Evidence for God

AMCrenshaw said:

How again have I debased "facts" or "utility"? By saying they're not the whole picture...

Click to expand...

By arguing in-principle that what we do know is less important (useful, effective, reliable, common, needful) than it is.

Rationalists and mystics both agree that there's more truth than we know. But in a rational world, stories don't invalidate facts. So a mystic may say 'well, they're just facts, they're not the real story' -- in an attempt to elevate their preferred story to be more credible than fact.

But facts are necessary and beneficial. If we ignore them, we suffer. And less reliable than facts or stories are mystics and their processes themselves, for reasons I've already explained. As one doesn't trust one who's never held a job to run an economy, there's no basis for someone who works hard at maintaining rational discipline to trust a person of purely mystic bent to say what truth and evidence ought to be.

[That's a general comment, AMC -- not a personal one. Not every mystic is of purely mystic bent.]

Ruv Draba said:

By arguing in-principle that what we do know is less important (useful, effective, reliable, common, needful) than it is.

Click to expand...

I've never made such an argument. Rather my argument was that poetry doesn't inherently exclude "what we do know" by its nature. That poetry can include what's important with what's significant, if you follow me.

But facts are necessary and beneficial. If we ignore them, we suffer.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. But to be honest, we generally suffer even when (especially when) we know the facts.




AMC

AMCrenshaw said:

poetry can include what's important with what's significant, if you follow me.

Click to expand...

Sure. Poetry communicates well. But it can also distort, misrepresent and outright lie. Here's the question: outside the realm of rational empiricism, how can we tell for sure when poetry is messing with us? How can we agree on that question?

If you believe as I do that we can't, then poetry owes any sense of common truth to rationality.

to be honest, we generally suffer even when (especially when) we know the facts.

Click to expand...

Of course. But 'least we got flat-screens to watch them on.

How can we tell for sure poetry is messing with us using rational empiricism? If we use rational empiricism to tell if a poem is messing with us...aren't we restricting what the poem can say to what the rational empiricist asks of it?




AMC

AMCrenshaw said:

How can we tell for sure poetry is messing with us using rational empiricism?

Click to expand...

If we believe that there's no way to say if the poem is speaking objective truth (and outside sporadic use of rational empiricism I think we can't), then truth isn't something we can talk about with respect to poems.

And if we believe that mysticism minus magic is poetry, then the same must be true there too. We can go to the Oracle at Delphi and she can recite verses but whatever we make of them is on us, as per CG's reference to reader response theory: even they happen to look prophetic that doesn't mean she was prophesying.

Or put another way, if there's no way of testing truth in poetry then evidence is not something we can sensibly talk about with respect to mysticism, and science is therefore never going to 'prove' mysticism true.

And as a corollary, if we don't believe that we should tell one another what to do without evidence (e.g. to verify our credentials and illustrate what we mean) then mystical belief must remain personal. It's not something one can safely dictate, and it may not even be ethical to do so.

If we believe that there's no way to say if the poem is speaking objective truth (and outside sporadic use of rational empiricism I think we can't), then truth isn't something we can talk about with respect to poems.

Click to expand...

What can we get out of a poem if we "test it for truth" using rational empiricism? Is that impossible to consider without an example? Is it possible to read the poem on its own terms? Or shall we be as literalistic as possible and be satisfied when the truth-claims are found out to be false? In order to investigate the truthiness of a poem you have to make a decision right off the bat about what will decide truth for you. What will provide evidence? How is that determined? Well, as you see, the rational empiricist limits the possible picture from the start.




AMC


eta: how did we get telling ourselves what to do to telling others what to do? neither scientists nor mystics should wake up to find their jobs have become telling others what to do. the job of the politician is not what the scientist or mystic is equipped to do.

AMCrenshaw said:

What can we get out of a poem if we "test it for truth" using rational empiricism?

Click to expand...

In general, I'm not sure. A rational, empirical truth-test requires that we agree on terms. If a poet is willing to explain his poem them we have a hope. Or if we propose an interpretation and the poet agrees then that's just as good. But if the poet, like Eliot, refuses to explain the poem and the poem itself is sufficiently ambiguous, then what's the point of truth-testing it? The best we could do is test what we think the poem means, which is inconclusive.

But like all literature, poetry is principally entertainment. It may also offer reflection, insight, inspiration and so on but we read poetry for the joy of it, so truth isn't a primary concern in poetry.

In mysticism though, it is. Being mysterious for entertainment has some ethical value. But being mysterious and calling it wisdom, insight or higher truth raises a bunch of ethical questions. So when I say that
what I'm saying is that I treat it as entertainment that may occasionally offer insight. I don't treat it as a headspring of great truth.

Here's a simple proposition: if the mystic won't explain his pronouncements clearly enough to be accountable for his failures, then he doesn't get credit for his successes either.

how did we get telling ourselves what to do to telling others what to do?

Click to expand...

In my experience, mystics most often like to do it by proxy:

You should follow Master Skysong... he's dreaaaamy. You're so clever, I'm sure you'll get exactly what he's saying.

So, what is he saying?

Well, it's complicated. But it's fabulous!

I think it's frothy crap.

Well then, I can only pity you!

[Sorry. I'm ranting now. ]

Well the thing to remember about Eliot is: You can't read the same poem twice.

AMCrenshaw said:

Well the thing to remember about Eliot is: You can't read the same poem twice.

Click to expand...

You can't, I'm sure; perhaps I can't either. But some folk read for familiarity and not novelty.

I'm sure that has something profound to say about mysticism and mainstream religion too, but in the interest of not being accountable for my pronouncements, I've decided to leave it Mysterious and Enigmatic.

What you wrote was clear enough to me.

AMCrenshaw said:

What you wrote was clear enough to me.

Click to expand...

Nah. That's just the Arrogance of Rational Empiricism. Even if you disprove me, you'll be Wrong because you won't know what I Really Said.

Indeed, I was making a joke.




AMC

If you see Buddha on the road, kill him.

(And by extension: give mercy to no pedestrians.)

Bartholomew said:

If you see Buddha on the road, kill him.

Click to expand...

And why should you kill him?



AMC

Ruv Draba said:

By arguing in-principle that what we do know is less important (useful, effective, reliable, common, needful) than it is.

Rationalists and mystics both agree that there's more truth than we know. But in a rational world, stories don't invalidate facts. So a mystic may say 'well, they're just facts, they're not the real story' -- in an attempt to elevate their preferred story to be more credible than fact.

But facts are necessary and beneficial. If we ignore them, we suffer. And less reliable than facts or stories are mystics and their processes themselves, for reasons I've already explained. As one doesn't trust one who's never held a job to run an economy, there's no basis for someone who works hard at maintaining rational discipline to trust a person of purely mystic bent to say what truth and evidence ought to be.

[That's a general comment, AMC -- not a personal one. Not every mystic is of purely mystic bent.]

Click to expand...

This seems to me like looking a a fraction of an M.C. Escher work and seeing it as linear, familair, and rational. Or a snipet of a Bach fugue. But when viewed or listened to as a whole, a larger, incomphrensible picture, or muscial piece emerges. One that does not fit into our normal concepts of reality. After all the universe is really a dance of waves of energy according to science, but we seen it as a physical place. Transcendant Reality.

I am a skeptic. I am not certain of anything. Let me be clear. And let me defend myself from the pot shots you took at me a page or two back (i.e. your intrepretation of magickians, your word, not mine).

Is the concept of some elemental spirit, say Ujoil, reprehensible to the reasoned intellect? Of course, it is. It's dogmatic bullshit. But. Sometimes, when you invoke Ujoil, stuff happens. Stuff you wanted to. In my belief, the ritual and dogma simply allow a person to reach the mental state where we can change reality with our minds. I believe that science has not found out why yet. They may never. Once again, because that mental state requires a suspension of disbelief, just like a work of fiction. Worhtless? Few here would say that fiction is worthless. Good fiction changes you, and thereby changes the world. Magick and mysticism are like this.

I have an open skeptism. Some here, operating from the concept that science can explain everything, are showing a closed skeptism. That is all.

Diana Hignutt said:

Thi let me defend myself from the pot shots you took at me a page or two back (i.e. your intrepretation of magickians, your word, not mine).

Click to expand...

Di, you are not the first practitioner of magick I have ever spoken to, nor did you invent the term. Any problems that I have with magical thinking long preceded any discussion we've ever had on the topic. There's nothing personal in it at all. I'm sure you know that I think well of you, but something that many people believe in, which you also happen to believe in, concerns me. It would do so whether you were talking about it, or someone else were.

In my belief, the ritual and dogma simply allow a person to reach the mental state where we can change reality with our minds.

Click to expand...

I'm not the oldest person here, but I'm far from the youngest. For no reason I can fully understand, I've had a lot of mystic friends in my life. Many of them believe that they can either anticipate reality, or change it with their will -- though not all mystics believe in magic as magic. I've had friends who are into Thelemic philosophy, I have neopagan friends, friends who think they're psychic, I know professional astrologers and so on. They have all been without question interesting, creative, sincere, sensitive, decent, generous and often courageous people.

In my esteem though, not one of them can do magic worth a spit, and I've had opportunity to form such views because they've tried to make it happen in my presence (I didn't ask them to; that's just how they roll). But they are very good at telling themselves stories. And that doesn't surprise me because being the kind of obnoxiously inquisitive soul I am, I've looked into magic around the world, and see the same patterns to it: confirmation bias, unrealistic expectations and a tendency to see personal significance in coincidence that happen to everyone sometimes. When I look at people who've made life-studies of trying to get to the bottom of this, I see rigour in the investigation, and an explanation that is far more plausible: people are kidding themselves. I can also see how an average person can easily kid himself if he wants to believe in magic. I don't think it's shameful; I just think it's very easy and that magic is a bit like conspiracy theories: once we start looking for evidence of it, I think it takes some serious discipline for us not to trip over false positives.

My personal view? Some minds just think in terms of magic. Nearly everyone does at around age 4-7, and some people just retain that youthful, creative view of things. In fact some people get better at constructing magical stories the older they get. As far as I can tell it does little harm unless and until people routinely start making important life decisions from it, and then (at least from what I've seen), it stunts people... makes them hesitant, fearful and unconfident. Or sometimes, unrealistically optimistic.

And here I'm not at all talking about you but about numerous people I've known pretty well, who reached a point where they wanted to grow, but were so trapped in a paradigm of waiting for the Cosmos, the guru, or their own emotional state to give them permission to take a step that it never happened at all. Or they wasted their time and courage taking incautious steps badly managed.

It's natural then that I fear for anyone whose confidence rests on a belief in magic. That doesn't give me the right to tell you what to do or think, but I shall (to the extent I can respectfully and constructively do so in this very interesting forum), say what I think and what I have seen.

I believe that science has not found out why yet.

Click to expand...

Science so far rejects that there's even a phenomenon called 'magic' to explain, because nobody has managed to bring repeatable, inexplicable 'my will over reality' phenomena to test under clinical conditions, without they are sent away again with their beliefs in tatters. So this is not a 'Science baffled' headline. It's a 'WTF are you talking about' headline.

I have an open skeptism.

Click to expand...

I see no sign that you even have doubt, much less skepticism, Di. A skeptical position is 'false until proven true'. The position you seem to hold is 'true but inexplicable'.

I'm not sure what a 'closed skeptic' is, or how I'd defend myself from the allegation (or even if I want to). But if you'd like a skeptic whose receptivity is beyond question, you could try James Randi. Present your claims to him and if you can prove them, you win $1M from his Foundation, and you'll probably spend the rest of your life giving talks and signing sponsorship deals. (Not only that, but I'll send you a case of decent Australian red wine in contrition for my hubris.) If you can't though, he gets to publish the results with your name attached, and I for one would take no pleasure at all in that.

Ruv, but, but...you ignored the best parts of my post. The Escher stuff. You've gotta, at the very least, stomp all over that. Please?

It seems a lot like pessimism vs. optimissim view of reality, which I may mention is entirely subjective to each of us.

We can each look at the same event, and you might say coincidence or randomness, and I might say magick or God.

Does science know (anyone) or explain randomness in any manner?

ETA: (Also, mainly to Ruv) I can not demonstrate anything to Randi or anyone else, as I have previously mentioned due to certain vows taken, and to the very nature of the art. If I have James Randi hanging over me, I'm sure I would not be able to obtain the proper mental state anyway. And, further, why should I?

To know. To dare. To do. And to keep silent.

Ruv Draba, and Diana, what would you guys say about Alan Moore? He believes in magic, (or rather magick, if that makes a difference) and is very serious about it. But he is also highly dubious about the supernatural. He believes that magic effects our perception and our beliefs and if we master it we can gain power over ourselves and others. The masters of magic are authors and artists. He brings into question what it is those who label themselves atheists really believe. Very interesting fellow. I certainly think he's onto something. And he's already proven to the world he's a genius, so it's hard to brush him off without taking him, at least a little bit, seriously. I think he's fantastic.

I don't think it's possible to see the world as it really is, ie objectively. We're stuck with metaphors, similes and patterns.... and try to cram it into a brain optimised for judging the ripeness of bananas. That's a problem regardless if we label ourselves religious, atheistic or just plain weird.

DrZoidberg said:

Ruv Draba, and Diana, what would you guys say about Alan Moore? He believes in magic, (or rather magick, if that makes a difference) and is very serious about it. But he is also highly dubious about the supernatural. He believes that magic effects our perception and our beliefs and if we master it we can gain power over ourselves and others. The masters of magic are authors and artists. He brings into question what it is those who label themselves atheists really believe. Very interesting fellow. I certainly think he's onto something. And he's already proven to the world he's a genius, so it's hard to brush him off without taking him, at least a little bit, seriously. I think he's fantastic.

I don't think it's possible to see the world as it really is, ie objectively. We're stuck with metaphors, similes and patterns.... and try to cram it into a brain optimised for judging the ripeness of bananas. That's a problem regardless if we label ourselves religious, atheistic or just plain weird.

Click to expand...

I think you make some great points. And, I love Alan Moore. I believe, much as you describe, very similarly to his beliefs. However, don't forget the genius and madness are close cousins, and I'm certain Ruv won't be impressed by the genius believes it so it must be so. That's an appeal to authority argument. I am a HUGE Watchmen fan, but I was not aware of Moore's interest in magick.

Diana Hignutt said:

I think you make some great points. And, I love Alan Moore. I believe, much as you describe, very similarly to his beliefs. However, don't forget the genius and madness are close cousins, and I'm certain Ruv won't be impressed by the genius believes it so it must be so. That's an appeal to authority argument. I am a HUGE Watchmen fan, but I was not aware of Moore's interest in magick.

Click to expand...

He's a total wizard with his own little coven and everything. His girlfriend is some sort of sex magick high priestess, or something. None of their rituals assumes or depends upon anything supernatural. That's an unfortunate assumption militant atheists like to make. It's unfounded.

He doesn't give a lot of interviews. I haven't seen anything on-line. I saw some interview with him way back in a comic book called "Alan Moore's exist interview" or something like it. In depth about his entire career. He's featured in a few documentaries, most notably in "The Mindscape of Alan Moore". I recommend looking at it. The main focus on the documentary is his views on magic. I suspect it'll be right up your broom-stick.

edit: Before pressing send I thought it was pertinent to search for interviews with him just to not make a complete fool of myself. Well, there's even a web-page devoted to this one subject. In my defence I'll say that this wasn't here when I checked in December.

http://www.alanmooreinterview.co.uk/

Wow! What a great interview. Thanks So much Dr. Z. Now I like Alan even More (moore, get it.)

ETA: Many points in the interview are very relevant to this discussion.

this was the particular interview you had in mind, right, Doc?http://anamnesis.nl.eu.org/Alan-Moore-Interview-The-Idler-februari-1998.html

Diana Hignutt said:

Wow! What a great interview. Thanks So much Dr. Z. Now I like Alan even More (moore, get it.)

ETA: Many points in the interview are very relevant to this discussion.

this was the particular interview you had in mind, right, Doc?http://anamnesis.nl.eu.org/Alan-Moore-Interview-The-Idler-februari-1998.html

Click to expand...

I think so. There's also a follow up to that... or that's the follow up. It's a two parter anyway, with about a ten year gap between interviews. For us who have followed his career, it's fascinating to follow how his thought evolves over the years.

Diana Hignutt said:

Ruv, but, but...you ignored the best parts of my post. The Escher stuff. You've gotta, at the very least, stomp all over that. Please?

Click to expand...

It was a metaphor, but about what? I can't really critique it unless I understand what it's meant to mean. So I left it all unstomped.

It seems a lot like pessimism vs. optimissim view of reality, which I may mention is entirely subjective to each of us.

Click to expand...

If you said skepticism vs idealism we'd be in scary levels of agreement again.

We can each look at the same event, and you might say coincidence or randomness, and I might say magick or God.

Click to expand...

It's a little more complicated than that, because if you're going to call some events magick or God then I'll ask that you evaluate other events for magick or God.

And I don't say 'randomness', except with glazed eyes and waved hands. I don't actually know what 'randomness' means, except in a sort of antihuman ('take your hands off the steering-wheel') fashion.

Does science know (anyone) or explain randomness in any manner?

Click to expand...

What do you mean by random? And what does it mean to 'explain' it? (Serious question)

ETA: (Also, mainly to Ruv) I can not demonstrate anything to Randi or anyone else, as I have previously mentioned due to certain vows taken, and to the very nature of the art. If I have James Randi hanging over me, I'm sure I would not be able to obtain the proper mental state anyway. And, further, why should I?

Click to expand...

One of the favourite excuses of magic is the 'jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam today' excuse. If you wanted to prove something to Randi I'm sure you could get around your own objections. For instance, find a competent fellow practitioner who is not subject to your vow (they might even split the money). Run a series of tests to show statistically significant change (if the change isn't statistically significant then what change is there?) Run a series of double-blind tests so you wouldn't know if James Randi were hanging over you (in fact, as a pre-test, he asks you to do this with academics, lawyers, teachers or other professionals).

And why should you?

Well if you were a scientist you would. Firstly, because even highly trained, you'd doubt your own independence and methods. Secondly, because others might know more than you. Thirdly, because you'd most likely be devoted to the idea of truth for everyone not just yourself. Fourthly, there'd be cash and fame and grants and grad-students and it'd unquestionably help your writing career. Lastly (and most importantly for anyone with a science gig), it would definitively win arguments and kudos from skeptical coots like me.

To know. To dare. To do. And to keep silent.

Click to expand...

You're being silent? This must be telepathy then!