Steve wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Sure, science can talk about causes of death. But it doesn't address why we are in this lousy setup to begin with. I don't want to die. Yet everyone does. If science doesn't have an answer for why the world is set up this way, I'm going to talk to others and find out what they know.

Just a simple comment. Death is what makes life precious.

Are you asserting that life is precious because it will END with death, so we must get out of it what we can? If so, how do you know that (i.e., that life will end with death)?

Steve wrote:
Without death life has no value.

Are you saying that if we didn't die, that life would not have value, because it wasn't time limited? If so, why do you say this, and how do you know this?

Steve wrote:
Science doesn't do "why" it does "how".

Yes, which leads one to look for other ways of knowing things. Science only provides some answers, and often these are not to the most pressing questions, in my view.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Steve wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Sure, science can talk about causes of death. But it doesn't address why we are in this lousy setup to begin with. I don't want to die. Yet everyone does. If science doesn't have an answer for why the world is set up this way, I'm going to talk to others and find out what they know.

Just a simple comment. Death is what makes life precious.

Are you asserting that life is precious because it will END with death, so we must get out of it what we can? If so, how do you know that (i.e., that life will end with death)?

No - I mean you cant have one without the other. They are like poles in electricity. That is a metaphor, by the way. Don't test it as actual truth. Here:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Steve wrote:
Without death life has no value.

Are you saying that if we didn't die, that life would not have value, because it wasn't time limited? If so, why do you say this, and how do you know this?

If we don't die we don't live. We don't even get to exists as we can't stop existing. The whole life - death dynamic becomes changeless. Hence life is valueless.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Steve wrote:
Science doesn't do "why" it does "how".

Yes, which leads one to look for other ways of knowing things. Science only provides some answers, and often these are not to the most pressing questions, in my view.

"Why" answers are not knowledge, they are understanding. "How" questions give knowledge.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Steve wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

I am equally (and perhaps more) interested in what others on the forum think about "other ways of knowing". As I said, I'm looking for common ground as the basis for discussion.

OK, in my book (not that one) an essential bit of knowing is dealing with consilience. That is where independent paths of inquiry point toward the same explanation. Some paths may be very convincing, but if they are not supported by other paths of inquiry they can't be accepted. Almost all the information surrounding the age of the earth and evolution has absolutely massive amounts of consilience.

That book (the bible) has been largely shot full of holes as an explanation of anything. There are some good parts concerning how we should behave toward each other, and these find consilience in other spiritual texts like the Bhagavad Gita and the Dhammapada. Those parts make up what some call the perennial philosophy, but a god is not part of that consilience. It boils down to pay attention, don't do harm, care for others as much as yourself.

What I am saying is "other ways of knowing" is really just pursuing independent lines of inquiry and then comparing notes and accepting that the truth, such as we recognize it, will not be contradicted by an accurate understanding of any of them. The benefit is this allows us to identify and throw out misunderstandings, misleading beliefs etc.

Thanks for this Steve. I find it helpful, and it advances the discussion. I will not attempt to respond in any detail yet, but will come back to this when I focus on this topic. We of course, disagree on the relevance of the Bible, and the consilience regarding evolution and age of the earth, but that goes without saying, given my position. All three are multiple book length topics, but hopefully some interesting dialog can be had on them eventually.

I do not see how you wish to be a prisoner, a slave to your beliefs, especially beliefs established without reason or evidence. Because that is what the bible is: a book of claims. If you believe that god gave you a brain, then surely the purpose of the brain is to use it? No offense intended or desired. I simply wish to be frank.
Knowledge does set one free. Real knowledge. Real knowledge is not the myths and stories of the bible or some other "holy" novel. Knowledge is gain with effort, skepticism and intellectual honesty. These means attacking ideas and claims without mercy. Mere belief is not enough. That is why books like the bible make the tree of knowledge, and the snake anti-heros. The doubting Thomas is held in contempt. WHY? Because any honest thinking about these stories leads one to disbelieve them.
There is no virtue in deliberate ignorance, but that is how religions operate. Why do creationists ignore good reasoning and good evidence that their myths are untrue? Because they believe ignorance is virtue. They prefer to believe in the fantasy of talking snakes rather than the hard-won science that illuminates the world.
But if these science deniers were REALLY honest, they would not drive cars, fly in aircraft, or use computers, because these things are creations from science, and can never comes from fables and stories. Real effort is required, not the 'busy-work" of prayer.
And how much more fascinating and beautiful our world is when we understand how it works. That is the gift of science, it not only increases our knowledge, but fills us with a greater appreciation of our origins. And with this new knowledge, the human race has the potential to grow, to leave primitivism behind, and become a more noble species.
Just look at the history of religious ideas. Hierarchical, undemocratic structures, bigotry of many forms including sexism, disease as a "sin" of the sufferer. And so on. And although there were theists who objected to such vicious dogmas, it was science that debunked such absurd notions.
The immense irony of all this is that one need not be realist about science. One can and should have the right to entertain silly notions. But that right is only within our OWN heads. The PUBLIC utterance of religious false "knowledge" is almost always harmful. Because people who don't respect scientific findings, people who put myth over fact, create conditions for the corruption of science. For example, the religious Republican rights attacks on science at Congressional level. The teaching of creationism in schools as science has to be fought again, and again and again in the courts of the USA [and indeed around the world].
People do abuse science. Science is an intellectual tool in the same way a spanner or knife is a physical tool. So people can use or abuse science. But religion, while sometimes doing good, really does poison most things in life.

Most get past the "wishful thinking" stage around age 7.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:...
8. The Twelve Steps
9. The Bible

That's enough for one post. I am curious about what others may think about which of these methods can provide information that is true and of universal applicability? This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but hopefully is some sort of start. I don't have a predetermined answer to the question about "ways of knowing". Also, some of the above may be specific instances of something more general.

I will reply today as I find time but a complaint. This juxtaposition has done us all a great ill. Don't do that please. The steps are an invented list of guidelines created in a few evenings by Wilson and if he could he would be the first to tell you he was flying fast and pridefully by the ass of pants. These steps were meant to loosely describe the process by which a hundred drunks changed their lives with sufficient force to overcome alcoholism.

Most people here would like your positioning. They hate AA. As an atheist whose life depends on these steps, I do not appreciate the placement!

I believe I overlooked this post previously, and for that, I apologize. My inclusion of the Bible after the 12 Steps was not deliberate. It may have been subconscious. I am truly glad that you have found the 12 Steps useful, and appreciate your willingness to say so among peers that may not be supportive. The list was intended as a first attempt at providing examples of other ways of knowing besides science, nothing more.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Are you asserting that life is precious because it will END with death, so we must get out of it what we can? If so, how do you know that (i.e., that life will end with death)?

A cockroach is living yes? Go squash it. Is it dead? Does it have an afterlife? Really.

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:...
We have been discussing the "immaterial", as reflected by thoughts and feelings, as an indicator of things which are not subject to the scientific method. We have also discussed "other ways of knowing", that science can't provide. I think both of these are relevant as background for any discussion of anything, but certainly to both evolution and creationism. It is difficult to have an argument, if we can't find some common foundation to argue upon.

Does science tell you how to take your first step? First bowel movement? First crush? Other ways of knowing!

So what?

In our discussions in this thread, there has been an emphasis on having a verifiable, rigorous method to demonstrate the supernatural (including repeatable, verifiable tests that always have the same result, for example). I am challenging the idea that the only important things that we know are established by such methods. You appear to agree that science, or the scientific method, is not what you have used (or only what you have used) in important areas of your life.
...

Your challenge is confused. The results of your challenge will then be more confused.

Somehow I overlooked this post. I apologize.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
First, 'knowing' is ill defined. You are all over the place. Knowing is a big subject.

Yes, it is. I am interested in knowledge that is of universal applicability. I would call this "truth", and would see this as the same for everyone. This is also referred to, I believe, as "absolute truth". There are many areas of knowledge. Some areas that would be included under the category of having universal applicability, in my opinion, are:

Morality
Religion
Mathematics
Human relationships (a subset of morality, which also includes our relationships with God and the rest of the biosphere)
Certain aspects of science (periodic table, observed planets, observed stars, observed geological formations, observed plants and animals, etc.)

Areas for which we strive for as much truth as we can achieve, but must simply do the best we can, would include

Scientific theories (gravity, quantum theory, various scientific laws, relativity, evolution, etc.)
Historical events and dates
Political systems
Engineering

This is not intended to be exhaustive, but to illustrate. I realize not everyone may agree on what should be included where, or even on the ideas of truth, or absolute truth, but I simply present my view.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
My way of knowing about knowing is through neuroscience. It's the only way to know about knowing. There is no other way. Not if you want real clarity and understanding.

I am sure that neuroscience has value to add. But I wonder if we are simply talking about different things? The areas I have listed above do not necessarily require an understanding of neuroscience, as far as I can tell.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Second, you are implying a caricature where I either don my lab coat and get out my test tubes OR find some 'other WAY of knowing'. You are setting up a false dichotomy. In all the things I mentioned above, including sobriety and forgiveness, I use all that I have learned and being a bit of a scientisimist, I use science to check my factuals. While AA tried like hell to help me understand my powerlessness over uppers and alcohol it was the neuroscience of dopamine and the reward system that finally got through to me.

Certainly, where science can be brought to bear in a meaningful way, I think it can be quite helpful. But from a practical viewpoint, I don't think that most people learn how to relate to others by studying science. They learn it, as best they can, in the families they grow up in. Some of the things they learn help them survive that experience, but do not work well in the work place, or other adult relationships, and they must learn new things, from somewhere. Other friends, self-help books, church, etc.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Now when it come to the existence or reality of Lyndale avenue I use something common, something that spawned the scientific method, I go over there and look, and touch, and drive, and then I defer to hearsay as to it's history and name. I don't pray or rely on my heart. I Google Map the thing!

Yes.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Now you have this sense of god talking to you. That's fine. I know exactly what you mean and how it feels, being a praying atheist. The difference 'tween you and I is that when it comes to trying to figure out what that 'voice in the heart' really is, in factual terms that can be believed in, you use the voice itself and I use neuroscience to try and map it out.

Well, I take it on faith that it is the Christian God. The topic of hearing from God is an important one, but beyond the scope of this thread, other than to state it as a possible "way of knowing", without offering evidence for it.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Until I find some very good model for it that is verifiable, I choose not to give it the same existence status as Lyndale avenue and Uncle Mike. It's some shit that happens in my head when I do x, until such time.

The nice thing about the practice of prayer, as I practice it, is that it works to give me the desired result, without my believing in anything at all. I call that REAL faith. Doing what works without knowing exactly how it works.

Yes, I would call that real faith.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Now I am developing a bunch of ideas about how that works so let's not be asking me how it works right now. I have ideas and I need more cortical diagrams before I get to a theory. That avenue will get us nowhere.

I am not going to knock something that is working for you.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
This is our difference. I'm guessing guys like me that are trying to explain prayer, belief, and hugging a child with neuroscience are the greatest enemy that your church has right now. Heh.

It seems to me you are looking at things that are truly important. I hope you find out things that are useful. If they contradict my beliefs, we cross that bridge when we get there.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
Neuroscience also has some hope of explaining 'hugging' a child in that special Catholic priest way. (sorry couldn't resist that one)

I think the church has clear teachings on the (im)morality of this!

SpeedOfSound wrote:
So.
-Knowing is sloppily defined and you are confusing yourself. Or worse trying to snow us or yourself.

Perhaps you can comment on my definition of knowing, and indicate whether it clarifies what I am talking about. I have no desire to snow anyone. Or confuse myself or anyone else.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
-You present a false dichotomy between using either science or all the other ways of knowing. A caricature.

It would be useful to me if you could illustrate something I have said that presents this false dichotomy, and break it down.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
-You are conflating things that are best supported by common sense and science, such as Lyndale avenue, with a host of other things, Again confusion over knowing.

To me, Lyndale avenue is not the kind of thing I am thinking about. I find human relationships more meaningful as an area of discussion, when we are trying to distinguish where science is our primary way of knowing, and where something else is.

SpeedOfSound wrote:
The existence of an actual supreme intelligence is in no way like acquiring wisdom about living with others. Actual things require actual proof.

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you saying that the existence of an actual supreme intelligence requires actual evidence? I don't think I would disagree with that, but I may be misunderstanding you.

Look here Mr Wilberforce1860, at an earlier successful attempt to dissect god's porpoise:-

Ray, J. (1671). "An Account of the Dissection of a Porpess, Promised Numb. 74; Made, and Communicated in a Letter of Sept. 12 1671, by the Learned Mr. John Ray, Having therein Observ'd Some Things Omitted by Rondeletius." Philosophical Transactions 6(69-80): 2274-2279.
http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 2274.short
FREE
http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 4.full.pdf

HTH.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:...
8. The Twelve Steps
9. The Bible

That's enough for one post. I am curious about what others may think about which of these methods can provide information that is true and of universal applicability? This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but hopefully is some sort of start. I don't have a predetermined answer to the question about "ways of knowing". Also, some of the above may be specific instances of something more general.

I will reply today as I find time but a complaint. This juxtaposition has done us all a great ill. Don't do that please. The steps are an invented list of guidelines created in a few evenings by Wilson and if he could he would be the first to tell you he was flying fast and pridefully by the ass of pants. These steps were meant to loosely describe the process by which a hundred drunks changed their lives with sufficient force to overcome alcoholism.

Most people here would like your positioning. They hate AA. As an atheist whose life depends on these steps, I do not appreciate the placement!

I believe I overlooked this post previously, and for that, I apologize. My inclusion of the Bible after the 12 Steps was not deliberate. It may have been subconscious. I am truly glad that you have found the 12 Steps useful, and appreciate your willingness to say so among peers that may not be supportive. The list was intended as a first attempt at providing examples of other ways of knowing besides science, nothing more.

I think the twelve step program I am involved with makes it very, very clear that it is NOT a 'way of knowing' rather it is a way of accepting that we don't know shit and it could well be that there is no way to ever know shit. Stark contrast with the dogma-babble.

Shrunk wrote:Like the Lance Parkin article describes, the question of how life originated is as challenging for us to answer, today, as the question "Where does the sun go at night?" was to our ancestors. Once they they tried adressing the question with science, rather than theology, the answer turned out to be quite simple and useful. I'm willing to bet science will best theology in answering the question of the origin of life, as well. It's certainly made a lot of progress in recent years, as Cali shows, while theology seems still stuck in the rut of the "answers" it provided millenia ago.

I think the Lance Parkin article is making a slightly different point? - that in the early days, the idea that there was a god pulling the sun across the sky was actually a good, in modern terms, scientific, one, given the evidence available:

Lance Parkin wrote:I admire the people who came up with the story of the Sun Chariot. They were trying to explain the world, and their explanation made sense of the empirical evidence. They were extrapolating what they knew and saw. These were not stupid people, they were extremely smart people tackling huge, huge problem. It’s amazing they even worked out where they might begin to try answering. I don’t hesitate to call them wrong, I don’t take the view that they were right in their own way, but they were wrong for the right reasons. They were thinking in what we’d arrogantly call a ‘modern’ way – looking at the evidence. They were wrong.

These people believed in gods without needing "other ways of knowing"; the ordinary evidence they had led reasonably to that conclusion, in the same way that the far greater amount of available evidence now leads to the conclusion that gods are an entirely unnecessary hypothesis. Those early theists were as wrong as theists are now, but unlike modern theists they were not actively ignoring common sense and ordinary ways of knowing.

Dawkins makes the same point in the first chapter of The Blind Watchmaker, where he emphasises the huge amount of evidence for some designer in the biology of the natural world, before spending the rest of the book pointing out that all of this evidence is now evidence for evolution by natural selection. Dawkins stresses that people like John Ray (an early member of the Royal Society - Darwinsbulldog links to one of Ray’s articles above) were convinced theists whose considerable knowledge of biology supported their working belief in a divine Watchmaker. John Ray did not need to close his eyes to ordinary scientific evidence in favour of “other ways of knowing” to be a theist in the seventeenth century, but, as Wilberforce1860 is demonstrating in this thread, that is exactly what theists have needed to do since 1859.

As far as I can tell, the “other ways of knowing” are either the kind of thing that underlies the ways we think (for example: induction, or the bases of logic, or Theory of Mind) which may still be controversial but at any rate provide no evidence whatsoever in favour of any god, or, alternatively, they are the kind of evidence that modern theists themselves would reject in other contexts (if someone announces that they hear voices in their head telling them to kill someone, does Wilberforce1860 really think god and not mental disorder?).

Wilberforce1860 wrote:...

Too long to quote so use the link feature.

What I get out of this is a conciliatory "yes science can help but the average man is too dumb... blah blah".

That is a bit of a shift from your original posts. A goal post moving. Science can help you select your computer too and the average guy depends on other methods of knowing which one to buy. So what?

You seem to have a purpose in separating ways of knowing from one another. You seem to want to make your classification deeper than it should be. The dichotomy. The cutting of things apart. You do realize that some things die when cut to pieces right? To be clear I do not separate science from other ways of knowing. To me there is human knowledge and it is all connected in a continuum.

You also have this interesting style of not knowing what I am talking about when I present the flaws in your arguments. But you manage to do it with that calm smiling christian know-it-better-than-you condescension. Do they have a training program for you guys?

Anyway. Why don't you cut to the chase? Let's say there are ways of knowing that are separate from scientific knowledge. What then?

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Yes, it is. I am interested in knowledge that is of universal applicability. I would call this "truth", and would see this as the same for everyone. This is also referred to, I believe, as "absolute truth". There are many areas of knowledge. Some areas that would be included under the category of having universal applicability, in my opinion, are:

Absolute truth is not something I think meaningful.

Look at though shall not kill for instance. Pretty simple right? But in the bible you will find a lot of killing going on by god, his evil twin, and by man. Much of it seems to be considered just. It's all relative. Even in the bible. So what is the absolute truth to you on this killing subject? What have your other ways of knowing told you about this?

To be fair, if you read between the lines of what the Hokey Blurble actually says, it's pretty clear that it defines 'murder' as killing other Jews. You could kill heathen pretty much with impunity and it was OK.

hackenslash wrote:To be fair, if you read between the lines of what the Hokey Blurble actually says, it's pretty clear that it defines 'murder' as killing other Jews. You could kill heathen pretty much with impunity and it was OK.

Yeah but Hitler had a hell of time with that business of deciding what was a pure Jew. They had formulas for it but they were never quite certain about them. Granted he was working from the other side on all of this.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Steve wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Sure, science can talk about causes of death. But it doesn't address why we are in this lousy setup to begin with. I don't want to die. Yet everyone does. If science doesn't have an answer for why the world is set up this way, I'm going to talk to others and find out what they know.

Just a simple comment. Death is what makes life precious.

Are you asserting that life is precious because it will END with death, so we must get out of it what we can? If so, how do you know that (i.e., that life will end with death)?

First of all, science does have an answer for why we are in this setup. It's called "the laws of physics". I suggest you spend time studying them, instead of wasting your time with apologetics websites that have nothing of substance to offer.

Second, I'm not aware of any evidence that life carries on after death. The graveyards of the world provide rather a lot of evidence that it doesn't.

Since all the observed facts point to finite life spans for living organisms, it makes sense to regard those finite life spans as a very good reason to put them to constructive use.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Steve wrote:
Without death life has no value.

Are you saying that if we didn't die, that life would not have value, because it wasn't time limited? If so, why do you say this, and how do you know this?

If death wasn't an issue, then we could put off all manner of things to a later date that we can't put off if our lifespans are finite. This should be an elementary concept to alight upon.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

Steve wrote:
Science doesn't do "why" it does "how".

Yes, which leads one to look for other ways of knowing things. Science only provides some answers, and often these are not to the most pressing questions, in my view.

Since when has mythology ever provided any real answers? It's provided plenty of assertions, but assertions are not answers.

I realize I am a bit behind. I will try to answer a post or two or three in the days ahead, as I work on re-entry after being gone for almost two weeks. In reading through earlier posts on the thread, to re-orient myself to what we have discussed, I have noticed some that I may not have responded to previously. Eventually I hope to work forward to page 25, where I left off before I went on vacation. Your patience is appreciated.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I get that you tried it. When you read it in Plato, did you think, hmm, that makes sense? Was he expressing something that you immediately agreed with because it matched your own experience? Would you credit Plato with informing you in some useful way? Do you believe he expressed something that is universally applicable?

Like a lot of things; That from Plato rang true, not merely because it coincided with my personal experiences, but because over the subsequent two millennia that has been confirmed time and time again. The interesting thing was to read that someone had thought that so long ago.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The issue is "ways of knowing" other than the scientific method.

A concept I don't think you understand.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Agreed. You cannot answer it "yes" or "no" unless you concede the implied assumption.

ADParker wrote:
Your question "why I should have to die, when I don't want to" includes some kind of presupposition that there is a "why", that there is some reason and intent behind it. The most basic response to this is "Why do you assume that you should be immortal?"

No. I know I am not mortal. And I know what I want. And it is not to die. Why do I want not to die? Because I am perfectly happy to go on living. This doesn't seem complicated, or contradictory in any way to me.

Now, there may be a reason why I can't be immortal. But I haven't been told what it is. You are saying, well, you just can't. You shouldn't have assumed you could be immortal in the first place. I don't happen to think your answer is helpful, because you haven't told me why I can't or shouldn't be immortal. You've just told me I shouldn't assume it. That seems to me to be a blind assertion. You don't really know if I should be immortal or not.

You shouldn't assume that you should be immortal without some reason to do so. To assume anything without some reason to do so is by definition irrational (and no; by "reason" I do not mean "because I want to be" )

I'm not sure why you rule out the one meaningful reason for immortality, given that the desire to go on living is not unique to me. There is Ponce De Leon searching for the Fountain of Youth. There are innumerable products designed to make people look and feel younger. There are people who use cryogenics to freeze loved ones in hopes of cure for a disease, or some other way to extend life. There are millions, if not billions, of people who believe in an afterlife.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:
A simple answer in evolutionary biology is that "evolution doesn't care what you may want" (It can't because evolution isn't a sentient being ) so there is no real reason to expect anything such as human immortality to arise.

Your simple answer appears to say nothing more than "you will die". It doesn't seem to explain anything. You seem to be attempting to answer the question by saying "Don't ask it". Your answer seems to assume that evolution explains why I am here in the first place. Evolution begins with the assumption of life. So it seems to me that it doesn't attempt to explain why life is here. Why should it be able to explain whether life should be immortal?

That simple answer says more than "you will die", it explains why you should not expect things to occur how you would personally prefer them to.
And evolution doesn't explain anything, please stop confusing evolution for the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution does explain why you are here in the first place, "why" in terms of explaining what brought that about, not some naive egotistical notion of you being here for a purpose.

The basic questions of journalism are who, what, when, why, where. A journalist doesn't accept "what" as a substitute for "why". I'm not sure why you do, but equating "what" with "why" does not seem to me to advance the discussion.

ADParker wrote:
You weren't the first life on earth, so that "assumption of life" thing is just silly. And no the ToE does not begin with the assumption of life, it begins with the fact of the existence of life. No the ToE does not explain "why life is here" (better framed as "how life first arose"),

How life first arose, in the sense of some as yet undefined mechanism, says nothing whatever about why it arose. Neither abiogenesis nor evolution explains that.

ADParker wrote:
that is the remit of abiogenesis research. Which has a great deal of interesting information revealing that there really is no reason to expect anything more than the already understood facets of nature/reality, no magic required.

Abiogenesis is not the topic of this thread, so I won't go into that, other than to say, I disagree with your optimism about how well the current thinking on abiogenesis explains anything. On what do your base your assumption that we will be able to explain abiogenesis with the "already understood facets of nature/reality"?

ADParker wrote:
Perhaps you should just get over your "should" fixation?

Somehow I lost the context for this question.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:
Most living organisms break down over time, deal with it and try to get over it. The universe doesn't owe you anything so stop expecting it to furnish you with your desires.

This seems like a blind assertion. Why should I believe the universe doesn't owe me anything? It already provides me with a great deal. Why only that? Why not more?

Ego much?

As far as I can tell, the most important organism to most of us is our own selves. Being concerned about what will happen to me, and why, is quite natural.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:
Contrary to your claim; science does have an answer for why the world is set up that way. There's a lot to it of course because it is natural unguided processes and interactions of matter from fundamental particles to all the complex combinations thereof, not some simple little children's story of a magical man with a plan.

What is the answer for the origination of life? Is there one, from science alone, that does not leave a number of things unexplained? You don't seem to me to have answered a question simple enough for a child to ask "Why do I have to die?". Indeed, I did ask it of myself as a child. So, why should I look to science for this particular answer?

Not surprising that you asked it as a child. It is after all a childish question.

According to whom?

ADParker wrote:
But go ahead look to the sciences, and whatever else you like for the answers. The question is though; how do you assess and evaluate the answers you get?

You try them and see if they work.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:
Go ahead and talk to others and find out what they claim to know. But don't assume that they know any better than the scientists, and ask how they worked it out and, compare that to the innumerable man hours in the critical collection and assessment of data that the scientists put in. And tell me who's answer is better.
Not what answer you like better!

If the scientists don't have the answer, the number of man hours invested doesn't really matter.

So basically you choose to ignore the findings of science unless they give you simplistic little doctrine like "this is it" answers?

Surely, you don't think that science can provide all the answers? I think you've said as much. There are many areas where you don't look to science for answers. Recognizing the limitations of science is not that hard.

ADParker wrote:
Then you are out of luck; Honest reason based people don't give those kinds of answers; liars and manipulators do.

It seems that you are saying that these "kinds of answers" don't exist. And thus, the only people who provide them are liars and manipulators. That seems to be a rather broad generalization.

ADParker wrote:

But as I said; what really matters is what the claims rest upon, the evidence and rational support.

Certainly. Although not all answers, and not all decisions, are based on reason, and yet, can be quite valid.

I am going to go ahead and post these responses at this point, and head to bed. I will address the rest of this post in my next response.

I am a dddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaddddddddddddd squshed cockroach.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I'm not sure why you rule out the one meaningful reason for immortality, given that the desire to go on living is not unique to me. There is Ponce De Leon searching for the Fountain of Youth. There are innumerable products designed to make people look and feel younger. There are people who use cryogenics to freeze loved ones in hopes of cure for a disease, or some other way to extend life. There are millions, if not billions, of people who believe in an afterlife.

Wishing that something was the case has no effect on whether it can, let alone must, be the case. To think otherwise is just another private form of woo that children grow out of, usually by about age 8. When you receive preaching that you should remain child-like in your outlook on such matters, and you believe it, that's when they have you where they want you.

i don't see how you can possibly be 'behind' in responding to replies you receive in this thread as you claim at the beginning of the quoted post. Your selective inattention to the replies which you don't like is a way of avoiding lots and lots of work, should you ever have been interested in addressing the issues raised. You're not otherwise selective in responding; you more or less keep repeating yourself. The questions you avoid would require you to change your tune, which I call, 'the one-note samba'.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:How life first arose, in the sense of some as yet undefined mechanism, says nothing whatever about why it arose. Neither abiogenesis nor evolution explains that.

You've been informed that your why questions simply assume that there is a purpose to existence. If you think about that in the context of my response to your remarks on immortality, you'll discover that you're simply wishing that there is purpose. You're badly over-estimating your capacity to turn patterns you impose on what you see into wishes-come-true. That is the fundamental narcissism of all god-bothering.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:As far as I can tell, the most important organism to most of us is our own selves. Being concerned about what will happen to me, and why, is quite natural.

I think you more or less know what's going to become of you, and are busily wishing that away. Have fun. I know I do, and without all the baggage on mortality you're evidently carrying around. I know that if you had other things you thought relevant when talking to atheists, you would. In the meantime, saving souls is what's important, and you're just squirming around here trying to avoid sanctions for preaching.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Recognizing the limitations of science is not that hard.

You have to love the bias inherent in this phrasing. Recognising the remit of science is not that hard.

This is a continuation of my response to a post by ADParker (#306, on page 16).

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Yes, scientists do have a lot of answers I like. Some of them I disagree with, but a great many I do like. Explaining why I believe as I do is not my purpose in this thread. I am trying to determine what you and Calilasseia and others think about the world that we both agree on. The issue here is simple. Where do you go for answers that science does not provide. There are many beyond "Why do I have to die", although that rates pretty high in my book.

It sounds more and more like you accept the answers that fit in with your current belief set, and reject those that do not, without any assessment of their actual relative values.

At present I would suspect we might disagree on the relative values assigned.

ADParker wrote:
But fine; Where do I go for answers that science does not provide? It depends on the contexts and questions. I look all over though, and do my best to assess the value of the sources, and the value of their information (what evidence they have for their claims etc.), the former becomes important when I can not fully assess the latter; are they trustworthy sources?

Yes, I agree, that makes perfect sense. We may disagree on what would be included in "trustworthy sources".

ADParker wrote:
"Why do I have to die": I've looked all over about the nature of human longevity etc. and that of life in general (from which I learned of the immortal jellyfish; God's favorite perhaps?) And the current best answer I have (because as a reasonist I understand and appreciate that all understanding is tentative pending further information) is that there is no magical reason why I have to die, but it is a simple fact of nature that our bodies have limits and things like cell regeneration only take us so far (Around 120 years is about our limit all other factors notwithstanding), and that the evolution of our genetic structures naturally works around the continuation of the genes, and as a result there is no reason to evolve and maintain survival features beyond the point at which we have reproduced.

We die because we die. And thank goodness, we can reproduce. It lets our progeny continue to ask the same question! I'm afraid my answer to this question violates the Forum User's Agreement. But I respect the agreement, so I won’t go into it.

ADParker wrote:
Which also neatly explains why in humans (and other species as well) detrimental effects tend to increase exponentially from that point on (age related conditions, loss of things like good eyesight etc) It's a loooong story, but the thing is that it all ties in so beautifully.

Yes. A tale I find more tragic than beautiful. There is enough beauty to highlight the tragedy.

ADParker wrote:
I don't see anything even close to approaching that in mythologies such as the one you subscribe to.

Your answer is sad, and mine hopeful.

ADParker wrote:
And if like you I was the sort who would not be satisfied with an ultimate simple answer then my 'answer' would be "I don't know (but am of course interested in finding out)". Not "I don't know so will latch onto this cult that asserts it has the answer, without offering a shred of evidential support". Because that would be stupid.

That would depend on what you will accept as evidence. Perhaps you and I have different criteria there.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Where can I find out more about this?

Look into the history of science.
How for example it came from philosophy. The development of empiricism, most famously "British empiricism"; Locke, Berkeley and Hume, as a counter response to Rationalism. How it developed into "Natural philosophy" and eventually "Science".

I've lost the context for this question and your answer.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Does science tell me:

1. How to comfort a child that is afraid of a thunderstorm?
2. How to convince a child there are no monsters under his bed, so that he/she can fall asleep?
3. How to convince a woman I am in love with to marry me?
4. How to forgive someone who has hurt me?
5. Tell me why to forgive someone who has hurt me?

Who cares if "science" tells you those things?! Do you honestly think anyone looks to scientific papers and so forth for them?! Don't be daft.

I am glad to see we agree on this!

Who but a complete idiot wouldn't?!

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:
Reason however is the most reliable tool we have to best understand them, to understand anything. And it is that that also happens to be the underpinning of science as well. BECAUSE IT WORKS.

What else tells you any of that?

Could you explain reason's answers to the above questions?

(I am simply trying to identify your "ways of knowing" other than science, and the questions above are simply examples of things that most people find answers to that are not provided by science. I am looking to reach some kind of agreement, if possible, on these other ways of knowing.)

Reason isn't like a religion; a set of doctrines and claims of knowledge. It is a method, as such it is not so much about claiming to have answers, but searching for them, and invariably resulting in a line of shifting "best approximations we have thus far".

I don't have a "way of knowing" because I don't pretend or assume to know anything (in any absolute sense) beyond perhaps a few things that are purely conceptual (mathematics, formal logic, things like that.)

My way of searching for understanding and knowledge is basically the same as the foundations of science; observation and reasoning. Which involves taking in any sources one can find, but assessing them before taking them on board. It's not rocket surgery Wilberforce1860, it is pretty much what most (but the hopelessly indoctrinated) do, the main differences being their skill and efforts in their efforts.

So, what are the sources that you have found useful?

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:The topic at hand is world view, or the absence of world view. It is understanding how you and Calilasseia and others look at the world, to find a common ground for discussion. I am raising questions that science does not typically provide answers for, and asking your opinion on where else you, or others, might go to get those answers. This is important because it affects the arguments used, depending on the subject being discussed. I would be interested in your answers, if you wish to provide them, because it would tell me more about how you view things.

Everyone has a worldview Wilberforce1860. Some are not as institutionalized or dogmatic as others is all, meaning one can't 'explain' it in a word or two.
The world view both Calilasseia and I share is at it's basis plain to see in the name of this very forum; reason based skepticism. In that we prefer to rationally assess anything before we consider accepting it as true, or even likely to be true.

Our "grounds for discussion" is reason and evidence. If you can engage on that level then there is hope for common ground, otherwise you are just wasting everyones time. Because we are not going to forgo reason, as to do so would be (by definition) irrational, and that way lies madness and credulity.

Certainly I would never suggest forgoing reason, although there is more in this world than reason.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
You have identified reason as an aid for the questions I asked above. If you could provide your straightforward answers to some of those questions, it would better explain your view. At present I can see how reason might be some help in answering the questions I've asked, but not everything is answerable by reason alone, is it?

To even suggest "reason alone" implies that you don't understand reason to begin with. As I have already said; reason best operates as a governing, guiding influence, of all the streams of data that we receive (and actively seek out). It is about what you do with the data you have.
Simple answer to your questions, I'm not going to discuss them specifically, this thread is enough of a continual side track already: Of course I am going to apply reasoning to such questions; what the most likely truth of the matter is (are there likely to be monsters under a child's bed?) plus the psychology and capacity to understand of the child. Being ever so slightly involved in early childhood education, and interacting with a diverse number of young children, I am painfully aware that there is no one simple answer that works for all children. Commonalities yes, but one single path; no.

I hope you are not afraid of giving a wrong answer, or one that others might criticize. There is no wrong answer here. This is a common situation that parents face (among many, many others, some quite perplexing). My simple answer to this is:

I would try to reassure the child, possibly staying with them long enough for them to go to sleep. Since, depending on age, the fear is likely to be irrational, trying to convince them otherwise might not work, although it might. The most important thing is to demonstrate love and caring. Depending on the child, their age, what else is going on, etc., a wide variety of responses might be appropriate, including stop fooling around and go to sleep!

The follow-on question is - where did you (or I) learn how to respond? For this and a great many other questions about relationships, we learned in our families of origin. So one source of many answers is simply our own families. That is a "way of knowing". It is usually imperfect, but it is what we have to work with, and tend to use, unless it just isn't working for us. Then, if we are fortunate, we start looking in some other places, and hopefully find something that does.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I disagree with your characterization of faith as belief in spite of the lack of a reasonable foundation.

Here is a definition of faith from dictionary.reference.com:

faith. noun.
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

If you look at definition 1, it is confidence or trust in another person or thing. That would not be without foundation. It would be based on your experience with that thing. At first you may not know whether you can trust it (will that bridge bear your weight)? But once you find you can, then you have faith in it. The same is true of people. And in my experience, the same is true of God.

Because I fucking hate equivocation I reject any use of that first usage (dictionaries provide usage). That is "trust". I do not have faith in my wife, I trust her through.

This statement seems contradictory. You don't have faith in your wife, but you trust her. And yet faith and trust are often used as synonyms, as in the above definition. How do you distinguish faith from trust?

ADParker wrote:
As for God; to have faith in it, to trust it I would first need a bloody good reason to think it exists for a start. And I seriously doubt your trust in God is reasonable, as I doubt there is any good reason any of the things on which you base your belief actually involved God at all.

That's another discussion beyond the scope of this thread. I hope to go there, at least for a time, eventually.

ADParker wrote:
Which is like trusting someone you have never met, based solely on hearsay and mis-attribution of unrelated events.

It depends on your confidence in the people you hear the "hearsay" from, as well as your confidence in the testimony of the witnesses to the relevant events. Most of the things we know are based on authority (teachers, textbooks, news, periodicals, etc.).

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Where we may disagree is what we would like to see demonstrated before making a trial of faith. For example, would you simply look at the bridge, say to yourself, I think that will bear my weight, and then try it? Or would you prefer to watch someone else do it first? Or have an engineer give his assessment? We may also disagree over what kind of evidence or demonstration is possible, or makes sense, before making the trial of faith. But all of us do these things many times in our lives.

Even after all of that (which would depend on the specifics of the case) I would still test it. For example by testing how it takes my weight step by step. No faith required. Even my trust is tentative and with an understanding of my having imperfect information, and based on reasoning, inductive etc.

At some point, though, you may be taking a risk. You may not realize it. You may have overlooked something. Or an unfortunate event like an earthquake may turn a good decision into a bad one. Even with reason and logic there is an element of risk, a requirement to select a course of action with incomplete information. You put your trust in your decision making ability and hope for the best. This seems very much like faith to me. The faith may be in your decision making ability, rather than a higher power, but both risk and hope are present.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:There is quite a bit that is not understood about the cell. Here is one reference to five mysteries (as of 2011):

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/cellbio2011/

Unfortunately, you have to pay to read the articles. My apologies for not having time to come up with something better. The mysteries mentioned are:

Do Lipid Rafts Exist
How Does a Cell Know Its Size
How Does the Cell Position Its Proteins
How do Hungry Cells Start Eating Themselves
Does a Gene's Location in the Nucleus Matter

Another reference, that discusses the complexity of mapping genotype to phenotype (genes to traits) is here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/genotype-phenotype/

This one you can read.

That's nice. Not remotely relevant, but nice.

It is relevant to our lack of certainty about one of the most basic building blocks of life, namely, the cell. This has implications for abiogenesis (how can we be confident that have identified a path for abiogenesis, when we don't fully understand the target)? It has implications for evolution (how can we be confident that we have identified a path for evolution, when we don't fully understand the starting point)?

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Can science explain how the first cell came to be?

The first cell? That's awfully specific, given that all actual evidence shows that it was a process of emergence, not of something suddenly popping into existence ex nihilo or suddenly coming together from fundamental particles and atoms or something equally ridiculous and the stuff of religious myth.

I take that as a no.

Of course you do.

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

ADParker wrote:
Again; do you have a point? Is your religion's fairy tale of a magical super being just magicking complex multicellular lifeforms with a snap of his supernatural fingers somehow rendered plausible if the real answer has not been "proven" yet?

How close are we to the "real" answer? Will we ever know?

Purple monkey dishwasher.
I can respond with irrelevant nonsense as well. But I guess you feel proud of yourself for 'neatly' avoiding the question.

The plausibility of God as an answer seems to me to be directly related to how well the world conforms to what he has revealed about himself and human history. On this point I suspect you and I disagree. Which is ok.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:It seems to me that science can never completely model reality, as there are many questions, as well as practical every day issues, that science doesn't help much with (see questions above).

Quite possibly correct (at least given that our species will probably be as finite as ~99% of all others have been). Doesn't change the fact that it has proven itself over and over to be by far the best model maker ever known in human history. I could go on to list philosophy as the second, and religion a distant third and last. And just guess in which order those three arose in human history.

What is all this blather about science not having all the answers ready and set? Do you think that somehow raises your 'method' somehow automatically? Or is it just one big red herring attempt to steer everyone away from looking upon your religion and its many many flaws?

As I have said before, because science is not particularly relevant to many practical issues of life, it is only one corner of life's sandbox. It is useful for certain kinds of knowledge, and certain kinds of arguments. But there is more out there (you've mentioned philosophy and religion), and sometimes those are more relevant. The purpose of discussing worldview is to ascertain what other sources of knowledge, or ways of knowing, you have confidence in, to better address arguments on those kinds of topics.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
I think science has some answers. It does not appear to me to have all of them, and there are many examples where it doesn't seem applicable. Human relationships, which seems like one of the most important to me, isn't really addressed. Nor do I think science is the best way of understanding that. The question is, do you agree, or disagree, and if so, why?

No one even suggested that science has all the answers. Science is a search for knowledge, not a claim of already having it.
I've already addressed this ad nauseum. You are the one fixating on (professional) science, not me.

Curiously, for having addressed it "ad nauseum", you haven't even attempted simple, straightforward answers to these five simple questions:

1. How to comfort a child that is afraid of a thunderstorm?
2. How to convince a child there are no monsters under his bed, so that he/she can fall asleep?
3. How to convince a woman I am in love with to marry me?
4. How to forgive someone who has hurt me?
5. Tell me why to forgive someone who has hurt me?

I believe that straightforward answers to these questions will shed light on the world view, ways of knowing, and sources of knowledge, beyond science, that whomever might answer them would hold. Are you willing to give it a try?

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:What seemed rational was his statement "Because I hate the idea of this life being all we get." Which is another way of saying "Why do I have to die"? This motivates a search. It does not imply an answer has been found. If this was indeed his only reason for believing in God, it would certainly be incomplete. But it might motivate him to learn more about God and take a step of faith, to see if it worked.

What confused nonsense!
Good old theistic apologetics though: Trying to twist an answer to claim it is a question. This counts as another strong indicator that you may not be worth arguing with for much longer.

I am wondering where the confusion lies. All answers have implied questions, don’t they? Otherwise, what are they answers to?

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
Well, if you really think your life would be better if you had all the money and means to do whatever you wanted, when you wanted, I won't argue with you.

What is the crazy part?

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:

The same way you have suggested. You try them to see if they produce the results you want.

That''s at least sort of right. You try them to see if the produce reliable results, it is not about what you want (unless of course what you want is reliable results, results best approximating and in line with reality.) In other word you assess all of your so called "other ways of knowing: by seeing if they are in line with the one "way of knowing" that I have espoused; rational assessment. Meaning that these so called "other ways of knowing" dissolve into that "one way of knowing".

Goodness. You seem to claim that “rational assessment” is the only way of knowing something. The problem is that reason needs something to work on. Either facts, or accepted suppositions. I’m trying to get below the surface here. Where observable material facts may not be available, but questions exist, then some other basis for our knowledge is needed. We can still apply reason to it, but the basis for the knowledge itself is not necessarily subject to reason. Take the integers as an example. Typically, mathematicians don’t attempt to develop these from (some other) assumptions, but take them for granted. A self evident truth, if you will. Then theorems and other applications are built on this basis. Now, it is conceivable that there may be something flawed in the initial assumption. In that case, the contradiction will eventually come out, and the assumption may need to be re-visited. But without making an assumption, no journey is possible.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
There is a lot about Christianity that is not particularly comforting in this life. If comfort was what I sought, I don't think I would have chosen it. I am very interested in the truth, and in real answers to questions, not just false comfort.

That's alright, I'm used to those who are still Christians not getting it. And this typical confused response, as if they think I am talking about more universal comfort rather than what I actually said. they tend to jump on the word "comfort" without really bothering to read what was actually being said to them about it, the context.

I must be confused, because I have no idea what you are talking about.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:Could you explain how you apply it to some of the questions I asked above?

I'm having trouble taking you seriously now.

Perhaps you could elaborate.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
You mentioned that you sometimes operate on instinct when you don't have time for rational thought. Isn't that a "way of knowing"? Where does that come from?

No. No it is not.
Where does it come from? A number of sources; some of it through evolution, essentially 'coded' into our gene. (nature). Some learned in growing up (nurture), and more from experiences collected over time.

When you say “No it is not”, am I correct in assuming that you are saying that “instinct” is not a “way of knowing”? But you then go on to elaborate on the sources of instinct (“we are born with it – which you attribute to genes and evolution”, “nurture (from our families)”, and “experience”). All of which I agree with (other than your conclusion that evolution is the source of what we are born with). In what sense are these not “ways of knowing”?

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I find that how I feel about something (rather than what I might arrive at by rational thought), is often my best guide to action.

What you find is of next to zero interest to me. And as I have said; gut reactions etc. tend to work to an extent when applied to those areas in which people commonly sense/experience. You are conflating the results with the means of obtaining the results.

From your previous statements it seems you view reason, or rational thought, as the “means of obtaining the results”. Yet reason must work on something. It appears to me that you are somehow seeing reason as the “only way of knowing”, rather than as one vehicle to knowledge, which must always begin with something else. I am interested in the things on which reason must work.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:I feel that I like that person and would like to get to know them better.
I don't feel safe in this neighborhood. Let's leave.
That music lifts my spirits.

Wow! Not bothering with this trivial nonsense.

In what sense is this trivial?

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:
I don't have the impression that you believe in a god or gods. But perhaps there is atheism, and there is atheism. When I was an atheist, I believed that there wasn't any god. I didn't take the agnostic position, which leaves the door open, maybe. I would think that an atheist would subscribe to metaphysical naturalism, but you don't, subscribing rather to methodological naturalism. You seem open to a rigorous methodology that would demonstrate the existence of the supernatural, though you think such is unlikely. These may or may not be important distinctions. I just don't want to misunderstand you, or misrepresent your position.

There is not "atheism and there is atheism". Atheism means not-theism; that's it, end of story.
If one believes that there wasn't any god, or more reasonably (not with a bit of a fixation on monotheism) that there aren't any gods, then that is something beyond one being an atheist. Being an atheist no more means that one believes that gods do not exist than being a theist means that one is a Christian (or Muslim, or...).
I always take the agnostic position, because the gnostic position is one of certainty, of believing that one knows. And I don't claim to absolutely know anything beyond the purely conceptual (and even most of that).
A fair amount of atheists share some common ground, because they are atheist for similar reasons. But those similarities spring from those reasons, not their atheism.
I'm not all that open to their being a "rigorous methodology that would demonstrate the existence of the supernatural" at the moment actually, because I have yet to hear a halfway decent definition of what "supernatural" is supposed to mean.

Thanks for elaborating on this. I find it helpful.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote:It is not my intent to offend. I do it simply out of respect to God. I have no desire to indoctrinate, or imply by my punctuation that you should believe something, or feel victimized.

Again with the notion of offense. This often stems I think due to most religions being far too emotion based (which is possibly one reason why you can't seem to properly grasp the problem with the appeal to consequences fallacy). Plus a perhaps habitual way of avoiding addressing the points made, by addressing you imagine to be my emotional state instead of what I said. If anything ; it is that which I would be offended by, if I had any better expectations anymore.
I didn't suggest that you have any intent to indoctrinate, but that you are inadvertently furthering your own indoctrination. you have it backwards; you are the victim here, not me. I just find it daft, and would find it laughable if it wasn't so sad.

It seems you are disturbed by my continued indoctrinating of myself, rather than my (subconsciously) perpetuating that indoctrination, and possibly influencing others? Or perhaps both? I am quite comfortable with what I believe and how I express it. It has never occurred to me that merely expressing what I believe, or the way in which I express it, would be viewed as self indoctrination, or indoctrination of others. I view each of us as having our own lens, or filter, and that we evaluate what others say accordingly. Your view that I somehow “self indoctrinate” myself is completely foreign to me. I decided to become a Christian. That was the point of indoctrination, if you will. I have been learning progressively more about what that means since then. You could view that as continued voluntary indoctrination. But I don’t see things in those terms. I decided I wanted a relationship with God, and chose the Christian approach. I found what I was seeking, and have continued in that relationship ever since. Part of that relationship is learning more about what God expects of me, and about what parts God does, and what parts I do, as I attempt to follow him. You could call that indoctrination. I call it getting to know someone.

ADParker wrote:

Wilberforce1860 wrote: Is it acceptable if I simply capitalize God?

Do what you like. But yes you should capitalize "God" when using it as a proper noun (a name). Well of course; it is being used as a placeholder for the real name, because as you know; your god's name is not to be spoken (or written) as if it (which includes all of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet) were spoken then that would cause the universe to be destroyed.

My version of that is to capitalize God, or pronouns referring to God. Not because I fear some consequence, but out of respect and fondness for the person, much as one might capitalize Dad when referring to their father.