Breaking the spell?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-04-2015, 09:45 AM (This post was last modified: 23-04-2015 10:02 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 08:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are misusing those words to make a straw man. We are not an uncanny fluke, but we are a contingent product of evolution.

I don't see how I am misusing the words, because there's a variety of occurrences that I consider an uncanny fluke, like DLJ's story about how he ended up sitting next to two other people who had his same birthday on a flight.

But it seems at this junction, that you don't believe there is a such thing as uncanny flukes, since these flukes are contingent occurrences. Though I don't see how it follows from something being a contingent occurrence, that it can't be an uncanny fluke.

Quote:
Quote:I don't find the existence of creatures conscious, and aware of their predicament, able to navigate the world, and make sense of their existence, to be an uncanny fluke, it appears from common sense to have been intentional, rather than unintentional.

Still with the false dichotomy. Your common sense is not trustworthy, this is why we have science.

We do have science. But science doesn't particularly claim that we are unintentional creatures. Science doesn't particularly put my trust in common sense in any real doubt.

Quote:Any significance must be of our own making because there is no evidence of any external cause.

So the evidence is in favor of an unintentional unguided process? Are you claiming that ontological naturalism is a scientific conclusion? As supported and validated like the theory of evolution? Or is it a less confident conclusion, kind of a like tentative hypothesis, rather than a fact for you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 09:46 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 06:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."

- Harvard population biologist Richard Lewontin—an atheist who thinks matter is all there is

-Budziszewski, J (2011-02-16). What We Cant Not Know (p. 66). Ignatius Press. Kindle Edition.

No one is saying you shouldn't think outside the box. Science needs to think outside the box. However, once we have facts derived from science--we then can make some intuitive assumptions based on common sense. For example, we know through science how snow is formed. We know that there are no storehouses of snow up in the heavens. If someone told you they saw a magical being up in the heavens walking into his storehouse to take out a giant snowball to hurl at you--I think you can safely use your common sense to distinguish that what that person is telling you is not true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 09:51 AM (This post was last modified: 23-04-2015 09:56 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 09:42 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(23-04-2015 08:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  Because it's neither uncanny nor a fluke.

It would only be an uncanny fluke if you assume that there was goal. If humans were a desired result then the fact that evolution produced them would be an incredibly uncanny fluke. The problem is that calculating probabilities based on looking back at what actually happened is pretty meaningless.

I think it's the other way around. To see it as inevitable is suggestive of a goal.

If I won a million dollar lottery, back to back, it may just be an uncanny fluke. But if someone actually tampered with the system to produce this result, of me winning twice in a row like that, then my winning was more or less so inevitable, and not really a fluke occurrence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 09:53 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 08:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-04-2015 08:06 AM)morondog Wrote:  You don't understand, therefore it's wrong. Nice reasoning there mate. It's not an uncanny fluke. It's not blind luck. Common sense huh?

No, it's not a problem of understanding. I have no problem understanding unbelievable explanations, or even absurd ones. I can also tell when those explanations are actually supported by insurmountable evidence, and are just spun out of idealogical commitments.

If it's not an uncanny fluke than what is it an inevitability? I believe it was inevitable, is that why you believe as well?

Wouldn't it be easier if the unbelievable were based on facts instead of stories told by people living in B.C.E.?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 10:02 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 09:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-04-2015 09:42 AM)unfogged Wrote:  It would only be an uncanny fluke if you assume that there was goal. If humans were a desired result then the fact that evolution produced them would be an incredibly uncanny fluke. The problem is that calculating probabilities based on looking back at what actually happened is pretty meaningless.

I think it's the other way around. To see it as inevitable is suggestive of a goal.

That is tautological, therefore pre-suppostional. How could it not be inevitable without it being a goal?

You see it as inevitable because you think it was meant to be, i.e. a goal.
The problem with that is that you have no evidence of it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 10:05 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 09:53 AM)jennybee Wrote:  Wouldn't it be easier if the unbelievable were based on facts instead of stories told by people living in B.C.E.?

I don't recall, ever mentioning stories told by people living in B.C.E.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 10:08 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-04-2015 08:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are misusing those words to make a straw man. We are not an uncanny fluke, but we are a contingent product of evolution.

I don't see how I am misusing the words, because there's a variety of occurrences that I consider an uncanny fluke, like DLJ's story about how he ended up sitting next to two other people who had his same birthday on a flight.

That is not what we are talking about. We are talking about evolution.

Quote:But it seems at this junction, that you don't believe there is a such thing as uncanny flukes, since these flukes are contingent occurrences. Though I don't see how it follows from something being a contingent occurrence, that it can't be an uncanny fluke.

'Uncanny fluke' is a judgment, not a matter of fact.

Quote:
Quote:Still with the false dichotomy. Your common sense is not trustworthy, this is why we have science.

We do have science. But science doesn't particularly claim that we are unintentional creatures.

Actually, that is precisely what evolution says.

Quote:Science doesn't particularly put my trust in common sense in any real doubt.

Really? You find quantum mechanics common sensical? Black holes? Plate tectonics? Evolution?

Quote:
Quote:Any significance must be of our own making because there is no evidence of any external cause.

So the evidence is in favor of an unintentional unguided process?

Yes.

Quote:Are you claiming that ontological naturalism is a scientific conclusion?

No, but it is strongly implied.

Quote:As supported and validated like the theory of evolution? Or is it a less confident conclusion, kind of a like tentative hypothesis, rather than a fact for you?

It is likely true because science uses methodological naturalism and there is no evidence that it is not. true.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 10:17 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 10:05 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-04-2015 09:53 AM)jennybee Wrote:  Wouldn't it be easier if the unbelievable were based on facts instead of stories told by people living in B.C.E.?

I don't recall, ever mentioning stories told by people living in B.C.E.

I assumed you were a christian based on some of your posts and your mention of it being safer to believe in minimal theism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 10:21 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 10:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-04-2015 09:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think it's the other way around. To see it as inevitable is suggestive of a goal.

That is tautological, therefore pre-suppostional. How could it not be inevitable without it being a goal?

You see it as inevitable because you think it was meant to be, i.e. a goal.
The problem with that is that you have no evidence of it.

I think the problem here is this:

People such as yourself, seem to be suggesting, that I can not assume intention, without knowing who are what force or being is behind it. I would have to verify his existence, prior to assuming intention.

It's like if I were to come home one day, and see that my TV is gone, along with a number of other valuable items, and saying that I can't conclude that I was robbed, since I lack any description or knowledge of the actual robber.

Quote: You see it as inevitable because you think it was meant to be, i.e. a goal.
The problem with that is that you have no evidence of it.

Other that perceiving goals, even if these perceptions by your account is just an illusion. Like seeing Jesus in a sweat stain.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2015, 10:27 AM
RE: Breaking the spell?
(23-04-2015 10:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(23-04-2015 10:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is tautological, therefore pre-suppostional. How could it not be inevitable without it being a goal?

You see it as inevitable because you think it was meant to be, i.e. a goal.
The problem with that is that you have no evidence of it.

I think the problem here is this:

People such as yourself, seem to be suggesting, that I can not assume intention, without knowing who are what force or being is behind it. I would have to verify his existence, prior to assuming intention.

Well, that's not the first time you have over-reached. I never said anything of the sort.

You are claiming that humanity was inevitable. Why? How?

If you are in fact saying that humanity was intentional, then what or whose intention was it?

Quote:It's like if I were to come home one day, and see that my TV is gone, along with a number of other valuable items, and saying that I can't conclude that I was robbed, since I lack any description or knowledge of the actual robber.

I see you throw common sense overboard when it suits you. Drinking Beverage

Quote:
Quote: You see it as inevitable because you think it was meant to be, i.e. a goal.
The problem with that is that you have no evidence of it.

Other that perceiving goals, even if these perceptions by your account is just an illusion. Like seeing Jesus in a sweat stain.

What goals do you perceive? What or who set those goals?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: