Tc’s atheist discussion thread – everyone’s welcome.. gas weed

#########

If ten people tasted a cup electricity merit badge pamphlet pdf of coffee, and they couldn’t even agree about whether it was salty, bitter, sweet, bland, or spicy – couldn’t agree about whether it was black or gray or purple or pink – couldn’t agree about how warm it was – but they all were confident they’d had a real experience of coffee – you’d know something funny must be going on.

are both evidence against the reality of the phenomenon, then we can safely conclude that the issue of similarity or difference has no evidential value in the discussion, and disregard it. (It’s very like the case of the old ‘argument from design’ for the existence of God. If William Paley in the early C19th could use the apparent design of the universe to prove the existence of a divine creator, and also Richard Dawkins can use it in the C20th to show that the existence of a divine creator is unnecessary, then that’s a pretty clear indication that the apparent design of the universe has no evidential value in a philosophical discussion about the existence of God.)

are both evidence against the reality of the phenomenon, then we can safely conclude that the issue of similarity or difference has no evidential value in the discussion, and disregard it. (It’s very like the case of the old ‘argument from design’ for the existence of God. If William Paley in the early C19th could use the apparent design of the universe to prove the existence of a divine creator, and also Richard Dawkins can use it in the C20th to show that electricity in costa rica for travelers the existence of a divine creator is unnecessary, then that’s a pretty clear indication that the apparent design of the universe has no evidential value in a philosophical discussion about the existence of God.)

It is impossible to get away from the problem of religious diverstiy. At best maybe 1/6 of humanity could be right about the spiritual world. You either say with Chris that the rest of humanity is utterly wrong about their religious experiences, and arbitrarily believe in those of your own tradition or community; or you admit that there seems to be a general misunderstanding of the experiences.

Perhaps they’re actually experiencing basically the same thing but failing to realize gas tax nj it, like the parable of the elephant and the blind men. I really think this is a fine theory, with several advantages relative to the we’re right and everyone else is wrong kind of theory, but it amounts to saying that nearly all of humanity misunderstands their religious experience.

So I went ahead and watched it now. It is certainly interesting and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s on the right path. I would nit-pick here and there, of course: his awareness of the diversity of religious experience is inconsistent; he endorses the ideas that religion is comforting and a response to consciousness of death, both of which I doubt; and his explanation for the development of the ability to have religious experiences doesn’t appear to make evolutionary sense (or at least he didn’t explain it in a way that did). Those are small points though; certainly we have the ability to induce religious experience with drugs and so on, and perhaps a magnetic stimulation would have a similar effect. If so, that would really help us focus our research.

The study of religion is actually my field, so I read a lot of scholarly stuff in it, and I think you might be interested in some of it. Contemporary Theories of Religion: A Critical Companion considers about a dozen of the common academic and pop-intellectual theories of religion, including Scott Atran’s and David Sloan Wilson’s, which I believe are just about right. (They build on work by Pascal Boyer and E. O. Wilson, whose work you’re more likely to be familiar with.)

I don’t see that both (a) and (b) are evidences against the reality of a phenomenon ag gaston birmingham 120, just that (a) provides no evidence of anything, and (b) provides evidence for a phenomenon naturally explained. What’s really the problem here is that you can’t have (a) or (b) as evidence in support of a supposedly supernatural phenomenon, but that’s understandable seeing as anything supernatural must function beyond the possibilities of universal physics, and so what use is human evidence anyway?

But again, that isn’t at all the point I’m making. My point is not a specific one, but a general one: that if we find that the same piece of information can be worked both ways to ‘prove’ mutually incompatible conclusions, then the supposed ‘evidence’ is either not being interpreted correctly, or doesn’t possess the evidential value we thought it did. If I’m to be shot if I stand up, and shot if I sit down, then my subsequent shooting can’t be explained by the fact that I stood up. (Or sat down.) We must look elsewhere for the real explanation of why I was shot. Similarly pictures electricity pylons with the diversity of reported religious experience, insofar as the pure diversity is the issue in question.

Again, speaking generally – these supposed rational arguments are mostly the methods we use to justify decisions we’ve already reached on other, usually intuitive, grounds. Often there’s nothing wrong with the arguments themselves, given the premises, but usually we’ve chosen the premises to make sure we get to the conclusion we want. Then we tend to overlook the fact that we’ve done that (often because the choice was subconsciously made), and so in the consequent argument each party believes he’s the one being entirely reasonable, and all the others mistaken.

Oh let it not be, that any believer, who desires to see God, mourn for the fall of the world; for it is written, Whosoever will be a friend of this world, will be accounted a foe of God. But he who rejoices not at the approach of the ending of the world, manifests that he was its friend, and will then be convicted that he is God’s foe.

I was reminded of this snippet of 1000-year-old wisdom earlier today, having studied a fair bit of Anglo-Saxon eschatology, and I was gas prices map wondering about others’ takes on it. It’s an idea still present today, and, arguably, ought to be the default position of any religious person. There are a lot of people in the world who strive for it to end, and hope to see some kind of armageddon so that mankind is brought closer to god in heaven – after all, when there’s eternal bliss on offer, earth looks pretty damn crap!

Since you ask, I’ll respond, though I don’t have anything valuable to say. I don’t feel any need to defend that statement you quote (history is full of statements, both religious and anti-religious, that bear little inspection), but one thing that comes to mind is this: if I’m at the cinema watching an interesting movie, knowing that afterwards I’m going out for a slap-up feed, that doesn’t mean I want to abandon the cinema in order to get started on the feed, even though I may be looking forward to the feed and even perhaps slightly hungry. It’s nice to know the Big Feed lies gas up yr hearse ahead, but this is a good movie, and I’m glad to continue with it. (This is not MY religious viewpoint, I hasten to add; but I don’t see anything illogical about it.)