Existential Cowardice

[Danmark]

The question for debate is,'Does religious belief come from a fear of being alone, from the fear of an existence without some imagined father figure to supply meaning and impose purpose and supply a feeling of protection in a universe that has none?'

I just returned from two months camping alone. I suggest this journal entry is illustrative of the argument:

"I’m alone in a remote part of a foreign country, the East Cape of Southern Baja California, Mexico. I’m facing the now black cliff of the arroyo to the South of my camp. The deepest, blackest, almost imperceptible blue tries to make a jagged line above the cliff. My fire is reduced to glowing red orange embers. The Sea of Cortez is to my right, looking East.

I wish my wife were here, but otherwise I’m content. In my life I’ve met few people who enjoy camping alone in the wilderness. In fact, none come to mind. We are social creatures. We want to be with others. We do not want to be alone. The religious reflex must spring from this desire, from this fear of aloneness. Most cannot accept the emptiness of the universe. We’ve created gods to comfort us, to nurture, to explain the utter blackness, the chaos, the absence of meaning.

Perhaps for the first time I truly understand Karl Marx’s observation about cultural painkillers. Religion is for cowards. It is an opiate for those who cannot accept reality, the solitude of our existence."

[dakoski]

To answer your question, I don't think either the Naturalist or Christian worldviews are testable using the scientific method. So I'd be surprised if the findings of science effected either of these worldviews.

Yet we DO successfully test knowledge derived by TSM. However, Biblical claims suffer greatly when the same tests are applied.
Snakes and asses do not talk.
The Sun does not stand still [not to mention that is the wrong perspective].
Dead people do not reanimate.
Wooden sticks do not turn into snakes.
Pork and shellfish are safe and nutritious.
We agree it is NOT moral to kill your children, even if you claim God told you to do it.
We know the world was NOT created in 6 days.
We know there are no favored tribes and the concept of 'race' is a social construct, not a biological reality.

The list goes on, but we know the Bible is a poor guide to the physical reality of this world.

I think your argument is flawed as:
-your argument simply conflates naturalism and the scientific method - just because the scientific method is valid does not say anything about the validity of naturalism
-you've already shown in previous posts we cannot empirically test whether naturalism is true
-your argument is basically the Bible does not conform to the Naturalist Worldview therefore it must be wrong
-some of the things you are claiming the Bible says don't remotely reflect how Christians have ever interpreted the Bible

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 50 by Willum]

and we can be very sure that resurrection is impossible. That if you don't improve this world, you don't get a second chance in the next, and so on.

This is just presupposing the truth of naturalism.

[Danmark]

To answer your question, I don't think either the Naturalist or Christian worldviews are testable using the scientific method. So I'd be surprised if the findings of science effected either of these worldviews.

Yet we DO successfully test knowledge derived by TSM. However, Biblical claims suffer greatly when the same tests are applied.
Snakes and asses do not talk.
The Sun does not stand still [not to mention that is the wrong perspective].
Dead people do not reanimate.
Wooden sticks do not turn into snakes.
Pork and shellfish are safe and nutritious.
We agree it is NOT moral to kill your children, even if you claim God told you to do it.
We know the world was NOT created in 6 days.
We know there are no favored tribes and the concept of 'race' is a social construct, not a biological reality.

The list goes on, but we know the Bible is a poor guide to the physical reality of this world.

I think your argument is flawed as:
-your argument simply conflates naturalism and the scientific method - just because the scientific method is valid does not say anything about the validity of naturalism
-you've already shown in previous posts we cannot empirically test whether naturalism is true
-your argument is basically the Bible does not conform to the Naturalist Worldview therefore it must be wrong
-some of the things you are claiming the Bible says don't remotely reflect how Christians have ever interpreted the Bible

I reject this analysis for reasons previously articulated. I'll only comment on the last point. Some Christians simply do not face up to what the Bible actually says. Every point in the list about Biblical claims is from a passage in the Bible and you are well aware of it. The fact some Christians choose to ignore those passages or engage in mental gymnastics to explain them away does not erase the words.

I agree that much of the Bible, particularly the 'Old' Testament, is strictly allegorical; however many if not most Christians deny this and claim a serpent actually did talk and deceive; that Balaam's ass talked; that the Sun really truly magically stood still and that the story of Abraham really happened.

BTW, that story, even if taken as mere literature, makes a horrible point:
To that god, obedience is more important than morality and kindness. This is argued more fully in "The Ultimate Problem with Christian Morality"
viewtopic.php?t=29673

[dakoski]

[Replying to Danmark]

I reject this analysis for reasons previously articulated.

You haven't provide any reasons previously why you think naturalism is a valid foundation for science - you've just asserted.

Further, I provided reasons why naturalism actually wouldn't provide a valid foundation for science - and you failed to respond to these points either.

I'll only comment on the last point. Some Christians simply do not face up to what the Bible actually says. Every point in the list about Biblical claims is from a passage in the Bible and you are well aware of it. The fact some Christians choose to ignore those passages or engage in mental gymnastics to explain them away does not erase the words.

I agree that much of the Bible, particularly the 'Old' Testament, is strictly allegorical; however many if not most Christians deny this and claim a serpent actually did talk and deceive; that Balaam's ass talked; that the Sun really truly magically stood still and that the story of Abraham really happened.

Your list really divides into two issues:
1) Miracles conflict with naturalism therefore can't happen - to make this case you first have to show naturalism is true as I've argued throughout so of itself isn't a compelling argument

2) Reading the Bible through the lens of your worldview and culture. Reading any piece of literature requires taking into account genre, context, and trying to see the world through the eyes of the people it is target at. This isn’t doing mental gymnastics it’s just a reality of interpreting any literature, particularly when it’s from a different time, culture, and it’s espousing a worldview different to my own.
For example, if you read the lyrics of Katy Perry’s Firework and concluded that she was experiencing a psychotic episode thinking that she was a firework – I would have to conclude you’d misunderstood the point. Similarly, if I talk about seeing a beautiful sunset last night and you thought I was claiming to be a geocentrist then that would reflect a lack of understanding of how we use language in different contexts.

BTW, that story, even if taken as mere literature, makes a horrible point:
To that god, obedience is more important than morality and kindness. This is argued more fully in "The Ultimate Problem with Christian Morality"
viewtopic.php?t=29673

This is an interesting point about Abraham. At first thoughts it’s hard to comprehend. I think a key point its teaching is that to love others unselfishly first we need to find our ultimate identity in relationship with God.

As a naturalist of course I can appreciate that's not something you would accept. But in order to provide an effective critique of another worldview, it requires actually seeing the world through that lens and understanding it. Rather than simply reading your own worldview onto what is being said - this only leads to straw man arguments.

It’s when my contentment and ultimate worth is in God I am free to love my kids, or my wife or my job and ultimately seek the good of others. If my identity and self-esteem is ultimately dependent on my children meeting my needs in some way I can never really love them unselfishly. For example, if the grounds for my identity is getting my children's approval then I’m going to struggle to make those tough decisions that I think are for their good but makes them angry or sulk.

Or if my self-esteem is dependent on their success in this life defined according to my criteria, then I’m going to struggle when they fail to meet my criteria or choose a whole different set of criteria for success. Because in addition to wanting the best for them there is a conflicting desire in me to bolster my self-esteem and that often means demanding my criteria be met.

For example, I know a father who longed to go to university when he was younger but his family was too poor. He vowed that his kids would go, but it turns out his daughter didn’t want to nor had the gifts. He could not accept her decision because his identity was wrapped up in her going to university because that would prove he had become the man who had made enough money to send his kids to university. Most of the time we aren’t aware of these conflicting desires but sometimes the realisation comes from nowhere and it bites you often too late.

If my self-esteem and identity are centred on my son, spouse, work etc even though these are all really important things deeply valued in the Bible, ultimately I’m not able to love others unselfishly. If my spouse's love is the ultimate ground for my worth then whatever action I do for her good part of my motivation will be to get her approval which is the grounds for my self-esteem and identity. Therefore, I cannot then love my wife unselfishly, as part of seeking her good involves trying to bolster my self-esteem. I’m only truly free to love her unselfishly and purely for her good if she is not the ultimate grounds for my worth and contentment.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 54 by dakoski]

i've enjoyed the dialogue, but the arguments are getting repetitive, almost devolving to a 'yes you did-no I didn't' level. Before addressing specifics of your latest thoughtful, multiple point post, I'd like to return to a fundamental issue you've mentioned several times.

you've already shown in previous posts we cannot empirically test whether naturalism is true

I find this very curious since empiricism is necessarily tied to naturalism. Can we agree that empiricism can be defined, "the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience?" Why demand an empirical proof if you reject [or question] naturalism? Empiricism is an inseparable part of naturalism.

Naturalism is the logical, if not inevitable result of empiricism. TSM is based on empiricism and naturalism is its product. As I've previously pointed out, the empirical support of naturalism and the TSM is that they work. Its practice and belief in naturalism itself have resulted in sending men to the moon, the entire industrial age and all of modern technology.

Yet religious belief has resulted in warfare, strife, unending speculation not susceptible to empirical verification, and fantasies of no limit.

Another fundamental error your post[s] suggest is one commonly seen on this forum presented by Christian apologists:
Those posts inherently or implicitly claim that since nothing can be proved absolutely, one belief or epistemological system is just as good as another. This is not logical. Is there any reasonable question that empiricism-naturalism-science is far and away the most reliable and productive way of knowing? this trinity has yielded the vast technological results I've mentioned.

[dakoski]

[Replying to Danmark]

i've enjoyed the dialogue, but the arguments are getting repetitive, almost devolving to a 'yes you did-no I didn't' level. Before addressing specifics of your latest thoughtful, multiple point post, I'd like to return to a fundamental issue you've mentioned several times.

Yeah I've enjoyed the dialogue too, its helpful to discuss with someone who sees the world differently. I agree, that's a fair assessment that the arguments are becoming repetitive - generally these discussions tailor off in that way. Let's see what happens, if we can't make any further progress its probably best to call the discussion to a close.

I find this very curious since empiricism is necessarily tied to naturalism. Can we agree that empiricism can be defined, "the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience?" Why demand an empirical proof if you reject [or question] naturalism? Empiricism is an inseparable part of naturalism.

Naturalism is the logical, if not inevitable result of empiricism. TSM is based on empiricism and naturalism is its product. As I've previously pointed out, the empirical support of naturalism and the TSM is that they work. Its practice and belief in naturalism itself have resulted in sending men to the moon, the entire industrial age and all of modern technology.

Yet religious belief has resulted in warfare, strife, unending speculation not susceptible to empirical verification, and fantasies of no limit.

Yeah that's a helpful clarification. I'll try to summarise where I think we agree and where we disagree and that might hopefully help prevent us talking past each other.

Where we agree:
-we've both argued that the scientific method is a valid way to obtain knowledge
-we've both argued that logic and empirical investigation lead to valid conclusions - this is more or less saying the same as the previous point but unpacking a little bit what we mean by the scientific method

Where we disagree:
you're arguing that the scientific method entails believing
1) all knowledge is derived from sense-experience
2) everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted

assumption 1:
- I agree that the scientific method is fundamentally empirical in nature, if that's all your saying then we are in agreement. But I think you're saying more than that, you're saying all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. This is a philosophical worldview assumption that goes way beyond the realms of scientific methodology.

-to defend this claim requires circular reasoning, as since if it is true such a conclusion would have to depend on the validity of sense-experience. If its not dependent on sense-experience then by definition sense-experience is not the only way to derive knowledge. So either way it leads to your claim being invalid.

-its almost certainly false as there are other truths that we know without sense experience such as logical inferences

assumption 2:
-you've acknowledged you can't show this empirically. So to hold that view, contradicts your assumption 1.

There are many other problems with these worldview assumptions I've already provided some in previous posts but there are many more.

The scientific method just requires us to assume the validity of logic and empirical investigation. It is not neccessary as you claim to add these two philosophical assumptions from your worldview to the scientific method. It adds nothing to the validity of the scientific method and can be shown to only lead to contradiction.

Another fundamental error your post[s] suggest is one commonly seen on this forum presented by Christian apologists:
Those posts inherently or implicitly claim that since nothing can be proved absolutely, one belief or epistemological system is just as good as another. This is not logical. Is there any reasonable question that empiricism-naturalism-science is far and away the most reliable and productive way of knowing? this trinity has yielded the vast technological results I've mentioned.

Again this is smuggling in your philosophical worldview in order to conflate these philosophical assumptions with the validity of the scientific method. This is problematic for several reasons, here are a few:

- I've shown above and in a number of previous posts that the Christian worldview is a valid foundation for the scientific method - I don't need to assume naturalism or empiricism to conclude that the scientific method is valid

-I've shown your epistemology leads to internal contradiction so is invalid

[Danmark]

Where we disagree:
you're arguing that the scientific method entails believing
1) all knowledge is derived from sense-experience
2) everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted

assumption 1:
- I agree that the scientific method is fundamentally empirical in nature, if that's all your saying then we are in agreement. But I think you're saying more than that, you're saying all knowledge is derived from sense-experience. This is a philosophical worldview assumption that goes way beyond the realms of scientific methodology.

-to defend this claim requires circular reasoning, as since if it is true such a conclusion would have to depend on the validity of sense-experience. If its not dependent on sense-experience then by definition sense-experience is not the only way to derive knowledge. So either way it leads to your claim being invalid.

-its almost certainly false as there are other truths that we know without sense experience such as logical inferences

assumption 2:
-you've acknowledged you can't show this empirically. So to hold that view, contradicts your assumption 1.

There are many other problems with these worldview assumptions I've already provided some in previous posts but there are many more.

The scientific method just requires us to assume the validity of logic and empirical investigation. It is not neccessary as you claim to add these two philosophical assumptions from your worldview to the scientific method. It adds nothing to the validity of the scientific method and can be shown to only lead to contradiction.

I agree and don't think I ever claimed otherwise. TSM includes both observation thru the senses (and instruments) and the use of logic. It also involves meticulous record keeping.
I HAVE demonstrated one can empirically validate TSM: We used it and its discoveries to make great technological advances including sending man to the moon and eradicating disease. TSM works. We know this thru empirical study, to wit, observation.

What knowledge do we gain thru methods that do not include TSM? Do you claim divine revelation has resulted in knowledge? Do you claim the same reliability for reports that "God told me so" or "I just know it" or "The stars indicate..." as you do for the reliability of TSM?

Again this is smuggling in your philosophical worldview in order to conflate these philosophical assumptions with the validity of the scientific method. This is problematic for several reasons, here are a few:

- I've shown above and in a number of previous posts that the Christian worldview is a valid foundation for the scientific method - I don't need to assume naturalism or empiricism to conclude that the scientific method is valid

-I've shown your epistemology leads to internal contradiction so is invalid

I don't understand these claims. It appears to me none of them are accurate. What "philosophical assumptions" are you claiming I'm making other than the idea that sense observations appear to be accurate and reliable enough to make the technological achievements I've mentioned?

This is important, so let me repeat, "What other way of knowing is as demonstrably reliable as TSM, which includes empiricism and results in naturalism? This is the key question. We both agree TSM works and is reliable. I think we both agree that, although it is not perfect and historically has resulted in conclusions that are wrong, it is self correcting. False conclusions get overturned and reevaluated when more data i available.

This cannot be said about personal revelation. When Joseph Smith's claimed visions are accorded validity as having come from God, no correction is possible, other than new alleged claims of divine revelation. In addition we have thousands of contradictory claims of 'divine' revelation that come from the various religions.

[dakoski]

[Replying to Danmark]

I agree and don't think I ever claimed otherwise. TSM includes both observation thru the senses (and instruments) and the use of logic. It also involves meticulous record keeping.
I HAVE demonstrated one can empirically validate TSM: We used it and its discoveries to make great technological advances including sending man to the moon and eradicating disease. TSM works. We know this thru empirical study, to wit, observation.

What knowledge do we gain thru methods that do not include TSM? Do you claim divine revelation has resulted in knowledge? Do you claim the same reliability for reports that "God told me so" or "I just know it" or "The stars indicate..." as you do for the reliability of TSM?

I'm unsure why you are making arguments for the validity of the scientific method when I've already agreed that it is valid:

‘Where we agree:
-we've both argued that the scientific method is a valid way to obtain knowledge
-we've both argued that logic and empirical investigation lead to valid conclusions - this is more or less saying the same as the previous point but unpacking a little bit what we mean by the scientific method’

As I pointed out in my previous post, if you want to make the claim that only knowledge based on empirical methods is valid this is quite a different claim to whether the scientific method is valid.

Problem of course is, how would you go about empirically investigating that claim?

I don't understand these claims. It appears to me none of them are accurate. What "philosophical assumptions" are you claiming I'm making other than the idea that sense observations appear to be accurate and reliable enough to make the technological achievements I've mentioned?

Again, I’ve made this clear in the post above:

Where we disagree:
you're arguing that the scientific method entails believing
1) all knowledge is derived from sense-experience
2) everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted

I’ve given reasons in my previous post why I don’t think these are valid assumptions and you’ve not addressed these arguments.

This is important, so let me repeat, "What other way of knowing is as demonstrably reliable as TSM, which includes empiricism and results in naturalism? This is the key question. We both agree TSM works and is reliable. I think we both agree that, although it is not perfect and historically has resulted in conclusions that are wrong, it is self correcting. False conclusions get overturned and reevaluated when more data i available.

This cannot be said about personal revelation. When Joseph Smith's claimed visions are accorded validity as having come from God, no correction is possible, other than new alleged claims of divine revelation. In addition we have thousands of contradictory claims of 'divine' revelation that come from the various religions.

What I’ve pointed out are problems with your worldview assumptions you’re attempting to smuggle into TSM. Again in case you didn’t see in my previous post:

Where we disagree:
you're arguing that the scientific method entails believing
1) all knowledge is derived from sense-experience
2) everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted

I've given clear reasons why there are problems with these assumptions that you haven't attempted to address. You're claiming all knowledge comes from empirical investigation yet you haven't shown how you can empirically evaluate these worldview assumptions.

For clarification, I'm asking for the basis of these worldview assumptions. You need to show that only knowledge derived from sense-experience is valid, simply asserting it isn't enough. Similarly, you need to show that everything arises from natural properties and causes.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 58 by dakoski]

You've completely avoided the key question:

'This is important, so let me repeat, "What other way of knowing is as demonstrably reliable as TSM...?[ This is the key question. We both agree TSM works and is reliable. I think we both agree that, although it is not perfect and historically has resulted in conclusions that are wrong, it is self correcting. False conclusions get overturned and reevaluated when more data i available.

This cannot be said about personal revelation. When Joseph Smith's claimed visions are accorded validity as having come from God, no correction is possible, other than new alleged claims of divine revelation. In addition we have thousands of contradictory claims of 'divine' revelation that come from the various religions.'

[dakoski]

[Replying to Danmark]

You've completely avoided the key question:

'This is important, so let me repeat, "What other way of knowing is as demonstrably reliable as TSM...?[ This is the key question. We both agree TSM works and is reliable. I think we both agree that, although it is not perfect and historically has resulted in conclusions that are wrong, it is self correcting. False conclusions get overturned and reevaluated when more data i available.

This cannot be said about personal revelation. When Joseph Smith's claimed visions are accorded validity as having come from God, no correction is possible, other than new alleged claims of divine revelation. In addition we have thousands of contradictory claims of 'divine' revelation that come from the various religions.'

You're trying to shift the burden of proof, you made the claim that TSM is the only way to obtain knowledge. Its up to you to provide the evidence for the claim.