Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

rosborne979 wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
(3) Belief in God is rational if it is based, not on faith, but on direct experience. Is direct experience of God possible? Yes. That is the basis of numerous spiritual rituals and practices. When practiced correctly, they produce a heightened state of awareness in the practitioner -- the experience of unbounded pure consciousness. I know. I have experienced it, as have many others. It is beyond words.

Your generalization of the concept of God gets you around most of the conflicts with reality associated with a strict interpretation of the bible as a description of creation, but it doesn't provide any more information as a part of a theory, so it's essentially redundant and subject to occam's razor.

It helps explain a wide range of spiritual experiences recorded all over the world, throughout history. If you dismiss all of that as being delusion then, yes, any description of the spiritual dimension is unnecessary. That seems to be the position of most atheists. However, for those who have spiritual experiences, it is natural to seek some kind of explanation, other than we're just crazy. We may be crazy, but lacking any additional evidence of that (evidence of mental illness, brain tumor, a pattern of "magical thinking", etc.), it is not what most of us are inclined to believe.

Quote:

Your experience is not valid evidence because you can not differentiate your experience from delusion. How can anyone outside of your experience know the empirical validity of your 'feelings'. If we accepted your claim of spiritual experience, we would have to accept all other claims as well, no matter how radical or demented. How would you differentiate your experiences from all others?

The same could be said for all subjective experiences -- thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc. Others cannot "know the empirical validity" of your inner experiences. That doesn't make them any less real to you. Also, I reject your statement that in order to accept my claim of spiritual experience, you would have to accept all other claims as well. Some people are deluded. Some people lie. Some people are mentally ill. We should only consider those claims that appear credible (according to whatever criteria we choose). I've read or heard many spiritual claims where I thought, "That sounds like magical thinking", and I did not take them seriously. If one wants to consider the possibility that some spiritual experiences may be valid, you have to look at the person's credibility (are they a raving lunatic, or rational and consistent?), internal consistency of their ideas (are there logic contradictions, or impossible assertions?), do their claims have any explanatory power (do they help answer questions that are not very amenable to scientific inquiry such as, what is consciousness, can it exist independent of the brain, what is the origin of spiritual experience, does God exist, etc.?) Its lazy to just say that anyone who claims spiritual experience is deluded. That doesn't mean we accept it naively. On the other hand it is very limiting to dismiss subjective experience out of hand.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
If we accepted your claim of spiritual experience, we would have to accept all other claims as well, no matter how radical or demented. How would you differentiate your experiences from all others?

Or....

My god, through personal spiritual experience, said your god is a false god.

Prove me wrong.

I don't really know what that statement means. I don't believe in an anthropomorphic notion of God, so there couldn't be one God vs. another from my perspective. However, if you were to believe it, I wouldn't try to prove you wrong. People are free to believe whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned. Noone has to agree with me.

0 Replies

Far out, IFF, but not without internal consistency.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

IFeelFree, It is precisely "beyond words," becuase it's based on personal emotion and experience. It doesn't necessarily make it "truth." I have the same experience when I watch a good movie; it's almost "spiritual".

I have listened to good music, and I have cried; beyond words.

I'm sure we've all had similar experiences. However, I believe the type of experience I'm talking about is very different. For example, I once had tremendous pain in my chest during meditation that continue for more than an hour. I was doubled over in pain. Finally, I went to the hospital fearing a massive heart attack, and the doctor ran tests and told me there was nothing physically wrong. The pain subsided and as time went by I noticed that there was an expansion of bliss, energy, peace, sense of freedom, feelings of love, etc. that emanated from my heart region after this experience. I came to realize that it was the opening of my heart chakra (spinal center) written about in books about kundalini. I don't think that this is a common experience. Either I'm crazy or it is a real experience. I choose to believe that latter.

0 Replies

IFeelFree,

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging a spiritual aspect to life. In an earlier post, however, you suggested that scientific theories are no more provable than spiritual beliefs. I am not sure you understand the role of "falsifiablity". It is actually a criterion that separates scientific theories from speculative theories. If a scientific theory survives empirical tests that attempt to prove it false, it can be said to have objective validity.

This is what I was trying to argue earlier:

wandeljw wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
God is not provable but neither is any scientific theory (with the exception of mathematical theorems). Scientific theories are falsifiable, not provable. Big difference.

The falsifiability criterion was developed by Karl Popper in an attempt to distinguish what makes empirical science different from metaphysics. A statement is only scientific if it makes assertions that may be falsified by observation. After a theory has withstood multiple attempts to refute it by tests or observations, it can be said to have been confirmed by science. Theories which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. Popper characterizes non-testable theories as metaphysical.

0 Replies

IFF is here to peddle his self-congratulatory "spiritual" dog and pony show. He doesn't care about concepts such as falsifiability and what they really mean. This is just one of many threads in which he attempts to change discussion from the titular subject to a discussion of the excellence of his attainment of a "higher consciousness."

The discussion we were having about what "proof" there may or may not be for a theory of evolution was interesting. IFF's ego, however, is not interesting.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

IFeelFree,

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging a spiritual aspect to life. In an earlier post, however, you suggested that scientific theories are no more provable than spiritual beliefs. I am not sure you understand the role of "falsifiablity". It is actually a criterion that separates scientific theories from speculative theories. If a scientific theory survives empirical tests that attempt to prove it false, it can be said to have objective validity.

This is what I was trying to argue earlier:

wandeljw wrote:
IFeelFree wrote:
God is not provable but neither is any scientific theory (with the exception of mathematical theorems). Scientific theories are falsifiable, not provable. Big difference.

The falsifiability criterion was developed by Karl Popper in an attempt to distinguish what makes empirical science different from metaphysics. A statement is only scientific if it makes assertions that may be falsified by observation. After a theory has withstood multiple attempts to refute it by tests or observations, it can be said to have been confirmed by science. Theories which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists. Popper characterizes non-testable theories as metaphysical.

You are correct that falsifiability is what distinguishes science from metaphysics. My point was in response to those who ask for proof of the spiritual dimension. I can't give proof, but it is an unreasonable request. Nobody can prove scientific theories either. (Newton's gravity was true until general relativity came along and then, strictly speaking, it wasn't.) We can only accumulate evidence. However, I'm also interested in considering whether there are certain statements about the spiritual dimension which might be falsifiable. For example, if a person practices certain techniques, such as meditation, chanting, breathing exercises, etc., are there predictable changes in brain functioning that reflect a different style of functioning of the nervous system? Is this repeatable? Some research has been done in this area with positive results. If a person conducts this "experiment" by practicing the technique, and they exhibit the changes in metabolism, brain waves, etc., their experience should reflect a certain subjective reality -- the experience of pure consciousness, or whatever. Is that experience universal? In other words, does anyone who practices the technique obtain the same experience. If not, can it be said that the experience is not a universal one and therefore does not indicate a metaphysical truth. That is a kind of falsifiability that might be possible.

0 Replies

The topic of this thread is whether or not there is evidence for a theory of evolution.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The topic of this thread is whether or not there is evidence for a theory of evolution.

There have been hundreds of thousands of scientific papers in reputable journals containing evidence supporting evolution. It is one of the most well-supported theories in all of biology.

0 Replies

In that case, i suggest that you have nothing more to add to this thread, unless it were a specific and on-topic refutation of a claim made by someone who disagrees. There is certainly no reason to continue to clog this thread, as you have done in so many others, with bragging about your allegedly heightened consciousness.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

The same could be said for all subjective experiences -- thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc. Others cannot "know the empirical validity" of your inner experiences. That doesn't make them any less real to you. Also, I reject your statement that in order to accept my claim of spiritual experience, you would have to accept all other claims as well. Some people are deluded. Some people lie. Some people are mentally ill. We should only consider those claims that appear credible (according to whatever criteria we choose). I've read or heard many spiritual claims where I thought, "That sounds like magical thinking", and I did not take them seriously. If one wants to consider the possibility that some spiritual experiences may be valid, you have to look at the person's credibility (are they a raving lunatic, or rational and consistent?), internal consistency of their ideas (are there logic contradictions, or impossible assertions?), do their claims have any explanatory power (do they help answer questions that are not very amenable to scientific inquiry such as, what is consciousness, can it exist independent of the brain, what is the origin of spiritual experience, does God exist, etc.?) Its lazy to just say that anyone who claims spiritual experience is deluded. That doesn't mean we accept it naively. On the other hand it is very limiting to dismiss subjective experience out of hand.

As we discovered in the other thread, your definition of 'spiritual experience' is not what I thought it was.

My challenge is not against anyone describing how they feel. As far as I'm concerned if you say you feel something, then you feel something.

My objection is to anyone who argues that their internal feeling, is in any way empirical evidence of an otherwise untestable external event or condition.

It's not clear to me from your posts, exactly what point you are trying to make with reference to your spiritual experiences.

0 Replies

Trying to convince himself perhaps??

0 Replies

Great discussion.
*snickers like a juvenile*

*leaves*

T
K
O

0 Replies

I have a cousin that is extremely religious; a Christian of the type that home schools their kids, and sends them to conservative Christian schools of higher education.

He does not believe that any original idea he has is his own. It's the Lords. God puts ideas into his head. God tells him what car to buy; hence when he speaks of his car it's God's car, not his. Any material possession he has is due to Gods wish.

It's not a question of hearing little voices in their heads, it's who gets credit for the ideas they come with.

People such as these say we are vain for taking credit for all we have created, the progress and technology we have achieved. It's not us that created this, it was the Lord and by not giving proper recognition to the true creator of what we have we are making him angry. For this neglect we will be punished.

0 Replies

That's a bit extreme.

Nonetheless I'm coming to the conclusion that the theory of evolution itself is a sort of an IQ test designed to weed out the lower intellectual half or whatever it is of the human race. In other words, I suspect that God deliberately allowed Chuck Darwin to devise a theory so overwhelmingly STUPID, that nobody would have to feel sorry for anybody who ever buys off on it.

Jeffrey Dahmer is said to have converted to Christianity before he died and thus I'd assume that it is possible for even a psychopath like Dahmer or KKKlinton to get into heaven. I don't see how an evolutionite could.

0 Replies

xingu, I have similar conversations with my siblings; it's what god wants them to do. I sit there listening with dumb-founded silence.

0 Replies

I can see the T-shirt now:

WWGD

What Would God Drive

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
The same could be said for all subjective experiences -- thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc. Others cannot "know the empirical validity" of your inner experiences. That doesn't make them any less real to you. Also, I reject your statement that in order to accept my claim of spiritual experience, you would have to accept all other claims as well. Some people are deluded. Some people lie. Some people are mentally ill. We should only consider those claims that appear credible (according to whatever criteria we choose). I've read or heard many spiritual claims where I thought, "That sounds like magical thinking", and I did not take them seriously. If one wants to consider the possibility that some spiritual experiences may be valid, you have to look at the person's credibility (are they a raving lunatic, or rational and consistent?), internal consistency of their ideas (are there logic contradictions, or impossible assertions?), do their claims have any explanatory power (do they help answer questions that are not very amenable to scientific inquiry such as, what is consciousness, can it exist independent of the brain, what is the origin of spiritual experience, does God exist, etc.?) Its lazy to just say that anyone who claims spiritual experience is deluded. That doesn't mean we accept it naively. On the other hand it is very limiting to dismiss subjective experience out of hand.

As we discovered in the other thread, your definition of 'spiritual experience' is not what I thought it was.

My challenge is not against anyone describing how they feel. As far as I'm concerned if you say you feel something, then you feel something.

My objection is to anyone who argues that their internal feeling, is in any way empirical evidence of an otherwise untestable external event or condition.

It is not empirical evidence but it is evidence. That is the problem with subjective experiences. It is difficult or impossible to provide empirical evidence. Therefore, we can either dismiss spiritual experiences completely, or require that they pass certain credibility tests, such as I mentioned (internal consistency, explanatory power, etc.). That doesn't mean we then accept them as true, but we may consider them as "data". Ultimately, they must be confirmed by your own experience. To make an analogy, suppose you had a brain tumor that prevented you from feeling love, for example. You would hear people talk about it, but you couldn't relate to it. However, you became interested in the idea. It sounded appealing to you and had a certain logic or utility. (We tend to be happier and more productive when we bond with others and work together.) However, you cannot prove the experience empirically, only the effects of it on other people. One day, you have surgery to remove the tumor, and you start to experience love. That experience would provide confirmation of the (previously) intellectual concept of love.

Quote:

It's not clear to me from your posts, exactly what point you are trying to make with reference to your spiritual experiences.

I am trying to provide a basis for spirituality that is more than "faith". Faith is a dangerous path to go down, as Sam Harris points out in his book, "The End of Faith". However, direct personal experience can be a more fruitful approach, provided that it is subjected to reason and self-questioning. We have to avoid magical thinking. We have to test our insights against reality, and the criticisms of others. There must be a coherent, rational world-view that unifies personal experiences with empirical knowledge.

0 Replies

The only credibility test needed is common sense and logic. We don't need to live by "empirical evidence" for many things in life, but to devote our lives to something based on one book with so many errors, omissions, and contradictions is beyond anything called "spiritual."

I have a spiritual experience listening to good music, or seeing the beauty in nature, but I don't credit that to any god; it's based entirely on my personal subjective receptors.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The only credibility test needed is common sense and logic. We don't need to live by "empirical evidence" for many things in life, but to devote our lives to something based on one book with so many errors, omissions, and contradictions is beyond anything called "spiritual."

I agree that truth doesn't reside in books, it resides in the consciousness of the reader. I disagree that common sense and logic are sufficient tests of credibility. How many religious people will say that it is "common sense" that God exists and created the world, etc., and "logical" that since the world exists, there must have been a creator. We need to be more rigorous.

Quote:

I have a spiritual experience listening to good music, or seeing the beauty in nature, but I don't credit that to any god; it's based entirely on my personal subjective receptors.

It is not necessary to attribute spiritual experiences to God. Atheists can and probably do have spiritual experiences.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know