Atheisms and the supernatural

[PureX]

And I reject that as being the definition of theism because that's not the definition of theism. That is just what you believe to be the definition of theism. PureX asserted that theism asserts that God/gods exist in a way that affects our (humanity's) existence. Your belief is irrelevant.

So now what? How do we move forward with the discussion?

You would explain, logically, how my asserting theism is wrong. Because it's the truth assertion that matters, philosophically, not what you think I believe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Philosophy, art, and religion are simply the expressed thoughts and feelings of individuals and are not constrained by reality. Such thoughts and feelings are limited only by the imagination of the one expressing a particular thought or feeling. Whether a particular idea comports with, or reflects reality is only true if it is corroborated by science. The scientific method of inquiry is the only reliable tool available with which to evaluate our thoughts, ideas, and feelings and expand our limited, but growing, understanding of the universe and ourselves.

So how do I test a feeling using science?
How do I do morality using science?

 

[PureX]

Philosophy, art, and religion are simply the expressed thoughts and feelings of individuals and are not constrained by reality.

They ARE reality. You are confusing reality with physicality, as most philosophical materialists, do.

Such thoughts and feelings are limited only by the imagination of the one expressing a particular thought or feeling. Whether a particular idea comports with, or reflects reality is only true if it is corroborated by science.

Again, you are confusing reality with physicality. They are not the same.

The scientific method of inquiry is the only reliable tool available with which to evaluate our thoughts, ideas, and feelings and expand our limited, but growing, understanding of the universe and ourselves.

This is called "scientism": the belief that science is the only pathway to truth. And it's quite wrong. Because science can only investigate physicality, while existence includes metaphysicality - cognition. Such that to understand existence, we need art, and philosophy, and religion. Because science cannot investigate the metaphysical realm of existence. It can only investigate the physical realm of existence.

 

[paarsurrey]

They ARE reality. You are confusing reality with physicality, as most philosophical materialists, do.
Again, you are confusing reality with physicality. They are not the same.
This is called "scientism": the belief that science is the only pathway to truth. And it's quite wrong. Because science can only investigate physicality, while existence includes metaphysicality - cognition. Such that to understand existence, we need art, and philosophy, and religion. Because science cannot investigate the metaphysical realm of existence. It can only investigate the physical realm of existence.

I appreciate and agree with one here.
Regards

 

[MikeF]

So how do I test a feeling using science?

It depends on the feeling being expressed? Feel cold? Feel Sad? Feel that crooked teeth correlates to low IQ?

How do I do morality using science?

Morality has to do with expectations and agreements among people on how to behave and act. Science can help evaluate rules and agreements on behavior for their effectiveness, efficacy. Moral rules or principles can be whatever the interacting group of people agree they are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As you said: "Woo: unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis".

Your beliefs are, to put it mildly, unconventional.

As you said: "Woo: unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis".
Your belief that we may be living in a computer simulation has no scientific basis.

So, you admit your beliefs are WOO.

G'bye.

Take 2:
Unconventional: not based on or conforming to what is generally done or believed.
Okay, let us say that it is unconventional. Now it follows that I can still do it. I can reject your worldview of knowledge and act differently than you. In effect I don't believe in knowledge like you do. We both individually believe and do parts of the world differently.

So what is next? You have in effect admit that I can in effect do and believe differently than you. So I consider it true and a fact that we both individually believe and do parts of the world differently.
We have now established that. Now what? What is the point? What follows with knowledge? What is your answer as based on knowledge?
As shown in my first answer above the question of being in a computer simulation follows from science. It is not based on anything religious, mystical or spiritual. It is based on a naturalistic worldview and follows from a naturalistic worldview.

So what is next with knowledge?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Morality has to do with expectations and agreements among people on how to behave and act. Science can help evaluate rules and agreements on behavior for their effectiveness, efficacy. Moral rules or principles can be whatever the interacting group of people agree they are.

That is not science. You have broken your own rule. Only use science!!!

 

[MikeF]

They ARE reality. You are confusing reality with physicality, as most philosophical materialists, do.
Again, you are confusing reality with physicality. They are not the same.
This is called "scientism": the belief that science is the only pathway to truth. And it's quite wrong. Because science can only investigate physicality, while existence includes metaphysicality - cognition. Such that to understand existence, we need art, and philosophy, and religion. Because science cannot investigate the metaphysical realm of existence. It can only investigate the physical realm of existence.

I guess the best place to start would be for you to tell me how you define reality so that we are talking about the same thing.
Next I would ask you whether people can believe something that is not true, that is imaginary and does not comport with reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I guess the best place to start would be for you to tell me how you define reality so that we are talking about the same thing.
Next I would ask you whether people can believe something that is not true, that is imaginary and does not comport with reality.

Yes, they can. Now if they couldn't, I couldn't answer "Yes, they can". So you are looking at the falsification of your test in effect.
Can people believe in something which is not true? Yes, they can.
Can they further act on such belief in some cases? Yes, the belief in witches and the burning of people for being witches is such one case.
Can they believe that reality is not just objective and that the correspondence theory of truth has a limit? Yes, I am doing it now. I am doing something mental and subjective, which can't be done using science.

 

[MikeF]

That is not science. You have broken your own rule. Only use science!!!

I don't believe I expressed a rule, rather, I simply stated that science is currently the best method with which to discern reality, or that which is real. Morality has nothing to do with reality. In some cultures it is rude to belch and in others it is considered giving a compliment to the chef. In some cultures, the killing of another human being is abhorrent while in others there are lots of good reasons to kill people. We can use scientific rigor to explore why some cultures developed a particular taboo or moral principle. You can't "do morality using science" as that phrase doesn't really make sense. People can comply with their societies moral codes, or they can question them. One doesn't "do morality".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't believe I expressed a rule, rather, I simply stated that science is currently the best method with which to discern reality, or that which is real. ...

Those 2 words are not based on science. They connect to what you subjectively in your thoughts consider useful. That is not science.

You have to explain what you mean by reality and then test, if that definition matches, what you experience.

 

[MikeF]

Those 2 words are not based on science. They connect to what you subjectively in your thoughts consider useful. That is not science.

How are the words "best" and "real" not based on science? Are you trying to say I haven't made a scientifically sound conclusion? Science rates, ranks, and classifies things all the time. For example, science evaluates whether one drug is better than another for a specific purpose. I'm not sure you have a clear understanding of what science is and how it works.

You have to explain what you mean by reality and then test, if that definition matches, what you experience.

First of all, what any one individual experiences, or perceives to experience, is useless information by itself. As I have stated before, we humans are imperfect observers. We are limited by the constraints of our biology, especially if injury or pathology is involved. We are limited by the environment in which we grow and develop, including how we are socialized and indoctrinated to particular beliefs and standards of behavior. As an extreme example, would you argue that a paranoid schizophrenic base a reality test on their experience alone?
So to have a hope of discerning reality, we have to evaluate, compare and contrast, the percieved experiences or observations of many, many individuals over time to see which ideas most likely represent reality. This is the test. We may be so flawed as to never be able to completely perceive or understand reality, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How are the words "best" and "real" not based on science? Are you trying to say I haven't made a scientifically sound conclusion? Science rates, ranks, and classifies things all the time. For example, science evaluates whether one drug is better than another for a specific purpose. I'm not sure you have a clear understanding of what science is and how it works.
...

That better is based on the outcome you subjective choose to evaluate for a specific purpose. E.g. do you want to kill or heal/cure a human. Which drug is better depends on the outcome you want.
You are confusing 2 elements in your thinking: How something works and if that is useful to you.

Here it is for what you fail to understand in regards to science. Science relies on objectivity, either thorough observation or using an instrument.
You can't observe useful or measure it using an instrument. Useful is a subjective standard in you for what you want; i.e. a specific purpose.

You are in effect apparently unable to understand that this - "...whether one drug is better than another for a specific purpose." - is in part subjective because what qualifies as a specific purpose is subjective.

So here is a standard test you can use for a word or a combination of words: Are there in part some form of subjectivity going on? You test that in the follow manner:
Can you observe according to the following definitions regarding observations, that the word(s) used meet the standard of observation:
- expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
- of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.

So let us use a dog and the purpose of killing a human.
Can you see a dog? Yes.
Can you see that you want to kill a human? No! You can't see that. That is in you as a thought/feeling and if you don't want to kill a human, then that is also in you as you want to do something else. But that you want to achieve a specific purpose, is in you as a thought/feeling/interpretation.

So let us use water as an example. Can you give water to a human to help that human? Yes! Can you forcefully give water to a human so that kills the human? Yes. Both outcomes are a part of how water works in regards to the human body, but the specific purpose is in you.

In effect you use incomplete language. The full correct statement should have been:
...whether one drug is better than another for a specific purpose, for which the purpose is subjectively decided by one or more humans.
I.e. water can save a human or kill a human. Both are facts and can be tested using science. How you use that, is subjective in you.

That you are apparently unable to catch when you are not using observation/testing and using what you subjectively want to achieve as useful/good, is your problem, not mine.
I know how observation/testing works and when we are not doing that. You apparently don't!

 

[Aupmanyav]

How do I do morality using science?

Morality is related with society and law. Yeah, if you want statistics about some aspect, science can help in that case. Science can investigate how some idea of morality affects the society. But science will not manufacture a morality meter.

PureX asserted that theism asserts that God/gods exist in a way that affects our (humanity's) existence.

Does he give any evidence for what he asserts? Some people say there is an elephant in my pocket. I do not think I have an elephant in my pocket. But OK, let them give evidence of the elephant in my pocket.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Morality is related with society and law. Yeah, if you want statistics about some aspect, science can help in that case. Science can investigate how some idea of morality affects the society. But science will not manufacture a morality meter.Does he give any evidence for what he asserts? Some people say there is an elephant in my pocket. I do not think I have an elephant in my pocket. But OK, let them give evidence of the elephant in my pocket.

Stop using evidence as per science as if that is all there is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We know what is there and what is not there. We have to go by what is available till we get more.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We know what is there and what is not there. We have to go by what is available till we get more.

Yes, here is something which is there: I believe in God. That is a fact and a part of how the world works. That you in effect don't like that, is in you as something you do. You don't accept that believing in God is a part of how the world works.

And now you are going to tell me in non-scientific terms how I in effect ought to it differently. But that is not science and you have no evidence for that the fact that I ought to believe differently.
It is a fact, that religion exists and is a part of how the world works. Now how you deal with that, is your personal, individual and subjective problem and not science!!!

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, you be a perpetual skeptic that you are. I like you that way.
But, as for me, I have seen no indication (evidence) of God or his (Is he male? For many Hindus, it is a She) intervention in the world.
If religion was not a part of world, then also the world would have worked. Do the Chimps, Baboons have religion or God?

However, my current problem is not God, it is my Debian 10 installation which I love, but I want it with autologin.

 

[PureX]

I guess the best place to start would be for you to tell me how you define reality so that we are talking about the same thing.
Next I would ask you whether people can believe something that is not true, that is imaginary and does not comport with reality.

Reality is existence as we imagine it, in our minds. Existence is 'all that is', which includes and surpasses what we can know of it. Both are conceptualizations of a truth that we cannot comprehend. So, in effect; a mystery.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

As you said: "Woo: unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis".

Your beliefs are, to put it mildly, unconventional.

As you said: "Woo: unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis".
Your belief that we may be living in a computer simulation has no scientific basis.

So, you admit your beliefs are WOO.

G'bye.

Take 3: It only takes 6.22 to watch it. You can also find paper about it on Google. Just Google Nick Bostrom and relvevant words like simulated universe.

This line of thinking is not that special. It has been around for over 2000 years now in some version or another. In the end is the problem of what objective reality is other than being independent of your mind and how you can know something, which is independent of your mind. The answer is that you can't, because you know through your mind.

So in practice science relies on that the world is fair and that we can trust our senses. But that is not knowledge. That is a belief. Now you go further and claim that you know that objective reality is natural. You don't know this. It apparently only works for you to believe so. Just as it works for me to believe in God.