Best of AW

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Do Atheists know science when they see it?

  photo einstein-relativity.jpg


Atheists regard scinece in a way that Chrsitians regard God. it's the center of their universe, for many their Raison d'être and functions in their universe the way God does in the believer's universe. Yet can they spot a scientific principle when they see one, if it's outside the context of science vs religion? Can spot a scientiic principle when it supports religion? That would explain why they have no respect for 200 studies in acadmeic journals saying that religous expereince is good for you.

On Carm I proposed the idea that truth of Bible doctrine stacking up to personal experience in modern life is a principle of verification. what they do transmute that to? It began with their argument that there is no content to the concept of a personal relationship with Jesus because such relationships cant' give us verificable evidence about Jesus life apart from what's in the bible. I of course said that relationship is not about just geting a list of facts. Just as saying that you know someone is not just about knowing a list a facts about them. Actually knowing what it's like to spend time with a particular person is not the same knowing a list of facts, such as his hair color, where he was born, what food he likes, ect. Actually nkowing a person includes nuances you can't get on paper. this is way over their heads they don't even understand it.



Originally Posted by Bob Carabbio View Post
"If the whole relationship involves ONLY knowing things about Jesus from the Bible, what kind of a personal relationship is this?"

If YOU "Draw nigh" to HIM - then HE "Draws nigh" to you, and there IS a relational aspect to the Christian walk - as the Christian pursues it.

If all you've got is "Theology" - then what do you base your FAITH on???

Meta
That's in two different senses. No one says it invovles only what's in the bible but it can't contradict the bible directly. that is the check of verification.

The idea that you can spot the truth of the doctrine in life and it stacks up with personal experience is a principle of verification.
Then one of them proves he doesn't know scinece when he sees it.



Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
The idea that doctrine can be stacked up against personal experience is an empirical verification of the truth of that doctrine. only atheist are so dense they can't spot their own own believed scientific method when they see it in a different context.
Mark UK
It's confirmation bias - you "experience" things about Jesus that tie in with doctrine, and not only is the doctrine "verified", your relationship with Jesus is "verified".


 photo 
this_is_file_name_2899_zps04227686.jpg


Originally Posted by MarkUK View Post
I know it's not checking feelings that are informed by doctrine against the very doctrine that informs them.


Meta
they are so afrid of feelings.

No other relationship needs checking against dogma. Sorry, doctrine.
that's not what we are talking about. We are not talking about only feelings. We are talking about behavior. Answered prayer, intuitive sense that pays off, noetic aspects of mystical experience and the like. Noetic is not just feelings it's put into content such as one has a sense of having learned something from the experience.

everything is one
God is love
life is sacred.

 Originally Posted by MarkUK View Post
You just said it, right here:

because of their faith.

(see my answer to Deist on bottom)

Not the truth of the thing in which they place it.
 
Meta
no I did not say that. you are inferring that because you can't think honestly. You assume faith is not a link to a reality. I do not assume that. you are reading into my statement what you wish was there.

faith is evidence, it's indicative of a reality that prompts it to be.



Rampant fear of feelings is a sign of no mental maturity.


Originally Posted by Deist View Post
Exactly. There is NO real personal relationship with Jesus. They know only the words they read in a book. The CLAIM of a personal relationship is an ego trip, as is Christianity itself. It is a ME oriented religion, and it's little wonder it caught on so much. People yearn to feel special, loved, forgiven. They don't always get that in real life and relationships, so this way (a personal relationship with "Jesus"), they can get what they so much desire in their mind if not in their real life.
Meta
If all I knew was the words I could give you words. that's totally stupid. they can't put it into words therefore all they know is words in a book. what sense does that make?

Deist
Yes. It makes perfect sense. People memorized a book.

Meta, I've ran threads on just what an "experience" is, and it draws bland stares and anger. Airy fairy reports such as "I felt wonderful, or I was at piece, or I experienced the divine, or blah blah blah". All of Christianity is a claim, a contention, a theory. A kind of punishment and reward system similar to the Pavlov's dog experiments. Humans give themselves feelings. They don't come from some entity entering ones body or mind. That is just a claim, unproven and unfounded. The claim is made because OTHERS have made similar claims and people don't like to be left out of the party so they make their own claims. But..........when pressed, the mumble and stumble and stammer and stiggy.


Meta

I just disproved that. I said if it was just a matter of knowing worsd on paper then I would words to fill in the blanks. I could say "the content is 'love your enemies' as oppossed to saying "it's beyond words." We can't describe the unspoken neuonces of being with someone we know, even when it's a tangible flesh and blood person. That's like saying "try to describe what it's like to spend time with your father without using any conventional English expressions or words form your language. You can't do it because the only way to express clear and distinct ideas is langue. The unspoken sense of a presence is unspoken so it's not language.

The some might get angry when they are frustrated by a question is not proof that they have no basis to their experiences. they are probably getting angry at your obstinate behavior and refusal to listen to what they say. You never can connect their behavior to your treatment of them.

If God is communicating the truth of the bible and if he gives us the bible for a check on truth why should he go beyond it in communicating personally? no is saying that it doesn't go beyond, but it can't contradict it.

you totally miss the point that it verifies the truth of the doctrine.



Originally Posted by Deist View Post
He can't and they can't because all experiences are induced by the mind
That's not a reason. Ideas are in the mind. so one should be able to undersatnd ideas and thus fiction induced in the mind should have ideas that go with it.
Meta
the point of the verification principle is we can see those ideas played in life and that he teaching on them works and proves true. It's not goo gaga feelings it's truth. when someone can stand up tot he problems of life and get through them because of their faith that proof that it's real and it matters. You want to write off anything connected to feelings you will have to write off your hatred of God and Christians.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Some atheists are actualy so stupid they think Chrsitains didn't use reason until a few years ago

 photo descartes711_zps86b43596.jpg
Descartes

Atheist ignorance doesn't rain, it pours. On carm:


Secular Super Member Reputation Points: 75
It appears to me that it is only a fairly recent phenomena (last 60 or 70 years or so in earnest) that theists felt they had to provide rational arguments for their belief. Prior to this there was a lot of talk of faith being the only necessity, and prior to that you either believed or someone would probably torture and kill you for blasphemy i.e. no-one was allowed to argue.

This being the case, why is apologetics seemingly important now?



 Black light
I think the inexorable progress of modernity and secularism has made the change in tactics a necessity. Religion has lost its mandate on so many questions of objective truth -they've needed to compensate for it. And it's simply untenable to sell the ideas presented in monotheism on the basis of faith (belief in the absence of evidence). If they tried, it would only hasten religion's slide into irrelevancy. So they've gone the other way - trying to play the same game that science and secularism has been winning with, while simultaneously trying artificially level the playing field.

 Meta:

This is all so in line with the myth of modernity that atheists have been using to ground their ideology since the enlightenment. In the enlightenment they knew better, they knew there was a long and old tradition of Christian philosophy.

It's unacceptable that such ignorance can escape and get you to the public. it has to stop.this atheist foaming at the mouth in sheer ignorance of any kind of facts has got to stop!

Saint Anselm of Canterbury, also called Anselm of Aosta for his birthplace, and Anselm of Bec for his home monastery, was a Benedictine monk, philosopher, and prelate of the Church, who held the office of Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109. Wikipedia

what else did he do? Standford Dictionary of Philosophy

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/on...cal-arguments/

"The first, and best-known, ontological argument was proposed by St. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th. century C.E. In his Proslogion, St. Anselm claims to derive the existence of God from the concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived. St. Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists—can be conceived. But this would be absurd: nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived—i.e., God—exists."


was that sort of thing very wide spread?

what is Scholasticism?

Web definitions:

scho·las·ti·cism
skəˈlastiˌsizəm/
noun
noun: scholasticism

the system of theology and philosophy taught in medieval European universities, based on Aristotelian logic and the writings of the early Church Fathers and having a strong emphasis on tradition and dogma.
Even the web definition demonstrates a bias against Chrsitain thought:
narrow-minded insistence on traditional doctrine.
It's much deeper than just Scholasticism and the five proofs of Aquinas (even though they do take reason back to the middle ages in Christian thought. The moderns who came after them were more apt to be Chrsitain than atheists. Atheists did not have a major intellectual voice until the eighteenth century among French philsophs such as D'Holbach and his circle. All the rationalists (Descartres, Libniz, Spinoa) and almost all the empiricists (Locke, Berekely, but not Hume) were Christians.

America
 I'd go further, and suggest that the valuing of reason has risen and fallen more than once in the history of Christianity. I think the same also applies to Islam, where once it was seen as an intellectual leader (re. mathematics, architecture, etc).

Without meaning to be inflammatory, I'd say Christianity has lowered its valuing of rationality over the last 100 years (with the rise of fundamentalism & evangelism).
 That's interesting to see that because it's opposed to what his comrades said. It's more knowledgeable and more acute. Fundamentlaism arose after the enlightenement and thus after Christian rationalism.


Monday, July 21, 2014

Taking break

I'm taking off this weak. medical stuff to attend to and also mailing out review copies of the book. I'll be back soon on both blogs.

Saturday, July 19, 2014

A typical exchange wiht arrogance.

Royce is one of the most ignorant athiests I've ever seen, he's so arrogant he thinks the great thinker of the ages. Here he can't get through his head a simple answer to a question he asked.

Originally Posted by Royce View Post
No, you didn't.

This post:

answers neither of these questions:

On which of the accounts of truth mentioned http://plato.stanford.edu/search/sea...ories+of+truth, does "God = truth"?

And if there is no such account, what plausible reason (if any) does one have for thinking that God is truth?
my first statement on post 4:

so what? He's not even considering Augustine becuase Augustine is not a major player in modern philosophy. That's not the same as being wrong.

There's this little thing called "the French revolution" and modern Europe thinks it has to be secular so no theologian sets the pace in modern philosophy.



you said:

Originally Posted by Royce View Post
What does that have to do with the OP, Metacrock?

To remind you, here are the OP's central questions:

On which of the accounts of truth mentioned http://plato.stanford.edu/search/sea...ories+of+truth, does "God = truth"?

And if there is no such account, what plausible reason (if any) does one have for thinking that God is truth?

So please stay on topic.
I said:



all of this talk about God si truth came from an augment I made based upon Augustine (and Tillich). Tercon was not first in his thing about it, I was. he got it from me. Of course he didn't get his version of it from me. No he ignored what I said about it and struck out in his own inimitable style that only he can understand.


right there you can see I've answered your statement and the Augustine thing is my answer.

I am quoting directly from my post, I quoted you above.

then you say:

Originally Posted by Royce View Post
You didn't answer either question.

To remind you, here are the OP's central questions:

On which of the accounts of truth mentioned http://plato.stanford.edu/search/sea...ories+of+truth, does "God = truth"?

And if there is no such account, what plausible reason (if any) does one have for thinking that God is truth?

So please stay on topic.
I say:


are you illiterate? do you ever read what the other guys says? O you just refuse to think about what the other guys says?

I said "when it says 'what plausible reason (if any) does one have for thinking that God is truth?' that opens the door to Austine. becuase he's another reason.



there it is again. I'm answering your thing with Augustine. you never even discuss it. you say assert that I didn't say it, I obviously did.

do you not get that? how hard can it be?


And if there is no such account, what plausible reason (if any)...

that's the reason, Augustine's ideas. that's it. I said it ever time.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Am I going too far with Orwellian analysis?

I was going to go with another post today, but I got this comment:

 Photobucket


Blogger Dave said...
"Now that we understand that the hate group has evolved from mere hate group to Orwellian nightmare we can analyze it more effectively."

When, exactly, did that happen? This blog seems increasingly drawn into exaggerated claims and overreaction. There are people who identify as atheists who despise or rudely dismiss religion, but how does that translate into organized hate groups perpetuating an Orwellian nightmare? Less inflated rhetoric might make for a better observation/argument.




"Brainy Quote Definition of Superstition... look at number 2, worshiping God is defined as superstition."

Brainy Quote... quotes. In this case from Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913 + 1828), which isn't exactly based on 21st century atheist rhetoric.

Looking at the second entry from that 101 year old publication, it says:

"An ignorant or irrational worship of the Supreme Deity; excessive exactness or rigor in religious opinions or practice; extreme and unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites not commanded, or of points of minor importance; also, a rite or practice proceeding from excess of sculptures in religion."

The follow-ups to the first line are important, as the context suggest it involves incorrect (ignorant, irrational) worship of "the Supreme Deity". It doesn't equate any worship of such a Deity with superstition.

That example aside, I still fail to see how having some atheists rudely dismissing religion constitutes a "real and present danger".

This really seems over-the-top. It seems like the kind of thing someone could point to in being dismissive or contemptuous of any other observation or claim made here, regardless of its relative merit. Is this blog just a dumping ground for your frustration with atheists?

 That guys thinks it's over the top to accuse them of being Orwellian. Of cousre the same kind of qualification I've always made about the hate group aspect go for the Orwellian aspect. In other words I'm not every single atheist in the world is like this.  I'm speaking primarily of the group known as "new atheists." I call them "Dawkamentalists."

Here are several of the posts I've made showing the Orwellian Tendencies.



Sunday, April 10, 2011


More Orwellian Atheist Language


I have noted the Orwellian nature of atheist language. For atheists reading this, Orwell (George Orwell) was a great writer who specialized political language. One of his greatest achievements was to write an essay which one of the best ever written on the use of language in political ideology: "Politics and the English Language," written in 146. In that great work he reminds us that:

Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.


Never was this so true than in dealing with atheists. In the way atheist are beginning to use speech we can see all tricks Orwell talked about. Of course most of these internet atheists have not read Animal Farm or 1984 so they have no idea. But in their use of certain words they disguise totalitarian leanings one would never suspect. The totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union refereed to their political dissidents as "mentally ill" and kept putting in mental institutions becuase they felt rejecting the worker's paradise must surely be a form of mental illness.

I've already written about how the atheists use term "delusion." They actually don't use it to mean mental illness. They use the term to merely mean "a wrong idea." But in using a term that everyone knows means a false construct which results from mental illness they are actually calling religious people mentally ill without having to admit that they are doing it. It's like if they said religious people are stupid. The religious person objects but they said "it's a special form of the word that doesn't mean really not bright," but then they keep saying it. We would get the idea. It's like insulting people with plausible deniability. why use a special term such as this just to mean "this idea is wrong?" obviously it means enough to carry a connotation. Now consider the dangers of labeling as mentally ill any one who happens to disagree with your point of view. Atheism as a whole is becoming more totalitarian all the time and they can't see it because they are so addicted to the charge they get from feeling superior.

Here's the latest example of the Orwellian tendencies. They Dawkies use the term "cult" in relation to all religious belief and groups. Of course they have no knowledge of the true sociological meaning of the term. They think all cults are imposing their will upon brain washed lackies whose lives they take over and ruin. An example is the posting by a CARM Dawkie named "Toast"



The title of the therad:" a few questions about cults" so he's just equating religion with cults.

If no one ever told you about your god you would still believe?

if so, would your belief mirror the one you have been indoctrinated into?

if you still would believe even if know one told you these things to
believe would you not just be making things up?


He's trying to say that because you can't come to the same conclusions you do as a Christian on your own with no Bible and no church to guide you then it must be a cult because it's others imposing their will. He asserts in his matter of phrasing the foregone conclusion that religion is brain washing. No one said he's gone over the top. No one sent him comments about how he's exaggerating and going to extremes.


another post by Toast:

sorry but everything...a religion is a cult



This is also the same tendency. Everything the other guys value we disvalue so every term they use we must re-think impose our own terms. We can't allow them to name their own things, such as "chruch" we must name them and stick them whit the connotations of our own interpretation. So thus Churches become cults. The irony meter is gong to blaring in a moment.

The really alarming tendency is the almost blatant admitting that ideas which don't stack up the atheist ideology are "dangerous" and must be controlled. This statement was made on CARM sept 21 2009 by "Mountaineer Elf.

Because some ideas can be dangerous. Not all ideas deserve to be heard if they are dangerous.

Trying to usurp science and reality to stick in your deity is dangerous.

The context he's speaking of is an argument for the existence of God. The idea that a new concept or some concept that he doesn't agree with is "usurping scinece" is quite alarming. What's worse is he's not content for scinece to stay in its own domain it must conquer all and control all reality. Science when is arguemnts for God usurping scinece? That can only be the case if he thinks that science proper domain is dictating to us that we can't believe in God. It's even worse that he equates science with reality. His view is so totalizing that it must control all, there can be nothing in existence that is not controlled by his view point.

In defending this other atheists literally said "O he didn't mean it that way and you know it." How do we know it? How could he mean it in any other way? In what way could God arguments userp scinece and reality without the idea that science is all reality?

Here's the Orwellian rub. In animal farm the Pigs control the farm. There's a revolution the animals have overthrown the farmer and changed the name of the Farm to "animal farm" they are in charge. The pigs are the leaders, they keep putting up posters with slogans telling the other animals what it's all about. But they keep changing the messages until they come around to mean the exact opposite of what they did at first This is the way totalitarians use language, according to Orwell.

(for a synopsis of the book go here)

Atheist used to call themselves "free thinkers." They wanted us to believe that they were just sticking for the rights of us all to think anything we think and believe anything we believe. Now they begin to define believing things that contradict their ideology ad "delusion" and "usurping reality." When I pointed this out Mountaineer Elf redefined the nature of free thinking:


then:

True free thinkers are those that can speak and think with accuracy and honesty. As a scientist, I pride myself on being able to read and understand the natural world and everything it has to offer. Not all of it is 100% right, but I consider the 95% to be good enough.


This is so Orwellian everyone need to see this. He's narrowed the definition of free thinking to the point where it includes his ideology and nothing more. So free thinkers are people who agree with me. Scientists. The true free thinkers agree with me and nothing more.

But wait he's not done. It get's worse. he goes one better:



The rest of your anti-free thought rant snipped - not worth responding to insults. If you want a discussion, I'm more than willing to discuss. If you want to hurl insults, I can just go back to the Evolution/ID forum and have Creationists assume that I'm stupid for not buying into talking snakes, magic trees, and global floods.



now he defines opposing his form of totalitarianism is "anti-free thinking." This is just like the communists. If you are dissident you are mentally ill and sanity is defined as obeying the state. If you point out that he's against free thought hen you are anti-free thought because free thought has now been reduced to nothing more than agreement with him. To disagree with him is opposes free thought. So the person who thinks we should all have the right to think for ourselves is now anti-free thought and one who thinks we have to control everything that is not in agreement with the ideology is now the free thinker! Black and just become white, as Orwell said. That is exactly what Orwell said political language does. read it again:



"Political Language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.."

Then his cohorts carry it a step further and if you dissent from this truth regeime of the atheists then you are a danger to humanity:


May brick


So Metacrock would be happy for children to be taught that HIV is spread through vaccines and that condoms offer no protection?


You can't get more Orwellian than this. This is exactly right out of 1984 where the state has the right to imposes that dissents must must accept their view of reality even by forcing them to admit something such as 2 + 2 = 5. In forcing them to accept something categorically and fundamentally believe to be totally wrong they are eliminating their ability to ever think independently. That is exactly what's happened to many of these atheists and what they are trying to do to religious people.

In brow beating, intimidating, by mocking and ridiculing people they force them to de-convert and in so doing they force them to alter their most based and cherished beliefs and the fundamental understanding they have of who they are and what reality is. there is nothing more hinus one can do to another person. that is on a par with murder and If thought like they do I should start calling them murderers.

I'm sure they will come back and say they can't force anyone to deconvert against their will, that doesn't stop them from trying and it means they are shutting down reason and thought in discourse, they shut down reasoned discussion and reduce the whole situation to a political escapade. Perhaps this means they are not quite as bad as I think, but only becuase they aren't successful enough in what they are trying to do.

CARM
no 9 4/28/11

with MFFJM2


Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
your assertion here is "there's only one kind of understanding and anything that doesn't allow me to control is not real because I exclude it."

MFF
Using quotation marks for a quote that you made up is disingenuous.
I've argued that before against atheist who did that. I should have thought to use italics.
Truth is I think that's a petty issue, it depends upon the context, but i don't want to argue about it.

MFF
I made no such assertion. I asked what this other realm of knowledge might be, and for all your asserted education and experience you have yet to actually answer that questions.
Here he is responding to my statment above in yellow and basically admitts he believes the only form of knowledge is scitnfiic knowledge.

By "other realm" of knowledge we are talking about as opposed to scientific knowledge. So he's basically agreeing that there is only one from of knowledge and that's the kind of knowledge his ideology claims to control.

Meta:
Do you have a problem seeing words on the screen? What part of "phenomenology" do you not get? why do you think I put up three links if I didn't answer it?


MFF
What might constitute another form of knowledge which can provide facts, include testable hypotheses, and which is also falsifiable. So how about answering that question instead of one you made up..?

Meta
(1) tell me why it has to be testable in the same way? If it's a question that doesn't' lend itself to that kind of testing wouldn't it better to find another way to get answers answers rather than just saying "If I can't control it I don't want it?"

(2) the reason you are willing to think there's only one kind of knowledge is because you only allow knowing to be something you control. That's why you have to have i testable so you can absolutely be sure about it, and be in control. Not all questions lends themselves to that kind of answer.

(3) Textual criticism is testable and can be falsified and verified.

(4) Phenomenology can falsified and verified.

(5) formal logic can be falsified and verified. Not empirical because it's not empirical but it can be controlled because we know the rules of logic.

Meta:(before)

that's what ideology is! that's not scinece it's ideology.


MFF
I bow to your superior knowledge of what constitutes ideology, because you seem to have nothing to offer but ideology.


Meta
that's a silly come back. I just demonstrated that your view is ideology, you have no reason to think mine is. Mine is the opposite of ideology because I'm not arguign one idea fits all questions.
That's like the charge of reverse racism, if it weer made by the Klan against MLK. Not that I'm on a par with him. Yet what is really tells us is that he's not following the issues.

Meta (before)

Look at what you said. you essentially said this: If there's another way to achieve exactly the same results in the same way and validate my world view then tell me."


MFF
No, I used the standard definition of knowledge.

The standard? "what I'm good at is knowledge, you are good at is not."
Meta:

No, you used one standard that is designed to make sure that only the knowledge want to exist can fit the bill. If you were willing to accept global knowledge you would change the criteria for what constitutes valid knowledge. You keep the criteria such that only one thing can fit it becasue that allows control. that's what ideology is about, controlling minds and dominating people.


scientism is actually fascism.

Are you now asserting that knowledge is something other than facts which provide testable hypotheses, are confirmable, provide predictive power, and are falsifiable..?

there's what he thinks is his standard of knowledge, testable, predictive, in other words. science. science is the only form of knowledge because atheists think they have a "scientific" view point which they don't. He just associates the word "knowledge" with science. If you gave him a sensence like "you have no knowledge of French" would he say "French is not scinece so there's no knowledge connected to knowing French? I'll think I'll ask him that and report back.

Meta
of course! use your head for minute. Are all questions the kind of question? can't you ask questions about things that can't be tested empirically? what if you just accidentally happen to think about "gee I wonder if there's a meaning to life?" you test can't test that in the way you would a air bag. Are you really willing to write off the possibility of meaning just because you can't control the answers th way you would with a scientific test?


MFF
You seem to have a strange concept of knowledge, so maybe you can define it for us. In philosophy, knowledge is certain understanding, as opposed to opinion. So what makes your different realm of knowledge different from your opinion..?
Meta
because my knowledge is open to truth whatever it may be, I'm not willing to write off trusts just because I control their outcome they way scientific testing allows one to do.
why would you ever think that Plato's concept of the one is not knowledge? what ni the hell would keep it from being knowledge? If you read Plato don't you then have knowledge of what he said? is not knowledge? only what you like can be knowledge because it supports your view. don't you get it? you are selfish, you trying to control what people believe so you can rationalize getting what you want. don't you see that? you cut off all reality that doesn't fit in with your little system becuase it doesn't give you what you want.


I don't mean to say that you personally are selfish of course, but it's a system. It's an ideology that's the way they work. One thought fits all questions and all other outlooks are banned.

what if there is a form of knowledge that doesn't' employ the same kind of tests?


MFF
Then what makes it certain..?


Meta
why does it have to be certain? ever look up the word knowledge in the dictionary? w Nothing about certainty.the reason is so that your ideology can claim it has truth. that' the only reason you have self deceiving ridiculous criterion that can't really be met. that's like saying it has to be "objective."


MFF
How can it be understood as certain if there is no way to verify it, to test it, or to falsify it..? What makes it knowledge...? Because you assert it is..?
He's clearly not thinking of knowledge as a body of ideas that you know about, but as certainty, knowledge is only that which is certain. That's part of the Orwellian nature of his scientific atheist ideology because certainty is about control.

Meta
It's knowledge if you know it. Knowing something makes it knowledge. If you don't have certainty you can know about it as an idea. you don't have know only facts. facts are misleading because they are usually facts, they are usually political stances disguised as facts.

but you can still come to a reasonable understanding of it's reality?


MFF
How..?

Meta
global knowledge.

MFF

If you can't verify it, validate it, certify it, use it to predict, or falsify it, then how can it be knowledge, which is certain understanding..? How do you arrive at certainty, without the tests mentioned..? Try answering the above questions, and thrill me with your acumen.
are you actually admitting to thinking that scinece is the only kneed of knowledge? then why are did not you read the stuff I linked to on phenomenology?

Meta
how do you know there aren't other ways to validate and verify things? you have accept the idea that only one kind of certainty matters. and the reason for it is to control your mind.


you are not thinknig about what I said. you don't want truth you want preteens. atheism is brain washing. you are brain washed. you are brain washed into thinkg there' one kind of truth. this is the most sick and disgusting thing Anaheim has done to people. that is fascism.

you would still exclude it becasue you can't control it. that's ideology.

MFF

I don't care in the slightest about control. I do care about someone trying to pass off their opinion as knowledge, based solely on their say so. Ideology is claiming there is another form of knowledge and then insisting it can't be tested for accuracy.


Meta

O come off it! you made that up. you just sat right and made a definition no one else uses merely to say "No no my deal isn't that yours is." that's so dishonest!

He says he doesn't care about control but what is ruled out a prori if you limit knowledge on to "certainty?" God of course. They cant' disprove god, they can't beat God arguments by logic so they have to cheat by eliminating the concept through narrowing the focus of scinece to only "established certain knowledge." That also eliminates further work in scinece. Not only would that take out a bunch of things like string theory but it also means no new work could be done because just speculating would mean allowing unestablished ideas in as knowledge.

That's the Orwellian aspect. Change the meaning of words to fit only our project.


Just for grins here's how Webster defines Knowledge:


Definition of KNOWLEDGE

1
obsolete : cognizance
2
a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned knowledge>
4
a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind b archaic : a branch of learning

Examples of KNOWLEDGE

  1. She has little knowledge of fashion.
  2. He has devoted himself to the pursuit of knowledge.
  3. She gained a thorough knowledge of local customs.
  4. Did you have any knowledge of her intentions?
  5. At that time the word science had not been narrowed down to one kind of knowledge; it meant whatever was known, and men of learning were still able to possess most of it. —Jacques Barzun, From Dawn to Decadence, 2000

Origin of KNOWLEDGE

Middle English knowlege, from knowlechen to acknowledge, irregular from knowen
First Known Use: 14th century







Friday, July 11, 2014

Orwellian Atheism marks a new trend in counter-atheist studies

Now that we understand that the hate group has evolved from mere hate group to Orwellian nightmare we can analyze it more effectively. So far here are the indications:

Use of terms:these are all found in past posts on this blog so you can just go down the page and find them.

Imaginary: indicating the status of belief in God

Delusion: Also used of alleged fictional status of God belief.

Cult: used as synonym for all religious groups even the most popular

Description of the making of God arguments:

Trying to usurp science and reality to stick in your deity is dangerous.


superstition: used defined as Christianity and other religious belief.

Definition of Superstition

 http://www.brainyquote.com/words/su/superstition226408.html


Brainy Quote Definition of Superstition



  1. An excessive reverence for, or fear of, that which is unknown or mysterious.
  2. An ignorant or irrational worship of the Supreme Deity; excessive exactness or rigor in religious opinions or practice; extreme and unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites not commanded, or of points of minor importance; also, a rite or practice proceeding from excess of sculptures in religion.
  3. The worship of a false god or gods; false religion; religious veneration for objects.
  4. Belief in the direct agency of superior powers in certain extraordinary or singular events, or in magic, omens, prognostics, or the like.
  5. Excessive nicety; scrupulous exactness.
 look at number 2, worshiping God is defined as superstition.






an atheist on a message board said:
I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature ...
www.brainyquote.com/words/su/superstition226408.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages -
My response:

The same kind of recursive and circular statement I just got through exposing. What makes it superstitious? Because it's religion. What makes religion superstition? Because it' superstition.




Defining "Fre Thinkers" As those who agree with atheist ideology:

True free thinkers are those that can speak and think with accuracy and honesty. As a scientist, I pride myself on being able to read and understand the natural world and everything it has to offer. Not all of it is 100% right, but I consider the 95% to be good enough.


Defining opposition to Atheist control as "anti-free thinking."


Freedom becomes slavery and slavery becomes freedom. Now that we know this is the true nature of atheism, reductionism and all the other isms such as scientism that go hand in hand with the hate group, we can understand the danger is no just to Christianity, not just to religions, but to all people who want to think for themselves.

Atheism constitutes a clear and present danger.

Monday, July 7, 2014

On Religous Expereince: Rebuttle to Austin Cline's Argument from Religious Experience






I think Atheist blogger Austine Cline has been reading my arguments and answering them without saying whose argument he's answering. Be that as it may, he makes several assertions in refutation of the argument from religious experience and all of them are taken out by my new book, the Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief, by Joseph Hinman (available on Amazon).


like that they went to the store or own a car — then we should believe these claims as well."

The concept of mystical experience is about a higher state of perception. It's a level of conscoiusness it's not about perceive God in a physical sense. He's already demonstrated that he's mislabeling it. The understanding of super nature such that religious experience is "experience of the supernatural" is merely the modern enlightenment misunderstanding of the concept. Super nature is the power of God to raise human nature to a higher level (of consciousness) thus "the supernatural" is mystical experience. See my article "the Empirical Supernatural." Mystical experience is usually thought of as being a speical form of perception that is beyond word, thought, or image.It centers around undifferentiated unity of all things. There's a secondary sense that understands it as associated with the "sense of the numinous" a sense of all pervasive love and special "holy" nature.None of these are on a par with physical vision of objects int he daily waking world. [2] 

 Cline bases his argument on the work of William James:

William James offers a classic version of this argument in his influential Varieties of Religious Experience. He argues that all normal persons have religious experience and, since experience is the final arbiter of truth, then God — as the object of religious experiences — must be accepted as factually true. James further observes that the religious experiences in question tend to have a profound effect on the lives of people and even whole societies, implying that such effects cannot reasonably be attributed to hallucinations. Instead, it is much more reasonable to believe that a real God is responsible for religious experiences than to attribute the profound effects of those experiences to a mere imaginary being. 
 As profoundly important as James still is in the study of religious experience, and this argument is good in so far as it goes, there are better and more updated versions of the argument. Notice he doesn't  take on William Alston, who is one of the major philosophers of religion of the late twentieth century. Nor does he deal with any of the modern empirical scientific data in favor of religious experience.[3] Cline decides to pick on James as the best example of the argument.

The first problem is in James’ assertion that “all normal people” have “religious experiences.” It is uncertain what exactly he means by this, but it is a much easier assertion to make than to support. If he means experiences of the supernatural — gods, angels, etc. — then he is wrong. If he means something much more vague, like that everyone has experienced awe when contemplating the universe, then he might be right but he isn’t supporting his claim.[4]
He still insists upon mixing up the argument with subject matter that waves the red flag for the atheist, such as angels and demons, aspects of what passes in modernity for "supernatural." He finds approaches not based upon this crass notion (angels and demons) as "not supporting his claim." Of course that assumes his claim was understood. Notice also that he reduces the concept form one of the ground of being or holiness or undifferentiated unity to "awe." He also contradicts himself in stating "everyone has experienced awe in contemplating the universe," as though that contradicts the idea that everyone has some form of mystical experience. that's it. so he's just admitting it. He doesn't know what it is so he just dismisses it as unimportant. We see the atheist strategy of reductionism at work.


As far as the argument itself goes it is perfectly logical. We don't experience things that are not real. We could actually mistake experiences of one thing for another, so that must be answered. We might also have a false experience, that is hallucination or some other trick of the mind. These things are easily disproved in the case of mystical experience. The argument I sustain throughout the Trace of God is designed to answer this argument. The first answer I would give is:

 (1)  that I go to great lengths in my book to show that we habitually use a certain criteria for judging the reality of experience. The studies on religious experience, with the aid of Hood's M scale show us that religious experience of the mystical kind meets this criteria. Thus we must on principle accept it as real and trust it, or doubt our own existences.[5] This arguemnt is made in a simpler way on my lis of God arguments, no. 8 "The Thomas Reid argument," or "Argument from epistemic judgement."[6] The criteria is that we judge experiences real if hey are regular, consistent, shared (inter-subjective) and enable navigation in the world. If other forms of coutner causation are eliminated so that we can be fairly certain that we not expericing falsely logic forces us to conclude that we are experiencing rightly and there is something there to be experinced.

(2) the effects of the experience of mystical type are real. I go to great lengths to show (see all of chapter 2) that the outcome of having such experiences is life life transformation, that is a bold dramatic positive long term life changing result. I further argue that long term positive changes consistently are indicative of reality. Pathological states, mental illness and delusion are degenerative, they bring us down and destroy us over time. Nothing false builds us up and is vital too our well being over a long term period. These experiences are transforming over the long term.

(3) At the end of Chapter 7 I present eight tie breakers. The "tie" is conceived of as between brain chemicals as the most likely explanation for the origin of the experience, vs. brain chemistry as merely God's tool for enabling us to experience his presence. That's a stand off it could be either option. The tie breakers tell us it makes much more sense to accept the latter as the most likely possibility.

(4) I also rule out placebo effects in chapter 7. placebo requires that one expect the desired result, but in that chapter I show several ways in which religious experience does not conform to expected norms but often surprises such that it is often unsought, unexpected, a conversion experience, or also it can contradicts cherished doctrines.[7] For some of the studies as much as half the sample received their experiences in childhood. I show that children are not hung up on doctrines so they are not expecting experiences to conform to doctrines. Yet they have these uniform experiences that indicates the experiences are really of  an objective reality.[8]

Cline sticks with his sustained attack against James.In any case his arguments are easy to answer if one knows Jame's  works. My understanding of James is only passing fair. In my book I bring together a much larger body of empirical work which has been done over the last 50 years, armed with this knoweldge it is easy to pick off Cline's bromides. Cline refuses to think past cultural influence  and makes the argument that difference in religious traditions disprove the idea of one reality behind them all. Here's he's trying to play the old atheist divide and conquer game:

The second problem is in the variety of religious experiences: if there is just one God, why is there such wide variety in the reports of religious experiences? Indeed, they are mutually incompatible. They can’t all be true, so at least some must be false. How do we differentiate? What reasons can the religious believer give to accept her reports over the reports made by others? 
 I would argue that the studies on Hood's mysticism scale ("M scale") prove that mystical experience around the world is universally experienced in the same way. They are not conditioned by doctrines, even though they are explained by doctrines and culture that makes them seem different. When the explanation is ignored and the experiences themselves are compared they are the same. That means they have a good reason to assume they are expericing something real, something objectively there (since it's not just a matter of culture of psychology). A more detailed version documented by Hood's M scale studies can be found on The Religious  a priori.[9]

 Cline asserts that there is no criteria that enables us to determine false from true experiences. While I agree that there is no criteria that proves the difference, I have already demonstrated that he's wrong in his assertion:

There are no independent criteria we can use to separate the genuine experiences from false or flawed experiences — not only in the reports of others, but in ourselves. The only criteria which might exist rely upon the validity of some religious system. For example, some argue that a religious experience which does not agree with the Bible is flawed or false — but since this ultimately assumes the truth of what is supposed to be proven, such criteria are unacceptable. 
There is a criteria that we habitually use to assert the reality of experience, we go by that criteria every time: regular, consistent, sheared, navigational. We don't think about it. We dont say to ourselves "I'm going to use that criteria" we just do it. If an experience is anomalous, it's not regular or consistent we assume it's bogus. If we experience things they same way all the time we assume it's normal and its alright. It's only the stuff that stands out as rare or one of a kind that bothers us. If we want confirmation of our view we seek it in others, "is it hot in here to you?" "Did you see that?" If it works we can live by it we assume it's true. Thus we don't stand on the freeway deliberating about Cartesian doubt we get out of the way of oncoming traffic. The studies on religious experience that are discussed in the Trace of God demonstrate that religious experiences fit that criteria thus we should trust them as indicative of reality.[10]

 From there Cline tries to disparage the link between the effects of the experience and an assumption of its truth aptness:

The third problem is in the idea that the profound effects these experiences have is any indicator of the truth. We can grant that people have some sort of experience and we can certainly grant that the experiences have a profound effect; but does this mean we must accept the reported content of these experiences — that they were of a supernatural nature? No. 
 Again he raises the false specter of the hijack version of the supernatural. Real supernatural--the original meaning of the term--referred to mystical experience not to some ookie spookie reality zone that houses all manor of stings that go "bump" in the night. Mystical experience is proved to be real. It is a real phenomena that people have such experiences and those experiences tend to have a certain effect upon the lives of those who have them. The atheists try to turn that phrase "SN" into some kind of badge of dishonor, the fantasy world one dare not believe in. In resorting to that ploy he is dogging the real issue that he himself raised, do these effects of having had such experiences indicate the truth of the object of experience? He says "no" based upon the proviso that it is indicative of the forbidden realm. But if we ask the question in terms of reality and the object of the experience we must say yes.

First of all atheists are inconsistent in that they will argue that the advantage of having an experience is not indicative of truth but then they turn around and affirm this very idea of scinece. Every time I ask atheists how do you know science is true? They always say "because it works, you are using a computer aren't you? Science produced that computer because it works." All hail science! In any case, so saying the affirm the principle that working is related to being true. This is one of my tie breakers in chapter 7. Then Cline dazzels us with more of his fallacious reasoning: "Real experiences that have a profound impact on a person can have completely natural sources without any divine connections."

That just illustrate the atheist misunderstanding of the true concept of SN and the way they use it as a ploy to ward off belief in God by lumping it into the forbidden zone of belief. They make still absurd dichotomy anything natural must lack God and could be the product of evolution. That is an assumption not in evidence. A Gambler getting 100 royal flushes in a row as random chance would be naturalistic but it would not be natural, it would be the greatest of flukes. God created the natural realm and he works in all the time. The assumption atheists make that if it's naturalistic then God can't be in it is absurd. That's why we need the tie breakers, because the naturalistic element of brain chemistry could go either way. It  could be indicative of a Godless origin or it could be God's tool in giving us a sense of his presence.

Yet Cline goes further he makes a foolish assertion that: "Mystical experiences can be reproduced in anyone, both with chemical substances and mechanical equipment. With this being the case, what reason is there to think that other reports actually stem from a supernatural, rather than a natural, cause?" Well if you really want to know:

(1) buy my book and read the end of chapter 7 for the eight tie brakers and you have eight different reasons to assume the answer to that.

(2) The assertion that religious experiences can be reproduced is not proved. There are tons of claims to that effect, but in the book I point out (ala Philosopher John Hick) that those researchers do not have a standard criteria for control in understanding what constitutes religious experience. They do not use the M scale or any other valid scale to determine this. [11] I analyze the Borg study which is hostile to religion and show that their standard is totally unsuited.[12] Because they do not use such criteria they cannot prove that ever produce religious experience. They merely take the presence of cultural icons of religion as indicative of religious experience but there's no sense of consciousness. As I have said dichotomizing bewteen natural and SN is not a valid means of determining God's handiwork since God can work int he natural as easily as he can in the SN. Rather it is God's power to life us up to a higher state of consciousness that is Super nature. The basic state of such consciousness is a matter of fact, regardless of proof about it's origin.

Cline goes on dictonomizing:

If at least some of the alleged religious experiences are wholly natural, how do we separate them from the “truly” supernatural ones? Even if an experience changes the course of a society, that does not testify that the experiences had supernatural origins. At most, it might point to the persuasiveness of the believers or the appeal of the claims. 
 As I said already we do that by buying my book and reading the end of chapter 7 where I list the tie breakers. Then at the end of the article he takes on Swinebrune's argument:
Some, like Richard Swineburne, argue that the degree to which it seems to a person that something has happened should translate into the probability that something has happened. It is true that when people say that it seems to them that a chair is in a room that, therefore, we tend to accept that a chair is in the room. It is not true, however, that every time someone genuinely and seriously believes something, we also accept that whatever they believe is probably true.
We only accept this when it comes to more mundane things which we all have experiences of. When someone says that it seems to them very strongly that an elf is in the room, we do not accept that there is probably an elf in the room, do we?
 I don't argue Swineburne's argument. I've only read it one time. So I wont try to defined it here except to say that the condition of the argument seems to be the extent to which is seem that the person has actually experinced something. We are talking about warrant. If there is a warrant to believe this then there is no logical reason to discount it on face value. That doesn't mean one can't come up with an argument, it does mean the burden of proof is on the sketpic to show that the warrant is invalid and that there is good reason to doubt. Playing dichotomy game and hinting that "O no this leads to the forbidden zone of he SN" is not going to cut it. That is an ideological assumptino that some aspect aspect of reality must be doubted because it is the aspect that it seems to be and and brings too close to God so we must doubt it.

At this point Cline leaves us with the most dubious argument of tall, that failure to obtain mystical experience is a reason to doubt it's validity.
 Even if we accept Swineburne’s argument, we must also accept that when people try to have an experience of a god and fail, that this is good reason to believe that a god probably does not exist. After all, it would be prejudiced to dismiss the experiences of nonbelievers but privilege the experiences of those who already believe.
This argument is open to immediate reversal becasue then one must accept results as indicative of truth. If this is the case then why don't successes reflect that reality of God? The fact that it works has to be understood as truth indicative. Moreover, if results are indicative the fact that the experience is transformative and that being such it fulfills the basic function religion promises to fill in the first place, offers a rational warrant for belief that it is true. I suspect that Cline based his argument upon the arrangements I make because his contains all the basic elements of mine but he didn't bother study how I defend them. Or that may be my own arrogance and conciet.

Either way the Trace of God, my book,  arms the chruch with a power body of scientific data that backs up this and all other experience based arguments. This work injects fiber into the content of experience arguments and no Christian ever need fear the atheists jibes about no facts, no God, atheism has scinece. Atheists have not touched these arguments in five years of battle on CARM. This book serves as a compindium that will enable anyone to defend experience arguments against all commers.

Order The Trace of God On AMAZON in paper back, (soon to be avaible in Hard back and Electronic).



Sources

[1] Austin Cline, "Argument from Religious Experience:Do We Experience God's Existence?" About.com. no date listed. http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/religexperience.htm  accessed 6/27/14

[2] Metacrock, "The Empirical Supernatural," The Religious a priori, no date given.http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-empirical-supernatural.html accessed 6/28/14.

[3] Willam Alston,Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993, no page indicated. see also The Trace of God, the entire book is about this huge body of data that has heretofore been neglected by both atheists and theists.

[4] Cline, ibid.

[5] Joseph Hinman, The Trace of God: Rational Warrant for Belief.  Colorado Springs: Grand Viaduct Publishing.2014, see the whole of chapter 2.

[8] Metacrock, "8, on list of God arguments: The Thomas Reid Argument,"  Doxa, website, http://www.doxa.ws/experience/Reid.html  accessed 6/27/14. 


[7]  Hinman,The Trace of God... op cit., 286-296.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Metacrock, "The M Scale and The Universal Nature of Mystical Experience," The Religious a priori, website, http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-m-sacle-and-universal-nature-of.html accessed 6/26/14.

 [10] Hinman, The Trace of God, op.cit, 103-127

 [11] Hinman, Ibid.,262-3, 306.

 [12] Ibid., 309

 

 Order The Trace of God On AMAZON