The uselessness of the epistemology of religion

[rappoccio]

PD and I have been having a discussion about the nature of our
activities here, and I thought it would be good to start a thread
outlining the epistemology of religious types.

Firstly, I'll outline the epistemology that everyone uses (at least
some of the time).

Then, I'll outline the epistemology that I used to have when I was a
theist, so I think is typical. I'll also point out it's shortcomings
since I have a good perspective on that, since I deemed them
sufficient to stop calling myself a theist.

So the epistemology that we all share is that observation and reason
gives us information about the world we inhabit. Every single living
thing on the planet interacts with the environment to determine truth,
and we are no different. We observe events and reason through them to
determine the truth. We look both ways to see if there are cars coming
before we cross the street. We avoid falling off long drops to the
ground. We drive at reasonable speeds to avoid accidents with fatal
speeds. We avoid bleeding excessively. We avoid head trauma. All of
these things require the usage of observation and reason to make
judgments. So we all use them. They're also enormously successful at
solving problems, as evidenced by the fact that as soon as they became
"in vogue" to apply to scientific phenomena, we went from a quality of
life associated with hunter-gatherers to a tripled life expectancy and
health benefits, as well as having deduced information about our
universe from times microseconds after its inception to the distant
future, from tiny subatomic particles to enormous galaxial
formations.

There is a secondary epistemology that applies to religion that claims
to be of use. This is the so-called "divine intervention"
epistemology, for lack of a better word. That is, that God plants
information in our brains (don't bother asking how this happens, when
it happens, or what was implanted, you'll get the run around) that was
not arrived at via observation or reason.

Let's put aside the conundrum of how the person therefore can be
certain that said information is actually there. I doubt it highly and
they can't prove it so it's totally useless, but let's just move on.

Let's focus on the actual decisions one would make based on this
"input" that allegedly comes from God.

The ultimate question is: How does one determine whether the input
they are receiving is from God, or from oneself?

I propose that there is no way to do this. I think that everyone else
subconsciously agrees, even though they consciously object to this.
What people think is "direction from God" is actually subconsciously
filtered through a kind of "moral litmus test" that they've already
decided upon "ahead of time" (in formation of their brain, whether
through genetics or environmental testing). The "direction" they get
from God is claimed to be instructions of "morality", since they claim
that "God gives us morality".

This is bunk.

Every single "moral directive" given to people allegedly from God is
ambiguous. They are indistinguishable from subconscious processes and
desires. People examine them and determine, based on their own
prejudices and biases, whether or not the "directive" is actually
designed from God or not.

This means that this epistemology of determining truth via religion is
useless and futile.

[Simpleton]

This is an excellent post, but I'd have preferred it if you had taken
a few more steps where you entertained Christian responses, and then
stated the conclusions.

For example instead of

"Every single "moral directive" given to people allegedly from God is
ambiguous. They are indistinguishable from subconscious processes and
desires. People examine them and determine, based on their own
prejudices and biases, whether or not the "directive" is actually
designed from God or not."

It may have put Christians on the spot to answer how do they know that
a moral directive is from God?


In other words, it might have been better to have stopped

"How does one determine whether the input they are receiving is from
God, or from oneself?"

But it is not as if I had any success when I have done that.

So forget what I said. As you were. Carry on....

[rappoccio]

Thanks :)

> but I'd have preferred it if you had taken
> a few more steps where you entertained Christian responses, and then
> stated the conclusions.
>
> For example instead of
>
> "Every single "moral directive" given to people allegedly from God is
> ambiguous. They are indistinguishable from subconscious processes and
> desires. People examine them and determine, based on their own
> prejudices and biases, whether or not the "directive" is actually
> designed from God or not."
>
> It may have put Christians on the spot to answer how do they know that
> a moral directive is from God?
>
> In other words, it might have been better to have stopped
>
> "How does one determine whether the input they are receiving is from
> God, or from oneself?"

I know that this would make them more likely to post, but I'd rather
have them more likely to post after they're aware that I'm aware of
their awareness of the situation :).

> But it is not as if I had any success when I have done that.
>
> So forget what I said. As you were. Carry on....

;)

[scooter]

I don't think it functions in quite this way. I could be wrong, but
I'm more inclined to think, and it might be more accurate to say, the
information is already there and it is only later they determine if it
"came from God". This is because they have to first be taught what it
is that "God wants" as a function of social discipline. Of course,
those standrds are always in flux,too.

>
> I propose that there is no way to do this. I think that everyone else
> subconsciously agrees, even though they consciously object to this.
> What people think is "direction from God" is actually subconsciously
> filtered through a kind of "moral litmus test" that they've already
> decided upon "ahead of time" (in formation of their brain, whether
> through genetics or environmental testing). The "direction" they get
> from God is claimed to be instructions of "morality", since they claim
> that "God gives us morality".
>
> This is bunk.
>
> Every single "moral directive" given to people allegedly from God is
> ambiguous. They are indistinguishable from subconscious processes and
> desires. People examine them and determine, based on their own
> prejudices and biases, whether or not the "directive" is actually
> designed from God or not.

Precisely correct.

>
> This means that this epistemology of determining truth via religion is
> useless and futile.

Epistomologically, theism has been bankrupt since the Enlightement.

[rappoccio]

I don't think it functions at all! :)

> I could be wrong, but
> I'm more inclined to think, and it might be more accurate to say, the
> information is already there and it is only later they determine if it
> "came from God".

Define "already there".

> This is because they have to first be taught what it
> is that "God wants" as a function of social discipline. Of course,
> those standrds are always in flux,too.

That's precisely what I mean. They are *taught* what should be applied
to God or not, which means they have arrived at it through observation
and reason (maybe crappy reasoning, but still). So this whole
"observation and reason are incomplete" thing is just a myth and a
fallacy.

>
>
>
>
> > I propose that there is no way to do this. I think that everyone else
> > subconsciously agrees, even though they consciously object to this.
> > What people think is "direction from God" is actually subconsciously
> > filtered through a kind of "moral litmus test" that they've already
> > decided upon "ahead of time" (in formation of their brain, whether
> > through genetics or environmental testing). The "direction" they get
> > from God is claimed to be instructions of "morality", since they claim
> > that "God gives us morality".
>
> > This is bunk.
>
> > Every single "moral directive" given to people allegedly from God is
> > ambiguous. They are indistinguishable from subconscious processes and
> > desires. People examine them and determine, based on their own
> > prejudices and biases, whether or not the "directive" is actually
> > designed from God or not.
>
> Precisely correct.

;)

>
>
> > This means that this epistemology of determining truth via religion is
> > useless and futile.
>
> Epistomologically, theism has been bankrupt since the Enlightement.

Indeed, now we just need to convince everyone else ;).

[Deidzoeb]

Some theists want to claim that God makes his magic available to
everyone, but it requires some action on the part of each individual
to "activate" it. Like you said, not much point debating the details,
but this is a point of contention that they will try to derail the
conversation on, whether knowledge was magically implanted at some
point in their lives, during a "revelation", or whether like Dumbo's
ability to fly, the magic was already within them the whole time and
they just needed to recognize it.

[scooter]

Hehehe...agreed

>
> > I could be wrong, but
> > I'm more inclined to think, and it might be more accurate to say, the
> > information is already there and it is only later they determine if it
> > "came from God".
>
> Define "already there".

What I mean to say is that many particulars have to hashed out amoung
the community as being "godly" or "holy" before a determination can be
made. This isn't always necessary, but it may be initially. E.G., one
may know or feel what "love" is, (and, it is "already there") and
onlty later does the individual determine, through the help of her
community, that it "came from God". IOW, they need a confirmation of
sorts. Conversely, abortion: "not from God."

>
> > This is because they have to first be taught what it
> > is that "God wants" as a function of social discipline. Of course,
> > those standrds are always in flux,too.
>
> That's precisely what I mean. They are *taught* what should be applied
> to God or not, which means they have arrived at it through observation
> and reason (maybe crappy reasoning, but still). So this whole
> "observation and reason are incomplete" thing is just a myth and a
> fallacy.

Yes, I agree. And, their beliefs act as a perception filter. "Wearing
Jesus colored glasses."

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I propose that there is no way to do this. I think that everyone else
> > > subconsciously agrees, even though they consciously object to this.
> > > What people think is "direction from God" is actually subconsciously
> > > filtered through a kind of "moral litmus test" that they've already
> > > decided upon "ahead of time" (in formation of their brain, whether
> > > through genetics or environmental testing). The "direction" they get
> > > from God is claimed to be instructions of "morality", since they claim
> > > that "God gives us morality".
>
> > > This is bunk.
>
> > > Every single "moral directive" given to people allegedly from God is
> > > ambiguous. They are indistinguishable from subconscious processes and
> > > desires. People examine them and determine, based on their own
> > > prejudices and biases, whether or not the "directive" is actually
> > > designed from God or not.
>
> > Precisely correct.
>
> ;)
>
>
>
> > > This means that this epistemology of determining truth via religion is
> > > useless and futile.
>
> > Epistomologically, theism has been bankrupt since the Enlightement.
>
> Indeed, now we just need to convince everyone else ;)

We try ;)

[Walt]

There is a lot of validity to this sort of criticism. But sometimes
it
seems like only getting mad about the bad weather when
the weather is bad on Tuesdays. People believe all sorts or
irrational things, many or most of them much more harmful than
most religious belief. They're sure they won't get divorced, that
their kids are sure to be happy and successful, that George
Bush is competent to be President, etc. Why focus so much
on irrational religious beliefs?

[Dev]

Another great post.

[Simpleton]

I figure it is because such beliefs seem to influence people's refusal
to opine

"It is more rational to believe that there are no 300 year old men
living in Jersey than it is to believe that that there are 300 year
old men living in Jersey, despite having no evidence of such"

claiming that it is unanswerable since it is on the same level as

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

and then lead to other things such as "Homosexuals are evil",
"Intelligent Design should be taught in science curriculum", etc.

[Walt]

On Feb 15, 4:11 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

I think there is an important point you are not addressing here.

Generally, when people say they "know" either a scientific
fact or a religious article of faith, they are largely relying on
faith in an institution. When I say I know a scientific
fact, generally I have not conducted the necessary experiments
to verify it. I say I know it based on faith in the
institution of science, because of principles like repeatability,
and that no authority is so high that it's claims cannot
be subjected to verification.

A big part of the rational for religious institutions like
Islam or the Catholic church is that every member receives
and passes on witness to God that orginally came from
people who say they experienced God with their five senses.
That is not entirely different from believing in scientific
facts based on experiments we only know second hand
that others have performed.

Clearly there are important differences. Science has
a strong tradition of skepticism. It has a strong
preference for facts based on exeriments that can
be performed at any time. That indicates that science
is more believable than religion, but it doesn't prove that
religion is completely unbelievable.

Ultimately, the reason I personally can't put great faith
in any religious institution is that the quality of the
message always seems to be pretty poor. Why
didn't Jesus or Mohamed clearly state that slavery
was wrong, or that is was obviously cruel and
wastful to not let people practice a particular
profession because of their gender or ethinicity?
Just a couple of examples.

I would say it's dubious that any religious instituiton
gives us a second-hand connection to a clear
and coherent explanation from God of our existence.
But it's perhaps not so easy to dismiss the possibility
of a limited connection to God. To give one
example, think of the Bible story of Lot pleading
with God to spare his city for the sake of a few
righteous people. It expresses some powerful
ideas: that even the highest authority can be
questioned, that it's better to let many guilty
remain unpunished rather than to unjustly
punish the innocent. Think of the centuries of
blood and misery it took for humanity (or at
least a part of it) to see the value of these
ideas.

A side point that some of the posters to
this group may want to think about:
the institution of science has on occasion
created widespread belief in falsehoods.
This often was the result of promenent
scientists being overbearing and having
contempt for the opinions of others.

[Multiverse]

> Every single "moral directive" given to people allegedly from God is
> ambiguous.

i disagree, quite often the televangelists have been told by some god
exactly how much money they need to raise and for what righteous
reasons eh? :)

On Feb 15, 4:11 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

[PD]

Excellent post, and it poses an excellent question.
Let me start just by noting that the question is one that begs a
procedure that is satisfied only by objectively verifiable facts. That
is, if you want to determine a fact that is objectively verifiable
outside of oneself, this question would inexorably lead you to either
axiomatic logic or some form of the scientific method. (Which is no
doubt your point.) The problem is, this objective verification doesn't
work on subjective knowledge, by definition. First, let's recognize
that.

[PD]

A superb post in response to a superb post. Seems we have the marks of
a good thread going.

PD

[rappoccio]

If they can demonstrate how, they're more than welcome to let us know.
"Once you believe it you'll know it's true" is nothing.

> Like you said, not much point debating the details,
> but this is a point of contention that they will try to derail the
> conversation on, whether knowledge was magically implanted at some
> point in their lives, during a "revelation", or whether like Dumbo's
> ability to fly, the magic was already within them the whole time and
> they just needed to recognize it.

I'll be keeping my conversations on point, be sure.

[rappoccio]

Sure, and if they can demonstrate anything specific about any of this,
I'd be happy to consider their opinion. "It's there because I assume
it's there" is just ridiculous to the point of absurdity.

[rappoccio]

Have you taken a look at the title of the group recently?

[rappoccio]

Thanks ;)

[PD]

OK, so imagine a group called Black Guys vs White Guys, where the bulk
of the discussion was focused on black guys going to prison and the
activities of the KKK. Sound either productive or on point?

PD

[rappoccio]

On Feb 15, 11:24 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

False. Absolutely false. They place "trust", which is different than
"faith" in people or things. Trust is based on previous experience.
Faith is not.

> When I say I know a scientific
> fact, generally I have not conducted the necessary experiments
> to verify it.

That doesn't mean you can't. It just means you're too unmotivated to
do them. I've done many experiments myself to test what I say. You can
too.

> I say I know it based on faith in the
> institution of science,

That is not faith.

> because of principles like repeatability,
> and that no authority is so high that it's claims cannot
> be subjected to verification.
>
> A big part of the rational for religious institutions like
> Islam or the Catholic church is that every member receives
> and passes on witness to God that orginally came from
> people who say they experienced God with their five senses.

And if someone demonstrates this, or that they themselves have
experienced God with their five senses, I'd be happy to consider it.
Until then: No reason to believe, any more than there is a reason to
believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

> That is not entirely different from believing in scientific
> facts based on experiments we only know second hand
> that others have performed.

This IS entirely different because science experiments can be repeated
for yourself. If you don't, it's your loss, but that doesn't mean you
can't.

> Clearly there are important differences. Science has
> a strong tradition of skepticism. It has a strong
> preference for facts based on exeriments that can
> be performed at any time. That indicates that science
> is more believable than religion, but it doesn't prove that
> religion is completely unbelievable.

This is precisely what I'm asking people to demonstrate.

> Ultimately, the reason I personally can't put great faith
> in any religious institution is that the quality of the
> message always seems to be pretty poor. Why
> didn't Jesus or Mohamed clearly state that slavery
> was wrong, or that is was obviously cruel and
> wastful to not let people practice a particular
> profession because of their gender or ethinicity?
> Just a couple of examples.

Indeed. Well said.

> I would say it's dubious that any religious instituiton
> gives us a second-hand connection to a clear
> and coherent explanation from God of our existence.
> But it's perhaps not so easy to dismiss the possibility
> of a limited connection to God.

That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence.

> To give one
> example, think of the Bible story of Lot pleading
> with God to spare his city for the sake of a few
> righteous people. It expresses some powerful
> ideas: that even the highest authority can be
> questioned, that it's better to let many guilty
> remain unpunished rather than to unjustly
> punish the innocent. Think of the centuries of
> blood and misery it took for humanity (or at
> least a part of it) to see the value of these
> ideas.

It certainly wasn't because of the Bible. It wasn't until the
Enlightenment that these ideas were proposed in society.

> A side point that some of the posters to
> this group may want to think about:
> the institution of science has on occasion
> created widespread belief in falsehoods.
> This often was the result of promenent
> scientists being overbearing and having
> contempt for the opinions of others.

Such as?

[rappoccio]

On Feb 15, 11:33 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > Every single "moral directive" given to people allegedly from God is
> > ambiguous.
>
> i disagree, quite often the televangelists have been told by some god
> exactly how much money they need to raise and for what righteous
> reasons eh? :)

Lawl :)

[rappoccio]

Thank you ;)

> Let me start just by noting that the question is one that begs a
> procedure that is satisfied only by objectively verifiable facts. That
> is, if you want to determine a fact that is objectively verifiable
> outside of oneself, this question would inexorably lead you to either
> axiomatic logic or some form of the scientific method. (Which is no
> doubt your point.) The problem is, this objective verification doesn't
> work on subjective knowledge, by definition. First, let's recognize
> that.

I'm not asking for scientific proof of your position. I'm asking for
what kinds of things you would consider that you believe that DON'T
come from your observations and reason, but rather from God. How do
you tell the difference. The point is that none of this, in my
opinion, comes from anywhere else besides your observations and
reason. I'm just asking you to recognize that or demonstrate even by
anecdote that it does.

[rappoccio]

Of course not. However I don't see the parallel to this question. I'm
not making quality judgments on aspects of knowledge that "come from
God". I'm asking how one discerns this.

[PD]

Just for a moment let's set aside God and ask the question about any
article of subjective knowledge. How would you know that any article
of subjective knowledge is true, rather than something that just came
out of your head (by subconscious influence or whatever)?

[PD]

I understand, working on that elsewhere in the string. This comment
was specifically aimed at Walt's suggestion that focusing on the more
extremely irrational behavior of some Christians is neither productive
nor on point. You pointed to the name of the group. I suggested
another hypothetical group and pointed out how focusing on the more
extremely irrational behaviors of the parties in that group would also
be neither productive nor on point.

PD

[Deidzoeb]

I agree. Just wanted to let you know about an argument theists might
make, quibbling about whether God does his magic early or late in
life. Your point is valid either way.

> > Like you said, not much point debating the details,
> > but this is a point of contention that they will try to derail the
> > conversation on, whether knowledge was magically implanted at some
> > point in their lives, during a "revelation", or whether like Dumbo's
> > ability to fly, the magic was already within them the whole time and
> > they just needed to recognize it.
>

> I'll be keeping my conversations on point, be sure.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Walt]

> Have you taken a look at the title of the group recently?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I apologize, I should have clarified that my response was not directed
at you in particular. I shouldn't lump your post in with the more
vitriolic ones I've seen in the group.

[Simpleton]

I am genuinely surprised that you would think so.

I do agree with you though that it is a good thread.

[Simpleton]

And having recognized that a long long time ago in a galaxy ....
what's next?

"Objective verification does not work on subjective knowledge." Got
it!

Now what?

[Simpleton]

It could be for me if I get to be on the side of the Black Guys.

But this group is not about two different focuses as you point out
above.

[Simpleton]

Define "extremely irrational behavior of some Christians", PD.

[Simpleton]

On Feb 16, 7:22 am, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 11:24 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > When I say I know a scientific
> > fact, generally I have not conducted the necessary experiments
> > to verify it.
>
> That doesn't mean you can't. It just means you're too unmotivated to
> do them. I've done many experiments myself to test what I say. You can
> too.

You should probably elaborate on this a lot more, Sal.

After all "Well, you too can trust the people I trusted, you are just
unmotivated"

[Walt]

You have a point, but I think faith and trust are more similar
concepts than you do.

>
> > When I say I know a scientific
> > fact, generally I have not conducted the necessary experiments
> > to verify it.
>
> That doesn't mean you can't. It just means you're too unmotivated to
> do them. I've done many experiments myself to test what I say. You can
> too.

Do you know when it's my turn to have the particle accelerator?

>
> > I say I know it based on faith in the
> > institution of science,
>
> That is not faith.
>
> > because of principles like repeatability,
> > and that no authority is so high that it's claims cannot
> > be subjected to verification.
>
> > A big part of the rational for religious institutions like
> > Islam or the Catholic church is that every member receives
> > and passes on witness to God that orginally came from
> > people who say they experienced God with their five senses.
>
> And if someone demonstrates this, or that they themselves have
> experienced God with their five senses, I'd be happy to consider it.
> Until then: No reason to believe, any more than there is a reason to
> believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Well of course people claim to communicate with God all
the time. But then the stuff they say God told them is
not very useful. Suspicious, since somebody who's
all-knowing ought to be able to say something useful
or at least extremely interesting.

Can you say categorically that the New Testament did
not ultimately have some positive effect on human history?
Am I totally off base to say that, with the possible exception
of Japan, all of the countries that are most desirable to
live in have a strong Christian background?

The Bible is as much a work of literature as it is a
work of philosophy. The stories of the Bible touch
on many topics that are not dealt with explicitly or
analyzed philosophically.

I would say that art as well as science is a valid
part of the human effort to understand our
existence. But I admit I can't give a clear, logical
justification for that belief.

Did any book on philosophy or poltical science do
as much to help as many people understand the
evils of totalitarianism as "1984"?

>
> > A side point that some of the posters to
> > this group may want to think about:
> > the institution of science has on occasion
> > created widespread belief in falsehoods.
> > This often was the result of promenent
> > scientists being overbearing and having
> > contempt for the opinions of others.
>

> Such as?- Hide quoted text -

Knowledge of a person's character and
intellect can be gotten by examining
the pattern of bumps on their skull. Sampling
of skull bump patterns in the population show
that caucasians are distinct from other
races and superior in character and intellect.

[Simpleton]

By examining the balance of evidence. That's the way I do it. More
evidence in favor of, and less or none against leads me to accept
something as true. Evidence that I can share with others and have
them accept it likewise is a reinforcement that I examined it
correctly.

This requires observation, reasoning, logical deduction, at times
temporarily accepting a stance to see how the scenarios unfolds based
on accepting the stance, etc.

Sometimes it is not possible to make a determination, because there is
scant or rather conflicting evidence. Sometimes it is trivial to do
so even when there is no evidence, it depends on the claim.

If you must have a specific definition of evidence, consider what
passes for evidence in a courtroom.

How about you?

[rappoccio]

You wouldn't.

Next question ;)

[rappoccio]

Well, it's still on topic, we can make a group about "extremely
liberal Christians vs atheists" or something but I think it would be
much less populous.

[rappoccio]

Thank you.

[rappoccio]

Okay.

The differences between religious faith and "trust" in science, are
that in principle, you can always test the predictions of science. The
same cannot be done for God. This "test" is not possible. Therefore it
REQUIRES faith to believe in God, but it doesn't require faith to have
trust in science.

[rappoccio]

I don't.

>
>
>
> > > When I say I know a scientific
> > > fact, generally I have not conducted the necessary experiments
> > > to verify it.
>
> > That doesn't mean you can't. It just means you're too unmotivated to
> > do them. I've done many experiments myself to test what I say. You can
> > too.
>
> Do you know when it's my turn to have the particle accelerator?

You're free to head right over to graduate school and we'll hook you
up today if you so desired. We need plenty of help getting it
working.

>
>
>
>
> > > I say I know it based on faith in the
> > > institution of science,
>
> > That is not faith.
>
> > > because of principles like repeatability,
> > > and that no authority is so high that it's claims cannot
> > > be subjected to verification.
>
> > > A big part of the rational for religious institutions like
> > > Islam or the Catholic church is that every member receives
> > > and passes on witness to God that orginally came from
> > > people who say they experienced God with their five senses.
>
> > And if someone demonstrates this, or that they themselves have
> > experienced God with their five senses, I'd be happy to consider it.
> > Until then: No reason to believe, any more than there is a reason to
> > believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden.
>
> Well of course people claim to communicate with God all
> the time. But then the stuff they say God told them is
> not very useful. Suspicious, since somebody who's
> all-knowing ought to be able to say something useful
> or at least extremely interesting.
>
> Can you say categorically that the New Testament did
> not ultimately have some positive effect on human history?

I'm not able to go back and take it away to see if there is a
definitive positive effect.

> Am I totally off base to say that, with the possible exception
> of Japan, all of the countries that are most desirable to
> live in have a strong Christian background?

That's because the places that are "most desirable" to live are either
in Europe, or colonized by Europeans. So?

I think people were aware of the dangers of totalitarianism well
before that.

>
>
> > > A side point that some of the posters to
> > > this group may want to think about:
> > > the institution of science has on occasion
> > > created widespread belief in falsehoods.
> > > This often was the result of promenent
> > > scientists being overbearing and having
> > > contempt for the opinions of others.
>
> > Such as?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Knowledge of a person's character and
> intellect can be gotten by examining
> the pattern of bumps on their skull.

Do you have any actual scientists that believe this?

> Sampling
> of skull bump patterns in the population show
> that caucasians are distinct from other
> races and superior in character and intellect.

or this?

[scooter]

I think those behaviors are completly relevant for the simple reason
that they are symptomatic of a groups core. IOW, those "irrational
behaviors" are a result of the social movement as a whole. Collective
behavior is the sum result of the group's characteristics.


>
> PD- Hide quoted text -

[Multiverse]

Can you say categorically that the New Testament did
not ultimately have some positive effect on human history?
Am I totally off base to say that, with the possible exception
of Japan, all of the countries that are most desirable to
live in have a strong Christian background?

not much of a traveler eh?

>The Bible is as much a work of literature as it is a
>work of philosophy. The stories of the Bible touch
>on many topics that are not dealt with explicitly or
>analyzed philosophically.

are you sure nobody's looked at the bible philosophically? It is a
fairly popular book I understand.

>Did any book on philosophy or political science do

>as much to help as many people understand the
>evils of totalitarianism as "1984"?

well considering the fact that "1984" is a novel then the answer is
yes; people who learned about real totalitarian governments read other
things that are based in fact. Great fictional comparison to the
bible I guess.

> Knowledge of a person's character and
> intellect can be gotten by examining
> the pattern of bumps on their skull. Sampling
> of skull bump patterns in the population show
> that caucasians are distinct from other
> races and superior in character and intellect.

do tell!

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Simpleton]

On Feb 16, 5:36 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Knowledge of a person's character and
> > intellect can be gotten by examining
> > the pattern of bumps on their skull. Sampling
> > of skull bump patterns in the population show
> > that caucasians are distinct from other
> > races and superior in character and intellect.
>
> do tell!
>

I think I made a mistake, and it appears you have too. I do not think
Walt is furthering that stance, simply providing an example of how
overbearing scientists advance bad notions.

I have withdrawn my remarks to it, and I apologize to Walt for
misconstruing it as his stance.

[rappoccio]

Here's the thing, though. The argument of a scientist should stand on
its own merits. Just because a Stephen Hawking says it, doesn't mean
it's true. It's true if it stands evidenciary tests. If a person like
Lysenko gets things like Lamarckian evolution taught because the
leadership says it's a better political tool, that should be viewed as
an abuse. And it wasn't taken seriously by the scientific community in
any case.

[Multiverse]

well appreciate the kick in the pants simpleton. I hate it when I do
that and my apologies also.

How can I make this right-

How bout a joke.

Did ya'll hear that one about the atheist in the woods? He got
attacked by a grizzy bear and as all else failed he screamed out to
God please hep me! God pushed the pause button cause, he god n all,
and said child you have denied me your whole life I think I wont hep
you! atheist said please god! could you make the grizzy bear a
christian at least? Very well came the booming voice as he hit the
play button. Grizzy bear got down on his knees and said, bless this
food which I am about to receive!!

cmon now it don't matter what your position is that's a funny one!

[Simpleton]

Yes, I realize that is a good point. (Stalin was a Lamarckian
advocate, as an aside)

My problem was that I mistook what Walt was citing as an example
(phrenology) to be his personal stance.

For that I apologize again to Walt.

I am still waiting for people to demonstrate methods other than
observation/empiricism/rational thought/logic/deduction etc, of
acquiring knowledge.

Heck I already know that these can have faults.

When do we get to the good stuff?

[rappoccio]

Which is why Lysenko had a job ;)

> My problem was that I mistook what Walt was citing as an example
> (phrenology) to be his personal stance.
>
> For that I apologize again to Walt.

Ah, okay, I apologize as well, for I thought that too.

> I am still waiting for people to demonstrate methods other than
> observation/empiricism/rational thought/logic/deduction etc, of
> acquiring knowledge.

Me too....

> Heck I already know that these can have faults.
>
> When do we get to the good stuff?

Hopefully soon ;)

[Observer]

Observer
An "article of subjective knowledge" is simply a function of
imagination.

It is the conjured extrapolation from one's own experientially
acquired but necessarily fictive impressions (mental models) of his/
her world.

Such extrapolations are (what ifs) that are often falsely translated
into concepts of what is. Viola a belief is born.

There exists no substantiation for a subjective experience, which is
not simply the play of imagination.

The electrochemistry of the brain is altered by imagined as conditions
as by physical conditions.

The emission of peptides and other chemicals produce emotional
sensations as in an actual (objective) experience. This tends to
reinforce the belief that the subjective (Imaginary) experience or
"knowledge" is valid.

I challenge any one to offer verification that subjective experience
is not completely the construct of imagination.

In short, "subjective knowledge" is just a voodoo concept.


Regards

Psychonomist

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 15, 4:11 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So the epistemology that we all share is that observation and reason
> gives us information about the world we inhabit.

Two notes:

* Observation is fallible
* Reason is fallible

The syncretic union of the two that you articulate (observation U
reason) has the fallibilities of the union of the two concepts. These
two facts alone make your epistemology (observation U reason) not
tenable.

> They're also enormously successful at
> solving problems,

"They're successful at solving certain classes of problems" is much
more accurate. And in fact, they're often quite good at telling us
their limitations:[1]

3) Observation has very specific limitations as an epistemology
4) Finite observations over an arbitrarily unbounded event space
cannot establish objective truth
7) Scientific consensus is neither science nor consensus
9) Observation is not sufficient to establish normative behavior
10) As sensory perceptions are not objectively certain, relying on
them to establish objective truth is not tenable.

> as evidenced by the fact that as soon as they became
> "in vogue" to apply to scientific phenomena, we went from a quality of
> life associated with hunter-gatherers to a tripled life expectancy and
> health benefits, as well as having deduced information about our
> universe from times microseconds after its inception to the distant
> future, from tiny subatomic particles to enormous galaxial
> formations.

You've left out that science, reason and empirical methods have
fundamental limitations and are open to abuse and misrepresentation
(such as Drake's equation[2], significant "consensus truth" about
global warming[3], assessing ecological impacts of humanitarian
disasters[4])

> There is a secondary epistemology that applies to religion that claims
> to be of use. This is the so-called "divine intervention"
> epistemology, for lack of a better word. That is, that God plants
> information in our brains (don't bother asking how this happens, when
> it happens, or what was implanted, you'll get the run around) that was
> not arrived at via observation or reason.

I think the appropriate claim I've consistently made is:

5) Divine revelation is not limited by the peripatetic axiom

Which is not the same as what you articulated:

"God plants information ... that was not arrived at via observation or
reason"

Interestingly, in criticizing "divine revelation" you presume
implicitly here that your epistemology (observation U reason) accounts
for all information/knowledge ...

> Let's focus on the actual decisions one would make based on this
> "input" that allegedly comes from God.
>
> The ultimate question is: How does one determine whether the input
> they are receiving is from God, or from oneself?
>

> I propose that there is no way to do this.

So lets recap. You criticize Christians because they claim something
is outside "observation U reason":

"God plants information ... that was not arrived at via observation or
reason"

Then you allow yourself to make the very same claim, stating that your
"ulitmate question" cannot be resolved by "observation U reason":

"I propose that there is no way to do this."

This is a contradiction and a double standard. Down comes the house
of cards that you call "observation U reason".

> I think that everyone else
> subconsciously agrees,

And now you claim "observation U reason" has allowed you to measure
and examine everyone else's subconscious. You've allocated yourself
some pretty super powers here. :)

> Every single "moral directive" given to people allegedly from God is
> ambiguous. They are indistinguishable from subconscious processes and
> desires.

Wow, the cognitive psychologists I know would love to learn from you
how you've been able to map all knowledge acquisition processes to
elements of "observation U reason". Then the cognitive psychology
programs at all the universities can shutdown their ongoing research
and move on to other problems.

> People examine them and determine, based on their own
> prejudices and biases, whether or not the "directive" is actually
> designed from God or not.

Interesting. So when you use your subconscious processes and desires
you come up with a theory of knowledge (reason U observation); but
when other people use their subconscious processes and desires they
come up with prejuidice and bias.

Isn't (by Ockham's razor) the simpler conclusion that your
epistemology (observation U reason) is just like every other humans:
prejudice and bias? :)

> This means that this epistemology of determining truth via religion is
> useless and futile.

It means the epistemology you use to evaluate this is not tenable.

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_undecidable_problems
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
[3] http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html
[4] http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-complexity.html

[rappoccio]

On Feb 16, 11:37 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 4:11 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So the epistemology that we all share is that observation and reason
> > gives us information about the world we inhabit.
>
> Two notes:
>
> * Observation is fallible
> * Reason is fallible

The Bible is more fallible. Therefore your epistemology is useless.
You also use both observation and reason to attain information,
however you claim there is something outside of both that exists, but
you haven't demonstrated. Please do so.

> The syncretic union of the two that you articulate (observation U
> reason) has the fallibilities of the union of the two concepts. These
> two facts alone make your epistemology (observation U reason) not
> tenable.

Yet you still use it and haven't demonstrated that you obtain
information in any other way. Reason and observation wielded by humans
is sometimes fallible. Just like you interpreting the Bible, and
therefore your reading is fallible and therefore untenable according
to your own counterargument. So, we can say with certainty, that if
"reason and observation" are fallible enough that we cannot make
decisions based on them, that your epistemology shatters to pieces.
However you haven't shown WHAT reason and observation is fallible,
you're just claiming that it might be so you treat it as though my
reason is fallible, but yours is not. Therefore you defeat your own
argument.


You have NOT answered the questions in my post. I am going to ask
again, since you never answered:

[Simpleton]

On Feb 16, 10:21 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> "The ultimate question is: How does one determine whether the input
> they are receiving is from God, or from oneself?"

You know that you are asking this of BO, who is empty. I hope you're
proud of yourself, PhysicsBoy!

[rappoccio]

I'll be even prouder if I get him to answer! :)

[Simpleton]

That's hardly a challenge! Get him to *respond* and I'll owe you a
Bushmill's Black.

[Multiverse]

> Two notes:
>
> * Observation is fallible
> * Reason is fallible

to the degree of measurement perhaps. how about no observation? Is
that fallible? How about unreasonable reason? Is it reasonable to
incorporate prejudicial reasoning into your reason? clear to see
who's observations and reason are the fallible of the two.

> "They're successful at solving certain classes of problems" is much
> more accurate. And in fact, they're often quite good at telling us
> their limitations:[1]

yes in a clear and concise manager perhaps? what problems are solved
via no observation using unreasonable reason?

>3) Observation has very specific limitations as an epistemology
>4) Finite observations over an arbitrarily unbounded event space
>cannot establish objective truth

so make no attempt?

>7) Scientific consensus is neither science nor consensus

i think your misrepresenting here

>9) Observation is not sufficient to establish normative behavior
>10) As sensory perceptions are not objectively certain, relying on
>them to establish objective truth is not tenable.

aren't these the perceptions used when people have experiences with
gods? Like vision and sound?

and so,... no truth is knowable, equals there is a god?

> You've left out that science, reason and empirical methods have
> fundamental limitations and are open to abuse and misrepresentation

anything is open to abuse and misrepresentations especially phony
shamanistic religious beliefs.

> (such as Drake's equation[2],

go read it again and see that your free to use it anyway you want

significant "consensus truth" about
> global warming[3],

how is this being abused and misrepresented?

assessing ecological impacts of humanitarian
> disasters[4])

how? where? what?

>I think the appropriate claim I've consistently made is:

>5) Divine revelation is not limited by the peripatetic axiom

course not. but the peripatetic axiom is junk verbiage.

>Then you allow yourself to make the very same claim, stating that your

>"ultimate question" cannot be resolved by "observation U reason":

so what don't you understand?

And now you claim "observation U reason" has allowed you to measure

and examine everyone Else's subconscious. You've allocated yourself

some pretty super powers here. :)

not fond of personal opinions? or would you like to claim this is
being offered as fact arrived at scientifically?

>Wow, the cognitive psychologists I know would love to learn from you
>how you've been able to map all knowledge acquisition processes to
>elements of "observation U reason". Then the cognitive psychology
>programs at all the universities can shutdown their ongoing research
>and move on to other problems.

so what....are they measuring the amount of god stuff put in before
sensory knowledge input? why didn't you just say so. lets see it.

>Interesting. So when you use your subconscious processes and desires
>you come up with a theory of knowledge (reason U observation); but
>when other people use their subconscious processes and desires they

>come up with prejudice and bias.

regardless of what you think they are using, they come up with allot
worse than that:)

>Isn't (by Occam's razor) the simpler conclusion that your

>epistemology (observation U reason) is just like every other humans:
>prejudice and bias? :)

no that would be your opinion based on your faulty beliefs and
interpretations which are abundant and defy Occam's' razor on their
own.

----Remember, if gravity is the rule we must all live by, count me as
one of them freedom fighters! Skydive!

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 17, 2008, at 2:54 AM, Multiverse wrote:

>
>> Two notes:
>>
>> * Observation is fallible
>> * Reason is fallible
>
> to the degree of measurement perhaps.

Its worse than that. See my points below.

> how about no observation? Is
> that fallible? How about unreasonable reason? Is it reasonable to
> incorporate prejudicial reasoning into your reason? clear to see
> who's observations and reason are the fallible of the two.

The point is, observation and reason are fallible separately, and as
the basis of an epistemology, their union contains all the limitations
of each. There are tremendous implications for this.

Can all knowledge be known via "observation U reason"? If not, how
firm are the claims that state:

* "It is likely that God does not exist because I cannot measure His
existence by "observation U reason""

I'll give you a hint, its not firm at all. :)

>
>> "They're successful at solving certain classes of problems" is much
>> more accurate. And in fact, they're often quite good at telling us
>> their limitations:[1]
>
> yes in a clear and concise manager perhaps? what problems are solved
> via no observation using unreasonable reason?

Well, using "observation U reason" you have no way of enumerating this,
do you?

>> 3) Observation has very specific limitations as an epistemology
>> 4) Finite observations over an arbitrarily unbounded event space
>> cannot establish objective truth
>
> so make no attempt?

Don't rely on "observation U reason" past what its clear and distinct
limitations are. :)

>> 7) Scientific consensus is neither science nor consensus
>
> i think your misrepresenting here

Please elaborate.

>> 9) Observation is not sufficient to establish normative behavior
>> 10) As sensory perceptions are not objectively certain, relying on
>> them to establish objective truth is not tenable.
>
> aren't these the perceptions used when people have experiences with
> gods? Like vision and sound?
>
> and so,... no truth is knowable, equals there is a god?

If "observation U reason" is not sufficient to establish objective
normative behavior, then don't use it to make objective normative
claims.

>> You've left out that science, reason and empirical methods have
>> fundamental limitations and are open to abuse and misrepresentation
>
> anything is open to abuse and misrepresentations especially phony
> shamanistic religious beliefs.

You've taken my point. :)

>> (such as Drake's equation[2],
>
> go read it again and see that your free to use it anyway you want

?

> significant "consensus truth" about
>> global warming[3],
>
> how is this being abused and misrepresented?

See the link for an example. :)

> assessing ecological impacts of humanitarian
>> disasters[4])
>
> how? where? what?

See the link for an example. :)

>> I think the appropriate claim I've consistently made is:
>
>> 5) Divine revelation is not limited by the peripatetic axiom
>
> course not. but the peripatetic axiom is junk verbiage.

Its one half of the "observation U reason" equation articulated.

>> Then you allow yourself to make the very same claim, stating that your
>> "ultimate question" cannot be resolved by "observation U reason":
>
> so what don't you understand?

The premise of his epistemology is "observation U reason" are the best
ways to arrive at knowledge. He criticizes Christian beliefs that do
not use his method. Then he proposes a question for which his own
method cannot arrive at an answer. Double standard.

> And now you claim "observation U reason" has allowed you to measure
> and examine everyone Else's subconscious.

No I didn't. :)

> not fond of personal opinions? or would you like to claim this is
> being offered as fact arrived at scientifically?

That is the point of "observation U reason". He does no better than
Thomas Nagel, who writes a book about the superiority of "objectivism"
to "subjectivism", then allows himself to subjectively note:

"It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that
I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want
there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."[1]

>> Wow, the cognitive psychologists I know would love to learn from you
>> how you've been able to map all knowledge acquisition processes to
>> elements of "observation U reason". Then the cognitive psychology
>> programs at all the universities can shutdown their ongoing research
>> and move on to other problems.
>
> so what....are they measuring the amount of god stuff put in before
> sensory knowledge input? why didn't you just say so. lets see it.

The point is, using "observation U reason" is not tenable. The
epistemology is limited by the limited nature of its component pieces,
observation and reason. So when the epistemology is applied to
questions outside of its limitations, the conclusions are not tenable.

>> Isn't (by Occam's razor) the simpler conclusion that your
>> epistemology (observation U reason) is just like every other humans:
>> prejudice and bias? :)
>
> no that would be your opinion based on your faulty beliefs and
> interpretations which are abundant and defy Occam's' razor on their
> own.

Ah, analysis by tribalism. Not tenable. :)

> ----Remember, if gravity is the rule we must all live by, count me as
> one of them freedom fighters! Skydive!

Um, skydivers are still subjected to the rule of gravity during their
jump. :)

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Last-Word-Thomas-Nagel/dp/0195108345

[rappoccio]

I meant answer the actual question :)

[Walt]

> When do we get to the good stuff?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

To try and summarize, we've identified two possible
sources of religious belief/faith:

1. Some sort of "telepathic" direct communication
with God. Where in no cause has the communication
been shown to be provably practical. For example,
there is no authenticated diary from 1982 that says
"God told me to buy stock in Microsoft".

2. Faith (unverifyable trust) in religious groups
that say they were founded by people who experienced

God with their five senses.

I am also very uncomfortable with #1. Take Christians
who feel they have a personal relationship with
God. Then remember the Bible story of Abraham's
near-sacrifice of his son. The moral of that story is that,
if God is telling you to do something that is morally
abhorent, do it anyway and God will ensure a
happy ending. I don't think this particular Bible
story made it into the Quran, but if it had, it
might have been one of Mohammed Atta's
favorites.

Maybe it would be better to compare #2 to
history rather science. Obviously there is
no way you can verify first-hand that, say,
the Holocaust happened. But there are
multiple souces that give evidence of it, with
no apparent motivation for all of them to
collude in a lie. And those who deny the
Holocaust have been shown to be neo-nazis
and/or to rely on junk science. So it's more
rational to believe the Holocaust occurred
than to believe that Jesus rose from the
dead. But both beliefs cannot be verified
first-hand.

When you read in a history book that
Nazi Germany lost WWII, it makes sense
to you, since you really can't remember the
last time you goose-stepped. A lot of
what the Bible says about Jesus is
just bizzare. But there are also glimpses
of someone a bit like those teachers that
you loved and hated. The ones who are
dying to see you learn to think for yourself,
who coyly throw out illustrative examples
and the occassional intriguing insight
just to keep your wandering attention.
So there is a little there to make you
suspect that there's something to this
Christianity stuff.

[Multiverse]

> The point is, observation and reason are fallible separately, and as
> the basis of an epistemology, their union contains all the limitations
> of each. There are tremendous implications for this.

> Can all knowledge be known via "observation U reason"? If not, how
> firm are the claims that state:
>
> * "It is likely that God does not exist because I cannot measure His
> existence by "observation U reason""

That's a misrepresentation. its not the premise of the post but the
argument you want make about its use. Your position is how could you
not believe in god because you cannot see him. oh what faulty
reasoning. observation and reason being fallible separately does
not mean they can't be used together.

> Well, using "observation U reason" you have no way of enumerating this,
> do you?

try not to answer question with question. offer something of
substance. Ill restate the question. what problems are solved using
no observation and unreasonable reason. I'll give you a
hint,...none. that's a short list.

> Don't rely on "observation U reason" past what its clear and distinct
> limitations are. :)

you should just try to use it in the first place. Ill use it however
I please. freedom of thought is cool you should try it. you should
not place false restrictions on the capabilities of observation and
reason just because you don;t like the implications. its not very
honest or helpful to yourself of anyone.

> >> 7) Scientific consensus is neither science nor consensus
>
> > i think your misrepresenting here

I was hoping you would so I could. I dont particularly care for
definition debates however the term scientific consensus is easily
described as an "opinion" of what scientific studies have revealed
about something. you might hear a reporter say "scientific
consensus" is such and such...... So it appears as if your just
making disparaging comments about "science" just for shits and grins.
but feel free to elaborate it should be fun.

> If "observation U reason" is not sufficient to establish objective
> normative behavior, then don't use it to make objective normative
> claims.

what do you know about objective anything? are you referring to
opinions rendered here? no need to phrase things like that other than
to misrepresent. why do you have a fear of opinions so?

> > anything is open to abuse and misrepresentations especially phony
> > shamanistic religious beliefs.
>
> You've taken my point. :)

there's no limit to that which you will misrepresent is there? have
you made some revelation here as to "things" being open to abuse and
misrepresentation? that's why your supposed to use "observation and
reason" in decision making. You do it weather you like it or not,
just not so much on this thread it appears.

you didn't answer this: > and so,... no truth is knowable, equals
there is a god?

>> (such as Drake's equation[2],

> go read it again and see that your free to use it anyway you want

>?

I cant help you if you don't ask a question. what part of drakes
equation don't you understand? or specifically explain how its being
abused and misrepresented since the user is free to use it any way
they want. apply some observation and reason.

> > significant "consensus truth" about
> >> global warming[3],
>
> > how is this being abused and misrepresented?
>
> See the link for an example. :)
>
> > assessing ecological impacts of humanitarian
> >> disasters[4])
>
> > how? where? what?
>
> See the link for an example. :)

link was to an amazon web site for the book on nigel. thanks but i
can take care of my online shopping needs.

you didn't answer my questions. it would be good to explain your
examples and give link for further follow up that way the question is
answered directly at least and if I have doubts of the veracity of
such claims I can check the link out.

>> 5) Divine revelation is not limited by the peripatetic axiom

> course not. but the peripatetic axiom is junk verbiage.

>Its one half of the "observation U reason" equation articulated.

really? where does it say that? that's just your belief, which you
need to justify a ridiculous religious belief system.

> so what don't you understand?

>The premise of his epistemology is "observation U reason" are the best
>ways to arrive at knowledge. He criticizes Christian beliefs that do
>not use his method. Then he proposes a question for which his own
>method cannot arrive at an answer. Double standard.

no,...its a juxtaposition of two different methods. observation and
reason based decision making v decision making based on knowledge
input by a god. your completely misrepresenting the point of the post
which is not asking questions per se but providing information. there
is no double standard.

> > not fond of personal opinions? or would you like to claim this is
> > being offered as fact arrived at scientifically?
>
> That is the point of "observation U reason". He does no better than
> Thomas Nagel, who writes a book about the superiority of "objectivism"
> to "subjectivism", then allows himself to subjectively note:
>
> "It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that
> I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want
> there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."[1]

other than pointing out that you read a book, and that you'd like to
incorporate a statement about having read the book; could you explain
why your dislike of Mr. Nagel's comments about god have any useful
input to this conversation? Just more disparaging remarks for that
sake only as there is no connection.

> >> Wow, the cognitive psychologists I know would love to learn from you
> >> how you've been able to map all knowledge acquisition processes to
> >> elements of "observation U reason". Then the cognitive psychology
> >> programs at all the universities can shutdown their ongoing research
> >> and move on to other problems.
>
> > so what....are they measuring the amount of god stuff put in before
> > sensory knowledge input? why didn't you just say so. lets see it.
>
> The point is, using "observation U reason" is not tenable. The
> epistemology is limited by the limited nature of its component pieces,
> observation and reason. So when the epistemology is applied to
> questions outside of its limitations, the conclusions are not tenable.

oh,..... because you were talking about cognitive psychologists at all
the universities but feel free to believe anyone could accurately
equate those statements to the latter statement about the point.

what conclusions? or do you just want to say you cant conclude god
does not exist because you say he is outside the realm of observation
and reason? but, that's not the discussion even though anyone is free
to conclude anything they want and basing decision on observations and
reason are are far sight more sensible than basing them on
superstition and some wacky book. For purposes of reality observation
and reason leaves way less than you purport outside of its
limitations. try using it you may see the light.

> >> Isn't (by Occam's razor) the simpler conclusion that your
> >> epistemology (observation U reason) is just like every other humans:
> >> prejudice and bias? :)
>
> > no that would be your opinion based on your faulty beliefs and
> > interpretations which are abundant and defy Occam's' razor on their
> > own.
>
> Ah, analysis by tribalism. Not tenable. :)

Denial. the first step is admission just keep that in mind.

> > ----Remember, if gravity is the rule we must all live by, count me as
> > one of them freedom fighters! Skydive!
>
> Um, skydivers are still subjected to the rule of gravity during their
> jump. :)

obviously your not a skydiver either. :)

[Multiverse]

> Maybe it would be better to compare #2 to
> history rather science. Obviously there is
> no way you can verify first-hand that, say,
> the Holocaust happened. But there are
> multiple souces that give evidence of it, with
> no apparent motivation for all of them to
> collude in a lie. And those who deny the
> Holocaust have been shown to be neo-nazis
> and/or to rely on junk science. So it's more
> rational to believe the Holocaust occurred
> than to believe that Jesus rose from the
> dead. But both beliefs cannot be verified
> first-hand.

BS. there are still people alive who witnessed and experienced the
holocaust. its already been verified firsthand.

>A lot of
> what the Bible says about Jesus is
> just bizzare.

very well said.

> So there is a little there to make you
> suspect that there's something to this
> Christianity stuff.

yes its bizarre.

> Christianity stuff.- Hide quoted text -

[Walt]

On Feb 16, 3:35 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 1:27 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

>
> > Am I totally off base to say that, with the possible exception
> > of Japan, all of the countries that are most desirable to
> > live in have a strong Christian background?
>
> That's because the places that are "most desirable" to live are either
> in Europe, or colonized by Europeans. So?

...

Let me go at this a different way. Europeans, as Christians, have
long believed that God, for the benefit of every person, chose
to endure horrible suffering as though he were the lowest of
persons. And it was in Europe that political systems based
on the value of every individual first took solid root. Pure
coincidence?

Of course, it's very possible that a clever person, who
understood the value of human equality (way before
it's time), could have also give in to the desire for wish-
fulfillement,
believed in God, and written a book with both things in it.

All I'm trying to say is that Christians are not leaping
all the way across the canyon to their beliefs. There
are a few arguments that give them a bit of ledge to
walk out on, making for a somewhat shorter leap.

And we should all recognize that we live with the
uncertainty of relying on second-hand information
for many important choices/beliefs. The only way
you know who your daddy is ís 'cause your mama
told you (unless you went on Maury and took the
DNA test).

[Simpleton]

I had and have no problems accepting that the two sources you cite
lead to religious belief/faith in people. Heck, I think that it leads
to irreligious belief/faith just as readily.

Neither that, nor your arguments based on that are remotely persuasive
though, given that there are countless accounts of other events that a
Christian will not trust.

Truth mixed with fiction does not make the whole thing true. (or
false).

But at least you are willing to state the position you were reluctant
to do so before:

"So it's more rational to believe the Holocaust occurred than to
believe that Jesus rose from the dead. But both beliefs cannot be
verified first-hand."

I could dispute the last sentence since there are Holocaust survivors
even today, but that is a technicality, not germane to your point.

You correctly point out that it is more rational to believe that the

Holocaust occurred than to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

The question has been, how do you go about determining as knowledge
then, that Jesus rose from the dead?

The four gospels, for example, do not do the trick.

I'd ask you to look at the virgin birth instead. Think about all the
evidence that exists for that claim. Ask yourself *how* it could be
possible for the people claiming the event to be true to know. Think
about how old they would have to be to be first-hand witnesses. Think
about what the society was at the time, if the old Jewish law was
still in effect, how they would be expected to treat a woman who
clearly was impregnated out of wedlock, etc.

Most people who accept it seem to do so by trusting someone who seems
to be claiming a Category #1 encounter as you put it. Something that
you say you are quite unwilling to trust.

Thus far I only see what Rappoccio identifies as blind faith.

[scooter]

Yes, Crock uses observation and reason to determine that observation
and reason are fallible. He humorously uses footnotes like they lend
credibility to his position. Maybe he thinks that because he says
"reason and observation are fallible", that his reason and
observations are immune to fallibility. In any case, he discredits his
own argument and then procedes to make wild assertions about "divine
revelation" that are completly unrelated.

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 17, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Multiverse wrote:

>
>> The point is, observation and reason are fallible separately, and as
>> the basis of an epistemology, their union contains all the limitations
>> of each. There are tremendous implications for this.
>
>> Can all knowledge be known via "observation U reason"? If not, how
>> firm are the claims that state:
>>
>> * "It is likely that God does not exist because I cannot measure His
>> existence by "observation U reason""
>
> That's a misrepresentation.

How?

> its not the premise of the post but the
> argument you want make about its use.

His own words:

"So the epistemology that we all share is that observation and reason "

> Your position is how could you

> not believe in god because you cannot see him.

No my position is:

* Observation is fallible
* Reason is fallible

* "observation U reason" is fallible

> oh what faulty
> reasoning. observation and reason being fallible separately does
> not mean they can't be used together.

I noted:

The syncretic union of the two methods that rappoccio articulates

(observation U
reason) has the fallibilities of the union of the two concepts.

>> Well, using "observation U reason" you have no way of enumerating

>> this,
>> do you?
>
> try not to answer question with question.

Ok. Using "observation U reason", you have no way of enumerating this.

> offer something of
> substance. Ill restate the question. what problems are solved using
> no observation and unreasonable reason. I'll give you a
> hint,...none. that's a short list.

More accurately, "observation U reason" cannot adequately qualify
propositions that fall outside of its limitations.

>> Don't rely on "observation U reason" past what its clear and distinct
>> limitations are. :)
>
> you should just try to use it in the first place. Ill use it however
> I please. freedom of thought is cool you should try it. you should
> not place false restrictions on the capabilities of observation and
> reason just because you don;t like the implications. its not very
> honest or helpful to yourself of anyone.

The restrictions are not false or illusory, they are real and
practical. :)

>>>> 7) Scientific consensus is neither science nor consensus
>>
>>> i think your misrepresenting here
>

> I was hoping you would so I could.

?

> I dont particularly care for
> definition debates however the term scientific consensus is easily
> described as an "opinion" of what scientific studies have revealed
> about something. you might hear a reporter say "scientific
> consensus" is such and such...... So it appears as if your just
> making disparaging comments about "science" just for shits and grins.
> but feel free to elaborate it should be fun.

I did elaborate. (See footnotes)

> have
> you made some revelation here as to "things" being open to abuse and
> misrepresentation? that's why your supposed to use "observation and
> reason" in decision making. You do it weather you like it or not,
> just not so much on this thread it appears.

If "observation U reason" is not suffficient to establish objective

normative behavior, then don't use it to make objective normative

claims. :)

> you didn't answer this: > and so,... no truth is knowable, equals
> there is a god?

I didn't think I needed to. The premise of his epistemology is that
"observation U reason" is the best method to arrive at knowledge. He
criticizes Christian beliefs that do not use his method, but then
proposes a question for which his own method is inadequate to provide
an answer. Which is a double standard.

> I cant help you if you don't ask a question. what part of drakes
> equation don't you understand? or specifically explain how its being
> abused and misrepresented since the user is free to use it any way
> they want. apply some observation and reason.

(See footnote)

>> course not. but the peripatetic axiom is junk verbiage.
>
>> Its one half of the "observation U reason" equation articulated.
>
> really? where does it say that? that's just your belief, which you
> need to justify a ridiculous religious belief system.

observation implies peripatetic measurement.

>> so what don't you understand?
>
>> The premise of his epistemology is "observation U reason" are the best
>> ways to arrive at knowledge. He criticizes Christian beliefs that do
>> not use his method. Then he proposes a question for which his own
>> method cannot arrive at an answer. Double standard.
>
> no,...its a juxtaposition of two different methods. observation and
> reason based decision making v decision making based on knowledge
> input by a god. your completely misrepresenting the point of the post
> which is not asking questions per se but providing information. there
> is no double standard.

Sure there is. He's judging a standard he disagrees with, using his
own standard to base the judgment on. Of course, the standard by which
he judges the other standard is based on concepts that are quantifiably
fallible. So I disagree that using his standard he can effectively and
objectively evaluate the opposing standard.

>>> not fond of personal opinions? or would you like to claim this is
>>> being offered as fact arrived at scientifically?
>>
>> That is the point of "observation U reason". He does no better than
>> Thomas Nagel, who writes a book about the superiority of "objectivism"
>> to "subjectivism", then allows himself to subjectively note:
>>
>> "It isn't just that I don't believe in God and, naturally, hope that
>> I'm right in my belief. It's that I hope there is no God! I don't want
>> there to be a God; I don't want the universe to be like that."[1]
>
> other than pointing out that you read a book, and that you'd like to
> incorporate a statement about having read the book; could you explain
> why your dislike of Mr. Nagel's comments about god have any useful
> input to this conversation? Just more disparaging remarks for that
> sake only as there is no connection.

The connection is clear and direct.

>>>> Wow, the cognitive psychologists I know would love to learn from you
>>>> how you've been able to map all knowledge acquisition processes to
>>>> elements of "observation U reason". Then the cognitive psychology
>>>> programs at all the universities can shutdown their ongoing research
>>>> and move on to other problems.
>>
>>> so what....are they measuring the amount of god stuff put in before
>>> sensory knowledge input? why didn't you just say so. lets see it.
>>
>> The point is, using "observation U reason" is not tenable. The
>> epistemology is limited by the limited nature of its component pieces,
>> observation and reason. So when the epistemology is applied to
>> questions outside of its limitations, the conclusions are not tenable.
>
>
> oh,..... because you were talking about cognitive psychologists at all
> the universities but feel free to believe anyone could accurately
> equate those statements to the latter statement about the point.

Sure, the point is "observation U reason" is not tenable. The claim is:

"Every single "moral directive" given to people allegedly from God is
ambiguous. They are indistinguishable from subconscious processes and

desires. People examine them and determine, based on their own

prejudices and biases, whether or not the "directive" is actually
designed from God or not."

And of course, since only observation and reason are used to support
his claim, that means he's claiming by observation and reason alone to
understand how all "moral directives given to people allegedly from
God" are "indistinguishable from subconscious processes and desires";
which is equivalent to saying that he's solved problems of knowledge
acquistion the entire field of cognitive psychology hasn't been able to
answer yet.

> or do you just want to say you cant conclude god
> does not exist because you say he is outside the realm of observation
> and reason?

That is certainly a meaningful, valid and logically consistent
conclusion. Of course, I like how Wittgenstein phrased it famously:

"Philosophy consists of no more than this form of analysis: "Wovon man
nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen" ("Whereof one cannot
speak, thereof one must be silent")."[1]

I think that someone who articulates "observation U reason" must simply
be silent on matters that their epistemology cannot provide an
objective answer for.

> but, that's not the discussion even though anyone is free
> to conclude anything they want and basing decision on observations and
> reason are are far sight more sensible than basing them on
> superstition and some wacky book.

The point:

* observation is fallible
* reason is fallible
* "observation U reason" is fallible

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen"[1]

> For purposes of reality observation
> and reason leaves way less than you purport outside of its
> limitations.

I'll disagree. For example, it provides no adequate mechanism for
assessing (via observation or reason) the truth of God's existence.

>>> no that would be your opinion based on your faulty beliefs and
>>> interpretations which are abundant and defy Occam's' razor on their
>>> own.
>>
>> Ah, analysis by tribalism. Not tenable. :)
>
> Denial. the first step is admission just keep that in mind.

Apparently that's still in Egypt. ;0

>>> ----Remember, if gravity is the rule we must all live by, count me
>>> as
>>> one of them freedom fighters! Skydive!
>>
>> Um, skydivers are still subjected to the rule of gravity during their
>> jump. :)
>
> obviously your not a skydiver either. :)

Whether I am or not, skydivers are still subjected to the rule of

gravity during their jump. :)

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein#The_Tractatus

[bonfly]

You're the only one here thinking you're winning a debate.

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 17, 2008, at 1:21 AM, rappoccio wrote:
> On Feb 16, 11:37 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 15, 4:11 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So the epistemology that we all share is that observation and reason
>>> gives us information about the world we inhabit.
>>
>> Two notes:
>>
>> * Observation is fallible
>> * Reason is fallible
>
> The Bible is more fallible.

So you say. But you also feel free to say:

"I think that everyone else subconsciously agrees"

So, if you limit yourself to "observation U reason" to make this claim,
you've claimed abilities that far exceed the state of cognitive science
today.

> Therefore your epistemology is useless.

I can't see your position as being anything different from Nagel, just
wordier. :)

> You also use both observation and reason to attain information,
> however you claim there is something outside of both that exists, but
> you haven't demonstrated.

Thats overly simplistic. We haven't agreed on what provides
demonstration. :)

>> The syncretic union of the two that you articulate (observation U
>> reason) has the fallibilities of the union of the two concepts. These
>> two facts alone make your epistemology (observation U reason) not
>> tenable.
>
> Yet you still use it and haven't demonstrated that you obtain
> information in any other way. Reason and observation wielded by humans
> is sometimes fallible.

You've taken my point.

> Just like you interpreting the Bible, and

> therefore your reading is fallible and therefore untenable according
> to your own counterargument.

Not correct. You are evaluating a different belief system using a
system which you admit is fallible. Not tenable. :)

> So, we can say with certainty, that if
> "reason and observation" are fallible enough that we cannot make
> decisions based on them, that your epistemology shatters to pieces.

We can't and we don't. It simply means:

* observation is fallible
* reason is fallible
* observation U reason is fallible

> However you haven't shown WHAT reason and observation is fallible,

Sure I have. For example:

3) Observation has very specific limitations as an epistemology
4) Finite observations over an arbitrarily unbounded event space
cannot establish objective truth
7) Scientific consensus is neither science nor consensus
9) Observation is not sufficient to establish normative behavior
10) As sensory perceptions are not objectively certain, relying on
them to establish objective truth is not tenable.

> You have NOT answered the questions in my post. I am going to ask

> again, since you never answered:
>
> "The ultimate question is: How does one determine whether the input
> they are receiving is from God, or from oneself?"

My point is, your method, using your own statements, is shown to be
inadequate to answer your "ultimate question"; as you've noted:

"I propose that there is no way to do this."

This means that your method "observation U reason" is not tenable.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 17, 2008, at 3:00 PM, scooter wrote:
> Yes, Crock uses observation and reason to determine that observation
> and reason are fallible. He humorously uses footnotes like they lend
> credibility to his position. Maybe he thinks that because he says
> "reason and observation are fallible", that his reason and
> observations are immune to fallibility. In any case, he discredits his
> own argument and then procedes to make wild assertions about "divine
> revelation" that are completly unrelated.

Its nice to have one's own press secretary/interpreter. Particularly a
volunteer one like scooter. Of course, I have to say I'm not happy
with the accuracy of his representation of my positions, but I suppose
I'm getting what I paid for. ;0

Regards,

Brock

[rappoccio]

This is the central focus of this thread, where I am asking people how
they know the difference between this, and an overactive
imagination.

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 17, 2008, at 3:49 PM, bonfly wrote:
> You're the only one here thinking you're winning a debate.

Thanks for the color commentary. :)

Regards,

Brock

[bonfly]

You don't get what I'm saying.

[rappoccio]

On Feb 17, 1:30 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 3:35 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 16, 1:27 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > > Am I totally off base to say that, with the possible exception
> > > of Japan, all of the countries that are most desirable to
> > > live in have a strong Christian background?
>
> > That's because the places that are "most desirable" to live are either
> > in Europe, or colonized by Europeans. So?
>
> ...
>
> Let me go at this a different way. Europeans, as Christians, have
> long believed that God, for the benefit of every person, chose
> to endure horrible suffering as though he were the lowest of
> persons. And it was in Europe that political systems based
> on the value of every individual first took solid root. Pure
> coincidence?

No, in fact, pure bullshit. The value of every individual wasn't
recognized until the Enlightenment, when people started thinking that
all this religious nonsense was no basis for a system of government.

> Of course, it's very possible that a clever person, who
> understood the value of human equality (way before
> it's time), could have also give in to the desire for wish-
> fulfillement,
> believed in God, and written a book with both things in it.
>
> All I'm trying to say is that Christians are not leaping
> all the way across the canyon to their beliefs. There
> are a few arguments that give them a bit of ledge to
> walk out on, making for a somewhat shorter leap.

Not for the central focus of this post, which is how they tell the
difference between "revelation" from God and an overactive
imagination. They're on square one, I have yet to see or hear any
arguments to get anywhere aside from there.

> And we should all recognize that we live with the
> uncertainty of relying on second-hand information
> for many important choices/beliefs. The only way
> you know who your daddy is ís 'cause your mama
> told you (unless you went on Maury and took the
> DNA test).

And why would I bother thinking that a guy 2000 years ago was born of
a virgin, then, since everyone else isn't?

[rappoccio]

Same here :)

[rappoccio]

Exactly right. His argument is self-defeating.

Of course, it's irrelevant whether or not people sometimes make
mistakes. Each individual claim should be examined to determine
whether or not a mistake has been made. There are no claims in this
thread that fall into this category, only an attempt to distract from
my question, which is how one tells the difference between divine
inspiration and an overactive imagination.

[rappoccio]

You have not answered my question. I'll ask again.

"The ultimate question is: How does one determine whether the input
they are receiving is from God, or from oneself?"

I'll keep asking until you answer.

[bonfly]

He can't answer your question because he's too busy posting bad poetry
at ACRD.

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 17, 2008, at 3:57 PM, bonfly wrote:
> You don't get what I'm saying.

You mean, the insults, degrading references and sheer personal venom
and vitriol? I think I get it. I'm just not accepting it:

"Return to sender, address unknown.
No such number, no such zone."

Regards,

Brock

[bonfly]

Nah ... you were every drop of it asshat.

[scooter]

Mistakes are a function of learning ;)

Quite right. Brock will do whatever he can to avoid the question
because it strikes at the heart of, and completly debilitates, his
platitude of "divine revelation is not limited to the peripetetic
axiom."

> > > they are receiving is from God, or from oneself?"- Hide quoted text -

[Multiverse]

> Let me go at this a different way. Europeans, as Christians, have
> long believed that God, for the benefit of every person, chose
> to endure horrible suffering as though he were the lowest of
> persons. And it was in Europe that political systems based
> on the value of every individual first took solid root. Pure
> coincidence?

really? do tell. which European political system so stacked with the
value of every individual is that? or perhaps slaves didn't even get
a smidgen like the U.S. gave them. double check your data you might
find everything from common slaves, to caste systems, lets not forget
the value of fine young ladies throughout Europe at the time. Could
really go on forever about your Utopian societies that grew out of
your religious beliefs. But I must be thinking of the wrong ones so
feel free to pontificate on these matters.

> Of course, it's very possible that a clever person, who
> understood the value of human equality (way before
> it's time), could have also give in to the desire for wish-
> fulfillement,
> believed in God, and written a book with both things in it.

so the choices are either the Utopian societies you speak of or the
clever person. lmao

There
> are a few arguments that give them a bit of ledge to
> walk out on, making for a somewhat shorter leap.

yes the idea of ledges and Christians and leaping..... hhmmmm. you
could be onto something but I'm trying my best not to keep scaring the
sissy girl theists so I'll be nice.

[scooter]

Yes, poor Brock. You're so misunderstood. You could always correct the
record instead of whining about it.

[Multiverse]

well you've proven yourself a fine smoke and mirrors aficionado.
Sorry but when it turns into a definition argument, a failure to
respond to questions, and nothing more than restating what you've
already said which isn't even the topic then ill let you play by
yourself. Funny, you actually believe you are making an important
statement about gravity and skydiving..lol ok....hey is your brain
subject to gravity's influence to? lmao!!!!

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 17, 6:51 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Yes, poor Brock. You're so misunderstood. You could always correct the
> record instead of whining about it.

Ok, here goes:

* observation is fallible
* reason is fallible
* observation U reason is fallible

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 17, 2008, at 4:03 PM, rappoccio wrote:
> You have not answered my question.

Sure I have.

> I'll ask again.
>
> "The ultimate question is: How does one determine whether the input
> they are receiving is from God, or from oneself?"
>
> I'll keep asking until you answer.

My point is, your method, using your own statements, is shown to be

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 17, 2008, at 4:02 PM, rappoccio wrote:
> Exactly right. His argument is self-defeating.

Because it is not based on "observation U reason"? There's no reason
to accept that as an epistemology. It has (by your own self) been
demonstrated to not be able answer your "ultimate question":

"I propose that there is no way to do this."

This means that your method "observation U reason" is not tenable.

> Of course, it's irrelevant whether or not people sometimes make
> mistakes.

Its very relevant to note the limitations of "observation U reason".

> Each individual claim should be examined to determine
> whether or not a mistake has been made.

Actually, before the claim is examined, it is important to find out if
the epistemology is capable of speaking to the claim. "observation U
reason" cannot answer important and pertinent claims in an objective
and correct manner.

> There are no claims in this
> thread that fall into this category, only an attempt to distract from
> my question, which is how one tells the difference between divine
> inspiration and an overactive imagination.

You've learned from scooter. Well done. Opponent shows the
limitations your epistemology, do the "press secretary" thing. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 17, 6:54 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> well you've proven yourself a fine smoke and mirrors aficionado.
> Sorry but when it turns into a definition argument, a failure to
> respond to questions, and nothing more than restating what you've
> already said which isn't even the topic then ill let you play by
> yourself.

I think my conduct has been excellent in our exchanges. Sorry to hear
you don't feel the same way ...

Regards,

Brock

[scooter]

Ok, here goes:

You observe and reason that:

*observation is fallible
*reason is fallible
*observation U reason is fallible

I don't disagree with those statements. However, since those are your
reasons via observations you defeat your own argument.

[scooter]

On Feb 17, 6:34 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2008, at 4:02 PM, rappoccio wrote:
>
> > Exactly right. His argument is self-defeating.
>
> Because it is not based on "observation U reason"?  There's no reason
> to accept that as an epistemology.  It has (by your own self) been
> demonstrated to not be able answer your "ultimate question":
>
> "I propose that there is no way to do this."
>
> This means that your method "observation U reason" is not tenable.

Not close. What it means is that you "can't distiguish between the
two." Therefore, statements that proclaim that you have recieved
"divine revelation" are false.

>
> > Of course, it's irrelevant whether or not people sometimes make
> > mistakes.
>
> Its very relevant to note the limitations of "observation U reason".

Not in this instance. The relevance is that you can't distinguish
between an over-active imagination and "divine revelation." That's
because there's no such thing as "divine revelation." Further, since
you can't distinguish "divine revelation" from any other function of
the mind, there's no reason to think you have experienced "divine
revelation", Brock.

>
> > Each individual claim should be examined to determine
> > whether or not a mistake has been made.
>
> Actually, before the claim is examined, it is important to find out if
> the epistemology is capable of speaking to the claim.  "observation U
> reason" cannot answer important and pertinent claims in an objective
> and correct manner.

And, you've come to that conclusion using observation U reason. I'll
note that in making that statement your observation U reason is
fallible.

>
> > There are no claims in this
> > thread that fall into this category, only an attempt to distract from
> > my question, which is how one tells the difference between divine
> > inspiration and an overactive imagination.
>
> You've learned from scooter.  Well done.  Opponent shows the
> limitations your epistemology, do the "press secretary" thing. :)

You're still evading. Since you've made the claim that you have
recieved "divine revelation" the question is simple: "how [does] one
tell the difference between divine inspiration and an overactive
imagination?"

[Multiverse]

quite the opposite, you've been a complete gentleman in spite of the
fact that I have been an ass at times. we all have our faults. I am
very good at other things. perhaps I'll learn to "discuss" more
gentlemanly. perhaps not. I can't fault you on manners though, and
at this point I have to be a big boy and wish you well. Thanks for
your thoughtful posts and perhaps we will engage again.

[Walt]

I think Christianity asserts that everything in the Nicean
creed was told to the Apostles by Jesus or Mary (no
telepathy). And Islam asserts that everything in the
Quran was recited to Mohamed by the archangel
Gabriel (no telepathy). So I don't see the justifiction
for saying that telepathy with God is central to the
epistemology of religion.

In fact, the Bible says that when the angel tells
Mary she's going to give birth to Jesus, the angel
also tells Mary her previously barren cousin will
also have a child. That is, God expects that
sensible people who see/hear an angel will think
they are just imagining it, so there needs to
be some verifyable info that could only come
from the supernatural.

[Walt]

On Feb 17, 3:58 pm, rappoccio <rappoc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 1:30 pm, Walt <wka...@yahoo.com> wrote:
...
> > Let me go at this a different way.  Europeans, as Christians, have
> > long believed that God, for the benefit of every person, chose
> > to endure horrible suffering as though he were the lowest of
> > persons.  And it was in Europe that political systems based
> > on the value of every individual first took solid root.  Pure
> > coincidence?
>
> No, in fact, pure bullshit. The value of every individual wasn't
> recognized until the Enlightenment, when people started thinking that
> all this religious nonsense was no basis for a system of government.

...

I think my hypothesis as to why the Elightenment happened in a
Christian-influenced region and not somewhere else is a
reasonable one. Why is it more reasonable to think it was
just random chance that it happened where it happened?

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 17, 9:02 pm, Multiverse <cuta...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> quite the opposite, you've been a complete gentleman in spite of the
> fact that I have been an ass at times. we all have our faults. I am
> very good at other things. perhaps I'll learn to "discuss" more
> gentlemanly. perhaps not. I can't fault you on manners though, and
> at this point I have to be a big boy and wish you well. Thanks for
> your thoughtful posts and perhaps we will engage again.

Thank you. I've enjoyed the exchanges also, I'm sure we'll talk in
the future. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

"observation U reason" is not my epistemology, so your statement is
not accurate to my position. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 17, 6:14 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Mistakes are a function of learning ;)
>
> Quite right. Brock will do whatever he can to avoid the question
> because it strikes at the heart of, and completly debilitates, his
> platitude of "divine revelation is not limited to the peripetetic
> axiom."

"observation U reason" is not my epistemology. So you're not correct
to limit my positions by it. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Feb 17, 8:01 pm, scooter <scooter.l...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 6:34 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 17, 2008, at 4:02 PM, rappoccio wrote:
>
> > > Exactly right. His argument is self-defeating.
>
> > Because it is not based on "observation U reason"? There's no reason
> > to accept that as an epistemology. It has (by your own self) been
> > demonstrated to not be able answer your "ultimate question":
>
> > "I propose that there is no way to do this."
>
> > This means that your method "observation U reason" is not tenable.
>
> Not close. What it means is that you "can't distiguish between the
> two." Therefore, statements that proclaim that you have recieved
> "divine revelation" are false.

No it doesn't. The chain of reasoning is quite simple:

* observation is fallible
* reason is fallible
* "observation U reason" is fallible

> > > Of course, it's irrelevant whether or not people sometimes make
> > > mistakes.
>
> > Its very relevant to note the limitations of "observation U reason".
>
> Not in this instance.

Of course it is. :)

> The relevance is that you can't distinguish
> between an over-active imagination and "divine revelation."

So you presume. :)

> That's because there's no such thing as "divine revelation."

Well unfortunately, if you've used "observation U reason" as the
epistemology that makes such a conclusion, your conclusion is limited
by each of the ways that observation is limited, as well as each of
the ways that reason is limited.

Additionally, rappoccio disagrees with you, for he notes (in his
"ultimate question"):

"The ultimate question is: How does one determine whether the input
they are receiving is from God, or from oneself?

I propose that there is no way to do this"

So if you are using "observation U reason" to conclude:

"there's no such thing as divine revelation"

Then you are in fact contradicting the limits of rappoccio's
"observation U reason" method. Limits that he himself explicitly
articulates.

Regards,

Brock

[student13]

Ok, here goes:

* observation is fallible
* reason is fallible

* observation U reason is fallible *****{ take note of "U" }
that "U" makes all the difference.
However Brock's observation and Brock's reasons that falls in
*exclusive* area and are *never* fallible !!!
( with only "belief" as the basis, where is observation and reason to
fail !!!!??? )

:-))

enjoy
cheers
student13

[rappoccio]

Indeed it does. ;)

[rappoccio]

Thank you for showing how NOT to answer my question, so now please
answer my question.

[rappoccio]

On Feb 17, 6:34 pm, Brock Organ <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2008, at 4:02 PM, rappoccio wrote:
>
> > Exactly right. His argument is self-defeating.
>
> Because it is not based on "observation U reason"?

No, because it is, actually. Your argument is based on reason and
therefore it is fallible, by your own standards. Therefore it is
untenable, according to you.

Now, please answer the question. I'm not interested in how NOT to
answer the question, I'm interested in the answer to the question.

[rappoccio]

Precisely right. Brock is empty here, sorry to say.

[rappoccio]

Why should we believe the council of Nicea? And why should we just
allow people to make unsubstantiated assertions?

> And Islam asserts that everything in the
> Quran was recited to Mohamed by the archangel
> Gabriel (no telepathy).

Why should we believe Mohammed?

> So I don't see the justifiction
> for saying that telepathy with God is central to the
> epistemology of religion.

It currently is. There are "revealed" religions that are no longer
functional. Why is that? Cultural reasons, of course. I'm asking a
different question. I'm asking how they determine between divine
revelation and an overactive imagination.

[rappoccio]

The entire point was that it happened in REBELLION to religious
thought. So it's irrelevant what the historical background is. If
anything, Christianity previous to that time was a perfect example of
"What not to do, ever, ever, ever." So why should we give Christianity
the credit when rationality did all the work? Typical theism... humans
do everything, God gets the credit.