Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who is the fool?

tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 5:04:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This thread is not meant to start an argument, but simply to provoke thought and appreciate the writings of Charles Taze Russell. The excerpt is from Russell's six volume series Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 1: The Divine Plan of the Ages, Study 2: The Existence of a Supreme Intelligent Creator Established.

"EVEN from the standpoint of the skeptic, a reasonable and candid search into the unknown, by the light of what is known, will guide the unbiased, intelligent reasoner in the direction of the truth. Yet it is evident that without a direct revelation of the plans and purposes of God, men could only approximate the truth, and arrive at indefinite conclusions. But let us for the moment lay aside the Bible, and look at things from the standpoint of reason alone.

He who can look into the sky with a telescope, or even with his natural eye alone, and see there the immensity of creation, its symmetry, beauty, order, harmony and diversity, and yet doubt that the Creator of these is vastly his superior both in wisdom and power, or who can suppose for a moment that such order came by chance, without a Creator, has so far lost or ignored the faculty of reason as to be properly considered what the Bible terms him, a fool (one who ignores or lacks reason): 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.' (Psalm 14:1) However it happened, at least that much of the Bible is true, as every reasonable mind must conclude; for it is a self-evident truth that effects must be produced by competent causes. Every plant and every flower, even, speaks volumes of testimony on this subject. Intricate in construction, exquisitely beautiful in form and texture, each speaks of a wisdom and skill above the human. How shortsighted the absurdity which boasts of human skill and ingenuity, and attributes to mere chance the regularity, uniformity and harmony of nature; which acknowledges the laws of nature, while denying that nature has an intelligent Lawgiver."

"We claim, then, that the existence of an Intelligent Creator is a clearly demonstrated truth, the proof of which lies all around us: yea, and within us; for we are his workmanship, whose every power of mind and body speaks of a marvelous skill beyond our comprehension. And he is also the Designer and Creator of what we term nature. We claim that he ordered and established the laws of nature, the beauty and harmony of whose operation we see and admire. This one whose wisdom planned and whose power upholds and guides the universe, whose wisdom and power so immeasurably transcend our own, we instinctively worship and adore.

To realize the existence of this mighty God is but to dread his omnipotent strength, unless we can see him possessed of benevolence and goodness corresponding to his power. Of this fact we are also fully assured by the same evidence which proves his existence, power and wisdom. Not only are we forced to the conclusion that there is a God, and that his power and wisdom are immeasurably beyond our own, but we are forced by reason to the conclusion ::page 33:: that the grandest thing created is not superior to its Creator; hence we must conclude that the greatest manifestation of benevolence and justice among men is inferior in scope to that of the Creator, even as man's wisdom and power are inferior to his. And thus we have before our mental vision the character and attributes of the great Creator. He is wise, just, loving and powerful; and the scope of his attributes is, of necessity, immeasurably wider than that of his grandest creation.

But further: having reached this reasonable conclusion relative to the existence and character of our Creator, let us inquire, What should we expect of such a being? The answer comes, that the possession of such attributes reasonably argues their exercise, their use. God's power must be used, and that in harmony with his own nature wisely, justly and benevolently. Whatever may be the means to that end, whatever may be the operation of God's power, the final outcome must be consistent with his nature and character, and every step must be approved of his infinite wisdom.

What could be more reasonable than such exercise of power as we see manifested in the creation of countless worlds about us, and in the wonderful variety of earth? What could be more reasonable than the creation of man, endowed with reason and judgment, capable of appreciating his Creator's works, and judging of his skill of his wisdom, justice, power and love? All this is reasonable, and all in perfect accord with facts known to us.

And now comes our final proposition. Is it not reasonable to suppose that such an infinitely wise and good being, having made a creature capable of appreciating himself and his plan, would be moved by his love and justice to supply the wants of that creature's nature, by giving him some revelation? Would it not be a reasonable supposition, that God would supply to man information concerning the object of his existence, and his plans for his future? On the contrary, we ask, would it not be unreasonable to suppose that such a Creator would make such a creature as man, endow him with powers of reason reaching out into the future, and yet make no revelation of his plans to meet those longings? Such a course would be unreasonable, because contrary to the character which we reasonably attribute to God; contrary to the proper course of a being controlled by justice and love.

We may reason that in creating man, had Divine Wisdom decided it inexpedient to grant him a knowledge of his future destiny, and his share in his Creator's plans, then surely Divine Justice, as well as Divine Love, would have insisted that the being should be so limited in his capacity that he would not continually be tormented and perplexed with doubts, and fears, and ignorance; and as a consequence Divine Power would have been used under those limitations. The fact, then, that man has capacity for appreciating a revelation of the Divine plan, taken in connection with the conceded character of his Creator, is an abundant reason for expecting that God would grant such a revelation, in such time and manner as his wisdom approved. So, then, in view of these considerations, even if we were ignorant of the Bible, reason would lead us to expect and to be on the lookout for some such revelation as the Bible claims to be. And furthermore, noting the order and harmony of the general creation, as in grand procession the spheres and systems keep time and place, we cannot but conclude that the minor irregularities, such as earthquakes, cyclones, etc., are but indications that the working together of the various elements in this world is not at present perfect. An assurance that all will ultimately be perfect and harmonious on earth as in the heavens, with some explanation why it is not so at present, are requests which are not unreasonable for reasoning men to ask, nor for the Creator, whose wisdom, power and benevolence are demonstrated, to answer. Hence we should expect the revelation sought to include such an assurance and such an explanation."

I hope that anyone reading this enjoyed it.
God bless.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 5:31:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 5:04:28 AM, tstor wrote:
"EVEN from the standpoint of the skeptic, a reasonable and candid search into the unknown, by the light of what is known, will guide the unbiased, intelligent reasoner in the direction of the truth.

I stopped reading after this point, Tstor, and took to skimming. It's very clear by studying humans looking into their own ignorance that if they adhere to evidence, accountability and transparency, they tend to converge toward the same answers, while if they omit any of these, they scatter like clucking chickens in a thunderstorm.

And by these qualities I mean:

* Evidence: independent, precise empirical observations falsifying some beliefs but lending weight to others;
* Transparency: a coherent, relevant, detailed, independently-repeatable method for arriving at conclusions;
* Accountability: recognition, acknowledgement and amendment of ignorance and methodological error as detected by independent scrutiny.

Revelation -- whether received or lived -- upholds none of these principles. Consequently, the revelations of each culture are disparate, fragile and irreconcilable. Unable to withstand the demands of a changing environment, they fracture and schism; seldom to reunite. The reason there are some estimated 40,000+ sects of Christianity for example, is that the faith has no clear methodology for ascertaining truth, no independent way to test for and recognise error, nor any great desire to do so.

Conversely, disciplines upholding evidence, transparency and accountability -- disciplines like science, engineering, mathematics, accounting and so on -- tend to converge over time, past any differences arising from incomplete information. When there's disagreement, they simply source more data, and either I'm right and you're wrong, or you're right and I'm wrong or we're both wrong. But we don't maintain two separate, irreconcilable camps of self-professed 'right' indefinitely.

So when I read someone talking about theology, asserting that a 'candid' search from knowledge into ignorance necessarily converges on truth, I see that assertion as being naive, idealistic and very self-satisfied. I understand him to be saying that, regardless of the discipline you use, you'll either converge on his beliefs, or you're not being 'candid' in the search.

And how is his candour expressed? Not in evidence, transparency and accountability. I'll wager, but in appeals to obscure authorities, and his own unchallenged and uninformed cultural prejudices

I believe this thought to be in fundamental intellectual and ethical error, which is why I only skimmed the rest. And in so doing, I found nothing substantive, but a great deal of the usual grandiose, circular, self-absorbed rhetoric one finds in such a lot of theological argument.

So: no; I didn't enjoy it. I found it tiresomely familiar. You can do better, Tstor. You really can.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 5:48:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 5:04:28 AM, tstor wrote:
This thread is not meant to start an argument, but simply to provoke thought and appreciate the writings of Charles Taze Russell. The excerpt is from Russell's six volume series Studies in the Scriptures, Volume 1: The Divine Plan of the Ages, Study 2: The Existence of a Supreme Intelligent Creator Established.

"EVEN from the standpoint of the skeptic, a reasonable and candid search into the unknown, by the light of what is known, will guide the unbiased, intelligent reasoner in the direction of the truth. Yet it is evident that without a direct revelation of the plans and purposes of God, men could only approximate the truth, and arrive at indefinite conclusions. But let us for the moment lay aside the Bible, and look at things from the standpoint of reason alone.

He who can look into the sky with a telescope, or even with his natural eye alone, and see there the immensity of creation, its symmetry, beauty, order, harmony and diversity, and yet doubt that the Creator of these is vastly his superior both in wisdom and power, or who can suppose for a moment that such order came by chance, without a Creator, has so far lost or ignored the faculty of reason as to be properly considered what the Bible terms him, a fool (one who ignores or lacks reason): 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.' (Psalm 14:1) However it happened, at least that much of the Bible is true, as every reasonable mind must conclude; for it is a self-evident truth that effects must be produced by competent causes. Every plant and every flower, even, speaks volumes of testimony on this subject. Intricate in construction, exquisitely beautiful in form and texture, each speaks of a wisdom and skill above the human. How shortsighted the absurdity which boasts of human skill and ingenuity, and attributes to mere chance the regularity, uniformity and harmony of nature; which acknowledges the laws of nature, while denying that nature has an intelligent Lawgiver."


"We claim, then, that the existence of an Intelligent Creator is a clearly demonstrated truth, the proof of which lies all around us: yea, and within us; for we are his workmanship, whose every power of mind and body speaks of a marvelous skill beyond our comprehension. And he is also the Designer and Creator of what we term nature. We claim that he ordered and established the laws of nature, the beauty and harmony of whose operation we see and admire. This one whose wisdom planned and whose power upholds and guides the universe, whose wisdom and power so immeasurably transcend our own, we instinctively worship and adore.

To realize the existence of this mighty God is but to dread his omnipotent strength, unless we can see him possessed of benevolence and goodness corresponding to his power. Of this fact we are also fully assured by the same evidence which proves his existence, power and wisdom. Not only are we forced to the conclusion that there is a God, and that his power and wisdom are immeasurably beyond our own, but we are forced by reason to the conclusion ::page 33:: that the grandest thing created is not superior to its Creator; hence we must conclude that the greatest manifestation of benevolence and justice among men is inferior in scope to that of the Creator, even as man's wisdom and power are inferior to his. And thus we have before our mental vision the character and attributes of the great Creator. He is wise, just, loving and powerful; and the scope of his attributes is, of necessity, immeasurably wider than that of his grandest creation.

But further: having reached this reasonable conclusion relative to the existence and character of our Creator, let us inquire, What should we expect of such a being? The answer comes, that the possession of such attributes reasonably argues their exercise, their use. God's power must be used, and that in harmony with his own nature wisely, justly and benevolently. Whatever may be the means to that end, whatever may be the operation of God's power, the final outcome must be consistent with his nature and character, and every step must be approved of his infinite wisdom.

What could be more reasonable than such exercise of power as we see manifested in the creation of countless worlds about us, and in the wonderful variety of earth? What could be more reasonable than the creation of man, endowed with reason and judgment, capable of appreciating his Creator's works, and judging of his skill of his wisdom, justice, power and love? All this is reasonable, and all in perfect accord with facts known to us.

And now comes our final proposition. Is it not reasonable to suppose that such an infinitely wise and good being, having made a creature capable of appreciating himself and his plan, would be moved by his love and justice to supply the wants of that creature's nature, by giving him some revelation? Would it not be a reasonable supposition, that God would supply to man information concerning the object of his existence, and his plans for his future? On the contrary, we ask, would it not be unreasonable to suppose that such a Creator would make such a creature as man, endow him with powers of reason reaching out into the future, and yet make no revelation of his plans to meet those longings? Such a course would be unreasonable, because contrary to the character which we reasonably attribute to God; contrary to the proper course of a being controlled by justice and love.

We may reason that in creating man, had Divine Wisdom decided it inexpedient to grant him a knowledge of his future destiny, and his share in his Creator's plans, then surely Divine Justice, as well as Divine Love, would have insisted that the being should be so limited in his capacity that he would not continually be tormented and perplexed with doubts, and fears, and ignorance; and as a consequence Divine Power would have been used under those limitations. The fact, then, that man has capacity for appreciating a revelation of the Divine plan, taken in connection with the conceded character of his Creator, is an abundant reason for expecting that God would grant such a revelation, in such time and manner as his wisdom approved. So, then, in view of these considerations, even if we were ignorant of the Bible, reason would lead us to expect and to be on the lookout for some such revelation as the Bible claims to be. And furthermore, noting the order and harmony of the general creation, as in grand procession the spheres and systems keep time and place, we cannot but conclude that the minor irregularities, such as earthquakes, cyclones, etc., are but indications that the working together of the various elements in this world is not at present perfect. An assurance that all will ultimately be perfect and harmonious on earth as in the heavens, with some explanation why it is not so at present, are requests which are not unreasonable for reasoning men to ask, nor for the Creator, whose wisdom, power and benevolence are demonstrated, to answer. Hence we should expect the revelation sought to include such an assurance and such an explanation."

I hope that anyone reading this enjoyed it.
God bless.

Aquinas is waaaaayyyyy better.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 6:27:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
How to be deluded

1. Start a religion
2. If someone agrees with you, call them brethren
3. If anyone disagrees with you, call them a fool
4. Before long you define a fool as anyone who is skeptical
5. Rest smugly forever in your delusional world
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 6:32:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 5:31:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

I stopped reading after this point, Tstor, and took to skimming. It's very clear by studying humans looking into their own ignorance that if they adhere to evidence, accountability and transparency, they tend to converge toward the same answers, while if they omit any of these, they scatter like clucking chickens in a thunderstorm.

And by these qualities I mean:

* Evidence: independent, precise empirical observations falsifying some beliefs but lending weight to others;
* Transparency: a coherent, relevant, detailed, independently-repeatable method for arriving at conclusions;
* Accountability: recognition, acknowledgement and amendment of ignorance and methodological error as detected by independent scrutiny.
To makes sure that I am understanding you correctly, let me set up a scenario:
Let's say I gather a group of ten people. If I insert the three qualities you speak of (evidence, transparency, and accountability), they will all be on the same page. ("converge toward the same answers") Or at the very least a similar one. Whereas if I omit these three qualities, they will all be on different pages. (converge towards different answers)

If that is truly what you are saying, then I have to disagree. Especially sense you are applying it to the topic of theology. Not to say that theology lacks these three qualities, but it is certainly not bound to them. Surely even you, an atheist, can appreciate that.

When it comes to theology, which is strictly what Pastor Russell is writing about, there are different qualities to apply. The reason the three you listed are irrelevant (for the most part) in a theological discussion is because:
Evidence: independent, precise empirical observations falsifying some beliefs but lending weight to others;
This is simply not applicable. The Bible is not a very clear book on a lot of topics. It is clear on some, but not on others. So what is best when formulating an interpretation of a verse is to take a clear verse that is on the same topic, and use that as your measuring stick. Do you follow me? Using the definition of 'evidence' that you provided is not really satisfactory for this type of study. The reason being is because when it comes to Christian theology, there is nothing that is really "independent". It all arises from the Bible. There are few 'precise empirical observations' when it comes to studying and examining the scriptures. Unlike many fields of study, the study of scriptures is limited between the covers of a some 2000 page book. One can identify, like I said, clear scriptures and use them to interpret obscure ones, but that is all.

Transparency: a coherent, relevant, detailed, independently-repeatable method for arriving at conclusions;
This is an interesting point. A coherent (logical), detailed, independently-repeatable method for arriving to conclusions. I believe that the 'logic' of the Bible is primarily up to interpretation in and of itself. I am sure you find the Bible to be illogical, while I find it logical. I believe that most all decent theologians provide detailed work. Their work is never really independent though. Whether it be that they use other theologians or just standard Bible scriptures. Very few theologians work independently when defining something. So the idea that 'transparency' can apply perfectly here is not true.

Take for example the excerpt I provided. I would argue that it is coherent and detailed, but not independently-repeatable. Why? Because his reasoning was strictly Biblical and emotional.

Accountability: recognition, acknowledgement and amendment of ignorance and methodological error as detected by independent scrutiny.
This is greatly appreciated in the field of theology and scriptural study. I fail to see how it has any real relevance to this excerpt, as no one is challenging it, but new ideas in theology do not rise to dominance without being challenged.

Revelation -- whether received or lived -- upholds none of these principles. Consequently, the revelations of each culture are disparate, fragile and irreconcilable. Unable to withstand the demands of a changing environment, they fracture and schism; seldom to reunite. The reason there are some estimated 40,000+ sects of Christianity for example, is that the faith has no clear methodology for ascertaining truth, no independent way to test for and recognise error, nor any great desire to do so.
I agree. Revelation that has been fulfilled or to be fulfilled does not participate or apply to any of the qualities you listed. Or rather, they do not apply to it. I believe that Biblical revelation has been accurate in the past, so I expect it to be accurate in the future. Pastor Russell did not argue about authenticity of revelations in this specific study. So I fail to really see how it is relevant to the excerpt. He argues that:
"We may reason that in creating man, had Divine Wisdom decided it inexpedient to grant him a knowledge of his future destiny, and his share in his Creator's plans, then surely Divine Justice, as well as Divine Love, would have insisted that the being should be so limited in his capacity that he would not continually be tormented and perplexed with doubts, and fears, and ignorance; and as a consequence Divine Power would have been used under those limitations. The fact, then, that man has capacity for appreciating a revelation of the Divine plan, taken in connection with the conceded character of his Creator, is an abundant reason for expecting that God would grant such a revelation, in such time and manner as his wisdom approved."

Conversely, disciplines upholding evidence, transparency and accountability -- disciplines like science, engineering, mathematics, accounting and so on -- tend to converge over time, past any differences arising from incomplete information. When there's disagreement, they simply source more data, and either I'm right and you're wrong, or you're right and I'm wrong or we're both wrong. But we don't maintain two separate, irreconcilable camps of self-professed 'right' indefinitely.
I agree, but that has no baring on a completely different field such as theology. Theology is not black and white in most instances. There is a lot of grey. Some see that as a good thing, others see it as a bad thing. Though the Bible is not so ignorant as to not mention this. Consider Matthew 7:14:
"But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (NIV)

There is no 'incomplete information' when it comes to the Bible. It is all within that some 2000 page book. All the answers are there. Not all the answers are clear, but they are all there. That is why we (Christians) prayerfully study the scriptures. We request for guidance, wisdom and understanding from the holy ghost when we study the scriptures.

So when I read someone talking about theology, asserting that a 'candid' search from knowledge into ignorance necessarily converges on truth, I see that assertion as being naive, idealistic and very self-satisfied. I understand him to be saying that, regardless of the discipline you use, you'll either converge on his beliefs, or you're not being 'candid' in the search.
I would wager that any theist will agree with what Pastor Russell said. Not necessarily his entire understanding of the Bible, but if you recall to that first paragraph, he said:
"But let us for the moment lay aside the Bible, and look at things from the standpoint of reason alone"
Russell was not referring to his Biblical theology as the truth that "a reasonable and candid search into the unknown, by the light of what is known" would lead you to. Rather, he is arguing that it will lead you to the truth of a higher being. Whether that higher being is attained through Hinduism, Islam, Christi
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 6:32:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 5:31:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

And how is his candour expressed? Not in evidence, transparency and accountability. I'll wager, but in appeals to obscure authorities, and his own unchallenged and uninformed cultural prejudices
Perhaps it is. I challenge you to read more and find out. I agree with most all of his work, but that does not mean I expect others to.

I believe this thought to be in fundamental intellectual and ethical error, which is why I only skimmed the rest. And in so doing, I found nothing substantive, but a great deal of the usual grandiose, circular, self-absorbed rhetoric one finds in such a lot of theological argument.
I am sorry that you feel that way. Some people like Poe and others like Whitman. There is a lot of room to fluctuate within theology, but when it comes to explaining the reasoning for awareness in a higher power there has been little disagreement.

So: no; I didn't enjoy it. I found it tiresomely familiar. You can do better, Tstor. You really can.
I am sorry that you did not enjoy it. However, this is not a case of "can you do better?" I mean, wouldn't you find it bewildering if you were sharing what you believe to be a great book with someone and in response they said "you can do better"?
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 6:38:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 5:31:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/11/2015 5:04:28 AM, tstor wrote:
"EVEN from the standpoint of the skeptic, a reasonable and candid search into the unknown, by the light of what is known, will guide the unbiased, intelligent reasoner in the direction of the truth.

I stopped reading after this point, Tstor, and took to skimming. It's very clear by studying humans looking into their own ignorance that if they adhere to evidence, accountability and transparency, they tend to converge toward the same answers, while if they omit any of these, they scatter like clucking chickens in a thunderstorm.

And by these qualities I mean:

* Evidence: independent, precise empirical observations falsifying some beliefs but lending weight to others;
* Transparency: a coherent, relevant, detailed, independently-repeatable method for arriving at conclusions;
* Accountability: recognition, acknowledgement and amendment of ignorance and methodological error as detected by independent scrutiny.

Revelation -- whether received or lived -- upholds none of these principles. Consequently, the revelations of each culture are disparate, fragile and irreconcilable. Unable to withstand the demands of a changing environment, they fracture and schism; seldom to reunite. The reason there are some estimated 40,000+ sects of Christianity for example, is that the faith has no clear methodology for ascertaining truth, no independent way to test for and recognise error, nor any great desire to do so.

Conversely, disciplines upholding evidence, transparency and accountability -- disciplines like science, engineering, mathematics, accounting and so on -- tend to converge over time, past any differences arising from incomplete information. When there's disagreement, they simply source more data, and either I'm right and you're wrong, or you're right and I'm wrong or we're both wrong. But we don't maintain two separate, irreconcilable camps of self-professed 'right' indefinitely.

So when I read someone talking about theology, asserting that a 'candid' search from knowledge into ignorance necessarily converges on truth, I see that assertion as being naive, idealistic and very self-satisfied. I understand him to be saying that, regardless of the discipline you use, you'll either converge on his beliefs, or you're not being 'candid' in the search.

And how is his candour expressed? Not in evidence, transparency and accountability. I'll wager, but in appeals to obscure authorities, and his own unchallenged and uninformed cultural prejudices

I believe this thought to be in fundamental intellectual and ethical error, which is why I only skimmed the rest. And in so doing, I found nothing substantive, but a great deal of the usual grandiose, circular, self-absorbed rhetoric one finds in such a lot of theological argument.

So: no; I didn't enjoy it. I found it tiresomely familiar. You can do better, Tstor. You really can.

Evidence: independent, precise empirical observations falsifying some beliefs but lending weight to others;
You use independent. Are You saying that 1 person can know a fact that another person doesn't yet know? You say "precise" empirical observations, When has it been proven that "observing" within humans is universally precise? Under what universally agreed upon idea within all of humanity has it been decided that human observations should be considered the only valid means of determining the "weight" of someone's claim to possess knowledge of something?
Are you saying that the only truth is truth that all people agree is the truth? Are you saying that there are only some people who are authorities on validating the circumstances in which something can be called true? If so, who has proven those people authorities on truth and how was it verified as being valid?
"Repeatable method at arriving at conclusions"
What universally agreed upon idea of how many repeatable outcomes constitute a reliable number that it will always be the same? I am a unique individual born from Theresa Antoinette McCoy. By your repeatable claim, would I have to be born from Theresa again (an exact copy genetically) for it to be verified I did in fact come from Theresa? Or would you suspend repeatability in the instance of uniqueness? Or do you even consider one human unique from another? If humans, 7 billion now, aren't currently unique from one another then how will it be possible to acknowledge the first humans born that are by definition an evolved equivalent to the first instance of a homosapien? If we discover an example of a human that is agreed upon as being more evolved, is the eyewitnessing of the birth sufficient? Or under your repeatable need is eyewitness account not valid?
"Methodological error as determined by independent scrutiny"
Who determines who are the authorities for what subjects when it comes to this? What authority for the existence of God is there? Who determines which authorities are valid? Who determines which methodology is valid? How do we know collectively as a human race that everyone agrees on the validity of who is put in charge of determining this?
You claim theology is an animal of circular reasoning, do you not recognize how circular your ideas are also? How do we know theology is circular as opposed to merely the misinterpretation of it being circular?
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 6:43:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 6:27:09 AM, dee-em wrote:
How to be deluded

1. Start a religion
2. If someone agrees with you, call them brethren
3. If anyone disagrees with you, call them a fool
4. Before long you define a fool as anyone who is skeptical
5. Rest smugly forever in your delusional world
It is a shame that you missed the entire point of what Pastor Russell was saying. He was not arguing about his Biblical theology. Realistically, this same excerpt could be applied to Hinduism, Islam, etc. He is arguing the point made in Psalm 14:1, which is simply that only a fool would not believe in a higher being. This has nothing to do with any particular religion.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 6:52:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 6:43:19 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/11/2015 6:27:09 AM, dee-em wrote:
How to be deluded

1. Start a religion
2. If someone agrees with you, call them brethren
3. If anyone disagrees with you, call them a fool
4. Before long you define a fool as anyone who is skeptical
5. Rest smugly forever in your delusional world
It is a shame that you missed the entire point of what Pastor Russell was saying. He was not arguing about his Biblical theology. Realistically, this same excerpt could be applied to Hinduism, Islam, etc. He is arguing the point made in Psalm 14:1, which is simply that only a fool would not believe in a higher being. This has nothing to do with any particular religion.

how did you go from 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.'
to assuming that means "only a fool would not believe in a higher being"?
from my point of view psalms is calling an anti-theist a fool, and someone who claims they can prove that all GODS don't exist is a fool, because then they get the burden of proof.
reading the bible is the main reason that i'm an atheist. if you believe in any GOD, then pray that i receive proof that your GOD is real. i want a life changing event, no matter what it takes. so far every GOD has ignored all prayers, but maybe your GOD is different (or maybe your GOD wants me to be an atheist, so someone else can spend eternity in hell).
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 7:01:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 6:52:38 AM, DanMGTOW wrote:

how did you go from 'The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.'
to assuming that means "only a fool would not believe in a higher being"?
Because that is the same thing. Believing in no God is the same thing as doubting a higher being. I mean, you could technically argue that there are some minor differences between the two concepts, but you get the point.

from my point of view psalms is calling an anti-theist a fool, and someone who claims they can prove that all GODS don't exist is a fool, because then they get the burden of proof.
That is precisely what the Psalm at hand is saying. I am glad that we are on the same page. However, if someone can prove that "all GODS don't exist", then please let them lecture me. I will be more than willing to listen with an open ear.

reading the bible is the main reason that i'm an atheist. if you believe in any GOD, then pray that i receive proof that your GOD is real. i want a life changing event, no matter what it takes. so far every GOD has ignored all prayers, but maybe your GOD is different (or maybe your GOD wants me to be an atheist, so someone else can spend eternity in hell).
I do not pray for people to become Christians. That is not my business. However, isn't it a little self-centered to demand a life changing event in order to be convinced? I can't even relate to most Christians when they say that finding their car keys was a miracle from God. I have yet to see a miracle, have a life-changing event, etc. I simply studied. Through my studies I came to my own conclusions.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 7:15:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 6:43:19 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/11/2015 6:27:09 AM, dee-em wrote:
How to be deluded

1. Start a religion
2. If someone agrees with you, call them brethren
3. If anyone disagrees with you, call them a fool
4. Before long you define a fool as anyone who is skeptical
5. Rest smugly forever in your delusional world
It is a shame that you missed the entire point of what Pastor Russell was saying. He was not arguing about his Biblical theology. Realistically, this same excerpt could be applied to Hinduism, Islam, etc.

Very true, which is why I deliberately did not reference Christianity. It has to be said though that it is mostly Christians who trot out this vapid "fools" argument from their scripture.

He is arguing the point made in Psalm 14:1, which is simply that only a fool would not believe in a higher being. This has nothing to do with any particular religion.

Except that he's quoting from the Bible. Lol.

The thing Psalms doesn't tell us is why someone who doesn't believe is a fool. And that is the point. The accusation of being a fool is based on nothing but their having a skeptical mind. I would call skepticism wise myself and someone who accepts things solely on hearsay and faith as being foolish. But perhaps I am biased.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 7:19:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 6:38:24 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/11/2015 5:31:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
* Evidence: independent, precise empirical observations falsifying some beliefs but lending weight to others;
* Transparency: a coherent, relevant, detailed, independently-repeatable method for arriving at conclusions;
* Accountability: recognition, acknowledgement and amendment of ignorance and methodological error as detected by independent scrutiny.

Revelation -- whether received or lived -- upholds none of these principles. Consequently, the revelations of each culture are disparate, fragile and irreconcilable.

Conversely, disciplines upholding evidence, transparency and accountability -- disciplines like science, engineering, mathematics, accounting and so on -- tend to converge over time, past any differences arising from incomplete information.

You use independent. Are You saying that 1 person can know a fact that another person doesn't yet know?
Of course. But to make a claim independently actionable -- by which I mean, inform an important decision by another person, there needs to be more than just a bare assertion to start with.

You say "precise" empirical observations, When has it been proven that "observing" within humans is universally precise?
It hasn't. I've neither asserted that, nor implied it. I think the questions you really needed to ask are twofold: how can we make observations precise? And how can we detect and improve on imprecision?

Under what universally agreed upon idea within all of humanity has it been decided that human observations should be considered the only valid means of determining the "weight" of someone's claim to possess knowledge of something?

You've loaded the question. But if you wake up with (say) a dream that your mother has died, is it reasonable to publish that in the newspapers without due diligence? If not, then we agree that ethically, an acceptable standard of diligence is needed when claiming to hold important information -- especially by information acquired by obscure processes. A secondary question is how we might identify and agree on the level of diligence and accountability required. That's a topic for another discussion.

Are you saying that the only truth is truth that all people agree is the truth?
No. I'm saying that it is both intellectually weak and morally flawed to demand action from others purely on the basis of vain and self-satisfied claims to authority.

Are you saying that there are only some people who are authorities on validating the circumstances in which something can be called true?
No. But we can entrust such responsibility to others if their methods, expertise and outcomes are in return, transparent and accountable to us. That's how we do medicine and catch buses, for example.

"Repeatable method at arriving at conclusions"
What universally agreed upon idea of how many repeatable outcomes constitute a reliable number that it will always be the same?

I direct your attention to a field called statistics, Skips, which has extensive answers on just this question. The idea of statistical significance [https://en.wikipedia.org...] is complex, and its application to actionable decisions is more complex still, but there's a methodology; it's learnable; it undergoes critique and revision; and is in use in professions where evidentiary transparency and accountability are so important that lives may depend on it -- like science and engineering.

By your repeatable claim, would I have to be born from Theresa again (an exact copy genetically) for it to be verified I did in fact come from Theresa? Or would you suspend repeatability in the instance of uniqueness?

Neither. For most purposes, for you to be socially recognised as born to your mother Theresa, there just needs to be an accountable process undertaken by trained personnel to confirm that fact -- that's the process certified by a birth certificate. Should the matter ever come into doubt (e.g. in the event of a suspected error in the process), we now have genetic testing too, to resolve any doubt.

If we discover an example of a human that is agreed upon as being more evolved, is the eyewitnessing of the birth sufficient?
I'm sorry but I don't know what 'more evolved' means.

"Methodological error as determined by independent scrutiny"
Who determines who are the authorities for what subjects when it comes to this?
Suppose your extended family plans to go on a picnic together. How does the family decide who brings what? Often, a negotiation takes place in which everyone provides input on what they'd most like (or trust) others to bring, and what they think they can best contribute themselves. After a bit of honest feedback. "Please could you make that excellent coleslaw you do?" "Okay, I'll roast a chicken." "No, you always leave it to the last minute, then mess it up. I'll do it." things tend to work themselves out.

But how do they work themselves out? As with family negotiations, I think things work out best when those claiming authority make themselves accountable for their methods and expertise, while those affected provide challenge and feedback. In serious matters, processes are also extensively documented, so that any errors, ignorance or failures can be fully scrutinised. That's what the black box on an aircraft does, for example.

What authority for the existence of God is there?
That's a question worthy of a whole separate thread. If I try and discuss it here, it'll risk running badly off topic. But there are ways you could seek to demonstrate the truth of some god-beliefs. It really depends on what you want to claim is true about gods, and whether you want to be believed, or to just say that you believe it.

You claim theology is an animal of circular reasoning,
Yes.

do you not recognize how circular your ideas are also?
I recognise that you concocted strawmen, flew off on hyperbolic tangents, and that you don't know much about professional ethics or statistics.

How do we know theology is circular as opposed to merely the misinterpretation of it being circular?
That's very easy. But again, it deserves its own thread.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 7:23:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 7:15:28 AM, dee-em wrote:

Except that he's quoting from the Bible. Lol.
Simply swap it with Surah 2:7 for Islam. Almost every holy text has a similar verse.

The thing Psalms doesn't tell us is why someone who doesn't believe is a fool. And that is the point. The accusation of being a fool is based on nothing but their having a skeptical mind. I would call skepticism wise myself and someone who accepts things solely on hearsay and faith as being foolish. But perhaps I am biased.
I believe that is the entire point of the excerpt. To prove why Psalm 14:1 is right. Anyone can be skeptical and wise. The Psalm does not say:
"The fool says in his heart, 'There might not be a God.'" or
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is a possibility of no God.'"
It says:
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 7:34:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The fool is one who states for a fact there is a deity and all the things claimed for it, without any supporting verifiable evidence!
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 8:00:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 7:23:22 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/11/2015 7:15:28 AM, dee-em wrote:

Except that he's quoting from the Bible. Lol.
Simply swap it with Surah 2:7 for Islam. Almost every holy text has a similar verse.

Except that he quoted from the Christian Bible.

The thing Psalms doesn't tell us is why someone who doesn't believe is a fool. And that is the point. The accusation of being a fool is based on nothing but their having a skeptical mind. I would call skepticism wise myself and someone who accepts things solely on hearsay and faith as being foolish. But perhaps I am biased.
I believe that is the entire point of the excerpt. To prove why Psalm 14:1 is right. Anyone can be skeptical and wise. The Psalm does not say:
"The fool says in his heart, 'There might not be a God.'" or
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is a possibility of no God.'"
It says:
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

A cautious man might say the first two things. A more forthright man, in the absence of anything approaching evidence, would more likely say the third. He is perfectly entitled to without being labelled a fool. In fact, I would venture that you would say the same for any 'X' without evidence in the statement "There is no 'X' if the X was not 'God'. Or would you say "there might not be a unicorn" or "there is a possibility of no unicorns"?
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 8:20:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 8:00:54 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/11/2015 7:23:22 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/11/2015 7:15:28 AM, dee-em wrote:

Except that he's quoting from the Bible. Lol.
Simply swap it with Surah 2:7 for Islam. Almost every holy text has a similar verse.

Except that he quoted from the Christian Bible.

The thing Psalms doesn't tell us is why someone who doesn't believe is a fool. And that is the point. The accusation of being a fool is based on nothing but their having a skeptical mind. I would call skepticism wise myself and someone who accepts things solely on hearsay and faith as being foolish. But perhaps I am biased.
I believe that is the entire point of the excerpt. To prove why Psalm 14:1 is right. Anyone can be skeptical and wise. The Psalm does not say:
"The fool says in his heart, 'There might not be a God.'" or
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is a possibility of no God.'"
It says:
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

A cautious man might say the first two things. A more forthright man, in the absence of anything approaching evidence, would more likely say the third. He is perfectly entitled to without being labelled a fool. In fact, I would venture that you would say the same for any 'X' without evidence in the statement "There is no 'X' if the X was not 'God'. Or would you say "there might not be a unicorn" or "there is a possibility of no unicorns"?

The existence of unicorns, fairies, elves, goblins etc is as credible as the existence of a deity.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 8:28:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 6:32:43 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/11/2015 5:31:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
I stopped reading after this point, Tstor, and took to skimming. It's very clear by studying humans looking into their own ignorance that if they adhere to evidence, accountability and transparency, they tend to converge toward the same answers, while if they omit any of these, they scatter like clucking chickens in a thunderstorm.

* Evidence: independent, precise empirical observations falsifying some beliefs but lending weight to others;
* Transparency: a coherent, relevant, detailed, independently-repeatable method for arriving at conclusions;
* Accountability: recognition, acknowledgement and amendment of ignorance and methodological error as detected by independent scrutiny.
To makes sure that I am understanding you correctly, let me set up a scenario:
Let's say I gather a group of ten people. If I insert the three qualities you speak of (evidence, transparency, and accountability), they will all be on the same page. ("converge toward the same answers") Or at the very least a similar one. Whereas if I omit these three qualities, they will all be on different pages. (converge towards different answers)

You can get on the same page without those qualities if people have the same lived experiences, expertise, interests and prejudices (though 'same page' doesn't mean 'correct'). But when they don't, their perceptions and appreciations are likely to be different. This problem becomes even more pronounced where everyone is partially ignorant. People often exaggerate what they know, and undervalue what others do.

At that point, you need some way of reconciling and resolving differences. A key benefit of evidence, transparency and accountability is that they don't depend on the individuals, their status or influence -- just what they can demonstrate independently. This helps avoid groups being manipulated into poor thought against their interests. Also, even if groups are on the same page, it helps them improve regardless.

Not [...] that theology lacks these three qualities, but it is certainly not bound to them. Surely even you, an atheist, can appreciate that.

No, I really don't. Theology's claim to authority while simultaneously disrespecting transparency, accountability and evidence is key to why as an atheist I don't appreciate theology.

When it comes to theology, [...] there are different qualities to apply. The reason the three you listed are irrelevant (for the most part) in a theological discussion is because:
Evidence: independent, precise empirical observations falsifying some beliefs but lending weight to others;
This is simply not applicable. The Bible is not a very clear book on a lot of topics.

One must question then why people have been exhorted to committing their lives, intellects, happiness, and moral destiny to murky instruction lacking evidence.

One can also note the practice of bibliomancy -- pulling inspirational ideas from any book (or tarot, or the I-Ching.) It works equally well for any sufficiently diverse and poetic (i.e. murky, evocative) source, because it's not really about the source at all, but our ability to creatively solve problems from rich prompts.

You happen to privilege one source for doing this, even though there's no particular reason to use that source beyond your culture's traditions, and your own personal aesthetics.

Transparency: a coherent, relevant, detailed, independently-repeatable method for arriving at conclusions;
This is an interesting point. A coherent (logical), detailed, independently-repeatable method for arriving to conclusions.

There's little transparency in how the Bible was written or compiled, and very little in why it should be interpreted one way and not another. This lack of transparency has produced a great deal of confusion, contributed to enormous schisms, and assisted the evasion of accountability. (See below.)

Accountability: recognition, acknowledgement and amendment of ignorance and methodological error as detected by independent scrutiny.
This is greatly appreciated in the field of theology and scriptural study.

Accountability to scriptural text is not accountability to scientific or historical ignorance and error, to material evidence or moral impacts. In other words, scriptural accountability is at best, only accountability to some imagined ideal. But was that ideal intended by the original authors? Is it realisable? And is that even the right ideal for humanity?

Who can say? The evidence is lacking, and the processes by which the Bible was produced and curated are too obscure to know.

Thus, accountability to Biblical scripture is precious little accountability at all for truth, morality or the welfare of mankind.

We can do much better than that.

Revelation -- whether received or lived -- upholds none of these principles. Consequently, the revelations of each culture are disparate, fragile and irreconcilable. Unable to withstand the demands of a changing environment, they fracture and schism; seldom to reunite. The reason there are some estimated 40,000+ sects of Christianity for example, is that the faith has no clear methodology for ascertaining truth, no independent way to test for and recognise error, nor any great desire to do so.
I agree.
I think you don't, T. Revelation avoids evidence, accountability and transparency by making predictions sp obscure that few can ever be said to fail; and theology further avoids accountability by blaming the reader if specific interpretations do fail.

Consider this: if a self-proclaimed expert wrote a book on how to cook souffle, and billions of readers read it, studied it their whole lifetimes, followed the instructions meticulously, and all their souffles collapsed, would you blame the readers or the author?

So tell me, how can an inspiration supposedly wiser, better informed and more eloquent than the average souffle-chef, get so many basic physical and moral assertions so badly wrong?

Theology is not black and white in most instances.
Neither is poetry, but poetry is a shared subjective apprehension, and claims no universal authority over men.

Why then does theology?

There is no 'incomplete information' when it comes to the Bible.
Since you've already admitted it's murky, you can't assert that. See also the trap of bibliomancy: projecting your own solutions into unrelated text.

I understand him to be saying that, regardless of the discipline you use, you'll either converge on his beliefs, or you're not being 'candid' in the search.
Russell was [...] arguing that it will lead you to the truth of a higher being.
Clearly untrue, since not every faith or philosophy believes in higher beings. That's a statement from ignorance and prejudice, but not from fact.

I believe this thought to be in fundamental intellectual and ethical error, which is why I only skimmed the rest. And in so doing, I found nothing substantive, but a great deal of the usual grandiose, circular, self-absorbed rhetoric one finds in such a lot of theological argument.
I am sorry that you feel that way. Some people like Poe and others like Whitman.
And neither claim absolute authority over the human condition. Theology should either accept the full burden of evidence, transparency and accountability, or forsake its claims to moral and intellectual authority, and like poetry, claim only inspiration.

So: no; I didn't enjoy it. I found it tiresomely familiar. You can do better, Tstor. You really can.
I am sorry that you did not enjoy it. However, this is not a case of "can you do better?"
You don't believe that "you can do better" is not at the heart of every moral, ethical and philosophical discussion?
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 10:19:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 7:19:03 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/11/2015 6:38:24 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/11/2015 5:31:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
* Evidence: independent, precise empirical observations falsifying some beliefs but lending weight to others;
* Transparency: a coherent, relevant, detailed, independently-repeatable method for arriving at conclusions;
* Accountability: recognition, acknowledgement and amendment of ignorance and methodological error as detected by independent scrutiny.

Revelation -- whether received or lived -- upholds none of these principles. Consequently, the revelations of each culture are disparate, fragile and irreconcilable.

Conversely, disciplines upholding evidence, transparency and accountability -- disciplines like science, engineering, mathematics, accounting and so on -- tend to converge over time, past any differences arising from incomplete information.

You use independent. Are You saying that 1 person can know a fact that another person doesn't yet know?
Of course. But to make a claim independently actionable -- by which I mean, inform an important decision by another person, there needs to be more than just a bare assertion to start with.

You say "precise" empirical observations, When has it been proven that "observing" within humans is universally precise?
It hasn't. I've neither asserted that, nor implied it. I think the questions you really needed to ask are twofold: how can we make observations precise? And how can we detect and improve on imprecision?

Under what universally agreed upon idea within all of humanity has it been decided that human observations should be considered the only valid means of determining the "weight" of someone's claim to possess knowledge of something?

You've loaded the question. But if you wake up with (say) a dream that your mother has died, is it reasonable to publish that in the newspapers without due diligence? If not, then we agree that ethically, an acceptable standard of diligence is needed when claiming to hold important information -- especially by information acquired by obscure processes. A secondary question is how we might identify and agree on the level of diligence and accountability required. That's a topic for another discussion.

Are you saying that the only truth is truth that all people agree is the truth?
No. I'm saying that it is both intellectually weak and morally flawed to demand action from others purely on the basis of vain and self-satisfied claims to authority.

Are you saying that there are only some people who are authorities on validating the circumstances in which something can be called true?
No. But we can entrust such responsibility to others if their methods, expertise and outcomes are in return, transparent and accountable to us. That's how we do medicine and catch buses, for example.

"Repeatable method at arriving at conclusions"
What universally agreed upon idea of how many repeatable outcomes constitute a reliable number that it will always be the same?

I direct your attention to a field called statistics, Skips, which has extensive answers on just this question. The idea of statistical significance [https://en.wikipedia.org...] is complex, and its application to actionable decisions is more complex still, but there's a methodology; it's learnable; it undergoes critique and revision; and is in use in professions where evidentiary transparency and accountability are so important that lives may depend on it -- like science and engineering.

By your repeatable claim, would I have to be born from Theresa again (an exact copy genetically) for it to be verified I did in fact come from Theresa? Or would you suspend repeatability in the instance of uniqueness?

Neither. For most purposes, for you to be socially recognised as born to your mother Theresa, there just needs to be an accountable process undertaken by trained personnel to confirm that fact -- that's the process certified by a birth certificate. Should the matter ever come into doubt (e.g. in the event of a suspected error in the process), we now have genetic testing too, to resolve any doubt.

If we discover an example of a human that is agreed upon as being more evolved, is the eyewitnessing of the birth sufficient?
I'm sorry but I don't know what 'more evolved' means.

"Methodological error as determined by independent scrutiny"
Who determines who are the authorities for what subjects when it comes to this?
Suppose your extended family plans to go on a picnic together. How does the family decide who brings what? Often, a negotiation takes place in which everyone provides input on what they'd most like (or trust) others to bring, and what they think they can best contribute themselves. After a bit of honest feedback. "Please could you make that excellent coleslaw you do?" "Okay, I'll roast a chicken." "No, you always leave it to the last minute, then mess it up. I'll do it." things tend to work themselves out.

But how do they work themselves out? As with family negotiations, I think things work out best when those claiming authority make themselves accountable for their methods and expertise, while those affected provide challenge and feedback. In serious matters, processes are also extensively documented, so that any errors, ignorance or failures can be fully scrutinised. That's what the black box on an aircraft does, for example.

What authority for the existence of God is there?
That's a question worthy of a whole separate thread. If I try and discuss it here, it'll risk running badly off topic. But there are ways you could seek to demonstrate the truth of some god-beliefs. It really depends on what you want to claim is true about gods, and whether you want to be believed, or to just say that you believe it.

You claim theology is an animal of circular reasoning,
Yes.

do you not recognize how circular your ideas are also?
I recognise that you concocted strawmen, flew off on hyperbolic tangents, and that you don't know much about professional ethics or statistics.

How do we know theology is circular as opposed to merely the misinterpretation of it being circular?
That's very easy. But again, it deserves its own thread.

"No. I'm saying that it is both intellectually weak and morally flawed to demand action from others purely on the basis of vain and self-satisfied claims to authority"
you answered the question then offered sentiment.This is a nice feeling but Weltanschauungs is not hypothesis. Your opinion on what is "weak" and "morally flawed" is irrelevant and no one said anything about demanding action from others. You put words into the context of the question.:
"No. But we can entrust such responsibility to others if their methods, expertise and outcomes are in return, transparent and accountable to us. That's how we do medicine and catch buses, for example."
First you say no, then you go on to qualify under which people should be entrusted based on your idea of method. So by definition, you are saying that there are only certain people based on there outcomes being accountable to us. Us as in who and how many humans on Earth?
Black boxes aren't always located therefore they don't always provide that which you claim they do. So if it isn't consistent then its acceptable? As far as family negotiations. So to you, negotiation results in determining authority? And you merely stated opinion of what dish what family member makes best. What happens when another family member disagrees?
You don't know what more evolved
Is a human being more evolved than an apple? Is a human being more evolved that cro magnon man? Is a human being more evolved that a worm?
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 10:26:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 10:19:49 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
<snipped for space>
you answered the question then offered sentiment.This is a nice feeling but Weltanschauungs is not hypothesis. Your opinion on what is "weak" and "morally flawed" is irrelevant and no one said anything about demanding action from others. You put words into the context of the question.:
"No. But we can entrust such responsibility to others if their methods, expertise and outcomes are in return, transparent and accountable to us. That's how we do medicine and catch buses, for example."
First you say no, then you go on to qualify under which people should be entrusted based on your idea of method. So by definition, you are saying that there are only certain people based on there outcomes being accountable to us. Us as in who and how many humans on Earth?
Black boxes aren't always located therefore they don't always provide that which you claim they do. So if it isn't consistent then its acceptable? As far as family negotiations. So to you, negotiation results in determining authority? And you merely stated opinion of what dish what family member makes best. What happens when another family member disagrees?
You don't know what more evolved
Is a human being more evolved than an app
Meaningless meandering waffle.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 10:40:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 7:19:03 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/11/2015 6:38:24 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/11/2015 5:31:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
* Evidence: independent, precise empirical observations falsifying some beliefs but lending weight to others;
* Transparency: a coherent, relevant, detailed, independently-repeatable method for arriving at conclusions;
* Accountability: recognition, acknowledgement and amendment of ignorance and methodological error as detected by independent scrutiny.

Revelation -- whether received or lived -- upholds none of these principles. Consequently, the revelations of each culture are disparate, fragile and irreconcilable.

Conversely, disciplines upholding evidence, transparency and accountability -- disciplines like science, engineering, mathematics, accounting and so on -- tend to converge over time, past any differences arising from incomplete information.

You use independent. Are You saying that 1 person can know a fact that another person doesn't yet know?
Of course. But to make a claim independently actionable -- by which I mean, inform an important decision by another person, there needs to be more than just a bare assertion to start with.

You say "precise" empirical observations, When has it been proven that "observing" within humans is universally precise?
It hasn't. I've neither asserted that, nor implied it. I think the questions you really needed to ask are twofold: how can we make observations precise? And how can we detect and improve on imprecision?

Under what universally agreed upon idea within all of humanity has it been decided that human observations should be considered the only valid means of determining the "weight" of someone's claim to possess knowledge of something?

You've loaded the question. But if you wake up with (say) a dream that your mother has died, is it reasonable to publish that in the newspapers without due diligence? If not, then we agree that ethically, an acceptable standard of diligence is needed when claiming to hold important information -- especially by information acquired by obscure processes. A secondary question is how we might identify and agree on the level of diligence and accountability required. That's a topic for another discussion.

Are you saying that the only truth is truth that all people agree is the truth?
No. I'm saying that it is both intellectually weak and morally flawed to demand action from others purely on the basis of vain and self-satisfied claims to authority.

Are you saying that there are only some people who are authorities on validating the circumstances in which something can be called true?
No. But we can entrust such responsibility to others if their methods, expertise and outcomes are in return, transparent and accountable to us. That's how we do medicine and catch buses, for example.

"Repeatable method at arriving at conclusions"
What universally agreed upon idea of how many repeatable outcomes constitute a reliable number that it will always be the same?

I direct your attention to a field called statistics, Skips, which has extensive answers on just this question. The idea of statistical significance [https://en.wikipedia.org...] is complex, and its application to actionable decisions is more complex still, but there's a methodology; it's learnable; it undergoes critique and revision; and is in use in professions where evidentiary transparency and accountability are so important that lives may depend on it -- like science and engineering.

By your repeatable claim, would I have to be born from Theresa again (an exact copy genetically) for it to be verified I did in fact come from Theresa? Or would you suspend repeatability in the instance of uniqueness?

Neither. For most purposes, for you to be socially recognised as born to your mother Theresa, there just needs to be an accountable process undertaken by trained personnel to confirm that fact -- that's the process certified by a birth certificate. Should the matter ever come into doubt (e.g. in the event of a suspected error in the process), we now have genetic testing too, to resolve any doubt.



You claim theology is an animal of circular reasoning,
Yes.

do you not recognize how circular your ideas are also?
I recognise that you concocted strawmen, flew off on hyperbolic tangents, and that you don't know much about professional ethics or statistics.

How do we know theology is circular as opposed to merely the misinterpretation of it being circular?
That's very easy. But again, it deserves its own thread.

Just a few more items to address

"Neither. For most purposes, for you to be socially recognised as born to your mother Theresa, there just needs to be an accountable process undertaken by trained personnel to confirm that fact -- that's the process certified by a birth certificate. Should the matter ever come into doubt (e.g. in the event of a suspected error in the process), we now have genetic testing too, to resolve any doubt."

First, my mothers body was cremated and her remains spread in the ocean. So no genetic testing. Second, under what logic did people 400 years ago prove who someone's mother was if this is how you claim something disqualifies the necessary process of repeatability. Based on this position I was never born to the person I claim to have been born because your variables cannot be met.

do you not recognize how circular your ideas are also?
I recognise that you concocted strawmen, flew off on hyperbolic tangents, and that you don't know much about professional ethics or statistics.
"professional ethics" implies that there exists something other than simple ethics. There isn't such an animal as "professional" ethics. People aren't ethical simply because they belong to a profession you admire or cite as an authority..( how is this not circular reasoning) Second here's a possible outcome for relying on professional ethics which you claim I don't know much about.:
http://www.iflscience.com...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 10:42:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 10:26:41 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/11/2015 10:19:49 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
<snipped for space>
you answered the question then offered sentiment.This is a nice feeling but Weltanschauungs is not hypothesis. Your opinion on what is "weak" and "morally flawed" is irrelevant and no one said anything about demanding action from others. You put words into the context of the question.:
"No. But we can entrust such responsibility to others if their methods, expertise and outcomes are in return, transparent and accountable to us. That's how we do medicine and catch buses, for example."
First you say no, then you go on to qualify under which people should be entrusted based on your idea of method. So by definition, you are saying that there are only certain people based on there outcomes being accountable to us. Us as in who and how many humans on Earth?
Black boxes aren't always located therefore they don't always provide that which you claim they do. So if it isn't consistent then its acceptable? As far as family negotiations. So to you, negotiation results in determining authority? And you merely stated opinion of what dish what family member makes best. What happens when another family member disagrees?
You don't know what more evolved
Is a human being more evolved than an app
Meaningless meandering waffle.
Selectively snipping.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 10:43:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 10:19:49 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/11/2015 7:19:03 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
"No. I'm saying that it is both intellectually weak and morally flawed to demand action from others purely on the basis of vain and self-satisfied claims to authority"
you answered the question then offered sentiment.
What sentiment? Vanity and self-satisfaction are both common terms for endemic problems with human cognition.

Your opinion on what is "weak" and "morally flawed" is irrelevant
Why so? Had you not asked what I thought?

"No. But we can entrust such responsibility to others if their methods, expertise and outcomes are in return, transparent and accountable to us. That's how we do medicine and catch buses, for example."
First you say no, then you go on to qualify under which people should be entrusted
Note that I said can be entrusted. You said 'should'. So the strawmanning continues.

Black boxes aren't always located therefore they don't always provide that which you claim they do. So if it isn't consistent then its acceptable?
My purpose wasn't to claim that they were always effective, but to illustrate through their use that detailed accountability is commonplace and desirable whenever expertise and method are critical. I think any effort to understand the point rather than strawman it would have served you here.

So to you, negotiation results in determining authority?
Negotiation results in the responsibilities, processes and accountabilities under which authority can be awarded. What difference if any, is there between an irresponsible, obscure, unaccountable authority and a tyranny?

And you merely stated opinion of what dish what family member makes best. What happens when another family member disagrees?
Are you really unable to solve that one intelligently?

You don't know what more evolved
Is a human being more evolved than an apple?

The apple's common ancestor, Malus Sieversii, is native to central Asia, where as a fruit it has been around for at least ten million years, but evolving away from the ancestors of rosebushes for around 50 million. Yet Homo Sapiens as a species is no more than 1.8 million years old, while the Homo line itself is estimated as no more than 13 million years old. Humans were only in central Asia about 8,000 years ago, and the apple genome has nearly twice as many genes as a human genome.

So you tell me.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 10:57:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 10:40:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/11/2015 7:19:03 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
"Neither. For most purposes, for you to be socially recognised as born to your mother Theresa, there just needs to be an accountable process undertaken by trained personnel to confirm that fact -- that's the process certified by a birth certificate. Should the matter ever come into doubt (e.g. in the event of a suspected error in the process), we now have genetic testing too, to resolve any doubt."

First, my mothers body was cremated and her remains spread in the ocean. So no genetic testing.
Untrue, since any siblings and extended family can be tested. But I don't think you care, since you're quibbling a point I've already rebutted in principle.

Is this your usual quality of discussion, or does it sometimes get better?

under what logic did people 400 years ago prove who someone's mother was
Poorly, because the evidentiary accountability 400 years ago was weaker, due to inferior methods and tools, inferior knowledge, and the excessively high trust in supposed wisdom passed on from one's ancestors.

Which is also why accepting on faith the appallingly poor evidentiary accountability of texts written by superstitious ignoramuses 2600 years ago when we no longer have to do that, is an insult to human intelligence.

do you not recognize how circular your ideas are also?
I recognise that you concocted strawmen, flew off on hyperbolic tangents, and that you don't know much about professional ethics or statistics.
"professional ethics" implies that there exists something other than simple ethics.
You'll need to tell the peak professional bodies then, since they have specialised broad ethical discussions to detailed codes of conduct applicable to the specific issues faced by practitioners in their fields.

Moreover, you'd also need to talk to an ethical think-tank like the St James Ethics Centre (to which I am a sometime donor), who have a lot to say about the role of ethics in the professions. For example: [http://www.ethics.org.au...]

At this point, I don't believe you're arguing relevantly so much as inventing quibbles, Skips. I invite you to post something constructive, novel, informative and relevant to topic. Or else start a new thread with an interesting counter-position.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 11:04:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"To makes sure that I am understanding you correctly, let me set up a scenario:
Let's say I gather a group of ten people. If I insert the three qualities you speak of (evidence, transparency, and accountability), they will all be on the same page. ("converge toward the same answers") Or at the very least a similar one. Whereas if I omit these three qualities, they will all be on different pages. (converge towards different answers)

If that is truly what you are saying, then I have to disagree. Especially sense you are applying it to the topic of theology."

With how many different denominations of how many different religions there are in this world, I am surprised you disagree. The reason for such wide divergence is not evidence, transparency, and accountability.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 11:30:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 10:43:43 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/11/2015 10:19:49 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/11/2015 7:19:03 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
"No. I'm saying that it is both intellectually weak and morally flawed to demand action from others purely on the basis of vain and self-satisfied claims to authority"
you answered the question then offered sentiment.
What sentiment? Vanity and self-satisfaction are both common terms for endemic problems with human cognition.

Your opinion on what is "weak" and "morally flawed" is irrelevant
Why so? Had you not asked what I thought?

"No. But we can entrust such responsibility to others if their methods, expertise and outcomes are in return, transparent and accountable to us. That's how we do medicine and catch buses, for example."
First you say no, then you go on to qualify under which people should be entrusted
Note that I said can be entrusted. You said 'should'. So the strawmanning continues.

Black boxes aren't always located therefore they don't always provide that which you claim they do. So if it isn't consistent then its acceptable?
My purpose wasn't to claim that they were always effective, but to illustrate through their use that detailed accountability is commonplace and desirable whenever expertise and method are critical. I think any effort to understand the point rather than strawman it would have served you here.

So to you, negotiation results in determining authority?
Negotiation results in the responsibilities, processes and accountabilities under which authority can be awarded. What difference if any, is there between an irresponsible, obscure, unaccountable authority and a tyranny?

And you merely stated opinion of what dish what family member makes best. What happens when another family member disagrees?
Are you really unable to solve that one intelligently?

You don't know what more evolved
Is a human being more evolved than an apple?

The apple's common ancestor, Malus Sieversii, is native to central Asia, where as a fruit it has been around for at least ten million years, but evolving away from the ancestors of rosebushes for around 50 million. Yet Homo Sapiens as a species is no more than 1.8 million years old, while the Homo line itself is estimated as no more than 13 million years old. Humans were only in central Asia about 8,000 years ago, and the apple genome has nearly twice as many genes as a human genome.

So you tell me.
I'm merely asking you if you recognized more evolved, it would suffice for you to say you do not recognize that evolution would qualify levels of evolved. If you don't qualify anything which can be more evolved than something else just state that. If mere number of genes determines evolve then mere number of 1 dollar bills determines higher level of wealth than the same number of 100 dollar bills. Value of genes has no importance to level of evolved? Either you quantify more evolved or you don't. Just clarifying if you are willing to take a position that from point a, beginning of life ,any life, to point B, current life, things have become more evolved or merely stayed the same. As you said, you don't know what more evolved is.

Negotiation results in the responsibilities, processes and accountabilities under which authority can be awarded.
How can authority be awarded unless the awarding is understood by those who award? How is it not circular reasoning to think awarding authority can be accomplished if recognition of what constitutes authority doesn't previously exist? Is it possible to award authority from individuals who do not possess knowledge of what constitutes authority? How is that statement not merely saying that we are authorities on what constitutes an authority, thus we award it accordingly. Can someone prove they are an authority on something to someone who isn't an authority on the same subject? That's where I recognize circular reasoning,
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 11:39:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"How can authority be awarded unless the awarding is understood by those who award?"

Demonstration on behalf of the nominated for authority.

"How is it not circular reasoning to think awarding authority can be accomplished if recognition of what constitutes authority doesn't previously exist?"

Because authority can be created.

" Is it possible to award authority from individuals who do not possess knowledge of what constitutes authority?"

Yes.

"How is that statement not merely saying that we are authorities on what constitutes an authority, thus we award it accordingly."

One need not be an authority on anything to defer to some one else as an authority.

" Can someone prove they are an authority on something to someone who isn't an authority on the same subject? That's where I recognize circular reasoning,"

Yes. If I claim to be a specialist in... say... gem cutting, and for the crowd I am able to routinely produce cut gems, explain the process of selective and grading gems, and teach such a thing so that others can not only produce but recognize gems accordingly, that would immediately hurdle your problem.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 12:48:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 11:39:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
"How can authority be awarded unless the awarding is understood by those who award?"

Demonstration on behalf of the nominated for authority.

"How is it not circular reasoning to think awarding authority can be accomplished if recognition of what constitutes authority doesn't previously exist?"

Because authority can be created.

" Is it possible to award authority from individuals who do not possess knowledge of what constitutes authority?"

Yes.

"How is that statement not merely saying that we are authorities on what constitutes an authority, thus we award it accordingly."

One need not be an authority on anything to defer to some one else as an authority.

" Can someone prove they are an authority on something to someone who isn't an authority on the same subject? That's where I recognize circular reasoning,"

Yes. If I claim to be a specialist in... say... gem cutting, and for the crowd I am able to routinely produce cut gems, explain the process of selective and grading gems, and teach such a thing so that others can not only produce but recognize gems accordingly, that would immediately hurdle your problem.
Not sure why you're even answering this because its obvious the establishing of authority based on the previous answerer was circular. But I will address the fallacious reasoning in your response, or at least attempt to show you where it is flawed and where some analogies aren't actually addressing the problem.
Lets go from bottom to top.
How does the individual who observes the cut gems capable of determining it is done correctly without having faith in the claims of the gemologist? How can they merely look at a cut gem without knowledge of how cut gems should appear and determine it is correct? Your analogy presupposes an authority was awarded through knowledge of gemmology. The subject is the origin of how authority is established.
"Demonstration on the behalf of the nominated for authority"
How again is it possible to demonstrate authority without previous understanding of what constitutes authority. You cannot demonstrate to a 6 year old child quantum physics,(most 6 year olds) and they acknowledge it as quantum physics without prior knowledge of it.
"Authority is created"
When this occurs how is it verified as such? Once again, how can someone recognize authority without knowledge of it?
"One not need to be an authority to defer to some one else as an authority"
This doesn't answer the question. The presumption that someone is an authority lays in the awarding to that person and them being recognized. The question was how can someone or group award authority if they themselves are not authorities? Once again, the subject is how is authority established and the validity of the process.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 1:07:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 12:48:03 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/11/2015 11:39:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
"How can authority be awarded unless the awarding is understood by those who award?"

Demonstration on behalf of the nominated for authority.

"How is it not circular reasoning to think awarding authority can be accomplished if recognition of what constitutes authority doesn't previously exist?"

Because authority can be created.

" Is it possible to award authority from individuals who do not possess knowledge of what constitutes authority?"

Yes.

"How is that statement not merely saying that we are authorities on what constitutes an authority, thus we award it accordingly."

One need not be an authority on anything to defer to some one else as an authority.

" Can someone prove they are an authority on something to someone who isn't an authority on the same subject? That's where I recognize circular reasoning,"

Yes. If I claim to be a specialist in... say... gem cutting, and for the crowd I am able to routinely produce cut gems, explain the process of selective and grading gems, and teach such a thing so that others can not only produce but recognize gems accordingly, that would immediately hurdle your problem.
Not sure why you're even answering this because its obvious the establishing of authority based on the previous answerer was circular.

Obvious by assertion. Example demonstrates otherwise.

But I will address the fallacious reasoning in your response, or at least attempt to show you where it is flawed and where some analogies aren't actually addressing the problem.
Lets go from bottom to top.
How does the individual who observes the cut gems capable of determining it is done correctly without having faith in the claims of the gemologist? How can they merely look at a cut gem without knowledge of how cut gems should appear and determine it is correct? Your analogy presupposes an authority was awarded through knowledge of gemmology. The subject is the origin of how authority is established.

This is supposing that the person in question knows of what a gem is. Again, this is demonstration. If the gemologist says it will not crack, but it cracks, what does that tell us? If the gemologist states it should be sturdy enough to scratch stainless steel but not another ruby, and it does just that, what does it tell us? It rely upon demonstration and transparency.

"Demonstration on the behalf of the nominated for authority"
How again is it possible to demonstrate authority without previous understanding of what constitutes authority. You cannot demonstrate to a 6 year old child quantum physics,(most 6 year olds) and they acknowledge it as quantum physics without prior knowledge of it.

A 6 year old also has little need of a quantum physics authority. Are you genuinely wanting to classify "reasonable person" to the level of a 6 year old? It seems as though you are answering your own question without realizing it. An authoritive individual is one whom can answer questions about a subject the layman might have.

"Authority is created"

When this occurs how is it verified as such? Once again, how can someone recognize authority without knowledge of it?

This has nothing to do with authority being created. Its derived from those whom give credence to the transparent demonstration of the nominee for authority.

"One not need to be an authority to defer to some one else as an authority"
This doesn't answer the question. The presumption that someone is an authority lays in the awarding to that person and them being recognized. The question was how can someone or group award authority if they themselves are not authorities?

And this was answered: transparent demonstration of results. Repetition of results.

Lets look at the most basic of things: fire. I know what fire is. You know what a fire is. For this example, I am not assuming you to be a firefighter if by chance you are. A firefighter by their education and ability is an authority on the matter. They have gone to schools on how fire works, accelerants, retardants, etc. They could easily create or extinguish and teach their knowledge.

Another example? Plants. I know what a plant is, you know what a plant is, but... are you are I an authority to the level of say... a botanist? Do we have authority on plants? Does a botanist? Is that because we know enough about a plants to say some one else knows more, or that we know very LITTLE of plants and some one else knows more?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 1:13:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 10:57:58 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/11/2015 10:40:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/11/2015 7:19:03 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
"Neither. For most purposes, for you to be socially recognised as born to your mother Theresa, there just needs to be an accountable process undertaken by trained personnel to confirm that fact -- that's the process certified by a birth certificate. Should the matter ever come into doubt (e.g. in the event of a suspected error in the process), we now have genetic testing too, to resolve any doubt."

First, my mothers body was cremated and her remains spread in the ocean. So no genetic testing.
Untrue, since any siblings and extended family can be tested. But I don't think you care, since you're quibbling a point I've already rebutted in principle.

This isn't towards the question I asked. You are assuming extended family tells the truth and so on. Its more evasion. I'm have no siblings. I have no knowledge of my mothers family. I think your repeatable scenario is being outed as circumstantial to things only you agree with so my scenario is troubling you because of the inherent flaw or inconsistent stance on repeatability being the only valid way of what you claim is necessary.
Is this your usual quality of discussion, or does it sometimes get better?

= under what logic did people 400 years ago prove who someone's mother was
" Poorly, because the evidentiary accountability 400 years ago was weaker, due to inferior methods and tools, inferior knowledge, and the excessively high trust in supposed wisdom passed on from one's ancestors."
Please prove it was poorly done,

"Which is also why accepting on faith the appallingly poor evidentiary accountability of texts written by superstitious ignoramuses 2600 years ago when we no longer have to do that, is an insult to human intelligence."
Character assassination fallacy and irrelevant.

do you not recognize how circular your ideas are also?
I recognise that you concocted strawmen, flew off on hyperbolic tangents, and that you don't know much about professional ethics or statistics.
"professional ethics" implies that there exists something other than simple ethics.
You'll need to tell the peak professional bodies then, since they have specialised broad ethical discussions to detailed codes of conduct applicable to the specific issues faced by practitioners in their fields.
Appeal to authority fallacy. And I posted link which disqualifies this as a consistently reliable logical position,

Moreover, you'd also need to talk to an ethical think-tank like the St James Ethics Centre (to which I am a sometime donor), who have a lot to say about the role of ethics in the professions. For example: [http://www.ethics.org.au...]

At this point, I don't believe you're arguing relevantly so much as inventing quibbles, Skips. I invite you to post something constructive, novel, informative and relevant to topic. Or else start a new thread with an interesting counter-position.
You avoided at all costs the claim to repeatability being viable within the scenario I offered. If repeatability is your basis for what constitutes reliability then I again think it merely reflects what is reliable to your bias samples. When I offered a scenario , which defeats the process of repeatability being literally impossible, you are the one who went off on tangent of, well check your siblings, check your uncles, check your moms mother, I'm exaggerating. But I still hold to the fact that my scenario defeats repeatability as a way of proving reliable outcomes when repeatability isn't possible. Therefore repeatability isn't necessary.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 1:21:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/11/2015 1:07:30 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 8/11/2015 12:48:03 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/11/2015 11:39:24 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
"How can authority be awarded unless the awarding is understood by those who award?"

Demonstration on behalf of the nominated for authority.

"How is it not circular reasoning to think awarding authority can be accomplished if recognition of what constitutes authority doesn't previously exist?"

Because authority can be created.

" Is it possible to award authority from individuals who do not possess knowledge of what constitutes authority?"

Yes.

"How is that statement not merely saying that we are authorities on what constitutes an authority, thus we award it accordingly."

One need not be an authority on anything to defer to some one else as an authority.

" Can someone prove they are an authority on something to someone who isn't an authority on the same subject? That's where I recognize circular reasoning,"

Yes. If I claim to be a specialist in... say... gem cutting, and for the crowd I am able to routinely produce cut gems, explain the process of selective and grading gems, and teach such a thing so that others can not only produce but recognize gems accordingly, that would immediately hurdle your problem.
Not sure why you're even answering this because its obvious the establishing of authority based on the previous answerer was circular.

Obvious by assertion. Example demonstrates otherwise.

But I will address the fallacious reasoning in your response, or at least attempt to show you where it is flawed and where some analogies aren't actually addressing the problem.
Lets go from bottom to top.
How does the individual who observes the cut gems capable of determining it is done correctly without having faith in the claims of the gemologist? How can they merely look at a cut gem without knowledge of how cut gems should appear and determine it is correct? Your analogy presupposes an authority was awarded through knowledge of gemmology. The subject is the origin of how authority is established.

This is supposing that the person in question knows of what a gem is. Again, this is demonstration. If the gemologist says it will not crack, but it cracks, what does that tell us? If the gemologist states it should be sturdy enough to scratch stainless steel but not another ruby, and it does just that, what does it tell us? It rely upon demonstration and transparency.

"Demonstration on the behalf of the nominated for authority"
How again is it possible to demonstrate authority without previous understanding of what constitutes authority. You cannot demonstrate to a 6 year old child quantum physics,(most 6 year olds) and they acknowledge it as quantum physics without prior knowledge of it.

A 6 year old also has little need of a quantum physics authority. Are you genuinely wanting to classify "reasonable person" to the level of a 6 year old? It seems as though you are answering your own question without realizing it. An authoritive individual is one whom can answer questions about a subject the layman might have.

"Authority is created"

When this occurs how is it verified as such? Once again, how can someone recognize authority without knowledge of it?

This has nothing to do with authority being created. Its derived from those whom give credence to the transparent demonstration of the nominee for authority.

"One not need to be an authority to defer to some one else as an authority"
This doesn't answer the question. The presumption that someone is an authority lays in the awarding to that person and them being recognized. The question was how can someone or group award authority if they themselves are not authorities?

And this was answered: transparent demonstration of results. Repetition of results.

Lets look at the most basic of things: fire. I know what fire is. You know what a fire is. For this example, I am not assuming you to be a firefighter if by chance you are. A firefighter by their education and ability is an authority on the matter. They have gone to schools on how fire works, accelerants, retardants, etc. They could easily create or extinguish and teach their knowledge.

Another example? Plants. I know what a plant is, you know what a plant is, but... are you are I an authority to the level of say... a botanist? Do we have authority on plants? Does a botanist? Is that because we know enough about a plants to say some one else knows more, or that we know very LITTLE of plants and some one else knows more?

Transparent demonstration of authority....
You're not answering the question. How is someone able to acknowledge transparent demonstrating of authority without recognising it truly is a demonstration of authority? If the person can't recognize authority how do they validate it as such? What determines the outcome reveals authority? Who determines it? And by what authority is that person able to claim they are capable of recognizing it as such?