Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's take the nature of consciousness and its possible survival of bodily death. I don't really anticipate an extended and substantive discussion because frankly I doubt that anyone here is capable of one (not meaning "too stupid" to have one but merely "not sufficiently informed" to have one). This is just an example of my epistemology:[LIST][*]Some scientific disciplines are relevant to the issue. Quantum physics with its "quantum entanglement" and "observer effect" is relevant. Neuroscience with its efforts to explain consciousness in purely neurological terms is relevant. Scientific studies of PSI are relevant. Theorizing by reputable scientists on speculative topics such as the nonlocality of mind, idealism or dualism as a better fit than materialism with the available data, etc., is relevant. Any of these subject areas could easily occopy all of my time. Hence, I inform myself and stay abreast of developments as best I can through pretty extensive reading without pretending to be an expert.
[*]Philosophy is likewise relevant. A deep understanding of epistemology is essential to evaluating evidence and arguments and my own and others' convictions. There are extensive philosophical discussions of idealism, dualism and materialism. There are extensive philosophical discussions as to whether one can speak coherently about the survival of consciousness, how it might work and what it might look like. Here as well, I inform myself and stay abreast of developments as best I can through pretty extensive reading without pretending to be a philosopher.
[*]Vast bodies of human experience are directly relevant. I have engaged in deep, professional-level studies of all areas of psychical research dating back at least to the rise of spiritualism in the 1840s and the foundation of the Society for Psychical Research in 1882. I have been one the few American members of the SPR and as well as member of the American SPR. I've been engaged in deep studies of Near Death Experiences, After-Death Communications, Electronic Voice Phenomena, deathbed apparitions, channeling and similar phenomena for decades. I have been a member of IANDS, the American Association for the Study of EVP, and a number of other such organizations. My studies have included the skeptical scientific and psychological literature as well as the more neutral or sympathetic literature. In these areas, I would claim to be something of an expert.
[*]My own experiences are relevant. I have experienced a number of convincing-to-me After-Death Communications, other death-related phenomena, and incidents seemingly contrary to the materialistic paradigm. I have tried to evaluate these as best I can in terms of my own psychology and possible mundane explanations.[/LIST]The above list is surely not all-inclusive because I'm typing off the top of my head. Bear in mind, in regard to the first three bullets above I'm not talking about casual studies. In each, I'm talking about hundreds of books and hundreds of articles over a period of at least 50 years.
The quest has left me with a firm conviction that consciousness does not have a materialistic explanation and that personal consciousness does survive bodily death in some form. I could be wrong, but those are my firm convictions. Neither of them has anything to do with theism per se or Christianity per se.
Why would my epistemology exclude any of the foregoing? That to me would not be rational. To limit my epistemology to the first bullet would, it seems to me, be placing myself in a - wait for it - intellectual straitjacket.
^^^^Yes, I'm an avid reader and even I could not get through these lengthy posts. I just skimmed them. And, much of the content just went right over my head. It's too bad because I know a great deal of thought went into them.
Not criticizing but just saying that many will do the TL/DR.
Sure, every internet forum is a wild mix of intellectual capacities, ages, educational levels, seriousness and all the rest. This is as true of a motorcycle forum or a JFK assassination forum as of a religion and spirituality forum. On every forum of every type, short and non-substantive posts are the norm and are the most popular if they make their inane non-substantive non-points in a witty or humorous fashion. Since I have made my living teaching, writing and editing, I try to communicate clearly and at the level of the person to whom I'm responding - but I don't dummy myself down to the level of the lowest common denominator, which on an internet forum is very low indeed. To do that would would merely play into the hands of those who insist "religious believer" is just a euphemism for "credulous dummy."
The disconnect here is ultimately a very different form of logic, reason and general understanding about all these possibilities that makes any progress apparently impossible. To sum up your entire point of view as you have attempted to sum up mine, look up the word "credulity."
Sorry, that won't withstand scrutiny. To once again reiterate my own little meme: All the brilliant theistic philosophers, theologians, scientists, professionals, academics and others whose careers hinge on careful, rational and critical thinking can be dismissed as "credulous" insofar as their theistic convictions are concerned? That's the best you can do?
No, I believe I am quite correct that the issue is one of epistemology. I accept that someone could follow a path identical to mine and rationally arrive at non-theistic, non-Christian convictions. But you are indeed intentionally operating within a narrow epistemology that virtually guarantees the atheistic convictions you hold. When one Googles "narrow epistemology," what one finds mentioned again and again is this example: scientism.
Sure, every internet forum is a wild mix of intellectual capacities, ages, educational levels, seriousness and all the rest. This is as true of a motorcycle forum or a JFK assassination forum as of a religion and spirituality forum. On every forum of every type, short and non-substantive posts are the norm and are the most popular if they make their inane non-substantive non-points in a witty or humorous fashion. Since I have made my living teaching, writing and editing, I try to communicate clearly and at the level of the person to whom I'm responding - but I don't dummy myself down to the level of the lowest common denominator, which on an internet forum is very low indeed. To do that would would merely play into the hands of those who insist "religious believer" is just a euphemism for "credulous dummy."
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
Sorry, that won't withstand scrutiny. To once again reiterate my own little meme: All the brilliant theistic philosophers, theologians, scientists, professionals, academics and others whose careers hinge on careful, rational and critical thinking can be dismissed as "credulous" insofar as their theistic convictions are concerned? That's the best you can do?
No, I believe I am quite correct that the issue is one of epistemology. I accept that someone could follow a path identical to mine and rationally arrive at non-theistic, non-Christian convictions. But you are indeed intentionally operating within a narrow epistemology that virtually guarantees the atheistic convictions you hold. When one Googles "narrow epistemology," what one finds mentioned again and again is this example: scientism.
Bingo.
LeanrMe's pragmatism seems so all-encompassing that he is completely unaware of its ubiquity as the core of his worldview. Despite his denials, the unknown (or unknowable as he sees it) is completely irrelevant to his narrow epistemology, his convictions, and his universal truths.
Sure, every internet forum is a wild mix of intellectual capacities, ages, educational levels, seriousness and all the rest. This is as true of a motorcycle forum or a JFK assassination forum as of a religion and spirituality forum. On every forum of every type, short and non-substantive posts are the norm and are the most popular if they make their inane non-substantive non-points in a witty or humorous fashion. Since I have made my living teaching, writing and editing, I try to communicate clearly and at the level of the person to whom I'm responding - but I don't dummy myself down to the level of the lowest common denominator, which on an internet forum is very low indeed. To do that would would merely play into the hands of those who insist "religious believer" is just a euphemism for "credulous dummy."
But why? I like reading your posts, and I am glad that you do. My eyes do glaze over parts of it but I appreciate what I do read.
But what motivates you to do what you do, particularly with the Original Ten which is a cement theory, which surely takes a lot of your time that perhaps you could spend on something that is more rewarding?
It is addictive, isn't it?
But why? I like reading your posts, and I am glad that you do. My eyes do glaze over parts of it but I appreciate what I do read.
But what motivates you to do what you do, particularly with the Original Ten which is a cement theory, which surely takes a lot of your time that perhaps you could spend on something that is more rewarding?
It is addictive, isn't it?
Thanks, cb2008!
For one thing, I think and write very quickly, so what looks like a great deal of work may not be. In addition, I've participated on internet forums for almost 30 years, so some of what I post here are thoughts I've expressed before on other forums.
In regard to LearnMe's Ten Truths, he asked me to take a look at them and comment, so I did. And off we went. My very long reply to LearnMe's very long response that generated some of the "complaints" here was basically me trying to drum home what seem to me like very straightforward points one last time (and I'm sure LearnMe feels the same way since he has used the term "frustrating" more than once).
Internet forums are indeed addictive in the sense that it's almost irresistible to see what others have said about what you have said and then to respond, and then to repeat the dynamic over and over and over. I'm proud of myself that I've put the Atheist Peanut Gallery on Ignore and stuck with it. It does make these forums considerably less irritating.
To the extent I see this sort of participation as beneficial, if nothing else it's good brain exercise and helps me refine my own thinking and communication skills. I operate on the premise that there are lurkers out there who might benefit from something I say, but I'm beginning to think the lurkers are imaginary and this is really a very small group of people having an often-toxic conversation. Occasionally, of course, I actually learn something myself or have my own thinking challenged in a meaningful way.
To the extent I see this sort of participation as beneficial, if nothing else it's good brain exercise and helps me refine my own thinking and communication skills. I operate on the premise that there are lurkers out there who might benefit from something I say, but I'm beginning to think the lurkers are imaginary and this is really a very small group of people having an often-toxic conversation. Occasionally, of course, I actually learn something myself or have my own thinking challenged in a meaningful way.
All quite true. I have discovered though that I find it most fruitful, pleasurable, and worth my time to discuss theism with theists, philosophy with philosophers. It might seem as echo chamber, but it is not because we are not selling anything or attempting to change any minds. We are discussing from a baseline of what we see as important.
It is mutually satisfying because I am either learning something or clarifying a doubt, or providing new insight to someone else. It is quite wonderful when that happens.
Let's take the nature of consciousness and its possible survival of bodily death. I don't really anticipate an extended and substantive discussion because frankly I doubt that anyone here is capable of one (not meaning "too stupid" to have one but merely "not sufficiently informed" to have one).
You COULD educate yourself, then you would not be "not sufficiently informed".
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
This is just an example of my epistemology:
Some scientific disciplines are relevant to the issue. Quantum physics with its "quantum entanglement" and "observer effect" is relevant.
You can not simply make the claim, you need to provide evidence that your claims are true. Let me demonstrate by showing how one of your claims is false, with the observer effect. This describes the situation where you interact with a system when you measure it, consciously or not.
As Richard Feynman said, "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not."
Or Heisenberg, "it does not matter whether the observer is an apparatus or a human being".
The idea that consciousness is involved in effecting the state of a system is a misconception sold by non-experts to gullible idiots. You epistemology is based on you paying money for con artists to pull the wool over your eyes.
You are correct, we can not have an extended and substantive discussion with you because you are not capable of having one, not because you are too stupid, merely that you are not sufficiently informed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
Scientific studies of PSI are relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
Theorizing by reputable scientists on speculative topics such as the nonlocality of mind, idealism or dualism as a better fit than materialism with the available data, etc., is relevant.
Again, what credible evidence? You can claim this evidence exists, but we have no reason to believe your arrogant claims. Why do you never link to this evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
Why would my epistemology exclude any of the foregoing? That to me would not be rational. To limit my epistemology to the first bullet would, it seems to me, be placing myself in a - wait for it - intellectual straitjacket.
You willingness to accept any rubbish may mean you are not in a straitjacket, but the walls are still padded.
Sorry, that won't withstand scrutiny. To once again reiterate my own little meme: All the brilliant theistic philosophers, theologians, scientists, professionals, academics and others whose careers hinge on careful, rational and critical thinking can be dismissed as "credulous" insofar as their theistic convictions are concerned? That's the best you can do?
Yes, as you have STILL not proven their contradictory religious beliefs are based on their intelligence. That they have contradictory religious beliefs is a big clue that they have not. Is your repeated cüm hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy the best you can do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
When one Googles "narrow epistemology," what one finds mentioned again and again is this example: scientism.
And when one finds the term scientism on a forum, it is usually used as a straw man of what scientism actually is and used as an ad hominem.
^^^^Yes, I'm an avid reader and even I could not get through these lengthy posts. I just skimmed them. And, much of the content just went right over my head. It's too bad because I know a great deal of thought went into them.
Not criticizing but just saying that many will do the TL/DR.
I hear you. The challenge is posed when there is more than just one point or argument made in a single comment...
I put together my Ten Truths some time ago, which was an effort to present the facts as I have come to know them. Also to establish the logic and reason leading up to my conclusions. Some people have addressed all of them in short thrift. Others have taken the time to address each truth, and of course this leads to longer comments. I'll not bother with any of it anymore, because I see the same points or facts going "in one ear and out the other," and the same people chiming in again in the same altogether predictable manner. I'll not bother with these same people anyway.
Though very different from mine, I've come to understand their perspectives, points of view, beliefs and reasons for them as well as my own. Accordingly, I well recognize where the "disconnects" lie, as noted many times before. If there was any reconciling them any better, they would have been reconciled long by now. To your point, I see no point in wasting any more effort (or words) to that end.
Last edited by LearnMe; 11-01-2023 at 09:09 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
