Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false

02-16-2013 , 12:17 PM
Also, I think the general issue with even something like

Quote:
1) Allow the holy spirit into one's heart
2) Pray about the claim
3) Receive the answer.
is that once you make it algorithmic, or like a formal protocol, you remove elements that are fundamental to religion. For example that God is a Person rather than an impersonal natural law or force. Prayer is understood as communication with God, and just as in human communication there is more happening than just the specific words, so it is with prayer. I'm not sure I'm capturing this well, but it would be like trying to write an algorithm for determining if someone loves you. Simplistically it would sort of make sense (i.e "Ask them") but it's understood there's more to it, and the "more" isn't easily systematized
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 12:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
I think acceptance of at least some religious claims (and, in my estimation probably the most important ones) is non-rational. I say "some" just because I'm sure there are claims that count as "religious" which could be investigated scientifically or logically or whatever.

Although it might be more correct to step back and say that I think the entire question is sort of wrongly motivated. The purpose of religion in my view is not to allow for the categorization of claims by truth-value, or even the acquisition of knowledge really. Certainly that is something that religions do, I think primarily via dogma, but dogma isn't really the goal of religion, nor is a systematic theology or anything like that. Rather they are a practical means to an end, which is love and union with God.
That all seems fine. I would, for example, also say the bolded about art and music. My motivation for this thread springs from the oft-heard claim that there are "ways of knowing" that are specific to religion i.e. not based on empiricism or whatever. If you aren't making that claim we probably don't have any real disagreement.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
Also, I think the general issue with even something like



is that once you make it algorithmic, or like a formal protocol, you remove elements that are fundamental to religion. For example that God is a Person rather than an impersonal natural law or force. Prayer is understood as communication with God, and just as in human communication there is more happening than just the specific words, so it is with prayer. I'm not sure I'm capturing this well, but it would be like trying to write an algorithm for determining if someone loves you. Simplistically it would sort of make sense (i.e "Ask them") but it's understood there's more to it, and the "more" isn't easily systematized
Meh. The reason I left the original question so open was to avoid this sort of thing tbh. Every time the subject comes up I find the bulk of the responses are nitpicking over words rather than addressing the core, very simple idea: all theists have identified some 'religious claims' (in whatever sense they define it) as 'true' (in whatever sense they define it) and some as 'false' (in whatever sense they define it). I'm interested in how they do this, simple as. I find the diversions about "what IS knowing", "what IS methodology", "what IS true" to be evasive and off-topic.

Not meaning to be rude to you personally, as you've been very forthright ITT, just an observation and attempt to avoid having a ton of other people jump on this same point w/r/t to the algorithm analogy.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
My motivation for this thread springs from the oft-heard claim that there are "ways of knowing" that are specific to religion i.e. not based on empiricism or whatever. If you aren't making that claim we probably don't have any real disagreement.
Hmm, I think I am making that claim in my own way. It gets a little tricky to clarify the claim because I'm not sure I even entirely understand what I'm claiming. But I'll call this way of knowing mysticism since I think it's the usual term. I think that mystical intuitions exist, and in a sense when I described discernment as a gift of God, it seems fine to call the mode by which the one discerning acquires the means of discernment mystical. But to tie it back to my last posts, while I think mysticism is real, I think "Mysticism-for-the-sake-of-mysticism" is an error. Mystical experiences or knowledge that leads to greater repentance, humility, peace, joy, hope and reverence for God are good, but mystical experiences which do not are not.

As far as characterizing what mystical knowledge is, in relation to standard epistemology, I'm not sure I'm up to the task. Is mystical knowledge non-empirical? I think mystics nearly universally claim that some of their special knowledge is directly the result of their own experience. So mystical knowledge is empirical in one sense, but it's very subjective and often non-repeatable, even for the one having the experience. Just as I said I thought there was no methodology to discerning truths, there isn't really a general methodology to creating mystical experiences "at will".

When I first posted in RGT I created a thread on this topic, more or less. At the time I wasn't familiar with the term "methodological naturalism". But it seems to suggest an analogy with regard to empiricism and mysticism. Science is methodological empiricism. Mysticism is empirical but not methodological in the same way. There are "methods" that people employ, but there is an understanding that there is some ineffable irreducible core to mystical experiences which is personal and undetermined
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 12:39 PM
oh, it seems like I might be misconstruing the purpose of the thread then, if you're looking for a more practical kind of "no really, how do they do it?" kind of answer, rather than a theoretical one.

Sorry about that.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
Hmm, I think I am making that claim in my own way. It gets a little tricky to clarify the claim because I'm not sure I even entirely understand what I'm claiming.

But I'll call this way of knowing mysticism since I think it's the usual term. I think that mystical intuitions exist, and in a sense when I described discernment as a gift of God, it seems fine to call the mode by which the one discerning acquires the means of discernment mystical. But to tie it back to my last posts, while I think mysticism is real, I think "Mysticism-for-the-sake-of-mysticism" is an error. Mystical experiences or knowledge that leads to greater repentance, humility, peace, joy, hope and reverence for God are good, but mystical experiences which do not are not.
Fine.

Quote:

As far as characterizing what mystical knowledge is, in relation to standard epistemology, I'm not sure I'm up to the task. Is mystical knowledge non-empirical? I think mystics nearly universally claim that some of their special knowledge is directly the result of their own experience. So mystical knowledge is empirical in one sense, but it's very subjective and often non-repeatable, even for the one having the experience. Just as I said I thought there was no methodology to discerning truths, there isn't really a general methodology to creating mystical experiences "at will".

When I first posted in RGT I created a thread on this topic, more or less. At the time I wasn't familiar with the term "methodological naturalism". But it seems to suggest an analogy with regard to empiricism and mysticism. Science is methodological empiricism. Mysticism is empirical but not methodological in the same way. There are "methods" that people employ, but there is an understanding that there is some ineffable irreducible core to mystical experiences which is personal and undetermined
I don't think there is anything about my question that requires you to make this distinction about first-person and third-person empirical methods. You seem to be just pointing out the scientific and mystical methods differ. But moving on to your next post...

Quote:
oh, it seems like I might be misconstruing the purpose of the thread then, if you're looking for a more practical kind of "no really, how do they do it?" kind of answer, rather than a theoretical one.
Hmm. Well, broadly speaking, the theory and practice of the scientific method are the same, so I hadn't considered that there would be a difference for religious epistemology. I guess I'm more interested in the practical reality of evaluating religious claims among theists, but if you think there is a difference feel free to expand on it.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 12:56 PM
So taking all that as background (lol, sorry), a methodology for distinguishing true religious claims from false ones, which I am more or less adapting from an Athonite monk named Paisios whose biography I was just reading:

Self knowledge leads to Repentance and Humility, which opens us to Grace, which is the vehicle for discerning Truth.

In other words, in the monastic tradition in Christianity, rather than there being a practical method for evaluating truth claims specifically, i.e starting from a given claim, there is instead a practical method for transforming ones inner self, which then makes one capable of participating in the mysteries of spiritual knowledge more completely. It's still not "methodological" in the sense that it's still taken to be the case that spiritual truth comes from God and God can reveal it as He wills regardless of one's inner "state", but there is a path that is believed to be the best way to move closer to God and thus be more receptive to Grace.

The path involves fighting against sins and temptations and learning to quiet the mind and be dispassionate. It involves learning humility by becoming obedient to others and a servant of others. It involves devotion and reverence in the liturgical practice of the church, and it involves trying to cultivate unceasing prayer and communion with God
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 01:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
So taking all that as background (lol, sorry), a methodology for distinguishing true religious claims from false ones, which I am more or less adapting from an Athonite monk named Paisios whose biography I was just reading:

Self knowledge leads to Repentance and Humility, which opens us to Grace, which is the vehicle for discerning Truth.

In other words, in the monastic tradition in Christianity, rather than there being a practical method for evaluating truth claims specifically, i.e starting from a given claim, there is instead a practical method for transforming ones inner self, which then makes one capable of participating in the mysteries of spiritual knowledge more completely. It's still not "methodological" in the sense that it's still taken to be the case that spiritual truth comes from God and God can reveal it as He wills regardless of one's inner "state", but there is a path that is believed to be the best way to move closer to God and thus be more receptive to Grace.

The path involves fighting against sins and temptations and learning to quiet the mind and be dispassionate. It involves learning humility by becoming obedient to others and a servant of others. It involves devotion and reverence in the liturgical practice of the church, and it involves trying to cultivate unceasing prayer and communion with God
OK, that seems like a valid response to the OP, so I'll leave the follow up questions for now and see if your stated approach is close to consensus, but I would remark that your use of the word "path" is pretty much what I mean by the algorithm analogy e.g. a "path" is a series of steps and a series of steps that terminates in some result is an algorithm. So I don't see any of this as being non-methodological, despite it being suggested that following it may only lead to truth on a probabilistic basis, pending intervention of a deity (and really, you can just insert "God assents to convey truth" as a step in the algorithm imo).

*Edit: Keep forgetting to say this: I'm not sure how a "way of knowing" can mean anything other than a "methodology of knowing"... it seems to me that the two are synonymous in this context

Quote:
Way
Noun
A method, style, or manner of doing something
NB, while the definition includes 'style' and 'manner' as well as 'method', the definitions of all four words are circular.

Last edited by zumby; 02-16-2013 at 01:16 PM.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 01:19 PM
fair enough re: path

I think my hangup comes from the idea of algorithms being deterministic in some sense, and that even if it were only probabilistically it would still seem to contradict the "mystery" that I think is fundamental.

But, I take your point, I'm probably being too nitty
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
fair enough re: path

I think my hangup comes from the idea of algorithms being deterministic in some sense, and that even if it were only probabilistically it would still seem to contradict the "mystery" that I think is fundamental.

But, I take your point, I'm probably being too nitty
You are But, in fairness, I should have chosen a more sympathetic analogy, given the subject matter and the views of the people I'm trying to engage.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 02:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
Every time the subject comes up I find the bulk of the responses are nitpicking over words rather than addressing the core, very simple idea: all theists have identified some 'religious claims' (in whatever sense they define it) as 'true' (in whatever sense they define it) and some as 'false' (in whatever sense they define it). I'm interested in how they do this, simple as. I find the diversions about "what IS knowing", "what IS methodology", "what IS true" to be evasive and off-topic.
Ultimately, it comes down to a coherence model of understanding. How well do the pieces of experience fit together within some sort of conceptual framework? So even though true and false have an absolute character to them, those words are measured in terms of coherence to the framework (even if the framework is expressed in absolute terms).

It's actually not significantly different than how non-religious people understand things. We just have different things that are included in the list of things we're trying to cohere.

At the foundation lie a collection of a experiences and a worldview construct. New information comes in (in the form of new life experiences and other forms of knowledge) and an attempt is made interpret the new information in light of the construct that already exists.

You can think of the foundation as the border of a puzzle, and the new pieces of information as the inside pieces. The foundation is a framework in which the other puzzle pieces are supposed to fit inside of. Some pieces fit well on the border, and other pieces fit well with each other (while not necessarily attaching anywhere on the boundary).

The "act of fitting pieces together" seems to be the "core" that you're referring to. And I think one of the reasons why the conversation gets bogged down in trying to push deeper is that there are many ways to approach the puzzle pieces. It's not as if there is a singular framework in which all "religious claims" are parsed, nor are the various "types" of frameworks necessarily strictly-defined constructs.

But building on the puzzle analogy, I can come up with at least a rough description of the "types" of reasoning that can be applied. It's important to note that these should not be viewed as isolated approaches. One can use multiple approaches to putting the puzzle together.

* Looking at the piece in isolation: Sometimes, the puzzle piece contains an entire recognizable image. Perhaps something like a person standing in the grass. From this, we expect that we can at least orient the puzzle piece in the way that it should fit in the rest of the puzzle. That is, we know which direction is "up" for the puzzle piece. You can think of these as "common human understandings" like the basic patterns of social interactions. These are the things that we all agree on in basically the same way.

If you try to treat religious beliefs like individual puzzle pieces that can be understood in the absence of other beliefs, then you don't have a good starting point for understanding religious beliefs. They are not ideas held in isolation, but relative to one another. So it cannot be "tested" or "understood as true/false" in isolation of other claims. That would be like asking whether a single puzzle piece fits with itself. This is why challenges like "Prove that God is omnipotent" don't make sense and can't be answered in a meaningful way. (In fact, this is why many "Prove that ..." challenges are not answered satisfactorily. You're asking a question about how puzzle pieces fit together, but you're only holding one piece.) Remember that the "core" is the "act of fitting pieces together" and not analyzing pieces in isolation.

* Looking at colors and patterns: Sometimes, you can determine that a collection of pieces are expected to fit together because they have the same colors or patterns (such as a blue sky or a brick wall pattern). So while it may not be understood how those pieces fit together, they are at least held together in the same area with acknowledgement that these are related concepts, but that the details have not been worked out. For a lot of people, theology falls into this realm. There's a general sense that these pieces should fit together somehow, but the specific details may be lacking. Nevertheless, all of these pieces are put in the same area with the expectation that they do fit together somehow, and so that cluster of pieces are seen as being coherent. (Whether they actually fit together is another issue.)

* Pieces that fit with each other but are not connected to the border: We often have pieces of information which we know cohere with each other, but we may not know how exactly they fit inside of the overall picture of the puzzle. So for example, someone with a deep head-knowledge of theology may have an entire collection of puzzle pieces that fit together, but those pieces may not be connected to the border, and so the person may still end up being unable to cohere that understanding with broader life experiences. This type of reasoning is primarily internal consistency. For example, using the Bible to prove religious claims. It demonstrates how beliefs hang together into a coherent mass.

I would suggest that this is the picture that many people from fundamentalist backgrounds face. They know how their beliefs fit in with each other, but struggle to make those beliefs cohere with the rest of their lives (which is why fundamentalists swing so hard to the opposite side when they lose their faith -- they throw out the whole thing as a single unit).

* Pieces that fit the border: In this case, we find pieces that we "know" are in the right place because of a strong coherence. The new information "fits perfectly" with the worldview expectations (whether religious claims or otherwise). These are the "deep" understandings that are often hard to put specifically into words. But these are also the things which ground and strengthen religious beliefs. I couldn't really come up with a clean example, but you can kind of think of this like the religious guru's understanding. Somehow, he has the ability to connect pieces together in a fundamental way which brings lots of things into coherence with each other AND the broader framework.

That ended up being a little bit longer than I had anticipated. At the minimum, I hope it at least gives at least a "better" way of thinking about religious beliefs (and the formulation of beliefs in general -- this picture really isn't just a religious one).
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
*Edit: Keep forgetting to say this: I'm not sure how a "way of knowing" can mean anything other than a "methodology of knowing"... it seems to me that the two are synonymous in this context
Using the puzzle analogy, "knowing" is the conclusion that two pieces fit together. The way of knowing two pieces fit together is by fitting them together. It's not really "methodological" in that even if you write down a system of rules for putting a puzzle together, it's not really how one actually goes about putting a puzzle together, unless it's so vague that it doesn't really mean much (such as "Start with borders and work your way towards the middle").

It's a highly nonlinear process.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Ultimately, it comes down to a coherence model of understanding. How well do the pieces of experience fit together within some sort of conceptual framework? So even though true and false have an absolute character to them, those words are measured in terms of coherence to the framework (even if the framework is expressed in absolute terms).

It's actually not significantly different than how non-religious people understand things. We just have different things that are included in the list of things we're trying to cohere.

At the foundation lie a collection of a experiences and a worldview construct. New information comes in (in the form of new life experiences and other forms of knowledge) and an attempt is made interpret the new information in light of the construct that already exists.

You can think of the foundation as the border of a puzzle, and the new pieces of information as the inside pieces. The foundation is a framework in which the other puzzle pieces are supposed to fit inside of. Some pieces fit well on the border, and other pieces fit well with each other (while not necessarily attaching anywhere on the boundary).

The "act of fitting pieces together" seems to be the "core" that you're referring to. And I think one of the reasons why the conversation gets bogged down in trying to push deeper is that there are many ways to approach the puzzle pieces. It's not as if there is a singular framework in which all "religious claims" are parsed, nor are the various "types" of frameworks necessarily strictly-defined constructs.

But building on the puzzle analogy, I can come up with at least a rough description of the "types" of reasoning that can be applied. It's important to note that these should not be viewed as isolated approaches. One can use multiple approaches to putting the puzzle together.

* Looking at the piece in isolation: Sometimes, the puzzle piece contains an entire recognizable image. Perhaps something like a person standing in the grass. From this, we expect that we can at least orient the puzzle piece in the way that it should fit in the rest of the puzzle. That is, we know which direction is "up" for the puzzle piece. You can think of these as "common human understandings" like the basic patterns of social interactions. These are the things that we all agree on in basically the same way.

If you try to treat religious beliefs like individual puzzle pieces that can be understood in the absence of other beliefs, then you don't have a good starting point for understanding religious beliefs. They are not ideas held in isolation, but relative to one another. So it cannot be "tested" or "understood as true/false" in isolation of other claims. That would be like asking whether a single puzzle piece fits with itself. This is why challenges like "Prove that God is omnipotent" don't make sense and can't be answered in a meaningful way. (In fact, this is why many "Prove that ..." challenges are not answered satisfactorily. You're asking a question about how puzzle pieces fit together, but you're only holding one piece.) Remember that the "core" is the "act of fitting pieces together" and not analyzing pieces in isolation.

* Looking at colors and patterns: Sometimes, you can determine that a collection of pieces are expected to fit together because they have the same colors or patterns (such as a blue sky or a brick wall pattern). So while it may not be understood how those pieces fit together, they are at least held together in the same area with acknowledgement that these are related concepts, but that the details have not been worked out. For a lot of people, theology falls into this realm. There's a general sense that these pieces should fit together somehow, but the specific details may be lacking. Nevertheless, all of these pieces are put in the same area with the expectation that they do fit together somehow, and so that cluster of pieces are seen as being coherent. (Whether they actually fit together is another issue.)

* Pieces that fit with each other but are not connected to the border: We often have pieces of information which we know cohere with each other, but we may not know how exactly they fit inside of the overall picture of the puzzle. So for example, someone with a deep head-knowledge of theology may have an entire collection of puzzle pieces that fit together, but those pieces may not be connected to the border, and so the person may still end up being unable to cohere that understanding with broader life experiences. This type of reasoning is primarily internal consistency. For example, using the Bible to prove religious claims. It demonstrates how beliefs hang together into a coherent mass.

I would suggest that this is the picture that many people from fundamentalist backgrounds face. They know how their beliefs fit in with each other, but struggle to make those beliefs cohere with the rest of their lives (which is why fundamentalists swing so hard to the opposite side when they lose their faith -- they throw out the whole thing as a single unit).

* Pieces that fit the border: In this case, we find pieces that we "know" are in the right place because of a strong coherence. The new information "fits perfectly" with the worldview expectations (whether religious claims or otherwise). These are the "deep" understandings that are often hard to put specifically into words. But these are also the things which ground and strengthen religious beliefs. I couldn't really come up with a clean example, but you can kind of think of this like the religious guru's understanding. Somehow, he has the ability to connect pieces together in a fundamental way which brings lots of things into coherence with each other AND the broader framework.

That ended up being a little bit longer than I had anticipated. At the minimum, I hope it at least gives at least a "better" way of thinking about religious beliefs (and the formulation of beliefs in general -- this picture really isn't just a religious one).
That all sounds good to me, and I agree that what you've described is not specific to religious claims. Therefore I assume that we are also in agreement that there are not 'different ways of knowing' that are religion-specific.

Quote:
Using the puzzle analogy, "knowing" is the conclusion that two pieces fit together. The way of knowing two pieces fit together is by fitting them together. It's not really "methodological" in that even if you write down a system of rules for putting a puzzle together, it's not really how one actually goes about putting a puzzle together, unless it's so vague that it doesn't really mean much (such as "Start with borders and work your way towards the middle").

It's a highly nonlinear process.
I disagree with this bit. If the way of knowing two puzzle pieces fit together is "by fitting them together" it seems like that can be expressed as a series of steps non-problematically. Going on to observe that one might solve a puzzle in a different way isn't an indicator that the problem can't be solved methodically, it just means you've provided a false methodology in your second sentence. Or IOW:

Quote:
The way of knowing two pieces fit together is by fitting them together
+

Quote:
even if you write down a system of rules for putting a puzzle together, it's not really how one actually goes about putting a puzzle together
Does not compute.

Last edited by zumby; 02-16-2013 at 02:57 PM.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 03:04 PM
There is no path to truth.

Quote:
I'm not sure how a "way of knowing" can mean anything other than a "methodology of knowing"... it seems to me that the two are synonymous in this context
We can take no way as way.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 05:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
That all sounds good to me, and I agree that what you've described is not specific to religious claims. Therefore I assume that we are also in agreement that there are not 'different ways of knowing' that are religion-specific.
Correct, but with a caveat. Many posters here attempt to treat knowledge as if it's all approachable by scientific means. I would argue that these people are actually misrepresenting their own ways of understanding, and trying to force the presentation as if all matters can be resolved by scientific methodology.

Most of the times when I'm talking about something like "different ways of knowing" I'm arguing against a strict scientific methodological view of how knowledge can be obtained. I reject that the only way you can know something is by direct and repeated empirical testing, and I reject the claim that this is what people actually do.

Quote:
I disagree with this bit. If the way of knowing two puzzle pieces fit together is "by fitting them together" it seems like that can be expressed as a series of steps non-problematically. Going on to observe that one might solve a puzzle in a different way isn't an indicator that the problem can't be solved methodically, it just means you've provided a false methodology in your second sentence.
It *can* be expressed that way, but it would no longer represent the process that people actually do when they put a puzzle together. For example, we can program a computer to use a brute-force algorithm to piece together a puzzle by just starting in the top left and working through every single piece in every possible orientation until it fits. This is a well-defined methodology that "works", but nobody actually works on a puzzle like that. It's a very non-human approach to putting the puzzle together.

There's also a breakdown of the analogy. There's a finite quality to the puzzles that does not fit with how life actually happens. That is, you can't just take a singular belief and attempt to square it up with every single other belief you have until it fits and then move on to the next belief.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
I reject that the only way you can know something is by direct and repeated empirical testing, and I reject the claim that this is what people actually do.
+1
I'd aruge that methodology is the barrier the stops one from truly knowing something
Quote:
There's a finite quality to the puzzles that does not fit with how life actually happens.
+1 Only the things that have no finite qualities are true knowledge. Any method, any style, any teaching, has finite quality. This is why Jeet Kune Do has no style as style, no way as way, no limitation as limitation, and is a circle with no circumference.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Correct, but with a caveat. Many posters here attempt to treat knowledge as if it's all approachable by scientific means. I would argue that these people are actually misrepresenting their own ways of understanding, and trying to force the presentation as if all matters can be resolved by scientific methodology.
And I agree that, in the way you define* 'scientific methodology', there are other valid epistemic methodologies. I suspect that a fair proportion of the people you are referring to mean it in a broader sense e.g. in a way that includes things like the historical method, logical reasoning, non-repeatable empiricism etc. But that's by the by, as I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion of what other atheist might or might not think.

*IIRC you tend to define it in the narrower, more accurate sense.

Quote:

Most of the times when I'm talking about something like "different ways of knowing" I'm arguing against a strict scientific methodological view of how knowledge can be obtained. I reject that the only way you can know something is by direct and repeated empirical testing, and I reject the claim that this is what people actually do.
Cool.

Quote:

It *can* be expressed that way, but it would no longer represent the process that people actually do when they put a puzzle together. For example, we can program a computer to use a brute-force algorithm to piece together a puzzle by just starting in the top left and working through every single piece in every possible orientation until it fits. This is a well-defined methodology that "works", but nobody actually works on a puzzle like that. It's a very non-human approach to putting the puzzle together.
Your original post gave a list of ways of trying to fit pieces together (looking for identifiable figures, finding pieces that fit with the border etc) that you consider part of the 'human approach'. There's nothing in that list that couldn't be codified and put into a computer algorithm.

It seems to me that you've given a pretty excellent description of a epistemic methodology and now we are only disagreeing on whether it really is a methodology. Which seems like a non-starter, as neither of us are likely to change our minds about the definitions of words - i.e. even if you persuade me that a methodology can't be non-linear, I'll just call it a blethodology and rephrase the OP question.

Quote:

There's also a breakdown of the analogy. There's a finite quality to the puzzles that does not fit with how life actually happens. That is, you can't just take a singular belief and attempt to square it up with every single other belief you have until it fits and then move on to the next belief.
Heh, it's a little ironic that usually when hero presents an analogy the standard villain response is to deny the validity of the analogy. Here villain likes the analogy and wants to run with, and it's hero coming back with disclaimers.

(Irony aside, I agree that jigsaws aren't a perfect one-to-one match for the process of constructing a worldview)
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 07:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
Your original post gave a list of ways of trying to fit pieces together (looking for identifiable figures, finding pieces that fit with the border etc) that you consider part of the 'human approach'. There's nothing in that list that couldn't be codified and put into a computer algorithm.
Well... sort of. You're venturing into the realm of computer learning and AI. I don't think it's as simple as codification of an algorithm. I'm also reminded of things like attempts by mathematicians to try to create a language structure into which proofs can be written and understood, which led to Godel's incompleteness theorems.

Quote:
It seems to me that you've given a pretty excellent description of a epistemic methodology and now we are only disagreeing on whether it really is a methodology.
Probably. As hinted at above, I don't think we really agree on the nature and structure of learning. I don't really see it as an algorithmic process in the same way that I don't think learning to read and understand proofs is anything like an algorithmic process.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 07:58 PM
The obvious danger of such a methodology, even if it indeed close to what many use, is the ability to simply self justify the entire framework. As in, if one already accepts the christian god, then one interprets every puzzle piece out there in terms of the christian god and then shockingly gets at the conclusion that there is a christian god. Yet when one tries - and I have repeatedly done this - to get Aaron to try and actually hammer down a particular piece of the puzzle and give any shred of independent verification for it - he can't do it. It is entirely self affirming. One believes the big picture of the puzzle because of the strength of all the pieces and one believes in the pieces because they fit into the big picture of the puzzle.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Well... sort of. You're venturing into the realm of computer learning and AI. I don't think it's as simple as codification of an algorithm. I'm also reminded of things like attempts by mathematicians to try to create a language structure into which proofs can be written and understood, which led to Godel's incompleteness theorems.

Probably. As hinted at above, I don't think we really agree on the nature and structure of learning. I don't really see it as an algorithmic process in the same way that I don't think learning to read and understand proofs is anything like an algorithmic process.
Er, this is a huge overstatement of my position and way out of left-field w/r/t anything I've said. But as I don't think any of it's germane I'll let it slide.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
The obvious danger of such a methodology, even if it indeed close to what many use, is the ability to simply self justify the entire framework. As in, if one already accepts the christian god, then one interprets every puzzle piece out there in terms of the christian god and then shockingly gets at the conclusion that there is a christian god. Yet when one tries - and I have repeatedly done this - to get Aaron to try and actually hammer down a particular piece of the puzzle and give any shred of independent verification for it - he can't do it. It is entirely self affirming. One believes the big picture of the puzzle because of the strength of all the pieces and one believes in the pieces because they fit into the big picture of the puzzle.
Here you describe the process of negation and it leads to truth. This might seem contradictory to truth being pathless but its not.

The below points to truth, and methodology is not big enough to encompass it....
Quote:
Time is only an illusion produced by the succession of our states of consciousness as we travel through eternal duration, and it does not exist where no consciousness exists in which the illusion can be produced; but "lies asleep." The present is only a mathematical line which divides that part of eternal duration which we call the future, from that part which we call the past. Nothing on earth has real duration, for nothing remains without change -- or the same -- for the billionth part of a second; and the sensation we have of the actuality of the division of "time" known as the present, comes from the blurring of that momentary glimpse, or succession of glimpses, of things that our senses give us, as those things pass from the region of ideals which we call the future, to the region of

memories that we name the past. In the same way we experience a sensation of duration in the case of the instantaneous electric spark, by reason of the blurred and continuing impression on the retina. The real person or thing does not consist solely of what is seen at any particular moment, but is composed of the sum of all its various and changing conditions from its appearance in the material form to its disappearance from the earth. It is these "sum-totals" that exist from eternity in the "future," and pass by degrees through matter, to exist for eternity in the "past." No one could say that a bar of metal dropped into the sea came into existence as it left the air, and ceased to exist as it entered the water, and that the bar itself consisted only of that cross-section thereof which at any

given moment coincided with the mathematical plane that separates, and, at the same time, joins, the atmosphere and the ocean.Even so of persons and things, which, dropping out of the to-be into the has-been, out of the future into the past -- presentmomentarily to our senses a cross-section, as it were, of their total selves, as they pass through time and space (as matter) on their wayfrom one eternity to another: and these two constitute that "duration" in which alone anything has true existence, were our senses butable to cognize it there.

Last edited by newguy1234; 02-16-2013 at 08:40 PM.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
The obvious danger of such a methodology, even if it indeed close to what many use, is the ability to simply self justify the entire framework. As in, if one already accepts the christian god, then one interprets every puzzle piece out there in terms of the christian god and then shockingly gets at the conclusion that there is a christian god.
Right. That's the coherence framework. It why people accept worldview beliefs and why people reject them. It's not just religious people who do this, but it's actually all people (yourself included).

Quote:
Yet when one tries - and I have repeatedly done this - to get Aaron to try and actually hammer down a particular piece of the puzzle and give any shred of independent verification for it - he can't do it.
With this statement, you demonstrate that you do not understand what a coherence framework is. The substantive difference is what I stated earlier:

Quote:
Originally Posted by me
It's actually not significantly different than how non-religious people understand things. We just have different things that are included in the list of things we're trying to cohere.
...

Quote:
It is entirely self affirming.
Yes and no. If the pieces cohere together, then it affirms the underlying structure of beliefs*. But when the pieces don't cohere together, then it points to underlying flaws of the underlying structure, and hence the need for some of those beliefs to be replaced. So it's a system that affirms coherence and rejects incoherence.

(* That the underlying framework is sufficiently robust for worldview matters and that they meaningfully address life experiences.)

Quote:
One believes the big picture of the puzzle because of the strength of all the pieces and one believes in the pieces because they fit into the big picture of the puzzle.
Right. That's what "coherence" means. Ultimately, worldview conversations make much more sense using a coherence framework instead of a correspondence framework. The correspondence framework isn't sufficiently robust to deal with many of the types of issues that arise in worldview matters. For example, a correspondence framework does not really help one deal with questions pertaining to dealing with moral claims (one example among many).

Last edited by Aaron W.; 02-16-2013 at 09:00 PM.
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-16-2013 , 09:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
Er, this is a huge overstatement of my position and way out of left-field w/r/t anything I've said. But as I don't think any of it's germane I'll let it slide.
Sorry. That's just what comes to mind when you start talking about "codifying" the understanding of beliefs and putting something together into a "computer algorithm."
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-17-2013 , 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
With this statement, you demonstrate that you do not understand what a coherence framework is. The substantive difference is what I stated earlier:
Let me slightly elaborate. There are (presumably at least) large parts of your worldview that are independent of your assumptions about a deity. For example, you presumably have a health respect for empirical evidence, or logical precepts or whatever else. As in the the intersection of our respective lists of things we try to cohere to is presumably non empty and I would submit is actually quite large, possibly larger than many pairs of people (given the common mathematical background). However, what our history on this forum has demonstrated, is an inability to justify any of the puzzle pieces independently of the assumption of a deity or other parts of your framework that have to do with deities. You have not been able to offer, for instance, empirical evidence or a logical argument or things like this.

Now if you actually were able to ever articulate all this amazing coherence you might have something. But the record on this forum clearly demonstrates not just an inability to demonstrate any coherence with what is presumably the rest of your worldview, but is entirely vacuous and imprecise even trying to demonstrate coherence with the "god" parts of your worldview. As it stands, you seem to have nothing but a circular justification for a deity and are putting lipstick on a pig by trying to dress it up as if it has all this amazing coherence. It's cute, I suppose...
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote
02-17-2013 , 12:10 AM
re: algorithms

I keep my copy of Knuth near the Bible
What is the methodology for distinguish true religious claims from false Quote

      
m