12 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudge
I agree completely.
However I am not sure that she realises that this is what she is doing because
making up ad hoc and post hoc explanations for why we believe stuff is how the
brain operates by default.
I find it entirely plausible that she really truly believes that her position is consistent
with science and that she has a part of her sel ...[text shortened]... that her memory is miraculously faultless, or
her belief that she accepts and is pro science?
making up ad hoc and post hoc explanations for why we believe stuff is how the
brain operates by default.
The way I would put this point is that it is generally true that one's established beliefs on some topic can tend to color one's subsequent interpretation of the evidence on that same topic. In some instances, when one has a firm belief on the topic, then subsequent evidential considerations or explanative programs that are best evidentially neutral or even countervailing toward the belief can somehow get internalized as favorably indicating for that belief. Examples of this can range from the subtle to the egregious. Needless to say, I think we can agree that Suzianne's ad hoc stipulations are of the egregious, outrageous type.
When faced with a clear scientific consensus that contradicts a belief tied up with
another part of her self image, which wins?
Based on what I know from past discussions, she has actually consistently maintained that not only is there no good public evidence for her positions of faith, but further that there could never be any good public evidence for her position (owing to some bizarre ancillary views she holds on the relationship between human freedom and public evidence). Since scientific evidence is public by the very nature in which it is gathered and reported, she is thereby basically directly committed to the stance that there could never be any such evidence that would "win" out over her faith. So when she basically says ridiculous stuff like facts are facts but they cannot get in the way of her faith, she is actually just being consistent with these other commitments she has. At least she does seem quasi-consistent in this regard.
However, in another bizarre and stupefying twist, she maintains that while human freedom is undermined by good public evidence, the same does not hold for certain types of private or individual evidence. She would probably place memories and revelation in this latter class of evidence. She might try to convince you that this distinction becomes important somewhere in this discussion.
At any rate, I find her whole view fascinating sometimes. Call it morbid fascination.
As to her claims that her episodic memory is basically flawless...yeah, no one is going to be prepared to take that seriously. And, yes, such a claim would conflict with what scientific studies on the topic would strongly suggest. It's an outrageous claim, but I doubt she will retract it. From what I can tell, she does not have a history of retracting outrageous claims when the outrageousness is pointed out to her.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Feb 15
Aron Ra [back in the day] did a series of youtube videos called
"Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" in which he debunked
a whole set of creationist [or just theistic] beliefs, arguments,
or claims.
His 4th, linked here:
Deals with faith, and how you cannot know something you cannot show.
The transcript is here:
http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/4thFFoC.html
And this is an excerpt I particularly like and which is relevant to this discussion:
For example, if I go into my front yard and I see a large sauropod walking down the middle of my street, I will of course be quite convinced of what I see. I may be even more satisfied when I follow the thing and find that I can touch it, maybe even ride it if I want to.
When I gather sense enough to run back for my camcorder, I may not be able to find the beast again, because I don't know which way it went. But that doesn’t matter because I saw it, I heard it, felt it, smelt it and I remember all that clearly with a sober and rational mind.
But somehow I'm the only one who ever noticed it, and of course no one believes me. Some other guy says he saw a dinosaur too, but his description was completely different, such that we can’t both be talking about the same thing.
So it doesn't matter how convinced I am that it really happened. It might not have. When days go by and there are still no tracks, no excrement, no destruction, no sign of the beast at all, no other witnesses who’s testimony lends credence to mine, and no explanation for how a 20-meter long dinosaur could just disappear in the suburbs of a major metropolis, much less how it could have appeared there in the first place, -then it becomes much easier to explain how there could be only two witnesses who can’t agree on what they think they saw, than it is to explain all the impossibilities against that dinosaur ever really being there.
Positive claims require positive evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that’s what I’d need –since what I propose isn’t just extraordinary; its impossible.
But since there's not one fact I can show that anyone can measure or otherwise confirm, then my perspective is still subjective -and thus uncertain. Eventually, even I, the eyewitness, would have to admit that, although I did see it, I still don’t know if it was ever really there –regardless whether I still believe that it was.
12 Feb 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadWell, if she would stop attacking me and my methods as a teacher, then I might not object. 😏
You claim there are 2.2 billion people who 'understand the real message of the Word of God'? That's an extraordinary claim.
I am fairly sure that:
1. You cannot find two people who actually agree on the details.
2. The majority of the 2.2 billion have significantly different beliefs from yours including some central tenets of your faith.
3. Many of th ...[text shortened]... same for some of them. (RJ Hinds for example does not think you should call yourself Christian).
13 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat makes you think that RJHinds blatantly doesn't care or is not prepared to update and correct his beliefs when h encounters
This is long established scientific consensus.
I am not making this up, I am reporting what the medical establishment regards
as rock solid multiply proven fact.
Which brings us back to the fact that you do not accept science in general
because you reject their methods.
You accept science ONLY when it doesn't conflict with your own religious ...[text shortened]... Hinds, or are you prepared to update and correct your beliefs when you encounter
new evidence?
new evidence?
Originally posted by googlefudgeI can understand this reasoning. Even if I were to see something like that I would not just actually believe it was true, because I know Kung Fu and a little science too. 😏
Aron Ra [back in the day] did a series of youtube videos called
"Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" in which he debunked
a whole set of creationist [or just theistic] beliefs, arguments,
or claims.
His 4th, linked here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80nhqGfN6t8
Deals with faith, and how you cannot know something you cannot show.
...[text shortened]... ’t know if it was ever really there –regardless whether I still believe that it was.[/quote][/b]
Just kidding. 😀
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsOk, good.
I can understand this reasoning. Even if I were to see something like that I would not just actually believe it was true, because I know Kung Fu and a little science too. 😏
[hidden]Just kidding. 😀 [/hidden]
Now can you understand that this applies to any experience including claimed experiences of god?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
13 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsFraud? Even devout Roman Catholics of the middle ages were well aware of the amount of fraud involved in the relics business; it was a standard quip that there were enough "true fragments of the Holy Cross" going around to make a dozen crosses.
No. Explain the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5yjZbxjBI
By the way... a Dahn Sahth True Red Evangelist like you, relying on Papist frauds for your support? You have sunk low...
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Feb 15
Originally posted by RJHindsAlready done that many times in the past.
No. Explain the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za5yjZbxjBI
But more to the point... The Shroud of Turin is not a 'personal experience' with god now is it.
And is thus entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
13 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeExcept when you want to believe it?
[b]Why eyewitness testimony isn't reliable or sufficient for extraordinary claims.
Or why I wont [and we shouldn't] accept your 'personal experience' as evidence
It is often claimed by believers of all stripes that while they don't have any evidence
to show you to back up their claims of the supernatural, they have had a personal
exper ...[text shortened]... abducted and impregnated by aliens. ....[/quote]
If you cannot show it, you cannot know it.[/b]
13 Feb 15
Originally posted by Shallow BlueThis iis not the same as frauds in the middle ages. Scientists of today have already examined and evaluated the shroud and determined that it is not a fraud. 😏
Fraud? Even devout Roman Catholics of the middle ages were well aware of the amount of fraud involved in the relics business; it was a standard quip that there were enough "true fragments of the Holy Cross" going around to make a dozen crosses.
By the way... a Dahn Sahth True Red Evangelist like you, relying on Papist frauds for your support? You have sunk low...
Originally posted by googlefudgeWell, perhaps you should show your evidence to the scientists that actually examined it and determined that it is not a fraud.
Already done that many times in the past.
But more to the point... The Shroud of Turin is not a 'personal experience' with god now is it.
And is thus entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Turin Shroud 'was created by flash of supernatural light': It couldn't be a medieval forgery, say scientists
Scientists from Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development spent years trying to replicate the shroud’s markings.
They have concluded only something akin to ultraviolet lasers – far beyond the capability of medieval forgers – could have created them.
This has led to fresh suggestions that the imprint was indeed created by a huge burst of energy accompanying the Resurrection of Christ.
‘The results show a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,’ the scientists said.
The Shroud is thought to have travelled widely before it was brought to France in the 14th century by a Crusader.
It was kept in a French convent for years - by nuns who patched it, and where it was damaged by fire.
The Shroud was given to the Turin Archbishop in 1578 by the Duke of Savoy and has been kept in the Cathedral ever since.
Carbon dating tests in 1988 dated it from between 1260 and 1390 - implying it was a fake.
Scientists have since claimed that contamination over the ages from patches, water damage and fire, was not taken sufficiently into account In 1999, two Israeli scientists said plant pollen found on the Shroud supported the view that it comes from the Holy Land.
The image of the bearded man on the shroud must therefore have been created by ‘some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength)’, their report concludes. But it stops short of offering a non-scientific explanation.
Professor Paolo Di Lazzaro, who led the study, said: ‘When one talks about a flash of light being able to colour a piece of linen in the same way as the shroud, discussion inevitably touches on things such as miracles.
‘But as scientists, we were concerned only with verifiable scientific processes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2076443/Turin-Shroud-created-flash-supernatural-light.html