[video] Sagan brilliance

[localzuk]

@ localzuk :

Yes I too find that kind of statement frustrating. But I understand that people speak assuming that you can separate empirical and non empirical evidence in your considerations, and was speaking not from your singular vision of wonder at the natural world, which they would be completely able, but from a philosophical position which was most likely the subject of the discussion.

 

I still don't accept 'non-empirical' evidence as being factual evidence though. It is, by its very nature, subjective. This is why witness statements are taken with a pinch of salt in court cases. This is why the idea of solipsism exists (both medically and philosophically).

[MkII]

You are making an assertion that god exists. If you are not asserting that god exists, your entire religious structure is invalid. Is this really so hard for you to comprehend?

I have zero investment in the subject of God's existence. You obviously completely miss the point of my religion.

[MkII]

I still don't accept 'non-empirical' evidence as being factual evidence though. It is, by its very nature, subjective. This is why witness statements are taken with a pinch of salt in court cases. This is why the idea of solipsism exists (both medically and philosophically).

Please read this thread from this post onwards and tell me what you think : What came first, the atheist or the theist?

[jamesb]

I have zero investment in the subject of God's existence. You obviously completely miss the point of my religion.

 

Um. No, I suspect you might though.

 

If your deity does not exist, the foundation of your religion is gone. Every premise built from that foundation is broken. Are you really saying it doesn't matter if your deity exists or not?

 

In fact you've already stated that the foundation is the Nicene Creed. Now the first statement of the creed is that you believe in god. The second is that you believe Christ was the son of god. If you don't care about the existence of god then maybe you're not as Christian as you profess to be.

[jamesb]

Please read this thread from this post onwards and tell me what you think : What came first, the atheist or the theist?

 

Other than confirming my suspicion that your argument is based purely on semantics and 'cos I said so' rather than anything useful or firm, it's really not that interesting. Oh, and on claiming that religion is some special subject which can only be analyzed according to it's own rules.

[MkII]

James, you seem to think Christianity is about scientific fact. It really isn't.

 

I'm away for a week. Speak to you then

[jamesb]

James, you seem to think Christianity is about scientific fact. It really isn't.

 

I'm away for a week. Speak to you then

 

Mark, you seem to think that you can ignore anything that disagrees with your position, change your argument whenever you're challenged on something, never answer a question, and in various other ways argue very poorly. You really can't - it doesn't make your position look good.

[localzuk]

Please read this thread from this post onwards and tell me what you think : What came first, the atheist or the theist?

 

Have to agree with those saying that 'non-empirical evidence' doesn't exist. As is said in that thread - saying non-empirical evidence is akin to saying 'non-proving evidence' which completely defeats the use of the word 'evidence'!

 

As is also said, your term 'non-empirical evidence' would be the equivalent of a hypothesis in science - which is why I'd go with saying that 'non-empirical evidence' is more correctly labelled 'an assertion'.

[teejay]

Have to agree with those saying that 'non-empirical evidence' doesn't exist. As is said in that thread - saying non-empirical evidence is akin to saying 'non-proving evidence' which completely defeats the use of the word 'evidence'!

 

As is also said, your term 'non-empirical evidence' would be the equivalent of a hypothesis in science - which is why I'd go with saying that 'non-empirical evidence' is more correctly labelled 'an assertion'.

Please look at this:

Critical thinking: an introduction ... - Google Books

 

There are plenty of examples where empirical evidence doesn't fit, for example in mathematical proof.

[Andrew_C]

I believe (maybe incorrectly) that the Catholic church already has decided how intelligent extra-terrestrial life would relate to current religious beliefs. If I remember correctly the options are:

- noble savages: unaware of the religion and therefore innocent, but should be converted and saved as possible

- true innocents: essentially angels or tools of god

- tools of the adversary: self-explanatory

How unutterably arrogant of them. That is the thinking that lead to the slaughter of the Central American indigenous people, and many others.

[localzuk]

Please look at this:

Critical thinking: an introduction ... - Google Books

 

There are plenty of examples where empirical evidence doesn't fit, for example in mathematical proof.

 

See earlier in this thread - i've already been pointed to that and still disagree. The overuse of semantics and what can only be described as 'fluff' doesn't make it real.

 

Even the 'law of causality' as that book calls it, has been questioned by physics. Look at quantum mechanics - the lines of 'cause and effect' are very blurred.

Edited August 10, 2010 by localzuk

[teejay]

See earlier in this thread - i've already been pointed to that and still disagree. The overuse of semantics and what can only be described as 'fluff' doesn't make it real.

 

Even the 'law of causality' as that book calls it, has been questioned by physics. Look at quantum mechanics - the lines of 'cause and effect' are very blurred.

 

Well, if you accept quantum theory, you have to accept non-empirical evidence as in the quantum world observation alters the outcome.

[localzuk]

Well, if you accept quantum theory, you have to accept non-empirical evidence as in the quantum world observation alters the outcome.

 

No, direct observation alters the outcome. Indirect observation is the way quantum theories are handled. It is still an observable outcome and therefore empirical.

 

However, you would also be wrong in calling it 'quantum theory' as there are no scientific theories as yet relating to quantum mechanics. Instead, there are a large number of working hypotheses which are undergoing experimentation and refinement. It only becomes a theory once it has been proven, by observation and repeatable experimentation.

 

Also, it would depend on which interpretation of quantum mechanics I subscribed to. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation does rely somewhat on subjective reasoning, but the causal interpretation and the many-worlds interpretation both rely on empirical evidence.

[jamesb]

Well, if you accept quantum theory, you have to accept non-empirical evidence as in the quantum world observation alters the outcome.

 

Oh dear.

 

Observation does not alter or decide the outcome - observation simply collapses the wave state into a single possibility, so that there is an outcome. There's still a lot of investigation going on into what makes up an 'observer'. There are a lot of misunderstandings about quantum theory and the role of the observer in the experiment. It is less important than pop science trash books try to make out.

 

localzuk - I have to say that the causal interpretation makes for the best science fiction, and the best headaches.

[MkII]

Mark, you seem to think that you can ignore anything that disagrees with your position, change your argument whenever you're challenged on something, never answer a question, and in various other ways argue very poorly. You really can't - it doesn't make your position look good.

That appears to be one of the most arrogant statements I've heard in a long time. Let me re-state : I am totally open to scientific information and NOTHING impinges on that.

 

I've pointed out the blatant fallacy of your position and you have never addressed that - only bleating on repeatedly about empirical evidence that has always been NOT part of the subject that you are trying to address. You won't see the point and that's not uncommon.

 

I am prepared to respect your point of view. It seems your position denies you the opportunity to reciprocate. QED.

[MkII]

Have to agree with those saying that 'non-empirical evidence' doesn't exist. As is said in that thread - saying non-empirical evidence is akin to saying 'non-proving evidence' which completely defeats the use of the word 'evidence'!

Then you misunderstand the reality of the use of the term in critical thinking.

 

As is also said, your term 'non-empirical evidence' would be the equivalent of a hypothesis in science - which is why I'd go with saying that 'non-empirical evidence' is more correctly labelled 'an assertion'.

An assertion, yes. I have no issue with that.

[localzuk]

Then you misunderstand the reality of the use of the term in critical thinking.

 

No, I just don't like terms being made up and misused. It'd be like me calling a telescope a 'non-photographic photographing device'. The first part cancels out the second. ie. It's just bad use of language! Hence my saying the term is more correctly an 'assetion' than 'evidence'.

[jamesb]

That appears to be one of the most arrogant statements I've heard in a long time. Let me re-state : I am totally open to scientific information and NOTHING impinges on that.

 

You are totally open to scientific information and theory - except when it questions religion, as you feel your beliefs are far above worldly experience, and are automatically correct through being somehow superior, outside reality, and more correct than the hundreds of other religions out there. And you accuse me of arrogance?

 

I've pointed out the blatant fallacy of your position and you have never addressed that - only bleating on repeatedly about empirical evidence that has always been NOT part of the subject that you are trying to address. You won't see the point and that's not uncommon.

No, you've claimed that my position is false, and your only reason for it being so is because your belief should trump any scientific evaluation of evidence. I still contend that your religion, your beliefs, are no more valid than any other religion, and no more so than the theory of the great space teapot.

 

I am prepared to respect your point of view. It seems your position denies you the opportunity to reciprocate. QED.

As has been said before - you don't seem to comprehend my point of view. I have no disrespect for religion, but I do for the idea that one religion is any more correct than any other belief structure based purely on assertions over evidence. Particularly when the main argument being presented for it is then that evidence is not required.

 

An assertion, yes. I have no issue with that.

An assertion is not evidence in the slightest. I can assert anything I want to.

 

Incidentally it's quite obvious you don't understand what QED means.

 

Quod erat demonstrandum - which is to be demonstrated - i.e. that which is definitively proven by the evidence put forwards.

Edited August 16, 2010 by jamesb