The Argument Against Arguing Against Religion

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Show me where I said this.

Our courts do accept crime scene evidence, but most crimes didn't have an observer pre-arranged to be there recording the event, did they?

Logic is a useful thing with either a scientific method of investigation or a historical/legal method of investigation.

Why don't you argue against something I actually said?

I did. You implied that using science and logic was not a reliable method for intepreting the past, compared to wishful thinking, I suppose:

real life wrote:

These events -- the origin of life, the appearance of human life, etc --- were not observed and are not repeatable. Scientists wishing to study these things rely on largely circumstantial evidence, which is far different from direct evidence.

Thus the evidence that is available is open to a variety of interpretations, just as circumstantial evidence in a court of law would be. In fact the historical/legal method is entirely appropriate to be used in studying situations such as this.

In a strict sense, you cannot prove that George Washington existed or that the Roman Empire fell using a scientific method alone. Historical methods are the primary tools used -- sifting through the testimony of witnesses to the events and so forth-- since these historical happenings will not be repeated.

I didn't even address the question of logic.

I discussed the nature of evidence.

If it happened in the past and no one observed it, then your evidence is circumstantial, no?

Fossils, layers of rock, etc are there but there is no observer to tell us how they came to be where they are.

We can infer and attempt to draw interpretitive conclusions , but need to recognize that they are not absolute and that the evidence may also be interpreted in ways other than what we have chosen.

For instance, you can study sedimentary rock layer 'x' and you notice that there are no fossils of organism 'b' in this layer. Does that mean that organism 'b' did not exist at the time this layer of sedimentary rock was formed?

No.

It may simply mean that no representatives from this species were buried in the sediment as the layer formed.

Perhaps they were mobile enough to escape the water that formed the layer.

Perhaps this few square yards of dirt was not where they were buried and they are yet to be found in the very same strata 1000 yards that direction, where we haven't dug yet.

Perhaps their preferred habitat was miles away.

But it doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time the layer was formed. Drawing too broad of a conclusion from circumstantial evidence is an easy way to err.

You are arguing that science and logic are not entirely up to muster in interpreting past events. So, what is your better class of evidence that a God exists? If science is imperfect, you figure it's time for guessing?

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Show me where I said this.

Our courts do accept crime scene evidence, but most crimes didn't have an observer pre-arranged to be there recording the event, did they?

Logic is a useful thing with either a scientific method of investigation or a historical/legal method of investigation.

Why don't you argue against something I actually said?

I did. You implied that using science and logic was not a reliable method for intepreting the past, compared to wishful thinking, I suppose:

real life wrote:

These events -- the origin of life, the appearance of human life, etc --- were not observed and are not repeatable. Scientists wishing to study these things rely on largely circumstantial evidence, which is far different from direct evidence.

Thus the evidence that is available is open to a variety of interpretations, just as circumstantial evidence in a court of law would be. In fact the historical/legal method is entirely appropriate to be used in studying situations such as this.

In a strict sense, you cannot prove that George Washington existed or that the Roman Empire fell using a scientific method alone. Historical methods are the primary tools used -- sifting through the testimony of witnesses to the events and so forth-- since these historical happenings will not be repeated.

I didn't even address the question of logic.

I discussed the nature of evidence.

If it happened in the past and no one observed it, then your evidence is circumstantial, no?

Fossils, layers of rock, etc are there but there is no observer to tell us how they came to be where they are.

We can infer and attempt to draw interpretitive conclusions , but need to recognize that they are not absolute and that the evidence may also be interpreted in ways other than what we have chosen.

For instance, you can study sedimentary rock layer 'x' and you notice that there are no fossils of organism 'b' in this layer. Does that mean that organism 'b' did not exist at the time this layer of sedimentary rock was formed?

No.

It may simply mean that no representatives from this species were buried in the sediment as the layer formed.

Perhaps they were mobile enough to escape the water that formed the layer.

Perhaps this few square yards of dirt was not where they were buried and they are yet to be found in the very same strata 1000 yards that direction, where we haven't dug yet.

Perhaps their preferred habitat was miles away.

But it doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time the layer was formed. Drawing too broad of a conclusion from circumstantial evidence is an easy way to err.

You are arguing that science and logic are not entirely up to muster in interpreting past events. So, what is your better class of evidence that a God exists? If science is imperfect, you figure it's time for guessing?

Again, why don't you argue against something I actually said. I am sure that you are not arguing that science is perfect. Neither of us expects us it to be.

So why don't you address the nature of evidence; or the issue of interpretation of circumstantial evidence; as well as the issue of avoiding unwarranted assumptions that I gave as an example?

For instance, do you think that the absence of finding a fossil of 'b' in a particular strata 'x' means that this organism did not exist at the time that the strata was laid down?

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

real life wrote:

Show me where I said this.

Our courts do accept crime scene evidence, but most crimes didn't have an observer pre-arranged to be there recording the event, did they?

Logic is a useful thing with either a scientific method of investigation or a historical/legal method of investigation.

Why don't you argue against something I actually said?

I did. You implied that using science and logic was not a reliable method for intepreting the past, compared to wishful thinking, I suppose:

real life wrote:

These events -- the origin of life, the appearance of human life, etc --- were not observed and are not repeatable. Scientists wishing to study these things rely on largely circumstantial evidence, which is far different from direct evidence.

Thus the evidence that is available is open to a variety of interpretations, just as circumstantial evidence in a court of law would be. In fact the historical/legal method is entirely appropriate to be used in studying situations such as this.

In a strict sense, you cannot prove that George Washington existed or that the Roman Empire fell using a scientific method alone. Historical methods are the primary tools used -- sifting through the testimony of witnesses to the events and so forth-- since these historical happenings will not be repeated.

I didn't even address the question of logic.

I discussed the nature of evidence.

If it happened in the past and no one observed it, then your evidence is circumstantial, no?

Fossils, layers of rock, etc are there but there is no observer to tell us how they came to be where they are.

We can infer and attempt to draw interpretitive conclusions , but need to recognize that they are not absolute and that the evidence may also be interpreted in ways other than what we have chosen.

For instance, you can study sedimentary rock layer 'x' and you notice that there are no fossils of organism 'b' in this layer. Does that mean that organism 'b' did not exist at the time this layer of sedimentary rock was formed?

No.

It may simply mean that no representatives from this species were buried in the sediment as the layer formed.

Perhaps they were mobile enough to escape the water that formed the layer.

Perhaps this few square yards of dirt was not where they were buried and they are yet to be found in the very same strata 1000 yards that direction, where we haven't dug yet.

Perhaps their preferred habitat was miles away.

But it doesn't mean they didn't exist at the time the layer was formed. Drawing too broad of a conclusion from circumstantial evidence is an easy way to err.

You are arguing that science and logic are not entirely up to muster in interpreting past events. So, what is your better class of evidence that a God exists? If science is imperfect, you figure it's time for guessing?

Again, why don't you argue against something I actually said. I am sure that you are not arguing that science is perfect. Neither of us expects us it to be.

So why don't you address the nature of evidence; or the issue of interpretation of circumstantial evidence; as well as the issue of avoiding unwarranted assumptions that I gave as an example?

For instance, do you think that the absence of finding a fossil of 'b' in a particular strata 'x' means that this organism did not exist at the time that the strata was laid down?

Since we're criticizing the degree of reliability of evidence, what is your evidence for the existence of God?

Hep- People experience emotions based on their own unique perceptions, and subsequent evaluations. For instance, let's take the common example of observing an auto accident. One person would get sick to her stomach, and have to leave. Another would rush in and do what he can to help. Another would be grateful that he was not in the accident. Another might become excited by the blood and gore.

In other words, emotions do not come from out of nowhere. They are based on the way that a person characteristically thinks.

I had been skimming this thread this morning, and had noticed that you were terribly upset about possibly hurting another person by your words. Hep, you were doing the appropriate thing. This is a discussion forum. You have always been very polite, and sensitive to other people.

You had no reason to beat up on yourself because you thought that someone possibly took umbrage at wour words. That is not your problem. As I have described above, people will have many reactions to situations, based on their own personal experiences in life, and what they have thought about those experiences.

One of my favorite sayings came from, of all things, a popular song of a while back. It goes, "You can't please everybody, so you've got to please yourself".

My question then is this. Is it our experiences that shape how we characteristically think?

I'm just incredibly sensitive. That's nobody's fault though. I'm really hard on myself when I don't live up to the standards I have set for myself.

If you want to know how the brain works, then why don't you study it?

Study both the brain and psychology, for they seem almost unrelated. Almost, but in some little ways, connected.

After a couple of weeks of this, I made up my mind that I did not want to have a conniption, every time I passed that spot in the road. So a made a conscious decision to relax. I literally forced myself to "chill out" every time I was on that highway. And it worked!

In other words, you are a perfectionist. Do you know what the problem is with perfectionism? It is impossible to achieve, no matter what you do. So you are putting yourself in a position where you will be perpetually frustrated, angry and disappointed with yourself. Think about it!

Alfred Adler postulates a single "drive" or motivating force behind all our behavior and experience. By the time his theory had gelled into its most mature form, he called that motivating force the striving for perfection. It is the desire we all have to fulfill our potentials, to come closer and closer to our ideal. It is, as many of you will already see, very similar to the more popular idea of self-actualization.

The last point -- that lifestyle is "not merely a mechanical reaction" -- is a second way in which Adler differs dramatically from Freud. For Freud, the things that happened in the past, such as early childhood trauma, determine what you are like in the present. [/b]Adler sees motivation as a matter of moving towards the future, rather than being driven, mechanistically, by the past. We are drawn towards our goals, our purposes, our ideals. This is called teleology.

Adversity makes you stronger.

You wouldn't be who you are today if your life hadn't unfolded as it had.

The only important question is, do you like who you are?

Do you act because of the past, or do you act towards the future? I find the latter more reasonable myself.

The South American and North American indigenous peoples have much history contrary to your assertion.

A truism but not an observation of a net benefit.

If only it was that simple!

It is well nigh impossible for anyone of internal and external experience, conditioning, and hereditary genetic imperatives to act towards the future without a big fat nod to the past, despite how reasonable it might be to do so.

The 'you' in my assertion is in the context of an individual.

Really? I disagree. Sometimes such truisms are of great benefit, if one is overly concerned with negative experiences in their past. Sometimes a fresh perspective can work wonders.

Isn't it?

Indeed. Ones desires for the future are forged in ones past.

OK, I am a South American or North American indigenous person and I have much history contrary to your assertion. Individual or group, the import is similar.

OK, but the underlying implication appeared to be that it *is* an observation of net benefit not that it *might* be an observation of net benefit. But what do I know, I did not write it, I only read it.

No. Since one cannot help but be a product of one's environment in all it's internal and external facets, even if one does not like who one is, one may not have the tools / faculty / potential to change, in the way one would like.

I would posit if that particular native american, himself had suffered through adversity, he would come out of it stronger. The particulars of the adversity of other people that are not him, regardless of genetic similarity, are really irrelevant.

I said it with the intention of giving a microbe of fresh perspective, or at least cause her to think in a different direction. I didn't offer any guarantees of benefit, though, so no refunds.

Sound's like you've gone and solved that whole 'nature vs nurture' thing. Personally I'm still unsure where that line is drawn.

I'll leave the group versus individual argument for the sake of clarity, and provide the individual scenario query. In what way consequential meaningful way has this native American come out of it stronger "through adversity" if he has had his family destroyed, his land taken away, and is crippled by diseases?

No hubris on that basis, it appears an amalgam of both is in order. I was simply showing we are all a product of our environment, notwithstanding expectations of Free Willy.

He becomes more prepared to deal with adverse circumstance, mentally tougher, more realist, less idealist.

Ya..certainly not defending the notion of 'freewill'.
I agree what we are is a product of our genetics and our environment, namely, the past.
But what we do, though related to what we are, is quite distinct from it.

Adversity makes you stronger.

You wouldn't be who you are today if your life hadn't unfolded as it had.

The only important question is, do you like who you are?

As a side note, 'teleology' is a the branch of philosophy (more acurately theology) that studies the design or purpose in natural phenomenon. This of course assumes there IS one.
Adlers theory is not properly teleological, although the author of that quote seemed to have intended to paint it that way.
Adler forwarded that peoples behaviors are a manifestation of moving towards their desires. No outside design or purpose implied.
Do you act because of the past, or do you act towards the future?
I find the latter more reasonable myself.

Great post.