It's quite simple. You lack the ability to critically analyze your own position. Not any particular claim, but your entire framework of knowledge. And because you lack that ability, you cannot proceed any further in the discussion. It's not that you're tired of it, but you literally CANNOT do it.

This conversation is no more abstract than your own framework. Horray for self-defeating theories.

*shrug*

still no alternative strategies

I want to learn, you seem to want to just argue.

No.

It's not that I was unhappy, did some stuff, and then became happy.

For the most part my life was pleasant; however, like all of us I was trying to find and do things that made me happy discovering that those things didn't live up to the hype. Unfortunately, happiness is fleeting because its just an emotion brought on by the right set of circumstances. It will not endure hardship or a change in those circumstances.

What I was worried about was getting married, starting off happy only to see it fade (like everything else), and then be stuck in a marriage where I was unhappy.

Here's what I did that made the most impact on me as I started to grow in my faith.

1) I started listening to some religious podcasts. My rule was I only wanted to listen to podcasts where the preacher was logical and asking and answering specific questions.

The two that influenced me the most were Ed Young of Fellowship Church and Matt Chandler of The Village Church. I listen to them via podcast each week via Itunes for free. They both have a style where they talk about every day life situations (e.g., dealing with a boss, dealing with a spouse, who to marry, etc.) and then apply scripture to it to show what the Bible has to say.

Here's a link to a Chandler podcast that was pretty interesting (http://hv.thevillagechurch.net/resou...-TheReason.mp3)

Ed Youngs church is here (http://www.fellowshipchurch.com) He's going to be on Nightline on Wednesday to debate adultry.

2) I started reading some Christian books that explain the faith in simply terms. There is no greater book for this than Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. It's easy to read even as it tackles huge ideas. C.S. Lewis was once an atheist so he has an interesting background. (http://www.amazon.com/MERE-CHRISTIAN...3674615&sr=8-3)

3) As I did 1 & 2 I also started to spend about 15 minutes a day reading a study Bible. I also downloaded from http://thebiblepodcast.org/podcast/) lots of books of the Bible and listened to them on my commute to work.

What I learned about reading the Bible is its possible to read it for pure information and completely overlook God within the text. So as I read the Bible I try to quiet my mind, I try to connect with whatever the passages are trying to reveal to me about the nature of God, etc. Sometimes I read and I don't get much out of it. Other times it's more like the Bible is reading me. I come across something that maybe and all of a sudden I feel a certain understanding about it that I didn't before. This is how God communicates with us and reveals to us his plans.

Eddi, I hope this helps. If you seriously want to learn more about God, I highly encourage you to listen to those podcasts and read Mere Christianity.

Most importantly, I would continue with your scrutinizing approach where you constantly ask questions and don't just accept things at face value.

However, I think you mush also realize that if God is anything like he is described in the Bible (infinite, etc.), then there are going to be somethings that are going to be difficult (at least at first) for us finite beings to comprehend. There will be "tension" and that is okay, especially when first learning.

Let me know if you have any questions. I hope this helps.

T

Sometimes, the answer is right in front of you, but you're too blinded by predetermined notions to accept it.

Given the authoritative tone you've taken in this thread and others, it's a fairly reasonable conclusion that you don't want to learn. Instead, it seems like you want to teach. This could be why you're struggling to learn.

Uhhh... Back to ad hominems. Well, I'm obviously too blind, why can't you be kind enough to point it out? You haven't made a single point that wasn't just an argument against mine.

LordTiberius: I'll try listening to that stuff if I get time today, but please understand smth: one of the main points of this strategy is to separate junk from non-junk, and so far you wrote a lot of stuff, but I don't see the executive summary.

If you could come up with a (short!) summary of your ideas that'd be great.

As it is I don't even fully understand what you're saying you did - you were worried that you'll stop being happy, read some stuff etc and now are not worried about that?

Eddi: what do you mean by justification and proof? The trouble I find with your proposed method is that, if followed strictly, it would not result in what you say it has resulted in for you. Your method is not, as you suggest, the "foundation of science." Modern science doesn't begin with the dismissal of every single "unjustified" notion.

I found this assertion of yours particularly troubling:
How do you know that "junk" can be separated from "non-junk" by reading nothing but a short summary, particularly if you are in a position of needing to learn?

When you first started learning science, you were able to distinguish "junk" from "non-junk" just by reading abstracts of papers?

As an aside, have you read much Plato? Just curious.

BTirish: Modern science goes along the route I outlined. At the base are some axiomatic-type things that are not provable, the only justification for which is - well we did a gazillion experiments and so far those things hold.

Because of this nature of some of these assumptions comes the clause 3), and many times throughout history people assumed stuff which seemed to be true and was true for all of their experiments, then new data came along and they had to modify their ideas so that they fit all of the experiments.

From that base the rest of the science is constructed.

Here's an example of such assumption in physics:
It doesn't matter when and where you do your experiment as long as you replicate the same initial conditions.

Here's an example of an assumption that held true for centuries but was modified with new data:
You can specify the position and velocity of a point-particle to arbitrary precision.


As for the junk stuff - I'm not saying I'd be able to distinguish junk from non-junk just from the summary, but I do need the basic assumptions and ideas first, not the complicated constructs based on those. I have no chance of understanding or validating the complicated constructs if you don't tell me the basics first - what are those things based on?

Re Plato: I've only read The Republic.

It does not have a "proven track record", it only has your hollow claims. I could claim that the bible has a better proven track record than your theory.

Your theory is just like a religion. An empty claim that you insist that people should believe in and practice.

Also, you wrote "Absolute certainty will never be achievable". Are you certain that this is true? It is a good example of circular reasoning. One absolute certainty is that I exist as a reasoning being, since I know that I am reasoning. "I think, therefore I am". To me this is the only certainty, and everything else I believe comes from this truth.

See Science.

And again - you don't like this strategy and think it has holes, is wrong or whatever - that's fine, present a better one and we'll use yours.

nice dodging stupid.

Mathematics, for example, is based on axioms. Thus it holds no place in your little theory that you claim to equal science?

I'm addressing your argument repeatedly by showing the failure of your epistemic system to be internally coherent. This one-size-fits-all approach to knowledge is neither sufficient nor functional. I'm arguing that your structure does not even have the capacity to allow you to critically analyze your own position.

If you feel it's an ad hominem when I tell you that the reason you can't understand is because your system of thought is broken, so be it.

What OTHER structure should I use instead?

hell would freeze over before you accepted what he thinks is the way we'd determine which is better.

poor guy, your head must hurt from all the mental gymnastics you have to do.

too direct a question to get an answer from Aaron W.

although he might come back and ask you to define "structure"

HE'S ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES FOR A ****ING ALTERNATIVE AND YET YOU COME BACK AND TELL HIM HE DOESN'T WANT TO LEARN WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU PSYCHOS?

I still don't think you get it. But here we go anyway...

Do you really believe that this is true? That kids always listened and believed what their parents tell them? When they said things like don't touch that because it's hot, didn't you sometimes touch it anyway?

Sometimes having something explained to you is not sufficient for understanding. No amount of "justification and proof" from your parents would have taught you what "hot" is without the personal experience. (I suppose they could have stuck your hand on the stove to "prove" to you that it's hot...)

Do not deny the role of personal experience in the pursuit of knowledge. Sometimes, you've just got to do it yourself before you can understand (and even then, sometimes you still won't understand).

It reminds me of students saying "just tell me the answer" when the whole point is for them to learn to think carefully about what they're saying. The answer is not the point.

I felt that this one was simple enough that he could have figured it out himself. But it seems like he's too hung up on being told the answers rather than discovering them on his own.

Okay, but one can't do anything they want.

I can't go to Mars, but I can learn a great deal about the planet.

****ing hell, finally smth!

I completely agree - feelings are not learned by that strategy, and while "hot" is a simple stimulus-response mechanism, I don't think it's clear how we learn more advanced feelings like love.

I'll lump feelings into this general category of "subjective stuff". Until we understand how the brain works in more detail and learn to hack into it, there is not much else I can do but do some alchemy to pretend that I can teach what e.g. love is.

If you're now saying that your god is in that category, then we have no quibble as I am precisely of that same opinion, although I'd probably express it with a different wording than you'd do.

This thread is mostly aimed at Abrahamic god followers, who always put god outside of the subjective and into the measurable reality.

To summarize: "stuff" in OP would have to exclude feelings. If god is only a feeling - we got nothing more to talk about.

This reminds of arrogance.

Are you saying that his method for learning is flawed, and he should learn a better way to do it?

It's not the point that he wants the answer, he wants to know how to get to the answer. He wants to learn.

So, again, could you please tell us how you go about learning things, if it is not in a similar way to how the OP describes?

As I guessed... you still don't get it.

You now seem perfectly content to blow off the ENTIRE premise of your system when we talk about "subjective stuff" (which, by the way, is still empirically-based knowledge).

Are there other "classes" of knowledge out there? Which of these are also untouchable by your supposed system of learning? How do you know any of this?

I will add to the criticism that you're being completely arbitrary about your application of this epistemic system as well.

If I'm arrogant for giving you the opportunity to realize your mistake on your own, so be it. In the end, it makes no difference to me what you think about me or my position.

Upon the consideration of the bulk of his writings in RGT, I believe this is false.

I'm saying that if he's trying to learn something, then his approach to learning in this thread and others is flawed. This criticism is not limited to the formalized approach he put forth in this thread, but the general tact that he has shown himself to have.