" ... it often does seem to reduce to literary phallus waggling."
I'd agree entirely with you, Chris, if I didn't see you doing the same, when you wave empiricism vs speculation. The water boils at 100 C may have no relevance other than the tea I am sipping at. Why should you be telling me that I am wrong, that it all means much more than that ? I'll come to that, if need be, but why are you waggling your phallus at me ! And before you conclude that I am illiterate in thermodynamics, let me assure you that I understand superheat and enthalpy ! It all boils down to the value we give to what we know ! Why may we not decipher the value a person represents, and not the just the facts he knows ? After all, we each live by our values, not by our facts. Remember Galileo, who found it easy to dispense with the facts and live by his values ! Nobody speaks of the values that sustained him in his days under house arrest ! ?[ On Jan 29, 7:15 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > 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%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > > > .com> > > <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%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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
