Zadocfish2 wrote:Which is referred to as Agnosticism, I believe.

How does that follow?

Agrippina wrote:To be honest John Platko, I don't think you really believe in God, you believe in the idea of him.

I don't just believe in the idea of God but I believe in all the attributes I imagine the God I believe in to have. At the same time, I know that all I think about God is the product of my imagination or the imagination of others. It's not like God is subject to scientific experimentation- as far as we know.

How does that follow?

Believing in the concept of a God but not following any particular interpretation thereof? I think that fits the bill, doesn't it?

Zadocfish2 wrote:

How does that follow?

Believing in the concept of a God but not following any particular interpretation thereof? I think that fits the bill, doesn't it?

How does that have anything to do with agnosticism, which is about certainty, and is orthogonal to belief?

How does that have anything to do with agnosticism, which is about certainty, and is orthogonal to belief?

agnosticism
n.noun

A: The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
B: The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty.

Based on Plako's statements on his beliefs, this sounds pretty close...

Zadocfish2 wrote:

How does that have anything to do with agnosticism, which is about certainty, and is orthogonal to belief?

agnosticism
n.noun

A: The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
B: The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty.

Based on Plako's statements on his beliefs, this sounds pretty close...

Only if by 'close' you mean absolutely nothing like.

Argumentum ad lexicum, agnosticism is a position concerning knowledge, or the possibility thereof. It has nothing to do with belief.

Yes as agnosticism pertains to the truth values of certain metaphysical propositions such as the existence / non existence of God. Truth in this context is objectively defined while belief is subjectively defined. So to suggest that agnosticism pertains to belief is demonstrably false since belief and knowledge are not the same. I would be interested to know which dictionary Zadocfish obtained the definition from but he does not cite a source so I suspect it is simply his own which is why it is wrong

Actually, I have little problem with the cited definition, it just doesn't say what Zadocfish thinks it does.

Zadocfish2 wrote:

How does that have anything to do with agnosticism, which is about certainty, and is orthogonal to belief?

agnosticism
n.noun

A: The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
B: The belief that the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities cannot be known with certainty.

Ok, now how do you reconcile that with :

Zadocfish2 wrote:

Believing in the concept of a God but not following any particular interpretation thereof? I think that fits the bill, doesn't it?

I reckon I can see what you are saying, I just think the two ideas don't actually match.

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:To be honest John Platko, I don't think you really believe in God, you believe in the idea of him.

I don't just believe in the idea of God but I believe in all the attributes I imagine the God I believe in to have. At the same time, I know that all I think about God is the product of my imagination or the imagination of others. It's not like God is subject to scientific experimentation- as far as we know.

Yup, the discipline you are looking for is psychology/psychiatry. Why brain-farts about god should have special privilege over other woo brain-farts is an interesting question. But it probably has to do with the complex interactions between social and physical realities.

Zadocfish2 wrote:Which is referred to as Agnosticism, I believe.

On which planet?

Zadocfish2 wrote:

How does that follow?

Believing in the concept of a God but not following any particular interpretation thereof? I think that fits the bill, doesn't it?

Yes. And by yes, I mean absolutely not, in any way, shape or form.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:To be honest John Platko, I don't think you really believe in God, you believe in the idea of him.

I don't just believe in the idea of God but I believe in all the attributes I imagine the God I believe in to have. At the same time, I know that all I think about God is the product of my imagination or the imagination of others. It's not like God is subject to scientific experimentation- as far as we know.

Yup, the discipline you are looking for is psychology/psychiatry. Why brain-farts about god should have special privilege over other woo brain-farts is an interesting question. But it probably has to do with the complex interactions between social and physical realities.

The social realities pressure most psychology/psychiatry schools of thought to give wide berth to close examination of religious issues - few venture to take it head on. I think Carl Jung did a fairly nice job of it though. Perhaps it's best for religion to be it's own discipline but one's religious practice, which relies heavily on imagination, should also be informed by reality and that includes psychological reality.

John Platko wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Agrippina wrote:To be honest John Platko, I don't think you really believe in God, you believe in the idea of him.

I don't just believe in the idea of God but I believe in all the attributes I imagine the God I believe in to have. At the same time, I know that all I think about God is the product of my imagination or the imagination of others. It's not like God is subject to scientific experimentation- as far as we know.

Yup, the discipline you are looking for is psychology/psychiatry. Why brain-farts about god should have special privilege over other woo brain-farts is an interesting question. But it probably has to do with the complex interactions between social and physical realities.

The social realities pressure most psychology/psychiatry schools of thought to give wide berth to close examination of religious issues - few venture to take it head on. I think Carl Jung did a fairly nice job of it though. Perhaps it's best for religion to be it's own discipline but one's religious practice, which relies heavily on imagination, should also be informed by reality and that includes psychological reality.

If religion informed itself with reality it would not exist. HTH. There is no discipline in religions-only repression. Intellectual discipline is intellectual honesty. in science for example one does not make up shit and leave it at that. One destructively tests it against the evidence. All science works this way, although some social sciences could do it better.
Any tosser can dream up shit and then start masturbating about it. But if you are after useful information, you need discipline and the intellectual honesty to conduct fair tests. Religions never do this. NEVER.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

John Platko wrote:

I don't just believe in the idea of God but I believe in all the attributes I imagine the God I believe in to have. At the same time, I know that all I think about God is the product of my imagination or the imagination of others. It's not like God is subject to scientific experimentation- as far as we know.

Yup, the discipline you are looking for is psychology/psychiatry. Why brain-farts about god should have special privilege over other woo brain-farts is an interesting question. But it probably has to do with the complex interactions between social and physical realities.

The social realities pressure most psychology/psychiatry schools of thought to give wide berth to close examination of religious issues - few venture to take it head on. I think Carl Jung did a fairly nice job of it though. Perhaps it's best for religion to be it's own discipline but one's religious practice, which relies heavily on imagination, should also be informed by reality and that includes psychological reality.

If religion informed itself with reality it would not exist. HTH. There is no discipline in religions-only repression. Intellectual discipline is intellectual honesty. in science for example one does not make up shit and leave it at that.

It is bad religious practice to "make up shit and leave it at that." Christian religions are dynamic, i.e. they change with time. Some change faster than others, Generally they are over damped systems because of historical and other reasons. So they change slowly- but they do change. And you'll discover the truth of that if you apply "discipline and the intellectual honesty to conduct fair tests" in your study.

One destructively tests it against the evidence. All science works this way, although some social sciences could do it better.
Any tosser can dream up shit and then start masturbating about it. But if you are after useful information, you need discipline and the intellectual honesty to conduct fair tests. Religions never do this. NEVER.

I'm all in favor of testing all religious ideas to whatever extent they can be tested. But given the subject of Religion, meaning of life, human morality, etc, and where many experiments are done, the human unconscious, testing is difficult. That said, making up shit like: sex must be done this way or it's bad, and not looking at the reality of the situation you're talking about is far more likely to do harm than good.

John Platko wrote:

It is bad religious practice to "make up shit and leave it at that." Christian religions are dynamic, i.e. they change with time. Some change faster than others, Generally they are over damped systems because of historical and other reasons. So they change slowly- but they do change. And you'll discover the truth of that if you apply "discipline and the intellectual honesty to conduct fair tests" in your study.

Generally speaking, religions do not conduct reform off their own bat. They usually have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. Yes, religions have reformers, and can improve over time. But the basic epistemology of all religions is flawed. Faith-belief is simply an abysmally poor generator of useful information. "Religious tradition" really says it all. The very idea that an old idea has some standing just because it is an old idea is shockingly obtuse. That is a major point of failure right there.
And of course, you are right, many religious ideas cannot be fairly tested, which should be a head-up to a reasonable mind that they had no business being believed in the first place!
I think you will find that the best ideas that have stood the test of time have actually been tested.
None of this absolutely discounts the possibility of gods, spirits or any other product of the human imagination. But the empty claims of religion are just that:- innocent of any fact, fair test, and usually even basic logic.
It follows then that there is really no such thing as religious knowledge, because such knowledge has not run the gauntlet of a fair [never mind harsh] test, they enjoy no evidential support other than hearsay, revelation or tradition , and conflict with what we know about natural phenomena and how it behaves. So all religion has is stale brain-farts. HTH.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:John Platko wrote:

It is bad religious practice to "make up shit and leave it at that." Christian religions are dynamic, i.e. they change with time. Some change faster than others, Generally they are over damped systems because of historical and other reasons. So they change slowly- but they do change. And you'll discover the truth of that if you apply "discipline and the intellectual honesty to conduct fair tests" in your study.

Generally speaking, religions do not conduct reform off their own bat. They usually have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. Yes, religions have reformers, and can improve over time.

Well alright then, I'll take that as admission that your former ideas:

If religion informed itself with reality it would not exist. HTH. There is no discipline in religions-only repression. Intellectual discipline is intellectual honesty. in science for example one does not make up shit and leave it at that.

But if you are after useful information, you need discipline and the intellectual honesty to conduct fair tests. Religions never do this. NEVER.

Are errant. Well done!

They usually have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world.

Ahhh I see you've attempted to cover your retreat with a goal post shift to lower ground - one more resistant to fact checking and evidence. i.e. the field of speculation laden with woo. Because we have neither the evidence, or tools, to dissect the evolution of ideas (memes if you prefer) in individuals, groups, organization, cultures, national associations, within themselves and their migration across each group boundry to know exactly how these ideas (memes if you prefer) interacted, mutated, and evolved to create the change which we can find evidence for in religions. Now on to your speculations with commentary from my speculations. i.e. woo rebutted with woo.

But the basic epistemology of all religions is flawed. Faith-belief is simply an abysmally poor generator of useful information.

Except when we are trying to blaze new trails of knowledge where science demonstrates that it is fruitful to start by imagining what might be (call them thought experiments if you prefer) and developing a model for this "how" based on what information is available and then testing the prediction that model makes having faith that this process will lead towards the truth. And this is exactly how many religions behave, Christianity, generally speaking, behaves this way, albeit with a tediously slow time constant in its' feedback loop.

"Religious tradition" really says it all.

It doesn't say much to me.

The very idea that an old idea has some standing just because it is an old idea is shockingly obtuse. That is a major point of failure right there.

Except when that old idea is going up against a new idea that is equally lacking in evidence to support it. In that case one might at least give pause and reflect that the there may be something too this old idea that helped it survive. Certainly not conclusive but one must lower their expectations when weighing such "evidence impoverished" ideas against each other.

And of course, you are right, many religious ideas cannot be fairly tested, which should be a head-up to a reasonable mind that they had no business being believed in the first place!

You mean like: treat others as you would ...?

I think you will find that the best ideas that have stood the test of time have actually been tested.

I suspect we would disagree on some of the members of the set of the "best ideas that have stood the test of time [that] have actually been tested."

None of this absolutely discounts the possibility of gods, spirits or any other product of the human imagination. But the empty claims of religion are just that:- innocent of any fact, fair test, and usually even basic logic.

I think that reduces to something like: empty claims of religion are empty. I'll buy that.

It follows then that there is really no such thing as religious knowledge, because such knowledge has not run the gauntlet of a fair [never mind harsh] test, they enjoy no evidential support other than hearsay, revelation or tradition , and conflict with what we know about natural phenomena and how it behaves. So all religion has is stale brain-farts. HTH.

It follows that religious knowledge must be subject to the gauntlet of harsh testing because such knowledge deals with important issues that can impact the lives of everyone and without harsh testing of these ideas they can do unspeakable damage which can result in tragedy. (umm. My last comment isn't woo- there's plenty of evidence to support it.)

That completes our woo rebutted by woo discussion, we now hopefully return to rational discussion.

No, to say that religions are generally resistant to change does not imply that some religious people are reformist. it took the Catholic church a mere 1000 years or so to stop calling Mary Magdalene a whore! And in 2015, the Dalia Lama still has to be a male. I could bore you with thousands of examples but I don't think it will do you any good. Instead of apologetics, why don't you try intellectual honesty for once?

Ahhh I see you've attempted to cover your retreat with a goal post shift to lower ground - one more resistant to fact checking and evidence. i.e. the field of speculation laden with woo. Because we have neither the evidence, or tools, to dissect the evolution of ideas (memes if you prefer) in individuals, groups, organization, cultures, national associations, within themselves and their migration across each group boundry to know exactly how these ideas (memes if you prefer) interacted, mutated, and evolved to create the change which we can find evidence for in religions. Now on to your speculations with commentary from my speculations. i.e. woo rebutted with woo.

No retreat at all, see above. Do you have a point in the above wibble? And actually, Islamic philosophical criticisms of Christianity made some folks take a deeper look at Christian assumptions and doctrine.

Except when we are trying to blaze new trails of knowledge where science demonstrates that it is fruitful to start by imagining what might be (call them thought experiments if you prefer) and developing a model for this "how" based on what information is available and then testing the prediction that model makes having faith that this process will lead towards the truth. And this is exactly how many religions behave, Christianity, generally speaking, behaves this way, albeit with a tediously slow time constant in its' feedback loop.

Imagination is a useful source of new ideas, not new information!
And testing these models does not lead to truth, it leads to tested models. Science is NOT in the truth business. You are getting that confused with religions and their untested CLAIMS of truth. No religions [including Christianity] start form testable models. They make claims, and then construct apologetics to support them. It is abundantly clear you neither understand science or religion. Only sometimes, when religious dogma gets so absurd it violates the reason of even the most obtuse of minds, does reform emerge.

DBD wrote:-

"Religious tradition" really says it all.

John Platko wrote:

It doesn't say much to me.

Let me spell it out for you. A long held belief is not proof of it's use. eg People believed for centuries that rubbing dung into a wound would heal it. Traditions, even religions traditions, do not have merit simply because they are believed for many generations.

Except when that old idea is going up against a new idea that is equally lacking in evidence to support it. In that case one might at least give pause and reflect that the there may be something too this old idea that helped it survive. Certainly not conclusive but one must lower their expectations when weighing such "evidence impoverished" ideas against each other.

Bullshit.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:No, to say that religions are generally resistant to change does not imply that some religious people are reformist. it took the Catholic church a mere 1000 years or so to stop calling Mary Magdalene a whore! And in 2015, the Dalia Lama still has to be a male. I could bore you with thousands of examples but I don't think it will do you any good. Instead of apologetics, why don't you try intellectual honesty for once?

Ahhh I see you've attempted to cover your retreat with a goal post shift to lower ground - one more resistant to fact checking and evidence. i.e. the field of speculation laden with woo. Because we have neither the evidence, or tools, to dissect the evolution of ideas (memes if you prefer) in individuals, groups, organization, cultures, national associations, within themselves and their migration across each group boundry to know exactly how these ideas (memes if you prefer) interacted, mutated, and evolved to create the change which we can find evidence for in religions. Now on to your speculations with commentary from my speculations. i.e. woo rebutted with woo.

No retreat at all,

Well you certainly seem to have backpedaled from:

... But if you are after useful information, you need discipline and the intellectual honesty to conduct fair tests. Religions never do this. NEVER.

to:

No, to say that religions are generally resistant to change does not imply that some religious people are reformist. it took the Catholic church a mere 1000 years or so to stop calling Mary Magdalene a whore!

So you went from: NEVER to a long time constant for change.

see above. Do you have a point in the above wibble?

Certainly. After I pointed out your factual error you attempted to move the discussion to one which can only involve opinions; because there is no intellectually honest factual way to account for exactly how religious ideas morphed over time.

I merely agreed to play along a bit and trade opinions with you. Your woo vs my woo.

And actually, Islamic philosophical criticisms of Christianity made some folks take a deeper look at Christian assumptions and doctrine.

Except when we are trying to blaze new trails of knowledge where science demonstrates that it is fruitful to start by imagining what might be (call them thought experiments if you prefer) and developing a model for this "how" based on what information is available and then testing the prediction that model makes having faith that this process will lead towards the truth. And this is exactly how many religions behave, Christianity, generally speaking, behaves this way, albeit with a tediously slow time constant in its' feedback loop.

Imagination is a useful source of new ideas, not new information!

I take it, you agree with me then - great!

And testing these models does not lead to truth, it leads to tested models. Science is NOT in the truth business. You are getting that confused with religions and their untested CLAIMS of truth. No religions [including Christianity] start form testable models. They make claims, and then construct apologetics to support them. It is abundantly clear you neither understand science or religion. Only sometimes, when religious dogma gets so absurd it violates the reason of even the most obtuse of minds, does reform emerge.

DBD wrote:-

"Religious tradition" really says it all.

John Platko wrote:

It doesn't say much to me.

Let me spell it out for you. A long held belief is not proof of it's use. eg People believed for centuries that rubbing dung into a wound would heal it. Traditions, even religions traditions, do not have merit simply because they are believed for many generations.

Ahhh, now I get it. ""Religious tradition" really says it all." to you.

Except when that old idea is going up against a new idea that is equally lacking in evidence to support it. In that case one might at least give pause and reflect that the there may be something too this old idea that helped it survive. Certainly not conclusive but one must lower their expectations when weighing such "evidence impoverished" ideas against each other.

Bullshit.

Not much of a rational rebuttal.

Don't be idiotic John. it is not religion that does the fair tests, it is science and the shift in the moral Zeitgeist which is the push for reform. Religions may come to the realization that some dogma about Mary being a whore is so primitive and medieval that they drop it. Religions only use critical thinking when engaging with rival religions or other views. Islamic critiques of western Christian Aristotelian tradition led to some people thinking that there may be a third way. So in a sense, woo can sometimes debunk woo. Nevertheless, it is extremely rare for a religionist to defend atheism or agnosticism. Theologians of any creed don't want to go there. Because if they did they would have to acknowledge atheism/agnosticism as valid world views. So even if Jews, Christians, Muslims detest each other's viewpoints, they will all be of one voice when addressing atheism.