Life From Dirt?

[RestlessSoul]

Sounds quite a lot like self-brainwashing.
So much so that I couldn't tell the difference.

In other words, you can't trust your own heart and mind to tell you what's real and what's unreal?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nevertheless those of us with smaller appendages still manage to procreate.

So?

 

[Polymath257]

Of course not, because you're trapped in your own bias. The mind is closed by it. So no actual. Investigation took place. Just a silly pre-ordained exercize in self-validation.

Wrong. I looked at different conceptions and found them ALL to be silly or implausible.

Of course you do. And you fulfill it with 'scientism'. The belief that science is the only legitimate source for truth.

No, it isn't. For example, mathematical truth is determined by proof from axioms. That is NOT the way science establishes truth.

What I require is that truth and falsehood be distinguishable. if two people have differing beliefs, is there a way to determine who is wrong (or that both are)? if not, then there is no truth value in the beliefs.

Instead, those beliefs are a matter of taste or opinion. Which is fine. I don't like tomatoes. So I avoid eating them. Others like tomatoes. So they eat them. The belief that tomatoes are vile is my *opinion*. It is not a truth.

 

[Polymath257]

In other words, you can't trust your own heart and mind to tell you what's real and what's unreal?

Not without questioning and testing, no. It is way too easy to fall into confirmation bias and self-delusion.

The easiest person to fool is *always* yourself.

The fact that an idea *seems* plausible at first (or even at a second look) does not make it true. It is necessary to try to prove it *wrong* and see how it stands up to challenges. Only then can it be trusted to some extent.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And I think that the resurrection myth was introduced well after Jesus died. It has no basis in fact.

Perhaps. After all, Jesus despaired on the cross which suggests he was, at least in that moment, a man like any other.

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps. After all, Jesus despaired on the cross which suggests he was, at least in that moment, a man like any other.

Again, the Christian myth makes no sense to me. It is based on a cosmology that was current at the time, but has been showed to be badly wrong. Neoplatonism also makes no sense to me.

 

[Polymath257]

In other words, you can't trust your own heart and mind to tell you what's real and what's unreal?

Just to add to this: has there never been a time when you *thought* an idea was true and you later realized it was wrong?

Doesn't that show that 'heart and mind' are not alone sufficient to distinguish real from unreal?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Clearly. Has it shown that a spirit is not necessary for life

In the exact same way that it has shown that life doesn't require fairy dust.

You might want to learn the difference between positive and negative claims.
If you wish to claim that a spirit IS necessary, then YOU have the burden to show that.

To say that any unevidence thing is "not" needed, is an exercise in futility and just ridiculous.

Show me that the first tree didn't require a magic dragon egg.
Show me that a rainbow doesn't require a leprechaun hiding a pot of gold.

The "not" in these sentences makes them irrational demands.

or is that just presumed because science doesn't know how to check for spirit?

It is presumed for the same reason that it is presumed that gravity doesn't require pink undetectable graviton fairies.

My side comment is not the argument, just like your side comment about building blocks on space rocks is not an argument for anything.

Complex organic compounds in space rocks very much is an argument for something very specific.
That something being that complex organic chemistry is rather common in the universe. So common that we even encounter such chemistry in space-rocks.
You creationists always like the point, in a classic argument from ignorance, how "complex" and "rare" and "hard" it is for organic chemistry to occur naturally. And how that is a "problem" for a natural origin of life.

But the fact of the matter is that such complex chemistry is common that we even find such in space rocks.
These are the very compounds that creationists back in the day said are "too complex" to be natural.

Not only do we know and understand today how such compounds spontanously form under what type of conditions, we even know that they are abundant in space. So that type of chemistry isn't even exclusive to a specific type of planet surface.


What all this means, is that life likely isn't as rare or extra-ordinary as some would think it is.

It's true, it does not mean that. But the justice system goes on to it's decisions just as science does and neither can be 100% certain.
Do you say that science is certain that God is not needed or is that something that comes from the logic of the skeptic in you?

Again with the word "not".

Please, learn the difference between a positive claim and a negative claim.
Then learn which one carries a burden of proof.

In the meantime, please show me that what you call god is NOT just an extra-dimensional alien playing you for a fool.
Or show me that an undetectable dragon is NOT following you around everywhere.
Or show me that gravity is NOT regulated by undetectable pink gravitons.
Or show me that my post is NOT the result of a timetravelling AI.



If such is your "defence" to justify your beliefs, then it is beyond weak.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In other words, you can't trust your own heart and mind to tell you what's real and what's unreal?

Correct.

"the easiest person to fool, is yourself"

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not without questioning and testing, no. It is way too easy to fall into confirmation bias and self-delusion.

The easiest person to fool is *always* yourself.

The fact that an idea *seems* plausible at first (or even at a second look) does not make it true. It is necessary to try to prove it *wrong* and see how it stands up to challenges. Only then can it be trusted to some extent.

Yet Einstein and Stephen Hawking, two of the greatest scientific minds of the last century, were both intuitive thinkers. Of course, having been inspired by imagination and insight, they subjected their ideas to rigorous testing, as is proper for scientific materialists examining the workings of nature.

But what works in one domain doesn't necessarily work in another. The doctrine of falsifiability - developed by Popper as a means of demarcation - doesn't really work outside the natural sciences. We have to have some other way of testing our faith in God.

 

[Polymath257]

Yet Einstein and Stephen Hawking, two of the greatest scientific minds of the last century, were both intuitive thinkers. Of course, having been inspired by imagination and insight, they subjected their ideas to rigorous testing, as is proper for scientific materialists examining the workings of nature.

As appropriate for anyone for any idea.

Intuition can be right. It can also be badly wrong. For example, Einstein's intuition about quantum mechanics was simply wrong.And that was found by actually doing the experiments he imagined and finding that they didn't come out the way he predicted.

But what works in one domain doesn't necessarily work in another. The doctrine of falsifiability - developed by Popper as a means of demarcation - doesn't really work outside the natural sciences. We have to have some other way of testing our faith in God.

Why doesn't it apply? It seems like a very general process to me.

OK, if you want to propose another way of testing faith, please describe it. In particular, if two people have differing 'faith' about God, how can they go about determining which of them is wrong?

As an explicit example, suppose a Christian and a Moslem differ about some theological point (say, the doctrine of the trinity). How can they determine who is wrong? What process can they *both* do that would establish that one is wrong (or, perhaps, that both are)?

Until such a procedure is found, religious ideas have no truth value: they are matters of taste and opinion.

I am open to any suggestions.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Faith works

At what? Not at finding truth.

'scientism'. The belief that science is the only legitimate source for truth.

If you disagree, rebut the claim. Truth here means that which is demonstrably correct about reality, not merely any comforting, unfalsifiable claim one choses to hold by faith. The words truth, fact, correct, sound conclusion, and knowledge all speak to the same thing. There is no such thing as spiritual truth, just spiritual experiences and subjective judgments analogous to the experiences of humor and beauty. You hold these other ideas and want them respected as knowledge, and so object to this standard, but it does you no good.

It's the academic standard for truth and evaluating evidence - the one used in courtrooms and laboratories. If you don't want to adopt those standards for justification of your beliefs, then they have no value to the empiricist and you aren't part of the Great Discussion that has been going on in Western intellectual evolution since the ancient Greeks turned to reason for answers, and later, empiricism.

it's not about being convinced. It's about being able to trust in the possibility.

What does that mean? It is possible that there will be an afterlife. I say that because it is logically possible and I have no observation, experiment, or algorithm to rule it out. I go on living as if that may or may not be the case. And that belief has nothing to do with faith or trusting. It is logically sound. Is that me trusting in that possibility or merely acknowledging it? The word trusting makes no sense in this context, unless you mean something like committing to that by participating in a religion in order to get to heaven.

Faith has no place in my life because it has no value to me and in fact has been harmful. I trusted in a possibility (as you say it) that led to unhappiness that I could have avoided if I had used my head instead "my heart."

Anyone can believe anything they want. And they don't have to answer to anyone else for it.

Correct. And they exclude themselves from the Great Discussion - the marketplace of skeptical, rational, empirical discourse. You're there now, but as you note, participation is optional. You can also just watch.

Your (and others) endless demands for "support" is just another way that you place yourself in charge of the conversation. So I just ignore it.

Those are the rules of the Great Discussion. They're not up for debate. They're not negotiable. You can learn them and participate, or as you put it, "just ignore it." Incidentally, nobody demands support for your ideas. They're telling you they reject them for lack of sufficient evidentiary support to justify belief according to those rules.

For some strange reason. though, you seem to think they have to answer to you for it. As if you are in charge of what everyone else chooses to believe.

If they want to be taken seriously, they need to learn the rules of the game. If they want to play by other rules, their ideas have no value except to them. And there is resentment over that ("scientism!") and there are efforts to blur the difference between these two radically different ways of knowing, their methods, and their results.

 

[RestlessSoul]

As appropriate for anyone for any idea.

Intuition can be right. It can also be badly wrong. For example, Einstein's intuition about quantum mechanics was simply wrong.And that was found by actually doing the experiments he imagined and finding that they didn't come out the way he predicted.


Why doesn't it apply? It seems like a very general process to me.

OK, if you want to propose another way of testing faith, please describe it. In particular, if two people have differing 'faith' about God, how can they go about determining which of them is wrong?

As an explicit example, suppose a Christian and a Moslem differ about some theological point (say, the doctrine of the trinity). How can they determine who is wrong? What process can they *both* do that would establish that one is wrong (or, perhaps, that both are)?

Until such a procedure is found, religious ideas have no truth value: they are matters of taste and opinion.

I am open to any suggestions.

The words “Einstein was wrong” should always be used with extreme caution imo. Wasn’t the point of the EPR thought experiment to show that either quantum theory was incomplete, or it implied a fundamental reality which was non-local? Almost a century later, and sixty years after John Bell, weren’t they right on both counts?

As for how each person may test their faith in God, it seems to me the only way to do this is to put it into practice in every day life. My own experience tells me that a daily routine of prayer and meditation has brought innumerable benefits; in other words, faith works. And as we know, faith without works is dead.

I don’t hold to the opinion, btw, that there is one true religion, and many false ones. Religions, both blessed and burdened as they are with the cultural trappings of their time and place, are man made institutions whose purpose is the same in most instances; unity with the infinite and the divine, harmony with nature and with our fellows.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Just to add to this: has there never been a time when you *thought* an idea was true and you later realized it was wrong?

Doesn't that show that 'heart and mind' are not alone sufficient to distinguish real from unreal?

Yes, of course. This is particularly likely to occur when I think I know how other people may be thinking, or how they are likely to act. But when it comes to those inner processes which guide my own decision making, I have learned to trust the silent voice at the core of my being.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I hardly think so. Do you?

I'm not in a position to know really, but I somehow can't believe all that is written about Jesus Christ so as to believe he was as depicted even if such a person did exist. But a nice figurehead for a certain belief system perhaps.

 

[PureX]

Wrong. I looked at different conceptions and found them ALL to be silly or implausible.

Yes, that's called a bias.

No, it isn't. For example, mathematical truth is determined by proof from axioms. That is NOT the way science establishes truth.

Science doesn't establish truth. That was my point. Scientism is the belief that it does. And that's a faith based ideology. Much like a religion is.

What I require is that truth and falsehood be distinguishable.

Sadly, we humans don't get that kind of surety unless we lie to ourselves.

if two people have differing beliefs, is there a way to determine who is wrong (or that both are)? if not, then there is no truth value in the beliefs.

What people believe is their own business. All we can know is what works or doesn't work within a given set of conditions. And because we can't know that in advance, we need to act on our hope, to find out. It's called faith.

Instead, those beliefs are a matter of taste or opinion. Which is fine. I don't like tomatoes. So I avoid eating them. Others like tomatoes. So they eat them. The belief that tomatoes are vile is my *opinion*. It is not a truth.

Belief is just our egos pretending we know stuff that we don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And I think that the resurrection myth was introduced well after Jesus died. It has no basis in fact.

When Paul supposedly saw Jesus after the crucifixion all of his sighting were visions. That appears to be what his beliefs of the resurrection were. the only Paul book that supports bodily resurrection was 1 Corinthians, which was not written by Paul. The Gospels of course were as you wrote, much later.

Did Paul Believe that the Fleshly Body Would be Resurrected | The Bart Ehrman Blog

Browsing through posts I made (exactly) six years ago, I came across this one (which deals with a subject I'll be addressing in my new book) about Paul's view of the future resurrection. What I thought I thought about that issue *before* I started doing the hardcore research for my…

ehrmanblog.org

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, of course. This is particularly likely to occur when I think I know how other people may be thinking, or how they are likely to act. But when it comes to those inner processes which guide my own decision making, I have learned to trust the silent voice at the core of my being.

Hmmm...and I have learned to be skeptical of it.

But you have seriously never found that voice to be mistaken? Really?

For me, that 'silent voice' is just about as accurate as any other tested source of ideas: it can randomly get them right, but is usually wrong.

Again, until an idea is tested by trying to prove it *wrong*, I don't give it much credence.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, that's called a bias.

No, that is a conclusion based on judgement.

Science doesn't establish truth. That was my point. Scientism is the belief that it does. And that's a faith based ideology. Much like a religion is.

Actually, the scientific process establishes falsehood. We know what ideas to reject.

Sadly, we humans don't get that kind of surety unless we lie to ourselves.

Well, there is never 100% surety, but we *can* certainly distinguish between things that are true and those that are false if the ideas are testable. And this is why science works.

What people believe is their own business. All we can know is what works or doesn't work within a given set of conditions. And because we can't know that in advance, we need to act on our hope, to find out. It's called faith.

So, just give up and expect others to do the same.

Nope. Not doing that,

Belief is just our egos pretending we know stuff that we don't.

Actually, we *do* know some things. And we know some things are wrong. That isn't just ego. it is testable and repeatable. And that is what it means to be knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

The words “Einstein was wrong” should always be used with extreme caution imo. Wasn’t the point of the EPR thought experiment to show that either quantum theory was incomplete, or it implied a fundamental reality which was non-local? Almost a century later, and sixty years after John Bell, weren’t they right on both counts?

Originally, Einstein used the EPR as an argument that QM is not complete. he rejected the non-locality possibility.

And no, Bell did NOT show that QM is incomplete. In fact, QM agrees with the observations that Bell's inequalities are violated. And QM (especially QFT) is actually a *local* theory that is non-deterministic. But probabilities are correlated after being entangled.

And yes, Einstein was simply wrong on this point.

As for how each person may test their faith in God, it seems to me the only way to do this is to put it into practice in every day life. My own experience tells me that a daily routine of prayer and meditation has brought innumerable benefits; in other words, faith works. And as we know, faith without works is dead.

And what challenge was made that would lead to the rejection of faith if it was wrong?

I don’t hold to the opinion, btw, that there is one true religion, and many false ones. Religions, both blessed and burdened as they are with the cultural trappings of their time and place, are man made institutions whose purpose is the same in most instances; unity with the infinite and the divine, harmony with nature and with our fellows.

I find them ALL to be wrong, to various degrees.