Direct experience and Truth
Dialouge between Pixie and myselfon Metacrock's blog, the comment section of the threat: "Counterimg Scoentism" (Sept. 6, 2020)
https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2020/09/countering-scientism.html
anonymous said... Joe: That confirms exactly the criticism I made of your approach, you make everything into a little version of science, as tough science is the only way to think.
Pix:
Joe:you basically have. You clearly assert that the only reliable knowledge is scientifically verifiable.
Pix
Joe:I have direct experience of God
that is just bull shit. you are arbitrarily deciding what makes something reliable.
Joe: I disproved that, as does Jim.
we did disprove it. Science cannot give you reliable information as to what is moral. Science cannot give you the meaning of life, science cannot love you science cannot save your soul obviously its not always reliable. Religion can give you those things in those areas its more reliable.
Joe: you must answer his idea of morality as just one example, science cannot tell us that,
Pix:
go back and read my version of the moral argument you will see we proved it.Clearly we don;t need mathematical percission we need reliability your standard is reliability and reliable does not mean absolute.It means it can be trusted. the mystical experience studies prove religious experience indicates God can be trusted because we do trust him.
Pix:
More reliable than science for morality
Joe: You think by acknowledging it you negate it?
Pix:
actually you did
Pix:
We don't need the kind of reliable experience you get from science, because that is useless for the important things, when it comes to the effect on lives the mystical experience studies show religion gives us what we need to know. science doesn't give us a clue.
8:40 AM
He has set up a reductionist language game where by urthisimited to domain he controls. Get him off that ground and he he has no bearings.
https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2020/09/countering-scientism.html
anonymous said... Joe: That confirms exactly the criticism I made of your approach, you make everything into a little version of science, as tough science is the only way to think.
Pix:
I have never said "science is the only way to think", that is just your usual tired straw man.
Joe:you basically have. You clearly assert that the only reliable knowledge is scientifically verifiable.
Pix
What I have said is that besides direct experience, science is the only methodology that gives us reliable knowledge.
Joe:I have direct experience of God
Do you not understand the difference?
that is just bull shit. you are arbitrarily deciding what makes something reliable.
Joe: I disproved that, as does Jim.
That is just delusional! Here i what i said it to:"science is our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience."
we did disprove it. Science cannot give you reliable information as to what is moral. Science cannot give you the meaning of life, science cannot love you science cannot save your soul obviously its not always reliable. Religion can give you those things in those areas its more reliable.
Joe: you must answer his idea of morality as just one example, science cannot tell us that,
Pix:
If he can prove his idea of morality is true, then I will concede the point. But not until then.
go back and read my version of the moral argument you will see we proved it.Clearly we don;t need mathematical percission we need reliability your standard is reliability and reliable does not mean absolute.It means it can be trusted. the mystical experience studies prove religious experience indicates God can be trusted because we do trust him.
Pix:
Again, I am arguing about reliable knowledge. If his knowledge of morality is shown to be reliable, he has a point. But not until then.
More reliable than science for morality
Joe: You think by acknowledging it you negate it?
Pix:
No, and I never said as such.
actually you did
Pix:
However, it does negate Jim's objection. He cannot say I am wrong to claim direct experience does not give reliable knowledge, given I already said it DOES give reliable knowledge.
We don't need the kind of reliable experience you get from science, because that is useless for the important things, when it comes to the effect on lives the mystical experience studies show religion gives us what we need to know. science doesn't give us a clue.
8:40 AM
He has set up a reductionist language game where by urthisimited to domain he controls. Get him off that ground and he he has no bearings.
Comments
So many examples in this post. But I guess it is about propaganda, not truth, right?
Pix
You tell me, you are about to get nailed.
Joe: That confirms exactly the criticism I made of your approach, you make everything into a little version of science, as tough science is the only way to think.
This is just one on the many straw men in his post. The reality is that I said besides direct experience, science is the only methodology that gives us reliable knowledge.
I have never said it is the only way to think.
Joe:I have direct experience of God
Do you not understand the difference?
that is just bull shit. you are arbitrarily deciding what makes something reliable.
This is simply incoherent. My comment was not responding to what you would have us think, so that looks like deceit on your part. Your response to that is unrelated to what I said! It is like you grabbing random sentences from each post, and then presenting them as an argument. If you want to make yourself look incoherent, go ahead, but I object when you do it to me.
Joe: we did disprove it. Science cannot give you reliable information as to what is moral.
But that does not disprove science as our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience.
Joe: Science cannot give you the meaning of life, science cannot love you science cannot save your soul obviously its not always reliable. Religion can give you those things in those areas its more reliable.
Another straw man!
I never said science can give all the answers, but obviously you have to pretend I said to fulfil your agenda.
Furthermore, while religion can give those answers, they are certainly NOT reliable. We know that because it sometimes gives different answers. Is slavery moral? Bible says yes, modern Christians say no. How can anyone pretend that that is a reliable answer?
Joe: go back and read my version of the moral argument you will see we proved it.
This is you pretending to have proved a moral fact.
The reality is that your version of the moral argument is attempting to prove God, not prove a moral fact. Now either you are utterly clueless about the discussion and your own posts or you are simply lying here.
Joe: Clearly we don;t need mathematical percission we need reliability your standard is reliability and reliable does not mean absolute.It means it can be trusted.
See here it sounds like you get it. So how does that fit with what religion tells us about slavery? Can we trust Christianity when it tells us slavery is moral? How about when it tells us the opposite?
Joe: We don't need the kind of reliable experience you get from science, because that is useless for the important things...
This is the most damning comment, as it is tacitly admitting you do not have reliable knowledge from outside science, given you are telling us we do not need it to be reliable.
Pix
Joe: I am sure it's worse when they nail you and you didn;t think they would.
You tell me, you are about to get nailed.
Joe: That confirms exactly the criticism I made of your approach, you make everything into a little version of science, as tough science is the only way to think.
This is just one on the many straw men in his post. The reality is that I said besides direct experience, science is the only methodology that gives us reliable knowledge.
science does not give us reliable knowledge in ethics or morality but logic can,Logic gives us reliable knowledge.
I have never said it is the only way to think.
Joe:I have direct experience of God
Do you not understand the difference?
I cant prove what my experiences contained except to my own satisfaction
Joe: that is just bull shit. you are arbitrarily deciding what makes something reliable.
Pix: This is simply incoherent. My comment was not responding to what you would have us think, so that looks like deceit on your part. Your response to that is unrelated to what I said! It is like you grabbing random sentences from each post, and then presenting them as an argument. If you want to make yourself look incoherent, go ahead, but I object when you do it to me.
why is knowledge gained from science any more reliable than knowledge gained from logic?
Joe: we did disprove it. Science cannot give you reliable information as to what is moral.
Pix:But that does not disprove science as our only reliable source of knowledge other than direct experience.
I showed you why its not our only reliable source of knowledge,besides even if it was what does that prove? that there's no God?
Joe: Science cannot give you the meaning of life, science cannot love you science cannot save your soul obviously its not always reliable. Religion can give you those things in those areas its more reliable.
Another straw man!
this was my essay, you changed the subject with your irrelevant science worship
Pix: I never said science can give all the answers, but obviously you have to pretend I said to fulfil your agenda.
the things you say amount to that and you know it. It's not the only way to think but its the on;y reliable source, What yo must mean is its our only reliable way to think. There are other ways but they suck, you are just plying games. you know you really mean to say science is the only way to think that's worth doing,
That is just the kind of simplistic bull shit I expect from atheists.Everything science tells us is assumed in religion. We do religion in the natural world. We know bases and acids don't mix and all before we ever think about God (academically). Science is about obvious in your face facts and religion is about beyond the stars over our heads truths we can't know except or until God opens them up to us. Of course science is going to be easier to establish as fact. That does nit mean it's the only truth,
Joe: go back and read my version of the moral argument you will see we proved it.
Pix:This is you pretending to have proved a moral fact.
I TAed for a moral philosophy class. How many classes in ethics have you taken and at what level? Show me where Kant's categorical imperative fails us?
The reality is that your version of the moral argument is attempting to prove God, not prove a moral fact. Now either you are utterly clueless about the discussion and your own posts or you are simply lying here.
Joe: Clearly we don;t need mathematical percussion we need reliability your standard is reliability and reliable does not mean absolute.It means it can be trusted.
See here it sounds like you get it. So how does that fit with what religion tells us about slavery? Can we trust Christianity when it tells us slavery is moral? How about when it tells us the opposite?
Christianity never told us slavery was moral. People who owned salved had a vested interest in supporting slavery. People wanted to free the slaves got nothing but death and heart aches, they found the Gospel telling them slavery was wrong.They were in the faith because their motive was truth. The other guys used the faith for making money, they were not in the faith,
Joe: We don't need the kind of reliable experience you get from science, because that is useless for the important things...
Pix:This is the most damning comment, as it is tacitly admitting you do not have reliable knowledge from outside science, given you are telling us we do not need it to be reliable.
Hey man don't be obtuse. there's a big difference in 'truth' and mathematical precision. You have been comparing apples and oranges this whole time anyway, science and religion don't deal with the same kinds of knowledge.
"The reality is that your version of the moral argument is attempting to prove God, not prove a moral fact. Now either you are utterly clueless about the discussion and your own posts or you are simply lying here."--the artist known as"Pixie"
Sure bit if the truth of God is establish via the moral dimension then obviously the moral dimension shares in that truth, God vouchsafes the validity of the moral.
Really? Give me some reliable knowledge in ethics or morality that logic gives.
I am pretty sure you cannot. I am pretty sure this is another time you expect Christians to just believe you because you are a Christian. And hey, maybe they do. I strongly suspect this is all about preaching to the choir. Who cares if you are right, as long as you say it confidently, no one will question you. Well, no one whose opinion matters to a Christian anyway, right?
Pix: I have never said "science is the only way to think", that is just your usual tired straw man.
What I have said is that besides direct experience, science is the only methodology that gives us reliable knowledge.
Do you not understand the difference?
Joe: I cant prove what my experiences contained except to my own satisfaction
I have added the bit in bold to give some context to where I said "Do you not understand the difference?" on the other site. You missed out the first two lines, and just posted the third on this site. I really just want to highlight how you have ripped my comment out of context to promote your own agenda. Not very honest, but I imagine it fools the Christians, and that is the point.
Joe: why is knowledge gained from science any more reliable than knowledge gained from logic?
As I said recently on the other site, I am approaching this from view that knowledge is true when it maps to the real world. Logic is abstract, why should we suppose it is true, that it maps to the real world?
You may have a different view of knowledge, and perhaps in your view logic is reliable because your view of knowledge includes the abstract. However, if you then go on to prove God exists, what you have proven is the abstract concept of God exists, not that God actually exists. This is like the Lord of the Rings discussion. Proving God exists in a fantasy world not not prove he is real.
Joe: I showed you why its not our only reliable source of knowledge,
No you did not. But again, this is a comment for Christian readers, I guess. A Christian says he beat an atheist, so it must be true, right? No point actually checking the facts.
Of course, that makes the every claim by a Christian suspect. How does he know? Has he actually checked his facts, or is he just naively believing what he is told and parroting it back? Apparently it is probably the latter.
Ironic when we are discussing reliable knowledge.
Joe: I showed you why its not our only reliable source of knowledge,besides even if it was what does that prove? that there's no God?
It proves your ideas about science and scientism are wrong.
Joe: this was my essay, you changed the subject with your irrelevant science worship
Either you care or you do not. If you do not care, do not respond. It is that easy.
Pix
No they do not.
Your straw man: science is the only way to think.
The truth: science is the only way to acquire reliable knowledge besides direct experience
1. There is a big difference between how we gain knowledge and how we think. Science is about how we gain knowledge, you are pretending it is about how we think.
2. There is an important difference between "only" and "only reliable"; the former allows exactly one, the later does not. I am not saying religion cannot be used to gain knowledge at all, but that the knowledge gained cannot be considered reliable.
3. You simply omit "besides direct experience" altogether. Why is that? That agenda you want to promote.
Okay, I get it. If you were to represent me honestly you would have a much harder time of it, so you go with the straw man. And I bet all the Christians reading this lap it up. Hey, the Christian says the atheists believes this, so it must be true, whatever the evil atheist says.
And so your audience polarises between Christians who blindly believe everything you say and those who can think for themselves and see how clueless (or dishonest?) you are.
Joe: That is just the kind of simplistic bull shit I expect from atheists.Everything science tells us is assumed in religion. We do religion in the natural world. We know bases and acids don't mix and all before we ever think about God (academically). Science is about obvious in your face facts and religion is about beyond the stars over our heads truths we can't know except or until God opens them up to us. Of course science is going to be easier to establish as fact. That does nit mean it's the only truth,
And again that same straw man. You cannot help yourself can you?
I am not saying and have never said science is the only truth.
Joe: I TAed for a moral philosophy class. How many classes in ethics have you taken and at what level? Show me where Kant's categorical imperative fails us?
Me? None at all. You are the expert. So why have you not proved a moral fact yet?
You cannot. All you have is this bluster.
Joe: Christianity never told us slavery was moral. People who owned salved had a vested interest in supporting slavery. People wanted to free the slaves got nothing but death and heart aches, they found the Gospel telling them slavery was wrong.They were in the faith because their motive was truth. The other guys used the faith for making money, they were not in the faith,
Nice re-write of history there, but the truth is that the Bible states chattel slavery for gentiles is fine (Lev 25:44-46) and plenty of slave owners in the US used Christianity to justify and promote owning slaves. Or is this the "no true Scotsman" fallacy?
Joe: Hey man don't be obtuse. there's a big difference in 'truth' and mathematical precision. You have been comparing apples and oranges this whole time anyway, science and religion don't deal with the same kinds of knowledge.
What has mathematical precision to do with anything we have been talking about? Do you actually know what "reliable" means?
Science and religion do not deal with the same kinds of knowledge, but that does not prevent us comparing how reliable that knowledge is. In both cases we are interested in considering our justified confidence that a claim is right, that it maps to the real world.
Pix
Sure bit if the truth of God is establish via the moral dimension then obviously the moral dimension shares in that truth, God vouchsafes the validity of the moral.
You act like you have a slam-dunk win. But then I guess you are writing for the Christians. If Joe says he has a slam-dunk, then he must; no point me checking the facts or bothering to actually think.
Of course the reality is that what you have is a circular argument.
1. There are objective moral truths
2. Therefore God exists
3. Therefore there are objective moral truths
You moral argument is sets 1 and 2. Your argument here is 2 and 3. As long as you keep them on separate pages, no one will notice they are circular, right?
Pix
Pix
Of course the reality is that what you have is a circular argument.
1. There are objective moral truths
2. Therefore God exists
3. Therefore there are objective moral truths
You moral argument is sets 1 and 2. Your argument here is 2 and 3. As long as you keep them on separate pages, no one will notice they are circular, right?
problem is that is not my moral argument. That's the one I made fun of and claimed mine as a better version.
It would be circular if I tired to prove God with moral argument then prove moral argument with God of course that's not what I'm doing,