Christianity Continues Decline in America: Pew Survey Results

[Saint Frankenstein]

Define empiricism. Do you know where empiricism started? Do you know what it implies?

It simply states that knowledge is gained from observation through our senses. We will not suddenly populate information in our own mind without having learned it first. It isn't illogical and it isn't contradictory to emotion or psychological states. True I think it would be hard to say that they have an empirical relationship with god but it doesn't mean that they aren't empirical about knowledge.

Empiricism states that knowledge comes from sense-experience, such as observation and direct experience. It's 5 sense focused. So it excludes things that can't be physically quantified.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Empiricism emphasizes evidence. I don't mean quantify, I said and mean empiricism.

It is not fully empirical because the very nature of experience is internalized and non empirical. It has no basis in physical or objective reality. And the psychological study give us a very poor, incomplete and fuzzy picture of what actually is going on.

And the other part of empiricism is gaining knowledge through our senses, which is another rubbish position since it is not our senses which give us knowledge. What about those people (like billions of theists) who gain some subjective sense of the divine through their interaction with nature, would you classify that as empirical?

Are you suggesting that there is no evidence of emotional or psychological states?

 

[MD]

By the observable consequences.

Love, or at least some forms of it, can be detected and measured to some degree by the signs of confort, commitment, common goals and mutual support of people. Or you can choose instead to measure physiological effects of people on each other under varied circunstances, detect and describe patterns, experiment with distances, verbal mentions, intentional recalling of absent people. Same for friendship.

It is not all that different from studying electromagnetism (which is very much a mystery when push comes to shove, and more of an evidence of a creator god than anything in emotions or biology IMO), medicine or grammatics.

Concepts, specifically, are human creations and therefore human responsibility. There is no way of measuring their understanding other than by studying human interactions and behavior.

It could all be an act or it could look genuine from the outside, but the person simply could be a p-zombie. The very nature of 'feeling' defies all empirical and materialist definitions. The physiological responses do not prove anything is going on inside, it simply shows what is going on to us as an outsider. The only reason we relate is because we can empathize from our own experiences.

Your opinion on electromagnetism is something similar, although I am coming at it from the consciousness perspective.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Empiricism states that knowledge comes from sense-experience, such as observation and direct experience. It's 5 sense focused. So it excludes things that can't be physically quantified.

And? What so far is illogical about this? You can have beliefs in god that you don't claim knowledge of. And it doesn't have to be physically quantified in order to be somewhat understood.

 

[MD]

Are you suggesting that there is no evidence of emotional or psychological states?

There is no evidence that others have subjective experiences at all, simply the objective correlates we attach to them.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

And? What so far is illogical about this? You can have beliefs in god that you don't claim knowledge of. And it doesn't have to be physically quantified in order to be somewhat understood.

It doesn't account for experiences that can't be observed, such as spiritual experiences.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

There is no evidence that others have subjective experiences at all, simply the objective correlates we attach to them.

This is false. We do have empirical evidence and study based around psychology and sociology. Now we have neurobiology as well. Because of this approach we are able to get a far better explanation and understanding of these things that ever before. We can also record, measure and track the accounts given by people on subjective experiences that can give us an empirical source to draw conclusions about the true nature of these subjective experiences.

 

[MD]

This is false. We do have empirical evidence and study based around psychology and sociology. Now we have neurobiology as well. Because of this approach we are able to get a far better explanation and understanding of these things that ever before. We can also record, measure and track the accounts given by people on subjective experiences that can give us an empirical source to draw conclusions about the true nature of these subjective experiences.

You are wrong, please look up the Hard Problem of consciousness and educate yourself.

I am talking about qualia, intentionality and awareness, understanding and perception. Since there is no causal mechanism which can even begin to attempt how neurological structures in tandem with neural networks and neurotransmitters give rise to them, this is not evidence. At best it is an inference.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It doesn't account for experiences that can't be observed, such as spiritual experiences.

Indeed. But it doesn't work for our own personal experiences and yet we can come to understand them through psychology. Even if this means looking at it through the lens of recorded data based upon the relayed subjective experiences. Its also important to note that empiricism doesn't claim that subjective experiences don't happen, as actually empirical data MUST be obtained subjectively through our senses. Our direct sensory experiences are also subjective. I don't understand where you get this idea that subjectivity and empiricism are somehow at odds with each other.

The origin of the concept actually goes back to the debates between the Philosophers of Aristotle and Plato. Plato postulated that all knowledge already existed in your mind and you simply needed to unlock it. Aristotle countered and postulated that we "learn" from experience. For example there is no amount of wisdom that can be had that will allow us to know that a stove is hot until we experience it ourselves or have someone tell us the experience. We do not simply, innately know.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You are wrong, please look up the Hard Problem of consciousness and educate yourself.

If you want a pissing contest go to the trough.

If you have an issue how empirical methods of obtaining information is actually an issue on this you will have to do some work here to explain your issue and why our current understanding must be 'wrong". I just so happen to have a bit of education on the subject given to me first hand by one of the more educated members of this site. I was sufficiently proven wrong and am willing to have my mind changed again if you are able to provide evidence or argument of substance.

 

[MD]

If you want a pissing contest go to the trough.

If you have an issue how empirical methods of obtaining information is actually an issue on this you will have to do some work here to explain your issue and why our current understanding must be 'wrong". I just so happen to have a bit of education on the subject given to me first hand by one of the more educated members of this site. I was sufficiently proven wrong and am willing to have my mind changed again if you are able to provide evidence or argument of substance.

I have proven my argument, please look up what I have written before rambling your ignorance off.

 

[Jumi]

Yea except the communist atheist regimes killed tens of millions of people...I doubt the opposite side did the same.

I suspected you wanted to pin communist crimes on modern atheists when you talked about atheism as a movement. It seems to be the usual fare. A similar response would be to pin the crimes of Crusaders, Jihadists on Zoroastrians since you are all part of the theist movement.

The Anti-Communists, including Nazis did their fair share of killing even before WW2.

And I am not talking about dialectic materialism, I am talking about materialism as a philosophical position itself.

Materialism as a philosophic position is different from the communist one, which has the strange "magical" idea that humanity is progressing towards communism.

That all aspects of human nature can be explained through empirical study. This has been philosophically shown to be impossible, but it continues to be paraded about in the atheist movement as truth and any view which opposed it is derided as 'woo'.

I don't think everything can be explained satisfactorily. At least not yet.

 

[Jumi]

How many millennia of age must a movement have for it to no longer be called new, and how little of a direction must it lack before it is no longer a movement?

Atheism just is.

I suspect atheism is every bit as new as theism.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I have proven my argument, please look up what I have written before rambling your ignorance off.

I have. Usually when people start spouting off about how I need to educate myself and tell me how ignorant I am there isn't much behind their argument. So far you have fallen into fallacies and assumptions that aren't actually part of the problem itself.

For example the idea of "feeling" and "subjective experience" is not actually against empiricism. What empiricism means is that we can't actually learn from these things what the true nature is. If I have purely personal experience then that is great. It doesn't mean that empiricism is somehow thrown out the window. Empiricism talks about the gaining of knowledge. I cannot have new knowledge suddenly populate into my brain except in rare cases of free from experience logical conclusions (such as math but the argument is that math itself had to be learned).

Unless you are stating that you have somehow gained knowledge about the outside world from something beyond your own senses then you aren't putting up an argument against empiricism.

 

[MD]

I suspected you wanted to pin communist crimes on modern atheists when you talked about atheism as a movement. It seems to be the usual fare. A similar response would be to pin the crimes of Crusaders, Jihadists on Zoroastrians since you are all part of the theist movement.

The Anti-Communists, including Nazis did their fair share of killing even before WW2.


Materialism as a philosophic position is different from the communist one, which has the strange "magical" idea that humanity is progressing towards communism.


I don't think everything can be explained satisfactorily. At least not yet.

Loll Zoroastrians, that's funny.

I am not pinning the communist atrocities on modern atheism, I am saying in some ways they hold similar positions and that they both devalue the unique nature of human life. I am also saying that given sufficient power, ANY organization or religion will commit atrocities. Even Buddhists are committing atrocities in the world. It's just that since atheists believe morality is relative and that human beings are dispensible and without special meaning, the atrocities will be pretty bad.

 

[LuisDantas]

It could all be an act or it could look genuine from the outside, but the person simply could be a p-zombie. The very nature of 'feeling' defies all empirical and materialist definitions. The physiological responses do not prove anything is going on inside, it simply shows what is going on to us as an outsider. The only reason we relate is because we can empathize from our own experiences.

Your opinion on electromagnetism is something similar, although I am coming at it from the consciousness perspective.

Indeed, we all are apparently indistinguishable from phylosophical zombies. Which leads to the question of whether there is any real, meaningful difference between a p-zombie and an actual person. Which by its turn begs the question of whether there is any true or clear meaning to the concept of soul.

 

[LuisDantas]

I suspect atheism is every bit as new as theism.

I'm pretty certain it is. Perhaps older, depending on how explicit it must be.

 

[MD]

I have. Usually when people start spouting off about how I need to educate myself and tell me how ignorant I am there isn't much behind their argument. So far you have fallen into fallacies and assumptions that aren't actually part of the problem itself.

For example the idea of "feeling" and "subjective experience" is not actually against empiricism. What empiricism means is that we can't actually learn from these things what the true nature is. If I have purely personal experience then that is great. It doesn't mean that empiricism is somehow thrown out the window. Empiricism talks about the gaining of knowledge. I cannot have new knowledge suddenly populate into my brain except in rare cases of free from experience logical conclusions (such as math but the argument is that math itself had to be learned).

Unless you are stating that you have somehow gained knowledge about the outside world from something beyond your own senses then you aren't putting up an argument against empiricism.

This is where your argument falls apart.

I find that rather stupid, that evidence comes from sensory experience. How can evidence come from sensations itself, when sensations are transformed into perceptions? And when perceptions themselves cannot be defined objectively, how can the theory claim to have all the answers?

Empiricism says that evidence is a very important aspect of knowledge, and since there is 0 evidence that or anyone else has subjective experience, it kind of nullifies the theory itself in the study of the mind. Empiricism is useless for studying the very topic of subjectivity itself, under which religions and God/Gods/Karma also fall.

It's great for studying objective things, but it fails with subjectivity.

 

[MD]

Indeed, we all are apparently indistinguishable from phylosophical zombies. Which leads to the question of whether there is any real, meaningful difference between a p-zombie and an actual person. Which by its turn begs the question of whether there is any true or clear meaning to the concept of soul.

Well I know I'm not a p-zombie. But I don't think you nor I are willing to become solipsists.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well I know I'm not a p-zombie. But I don't think you nor I are willing to become solipsists.

And yet it is solipsism that you are proposing, to the degree that we are expected to claim to have a soul that has literally no discernible consequence for being.

In other words, it is glorified make-believe.

How do you know you are not a p-zombie? Is there any evidence at all for that, or do we have to simply trust your word on that?