For Moonwood and KTR

[Dr Mundo]

This video I think has some good answers to what I see as a problem we run into very often. KTR and myself say reason is the best way we know of to access knowledge claims about our universe. We use evidence to justify our beliefs and all of our epistemological statements about what justified beliefs are comes down to evidence that can be supported by demonstration. There are of course some assumptions that need to be made and KTR has touched on this before. I agree with him and think ultimately there are some initial assumptions that need to be made in order to even get started about talking about these things. Those initial assumptions aside, I think that arguments that are supported by evidence are far more likely than those that are not. Demonstration of a claim should be a standard requirement in order to accept that claim as true, or at least likely to be true.

I may have already posted a link to this video before and if its a repeat for you guys than I'm sorry. KTR is Evidentialism that much different than Reasonism? If so please explain to me the where they differ.

At any rate here is the video I was referencing.

[mitchellmckain]

Yet another name for "logical empiricism"? I think Moonwood's point has been that one cannot escape the flaws of a philosophy simply by changing its name.

[Dr Mundo]

Yet another name for "logical empiricism"? I think Moonwood's point has been that one cannot escape the flaws of a philosophy simply by changing its name.

I Guess I don't see how we could think differently about these issues. For any moral issue or political one, I am glad we have different views in different cultures and political parties. It helps us establish a point of reference on witch we can gauge our own ideas and moral philosophies. But epistemological arguments and what is the basis for rational knowledge, I don't think is an area we have much to debate. If reason and evidence are not your foundational cornerstones on witch to base your knowledge claims about our universe. I don't see how that could even function at all. (initial assumptions aside.)
We ought to have a podcast on this issue I think. Though I know there wont be one for a good while.

"What can we rationally claim to know, and on what basis can we claim it?" This is the principle difference that I can see, regarding the whole god issue. For me its the most important question that needs to be answered.

I want to apologize for all my posts in the past that have sounded rude or disrespectful. Its never been my intention to be either of those things. I have gotten to the point of frustration most of the time in these conversations. On the morality issue for sure, but that was hashed out really well I think between KTR, ChristianHeretic and myself. But now with the conversations with Humanguy and moonwood. Some questions which have seemingly simple answers are given such convoluted responses that I sometimes wish It was easier.

HG asks how MW knows "insert god claim here". I think what we are looking for is answers like we would get to How do you know dogs are in the Canidae family? The answer: Morphological similarities amongst certain carnivorous mammals along with DNA testing and phylogeny have made it possible for us to set groups of animals together according to a taxonomic structure. Given that data we are able to, through repeatable processes, determine that a dog does indeed belong in the family Canidae.
Or
How do you know Jon Doe died of drug overdose? Answer: After an analysis of his blood, and internal organs, elevated numbers of "x" was found in his body, we have studies that show us the effects of this drug, and the dangers associated with it.

for me at least that is the type of response I would like to hear. Unfortunately I know the theists on this site will tell me that I will not get an answer like that. And at least for me, that is the most frustrating part. How do you know God came to earth in the form of a human body and called himself Jesus? How do you even know that a God exists at all? the answer: You don't. Not by any standard I would classify as knowledge. If you can prove me wrong do so please. If you can show me why my standard is flawed, than do that instead. So far I have been unimpressed by any claim to knowledge that a theists claims to have regarding his/her God. So lets try this again. I'm all ears.

[cleve]

How do you know God came to earth in the form of a human body and called himself Jesus?

Dr Mundo,
The same way I know you are a mystery, you will remain a mystery and you will die a mystery.

[JustJim]

How do you know God came to earth in the form of a human body and called himself Jesus?

Dr Mundo,
The same way I know you are a mystery, you will remain a mystery and you will die a mystery.

You read in the Bible that Dr Mundo is a mystery? You heard one of your TV and/or Internet preachers say Dr Mundo is a mystery? You learned about God coming to earth as a human being who called himself Jesus in exactly the same way you know Dr Mundo is a mystery? I doubt that, Cleve. And so do you....

Jim

[StillSearching]

I've had on my mind for a while an analogy/metaphor for this difference between theists/atheists, and I'd like to share it with you all and get your thoughts. I was going to create a new thread for it, but haven't gotten around to it yet, and this thread seems like as good a place as any to present it, so here goes...

It seems as if the difference between the two viewpoints can be compared to two people looking at a painting: one a feeling, intuitive person, and the other a rational, thinking person (I'm paraphrasing the Briggs Myers model here). Both can look at the same painting from different perspectives, neither of which is necessarily right or wrong. The rational/thinking person can look at the painting and make all sorts of concrete, objective statements about it, all of which can be demonstrated to be true:

- It is painted on X surface (canvas, slate, paper, etc.).
- It is painted with X-type paints (oil, acrylic, watercolor, etc.).
- It belongs within a certain category of style (abstract, expressionist, Dadaist, impressionist, etc.).
- It is X by X in size.

The feeling, intuitive person can look at the painting and also make statements about it that are more subjective, but no less true:

- It expresses X (joy, sorrow, anger, fear, etc.).
- It tells X story.
- It makes me feel X.

It seems to me that this whole debate stems from people looking at Life, The Universe and Everything in one of these two ways and not being able to see if from the other. Scientists/atheists/rationalists seek to define and explain the world in concrete, objective terms, eschewing aesthetic or subjective descriptions and judgements. They are answering the Who, What, Where, When and How questions. Theists/spiritualists seek to explain the world in subjective, aesthetic terms. They seek the answer to the question of Why.

Neither is "right" and they both are going to have a difficult time convincing the other to look exclusively at the "painting" the way they do. I think it would be worthwhile, though, for both types to at least give the other a try. I believe we need both perspectives, both within the world and within ourselves as individuals.

[Keep The Reason]

I love this guy's videos. He does it beautifully. Great find, and it would have saved a lot of time to have linked to it (though I enjoy the mental exercise that MW presented).

While there';s about 17.50 minutes of stuff I want to quote from the video (which is 17.50 minutes long, lol), this is my favorite moment:

"I am assuming as little as possible, and then letting evidence take over"

That is my core position; and I've conceded to MW that while evidence is not the only way to validate a knowledge claim (i.e., he may have eaten a PB&J sandwich during the 1970's), I maintain that it is the only way valid knowledge can be shared in any meaningful way.

I believe MW's position here is a long circuitous rambling way of going about making a point that is a point but moves no one forward in any way shape or form as to how knowledge is acquired, validated or shared. It is a pathway through the woods that simply leaves one at the same spot one started, though okay, you see trees and bushes and so on along the circuitous route. You just don't wind up anywhere you haven't already been.

That a claim or experience might be validated within the confines of one's own head may be true (hence, "the point" he does make), the practical consequence remains if it sits in one's head and cannot be shared with anyone else in any evidentiary way, it has a very narrow range of meaning. To everyone else external to MW, it is utterly meaningless in terms of valid knowledge.

It puts me in mind of a terrific novel called "Johnny Got His Gun" by Dalton Trumbo. An anti-war tome, this was the story of a doughboy in WW1 who was hit by a shell, and had his face scooped out, and lost his arms and legs. So, no eyes, ears, mouth, or limbs. No way to communicate. At one point a doctor says, "Who knows what he's come up with in there? Maybe he's figured out the riddles of the universe or written the greatest concerto of all time, but-- of what good is it? He has no way to share it."

As to your question: "KTR is Evidentialism that much different than Reasonism"

No, not that much different at all. The entire video and position of evidentialism exists because of reason, so Reason lies at the foundation of his dissertation. It also lies at the foundation of how you, me, and everyone else who watches it is being looped into an overt method of understanding what he's talking about. Show this to a non-sapient being, like a squirrel or a cat, and it will have no meaning whatsoever.

[Keep The Reason]

It seems as if the difference between the two viewpoints can be compared to two people looking at a painting: one a feeling, intuitive person, and the other a rational, thinking person (I'm paraphrasing the Briggs Myers model here). Both can look at the same painting from different perspectives, neither of which is necessarily right or wrong. The rational/thinking person can look at the painting and make all sorts of concrete, objective statements about it, all of which can be demonstrated to be true:

It seems to me that this whole debate stems from people looking at Life, The Universe and Everything in one of these two ways and not being able to see if from the other. Scientists/atheists/rationalists seek to define and explain the world in concrete, objective terms, eschewing aesthetic or subjective descriptions and judgements. They are answering the Who, What, Where, When and How questions. Theists/spiritualists seek to explain the world in subjective, aesthetic terms. They seek the answer to the question of Why.

Neither is "right" and they both are going to have a difficult time convincing the other to look exclusively at the "painting" the way they do. I think it would be worthwhile, though, for both types to at least give the other a try. I believe we need both perspectives, both within the world and within ourselves as individuals.

I think your summary is too black and white. As a Reasonist, I do not dismiss or divorce emotions from the whole of human experience; what you're describing here is sort of the (corny) difference highlighted in Star Trek between humans and Vulcans (and given dramatic conflict within one character, Spock, whose differing natures were a clever dramatic device).

And I don't think theists simply discard logic either.

I think both allow one side to trump the other though (and you're not saying that. You're specifically saying, and I quote, not being able to see if from the other, with which I disagree).

I am ABLE to see it from the other, non-logical side, but I think that in doing so I open myself up to a wide chaos of beliefs. I consider emotion to be a valid sensory input, but not something to found one's worldview on because it's not demonstrable that in doing so you can get to any truth. I need physical evidence for claims that are of value, but I can still appreciate the emotional response to a wide variety of claims.

That's why I can state I really do like the NT stories, and the messiah mythology, and can glean lessons from it, but do not have to make the mistake of thinking it's actually true. That not only would destroy it;'s value, but it opens up an entire can of unnecessary worms that have no objective meaning, like sinning and afterlives and resurrections and other things that come across as simply childish. And that translates into behaviors that preclude me from making deeply ignorant mistakes, like intolerance for people of a different sexual persuasion than I, or disenfranchising women, or trying to encode in our legal system religious ideologies. and while I know that there are religious people who don't do those things either, I find it impossible to see what logical grounding they have for NOT doing so, given what they claim their beliefs are. I don't "get" what is called "liberal theists" because liberal theism is really simply rewriting the theism to be more palatable based upon quite clearly secular values.

And if you're going to toss in "right" and "wrong" -- yes, there is a right and wrong here. Choices made based primarily on one's emotions is rife with challenges because you base your actions not on what is objectively demonstrable but on what you subjectively feel is right. This is fine ONLY if you keep such actions to yourself. If your (the general "your") actions are going to have an impact on me (the general "me"), then you need to defend to me why your emotions are in some way the default, which I submit here that you cannot ever hope to accomplish-- that is why it's subjective to you.

But on the Reasonist side of the equation, if my (the general "my") behaviors are based on physical evidence and logic that is demonstrable to you (the general "you") -- and it has to be if it is physical -- then you at LEAST are privy to why I make the choices I do. You still may disagree with me, but at the very least we have something we can wrestle over in the physical sense rather than just something grounding ion "because I feel like it". Anything else is tyrannical by definition.

[StillSearching]

I think your summary is too black and white. I think both allow one side to trump the other though (and you're not saying that. You're specifically saying, and I quote, not being able to see if from the other, with which I disagree).

You're right. I didn't intend to draw such a sharp distinction, but I'm at work so time was limited. Absolutely, both types of people use both ways of analyzing "the painting."

So what do you think about my distinction between those who search out the cold, hard factual data and description of the universe, and those who seek to find an answer to the question, "Why?"

[Keep The Reason]

So what do you think about my distinction between those who search out the cold, hard factual data and description of the universe, and those who seek to find an answer to the question, "Why?"

I thought I'd given you my summary of it. I think there are definitely people who allow their emotional inputs to trump their logical ones, but I think it only allows for at best a slim chance at being right about a premise. If I "wish it were true that there were aliens on Mars" then I'm going to see the "face on Mars" from a non-critical perspective which wouold likely propel me into not accepting evidence to the contrary. If I am approach to it from a critical perspective, I will see immediately that the facts do not bear out the emotional illusionary supposition.

Face-on-Mars.jpg (44.52 KiB) Viewed 331 times

I think that's what most religious people do, if they bother to investigate their beliefs at all (and why should they? They feel it's right, and that's good enough.) If I want to stack the deck towards valid understanding of an assertion or premise, then I am best served by being wary of the emotional. If I want to just have whatever beliefs make me feel good, I would be wary of the logical.

[StillSearching]

I think there are definitely people who allow their emotional inputs to trump their logical ones, but I think it only allows for at best a slim chance at being right about a premise. If I "wish it were true that there were aliens on Mars" then I'm going to see the "face on Mars" from a non-critical perspective which wouold likely propel me into not accepting evidence to the contrary. If I am approach to it from a critical perspective, I will see immediately that the facts do not bear out the emotional illusionary supposition.

This is all well and good, and correct, but I don't think I made my question clear. You're drifting into "God belief" and "Martian belief" here and that's not really what I was getting at. Billions upon billions of people across the ages have spent time on the question of "Why." Some more than most, indeed, as you allude to later in your post. But it's obviously something that weighs heavy on most of us and causes us to consider, if only in a fleeting and superficial manner. So I guess I'm curious about a something: Did you ever (and do you still) consider the question "Why" or have you just accepted that there is no answer, or do you think it's unknowable? Is it just a silly, meaningless question? Would you advocate for people to stop asking it?

Oh, and just one other side item of curiosity. Your pic just made me wonder what you think about this. Are you of the opinion that we are the sole life forms in universe, and furthermore, the sole sentient life? Or do you just maintain a neutral position since there's no evidence either way?

I think that's what most religious people do, if they bother to investigate their beliefs at all (and why should they? They feel it's right, and that's good enough.) If I want to stack the deck towards valid understanding of an assertion or premise, then I am best served by being wary of the emotional. If I want to just have whatever beliefs make me feel good, I would be wary of the logical.

Again, you're kinda going around my point. I know that religious/spiritual people often overlook or distort things that are problematic to their faith, but they've gone to that faith, investigated or not, out of a need to answer "Why" and I'm wondering if you've taken a stance on that question. I suppose I'm asking if you consider yourself materialist, or some other -ist.

[Keep The Reason]

This is all well and good, and correct, but I don't think I made my question clear. You're drifting into "God belief" and "Martian belief" here and that's not really what I was getting at. Billions upon billions of people across the ages have spent time on the question of "Why." Some more than most, indeed, as you allude to later in your post. But it's obviously something that weighs heavy on most of us and causes us to consider, if only in a fleeting and superficial manner. So I guess I'm curious about a something: Did you ever (and do you still) consider the question "Why" or have you just accepted that there is no answer, or do you think it's unknowable? Is it just a silly, meaningless question? Would you advocate for people to stop asking it?

It's always good to ask questions. I can't (and wouldn't) presume to advocate whether a why question is silly or meaningless for others. There is an answer even if the answer is simply "because", but I certainly don't dismiss the consequences of asking such a question. Of course, I'm assuming the Why? In your definition is couched in an esoteric flavor, as opposed to the nuts and bolts why? being asked like, "Why did the big bang happen?" I beIieve that the act of such questioning is the price of sapience.

In fact, I think that religion has classically throttled the majority of people from asking that question because religion asserts itself as having the answer, and insists its answer is the only right one. Why? Because <insert god here>. Oh. Okay. Thank you. No need to ask anything now. Thankfully, there are those who push beyond that and ask anyway, which is why we have artists and musicians and scientists, authors, etc.

Oh, and just one other side item of curiosity. Your pic just made me wonder what you think about this. Are you of the opinion that we are the sole life forms in universe, and furthermore, the sole sentient life? Or do you just maintain a neutral position since there's no evidence either way?

I think there is almost certainly non-terrestrial life, even if its at the level of bacteria. Finding it may be a challenge but the proper conditions do exist, even here in our own solar system (Europa). However, it's not proven so I only speak a speculation. I hope it's found in the next couple of decades. I would like to love long enough for this discovery to be made. It would be wonderful.

As to intelligent life? Well, even harder to say; even where there is a vast diversity of life, it doesn't appear to be easily attained. I hope so, I simply don't know.

Again, you're kinda going around my point. I know that religious/spiritual people often overlook or distort things that are problematic to their faith, but they've gone to that faith, investigated or not, out of a need to answer "Why" and I'm wondering if you've taken a stance on that question. I suppose I'm asking if you consider yourself materialist, or some other -ist.

I am a materialist, but there may very well be a fully materialist answer to the "why?" question.

[Dr Mundo]

How do you know God came to earth in the form of a human body and called himself Jesus?

Dr Mundo,
The same way I know you are a mystery, you will remain a mystery and you will die a mystery.

Sorry mate, no idea what you mean. I am a mystery in what way? In a general way because I'm human? In a specific way because I (as a human) am unique? This statement could use lots of explaining.
________________________________________________________

I've had on my mind for a while an analogy/metaphor for this difference between theists/atheists, and I'd like to share it with you all and get your thoughts. I was going to create a new thread for it, but haven't gotten around to it yet, and this thread seems like as good a place as any to present it, so here goes...

It seems as if the difference between the two viewpoints can be compared to two people looking at a painting: one a feeling, intuitive person, and the other a rational, thinking person (I'm paraphrasing the Briggs Myers model here). Both can look at the same painting from different perspectives, neither of which is necessarily right or wrong. The rational/thinking person can look at the painting and make all sorts of concrete, objective statements about it, all of which can be demonstrated to be true:

- It is painted on X surface (canvas, slate, paper, etc.).
- It is painted with X-type paints (oil, acrylic, watercolor, etc.).
- It belongs within a certain category of style (abstract, expressionist, Dadaist, impressionist, etc.).
- It is X by X in size.

The feeling, intuitive person can look at the painting and also make statements about it that are more subjective, but no less true:

- It expresses X (joy, sorrow, anger, fear, etc.).
- It tells X story.
- It makes me feel X.

It seems to me that this whole debate stems from people looking at Life, The Universe and Everything in one of these two ways and not being able to see if from the other. Scientists/atheists/rationalists seek to define and explain the world in concrete, objective terms, eschewing aesthetic or subjective descriptions and judgements. They are answering the Who, What, Where, When and How questions. Theists/spiritualists seek to explain the world in subjective, aesthetic terms. They seek the answer to the question of Why.

I do not eschew aesthetic description or judgements at all. I fully understand that I engage in, and find great value in aesthetic descriptions and judgments all the time. The difference is I know this is talking in subjective terms and thus Philosophy is a great tool to use to better understand and appreciate those things. So I am aware and inspired by these things, the difference is, I keep it in the realm of the subjective.

What theists are doing is they are telling us a concrete (what you call objective) statement about reality, namely that in the subset of the things we can label as existent some sort of God is among those things. If you would have just stopped at the subjective I'd have no problem with discussions and even moral lessons learned from fables and myths. But once you claim that they are an accurate representation of reality you have now officially departed from the subjective (aesthetic) descriptions and entered the Objective or demonstrable side of the argument. This is where science comes in.

Philosophical arguments and descriptions for the subjective, and Scientific evidential based observations for the "objective". That is how things seem to need to be in order to have a rational understanding of reality (in my opinion). If you have a better method come up with a structured way to present it to me so that it is coherent and concise and boy would I love to be a part of that conversation.

Neither is "right" and they both are going to have a difficult time convincing the other to look exclusively at the "painting" the way they do. I think it would be worthwhile, though, for both types to at least give the other a try. I believe we need both perspectives, both within the world and within ourselves as individuals.

I feel as though I do have both perspectives and I feel that I have a healthy grasp on how the balanced is tipped either way depending on what the context of the conversation is. Like I said if you have a better system demonstrate why, and show me where I could improve so that I move more toward and accurate understanding of our universe. ( as accurate as reasonably possible given the data that we are able to collect at the time of course.)

[Dr Mundo]

I love this guy's videos. He does it beautifully. Great find, and it would have saved a lot of time to have linked to it (though I enjoy the mental exercise that MW presented).

While there';s about 17.50 minutes of stuff I want to quote from the video (which is 17.50 minutes long, lol), this is my favorite moment:

"I am assuming as little as possible, and then letting evidence take over"

That is my core position; and I've conceded to MW that while evidence is not the only way to validate a knowledge claim (i.e., he may have eaten a PB&J sandwich during the 1970's), I maintain that it is the only way valid knowledge can be shared in any meaningful way.

I believe MW's position here is a long circuitous rambling way of going about making a point that is a point but moves no one forward in any way shape or form as to how knowledge is acquired, validated or shared. It is a pathway through the woods that simply leaves one at the same spot one started, though okay, you see trees and bushes and so on along the circuitous route. You just don't wind up anywhere you haven't already been.

That a claim or experience might be validated within the confines of one's own head may be true (hence, "the point" he does make), the practical consequence remains if it sits in one's head and cannot be shared with anyone else in any evidentiary way, it has a very narrow range of meaning. To everyone else external to MW, it is utterly meaningless in terms of valid knowledge.

It puts me in mind of a terrific novel called "Johnny Got His Gun" by Dalton Trumbo. An anti-war tome, this was the story of a doughboy in WW1 who was hit by a shell, and had his face scooped out, and lost his arms and legs. So, no eyes, ears, mouth, or limbs. No way to communicate. At one point a doctor says, "Who knows what he's come up with in there? Maybe he's figured out the riddles of the universe or written the greatest concerto of all time, but-- of what good is it? He has no way to share it."

As to your question: "KTR is Evidentialism that much different than Reasonism"

No, not that much different at all. The entire video and position of evidentialism exists because of reason, so Reason lies at the foundation of his dissertation. It also lies at the foundation of how you, me, and everyone else who watches it is being looped into an overt method of understanding what he's talking about. Show this to a non-sapient being, like a squirrel or a cat, and it will have no meaning whatsoever.

Excellent! Thanks KTR, you and I have paralleled in almost every conversation on these forums. I enjoy reading your posts, and I'm glad you liked the link. I love the videos he makes and have watched all of them. His deconversion story is remarkable so humble and full of what I think makes humans so great, the thirst for knowledge and validation of what we think we already know. It is very long but if you ever have an hour and a half or 2, I would advise anyone to listen to it. Here is a link directly to the video series http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSy1-Q_BEtQ&list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A&feature=plpp_play_all

[ChristianHeretic]

I don't "get" what is called "liberal theists" because liberal theism is really simply rewriting the theism to be more palatable based upon quite clearly secular values.

Wow, I step away for a few months and come back to this brilliant morsel of reason from KTR. You sound a bit like a closet Right-Wing Republican KTR, and now a "Senior member" with your roughly 4.5 daily posts! That's got to be a record, congrats! I also forgot how much I enjoy your injections of claims of "messiah mythology" buried in posts insisting on solely your evidence-based assertions. "I think there is almost certainly non-terrestrial life." You mean of course the "mythology" of non-terrestrial life?

I also missed the love-fest between two like minded guys "Excellent! Thanks KTR, you and I have paralleled in almost every conversation on these forums. I enjoy reading your posts, and I'm glad you liked the link." Hope you've been well Mundo...

Hope the rest of you guys/girls have been well too.

Ok, let's assume we solely take the evidentiary and/or reasoned approach to life, let's not discuss whether this is the best/only method of discovering truth. Let's assume that it is at least A method, and a good one. Is it at least possible that two individuals can evaluate evidence with this reasoned approach, and come up with two completely separate interpretations, and thus, evaluations, and thus beliefs about that evidence? Is it possible that say, 9 judges, can look at the exact same evidence and disagree on the truth assertion required by that evidence, without relying on what KTR calls the "non-logical" side?