Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[ppp]

The whole basis of Darwin's theory can't be observed.
He proposed that all species derive from one or a few species...we cannot observe that happening.

That's not the basis. That is the conclusion. Why don't you know the basis.

 

[PruePhillip]

Why does he need to offer more evidence than you offered for there being transcendence or meaning to life?

A good scientist will say 'There could be ghosts, or not. We have no evidence either way.'
A bad scientist will say 'There's no such thing as ghosts.'
Works with UFO's and the meaning of life, too.

 

[ppp]

A good scientist will say 'There could be ghosts, or not. We have no evidence either way.'
A bad scientist will say 'There's no such thing as ghosts.'
Works with UFO's and the meaning of life, too.

A good scientist would place your claims in the same bucket as molemen and dryads. A good scientist would also point out that you are just asserting stuff without evidence. They would also point out that there is no reason to believe that you know what you are talking about or that you are capable of knowing what you are talking about.

It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that such things don't exist, pending new evidence.

 

[DNB]

Faith and understanding don't overlap. Understanding (knowledge) is gained from experience, and is rooted in observation (empiricism). Faith is belief divorced from evidence. Understanding causes is science.



You already said that, and I explained why I disagreed then. I wrote, "If intelligence relates to problem solving and the ability to get what one desires, wisdom is knowing what things will bring happiness, what things to direct one's intelligence to solve. And faith is nothing more or less than unjustified belief, which as I indicated is the same as guessing and believing one's guess to the same extent that one's justified beliefs are believed."

You didn't try to rebut my position. You just dismissed it out of hand without trying to explain why it couldn't be correct. You didn't try to explain why wisdom involves whatever you mean by "what caused an occurrence an occurrence of a situation" and how that is not already included in "knowing what things will bring happiness." I presume that you are referencing your god belief there, since I also presume that you consider that part of wisdom. If believing that a deity exists was part of finding happiness for you, that's fine, but not relevant for those who do that without such a belief and therefore not part of the definition of wisdom. Knowing more that what will bring happiness, my definition of wisdom, is not part of wisdom and doesn't contribute to attaining that happiness.

And you still haven't made an argument for faith being wisdom, just the unsupported claim. Faith is simply a guess. Whatever one believes by faith is something that he has decided to believe without sufficient supporting evidence. That's obviously a potential path to unhappiness. It didn't work well at Jonestown or Waco, where it led to death and misery in both cases. Faith was not a virtue for them, nor a path to truth, nor a path to happiness. It was a fatal error. If you want to argue that faith is wisdom, please explain how faith was wise for those people. You can't.

That's a rebuttal of your claim. It's not just disagreement, but an explicit explanation of why your position cannot be correct if mine is. The two are mutually exclusive. At most, one is correct. Right now, it's my position. If I'm correct, you cannot be. If you cannot do the same and explain why my comment that faith isn't wisdom if it leads to misery is incorrect, why that's wisdom anyway, then you have been shown to be incorrect. That's how debate proceeds. Anything else is not debate, but just people disagreeing and talking past one another and not addressing arguments made.

Wisdom is discerning what's true regardless of the outcome, it has nothing to do with finding happiness.

 

[PruePhillip]

A good scientist would place your claims in the same bucket as molemen and dryads. A good scientist would also point out that you are just asserting stuff without evidence. They would also point out that there is no reason to believe that you know what you are talking about or that you are capable of knowing what you are talking about.

It is perfectly reasonable to conclude that such things don't exist, pending new evidence.

I suppose you know the old argument about 'All swans are white' ???
Turned out Australian ones were black.
I recall the Loch Ness mystery turned out to have an answer - a lower thermal layer causing underwater waters to reach the surface
and the mythic Australia 'min min lights' which operated on a similar basis, channeling light over vast distances between thermal layers.
I worked with a guy called Valentich whose brother disapeared in 1978 in an UFO incident (he told me NASA returned the radar and audio tapes to him, declaring they had 'no natural explanation' of what happened to his brother.

and with the bible, THIS YEAR we have the publication of information on an air burst over the Jordan Valley early Iron Age, the locatio of Sodom and Gomorrah. And evidence for Hebrew writing much older than found before - disproving those who said the Jews couldn't write the bible at that time as they couldn't write.

So I keep an open mind - people who declared 'something' was in the Loch, or were 'followed' by mystery lights or saw an 'UFO' could be speaking the truth.
And more and more bits of bible 'myth' are surfacing as fact.
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, as some wiser souls say.

 

[F1fan]

How do YOU know there is no transcendence or meaning to life? Where is your rebuttal?

Rebuttal to what? Religious claims of truth? Religious claims of truth and meaning are laughable. They are so bad and unfounded in reality they don't even deserve rebuttal. They aren't based in fact. The claims are not credible. We sure as hell won't accept the claims of believers. They always insist their religious beliefs are the absolute truth. Even the Crusades could solve that dispute between the muslims and Christians. The Troubles in ireland could solve the dispute between the Catholics and Protestants.

There's no doubt that all religions that humans created were the basis for meaning of select humans that lived under the influence. But universal meaning? No way. None of the earthly religious should be so bold as to claim they respect meaning for the whole of the universe. You wouldn't be that arrogant, would you?

That's not science - there really could be black swans somewhere on the earth.
The bible is built from different authors and different ages. That's fine - it's presents itself as a mystery. Anything before Abraham is not a Jewish book at all - more Sumerian I suppose. And there's Yahwist authors, and Elohim authors, and priestly authors etc.. The Jews were split into two nations after Solomon and I suspect the bible was too - the northern Israel bible slowly deviated from the southern Juda one, so we get two accounts of some things.

Works like this. The prophecy was that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem of the tribe of Juda. But in the Christmas story Jesus is born in Bethlehem, flees to Egypt to escape Herod and returns to live in Galilee with the tribe of Zebulum and Napthalee. But when the religious leaders mock Jesus they point out he is a Galilean and not of Judah as prophecy insists. Jesus did not reply. He wasn't here to argue some technical point but appeal to people's hearts. If you don't find appeal in the Gospel then that is fine - no-one pushing you, no-one arguing with you. The bible gives you a 'get out of jail' card so that you can easily excuse yourself from its demands.

Whatever the history of the Bible there is no reason too believe it extends beyond this planet.

 

[F1fan]

Wisdom is discerning what's true regardless of the outcome, it has nothing to do with finding happiness.

So it is wise to reject religions since theists can't demonstrate their religions are true?

So atheists are wise. Theists, not so much.

 

[ppp]

I suppose you know the old argument about 'All swans are white' ???

It's not relevant. You are not claiming that some bird that has been demonstrated to exist may exist with a different color. You are claiming that some realm for which there is now evidence. First establish that the realm exists. Until you do that, there is no reason to concern ourselves with the color of the birds in my it.

 

[PruePhillip]

It's not relevant. You are not claiming that some bird that has been demonstrated to exist may exist with a different color. You are claiming that some realm for which there is now evidence. First establish that the realm exists. Until you do that, there is no reason to concern ourselves with the color of the birds in my it.

This is what Gould (?) called the "non-overlapping Magisteria" of science and religion. Science is about the world and religion is about meaning and value.
Religion for me takes on the philosophical dimension (why something rather than nothing stuff) the veracity of the bible and spiritual feelings/experiences.

Thought you understood the black swan thing. Once people said 'All swans are white' as though it was a certainty, if not a science statement. But you can't say that because you haven't seen every swan on earth (or anywhere else!) and as it turned out, there WERE black swans in another country. So you cannot say that something 'doesn't exist' as you can't prove it. And that joke about the sheep on a hill in Scotland is good too - with the physicist, chemist and mathematician.

 

[PruePhillip]

Rebuttal to what? Religious claims of truth? Religious claims of truth and meaning are laughable. They are so bad and unfounded in reality they don't even deserve rebuttal. They aren't based in fact. The claims are not credible. We sure as hell won't accept the claims of believers. They always insist their religious beliefs are the absolute truth. Even the Crusades could solve that dispute between the muslims and Christians. The Troubles in ireland could solve the dispute between the Catholics and Protestants.

There's no doubt that all religions that humans created were the basis for meaning of select humans that lived under the influence. But universal meaning? No way. None of the earthly religious should be so bold as to claim they respect meaning for the whole of the universe. You wouldn't be that arrogant, would you?


Whatever the history of the Bible there is no reason too believe it extends beyond this planet.

Here you are refering to religious groups of which I don't happen to believe in. Their fighting and hate BREACH the doctrines they claim to live by. As for extending beyond the planet, don't know as I haven't been outside the planet - much to my regret, too old now to avail myself of some SpaceX Special. But what of those on the ISS? Maybe.

 

[F1fan]

This is what Gould (?) called the "non-overlapping Magisteria" of science and religion. Science is about the world and religion is about meaning and value.

Religion is a fairly short term phenomenon for humans who have been around for about 200,000 years. It coincides with the development of permanent settlements, along with art and other creative efforts. Religion had a crucial role in early human civilization, but that role has diminished over time. Today religions are cultural traditions. Do they offer varying levels of meaning and value? Yes. Are there other types of meaning and value that go deeper for people. Frankly I like the approach of Viktor Frankl who wrote in his book Man's Search For Meaning that meaning comes to individuals when they set goals worthy of themselves.

Religion for me takes on the philosophical dimension (why something rather than nothing stuff) the veracity of the bible and spiritual feelings/experiences.

This is what strikes me as odd, that many people seek meaning that states the universe has meaning and a person assumes this meaning by accepting it. And all via a set of words that have no basis in fact. This seems to be appealing to the base insecurities of the human mind, and only brings about despair because the person does nothing themselves to create meaning for themselves.

 

[F1fan]

Here you are refering to religious groups of which I don't happen to believe in.

What makes you special? You are just one of many members in your particular belief system, and these others in religious groups you don't believe are among many other members. But you are all members to whatever religious groups are out there. Can any of you demonstrate your religious group has the truth? Of course not. That is the humorous thing about Christianity, it's a religion of anything goes. Whatever you want to believe in, there is a sect for you. The truth? Sure, whatever strikes your fancy.

Their fighting and hate BREACH the doctrines they claim to live by. As for extending beyond the planet, don't know as I haven't been outside the planet - much to my regret, too old now to avail myself of some SpaceX Special. But what of those on the ISS? Maybe.

Do you think landing on the moon os going to give you insight into universal truth? That's not even out of our solar system. It's not even out of our galaxy of billions of galaxies. You wouldn't be that arrogant, would you? You can't even argue that Christianity is a stable and single truth on this planet, let alone a nation or community.

 

[PruePhillip]

What makes you special? You are just one of many members in your particular belief system, and these others in religious groups you don't believe are among many other members. But you are all members to whatever religious groups are out there. Can any of you demonstrate your religious group has the truth? Of course not. That is the humorous thing about Christianity, it's a religion of anything goes. Whatever you want to believe in, there is a sect for you. The truth? Sure, whatever strikes your fancy.


Do you think landing on the moon os going to give you insight into universal truth? That's not even out of our solar system. It's not even out of our galaxy of billions of galaxies. You wouldn't be that arrogant, would you? You can't even argue that Christianity is a stable and single truth on this planet, let alone a nation or community.

Landing on the moon won't give me any special truth. Find it funny to read of astronauts who claim it did. Certainly I would be changed by the experience - I was in a luna simulation once, and that was awesome and scary - but new truths? Nah.

Quote - "Can any of you demonstrate your religious group has the truth? Of course not." Of course you can. Those Christians murdering Jews are not displaying any truth because they have no truth. Truth is carefully defined in the Gospels - that of conforming to the image of God's own son. We are given doctrine and we are given a standard of behavior that leaves no wiggle room. One such account was Jesus healing the servant's ear when Jesus was being arrested - so if you seek to harm another person, FOR WHATEVER REASON, then you violate the standard set in scripture. That's 'truth.' If a Muslim should show such observance, or a Hindu, then that's a good sign of approaching that truth.

 

[PruePhillip]

Religion is a fairly short term phenomenon for humans who have been around for about 200,000 years. It coincides with the development of permanent settlements, along with art and other creative efforts. Religion had a crucial role in early human civilization, but that role has diminished over time. Today religions are cultural traditions. Do they offer varying levels of meaning and value? Yes. Are there other types of meaning and value that go deeper for people. Frankly I like the approach of Viktor Frankl who wrote in his book Man's Search For Meaning that meaning comes to individuals when they set goals worthy of themselves.


This is what strikes me as odd, that many people seek meaning that states the universe has meaning and a person assumes this meaning by accepting it. And all via a set of words that have no basis in fact. This seems to be appealing to the base insecurities of the human mind, and only brings about despair because the person does nothing themselves to create meaning for themselves.

This is thoughtful, thank you, and worth giving a proper answer - only I have to go out. If I haven't answered it within a day or two, just remind me.

 

[Watchmen]

As Ricky Gervais recently said, Thank you for the prayers but don’t forget the chemotherapy! Cause that’s the part that works.

 

[Kenny]

There are no conditions on how one prays.

r!!

then let me tear out some of the pages of the book.

Or maybe I will just disagree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religion is a fairly short term phenomenon for humans who have been around for about 200,000 years. It coincides with the development of permanent settlements, along with art and other creative efforts. Religion had a crucial role in early human civilization, but that role has diminished over time. Today religions are cultural traditions. Do they offer varying levels of meaning and value? Yes. Are there other types of meaning and value that go deeper for people. Frankly I like the approach of Viktor Frankl who wrote in his book Man's Search For Meaning that meaning comes to individuals when they set goals worthy of themselves.


This is what strikes me as odd, that many people seek meaning that states the universe has meaning and a person assumes this meaning by accepting it. And all via a set of words that have no basis in fact. This seems to be appealing to the base insecurities of the human mind, and only brings about despair because the person does nothing themselves to create meaning for themselves.

Well, yes. But if we play fact as objective evidence or similar concepts then no meaning is a fact. Not even with any variant of non-religious reason, logic, evidence, truth, proof, rationality or similar concepts. It is in philosophy called the fact value distinction and it has this effect.
There is no objective meaning, therefore it is wrong to claim objective meaning. The first one is fact where as therefore... is not a fact, but an evaluation, a value belief/opinion/norm or what ever you want to call it.

Further religion is not the only category of human worldview that claims objective meaning. Ayn Rand in her Objectivism did the same using philosophy in a standard non-religious sense.

 

[Polymath257]

You are describing agnostics. If one isn't sure there's no God he's not an atheist obviously.

Ahh...so you don't know what it means to be an atheist.

An atheist is something who lacks the belief in a God. So, for example, someone who does not believe in Thor is atheist concerning Thor. They may think that Thor is a possibility, but they have not been convinced that Thor actually exists.

An agnostic is someone who doesn't think it is possible to *know* whether God exists or not. So, if you don't think it is possible to know whether Thor exists or not, then you are agnostic when it comes to Thor.

Now, most people that are atheist or agnostic use the term for all deities: Thor, Yahweh, Athena, Apollo, etc. Otherwise most people would be atheist to some degree.

I have pointed out situations where I would start to believe in a creator God. But, at this point, I don't believe in any such. I find the evidence scanty, unreliable, and poor. So I do not believe.

 

[Polymath257]

Straw man. No, I think there would be no reason for me to tell someone else that killing, etc was wrong. And it seems you agree, with your admission that there's no real standard of right and wrong.

No, we *disagree*. Even with no God, there is plenty of reason to say that killing is not good.

And, if God said that killing was good, he would be wrong.

The standard of right and wrong is human well being. Killing someone does not promote that. Easy.

The basis of morality is Thinking and Caring. Care about those around you and the effect you have on others. And Think about what you do and how it impacts the world around you. Compassion and a sense of Fairness are other good moral values. And atheists understand this at least as well as theists. Sometimes, it seems atheists understand this better than many theists.

 

[Polymath257]

The whole basis of Darwin's theory can't be observed.
He proposed that all species derive from one or a few species...we cannot observe that happening.

So you also don't understand what Darwin said, nor the modern theory of evolution.

Darwin *speculated* that all life has a common ancestor. he did not regard that as proven, by a long shot.

Since his time, there has been a LOT more evidence pointing in that direction. But, we don't know specifics, so to that degree it is still speculation.

But that is not necessary for the theory of evolution. Evolution was established before Darwin did his work. What Darwin did is give a mechanism for how evolution happens (others were proposed before him). That mechanism has been merged with our understanding of genetics (and *nobody* understood genetics when Darwin was around) to give the modern synthesis.

We have seen speciation in the lab and in the real world. Deniers that don't understand what evolution says will say something along the line of 'it is still a lizard'. But all that shows is that they don't understand the basics.