tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post588587132840456980..comments2023-06-14T10:33:15.008-04:00Comments on Shilton HaSechel שלטון השכל: Where To Begin?Shilton HaSechelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11445959470426455186noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-77242445920807041502013-07-17T21:54:30.352-04:002013-07-17T21:54:30.352-04:00Begin with: Everday experience is no supernatural ...Begin with: Everday experience is no supernatural or miracles, so people who believee in such need to prove it.<br />OJ then tries gematria, Kuzari, kelemen, gottleib, etc: and you then explain why those arguments fail. You then use all the evidence against OJ you can find in the sciences and academic displines bible crit, archeology, history etc: that demonstrates falsehood of OJ. Then show immorality of torah.<br />A GREAT RESOURCE IS DAATEMET, Talkreason, Talkorigins<br />Convincing people of the falsehood of Cargo Cults is very very hard.anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-54918612506043318422010-08-20T07:02:45.417-04:002010-08-20T07:02:45.417-04:00That's an interesting question. For me, the mo...That's an interesting question. For me, the moral questions were probably the most influential in that they tormented me for years. I have to say that they provided the MOTIVATION to turn skeptic.<br /><br />But they weren't enough until I was able to recognize the internal consistencies. I did have an ethical consciousness, but I didn't feel that it was valid.<br /><br />So objectively the moral issues are actually a huge strike against Bible, but on a subjective level, its effectiveness hinges on the mental freedom of the reader to exercise their own judgement. <br /><br />The final straw was comparison to other repressive faiths.<br />But once again, a person has to be ready for that. I read the exact same book a few years a part (about the psychological control exerted by a non-Jewish religious sect). The first time I read it, I gloated how superior Judaism was that that sect. Only a few years later could I intuitively recognize how so the same it was.Kisaritanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-24972598314462410632010-08-19T08:12:10.686-04:002010-08-19T08:12:10.686-04:00>is only going to affect an person with a relat...>is only going to affect an person with a relatively well developed ethical consciousness.<br /><br />We're not supposed to have ethical consciousness. The Torah IS our ethical consciousness. I have to admit that I was never bothered by the immorality of the Bible till late into my skepticism (even the genocide) simply because I knew no other type of morality.Shilton HaSechelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-31129513864444866982010-08-19T06:27:09.148-04:002010-08-19T06:27:09.148-04:00Likewise, the morally outrageous stuff in the bibl...Likewise, the morally outrageous stuff in the bible, is only going to affect an person with a relatively well developed ethical consciousness.Kisaritanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-52231200611289120882010-08-18T23:48:57.627-04:002010-08-18T23:48:57.627-04:00The internal inconsistencies played a big part in ...The internal inconsistencies played a big part in my skepticism too. The proffered solutions were just.... corny. My problem is although I knew that I felt that the provided answers were corny kvetches how do I define that feeling. <br /><br />Are apologetics/kvetches inherently corny or are they only corny because we don't believe in the first place? If the former then how do we define that corniness in words? <br /><br />That's why I've been posting about the Burden of Proof because I'm finding it difficult to articulate the actual essence of internal inconsistencies.Shilton HaSechelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-39376600012325000222010-08-18T23:38:31.221-04:002010-08-18T23:38:31.221-04:00You're going to hate this answer but here goes...You're going to hate this answer but here goes. There is no mathematical formula that will tell you what is the best most unrebuttable foolproof point. It's a very subjective thing, depends on the person, different ideas will resonate with different people depending on their own background, psychology, and circumstances. <br /><br />For me, the internal inconsistencies were the most powerful point.<br /><br />But as you said, some people spend years in yeshiva devoted to resolving the most inconsistent things, and in the most convoluted fashion. They wouldn't be at all impressed, unless you could somehow expose them to a new way of thinking. <br /><br />It all varies. <br /><br />The good part about internal inconsistencies, is that it doesn't require any knowledge of science and history. Since frum people tend to lack knowledge in those areas, those aren't a very effective way of convincing them.superwomannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-30411800347596014652010-08-18T23:36:33.837-04:002010-08-18T23:36:33.837-04:00'twas merely a logical/theoretical question. I...'twas merely a logical/theoretical question. I have no plans of preaching (yet)Shilton HaSechelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-11868065330968978952010-08-18T23:23:03.989-04:002010-08-18T23:23:03.989-04:00Hmm, the only circumstances I can think of where y...Hmm, the only circumstances I can think of where you would really try to convince someone, is if they were really miserable living that life, and really wanted to leave, but their belief was holding them back. It does happen.<br /><br />But even in that case, I don't think a heavy handed all out convincing attempt is in order, people have to come to their own conclusions. If you bombard them with it then it isn't theirs, and it isn't real either. <br /><br />Being correct doesn't preclude brainwashing.kisaritanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-74810312304881825302010-08-16T22:50:26.949-04:002010-08-16T22:50:26.949-04:00I'd beg you to use philosophical encyclopedias...I'd beg you to use philosophical encyclopedias when looking up philosophical topics. What does Brittanica say on materialism?<br /><br />However, the first quoted line is correct. An atheist denies a belief in God. Denying a belief in God, however, is not, the same as denying the existence of God. I'd take agnosticism to mean roughly being caught between good arguments, believing there are good arguments for God's existence but also good arguments against it, and not knowing whether to believe or not. The atheist, on the other hand, knows that he does not believe. I'm not sure why an encyclopedia would think it is a good idea to include a discussion of theists in an entry on atheism, but oh well. Now, someone can say that they are convinced and certain that God does not exist, and they'd also be put into the atheist camp, and many atheists do believe that, but there is room in the term for those who don't. <br /><br />For analyzing terms, by the way, the first step should be analyzing the term. We all know what a theist is, and an atheist is "not a theist."Puzzlednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-28449355270442373002010-08-16T19:15:17.528-04:002010-08-16T19:15:17.528-04:00testing again why is everything upside down?testing again why is everything upside down?shiltonhasechelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-49184070545188685732010-08-16T19:09:52.541-04:002010-08-16T19:09:52.541-04:00I want you all to make extensive use of the reply ...I want you all to make extensive use of the reply button so I can follow these convoluted discussionsshiltonhasechelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-11519842231731566762010-08-16T19:09:07.066-04:002010-08-16T19:09:07.066-04:00Yay!Yay!shiltonhasechelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-49612239068959703262010-08-16T19:08:57.706-04:002010-08-16T19:08:57.706-04:00Now we can tell who is talking to whomNow we can tell who is talking to whomshiltonhasechelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-44570998505697664492010-08-16T19:08:45.255-04:002010-08-16T19:08:45.255-04:00Testing 1 2 3Testing 1 2 3shiltonhasechelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-63357445652474671842010-08-16T19:06:48.369-04:002010-08-16T19:06:48.369-04:00Oh snap we've gone disqus! changes about to fo...Oh snap we've gone disqus! changes about to followshiltonhasechelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-17267857468286817582010-08-16T18:33:58.916-04:002010-08-16T18:33:58.916-04:00I am psychic so......... just disproved that theor...I am psychic so......... just disproved that theory. Ever seen the movie Next with Nocholas Cage? That is based on my life. So G*3, any more theories?E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-50673417007609348672010-08-16T18:16:00.555-04:002010-08-16T18:16:00.555-04:00RG, re Santa Claus you say: “Great so you hold out...RG, re Santa Claus you say: “Great so you hold out for the slight possibility of his existence while I risk being wrong by actually ruling him out.”<br /><br />Re God’s existence you say: “If you are open to the possibility of God's existence .000000000000000000000000000000001 so the difference is that you are saying God might exist and I am saying He does.”<br /><br />Why go one way on the slight possibility of Santa’s existence and the other way on the slight possibility of God’s existence? Why not be consistent and say either both exist or both don’t exist.<br /><br />Reading the rest of your comment made me a little dizzy, but I’ll try responding anyway.<br /><br />> So mocking a certainty by saying one should say it is a possibility doesn't deal with the real question, of God's existence.<br /><br />God’s existence is not a certainty, it is a very remote possibility, about as likely as Santa’s existence.<br /><br />> If you are saying we can know nothing but only argue probabilities so fine don't talk to me about reality<br /><br />We can know nothing in the sense that I might just be a brain in a jar. However, once I assume as a useful premise that the world I experience has an objective reality, I can, within the framework of that assumption, try and determine whether something is likely to be true. That is, is it consistent with the rest of what I’m experiencing. That all of my experiences may be an illusion is beside the point.<br /><br />Think of it as fans arguing over whether something in their favorite TV series makes sense. Sure, the whole thing is a made-up universe, but within the confines of that fictional universe, there are things that make sense and things that don’t.<br /><br />> because you even hold out for belief in what you mock because of probability in your eyes.<br /><br />I’m trying to figure out what you mean by this. If you mean that I think it’s possible that God exists, sure, anything is possible. Including Santa overseeing an army of toy-making elves at the North Pole.<br /><br />> Imagine people mocking others belief that you exist because they have little evidence of your existence. Well those who say you exist are still right<br /><br />Yes, my beliefs have no effect on whether or not God actually exists. So…? I don’t hold beliefs in order to influence reality. That’s ridiculous. I hold beliefs because I think they’re true. I think that there is no good reason to think that God exists. <br /><br />> and you yourself are open to believing in what you mock others for believing in.<br /><br />First of all, I try not to mock anyone. If you perceive questioning God’s existence as mocking, well… oh well.<br /><br />Secondly, yes, if given evidence of God’s existence, I’ll admit I was wrong and change my beliefs accordingly. (Can you say the same?) I “mock” people not for believing in God per se, but for believing in things they have no good reason to believe. I have an much lower opinion of people who believe other claims on bad or no evidence, like homeopathy, or psychic abilities, or astrology, or chi, or Santa Claus…G*3https://www.blogger.com/profile/06104739087560005056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-54355987021617976022010-08-16T15:39:00.980-04:002010-08-16T15:39:00.980-04:00"G*3 said...
> Santa Claus' nonex..."G*3 said...<br /><br /> > Santa Claus' nonexistence is predicated not on an agnosticism but on arguments that his existence is impossible.<br /><br /> Really? Can you prove that his existence is impossible? Keep in mind that he’s a magic man with special powers that let him live undetected at the North Pole and travel around the world in a single night."<br /><br />Great so you hold out for the slight possibility of his existence while I risk being wrong by actually ruling him out.<br /> <br />"> nothing can be known because nothing can be demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction. For instance all can be an illusion.<br /><br /> Yup. Nothing can be known with absolute certainty, and the universe may be an illusion. That we don’t know the answer to something is not a license to make stuff up."<br /><br />I don't say I am making stuff up. Just because you feel that belief in God is making stuff up doesn't mean that is how others believe in God. <br /><br />"It just means that we don’t know. That we can’t know anything with 100% certainty is similarly not a license to claim whatever one prefers because it’s impossible to prove absolutely that it’s not true."<br /><br />Again your characterization, not mine. If you are open to the possibility of God's existence .000000000000000000000000000000001 so the difference is that you are saying God might exist and I am saying He does. So mocking a certainty by saying one should say it is a possibility doesn't deal with the real question, of God's existence. If you are saying we can know nothing but only argue probabilities so fine don't talk to me about reality because you even hold out for belief in what you mock because of probability in your eyes. Imagine people mocking others belief that you exist because they have little evidence of your existence. Well those who say you exist are still right and you yourself are open to believing in what you mock others for believing in.Rabban Gamlielhttp://www.rabbagamliel.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-90261638493358230322010-08-16T14:18:29.290-04:002010-08-16T14:18:29.290-04:00Actually, my response to Garnel's "establ...Actually, my response to Garnel's "established system" comment could have been simpler: have you ever read "The Emperor's New Clothes?"<br /><br />As regards the scientific theory comparison, it's not really parallel. To make it parallel, imagine approaching a group of scientists and saying, "Hey, you guys have been accepting Theory X for all this time, but no one has every had any clear hypotheses, hypothesis testing, or experimental evidence for Theory X." Can you imagine they'd say, "Well, it's accepted, so prove your new theory before we relinquish the old one." That's not how positivism works.JewishGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03531540800635608198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-44795013216545109022010-08-16T14:17:59.409-04:002010-08-16T14:17:59.409-04:00> Santa Claus' nonexistence is predicated n...> Santa Claus' nonexistence is predicated not on an agnosticism but on arguments that his existence is impossible.<br /><br />Really? Can you prove that his existence is impossible? Keep in mind that he’s a magic man with special powers that let him live undetected at the North Pole and travel around the world in a single night.<br /><br />> nothing can be known because nothing can be demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction. For instance all can be an illusion.<br /><br />Yup. Nothing can be known with absolute certainty, and the universe may be an illusion. That we don’t know the answer to something is not a license to make stuff up. It just means that we don’t know. That we can’t know anything with 100% certainty is similarly not a license to claim whatever one prefers because it’s impossible to prove absolutely that it’s not true.G*3https://www.blogger.com/profile/06104739087560005056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-57664975465171967022010-08-16T13:55:09.193-04:002010-08-16T13:55:09.193-04:00>The correlation between a god and fairies is b...>The correlation between a god and fairies is beyond ridiculous. Have people had a consensus on the belief in fairies? <br /><br />They did on demons for a long time. Magic too. I don't think any culture started without a belief in magic and demons. <br /><br />>Did someone wake up 10000 years ago and say, you know what, there must be gods or a god. Where did this idea come from and why ave people always believed in it?<br /><br />Genetics, evolutionary psychology, group selection. Maybe it's just more advantageous for humans to believe in God (it creates group cohesion it deals with evil etc.)doesn't give it empirical reality though.Shilton HaSechelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11445959470426455186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-27162132316553749282010-08-16T13:43:17.490-04:002010-08-16T13:43:17.490-04:00>Um, not sure if you knew this, but every singl...>Um, not sure if you knew this, but every single thing that has replaced these wrong systems have PROVEN themselves to be true before uprooting their predecessors.<br /><br />Not at first. There were first philosophical treaties rejecting Aristotelian science in favor of inductive science (e.g., Francis Bacon). In any case, if you want a comparison, the materialist project in modern day has been quite successful. <br /><br />But you also leave out Christianity. Let's say a Christian stood up and said, "Wait a minute, do you have any reason I should believe that Jesus performed these miracles and was the son of God?" Would Garnel tell them, "Christianity is your established system, so you have to prove Jesus wasn't." No, because the Christian guy doesn't have to prove his "new theory"--he just is not at all convinced of the old one. <br /><br />What's established does not have to do with what is true.JewishGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03531540800635608198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-57287835947238558632010-08-16T13:37:31.180-04:002010-08-16T13:37:31.180-04:00> Santa Claus' nonexistence is predicated n...> Santa Claus' nonexistence is predicated not on an agnosticism but on arguments that his existence is impossible. <br /><br />Come on, RG--there are plenty of things you don't believe in simply because you don't have evidence for them--Loch Ness monster, bigfoot, etc. Those aren't positive claims you are making--you just don't accept that they exist. (I don't see how one can posit nonexistence, since nonexistence is not a thing that can exist.) Even with Santa Claus--if you met a guy who invited you on his reindeer sled and took you around the world in one night to give out presents, you might reconsider your belief in Santa Claus. That hasn't happened though. <br /><br />Of course, there's a separate line of logical positivist argumentation that would say the entire concept of God is meaningless, but they specifically distinguished themselves from atheism. <br /><br />Back to Garnel:<br /><br />>Does one start from the top and talk about God, and the problem of evil?<br />>Read Daas Tvunos and Derech HasShem.<br /><br />Read them. The problem of evil never was the big one for me, but I don't see why I would accept that the author knows what he's talking about. <br /><br />>Read the story of Shaul and the Amalekites and then try to remember that our perspective is limited.<br /><br />Again, you make a claim our perspective is limited, and don't back it up. I say the entire thing makes perfect sense if it was written by humans a long time ago using their tribal standards, and poof--no limitations on our perspective. <br /><br />>Read Silffkin!<br /><br />I've read Slifkin, and while I think the problems run deeper than you, I'll once more just note that rather than the kvetching, a much more parsimonious explanation is, it's a creation myth written by people. Torah-Science problem solved.JewishGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03531540800635608198noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-87075630578591971982010-08-16T13:30:49.239-04:002010-08-16T13:30:49.239-04:00JG said "Garnel, I'm sorry, but that is s...JG said "Garnel, I'm sorry, but that is so incredibly wrong it's...it's...it's really, really ridiculously wrong. Witch doctors were an established system for a long time. Aristotelian science was an established system for a long time. Christianity is an established system. If you believe truth is all cultural and relative and feel-good, then ok--you have to prove that we should break down the existing power structure, man. Groovy. If you have any interest in actual truth, though, then he who makes the positive claim bears the burden of proof."<br /><br />Um, not sure if you knew this, but every single thing that has replaced these wrong systems have PROVEN themselves to be true before uprooting their predecessors. Aristotilian science was replaced by modern science BECAUSE modern science proved itself. Real doctors replaced witch doctors only very recently (if by witch doctors you mean people that offered cures that were not real cures) with the advent of real medicine where things like penicilin were PROVEN to work. So, if the entire world believed in a god or gods before you are born and you come along and say there is no god of any sort, who needs to prove what?<br /><br />The correlation between a god and fairies is beyond ridiculous. Have people had a consensus on the belief in fairies? However, how did the entire world come to believe in a god? Did someone wake up 10000 years ago and say, you know what, there must be gods or a god. Where did this idea come from and why ave people always believed in it? <br /><br />FOr example, let's say there is a reigning scientific idea, how neurotransmitters work. A new theory of how they work comes along. Does the old theory get thrown out, or does the new theory have to prove itself first? Ah, but the new theory is the right theory! That conclusion is only discovered after more advanced tools are created and we can see how the neurotransmitters work. But yes, new theories always have to be proven in order to uproot old theories, that is how everything works. <br /><br />howeverr, people can question old theories and say they don;t make sense and therefore, I would rather say we don;t know than say the old theory is true. That claim makes a lot more sense.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7001184305805559914.post-14538163760967637762010-08-16T13:22:03.466-04:002010-08-16T13:22:03.466-04:00SH- "Nope they just have a special propensity...SH- "Nope they just have a special propensity towards them ;) (the problem is FALSE dichotomies not dichotomies in general)"<br /><br />Sorry, i meant false dichotomies. What david said is CLEARLY a false dichotomy.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.com