What do you believe and why?

[hankroberts]

"It's about you acknowledging the existence of more than two possible explanations'

If you think any of those is a viable explanation then present it and we'll take a look.

"I already responded to this:"

And I already responded to that comment. As I said already asked and answered. Next...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You are drifting back into the safe, neutral harbor of rationalism.

What's wrong with the "neutral harbor of rationalism" when there is no good reason to believe that one understanding "from the heart" is genuinely divine and another isn't? Again, I don't see why agnosticism would not be an appropriate response here.

But it's not that your question doesn't again have merit, but I would remind you that religions differ in interpretation (and yes, then they get arrogant and tell the others that their doctrine is the only right way). Take 10 people to the museum to see a certain work of art, each one will differ in their definition of it. By comparison you might say that's proof that the art does not exist and you wont go see it until everyone has the identical subjective experience with it.

The difference is that we are all able to agree that the art exists, to appreciate it together, and to have a meaningful conversation about it that still tolerates differing views with equanimity.

Why is this? Again, its short and says it better than I can reword it so:

"Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs — creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.​

The problem with this is that valuing is not in itself a religious act, it's a human act. People develop values regardless of whether they attach theological significance to them or not.

That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

If it's an honest attempt at interpretation, then why wouldn't it welcome a critical assessment of the resultant claims?​

 

[hankroberts]

"Demonstrably" is distinctly different from "completely". It means that we can demonstrate how our senses can be tricked, not that they are of no use.

Are you claiming that your senses and experiences are infallible?

But it was your statement that our senses, our memory and our sense experience cannot be trusted; that they are unreliable. If you cannot rely on your senses, your memory and your experience then you cannot know anything. Either your claim means nothing to our original conversation, that our memory, senses and experience cannot be trusted to verify information regarding revelation; or it means nothing at all. Which is it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you think any of those is a viable explanation then present it and we'll take a look.

That's beside the point, the purpose of presenting them was to show you that there are more than two to consider.

And I already responded to that comment. As I said already asked and answered. Next...

You responded to the post, but didn't answer the question.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But it was your statement that our senses, our memory and our sense experience cannot be trusted; that they are unreliable. If you cannot rely on your senses, your memory and your experience then you cannot know anything. Either your claim means nothing to our original conversation, that our memory, senses and experience cannot be trusted to verify information regarding revelation; or it means nothing at all. Which is it?

This is exemplary of black-and-white thinking. Davian doesn't mean that our senses are so unreliable as to give us false and misleading information 100% of the time. As imperfect as our senses are we are still able to learn new things. We are, however, conscious of the potential for error, and so we become more diligent in our inquiries, thus minimising opportunities for error. Assuming one's senses is to be infallible, on the other hand, apart from being epistemically arrogant, is liable to lead one into error and lock him there.

 

[hankroberts]

That's beside the point, the purpose of presenting them was to show you that there are more than two to consider.



You responded to the post, but didn't answer the question.

"there are more than two to consider"

If you think so then present it and let's see.

"didn't answer the question"

Yes, in the next post.

next...

 

[hankroberts]

This is exemplary of black-and-white thinking. Davian doesn't mean that our senses are so unreliable as to give us false and misleading information 100% of the time. As imperfect as our senses are we are still able to learn new things. We are, however, conscious of the potential for error, and so we become more diligent in our inquiries, thus minimising opportunities for error. Assuming one's senses is to be infallible, on the other hand, apart from being epistemically arrogant, is liable to lead one into error and lock him there.

Well either we can trust our senses to evaluate the evidence or we cannot. If we can then my original statement stands; if we cannot then my rebuttal stands. Which is it?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"there are more than two to consider"

If you think so then present it and let's see.

I already have. You asked for more than two, I presented more than two.

"didn't answer the question"

Yes, in the next post.

next...

You can pretend to have answered it, but I'm not going to pretend that you have.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well either we can trust our senses to evaluate the evidence or we cannot. If we can then my original statement stands; if we cannot then my rebuttal stands. Which is it?

We can't trust our senses infallibly. You're missing the key word that makes all the difference.

 

[TillICollapse]

It is my understanding that there is a psychic that successfully predicted to the year the death of Michael Jackson. This information is verified. Does this establish them as a trusted source?

Do we not take into account the other 250 or so people that were also predicted to die in that time period by the same psychic, but didn't?

Confirmation bias does seem to weigh in heavily in these matters.

It depends on the context and a variety of factors as to whether or not consensus would find the prediction is verified. This is why I qualified it earlier:

"To verify a revelation, it would depend on the context and components of the revelation. If a person claims to receive a revelation that such and such event will take place at a given point in time, that information can be verified once the event takes place or doesn't take place. If the revelation is vague and open to interpretation, then that's a different argument as to whether or not it can be "verified"."

The example you gave, Michael Jackson dying on that day ... kind of vague, esp considering he's a high profile person. Now if this person knew specifics: time of day, could describe the exact setting, the cause, things like that ... it would get more interesting. It would help distinguish it from lucky guess or random chance to something more on the level of a revelation of some kind.

Whether that makes the source trustworthy, is another matter. Depending on a variety of factors.

I've argued before that if you have a person who claims to be a psychic or some such ... and they correctly predict, in extraordinary detail ... say 50 events without error, it arguably doesn't matter with each successive revelation/vision/whatever-they-call-it. Because each new chance is a new opportunity to fail, misstep, make an error. Then that 100% accuracy goes down, and they are no longer trustworthy. And arguably, with each new revelation, it is still a gamble. The odds may be lower depending on their "stats" ... however it's still a risk.

Only in hindsight really could a person be said to be *trustworthy*, if we are going off 100% for example. Once they are finished claiming revelations, you look at their record, if it stands perfect ... sure, why not trustworthy. But this is arguably an inherent issue with any type of revelatory information that involves future events not yet come to pass: there is a risk for error. Even if all the previous predictions show themselves to blow the socks off the world, there is still that chance. So long as time can pass between revelation and verification of that revelation, there is a chance the person could be wrong. So "trustworthy" depends on what one would look at to label such a source as "trustworthy".

Can we expect the politicians that wish to base their actions in government on their alleged 'revelations' to agree with that?

To agree with what ? I understand the type of politician you're referencing, but not sure what you mean by "that" lol. If it's not a point worth hashing out, no worries though.

I could put the concern about the source to the side for the moment, if the results/information rose above imagination, confirmation bias and random selection (they may not be wrong every time), but that is not what is observed.

Verification of a single event is one thing ... trustworthiness is another. "Even a blind hog can find an acorn once in awhile." I may be able to jump into the cockpit of a crashing plane and somehow land it safely, but that doesn't make me a trustworthy pilot.

Likewise with even a verified revelation that fits the criteria you mention (rises above imagination/confirm bias/random selection/etc). But then we have a baby and bathwater scenario. IF a person somehow manages to have such a revelation ... one that really does seem above chance, above random luck, appears to have been a legitimate bit of information, etc ... even if it's just one single instance: Occam's Razor might claim that chimps will eventually type out Shakespeare by accident given long enough, but it still isn't fully explained and MAY point to something not understood yet. Thus the information may essentially be verified, but the source still unverifiable. Which potentially leads us back to the rabbit hole.

 

[Davian]

But it was your statement that our senses, our memory and our sense experience cannot be trusted; that they are unreliable. If you cannot rely on your senses, your memory and your experience then you cannot know anything. Either your claim means nothing to our original conversation, that our memory, senses and experience cannot be trusted to verify information regarding revelation; or it means nothing at all. Which is it?

The equivocation game, with a false dichotomy mixed in.

I did not say "cannot be trusted". To insist that is what I meant would be intellectually dishonest.

That my old Chevy is unreliable does not rule it out as a means of transportation.

Tell me, are your senses and experiences infallible?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are drifting back into the safe, neutral harbor of rationalism. But it's not that your question doesn't again have merit, but I would remind you that religions differ in interpretation (and yes, then they get arrogant and tell the others that their doctrine is the only right way). Take 10 people to the museum to see a certain work of art, each one will differ in their definition of it. By comparison you might say that's proof that the art does not exist and you wont go see it until everyone has the identical subjective experience with it.

Why is this? Again, its short and says it better than I can reword it so:

"Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs. It is much easier for men to agree on religious values — goals — than on beliefs — interpretations. And this explains how religion can agree on values and goals while exhibiting the confusing phenomenon of maintaining a belief in hundreds of conflicting beliefs — creeds. This also explains why a given person can maintain his religious experience in the face of giving up or changing many of his religious beliefs. Religion persists in spite of revolutionary changes in religious beliefs. Theology does not produce religion; it is religion that produces theologic philosophy.

That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience. Religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology, the philosophy of religion, is an honest attempt to interpret that experience. Such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

The realization of the recognition of spiritual values is an experience which is superideational. There is no word in any human language which can be employed to designate this “sense,” “feeling,” “intuition,” or “experience” which we have elected to call God-consciousness. The spirit of God that dwells in man is not personal — the Adjuster is prepersonal — but this Monitor presents a value, exudes a flavor of divinity, which is personal in the highest and infinite sense. If God were not at least personal, he could not be conscious, and if not conscious, then would he be infrahuman." UB 1955​

To be honest, I generally skip past whatever posts you make that quote the UB. Sometimes I'll read your accompanying words, but if the post is mostly UB, I'll disregard it entirely. I did read this post, however, because Arch thought it was worth addressing... and I must say it's wrong in nearly every way. I'll try to break down just those lines that I feel are completely wrong and explain why...

""Rationalism is wrong when it assumes that religion is at first a primitive belief in something which is then followed by the pursuit of values. Religion is primarily a pursuit of values, and then there formulates a system of interpretative beliefs."

Right from the beginning here, the UB is just plain wrong. I can totally understand why a religious book would like to make such a claim... believing that religion is all about values and the beliefs are secondary to those values would lend religion a place in an increasingly modern society that has discarded most of its antiquated myths and stories. Saying it doesn't make it true though. Many older religions had very little focus on values and greater focus on beliefs. Beliefs that were generally stories that explained the natural world which would've been mostly mysterious at the time of religion's beginnings. Stories were made to explain the sun and the moon, the rising of the tide, the changing of the seasons. It wouldn't surprise me if there were still some primitive religions that were nothing but these kinds of stories. I would wager that the values were later added when the storyteller of early religions began to notice that his stories gave him some authority within the community...and he could use this to his advantage. This is of course, my opinion, but it's based on the fact that early religions tended to have a great many stories and very few if any values. The UB doesn't really have a basis in reality for such a claim.

"That religionists have believed so much that was false does not invalidate religion because religion is founded on the recognition of values and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience."

If this were true, why not discard the stories that have been shown false? Why not discard the stories, the symbolism, the assumptions, and everything else other than the values? The answer is pretty obvious...those things are the religion.

"superideational"-is this a real word? I couldn't find a definition. Same goes for these..."prepersonal" "infrahuman"

 

[hankroberts]

I already have. You asked for more than two, I presented more than two.



You can pretend to have answered it, but I'm not going to pretend that you have.

"You asked for more than two, I presented more than two."

Unless some posts have been left out, you have not presented a single argument regarding the original question, or a single argument different from the two I listed.

"You can pretend to have answered it, but I'm not going to pretend that you have."

And you can pretend I didn't if you prefer: nothing here obligates you to acknowledge reality. But anyone who wants to use their memory, their senses and their sense experience can simply go back and look.

 

[hankroberts]

The equivocation game, with a false dichotomy mixed in.

I did not say "cannot be trusted". To insist that is what I meant would be intellectually dishonest.

That my old Chevy is unreliable does not rule it out as a means of transportation.

Tell me, are your senses and experiences infallible?

No equivocation and no false dichotomy. You can quibble over the language if you prefer and we'll go back to your exact words. Either our memory, our senses and our sense experience are reliable to evaluate and justify sources, or they are not. If they are, then your argument fails to address my point; if they are not, then the self-refuting nature of the argument stands. You pick which one you prefer.

 

[Davian]

No equivocation and no false dichotomy.
<snip equivocation and false dichotomy>

Tell me, are your senses and experiences infallible?

 

[hankroberts]

Missed this:
"Tell me, are your senses and experiences infallible?"

Heh. Of course not. But they are reliable. If yours are not I suggest you get professional help with that.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"You asked for more than two, I presented more than two."

Unless some posts have been left out, you have not presented a single argument regarding the original question, or a single argument different from the two I listed.

You didn't ask for an argument. You were seemingly unaware of options other than the two you mentioned, so I showed you that there are indeed more than just the two you mentioned. Now you are trying to shift the goal posts.

"You can pretend to have answered it, but I'm not going to pretend that you have."

And you can pretend I didn't if you prefer: nothing here obligates you to acknowledge reality. But anyone who wants to use their memory, their senses and their sense experience can simply go back and look.

Indeed they can, which is why I'm happy to let the record speak for itself.

 

[Davian]

Missed this:

You did, multiple times. Do you find your eyes to be unreliable?

"Tell me, are your senses and experiences infallible?"

Heh. Of course not.

Then we can consider the possibility of your "Divine Revelation" as simply being a product of your imagination.

But they are reliable. If yours are not I suggest you get professional help with that.

By what methodology did you determine this "reliability", in regards to your religious experiences?

 

[hankroberts]

You didn't ask for an argument. You were seemingly unaware of options other than the two you mentioned, so I showed you that there are indeed more than just the two you mentioned. Now you are trying to shift the goal posts.

Indeed they can, which is why I'm happy to let the record speak for itself.

"You didn't ask for an argument. "

Hogwash.
#185: "Why, stop gesturing son, and trot them out if you think they are worthy. Let's take a look at them. I've no desire to wander again through the plethora of notions trying to find the one you like."

#201 "If you think any of those (proposed explanations) is a viable explanation then present it and we'll take a look."

#206 (you)"there are more than two to consider"
(my response) "If you think so then present it and let's see."

So I've invited you at least three times to actually make the case rather than merely assert that a case exists. And I'm still waiting for that to happen. If you decide you want to justify your assertions, let me know.

Indeed they can, which is why I'm happy to let the record speak for itself."

Me, too, so I guess we're done here.

 

[Davian]

It depends on the context and a variety of factors as to whether or not consensus would find the prediction is verified. This is why I qualified it earlier:

"To verify a revelation, it would depend on the context and components of the revelation. If a person claims to receive a revelation that such and such event will take place at a given point in time, that information can be verified once the event takes place or doesn't take place. If the revelation is vague and open to interpretation, then that's a different argument as to whether or not it can be "verified"."

The example you gave, Michael Jackson dying on that day ... kind of vague, esp considering he's a high profile person. Now if this person knew specifics: time of day, could describe the exact setting, the cause, things like that ... it would get more interesting. It would help distinguish it from lucky guess or random chance to something more on the level of a revelation of some kind.

It was actually a year, and cherry-picked from hundreds of failed predictions.

Whether that makes the source trustworthy, is another matter. Depending on a variety of factors.

I've argued before that if you have a person who claims to be a psychic or some such ... and they correctly predict, in extraordinary detail ... say 50 events without error, it arguably doesn't matter with each successive revelation/vision/whatever-they-call-it. Because each new chance is a new opportunity to fail, misstep, make an error. Then that 100% accuracy goes down, and they are no longer trustworthy. And arguably, with each new revelation, it is still a gamble. The odds may be lower depending on their "stats" ... however it's still a risk.

Only in hindsight really could a person be said to be *trustworthy*, if we are going off 100% for example. Once they are finished claiming revelations, you look at their record, if it stands perfect ... sure, why not trustworthy. But this is arguably an inherent issue with any type of revelatory information that involves future events not yet come to pass: there is a risk for error. Even if all the previous predictions show themselves to blow the socks off the world, there is still that chance. So long as time can pass between revelation and verification of that revelation, there is a chance the person could be wrong. So "trustworthy" depends on what one would look at to label such a source as "trustworthy".

To agree with what ? I understand the type of politician you're referencing, but not sure what you mean by "that" lol. If it's not a point worth hashing out, no worries though.


Verification of a single event is one thing ... trustworthiness is another. "Even a blind hog can find an acorn once in awhile." I may be able to jump into the cockpit of a crashing plane and somehow land it safely, but that doesn't make me a trustworthy pilot.

Likewise with even a verified revelation that fits the criteria you mention (rises above imagination/confirm bias/random selection/etc). But then we have a baby and bathwater scenario. IF a person somehow manages to have such a revelation ... one that really does seem above chance, above random luck, appears to have been a legitimate bit of information, etc ... even if it's just one single instance: Occam's Razor might claim that chimps will eventually type out Shakespeare by accident given long enough, but it still isn't fully explained and MAY point to something not understood yet. Thus the information may essentially be verified, but the source still unverifiable. Which potentially leads us back to the rabbit hole.

On closer inspection, the ground upon which religion rests appears to be more rabbit holes than dirt.