Part 2, an attack on creationism

[Autodidact]

I agree with your conclusion in that we should side with "evidence" over our previous notions from common sense.

It is funny that you brought up Danniel Dennett because I am no fan of his. I probably disagree with him more than any other modern day scientist.

He's not a scientist is he? I think he's a philosopher who tries to incorporate some science.

Part of that is because of his theories in consciousness and part of it is because he openly discusses his moral imparative to turn Christians into atheists in the classroom setting.

O.K. meanwhile, back at my point?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

It's not because She doesn't make sense. She makes as much sense as Xenu, Moroni or Jesus. It's because She doesn't have a holy text, movement, etc. Like I said, if I were L. Ron Hubbard and pretended to take it seriously, I could be promoting IPUism and it would take off just like Mormonism and Scientology.

Hang tight for a divine revelation. I expect one by tomorrow, next day at the latest.

Good luck with that.

Surely you're not basing your argument on numbers of adherents?

No, of course not. But it does help that there are millions of believers and not a dozen or two.

On the contrary. My common sense is not better than yours. That's why I don't rely on it re: the nature of reality. I rely on evidence, reason, and the scientific method. It's the best antidote to lousy common sense.

I too rely on evidence, reason, and the scientific method. The difference is that my intuition tells me special revelation exists. You choose to ignore that option because you deem it unreliable. Isn't that choice based on your intuition/common sense? Certainly you have no evidence that special revelation doesn't exist.

A thinker like you has a world view whether you have defined it or not. So you are in the same boat as the rest of it.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

If you think Jesus makes more sense than the IPU, show us, don't tell us. Remember, She's entirely spiritual. The only way you can know her is through your own inner voice.

Well, without your complete doctrine, I can't say for sure, but here are a few possible reasons:

1) There were disciples that choose torture and death, rather than to confess against Jesus
2) God's will is love, and in His creation, He endured the greatest act of love on the cross.
3) The Bible explains why people are able to commit bad acts, even when they know they are wrong.
4) The Bible outlines a comprehensive systematic theology that make sense to me.
5) The God of the Bible is omniscient and omnipotent, which I believe are necessary for an uncreated being.

1. Could you provide a context?
2. Einstein is not a divine authority, just another smart guy doing his best. He was massively wrong about the cosmological constant, and had the chutzpah to admit it.
3. This is not a scientific discovery. It's an opinion.
4. To the extent that I agree with this quote, I would apply it to hypotheses only, which you can get from a Ouija board if you like. How to test whether the intuition is correct? Scientific method. It's the only one that works.
5.Note what Einstein doesn't advocate: common sense. How could he? Gravity can bend light? Puhleaze!

1. Unfortunately, no. I don't have the context for the quote.
2. I kind of consider Einstein an expert at scientific discovery. He is probably the most import physicist in history. Both relativity and quantum were discovered by him. What makes the quote interesting is that those are the two theories that you claim are unintuitive.
3. It is an opinion about scientific discovery. Not sure your point...
4. Yes it is about hypothosises which are kind of important for scientific discovery. I would trust a genius physicists intuition over a Ouija board.
5. I guess I see intuition and common sense are pretty much the same thing. How do you see them as different?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

He's not a scientist is he? I think he's a philosopher who tries to incorporate some science?

If I remember is background is philosophy, but he is definately representing himself as a scientist of consciousness in Consciousness Explained.

 

[Autodidact]

Good luck with that.

Ooh, I feel one coming on--as soon as I get time.

No, of course not. But it does help that there are millions of believers and not a dozen or two.

How?

I too rely on evidence, reason, and the scientific method. The difference is that my intuition tells me special revelation exists. You choose to ignore that option because you deem it unreliable. Isn't that choice based on your intuition/common sense? Certainly you have no evidence that special revelation doesn't exist.

So let's grant that you're right and see where it takes us. Is all special revelation correct or worthy of reliance? If so, what happens when they contradict each other? If not, HOW DO YOU TELL. If your answer is that you don't know, or we have to figure it out, you've got a big problem justifying your a-Allah-ism as well as your a-Xenu-ism, not to mention your woefully incorrect a-IPU-ism.

A thinker like you has a world view whether you have defined it or not. So you are in the same boat as the rest of it.

Yes, I have a world view, and it's well defined. It includes a scientific approach to life, rather than one based on common-sense or intuition. My impression is that this is the most reliable way to find out the truth about things.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, without your complete doctrine, I can't say for sure, but here are a few possible reasons:

1) There were disciples that choose torture and death, rather than to confess against Jesus

Really? What were their names? How do you know?

2) God's will is love, and in His creation, He endured the greatest act of love on the cross.

How do you know this happened? (btw I don't see a weekend of suffering as the greatest possible sacrifice. That would be actual permanent death.)

3) The Bible explains why people are able to commit bad acts, even when they know they are wrong.

so what?

4) The Bible outlines a comprehensive systematic theology that make sense to me.

Unless you think about it too hard. Like why a loving God advocates slaughtering innocent babies, or why the Creator of an immeasurably vast universe is very worried about what you do with certain of your bodily organs. Why people who pick up sticks on the wrong day should be murdered, or even why God had to arrange to sacrifice Himself to Himself to obtain His forgiveness for actions that He permitted His creations to commit. Or how a God gets a woman pregnant with a God. Or how 1 can = 3. Or... or...

5) The God of the Bible is omniscient and omnipotent, which I believe are necessary for an uncreated being.

Problem of evil?

1. Unfortunately, no. I don't have the context for the quote.

2. I kind of consider Einstein an expert at scientific discovery. He is probably the most import physicist in history. Both relativity and quantum were discovered by him. What makes the quote interesting is that those are the two theories that you claim are unintuitive.

counter-intuitive. Don't you agree?

3. It is an opinion about scientific discovery. Not sure your point...

Opinions are not science; they're opinions. Other scientists may see it differently. No way to know who's right.

4. Yes it is about hypothosises which are kind of important for scientific discovery. I would trust a genius physicists intuition over a Ouija board.

Theyr'e crucial, but only a first step. They have nothing to do with determining what is true. Science is the process of weeing out untrue hypotheses. Most hypotheses are wrong. Scientific knowledge is not based on hypotheses, but on the results of applying scientific method to hypotheses. So I have no problem with what Einstein is saying, but I bet he would agree that the only way to tell is by testing predictions. This was done re: Theory of Relativity during an eclipse is I forget what year, which is what caused the theory to become widely accepted. (the gravity of the sun bent a light beam, or something like that.)

5. I guess I see intuition and common sense are pretty much the same thing. How do you see them as different?

It doesn't matter--they're both a lousy way to find out what's going on in the world. Sometimes they're all we have, and we have to rely on them. But to find out the truth about the natural world, which is to say, the world, we have to use science. It works, and it's the only thing that does.

 

[Autodidact]

If I remember is background is philosophy, but he is definately representing himself as a scientist of consciousness in Consciousness Explained.

Wiki:

Daniel Clement Dennett (born March 28, 1942 in Boston, Massachusetts) is a prominent American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science.

 

[Storm]

Ooh, I feel one coming on--as soon as I get time.

I have to say, this whole schtick with the IPU is getting rather tacky. Whether or not you agree with the interpretations, mystical trance states are very real and profoundly meaningful for those who experience them. I get your point, and I'm sure Nick does too, so please stop beating a dead horse.

How?

Because, again, it's based off of a very real event. Countless people throughout the ages, across all barriers of culture and time, have experienced what they could only understand as God.

So let's grant that you're right and see where it takes us. Is all special revelation correct or worthy of reliance?

Definition of terms: "revelation" to me means the interpretation of a particularly profound mystical experience (which term I am using in the highly specific context of neurotheology). It does not refer to the experience itself, which virtually all mystics agree is ineffable.

I realize that that's probably not what you meant, so feel free to clarify, but I'm going with it.

Based on my own experiences, no, not all revelation is correct or worthy of reliance. In fact I'd go so far as to say that none of it is (yes that includes my own). Why? Because the mystical experience is ineffable. It defies intellectual understanding, even for the one experiencing it directly. But, the human mind being what it is, we have to try to figure it out anyway. So we interpret it, force it onto preexisting cultural frameworks that don't really fit. We try to make sense of it, and in doing so, pollute the pure understanding of trance with our own biases. "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." Anything we can say about God or mystical experience is necessarily inaccurate.

If so, what happens when they contradict each other?

It's inevitable that they contradict each other, as the interpretations, unlike the experiences, are based on the mystic's preconceived notions.

If not, HOW DO YOU TELL.

For myself, the practice of mysticism develops the "small still voice," which I trust to guide me in which concepts to keep and discard.

Yes, I have a world view, and it's well defined. It includes a scientific approach to life, rather than one based on common-sense or intuition. My impression is that this is the most reliable way to find out the truth about things.

Intuition and a scientific approach are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Autodidact]

Thirty-one years ago, Dick Feynman told me about his 'sum over histories' version of quantum mechanics. "The electron does anything it likes," he said. "It just goes in any direction at any speed, forward or backward in time, however it likes, and then you add up the amplitudes and it gives you the wavefunction." I said to him, "You're crazy." But he isn't. Freeman Dyson (1980)

An intensive study of all questions concerning the interpretation of quantum theory in Copenhagen finally led to a complete and, as many physicists believe, satisfactory clarification of the situation. But it was not a solution which one could easily accept. I remember discussions with Bohr which went through many hours till very late at night and ended almost in despair; and when at the end of the discussion I went alone for a walk in a neighboring park I repeated to myself again and again the question: Can nature possibly be as absurd as it seemed to us in these atomic experiments. Heisenberg

I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it possibly be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. Richard Feynman

It seems hard to look at God's cards. But I cannot for a moment believe that he plays dice and makes use of 'telepathic' means as the current quantum theory alleges He does. Einstein
(Most current physicists disagree with him.)

Because atomic behavior is so unlike ordinary experience, it is very difficult to get used to, and it appears peculiar and mysterious to everyone - both to the novice and to the experienced physicist. Even the experts do not under- stand it the way they would like to, and it is perfectly reasonable that they should not, because all of direct, human experience and of human intuition applies to large objects. We know how large objects will act, but things on a small scale just do not act that way. Richard P. Feynman, Robert B. Leighton, and Matthew Sands

I could go on, but you get the idea.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nick,

I can assure you I was not trying to be deceptive. The source I got the quote from didn't have that following sentence either.

Then you were just being lazy. Creationists are notorious for extremely dishonest quote mining.

What would you consider to be "irreducibly complex"?

That depends on which of Behe's definitions one chooses to use. If it's the original "if you take away any of its parts, it doesn't work", there are countless examples of irreducible complexity in biology. Unfortunately for Behe, it's been demonstrated numerous times that this type of irreducible complexity is completely evolvable.

In response to this, Behe (sort of) changed his definition to "the more unselected steps in the proposed evolutionary pathway, the more irreducibly complex it is".

This definition is so arbitrary it's useless.

I am not making the claim "God exists because lots of people think so". I am making the point that there is a reason why more people believe in God than fairies.

At this point in time, yes. But we could pick another point in time when the majority of the population believed in gods that are completely different than yours. And there was a time when belief in fairies was extremely popular.

 

[Autodidact]

I have to say, this whole schtick with the IPU is getting rather tacky. Whether or not you agree with the interpretations, mystical trance states are very real and profoundly meaningful for those who experience them. I get your point, and I'm sure Nick does too, so please stop beating a dead horse.

Well, I promised Nick a divine revelation, and I feel one coming on when time permits. I would hate to lose a soul for the IPU just because I failed to provide.

I don't have a problem with profound, meaningful, also possibly fun, interesting and possibly purple. What I have a problem with, which is what Nick is maintaining, is the idea that they are good way to learn about reality, or that we can reliably derive truth from them.

Because, again, it's based off of a very real event. Countless people throughout the ages, across all barriers of culture and time, have experienced what they could only understand as God.

And yet they all understand Him so differently...At time, even opposite. Interesting. Do you think we should conclude from this that God exists? Now you're back to those truth statements, and did I mention my profound, meaningful, mystical trance state involving an invisible pink unicorn?

Definition of terms: "revelation" to me means the interpretation of a particularly profound mystical experience (which term I am using in the highly specific context of neurotheology). It does not refer to the experience itself, which virtually all mystics agree is ineffable.

And yet when they have them, they tend to eff them at great length. They should just enjoy them and quit with the effing already, since they're ineffable.

Or, to put it differently, trance states exist. Revelations are not reliable.

Based on my own experiences, no, not all revelation is correct or worthy of reliance. In fact I'd go so far as to say that none of it is (yes that includes my own). Why? Because the mystical experience is ineffable. It defies intellectual understanding, even for the one experiencing it directly. But, the human mind being what it is, we have to try to figure it out anyway. So we interpret it, force it onto preexisting cultural frameworks that don't really fit. We try to make sense of it, and in doing so, pollute the pure understanding of trance with our own biases. "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." Anything we can say about God or mystical experience is necessarily inaccurate.

So you fundamentally disagree with Nick that his divine revelation is a valid source of knowledge about the world or the nature of God?

btw I have no problem with this ineffable type of God. In fact, the world itself is so mysterious and bizarre, so fundamentally incomprehensible to us, that I think it's the most accurate description (least inaccurate) of any real God.

If only actual believers didn't try to tell us in excruciating detail what we can know about God as a result of their personal revelations. Not only that but what God wants of us, that they know so much better than us, because their personal revelations, which they report to us as fact. If only they said, "I had this intense mystical experience, which felt to me like the Virgin Mary was leading me to give up heroin, so I converted to Christianity, but that doesn't mean that there really is a Virgin Mary, or Jesus, or any of the rest of it." But they don't, do they.

It's inevitable that they contradict each other, as the interpretations, unlike the experiences, are based on the mystic's preconceived notions.

And so, of course, their interpretations cannot possibly all be true, and we can safely disregard them as a source of information.

For myself, the practice of mysticism develops the "small still voice," which I trust to guide me in which concepts to keep and discard.

Cool.

Intuition and a scientific approach are not mutually exclusive.

No, except when they are. I mean, for example, as when someone's intuition tells them there was a global flood 4000 years ago, and all creatures on earth are descended from those saved on a single wooden boat. A scientific approach is exclusive to that kind of thing.

And, as we've established, no way to distinguish the validity of their intuition from anyone else's.

 

[Storm]

And yet they all understand Him so differently...At time, even opposite. Interesting. Do you think we should conclude from this that God exists?

Should you conclude from others' experiences that God exists? No. Should I conclude from my experience that God exists? No other conclusion is left to me. Should we take the collective experience of human mystics as proof that God exists? No, it isn't proof. But it is so widespread that I think it counts as (very weak) evidence.

And yet when they have them, they tend to eff them at great length. They should just enjoy them and quit with the effing already, since they're ineffable.

Well, that's human nature. We communicate. When something so meaningful happens to you, you want to share it with others, despite the fact that it's impossible in this case. It took me 15 years to come up with a passable metaphor for my theophany, but I'm glad I did it.

Or, to put it differently, trance states exist. Revelations are not reliable.

Yep. None of us understand God.

So you fundamentally disagree with Nick that his divine revelation is a valid source of knowledge about the world or the nature of God?

With rare exception, revelations are not a valid source of knowledge about the nature of the world, that is the realm of science. As for God, they're the best we've got, we just have to remember that they're inaccurate.

btw I have no problem with this ineffable type of God. In fact, the world itself is so mysterious and bizarre, so fundamentally incomprehensible to us, that I think it's the most accurate description (least inaccurate) of any real God.

If only actual believers didn't try to tell us in excruciating detail what we can know about God as a result of their personal revelations. Not only that but what God wants of us, that they know so much better than us, because their personal revelations, which they report to us as fact. If only they said, "I had this intense mystical experience, which felt to me like the Virgin Mary was leading me to give up heroin, so I converted to Christianity, but that doesn't mean that there really is a Virgin Mary, or Jesus, or any of the rest of it." But they don't, do they.

Well, I do.

And so, of course, their interpretations cannot possibly all be true, and we can safely disregard them as a source of information.

I don't think they should be discarded wholesale. I think we get bits right, and the great mystics are worth studying.

No, except when they are. I mean, for example, as when someone's intuition tells them there was a global flood 4000 years ago, and all creatures on earth are descended from those saved on a single wooden boat. A scientific approach is exclusive to that kind of thing.

The thing is, nobody's intuition says that. A myth does, and myth is a whole nother kettle of fish.

 

[Autodidact]

Should you conclude from others' experiences that God exists? No. Should I conclude from my experience that God exists? No other conclusion is left to me. Should we take the collective experience of human mystics as proof that God exists? No, it isn't proof. But it is so widespread that I think it counts as (very weak) evidence.

I'll go with that. I don't see no evidence for God, just very little, very weak, and very explainable by other means (like the nature of the human brain.) For example, I've read that certain brain injuries and conditions trigger religious visions in the sufferer.

Yep. None of us understand God.

Including whether there is any such thing.

With rare exception, revelations are not a valid source of knowledge about the nature of the world, that is the realm of science. As for God, they're the best we've got, we just have to remember that they're inaccurate.

And often conflicting.

Well, I do.

Which is all you can be responsible for.

However, it came up in this thread as a source of knowledge about God and specifically Nick's God, the one he has the personal revelations about.

I don't think they should be discarded wholesale. I think we get bits right, and the great mystics are worth studying.

Which brings us back to the question: how do you know?

The thing is, nobody's intuition says that. A myth does, and myth is a whole nother kettle of fish.

Yeah. But they're connected. First they're asking you to consider personal revelation (of Jesus Christ via the Holy Spirit) which they know to be true by intuition, and the next thing you know they're arguing that the Grand Canyon was carved by a huge flood in 3 days.

 

[Storm]

However, it came up in this thread as a source of knowledge about God and specifically Nick's God, the one he has the personal revelations about.

Well, I can't speak for him.

Which brings us back to the question: how do you know?

I already told you, the "small still voice" works for me. I don't know how anyone else does it.

Yeah. But they're connected.

Sad but true.

 

[Autodidact]

I already told you, the "small still voice" works for me. I don't know how anyone else does it.

Circular? Your intuition tells you to trust you intuition?

 

[Storm]

Circular? Your intuition tells you to trust you intuition?

No, experience tells me to trust my intuition. I'm sorry, I thought you were asking how I decide which bits to keep, something I'd already answered. Did I misunderstand the question?

 

[Autodidact]

No, experience tells me to trust my intuition. I'm sorry, I thought you were asking how I decide which bits to keep, something I'd already answered. Did I misunderstand the question?

What I'm getting is that your experience has confirmed your decisions or impressions when you started trusting your intuition. Right?

One thought that occurs though is the temptation to confirmation bias. Not an aspersion, it's a natural part of how our brains work. How to catch it? A semi-scientific experiment? Like, keep a journal, write down the intuitions when you get them and how you followed them, and then later look back and evaluate how that worked out?

 

[Storm]

What I'm getting is that your experience has confirmed your decisions or impressions when you started trusting your intuition. Right?

Yes. Although, I should mention that intuition and the "small still voice" are not quite the same thing. One is instinct, the other the mystic sense. They don't work in the same way, at least not for me.

However, for me, life works out better when I pay attention to both.

One thought that occurs though is the temptation to confirmation bias. Not an aspersion, it's a natural part of how our brains work. How to catch it? A semi-scientific experiment? Like, keep a journal, write down the intuitions when you get them and how you followed them, and then later look back and evaluate how that worked out?

Oh, I'm terrible at journaling.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, you know, like people think their dreams make amazing predictions, but it's only because they only remember the remarkable coincidences when they do. When they discipline themselves to write down all the dreams they remember and whether they came true soon thereafter, they realize that they actually don't much. So kinda like that. Just a thought.

 

[~Amin~]

No, except when they are. I mean, for example, as when someone's intuition tells them there was a global flood 4000 years ago, and all creatures on earth are descended from those saved on a single wooden boat. A scientific approach is exclusive to that kind of thing.

No were in the Last revelation of God does it say the whole of the earth was
under water, there are scholars who interpret certain verse’s to mean a specific
Area ie India or other places.

And as for the second opinion if the whole of the earth was under water,
then Noah wouldn’t have to get every creature because, the fish can survive
under water, and the birds could of resided on tree tops and insects.
I go with the first opinion because God destroyed people for there
sins, why should He Flood the Antarctica or other places of the earth?

And the believers KNOW God Almighty has Power over All Things.