The importance of testing and problem of eyewitness testimony.

[Dre Khipov]

You think I'm being too broad...and you're saying things like "religion isn't a thing that does anything"?

It's at least a concept....usually a worldview. In either case, it's based upon falsehoods. So whether you want to paint it as a large influence...or a small one...it impedes the ability of those who adhere to it to make decisions based upon reality.

It's not at least a concept. It is a concept. Numerous concepts and beliefs contribute to a worldview. Religion is not a worldview. Again, you are seemingly struggling to have some consistent semantic meaning for whatever you are proposing.

Likewise, for you to say that it's based on falsehood, you'd have to actually tell which falsehood. Otherwise you are not going to get too far in this discussion. It's like saying "no you are wrong".

The spectrum of reality is much broader that you may imagine it to be. To claim that you understand it enough to claim that every single religious presupposition is based on falsehood is somewhat presumptuous.

On what grounds do you make out every single religious propositional truths to be false? For example...

Propositional Axiom: There's an intelligent being that's responsible for creation and directed development of our universe, and all of the sentient life in it.

Why would you think that the above is based on falsehood and is not grounded in some rational view of reality?

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's not at least a concept. It is a concept. Numerous concepts and beliefs contribute to a worldview. Religion is not a worldview. Again, you are seemingly struggling to have some consistent semantic meaning for whatever you are proposing.

Likewise, for you to say that it's based on falsehood, you'd have to actually tell which falsehood. Otherwise you are not going to get too far in this discussion. It's like saying "no you are wrong".

The spectrum of reality is much broader that you may imagine it to be. To claim that you understand it enough to claim that every single religious presupposition is based on falsehood is somewhat presumptuous.

On what grounds do you make out every single religious propositional truths to be false? For example...

Propositional Axiom: There's an intelligent being that's responsible for creation for directed development of our universe, and all of the sentient life in it.

Why would you think that the above is based on falsehood and is not grounded in some rational view of reality?

Some people would say their religion and worldview are the same...some religions have barely risen above a handful of concepts. You understand what I mean by religion, don't you? I'm only asking since you seem to have the semantic issue here...

Prayer. There are many many religious people who believe that they can affect reality through prayer. This is proven untrue.

So, for our example...Let's say someone believes in the "power of prayer". Does this belief help or impede their ability to make "good" decisions (on a wide variety of situations)?

Since its based upon a falsehood, I'd say it impedes such ability...and I can give you multiple examples of this (I can pull them right from the threads of this site if you like).

This is, of course, one example of what i was saying before. There are almost countless others.

 

[Ana the Ist]

On what grounds do you make out every single religious propositional truths to be false? For example...

Propositional Axiom: There's an intelligent being that's responsible for creation and directed development of our universe, and all of the sentient life in it.

Why would you think that the above is based on falsehood and is not grounded in some rational view of reality?

Sorry, I should've answered this in my previous post...

It's a bare assertion without any foundation beyond the imagination of the person making it.

It's certainly "possibly" true...but to treat it as such at this point would be irrational.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Some people would say their religion and worldview are the same...some religions have barely risen above a handful of concepts. You understand what I mean by religion, don't you? I'm only asking since you seem to have the semantic issue here...

I'm only asking because it's not very clear to me what you mean by "religion". If you could help us all, it would be much easier to understand where you are coming from when you qualify what you are talking about. Otherwise we'd be just talking at each other and getting nowhere.

Prayer. There are many many religious people who believe that they can affect reality through prayer. This is proven untrue.

Sure, there are many, but it doesn't constitute as a foundational bases for religion. I'm a Christian that doesn't believe that prayer affects reality beyond what it moves us to do in his world.

So, for our example...Let's say someone believes in the "power of prayer". Does this belief help or impede their ability to make "good" decisions (on a wide variety of situations)?

Again, it depends what you mean by "the power of prayer". The power of prayer is in being grateful for what you have, and in aligning your desires with that you believe to be of the "transcendent qualities". It's not about treating God as a Santa. So, I'm not really sure I agree with you here.

Since its based upon a falsehood, I'd say it impedes such ability...and I can give you multiple examples of this (I can pull them right from the threads of this site if you like).

But it's not a falsehood in my case. You attack a version of something that I don't hold on to, and you claim that "religion" is based on falsehood... while you can't provide the problem with the foundational axiom that I've provided as an example.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Sorry, I should've answered this in my previous post...

It's a bare assertion without any foundation beyond the imagination of the person making it.

It's certainly "possibly" true...but to treat it as such at this point would be irrational.

I'm not interested in labeling things as irrational. I'm interested in actually following your flow of thoughts as to why you think it is irrational.

You would have to provide some more rational alternative in order to claim that it's not rational to believe such axiom which is derived from a rather streightforward and rational observation:

1) There's a distinct difference between conscious sentience and non-conscious matter
2) I don't see any more rationally explainable means of going from non-sentient matter to sentience other than a mechanism of intelligent design.

The reason I say so is precisely because I work in the realm of Artificial Intelligence, and it's not a simple matter of try fail type of development, especially when we get into very complex reality of pattern processor like our brain is.

If you don't think my conclusion is rational, please explain why.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm only asking because it's not very clear to me what you mean by "religion". If you could help us all, it would be much easier to understand where you are coming from when you qualify what you are talking about. Otherwise we'd be just talking at each other and getting nowhere.



Sure, there are many, but it doesn't constitute as a foundational bases for religion. I'm a Christian that doesn't believe that prayer affects reality beyond what it moves us to do in his world.



Again, it depends what you mean by "the power of prayer". The power of prayer is in being grateful for what you have, and in aligning your desires with that you believe to be of the "transcendent qualities". It's not about treating God as a Santa. So, I'm not really sure I agree with you here.



But it's not a falsehood in my case. You attack a version of something that I don't hold on to, and you claim that "religion" is based on falsehood... while you can't provide the problem with the foundational axiom that I've provided as an example.

The term religion encompasses a broad range of concepts and groups of concepts. Do you really need a specific definition when I say the word? Forgive my asking...but whenever I get that request it appears to be a semantic game where you want me to define it so that you can claim the definition doesn't apply to you. Is that the game you're playing? Or do you somehow (astonishingly) not know what I mean when I say "religion"?

Whenever prayer discussions come up in this site...every christian pretends that it's not about asking god for things. Then they go to another section and, in prayer, ask god for things...so please forgive my scepticism.

If you'd like another example I'll provide one...but I certainly don't know enough about your personal religious beliefs in order to speak intelligently about which ones might impede your ability to make good decisions. If that's what you'd like to talk about...you'll have to tell me some things about what you believe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

1) There's a distinct difference between conscious sentience and non-conscious matter
2) I don't see any more rationally explainable means of going from non-sentient matter to sentience other than a mechanism of intelligent design.

The second premise is the flawed one. You believe this "intelligence" which does the designing exists somewhere, does it not? How did it become intelligent without a designer?

 

[Dre Khipov]

The term religion encompasses a broad range of concepts and groups of concepts. Do you really need a specific definition when I say the word? Forgive my asking...but whenever I get that request it appears to be a semantic game where you want me to define it so that you can claim the definition doesn't apply to you. Is that the game you're playing? Or do you somehow (astonishingly) not know what I mean when I say "religion"?

No, I have to understand what exactly you mean by religion, because you are calling it a worldview, when it's not. Likewise you are making statements like "all religion is based on falsehoods" and I have to understand what you mean by religion, because it's not a very easily-defined concept that you seem to package and burn as a single box .

I'm not doing it to play games with you. In order for us to communicate, we actually have to be talking about the same thing when we are using words. You seem to think that the concept of religion is so simple that everyone should just be on the same page when that word is pronounced?

I'm not sure why you find it so astonishing when I ask you what you think religion means. It's not an nonsensical question.

Whenever prayer discussions come up in this site...every christian pretends that it's not about asking god for things. Then they go to another section and, in prayer, ask god for things...so please forgive my scepticism.

Well, you can trust me that I don't. My son was born with congenital heart problem that required heart surgery at 1 month old. My prayer wasn't that "God please heal him miraculously". My prayer was more about my agony that I feel in that situation, and my wish that the surgery will go ok, and that doctors will perform well and that my son recovered. It wasn't a request for me ordering God to do these things. It was expression of my innermost desires. It wouldn't be anything that a secular parent wouldn't be wishing for.

In any case, I find it odd that you would imply lack of genuine view that I hold in that regard. I'm not sure how it contributes to this conversation. I'm not attacking you . I'm merely providing a perspective.

If you'd like another example I'll provide one...but I certainly don't know enough about your personal religious beliefs in order to speak intelligently about which ones might impede your ability to make good decisions. If that's what you'd like to talk about...you'll have to tell me some things about what you believe.

I'm not asking you to disprove my beliefs to me . You've made a broader statement that all of the religions, and perhaps religious ideas derive from irrational and fallacious mindset. I'm trying to understand why you'd think that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I have to understand what exactly you mean by religion, because you are calling it a worldview, when it's not. Likewise you are making statements like "all religion is based on falsehoods" and I have to understand what you mean by religion, because it's not a very easily-defined concept that you seem to package and burn as a single box .

I'm not doing it to play games with you. In order for us to communicate, we actually have to be talking about the same thing when we are using words. You seem to think that the concept of religion is so simple that everyone should just be on the same page when that word is pronounced?

I'm not sure why you find it so astonishing when I ask you what you think religion means. It's not an nonsensical question.



Well, you can trust me that I don't. My son was born with congenital heart problem that required heart surgery at 1 month old. My prayer wasn't that "God please heal him miraculously". My prayer was more about my agony that I feel in that situation, and my wish that the surgery will go ok, and that doctors will perform well and that my son recovered. It wasn't a request for me ordering God to do these things. It was expression of my innermost desires. It wouldn't be anything that a secular parent wouldn't be wishing for.

In any case, I find it odd that you would imply lack of genuine view that I hold in that regard. I'm not sure how it contributes to this conversation. I'm not attacking you . I'm merely providing a perspective.



I'm not asking you to disprove my beliefs to me . You've made a broader statement that all of the religions, and perhaps religious ideas derive from irrational and fallacious mindset. I'm trying to understand why you'd think that.

Here's a general definition for religion from dictionary.com...

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause,nature, and purpose of the universe,especially when considered as the creationof a superhuman agency or agencies,usually involving devotional and ritualobservances, and often containing a moralcode governing the conduct of humanaffairs.

That won't apply to every case, but it will work for now. Are we clear?

You "expressed your innermost desires" to god....but you didn't want his help? I'm a little confused, because you make it sound like you care what happens to your son on one hand....yet on the other you seem to be claiming that you weren't making a request.

Were you asking god for things to happen a certain way or not? If not...what exactly were these innermost desires you were speaking about?

 

[Dre Khipov]

The second premise is the flawed one. You believe this "intelligence" which does the designing exists somewhere, does it not? How did it become intelligent without a designer?

Let's say that you've built a computer game in which there are some characters who interact with each other. On the level of computer game, it's a different reality than yours. Yours would be the ultimate reality, which is a byproduct of the ultimate reality. On the level of computer game, there may be some indicators that they are living in a construct of a sort that derived through purposeful and functional design. But it would be somewhat difficult to explain to a digital simulation the concept of organic matter and a brain. Their concept of reality would naturally be a different order of existence.

What you are asking me here is essentially to provide you with an answer of something that I merely have a hinch on. There's logically nothing that would prevent one to think that someone designed that reality, or that someone then designed the designer of the designer.... but that's a cop-out question that avoids the obvious. Simply because there's inherent question or necessity about explaining the higher order of reality doesn't escape the fact that what we know and understand about our reality points in that direction.

Who designed God? I don't know. Perhaps Got is eternal and exempt. Perhaps there may be a higher order. It's irrelevant, and there's nothing fallacious about that . Pointing it out without providing viable alternatives seems to avoid the issue all together.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let's say that you've built a computer game in which there are some characters who interact with each other. On the level of computer game, it's a different reality than yours. Yours would be the ultimate reality, which is a byproduct of the ultimate reality. On the level of computer game, there may be some indicators that they are living in a construct of a sort that derived through purposeful and functional design. But it would be somewhat difficult to explain to a digital simulation the concept of organic matter and a brain. Their concept of reality would naturally be a different order of existence.

What you are asking me here is essentially to provide you with an answer of something that I merely have a hinch on. There's logically nothing that would prevent one to think that someone designed that reality, or that someone then designed the designer of the designer.... but that's a cop-out question that avoids the obvious. Simply because there's inherent question or necessity about explaining the higher order of reality doesn't escape the fact that what we know and understand about our reality points in that direction.

Who designed God? I don't know. Perhaps Got is eternal and exempt. Perhaps there may be a higher order. It's irrelevant, and there's nothing fallacious about that . Pointing it out without providing viable alternatives seems to avoid the issue all together.

I noticed you didn't answer my question about the prayer. Would it be fair to assume then that you did, in fact, ask him for your son's surgery to turn out well? You may not see this as treating god as a magical goodies machine...but certainly now you should be able to understand why from where I'm sitting, there's no substantive difference. That's what you wanted yes? Insight into how I think?

You asked me for the logical flaw in your two premises. Your first premise is that you cannot see intelligence being a part of the nature of something (by which I mean arising naturally). Your second premise is that intelligence is part of the nature of god, essentially contradictory to your first premise.

I appreciate your explanation, but it isn't necessary. You admitting that you cannot resolve your flawed second premise doesn't change the fact that since it contradicts your first premise, your first premise should be abandoned.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let's say that you've built a computer game in which there are some characters who interact with each other. On the level of computer game, it's a different reality than yours. Yours would be the ultimate reality, which is a byproduct of the ultimate reality. On the level of computer game, there may be some indicators that they are living in a construct of a sort that derived through purposeful and functional design. But it would be somewhat difficult to explain to a digital simulation the concept of organic matter and a brain. Their concept of reality would naturally be a different order of existence.

What you are asking me here is essentially to provide you with an answer of something that I merely have a hinch on. There's logically nothing that would prevent one to think that someone designed that reality, or that someone then designed the designer of the designer.... but that's a cop-out question that avoids the obvious. Simply because there's inherent question or necessity about explaining the higher order of reality doesn't escape the fact that what we know and understand about our reality points in that direction.

Who designed God? I don't know. Perhaps Got is eternal and exempt. Perhaps there may be a higher order. It's irrelevant, and there's nothing fallacious about that . Pointing it out without providing viable alternatives seems to avoid the issue all together.

Also, there's nothing to "logically prevent" one from believing that some unthinking universe making machine just spits out universes every few thousand millennia...but that doesn't make it a logically held belief.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Here's a general definition for religion from dictionary.com...

noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause,nature, and purpose of the universe,especially when considered as the creationof a superhuman agency or agencies,usually involving devotional and ritualobservances, and often containing a moralcode governing the conduct of humanaffairs.

That won't apply to every case, but it will work for now. Are we clear?

If we consider the above, then we can classify Communism being a religion. I've live through the collapse of the good old USSR, and

1) It involved a set of beliefs concerning cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
2) It involved creation via superhuman agency (natural selection which selected humans as eventuality)
3) Containing moral code and ritual observances
4) And governed the conduct of human affairs

I'm merely pointing it out because it's a very generic definition that would fit virtually any and every human system, be it religious or secular. I'd think you'd like to be more specific that that.

You "expressed your innermost desires" to god....but you didn't want his help? I'm a little confused, because you make it sound like you care what happens to your son on one hand....yet on the other you seem to be claiming that you weren't making a request.

I thought I've explained. It has nothing to do with request, as much it has to do with expressing one's desire for certain outcome in context of any given situation, and with certain moral limits of these outcomes. It's not to change God's mind. It's to re-align ours.

Were you asking god for things to happen a certain way or not? If not...what exactly were these innermost desires you were speaking about?

No, not in any certain way. I wouldn't say "God please heal my son so that tomorrow he wakes up without this problem." My prayer was "God I'm going through an enormous amount of agony right now, but I trust that things will be ok. We are very fortunate to live in a place and time where this problem can be resolved overnight. I couldn't imagine what it would be like to lose my son a month after he'd be born. I'm not sure how that would change me, but it does give me better understanding of suffering of other. I hope I can be of help to someone in the future"

Again, I don't think that God works in our world in the same way most Christians would think it does.

 

[Dre Khipov]

I noticed you didn't answer my question about the prayer. Would it be fair to assume then that you did, in fact, ask him for your son's surgery to turn out well? You may not see this as treating god as a magical goodies machine...but certainly now you should be able to understand why from where I'm sitting, there's no substantive difference. That's what you wanted yes? Insight into how I think?

I did answer. Just not as fast as you'd like .

You asked me for the logical flaw in your two premises. Your first premise is that you cannot see intelligence being a part of the nature of something (by which I mean arising naturally). Your second premise is that intelligence is part of the nature of god, essentially contradictory to your first premise.

No, no, no. I'll copy and paste the exact words

1) There's a distinct difference between conscious sentience and non-conscious matter

2) I don't see any more rationally explainable means of going from non-sentient matter to sentience other than a mechanism of intelligent design.

Whether intelligence is "part of the nature of God" or whether God is a step in the progression of the order of intelligence is IRRELEVANT to my premise....

2) I don't see any more rationally explainable means of going from non-sentient matter to sentience other than a mechanism of intelligent design.

You can't avoid this problem by saying that there are trillion trillion universes. It doesn't resolve the issue.

I appreciate your explanation, but it isn't necessary. You admitting that you cannot resolve your flawed second premise doesn't change the fact that since it contradicts your first premise, your first premise should be abandoned.

Just because I can't resolve the questions you have about second premise doesn't make it flawed . It would be like saying that entire theory of QM is wrong because we don't understand what moves the smallest part that we can currently derive. It's a flawed approach. We can derive some model of the smallest part we can get to. Beyond that we'd hit the limit.

It's the same issue with God. I'm not sure why you would assume that my present inability to resolve the "designer of God" issue would invalidate the premise. It doesn't, just like lack of explanation behind the smallest particles in QM doesn't invalidate QM.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If we consider the above, then we can classify Communism being a religion. I've live through the collapse of the good old USSR, and

1) It involved a set of beliefs concerning cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
2) It involved creation via superhuman agency (natural selection which selected humans as eventuality)
3) Containing moral code and ritual observances
4) And governed the conduct of human affairs

I'm merely pointing it out because it's a very generic definition that would fit virtually any and every human system, be it religious or secular. I'd think you'd like to be more specific that that.



I thought I've explained. It has nothing to do with request, as much it has to do with expressing one's desire for certain outcome in context of any given situation, and with certain moral limits of these outcomes. It's not to change God's mind. It's to re-align ours.



No, not in any certain way. I wouldn't say "God please heal my son so that tomorrow he wakes up without this problem." My prayer was "God I'm going through an enormous amount of agony right now, but I trust that things will be ok. We are very fortunate to live in a place and time where this problem can be resolved overnight. I couldn't imagine what it would be like to lose my son a month after he'd be born. I'm not sure how that would change me, but it does give me better understanding of suffering of other. I hope I can be of help to someone in the future"

Again, I don't think that God works in our world in the same way most Christians would think it does.

And I've read the Communist Manifesto...and you're wrong on several points there. Would you like to turn this discussion to that?

Lol ok...you're the one christian who never asks god for anything...you just like to let him know how you're feeling. Gotcha.

Regardless, you do see my point yes? You're aware of the way 99% of your fellow christians see prayer...aren't you? You said you wanted to understand why I made my statement, it should be clear at this point even if you don't think it applies to you....

If you wanted a more general answer, I'd say that all religions are based in falsehoods since I've never known one to be based in fact. Once I do, I assure you i won't make that statement again.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Also, there's nothing to "logically prevent" one from believing that some unthinking universe making machine just spits out universes every few thousand millennia...but that doesn't make it a logically held belief.

But, that's not the problem that I've described. The problem is that of arriving at a sentient matter from non-sentient one without some sort of agency.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I did answer. Just not as fast as you'd like .



No, no, no. I'll copy and paste the exact words

1) There's a distinct difference between conscious sentience and non-conscious matter

2) I don't see any more rationally explainable means of going from non-sentient matter to sentience other than a mechanism of intelligent design.

Whether intelligence is "part of the nature of God" or whether God is a step in the progression of the order of intelligence is IRRELEVANT to my premise....

2) I don't see any more rationally explainable means of going from non-sentient matter to sentience other than a mechanism of intelligent design.

You can't avoid this problem by saying that there are trillion trillion universes. It doesn't resolve the issue.



Just because I can't resolve the questions you have about second premise doesn't make it flawed . It would be like saying that entire theory of QM is wrong because we don't understand what moves the smallest part that we can currently derive. It's a flawed approach. We can derive some model of the smallest part we can get to. Beyond that we'd hit the limit.

It's the same issue with God. I'm not sure why you would assume that my present inability to resolve the "designer of God" issue would invalidate the premise. It doesn't, just like lack of explanation behind the smallest particles in QM doesn't invalidate QM.

Lol I'm sorry...you're right, I mischaracterized your two premises. But the problem is that you've posited an explanation...an intelligent designer. If you had just said....

2. I don't see any more rationally explainable means of going from non-sentient matter to sentience.

....you would be fine. You didn't say that though...you posited an explanation of an "intelligent designer". Did you really think that you wouldn't have to explain why this intelligent designer has sentience?

You do believe that the intelligent designer has sentience...so you either believe in an infinite regression of intelligent designers (i don't think you do) or you believe that this intelligence is part of this designers nature....which contradicts your premises.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But, that's not the problem that I've described. The problem is that of arriving at a sentient matter from non-sentient one without some sort of agency.

A problem for which you posited an explanation that eliminates the problem to begin with.

Either intelligence can exist as a part of somethings' nature or it can't...which is it?

 

[Dre Khipov]

And I've read the Communist Manifesto...and you're wrong on several points there. Would you like to turn this discussion to that?

Sure, If I'm wrong, I'd like to think where you think I'm wrong. You've read the Manifesto, ok. I actually lived through it. But ok, you may have a deeper understanding .

Lol ok...you're the one christian who never asks god for anything...you just like to let him know how you're feeling. Gotcha.

There's a difference between wishing and asking. I didn't say that I've never asked it, but eventually I came to understanding the prayer to what it meant to be, and not what most Christians today see it as.

Regardless, you do see my point yes? You're aware of the way 99% of your fellow christians see prayer...aren't you? You said you wanted to understand why I made my statement, it should be clear at this point even if you don't think it applies to you....

Sure, I don't dismiss that religious views have issues, but that goes for virtually any system that humans hold, be it secular, scientific or religious. It doesn't automatically invalidate some of the central premises that these systems may hold.

If you wanted a more general answer, I'd say that all religions are based in falsehoods since I've never known one to be based in fact. Once I do, I assure you i won't make that statement again.

That's a rather odd perspective and statement. Facts are meaningless apart from interpretation. Fact - Christmas tree in my house is green. So what? . Fact, fire is hot. Facts are nominal description of reality. Science and religion attempt to explain the facts of reality. Religion attempt to explain the moral reality of being and origin of certain otherwise explainable facts. Religion is very much grounded in facts.

 

[Dre Khipov]

A problem for which you posited an explanation that eliminates the problem to begin with.

Either intelligence can exist as a part of somethings' nature or it can't...which is it?

No... that's NOT the problem. I've explained it .

1) Sentient intelligent matter is different from non-intelligent one...(I'll extend it in terms of what the difference is) because of an arrangement that allows for matter to posses sentient qualities.

2) The problem is with explaining how non-sentient matter would self-assemble into a sentient one, when non-sentient matter doesn't posses such intelligence. It's not inherent and is not a part of the nature of matter.

I've never said that God is sentient matter. It's a higher order of being. Just like humans are higher order of being when we look at any intelligent human creations like computers.

Because scientifically it seems like there was some sort of the beginning to time/space/matter as we know it, and it's highly problematic that non-intelligent matter would self-assemble into an intelligent one, therefore it's not unreasonable to conclude that a higher-order of being is responsible... which we call God.

It's not that difficult to follow, and it's not something that I just now make up. Some of the greatest philosophers in history to who we owe quite a bit of our human development reached the same conclusion.