?

Ancient Greece had Parmenides that said movement and change was impossible, but at the same time gave us the philosophical tools that eventually allowed the modern philosophical view to be articulated, based on the Peripatetics.

If I can find one Christian who was wrong about the nature of reality can I dismiss your entire point about them being the source of it?

Accepting the framework of observable and repeatable reality, determinable by empiric means, does not mean that if this is not accepted, that reality therefore 'doesn't exist'. Even Buddhists that consider the world to be Void or Sunya, build pagodas. It all rests on assumptions on the nature of reality, of which the modern view is derived largely from mediaeval scholasticism.

Which itself was based on previous work from other cultures. "Largely", anyway, just in case we need some room to dodge any fact-based examples to the contrary.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Despite this, they managed to build some pretty impressive structures though studying the reality you claim they didn't believe in. What to believe?

Never said they didn't believe in reality, but clearly their conception of what reality entails is radically different from yours.

If I can find one Christian who was wrong about the nature of reality can I dismiss your entire point about them being the source of it?

Disingenuous.

Which itself was based on previous work from other cultures. "Largely", anyway, just in case we need some room to dodge any fact-based examples to the contrary.

Based on Aristotle, yes. Who was a Theist. Did you not read the rest of the thread?

Please start being serious, or I shall simply ignore your posts in this thread.

 

[KCfromNC]

Never said they didn't believe in reality, but clearly their conception of what reality entails is radically different from yours.

My conception of reality is also radically different from a medieval Christian, and yet somehow that is the foundation of science I use. Seems like being radically different isn't all that important to whatever it is you're trying to show.

Disingenuous.

Baseless assertion.

Based on Aristotle, yes. Who was a Theist.

But not a medieval Christian.

Please start being serious, or I shall simply ignore your posts in this thread.

Oh no! What would I ever do?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No we can't. I can determine it. You can determine it. I can hear from you what you had gotten as the result, but what you said to me, is again merely determined by my own senses and my neurophysiology. I cannot confirm your independant derivation, without assuming a priori, that it is independant.

Come on now..... be serious.
If I would tell you that grass is purple, you wouldn't respond with "it looks green to me" as if my "perception" is equally correct to yours. Instead, you'ld say "you're wrong. grass is green".

Not at all. It contradicts nothing. It only shows that we are assuming a commonality of our perceptions and assuming that perceptions running contrary to this, must be faulty.

And this is a problem, why?

Besides, we use to argue people that tasted the Fifth flavour of Umami were mistaken, until Medicine came around to think it accurate. Similarly, we exclude mentally ill states not on objective criteria, but subjective DSM criteria. This is why a Pentocostal speaking in tongues is not ill, or a Sangoma communing with the Ancestors not Schizophrenic, etc. This is why 'uppity women' and slaves that ran away from their masters, used to be labelled mentally ill. It is highly subjective - case in point this Transgenderism: I have diagnosed gender identity disorder less than 5 years ago, only for the diagnosis to go up in a puff of smoke.

Right, right.... so therefor, someone who hallucinates,...no... wait... "sees" a person that isn't really there, or hears voices that nobody else can hear or meets the actual Elvis at Walmart is "just as correct, reasonable and rational" as people who only see things that other sane persons can also see.

You seem to be going to great lengths here. And I'm not sure why.

Current Science denies the existence of objective measurements. We need to assume measurements are, for practical means and to test hypotheses, but this is by convention.

And yet, if I don't put a certain minimum of fuel in my car, it won't manage to drive 500km's without refueling.

And yet, if I don't carefully measure the ingredients of my cake, it will collapse in the oven.

And yet, if we don't carefully calibrate the atomic clock of a GPS satellite to take note of relativity, GPS will be off by several miles.

And yet, if we don't carefully apply the physics equations to achieve escape velocity, space rockets won't reach into space.

Can we "just decide" differently? No, we cannot. If we do, PC's won't boot, planes will fall from the sky (if they even manage to take off) and nukes wouldn't explode.

The fact is that if you build an airplane backed by the theories of science and the careful measurements provided by it - it will fly. If not, it won't.

Everything we do is determined by other factors. Hence, by relativity theory, length and time changes depending on speed, etc.

Does it? Or is that "just your perception"? ;-)
So... does this happen wheter you observe it or not? Does it depend on your observation / perception / experience?

That my measurement of a meter is the same as yours, is suspect. Even our supposed standards, such as Caesium-133 radiation iterations for a second or the speed of light for a meter, are assumed values that we attempt to make as accurate as possible. A lot of our physics are based on fudges and rough approximations, such as the Perfect Gas Laws - which no gas perfectly follows. Even our attempts to correct for molecular weight or weak nuclear forces and such, has never allowed us to perfectly model what we see in practice.

Sounds like you are now complaining that we aren't perfect in everything we do.
None of these imperfections seem to prevent us from agreeing about what "red" is. Or how to build an airplane that actually flies.

So you are wrong here, I am sorry.

You say I am wrong, and yet my pc boots. Wheter I'm observing it or not.
It also boots if my cat happens to push the power button.

I was trying to explain the sentence you were having trouble with. For my argument, see the OP. I am not going to rewrite it. Just let me know what you do not understand, and I shall try and explain it to you.

Sounds like dancing around by overcomplicating simple things, in an attempt to rationalize a god-belief.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Citation?

Typing "infants obj" into Google immediately prompted "infants object permanence" as the first suggestion. Googling that yields the following paragraph:

Object permanence typically starts to develop between 4-7 months of age and involves a baby's understanding that when things disappear, they aren't gone forever. Before the baby understands this concept, things that leave his view are gone, completely gone. Developing object permanence is an important milestone.Mar 21, 2013

Also, here are the top links:

Object permanence - Wikipedia

Object Permanence: The 6 Stages in Infant Growth and Development

Peek-A-Boo! – Strategies to Teach Object Permanence « Early Intervention Strategies for Success Blog

The last one is the source for the paragraph I cited above.

A big part of childhood angst is the impermanence of things, hence parental reassurance that everything is still normal, that there is no monster that materialised under the bed.

Those are two different ideas. You're conflating imagination with object permanence.

If any child saw an actual monster under their bed, they would absolutely refuse to ever go in that room again. A parent wouldn't be able to just cuddle with them and sing them a lullaby and put them to bed.

Surely you cannot be serious.

We don't naturally develop empiricism or belief in the scientific philosophical worldview. It needs to be taught.
Why We Don’t Believe In Science

You're confused again.

We have biases. For example, we tend to tacitly think that space and time are fixed coordinates of space, and that they are absolute frames of reference. But any normal person should accept the truth of Relativity if they see it physically demonstrated to their satisfaction. In that sense, we do naturally have an affinity for empiricism. For you to say otherwise is utterly absurd. It's just that often times it is totally unfeasible for a normal person to perform obscure experiments, and so, if they lack education on a topic, they will, to the chagrin of the scientific method, tend to defer to their natural biases.

So while the scientific method and elimination of bias is not a natural inclination, affinity for empiricism absolutely is. Perhaps we are using different meanings for empiricism.

Wrong. It was proposed by Roger Bacon and Grosseteste as the philosophical background to support their idea of Scientific Method. It was an explicitly stated system, elaborated by Francis Bacon, as opposed to other philosophic paradigms then current.

OK let's see...

Quid est Veritas? in post #27:

Where do you think the idea that there is an objective verifiable external reality, that has systematic order, comes from?
It is an idea of the Mediaeval Scholastics, from which Science arose. Fundamentally, the Christian worldview is present within the very foundation of the sciences. It is not councidence that the Scientific Revolution arose in Christendom nor that the Perso-Arab flowering of Sciences came on the back of Aristotleanism.

Nihilist Virus in post #36:

At best you can say it is a notion that they formalized or developed, but they did not conceive of it.


Quid est Veritas? in post #42:

Wrong. It was proposed by Roger Bacon and Grosseteste as the philosophical background to support their idea of Scientific Method. It was an explicitly stated system, elaborated by Francis Bacon, as opposed to other philosophic paradigms then current.

Where were we discussing the scientific method? You were talking about "...the idea that there is an objective verifiable external reality, that has systematic order..." and I showed that we develop this naturally. Hence, academics could only formalize this primitive notion that we naturally possess.

Elimination of bias is the foundation of science, and I don't see what that has to do with the existence of an external reality. Your OP is a solipsistic descent into madness, and I'm telling you that infants are naturally NOT solipsistic. Your OP is utterly pointless; it is the rambling of a Christian who cannot accept that nihilism has won.

Obfuscation instead of addressing the substance of the argument.

No. You said that the Christian worldview is in the foundation of science, and I'm explaining why Christianity is fundamentally antithetical to science. You made a profoundly stupid statement, I obliterated it, and now you have nothing to say.

Who is peddling sheer belief now?

Please clarify:

Are you saying that sheer belief is a bad thing?

All evidence shows systematic scientific enquiry follows Aristotle essentially. Check out The Lagoon, by Marie leRoi, who explains this in depth.

I thought you said that Christianity is at the core of science. How does Aristotle help you at all there?

That makes no difference to what I said.

Yes, it absolutely does. You said that the atom is vacuous, and I'm proving you wrong.

Over and over I'm proving you wrong and you have nothing to say. If you're going to dodge questions, maybe at least be entertaining while you do so. Perhaps put up an awe-inspiring deep-space time-lapsed photograph, or a funny meme, or some scantily clad lady.

"Beware of false teachers"? Regardless, this is obfuscation as you are not addressing the substance that it is the Sciences that are disrupting our perception of reality, though.

I never directly responded to the OP. I never even addressed you, but rather spoke about you to someone else, and you, fully within your rights, stepped in to defend yourself. I fully endorse your ability to do that, but don't hold me accountable to the OP. You told me that Christianity is the core of science, and I obliterated that idea. I'm not obfuscating anything.

And "Beware of false teachers" is not a warning against one's own natural biases. Very weak attempt there.

Never said "nothing is real". I said that even if it is, by what we have discovered, we can only conceive it through an abstraction thereof. That is quite a difference. Maybe read the OP? I explained quite a lot of neurophysiology there.

Right, I am guilty of skimming the OP. Honestly, I became very disinterested in your opinion when you made it apparent that you insist upon defining atheism so that it is totally unreasonable.

I mean, if I defined Christianity in such a way that it is necessarily moronic, would you happily gobble up a long, long post written by me?

By the way, I explained in excruciating detail why your definition of atheism is necessarily wrong, and you just shrugged it off. So I do find you to be unreasonable by definition.

You yourself said it is about forces. How are forces described and articulated? Via mathematics and modelling, no?

Um, right. I see your strategy here. Let's recap:

Quid est Veritas in post #27:

The Sciences has replaced reality that we all supposedly acknowledge, with complex mathematical models and abstract structures. The only thing holding the tenuous silver thread from madness, is the inherited philosophical baggage of Christianity.

Nihilist Virus in post #36:

I'd love to see you attempt to demonstrate this.

Quid est Veritas? in post #42:

The Sciences has replaced reality that we all supposedly acknowledge, with complex mathematical models and abstract structures. The only thing holding the tenuous silver thread from madness, is the inherited philosophical baggage of Christianity.

Do you HONESTLY think I was objecting to your claim that we use mathematical models in science? Or do you perhaps think it might be possible that I was objecting to the second sentence there?

Let's see. Which is an atheist more likely to object to... the notion that mathematics models science, or the notion that inherited philosophical baggage from Christianity is holding it all together?

Clearly, as has been shown over and over on this post, you have no defense for your position whatsoever. You have no way of even beginning to show that Christianity is even remotely related to science. So what do you do? Play games. I want a demonstration that Christianity is among the philosophical underpinnings of science, and you pretend I was objecting to the other part of what you said. How unbelievably dishonest. I can hardly believe I saw this.

Yes alas, we are all sinners.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

My conception of reality is also radically different from a medieval Christian, and yet somehow that is the foundation of science I use. Seems like being radically different isn't all that important to whatever it is you're trying to show.

Not from the Mediaeval Christians and their successors that have become our dominant paradigm.

Baseless assertion.

Oh, so you do think one example of a Christian who thinks differently invalidates everything I say? I didn't know your thinking was that fallacious.

But not a medieval Christian.

But not the same as the philosophic paradigm that gave us Science, just based off him. So I don't follow what your point is at all, if any.

Oh no! What would I ever do?

Yes, I shall weep for you as well. It is a shame you have nothing better to do with your time.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Come on now..... be serious.
If I would tell you that grass is purple, you wouldn't respond with "it looks green to me" as if my "perception" is equally correct to yours. Instead, you'ld say "you're wrong. grass is green".

Exactly. Because we assume a commonality of perception. It is about the implication of that commonality that this whole thread is about.

And this is a problem, why?



Right, right.... so therefor, someone who hallucinates,...no... wait... "sees" a person that isn't really there, or hears voices that nobody else can hear or meets the actual Elvis at Walmart is "just as correct, reasonable and rational" as people who only see things that other sane persons can also see.

You seem to be going to great lengths here. And I'm not sure why.

Because you erroneously assumed it is clear what would be objectively real or correct by intersubjective means.

And yet, if I don't put a certain minimum of fuel in my car, it won't manage to drive 500km's without refueling.

And yet, if I don't carefully measure the ingredients of my cake, it will collapse in the oven.

And yet, if we don't carefully calibrate the atomic clock of a GPS satellite to take note of relativity, GPS will be off by several miles.

And yet, if we don't carefully apply the physics equations to achieve escape velocity, space rockets won't reach into space.

Can we "just decide" differently? No, we cannot. If we do, PC's won't boot, planes will fall from the sky (if they even manage to take off) and nukes wouldn't explode.

The fact is that if you build an airplane backed by the theories of science and the careful measurements provided by it - it will fly. If not, it won't.



Does it? Or is that "just your perception"? ;-)
So... does this happen wheter you observe it or not? Does it depend on your observation / perception / experience?




Sounds like you are now complaining that we aren't perfect in everything we do.
None of these imperfections seem to prevent us from agreeing about what "red" is. Or how to build an airplane that actually flies.



You say I am wrong, and yet my pc boots. Wheter I'm observing it or not.
It also boots if my cat happens to push the power button.

Firstly, your reasoning here is faulty. The Romans built aquaducts that worked for millenia, off incorrect ideas of flow. Similarly, Galenic physiology predicts arterial wave form much better than current accepted blood circulation, but is wrong. It even predicted treatments, that work, for certain diseases like Haemosiderosis.
Just because planes fly or bombs explode, does not mean our reasoning why they do is correct.

Anyway, Quantum theory breaks down at the macroscopic level, as Relativity breaks down on the quantum level. This is the whole point of looking for a Unified theory, a theory of Everything. Both can't be true, so something will eventually have to be discarded or substantially altered, like Newtonian mechanics was. Our current Science is the best we have, but we know it is really just a fudge until we can figure out what is really going on. So even Science doesn't claim that because bombs explode our thought on it must be accurate therefore. This is fallacious, which is why Science functions by falsification.

No one expects Science to be perfect. I certainly don't. I am perfectly happy knowing that objective measurements are not a real thing, and we are trying to make do with what we have. The point though, is that we therefore cannot assume our 'objective' determinations are anything but subjective. And of course, Science doesn't say they are. So we are back to your "Empirically verified and Objective reality" of post 41 - How and in what way? The implications of this, the assumed commonality, is what this thread is about.

Sounds like dancing around by overcomplicating simple things, in an attempt to rationalize a god-belief.

Odd. Usually I try and understand an argument before deciding to dismiss it or if it overcomplicated. You have repeatedly stated you do not.

Essentially, this is the same type of argument of a child not understanding why he needs to learn science in school, because if he presses the button the computer goes on. Or a hick turning on his tractor and looking down on book learning. Sad, really.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Typing "infants obj" into Google immediately prompted "infants object permanence" as the first suggestion. Googling that yields the following paragraph:

Object permanence typically starts to develop between 4-7 months of age and involves a baby's understanding that when things disappear, they aren't gone forever. Before the baby understands this concept, things that leave his view are gone, completely gone. Developing object permanence is an important milestone.Mar 21, 2013

Also, here are the top links:

Object permanence - Wikipedia

Object Permanence: The 6 Stages in Infant Growth and Development

Peek-A-Boo! – Strategies to Teach Object Permanence « Early Intervention Strategies for Success Blog

The last one is the source for the paragraph I cited above.

We are talking of different things. These are the developmental milestones, such as knowing if you touch a wall it will not dissolve like a gossamer curtain. Or realising the effects of an object continue in spite of not seeing it. This is not the same as the philosophical view that reality is repeatable or consistent as I was talking about throughout. You are being highly specious.
Hence my example of the monsters.

Those are two different ideas. You're conflating imagination with object permanence.

If any child saw an actual monster under their bed, they would absolutely refuse to ever go in that room again. A parent wouldn't be able to just cuddle with them and sing them a lullaby and put them to bed.

Surely you cannot be serious.

No, I am not conflating anything. I assumed you were talking of something relevant to the topic at hand, instead of talking of things that have no relation to the development of Empiric thought.
Maybe you should check out the Princess Anne experiments, as they clearly show we aren't natural empiricists.

It is also clear you don't have children. My son was convinced my mother's toilet changed into a monster if the light was turned off. Only later did we realise the glint of the bottom of the seat appeared as glowing eyes, set in an oblique frown. A child's world and worldview, is quite different than you conceive it. They also have absolute trust in their parents. So yes, I could get my son to go back there, and from his perspective, he had seen a real monster.

You're confused again.

We have biases. For example, we tend to tacitly think that space and time are fixed coordinates of space, and that they are absolute frames of reference. But any normal person should accept the truth of Relativity if they see it physically demonstrated to their satisfaction. In that sense, we do naturally have an affinity for empiricism. For you to say otherwise is utterly absurd. It's just that often times it is totally unfeasible for a normal person to perform obscure experiments, and so, if they lack education on a topic, they will, to the chagrin of the scientific method, tend to defer to their natural biases.

So while the scientific method and elimination of bias is not a natural inclination, affinity for empiricism absolutely is. Perhaps we are using different meanings for empiricism.

No, I am not. I really suggest you read the Princess Anne experiments. Some people are more Empiric than others, but it really is not natural. Our society that has developed in tandem with Scientific development has made it appear so, as we encourage such thinking from the cradle, essentially.
As someone once said, everyone is born either an Aristotlean or a Platonist.
This is why people believe in lucky hats or hold to ideas even after others have shown them wrong. Why every famous person that commits a crime still has supporters that don't believe it.

You have a strange belief in human Empiric reasoning, while thinking that Atheism is true - so from your perspective, the vast majority of humans are then holding religion against their reason, yet you claim Empiricism to be so natural? The mind boggles. You are being quite inconsistent here.

OK let's see...

Quid est Veritas? in post #27:

Where do you think the idea that there is an objective verifiable external reality, that has systematic order, comes from?
It is an idea of the Mediaeval Scholastics, from which Science arose. Fundamentally, the Christian worldview is present within the very foundation of the sciences. It is not councidence that the Scientific Revolution arose in Christendom nor that the Perso-Arab flowering of Sciences came on the back of Aristotleanism.

Nihilist Virus in post #36:

At best you can say it is a notion that they formalized or developed, but they did not conceive of it.


Quid est Veritas? in post #42:

Wrong. It was proposed by Roger Bacon and Grosseteste as the philosophical background to support their idea of Scientific Method. It was an explicitly stated system, elaborated by Francis Bacon, as opposed to other philosophic paradigms then current.

Where were we discussing the scientific method? You were talking about "...the idea that there is an objective verifiable external reality, that has systematic order..." and I showed that we develop this naturally. Hence, academics could only formalize this primitive notion that we naturally possess.

Elimination of bias is the foundation of science, and I don't see what that has to do with the existence of an external reality. Your OP is a solipsistic descent into madness, and I'm telling you that infants are naturally NOT solipsistic. Your OP is utterly pointless; it is the rambling of a Christian who cannot accept that nihilism has won.

You are really confused. I apologise for that. I am not talking of Scientific Method, but the Philosophical background required to articulate it - of an ordered, repetitive cosmos of which we can learn. If you read the very posts you quoted, this seems plain to me.

Anyway, I am not saying infants are solipcistic. I agree almost no one is. That is my point. That is why if Empiricism and the way we see the world is accurate, it suggests a commonality of experience. It is the actual implications of this, that is my whole point. The solipsism is the necessary consequence of not acknowledging this, which is why I mentioned it. If people were solopsistic, my argument wouldn't make much sense, for this is the other side of the coin.

No. You said that the Christian worldview is in the foundation of science, and I'm explaining why Christianity is fundamentally antithetical to science. You made a profoundly stupid statement, I obliterated it, and now you have nothing to say.

No, you failed to address the piece you quoted. Most of the great scientists of history were Christians. In fact, Christians invented the concept of Scientific method in the first place. Your argument is simply historically untenable.
I explained why Science undermines reality, and the only reason we can hold it, is because we believe in an ordered, consistent world - which is a doctrine of Christianity. Philosophically, to 'obliterate' what I said, you need to be able to defend the world being such, from a perspective that is not just a Petitio Principii from experience dependant upon that assumption. A few specious and highly biased points is hardly even an argument. I have given such laughable idiocy of an argument far more time than it is worth.

Please clarify:

Are you saying that sheer belief is a bad thing?

Depends. It certainly is in a historic, philosophic or reasoned argument, unless taken to be axiomatic - which this hardly is.

I thought you said that Christianity is at the core of science. How does Aristotle help you at all there?

No you misconstrue. I said Science could only arise out of the worldview that Christianity created, via the interplay of Aristotleanism, the later Peripatetics and Sceptics, and Scholasticism. So that worldview is still an innate assumption of Science for it to be coherent. The implication of that worldview however, leads away from materialism by a number of routes. Aristotle was a Theist as well, after all. As I said, the Islamic world also came close to a Scientific flowering on the back of Aristotle, for a lot of the basic assumptions of Islam as to the nature of reality, belies the Abrahamic relation of both religions.

Yes, it absolutely does. You said that the atom is vacuous, and I'm proving you wrong.

Over and over I'm proving you wrong and you have nothing to say. If you're going to dodge questions, maybe at least be entertaining while you do so. Perhaps put up an awe-inspiring deep-space time-lapsed photograph, or a funny meme, or some scantily clad lady.

In what way? That something appears solid because a force acts, does not mean it is solid. My whole argument was that solidity as usually understood is illusiory in scientific terms, which remains the case. You said we undermine perceived reality, which is really what Science has always been doing. Yet you don't even try and defend your initial post, merely quibble about mine. You cannot not argue something and then believe you refuted anything. It is getting really tedious. One responds to what the other person said, usually, not say something vaguely related and then crow about how you are winning - The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

I never directly responded to the OP. I never even addressed you, but rather spoke about you to someone else, and you, fully within your rights, stepped in to defend yourself. I fully endorse your ability to do that, but don't hold me accountable to the OP. You told me that Christianity is the core of science, and I obliterated that idea. I'm not obfuscating anything.

And "Beware of false teachers" is not a warning against one's own natural biases. Very weak attempt there.

Again, that is not what I said. I said the philosophic base of Science is founded on a theistic philosophy, which in this case was of mediaeval Scholasticism, from which if you remove it, Science becomes incoherent. Scientific Method was invented by Monks and Divines, after all. Maybe you should work on reading my posts with a bit more comprehension, and ask if you do not understand something. I am more than happy to explain to you.

Right, I am guilty of skimming the OP. Honestly, I became very disinterested in your opinion when you made it apparent that you insist upon defining atheism so that it is totally unreasonable.

I mean, if I defined Christianity in such a way that it is necessarily moronic, would you happily gobble up a long, long post written by me?

By the way, I explained in excruciating detail why your definition of atheism is necessarily wrong, and you just shrugged it off. So I do find you to be unreasonable by definition.

Not going over that again. I explained why your definition of Atheism is needless tautology, against historic usage, and confuses, perhaps intentionally, more than informing. But I shall leave it at that.

Besides, you do go out of your way to try and define Christianity or at least Practiced Christianity, in that way.

Um, right. I see your strategy here. Let's recap:

Quid est Veritas in post #27:

The Sciences has replaced reality that we all supposedly acknowledge, with complex mathematical models and abstract structures. The only thing holding the tenuous silver thread from madness, is the inherited philosophical baggage of Christianity.

Nihilist Virus in post #36:

I'd love to see you attempt to demonstrate this.

Quid est Veritas? in post #42:

The Sciences has replaced reality that we all supposedly acknowledge, with complex mathematical models and abstract structures. The only thing holding the tenuous silver thread from madness, is the inherited philosophical baggage of Christianity.

Do you HONESTLY think I was objecting to your claim that we use mathematical models in science? Or do you perhaps think it might be possible that I was objecting to the second sentence there?

Let's see. Which is an atheist more likely to object to... the notion that mathematics models science, or the notion that inherited philosophical baggage from Christianity is holding it all together?

Honestly that is what I thought. Mea Culpa. My whole argument was that reality is only conceived via abstraction, so I assumed that was what you were referencing. It fit your presumed denial that Science undermines our natural perception of reality. I apologise for making such a mistake.

As to what you actually objected to then, that was the point of the OP. So I shall just refer you back to it, that coherence logically and philosophically and neurophysiologically, can only be achieved by the assumption of commonality that assumes common perception.

Clearly, as has been shown over and over on this post, you have no defense for your position whatsoever. You have no way of even beginning to show that Christianity is even remotely related to science. So what do you do? Play games. I want a demonstration that Christianity is among the philosophical underpinnings of science, and you pretend I was objecting to the other part of what you said. How unbelievably dishonest. I can hardly believe I saw this.

What are you talking about? Please read my OP. I explained the Neurophysiology there, and am happy to go over it in more depth if you'd like. That is the basis of my claims here, for without that philosophic inherited worldview, it renders the intersubjectivity unverifiable, and the subjective is all we have. So either craft a new explanation for why the Intersubjective is valid, or you are merely assuming it on historic grounds - in which case this is baggage from Science's Christian roots, with all that that implies. Otherwise assume it is not, and the Acta est Fabula, Plaudite!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

We are talking of different things. These are the developmental milestones, such as knowing if you touch a wall it will not dissolve like a gossamer curtain. Or realising the effects of an object continue in spite of not seeing it. This is not the same as the philosophical view that reality is repeatable or consistent as I was talking about throughout. You are being highly specious.
Hence my example of the monsters.

You asked for a citation on object permanence in infants. I provided it. You still argue.

No, I am not conflating anything. I assumed you were talking of something relevant to the topic at hand, instead of talking of things that have no relation to the development of Empiric thought.
Maybe you should check out the Princess Anne experiments, as they clearly show we aren't natural empiricists.

We were talking about an infant's understanding of object permanence, so you were the one going off topic.

It is also clear you don't have children. My son was convinced my mother's toilet changed into a monster if the light was turned off. Only later did we realise the glint of the bottom of the seat appeared as glowing eyes, set in an oblique frown. A child's world and worldview, is quite different than you conceive it. They also have absolute trust in their parents. So yes, I could get my son to go back there, and from his perspective, he had seen a real monster.

So, to you, there's no difference between light reflecting to appear as eyes, versus an actual creature taking up a three-dimensional volume with hair, limbs, respiration, a heart beat, and an intent to kill?

No, I am not. I really suggest you read the Princess Anne experiments. Some people are more Empiric than others, but it really is not natural. Our society that has developed in tandem with Scientific development has made it appear so, as we encourage such thinking from the cradle, essentially.
As someone once said, everyone is born either an Aristotlean or a Platonist.
This is why people believe in lucky hats or hold to ideas even after others have shown them wrong. Why every famous person that commits a crime still has supporters that don't believe it.

Perhaps there is some nuanced aspect of psychology at play here, and in that case it would be similar or identical to the thing that causes you Christians to continue to believe in an obviously false religion. Ultimately, however, this is just some defect in the brain, and when there is a defect in the brain that prevents one from being able to discern reality from fiction despite having all the necessary information and resources readily available, we generally refer to that as stupidity.

You have a strange belief in human Empiric reasoning, while thinking that Atheism is true - so from your perspective, the vast majority of humans are then holding religion against their reason, yet you claim Empiricism to be so natural? The mind boggles. You are being quite inconsistent here.

There is no test or measurement that can be performed which will show that God does not exist. God's lack of existence is not an issue for empiricism. It is a matter of higher order thinking, reasoning, and critical thinking. This is why university graduates are far more likely to be atheist than the normal population.

You are really confused. I apologise for that. I am not talking of Scientific Method, but the Philosophical background required to articulate it - of an ordered, repetitive cosmos of which we can learn. If you read the very posts you quoted, this seems plain to me.

I'm well aware that you are talking about that. You're saying that Christianity is responsible, in some way, for science to get off the ground. I've asked you several times to show that, and you continue to give me the trademarked apologist's tap dance.

Anyway, I am not saying infants are solipcistic. I agree almost no one is. That is my point. That is why if Empiricism and the way we see the world is accurate, it suggests a commonality of experience. It is the actual implications of this, that is my whole point. The solipsism is the necessary consequence of not acknowledging this, which is why I mentioned it. If people were solopsistic, my argument wouldn't make much sense, for this is the other side of the coin.

As I said, I only skimmed the OP. My apologies for addressing anything in it.

No, you failed to address the piece you quoted. Most of the great scientists of history were Christians. In fact, Christians invented the concept of Scientific method in the first place. Your argument is simply historically untenable.

Hmm, yes, and it's also true that most of the great scientists of history were racists. Does that mean that racism is the philosophical underpinning of science?

Most scientists were right handed. Maybe it's right-handedness that lends itself to science.

It's not actually hard to know why white Europe invented science while Africa, Asia, and the Americas did not.

Europe had more animals that would naturally lend themselves to domestication, which allowed for the mass production of food, which allowed people to specialize in certain disciplines instead of having to know everything essential to survival. Combined with an economy, the wealthy were afforded the opportunity to do things that are well beyond the basic needs of survival, such as get an education. Just like mathematics, science was invented in a network of castles where rich lords, who had nothing better to do, sat around all day and communicated ideas with one another on horseback Reddit.

Nothing about this process even remotely invokes Christianity. There is nothing that is either unique to Christianity, or which was derived from essential Christian beliefs, that lends itself to science. Not a single thing whatsoever.

I await your counter-examples.

I explained why Science undermines reality, and the only reason we can hold it, is because we believe in an ordered, consistent world - which is a doctrine of Christianity.

Where is that doctrine in Christianity?

Philosophically, to 'obliterate' what I said, you need to be able to defend the world being such, from a perspective that is not just a Petitio Principii from experience dependant upon that assumption. A few specious and highly biased points is hardly even an argument. I have given such laughable idiocy of an argument far more time than it is worth.

One does not need to make an argument to obliterate an argument. For example,

Person A: "After extensive analysis, I have determined that all prime numbers are odd. I went to a website that randomly generates prime numbers and every number generated was odd. I observed 250 distinct prime numbers, and they were all odd. Since half of all positive integers are even, the probability of this occurring randomly is 1 chance in 2^250. That is nearly equivalent to randomly choosing the same electron twice of all possible electrons in the observable universe, so it is safe to say that my conclusion is well beyond the threshold of statistical certainty. QED."

Person B: "2."

I am not convinced that you understand the basics of argumentation.

Depends. It certainly is in a historic, philosophic or reasoned argument, unless taken to be axiomatic - which this hardly is.

Thank you for clarifying.

No you misconstrue. I said Science could only arise out of the worldview that Christianity created, via the interplay of Aristotleanism, the later Peripatetics and Sceptics, and Scholasticism.

I don't care what you add to it, you'll never need Christianity to create science. There is simply nothing in Christianity that is compatible with science.

So that worldview is still an innate assumption of Science for it to be coherent. The implication of that worldview however, leads away from materialism by a number of routes. Aristotle was a Theist as well, after all. As I said, the Islamic world also came close to a Scientific flowering on the back of Aristotle, for a lot of the basic assumptions of Islam as to the nature of reality, belies the Abrahamic relation of both religions.

Islam is not scientific. Aristotle did not make a single correct statement about science which relied upon any deity.

In what way? That something appears solid because a force acts, does not mean it is solid. My whole argument was that solidity as usually understood is illusiory in scientific terms, which remains the case.

Protons have an extremely small radius, and electrons, as best we can tell, are points (although probably not actually). And you said that atoms are vacuous for this reason. But I argued that the perceived solidity of an object is accounted for by the forces exerted by atoms, so there is no real problem or paradox implied here.

You said we undermine perceived reality,

I'm not sure what you are referring to. By "we" do you mean Christians? Are you referring to where I said that Christians attack reality? I never used the word "perceived" so I don't know what you're talking about. I said, clearly, that Christians attack reality. Not perceived reality, but actual reality.

which is really what Science has always been doing.

Science is not attacking perceived reality. It has no agenda. It is only shedding bias. If our biases turn out to be correct, which is sometimes the case, then the science you're describing would find itself in trouble.

Yet you don't even try and defend your initial post, merely quibble about mine.

My initial post is self-evident. Christians have defended a flat earth and have fought against evolution despite an avalanche of evidence contradicting them, and they continue in their parade of ignorance because of their faith. Even "educated" Christians who accept evolution still will find themselves trumpeting the Kalam Cosmoligical Argument, despite the fact that it's been fatally eviscerated from just about every angle possible. But once you give that up, what are you left with? A God who did nothing, and here we are?

You cannot not argue something and then believe you refuted anything.

Again, you don't understand the basics of argumentation. I don't even need an argument to undermine an argument. Counter-examples suffice, and examples are not arguments.

It is getting really tedious.

I'd like to see you pretend to be an atheist for just a day, and talk to some of the Christians here. Only then will you truly understand what a tedious conversation is like.

One responds to what the other person said, usually, not say something vaguely related and then crow about how you are winning - The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

Here's a simple reality. You, as a theist, are obligated to make the positive assertion that a deity exists. There is no evidence for the existence of this deity. You are fundamentally unreasonable.

Being so unreasonable from the very start, you are absolutely forced to continue to be unreasonable in order to support your unreasonable premises. You simply are an unreasonable person, I'm sorry to say.

Again, that is not what I said. I said the philosophic base of Science is founded on a theistic philosophy,

Again, I can simply counter by saying that it was founded on a racist philosophy and I've done more than enough to show how utterly ridiculous your statement is.

To show that the philosophic base of science is founded on a theistic philosophy, you must show me something that is unique to or derived from theism which is inherent in science.

You cannot do this.

An "orderly and consistent world" is not an idea that is inherent to theism. For example, Hinduism has a major deity who is generalized as the god of chaos.

An "orderly and consistent world" is not an idea that is unique to theism. For example, there is the Pirahã tribe.

Pirahã - Wikipedia

The Freethinker - The voice of atheism since 1881 » How an Amazonian tribe turned a missionary into an atheist

So I've shown that theism is neither inherent to nor unique to the notion of an "orderly and consistent" world.

Also, again, there is nothing I have ever seen in Christian doctrine which says that or explains why the world is consistent and orderly.

Conversely, Ecclesiastes 9:11 says,

11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

So far I've seen zero scripture citations from you that defend your position. I've given one that contradicts your position. Or... do you disavow Ecclesiastes?

which in this case was of mediaeval Scholasticism, from which if you remove it, Science becomes incoherent. Scientific Method was invented by Monks and Divines, after all. Maybe you should work on reading my posts with a bit more comprehension, and ask if you do not understand something. I am more than happy to explain to you.

You're more than happy to explain it to me? Well, I've been asking you for a couple posts now to show me how theism is, in any way, related to science. I see you asserting it here. I see you saying that you're happy to explain it. What I don't see is you explaining it.

Not going over that again. I explained why your definition of Atheism is needless tautology, against historic usage, and confuses, perhaps intentionally, more than informing. But I shall leave it at that.

I understand that it is embarrassing for a self-proclaimed wordsmith to not understand the basic prefix "a-".

Besides, you do go out of your way to try and define Christianity or at least Practiced Christianity, in that way.

Oh, really? I define Christianity in a way that necessarily makes it moronic? What is the definition you saw me using? As far as I know, I've been using this definition:

A Christian believes that Jesus was crucified and then resurrected from the dead.

I leave the deity of Christ as optional for the definition.

Honestly that is what I thought. Mea Culpa. My whole argument was that reality is only conceived via abstraction, so I assumed that was what you were referencing. It fit your presumed denial that Science undermines our natural perception of reality. I apologise for making such a mistake.

OK, thanks.

As to what you actually objected to then, that was the point of the OP. So I shall just refer you back to it, that coherence logically and philosophically and neurophysiologically, can only be achieved by the assumption of commonality that assumes common perception.

I find this to be a silly endeavor. We all have to assume to have some common ground with one another. This common ground proves nothing, but rather is the basis from which we begin to prove things.

But ultimately, yes, all of our knowledge is founded upon assumptions which cannot be proven. Hence nihilism.

And while I am, at heart, a nihilist, I am not so silly that I will refuse to even entertain common notions as starting assumptions. We all have to have this common ground. Get over it so you can join the real conversation. I mean, sheesh, this is like merely agreeing on the actual rules of chess. You aren't even playing the game yet.

What are you talking about? Please read my OP.

Unless you're talking directly to me, I'm hardly interested in what you have to say. You are totally dishonest because, again, you cannot be a self-proclaimed wordsmith who doesn't understand the prefix "a-".

I explained the Neurophysiology there, and am happy to go over it in more depth if you'd like. That is the basis of my claims here, for without that philosophic inherited worldview, it renders the intersubjectivity unverifiable, and the subjective is all we have. So either craft a new explanation for why the Intersubjective is valid, or you are merely assuming it on historic grounds - in which case this is baggage from Science's Christian roots, with all that that implies. Otherwise assume it is not, and the Acta est Fabula, Plaudite!

I think I've shown that theism does not lend itself to science in any way whatsoever.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not from the Mediaeval Christians and their successors that have become our dominant paradigm.

Medieval Christiany is the dominant paradigm? In what? Heck, it isn't even the dominant paradigm in Christianity as far as I can tell, much less the sciences.

Oh, so you do think one example of a Christian who thinks differently invalidates everything I say?

You seemed to think it did for ancient Greeks.

But not the same as the philosophic paradigm that gave us Science, just based off him. So I don't follow what your point is at all, if any.

If you can't remember why you brought up the works of someone in ancient Greece to support your idea that science is based on Medieval Christianity I'm not sure I can help you.

It is a shame you have nothing better to do with your time.

It isn't as if it takes a lot of effort to provide fact-based counter examples to your claims here.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You asked for a citation on object permanence in infants. I provided it. You still argue.



We were talking about an infant's understanding of object permanence, so you were the one going off topic.

Not really. I misunderstood what you meant and once you clarified you were talking of the Developmental Milestone, it is clear that this is irrelevant to the thread, for it has nothing to do with Empiricism as natural state nor belief in a Scientific paradigm. It is about understanding senses, not philosophically that things will necessarily remain.

So, to you, there's no difference between light reflecting to appear as eyes, versus an actual creature taking up a three-dimensional volume with hair, limbs, respiration, a heart beat, and an intent to kill?

From the perspective of my son, there wouldn't be. For he saw a monster, that was real to him. Only my parental interference could convince him it is smoke. Have you never read Lord of the Flies? The Beast?

Perhaps there is some nuanced aspect of psychology at play here, and in that case it would be similar or identical to the thing that causes you Christians to continue to believe in an obviously false religion. Ultimately, however, this is just some defect in the brain, and when there is a defect in the brain that prevents one from being able to discern reality from fiction despite having all the necessary information and resources readily available, we generally refer to that as stupidity.



There is no test or measurement that can be performed which will show that God does not exist. God's lack of existence is not an issue for empiricism. It is a matter of higher order thinking, reasoning, and critical thinking. This is why university graduates are far more likely to be atheist than the normal population.

Yes, you cannot prove God by Empiricism. But the prevalence of belief in God, shows that Empiricism is not the dominant belief structure of humanity.
Anyway, actually they have shown the longer you spend at University, the more likely you are to be a Theist. The study is behind a pay screen though, so I don't know if you can access it, so here is an article on it:

It Turns Out Colleges Aren't Actually Atheist Factories

It is likely the correlation with studying at college and lack of religiousity is coincidental - more intelligent people just question more, so fall into the Atheist trap easier. But as in all things, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but a lot of knowledge usually isn't, and the more degrees you have, the level of religiousity also goes up. Some fields like Medicine are far more religious than their peers of the same level of education as well, for instance.

I'm well aware that you are talking about that. You're saying that Christianity is responsible, in some way, for science to get off the ground. I've asked you several times to show that, and you continue to give me the trademarked apologist's tap dance.



As I said, I only skimmed the OP. My apologies for addressing anything in it.





Hmm, yes, and it's also true that most of the great scientists of history were racists. Does that mean that racism is the philosophical underpinning of science?

Most scientists were right handed. Maybe it's right-handedness that lends itself to science.

It's not actually hard to know why white Europe invented science while Africa, Asia, and the Americas did not.

Europe had more animals that would naturally lend themselves to domestication, which allowed for the mass production of food, which allowed people to specialize in certain disciplines instead of having to know everything essential to survival. Combined with an economy, the wealthy were afforded the opportunity to do things that are well beyond the basic needs of survival, such as get an education. Just like mathematics, science was invented in a network of castles where rich lords, who had nothing better to do, sat around all day and communicated ideas with one another on horseback Reddit.

Nothing about this process even remotely invokes Christianity. There is nothing that is either unique to Christianity, or which was derived from essential Christian beliefs, that lends itself to science. Not a single thing whatsoever.

I await your counter-examples.



Where is that doctrine in Christianity?

I have answered it repeatedly and you just ignore it. Oh well. It is about the repetitive nature of the world, that it is ordered and structured. The doctrine is called Ordus Mundi, that God "set the stars in their courses" or "weave together in your mother's womb". That our world is consistent and that consistency is identifiable, traceable and most importantly, falsifiable when it is not.

As I said, this was derived from Greek Philosophy, but a lot of Greek philosophy did not think this way - such as the Eleatics, Neoplatonists or Heraclitan Flux. The same is true of traditional ideas of Hinduism like the Trimurti concept or the Li of Confucianism. The idea of an ordered, verifiable world, seems to be Abrahamic. Certainly others might have developed this concept, I am not sure, but the only developments towards the Scientific, were Aristotle-supported Abrahamic religion-based societies.

Anyway, most Racism is highly scientific-based or at least argued. The Nazis claimed racial science, based on known differences between intelligence in the races via IQ and such, or physical differences to argue for it. Much was this was through abandoned 'sciences' like phrenology, but much wasn't. Those arguing for the 'brotherhood of man' and such, are usually religious though. So I wouldn't consider this much of an argument.

If you are going down the route of thinking Europe had the scientific revolution based not on culture, but resources, that is fallacious. China or any other place on the same latitude in Eurasia have much the same. Why didn't Hellenistic Science then continue to flourish? Or the Islamic schools of Samarkand? Why didn't India or China develop the sciences? Any argument ignoring the cultural particulars is highly specious. A retrospective argument looking at responsible factors have to take into account why something happened at one place and not another.

One does not need to make an argument to obliterate an argument. For example,

Person A: "After extensive analysis, I have determined that all prime numbers are odd. I went to a website that randomly generates prime numbers and every number generated was odd. I observed 250 distinct prime numbers, and they were all odd. Since half of all positive integers are even, the probability of this occurring randomly is 1 chance in 2^250. That is nearly equivalent to randomly choosing the same electron twice of all possible electrons in the observable universe, so it is safe to say that my conclusion is well beyond the threshold of statistical certainty. QED."

Person B: "2."

I am not convinced that you understand the basics of argumentation.

Well I haven't seen much of an 'obliteration' myself. in my experience, claiming such is usually an instance of Danth's law or trying to will something into existence. This silly piece about argumentation seems to confirm my suspicion.

I don't care what you add to it, you'll never need Christianity to create science. There is simply nothing in Christianity that is compatible with science.

Ignore history if you wish. Your ideological position doesn't accord with the historical analyses though. But 'history is a series of agreed upon lies', so think what you want to.

Islam is not scientific. Aristotle did not make a single correct statement about science which relied upon any deity.

Aristotle, like all good philosophers, had a coherent system. Everything was dependant on everything else. Ultimately his system was dependent on his Prime Mover and other theistic conceptions. Again I would suggest the book by Marie leRoi, the Lagoon. He is a professor of evolutionary biology and an atheist to boot, so I really don't see how you could fault him by your normal Bulverism you employ.

Protons have an extremely small radius, and electrons, as best we can tell, are points (although probably not actually). And you said that atoms are vacuous for this reason. But I argued that the perceived solidity of an object is accounted for by the forces exerted by atoms, so there is no real problem or paradox implied here.

That really makes no difference. It remains as counter-intuitive as it has always been. Ask a young child just being taught atomic theory, and you will clearly see what I am talking about.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. By "we" do you mean Christians? Are you referring to where I said that Christians attack reality? I never used the word "perceived" so I don't know what you're talking about. I said, clearly, that Christians attack reality. Not perceived reality, but actual reality.

Then how do you determine reality? This is that old canard of Petitio Principii, that Empiric observation cannot affirm Empiricism itself. Regardless, the Sciences has been going to places further and further from the standard view people have of the world, like Schrodinger's Cat for instance. So really this is just you putting the cart before the horses.

Science is not attacking perceived reality. It has no agenda. It is only shedding bias. If our biases turn out to be correct, which is sometimes the case, then the science you're describing would find itself in trouble.

To be sure, but Scientists have biases. A lot is counter-intuitive though, and requires quite a lot of indoctrination of scientific ideas before they are really accepted. Again, look at children being taught science in school.

My initial post is self-evident. Christians have defended a flat earth and have fought against evolution despite an avalanche of evidence contradicting them, and they continue in their parade of ignorance because of their faith. Even "educated" Christians who accept evolution still will find themselves trumpeting the Kalam Cosmoligical Argument, despite the fact that it's been fatally eviscerated from just about every angle possible. But once you give that up, what are you left with? A God who did nothing, and here we are?

This is merely opinion. A lot of scientific arguments are not accepted by other scientists that actively fight against it. It is the nature of human thought. People will argue for what they believe true, which often has a significant admixture of preference.
Check out Phlogiston for instance. Priestley, a great Scientist, fought for it to his death, long after everyone else abandoned it. Or the slow death of Galenic physiology or Lamarckism. This is quite a specious argument, if some do not agree with what the rest hold, that all are therefore condemned.

Again, you don't understand the basics of argumentation. I don't even need an argument to undermine an argument. Counter-examples suffice, and examples are not arguments.

Whatever you wish to tell yourself. It just doesn't seem to me as if you are defending your statements very well, that is all.

I'd like to see you pretend to be an atheist for just a day, and talk to some of the Christians here. Only then will you truly understand what a tedious conversation is like.

I don't know, I think there is too much cross-purposes and ideological opposition here. This makes it difficult if the other doesn't even read your posts or misread them, or kneejerk disagree before investigating content.

Here's a simple reality. You, as a theist, are obligated to make the positive assertion that a deity exists. There is no evidence for the existence of this deity. You are fundamentally unreasonable.

Being so unreasonable from the very start, you are absolutely forced to continue to be unreasonable in order to support your unreasonable premises. You simply are an unreasonable person, I'm sorry to say.

This is the recognised logical fallacy of Bulverism. So I really need say no more.

Again, I can simply counter by saying that it was founded on a racist philosophy and I've done more than enough to show how utterly ridiculous your statement is.

To show that the philosophic base of science is founded on a theistic philosophy, you must show me something that is unique to or derived from theism which is inherent in science.

You cannot do this.

An "orderly and consistent world" is not an idea that is inherent to theism. For example, Hinduism has a major deity who is generalized as the god of chaos.

An "orderly and consistent world" is not an idea that is unique to theism. For example, there is the Pirahã tribe.

Pirahã - Wikipedia

The Freethinker - The voice of atheism since 1881 » How an Amazonian tribe turned a missionary into an atheist

So I've shown that theism is neither inherent to nor unique to the notion of an "orderly and consistent" world.

Also, again, there is nothing I have ever seen in Christian doctrine which says that or explains why the world is consistent and orderly.

Conversely, Ecclesiastes 9:11 says,

11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

So far I've seen zero scripture citations from you that defend your position. I've given one that contradicts your position. Or... do you disavow Ecclesiastes?

Sometimes what you post seems more farce than anything else. It is difficult taking you seriously sometimes.

For instance, why post about the Piraha? It actively works against you. Tbe very fact that their empiricism is so noteworthy, that one isolated Amazonian tribe holds this, argues that it is strongly cultural. For it is not a universal human characteristic. This is the exception that proves the rule. Would you argue that Ancient Spartan training proves that families rearing children isn't the basic natural state of the species? Really now.

I don't deny Science could have arisen elsewhere. It just didn't. The only place where the exact cocktail of philosophic precepts required for it, arose, was Christendom and perhaps Transoxianian Islamic flowering. What they have in common, is Aristotle and Abrahamic religion. To deny the cultural factor here, is simply untenable.

Anyway, Hinduism actively disavows order. The trimurti has disorder as a major component, in destruction. Bhakti cults or Monistic forms of Hinduism are similar.

As to Ecclesiastes, you clearly need to read a book in context that is all about the transience of human experiences. I referenced scripture upon which Ordus Mundi is based above in quotation, which would be easily enough to find if you google them. This post is far too long already for me to waste my time on that as well.

You're more than happy to explain it to me? Well, I've been asking you for a couple posts now to show me how theism is, in any way, related to science. I see you asserting it here. I see you saying that you're happy to explain it. What I don't see is you explaining it.

I have been doing so. Just because you fail to follow what I am saying, is really not my fault. It is about having an ordered, repetitive world in the first place, and secondly, via the OP, showing how Intersubjectivity can be valid. But as you refuse to read the OP, and I am not willing to retype something with no assurance it will be read, we are stuck.

I understand that it is embarrassing for a self-proclaimed wordsmith to not understand the basic prefix "a-".

Please read my posts. I said I am NOT a wordsmith. Really now.

Anyway, I am not going to address your ridiculously idiotic redefinition of atheism again - we have been over this.

Oh, really? I define Christianity in a way that necessarily makes it moronic? What is the definition you saw me using? As far as I know, I've been using this definition:

A Christian believes that Jesus was crucified and then resurrected from the dead.

I leave the deity of Christ as optional for the definition.

Merely refering to the manner in which you speak of Cchristianity and ignoring explanations or modes of thought when doing so. Any of your other threads illustrate this in spades, especially when arbitrarily deciding what you deem logical or how things like Sin may only be defined in a way that you accept. It is all a bit silly.

I find this to be a silly endeavor. We all have to assume to have some common ground with one another. This common ground proves nothing, but rather is the basis from which we begin to prove things.

But ultimately, yes, all of our knowledge is founded upon assumptions which cannot be proven. Hence nihilism.

And while I am, at heart, a nihilist, I am not so silly that I will refuse to even entertain common notions as starting assumptions. We all have to have this common ground. Get over it so you can join the real conversation. I mean, sheesh, this is like merely agreeing on the actual rules of chess. You aren't even playing the game yet.

Hence you have no grounds for asserting reality, nor that Science accords to this. If your argument is Nihilism, absolute solipsism, then how can you make such positive statements? Again, a bit inconsistent then.

Unless you're talking directly to me, I'm hardly interested in what you have to say. You are totally dishonest because, again, you cannot be a self-proclaimed wordsmith who doesn't understand the prefix "a-".

Don't worry, you have a past history of refusing to read my posts. I didn't expect you to read this one. But to argue with someone without trying to see what he is saying or paying attention, is largely just spouting maxims. So frankly I have no reason to pay attention to you, if you do not reciprocate, as you anyway don't even bother to read what you are complaining about.

- As is aptly demonstrated here by your not reading that I denied myself a wordsmith, or above where you quoted my posts that directly contradict what you said they said. Perhaps work on that.

I think I've shown that theism does not lend itself to science in any way whatsoever.

I sincerely disagree. I have not seen you even address the central problem, of the underlying acceptance of an Empiric ordered worldview, beyond nonsensical claims that it is somehow innate. But whatever, I don't expect you to agree with what I said. These posts are quite long though, and saying very little, so I might decide to discontinue this discussion after this post. Please don't take offense.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Medieval Christiany is the dominant paradigm? In what? Heck, it isn't even the dominant paradigm in Christianity as far as I can tell, much less the sciences.

It is. At least the variant of Bacon and Grosseteste is. But I am forced to conclude you are just being facetious here.

You seemed to think it did for ancient Greeks.

That is your own misconception.

If you can't remember why you brought up the works of someone in ancient Greece to support your idea that science is based on Medieval Christianity I'm not sure I can help you.



It isn't as if it takes a lot of effort to provide fact-based counter examples to your claims here.

I have had enough of your silliness. I bid you good day. There is no attempt here at a discussion of an interesting topic.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Please read my posts. I said I am NOT a wordsmith. Really now.

You told someone, in about as condescending a manner as possible, that you are a wordsmith:

I apologise if my writing is a bit difficult. Not everyone is a wordsmith. You can look up any words you don't understand, though.

For you to now deny this is astonishing.

If you are truly referring to yourself when you say that "not everyone is a wordsmith" after your endlessly gratuitous use of Latin words and obscure English words, then this is the most fake humility I've seen in my life. It also doesn't explain why you're telling the person to look up words they don't understand. You're the wordsmith, and they need to keep up. That's what you're saying.

Anyway, I am not going to address your ridiculously idiotic redefinition of atheism again - we have been over this.

Well, if you're actually not a wordsmith, then why would you disagree with every single atheist on the definition of atheism?

- As is aptly demonstrated here by your not reading that I denied myself a wordsmith,

Right, got it... you're not a wordsmith, but you absolutely know the definition of atheism better than every atheist on earth.

These posts are quite long though, and saying very little, so I might decide to discontinue this discussion after this post. Please don't take offense.

Oh, I'm so broken up about that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The atom split itself. In fact the atom has been splitting itself for billions of years creating the heat within the Earth's core and so on... See? - no problemo at all for us atheists. (Oops I guess I'm not entirely an atheist though. Now I am a "generic theist" LOL)

The atom split itself? Not in the middle of the New Mexico desert, it didn't!