Wrong. Science requires faith in quite a few unprovable axioms, right at its core. Identity, that things are what they are, and are so consistently, being one.
No science proceeds without starting with hypotheses, the plausibility of such ultimately being true being supported, at that point, only by the equivalent of faith. To avoid the common misrepresentation, "faith" does not mean "belief without evidence", that's simply an intentionally-false statement of what theists mean by it, made by atheists, to fit a pre-built argument. "Confidence in the face of incomplete information" is an accurate rendering of what theists actually mean.
That's an opinion. The theist makes a factual claim.
Either "rock is good" or "rock is not good" is a factual claim. One or the other is true, neither is provable.
"The theist" can certainly hold the position that his belief is one of opinion, rather than fact. That is in reality the predominate stance.
Modern science is (arguably) predicated on methodological naturalism, which is quite distinct from philosophical naturalism.
The former says "since this is what science can investigate, we will proceed with that stipulation". The latter is the stance that only things science can act upon (e.g. physical matter) exist.
It's an important distinction, and well-worth reading up on in terms of the nuances--googling either term will yield plenty of material.
Occam was theist. As the best possible implementor of correct application of Occam's Razor, theism was his conclusion.
Occam's Razor says absolutely nothing about likelihood.
Occam's Razor states that the simplest model should be used, -all else being equal-, for the purposes of conceptual economy. That is the only correct inference to what "winning" per Occam's Razor means.
Any difference in evidence whatsoever invalidates the use of Occam's Razor in selecting between two or more models. I assume you consider your model to have greater evidence.
Nice post. Reasoned, articulate. Precisely the reason you were downvoted by atheists who know this in their very own minds as they downvote you. Welcome to Slashdot.
Theism does not claim there is a man living on the top of clouds that can do magic. Lying about it won't change this.
My logic is generally very good. I presume, for this case, you need no evidence for your claim otherwise.
And no, I do not "need" to do anything. You have no significance to anything, nor any possible theoretical significance. You are a Random Guy on the Internet, and your worldview allows for nothing more.
As a couple of questions you should ask yourself, though, is which genre of music is provably the best? Which political stance is provably best? What things -cannot- happen (things one might consider "magic" or "miraculous") given the permutations of possibility of quantum behavior? You have an extremely weak understanding of even the basics of epistemology, or physics for that matter.
First thing one should focus on to learn reason is logical fallacies, and the False Dichotomy, for example, "Reason versus religion", is right up toward the top.
What Dawkins et al are selling isn't reason, it's Logical Positivism, which has rather thoroughly run aground as of about 30 years ago. Not all questions are resolvable by empiricism and scientific method. Epistemology is far wider than that. Is rock music good? Prove it.
I'll get into the Reification Fallacy, that "not-X" is not something, it is nothing, regardless of what "X" is--including theism--another day.
They had an experience directly correlating with that which one would expect if consciousness were not constrained to the brain, corresponding with experience corresponding to the expectations of theistic metaphysics, rather than the random hallucinations one would expect from "general brain failure".
No, the -germane- question is whether or not there is -evidence-. That is what you are persistently evading by claims of dissatisfaction regarding whether the evidence provided is meeting what you feel like having as the criteria in your brain at the moment.
The question is whether there is evidence.
If there is quantified self-reported experience, there is evidence.
If there is scientific ("testable") evidence, there is evidence.
I submit that in this case, consciousness outside the brain is the hypothesis, death is the test, and the reported results quite meet the criteria for a scientific test. However, it is entirely unnecessary for you to agree. The former criterion clearly makes it evidence regardless.
I'll pretend your "Bigfoot" equivalency claim is something even you believe as you are stating it. Show me then your peer-reviewed study on Bigfoot, preferably written by multiple Ph.D.s and published by among the most prestigious journals of its class in Europe. I've given you mine.
You are arguing a Straw Man. Neither I nor anyone else is denying the brain is involved in consciousness. That's been known since the first caveman hit another caveman in the head with a rock. What I am arguing is that the physical brain is not -sufficient in itself- to explain known mental phenomena.
The paper says precisely what I say it does. Phenomena suggestive of an "immaterial soul" are consistently experienced during NDE's. The study quantifies them and elaborates on the specifics of their experiential nature and the medical conditions under which they occur. Again, you need to establish a basic baseline of intellectual honesty regarding definitions and content.
No, you are talking about scientific evidence, because you are compelled to go to a more restrictive criteria that isn't germane, and if provided with scientific evidence, you will find something to restrict it further, as far as is necessary to exclude it as "evidence". Fortunately, your restrictions don't actually matter in any way.
We can do a Philosophy of Science definitional dance here as to whether peer-reviewed studies are "science", but it doesn't appear it will be particularly constructive.
As you might guess, I reject that this is a "debunking" at all. Looks like mainly a tautological argument that "consciousness is only the brain, therefore any claims of consciousness apart from the brain are false".
With some Appeal to Authority and non-germane claims about "anecdotal evidence". Peer-reviewed studies are not anecdotes.
If you think you can debunk it, do so here. Handwaving a link, isn't it.
Testimony is evidence. You can argue about the relative strength of that evidence, but not whether it is evidence per se. You have the entire history of the judicial system constraining you from equivocating/weaseling out of accurate definitions.
What possible mechanism allows for copying software onto a thumb drive, executing it on another machine, then copying its "state" back? You simply need a substrate for this, and although such things as dark matter could suffice to maintain state, we do not need a specific substrate to be identified for it to be theoretically possible. Physics doesn't even know how many dimensions there are--are you prepared to say you can exclude all other mediums of data/state/consciousness?
While it's difficult to argue a stance based on analogy to an entirely different perceptual modality (and one which seems probably straightforwardly explainable by the fact the instinctual revulsion from "almost humanlike" correlates best with corpses (animated or no), and this has clear disease-avoidance advantages...
As someone holding a "doctrine", I'll note this really shouldn't be surprising at all, regardless of subject. Things resulting from "knowing just enough to be dangerous" are almost always more problematic than that which is seen as overtly wrong. Say, take Luminiferous Aether. It was "close enough" to hang around erroneously for quite some time in physics. A completely different, or obviously wrong, model likely would have been superseded much more quickly.
Recounting events that happened from the perspective of being "outside the body" while comatose is such evidence. Perceiving "from outside oneself" could arguably be a hallucination, recounting actual events requiring visual and auditory perception to know, that occurred while one was in a comatose state, could not.
I noted that my definition was open to scientific, but not definitional, objection, and here you are, informing me of what I said.
You are simply declaring it "not a valid test" on the basis of... nothing. It may not conform to your epistemological preferences, but that hardly matters.
Self-reporting is a valid indicator for phenomena of consciousness that are not easily subjected to quantification by scientific instruments. I can certainly ask for someone's self-reported stance on whether Mondays make them unusually sad, and the answer is probably accurate regardless of whether it is provable via an MRI.
As for your dog's soul, better to ask for the affirmative evidence it does exist here. We have peer-reviewed NDE studies indicating it exists, per self-reporting "eye witness" accounts, for humans. We do not have the equivalent for dogs.
"...your original claim that 'nefesh shaya' is what differentiates us from animals..."
I made no such claim. The term is not an attribute, it is a descriptor.
It is best translated as "living soul", which does indeed include humans and animals. Note that this term does not imply "immortal soul".
As I later explicitly used English for in an elaborating argument, categorizing both humans and animals as "living souls" (or "living beings") is not synonymous with stating that humans are a subcategory of animals.
Though I could probably refine it, "living beings not possessing the attribute of an immortal soul" would probably do. This could be open to scientific objections, but not definitional ones.
Note that there could be bipedal, clothes-wearing hominids included by this definition, particularly if their self-reported possession of a soul is negative. I am well aware of that.
Then, the specific "ties to reality", so we can evaluate their objective weight for a given domain. You are assuming one domain of applicability, which you have no reason to do other than, I suggest, conceptual laziness.
I'm quite well aware of the practical usefulness of the categorical system for given domains, and its status as "common sense". Neither of these is the question at hand.
I'm amazed you cannot see this as an arbitrary categorical construct.
These can be organized innumerable ways, none of which would have exclusive metaphysical "correctness".
Well, as I said, I am perfectly willing to respect your demand that you be considered an animal. There is simply no actual reason you can expand that to what "we" are. That is a freely-chosen and arbitrary preference you've made for yourself, by acceding to a practically-useful categorical system as the exclusively valid one.
I suggest reading Pirsig on Euclidian "versus" Riemann geometry for an entirely non-religious treatment of this issue, that you may find more palatable.
Slashdot Mirror
But there are zero questions resolvable by faith.
Wrong. Science requires faith in quite a few unprovable axioms, right at its core. Identity, that things are what they are, and are so consistently, being one.
No science proceeds without starting with hypotheses, the plausibility of such ultimately being true being supported, at that point, only by the equivalent of faith. To avoid the common misrepresentation, "faith" does not mean "belief without evidence", that's simply an intentionally-false statement of what theists mean by it, made by atheists, to fit a pre-built argument. "Confidence in the face of incomplete information" is an accurate rendering of what theists actually mean.
That's an opinion. The theist makes a factual claim.
Either "rock is good" or "rock is not good" is a factual claim. One or the other is true, neither is provable.
"The theist" can certainly hold the position that his belief is one of opinion, rather than fact. That is in reality the predominate stance.
Modern science is (arguably) predicated on methodological naturalism, which is quite distinct from philosophical naturalism.
The former says "since this is what science can investigate, we will proceed with that stipulation". The latter is the stance that only things science can act upon (e.g. physical matter) exist.
It's an important distinction, and well-worth reading up on in terms of the nuances--googling either term will yield plenty of material.
A few points here.
Occam was theist. As the best possible implementor of correct application of Occam's Razor, theism was his conclusion.
Occam's Razor says absolutely nothing about likelihood.
Occam's Razor states that the simplest model should be used, -all else being equal-, for the purposes of conceptual economy. That is the only correct inference to what "winning" per Occam's Razor means.
Any difference in evidence whatsoever invalidates the use of Occam's Razor in selecting between two or more models. I assume you consider your model to have greater evidence.
Just to note, it is your position that is "extraordinary" by reason of the fact theism is the significant majority and so, that's the "ordinary".
"Extraordinary" does not mean "things I personally find really improbable".
Nice post. Reasoned, articulate. Precisely the reason you were downvoted by atheists who know this in their very own minds as they downvote you. Welcome to Slashdot.
Theism does not claim there is a man living on the top of clouds that can do magic. Lying about it won't change this.
My logic is generally very good. I presume, for this case, you need no evidence for your claim otherwise.
And no, I do not "need" to do anything. You have no significance to anything, nor any possible theoretical significance. You are a Random Guy on the Internet, and your worldview allows for nothing more.
As a couple of questions you should ask yourself, though, is which genre of music is provably the best? Which political stance is provably best? What things -cannot- happen (things one might consider "magic" or "miraculous") given the permutations of possibility of quantum behavior? You have an extremely weak understanding of even the basics of epistemology, or physics for that matter.
There's not the slightest evidence to support one religion's claims vs. another's...
No, this is completely false.
Peer-reviewed, supporting in its evidence a rather restricted subset of religion's whose after-death predictions are what is experienced.
Strong relative differences in success at future prediction again subset which are most plausible.
You will claim this is "not evidence". It will remain evidence after you do so.
First thing one should focus on to learn reason is logical fallacies, and the False Dichotomy, for example, "Reason versus religion", is right up toward the top.
What Dawkins et al are selling isn't reason, it's Logical Positivism, which has rather thoroughly run aground as of about 30 years ago. Not all questions are resolvable by empiricism and scientific method. Epistemology is far wider than that. Is rock music good? Prove it.
I'll get into the Reification Fallacy, that "not-X" is not something, it is nothing, regardless of what "X" is--including theism--another day.
They had an experience directly correlating with that which one would expect if consciousness were not constrained to the brain, corresponding with experience corresponding to the expectations of theistic metaphysics, rather than the random hallucinations one would expect from "general brain failure".
...nothing to see here.
Stop directly lying.
No, the -germane- question is whether or not there is -evidence-. That is what you are persistently evading by claims of dissatisfaction regarding whether the evidence provided is meeting what you feel like having as the criteria in your brain at the moment.
The question is whether there is evidence.
If there is quantified self-reported experience, there is evidence.
If there is scientific ("testable") evidence, there is evidence.
I submit that in this case, consciousness outside the brain is the hypothesis, death is the test, and the reported results quite meet the criteria for a scientific test. However, it is entirely unnecessary for you to agree. The former criterion clearly makes it evidence regardless.
I'll pretend your "Bigfoot" equivalency claim is something even you believe as you are stating it. Show me then your peer-reviewed study on Bigfoot, preferably written by multiple Ph.D.s and published by among the most prestigious journals of its class in Europe. I've given you mine.
You are arguing a Straw Man. Neither I nor anyone else is denying the brain is involved in consciousness. That's been known since the first caveman hit another caveman in the head with a rock. What I am arguing is that the physical brain is not -sufficient in itself- to explain known mental phenomena.
Not the least of which is the whole range of everyday phenomena within the scope of the Mind-Body Problem.
The paper says precisely what I say it does. Phenomena suggestive of an "immaterial soul" are consistently experienced during NDE's. The study quantifies them and elaborates on the specifics of their experiential nature and the medical conditions under which they occur. Again, you need to establish a basic baseline of intellectual honesty regarding definitions and content.
No, you are talking about scientific evidence, because you are compelled to go to a more restrictive criteria that isn't germane, and if provided with scientific evidence, you will find something to restrict it further, as far as is necessary to exclude it as "evidence". Fortunately, your restrictions don't actually matter in any way.
We can do a Philosophy of Science definitional dance here as to whether peer-reviewed studies are "science", but it doesn't appear it will be particularly constructive.
As you might guess, I reject that this is a "debunking" at all. Looks like mainly a tautological argument that "consciousness is only the brain, therefore any claims of consciousness apart from the brain are false".
With some Appeal to Authority and non-germane claims about "anecdotal evidence". Peer-reviewed studies are not anecdotes.
If you think you can debunk it, do so here. Handwaving a link, isn't it.
Testimony is evidence. You can argue about the relative strength of that evidence, but not whether it is evidence per se. You have the entire history of the judicial system constraining you from equivocating/weaseling out of accurate definitions.
What possible mechanism allows for copying software onto a thumb drive, executing it on another machine, then copying its "state" back? You simply need a substrate for this, and although such things as dark matter could suffice to maintain state, we do not need a specific substrate to be identified for it to be theoretically possible. Physics doesn't even know how many dimensions there are--are you prepared to say you can exclude all other mediums of data/state/consciousness?
Jesus said, "A city being built on a high mountain and fortified cannot fall, nor can it be hidden."
--Thomas
Because, whenever people have disagreements within a subject, whatever it is, that means everyone is wrong.
This is basically the same issue as canonicity. What you think you know about it, you're wrong.
While it's difficult to argue a stance based on analogy to an entirely different perceptual modality (and one which seems probably straightforwardly explainable by the fact the instinctual revulsion from "almost humanlike" correlates best with corpses (animated or no), and this has clear disease-avoidance advantages...
As someone holding a "doctrine", I'll note this really shouldn't be surprising at all, regardless of subject. Things resulting from "knowing just enough to be dangerous" are almost always more problematic than that which is seen as overtly wrong. Say, take Luminiferous Aether. It was "close enough" to hang around erroneously for quite some time in physics. A completely different, or obviously wrong, model likely would have been superseded much more quickly.
No.
Recounting events that happened from the perspective of being "outside the body" while comatose is such evidence. Perceiving "from outside oneself" could arguably be a hallucination, recounting actual events requiring visual and auditory perception to know, that occurred while one was in a comatose state, could not.
Here's one source.
While you're at it, out of curiosity, what do you think the bible's stance on 401K plans and stock options for workers should have been?
Oh, that would be an impossible anachronism economically, you say...?
I noted that my definition was open to scientific, but not definitional, objection, and here you are, informing me of what I said.
You are simply declaring it "not a valid test" on the basis of... nothing. It may not conform to your epistemological preferences, but that hardly matters.
Self-reporting is a valid indicator for phenomena of consciousness that are not easily subjected to quantification by scientific instruments. I can certainly ask for someone's self-reported stance on whether Mondays make them unusually sad, and the answer is probably accurate regardless of whether it is provable via an MRI.
As for your dog's soul, better to ask for the affirmative evidence it does exist here. We have peer-reviewed NDE studies indicating it exists, per self-reporting "eye witness" accounts, for humans. We do not have the equivalent for dogs.
"...your original claim that 'nefesh shaya' is what differentiates us from animals..."
I made no such claim. The term is not an attribute, it is a descriptor.
It is best translated as "living soul", which does indeed include humans and animals. Note that this term does not imply "immortal soul".
As I later explicitly used English for in an elaborating argument, categorizing both humans and animals as "living souls" (or "living beings") is not synonymous with stating that humans are a subcategory of animals.
Here is an early Google hit which brief review indicates I'm in agreement with.
Finally, a reasonable and pertinent response.
Though I could probably refine it, "living beings not possessing the attribute of an immortal soul" would probably do. This could be open to scientific objections, but not definitional ones.
Note that there could be bipedal, clothes-wearing hominids included by this definition, particularly if their self-reported possession of a soul is negative. I am well aware of that.
Then, the specific "ties to reality", so we can evaluate their objective weight for a given domain. You are assuming one domain of applicability, which you have no reason to do other than, I suggest, conceptual laziness.
I'm quite well aware of the practical usefulness of the categorical system for given domains, and its status as "common sense". Neither of these is the question at hand.
Couldn't ask for a more appropriate respondent here.
I'm amazed you cannot see this as an arbitrary categorical construct.
These can be organized innumerable ways, none of which would have exclusive metaphysical "correctness".
Well, as I said, I am perfectly willing to respect your demand that you be considered an animal. There is simply no actual reason you can expand that to what "we" are. That is a freely-chosen and arbitrary preference you've made for yourself, by acceding to a practically-useful categorical system as the exclusively valid one.
I suggest reading Pirsig on Euclidian "versus" Riemann geometry for an entirely non-religious treatment of this issue, that you may find more palatable.