Although the experiences can be recreated, the physical manifestations of those experiences can be produced in a lab by injecting the right combinations of chemicals, or even a few healthy puffs of DMT. This is what strips away the empirical possibilities of religion, for me. Everything verifiable about the experience can be recreated without the mythos. That being said, I do tire of the lengths that must be gone to in order to make an epistemological point...it often does seem to reduce to literary phallus waggling.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:21 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Cheers Chris. You're still wrong mate. No one much in here gives a > flying onanist's dream about philosophy really, which is at least > reasonably healthy. Like me, you are really a tropical fish realist, > having realised it's a lot easier to treat stuff as stuff. The > epistemological position is somewhat different and more difficult to > understand, but if you show too much interest in real epistemology I > will have to shoot you for the good of your own health. > It doesn't take too much adjustment to be able to say you can > experience faith and godswank empirically. For the latter, you can > just let the Jehovas in and listen to them and watch them > godswanking. To have empirical faith experience you can spend years > learning tricks of looking between your eyes and in to the back of > your head and swoon out amongst a bunch on incest (oops! I meant > incense) burners or any variety of such as you don't care to be > bothered with. People have been doing this for ever, but then people > have been doing dumb stuff forever too. Where we might be at variance > with the godswank could be in either the quality of the subjective > experience or our explanations of what it was. > Believing in what science has amassed also requires epistemic > justification. These days, this is not normally empiricist in any > easy way. > > On 28 Jan, 23:35, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, indeed you have, droning being rather your specialty, old boy. > However, > > I'll semi-politely disagree with you. Empirical stances, can in the end, > be > > traced back to solid, rock hard evidence. Now, you may tut about few of > us > > actually going to the lengths of verifying every empirical observation > for > > ourselves, and you'd be right. That doesn't negate that each empirical > > observation may in fact be reproduced, and experienced empirically. > Faith, > > and godswank, cannot. > > > > Completely off subject, I do so hope I can lift a few pints with you > before > > too long. I'd love to hear that droning in person. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 5:20 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You are wrong Chris on an empirical stance not requiring faith. Shape > > > up boy, I have droned on about this before. There is always some form > > > of epistemic risk management, current received wisdom being we should > > > trust evidence ahead of theory. What always seems odd to me about the > > > godswank (collective noun) is that they are less prone to believe in > > > my invisible, blue six foot rabbit (with limited powers), than their > > > invisible, infinitely-sized god with omnipotence, usually on the > > > grounds that I am some kind of liar, but some ancient guy who talked > > > with snakes wasn't. The key issues are to do with how much risk you > > > take with your epistemic base as you move further into theoretical > > > definition that is empirically testable. That one can have religious > > > experience seems beyond doubt, what it is much more debatable than > > > what a photon is (though much may have to be done on that). I suspect > > > the godswank like feeling special and so jerk up their epistemic risk > > > taking in order to exclude evidence. Some separate their religious > > > moments from the rest of their lives, maybe a bit like those who are > > > only weekend junkies. We can hook people on sensory deprivation > > > because the visions they have afterwards are so powerful. Whatever we > > > do in epistemology, trust is involved, including trust that science > > > isn't just another set of rat-droppings, recipes or laundry lists > > > written by the prophet while he was chatting up the blue rabbit. > > > > > On 28 Jan, 17:30, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 28 Jan, 15:45, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > nice somersaulting around logic. Here's Your disconnect: You need > > > > > faith to believe IN something for which their is no proof. To not > > > > > believe is simply that, not believing until proof is furnished. > Just > > > > > as theists have a problem with understanding what words like dogma, > > > > > evidence, theory of____, and believe mean and how to use them, you > are > > > > > misusing the term faith in the same manner. > > > > > > And you have faith in that. Heck, I don't mind being accused of > > > > having faith. According to Pascal's wager, it's far safer; so I > could > > > > only say, good luck to you. And I really do mean that!! > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 5:46 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 28 Jan, 12:55, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 28 January 2010 12:30, Pat <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So, it boils down to the fact that you have faith that there > is > > > no > > > > > > > > 'soul'. Okey doke, I can accept that. > > > > > > > > > Got a name for that straw man, Pat? :) > > > > > > > > > I don't want to make a tyrant of logic here, but if someone > claims > > > the > > > > > > > existence of non-material soul then evidence for that claim > must be > > > > > > > supplied. Russell, teapot, etc. > > > > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > And I asked you on what basis you derived your belief that ther > eis > > > no > > > > > > soul. It boiled down to your faith rather than any evidence. > There > > > > > > is no Russell's Teapot! Besides, my definition of a soul is a > 'field > > > > > > of energy' and if you refute fields of energy, well... Yes, I > know > > > > > > that particular one hasn't been empirically proven...yet, but > that > > > > > > does not mean that it does not exist; rather, it only means it > hasn't > > > > > > been discovered yet. If you recall, there was a time when Uranus > and > > > > > > Neptune hadn't been discovered; did they only pop into existence > when > > > > > > the telescope landed there? And the whole Russell's Teapot thing > is > > > > > > so naff I'm surprised anyone falls for that logic. As I've said > > > > > > before many times, just because you have not detected something > is > > > not > > > > > > evidence that it does not exist.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups .com> > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
