Oh look, it’s the usual garbage we see being peddled about peer review by creationist liars. Which completely misses the point, as well as misrepresents the entire process.
The purpose of peer review, is to search for errors in a submission. The moment errors are reported to be present, the submission is rejected. Just because you don’t see this happening, because you’re not a participant in the process, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Indeed, if you bother to contact scientists who have been successful in their submissions, they will tell you that peer review is pretty brutal at times.
Even if no egregious errors are present, the next step is to look for weakness of reasoning, or failure of the data to support the stated conclusions in a properly rigorous and robust manner. This is a process that, by definition, requires other trained scientists to perform, because only other trained scientists possess the expertise for this exercise. Or would you rather have this business conducted by, for example, tech bros with dollar signs in their eyes, using a glorified Elizabot “AI” to fill in for their ignorance?
Do you really think that, for example, someone lacking familiarity with intensely technical subject matter, would be fit to review a paper from, say, cosmological physics, involving several pages of detailed and intricate derivations using the Ricci calculus? If you think that task can be handed off to some office dogsbody, then you are in serious need of education.
Apparently you seem to think that the scientists performing peer review, don’t know enough to be able to determine the veracity of a submission without direct replication thereof. This is such manifest garbage as to be beneath deserving of a point of view. Peer reviewers are chosen precisely because they possess the expertise to unpick bad stitches in the cloth of a submission.
In addition, the competitive nature of modern scientific publishing, means that peer reviewers need to be chosen carefully, to prevent rivals from sabotaging valid submissions - an issue that clearly never occurred to you. The entire process, when conducted properly, requires a careful level of curation that renders your above caricature null and void.
There’s also one other aspect of the peer review process that you are manifestly unaware of. Peer reviewers are not paid for their work. They undertake this task on a voluntary basis, knowing that maintenance of honesty, integrity and rigour in the scientific enterprise is vital to its continued survival.
Indeed, that last point in the above paragraph, is the reason why any actual acts of dishonesty result in career suicide. Once a scientist acquires a bad reputation, his career in mainstream science is effectively over.
As a corollary of the above, your blatantly duplicitous caricature of peer review as some sort of indolent rubber stamping exercise is precisely that - a blatantly duplicitous caricature, and one that is FAR more applicable to the pathetic cosplaying at science performed by creationists. Who, in addition, require their output to conform to “statements of faith”, a requirement completely absent from genuine scientific publishing organisations.
If you think it’s so easy to pass peer review, I have a simple answer - try it yourself. I and others here will enjoy the savage education you will receive.
That’s a lie. You’ve posted a ton of drivel and have gone back and forth with Sheldon on here. You really expect me to buy that? That’s funny when I call you out on being dishonest, you just try to get creative and invent another lie.
While I don’t personally have the level of derision and animus toward fireflies that some here do, it really does come down to this. Even if you’re not an interrantist / literalist or young earth creationist, religious faith is still has a fundamental (and, for me, fatal) flaw that causes me to reject it on epistemological terms: it makes claims about things outside of observable reality which inherently are and must ever be, beyond substantiation of any kind. Even liberal Christianity (for example) posits an invisible, ineffable creator god that intervenes in the affairs of humanity and even of individual humans. Often for liberal Christians it is god intervening in some more general way in human history, guiding the story arc as well as natural processes to his ultimate objectives, but these are still not subject to observation and evaluation in any meaningfully objective or even intersubjective way. Also a god who does not literally protect or encourage or reward individuals in a loving and fair and reliable manner is not of much practical value as that god comes down to being either absent, indifferent or non-existent and it almost doesn’t matter to daily living which of those it actually is. Although that last point is a separate issue from my other objections.
That is why I did not just become a liberal Christian or perhaps a Buddhist or something when I left fundamentalist Christianity. The failed epistemology of religious faith is essentially the same everywhere you look. And IMO those beliefs are and must be based upon fallacious thinking or willful compartmentalization if not outright ignorance. While liberal believers deserve (IMO) credit for not being controlling assholes, at least in anything like the way authoritarian believers are, they still try to equivocate their way around being reliably devoted to rational, critical thought.
Yet you believe in the existence of deities and haven’t made any effort to gather evidence to build your case. Let alone challenge a claim where someone dismisses the protagonist of your religious mythology.
I don’t care who you are. I care about what claim you’re going to present and what god and or religion it is that you’re presenting for your argument. I care about what scientific and or biological evidence you have for your case. Seeing as you have none of those things and you’re just evading and making excuses, it is safe to dismiss any and all arguments you present. I’m sure you’re familiar with Hitchen’s Razor.
As I explained, the addition of “and demand objective verification” made it a false equivalence in terms of what was required for critical thought, in relation to the generalisation.
I was just trying to establish what your position was - if you’re not saying it’s necessary, then that is something we’re not in disagreement over.
It would help to include context so I can respond more easily. I did explain though as per the context below. I’m not sure why you’re asking the question?
Without a ball, there is no game. The standard “football” can be substituted for something else that serves as the ball, but a ball is needed in some form or another.
if something can be objectively scrutinised (natural, physical, measurable results) then I agree, it is like a game of football/soccer. without the ball, there’s no point. But if it’s something which can’t be objectively scrutinised, it doesn’t match the analogy - it is like a sport that doesn’t use a ball.
That’s not correct, once again. objective scrutiny can’t get any measurable data because it doesn’t apply. Nothing to do with “magic” - it is simply the nature of such a metaphysical hypothetical that there could be no measurable data. Science deals with the natural, physical. Any “data” would either be naturally explained, or it would be unexplainable.
That is your choice to do so. I’m not making an argument as to whether people should believe or not. My only argument here is that critical thought is possible with religion.
It’s based on the contemplation of the possibility. Exist is the right word, yes. As Shakespeare is most often quoted, “to be, or not to be, that is the question.”
I would also disagree on saying it exists outside or beyond objective reality. If there are metaphysical entities, etc. of such a nature, then by the definition of objective reality, objective reality would include them.
The distinction of course is the natural, physical world. I understand that you view objective reality as just the natural, physical world, but if there is a metaphysical reality, then that too would be part of objective reality.
Reality simply is what is - whether that is the natural, physical world, or something more.
It’s not about an assumption either - that is where critical thought comes in - not just blindly accepting something as believed true, but to subject it to critical thought.
My point here was that if one is to subject objective scrutiny to critical thought, that critical thought of objective scrutiny can’t include objective scrutiny as part of its process, as that would be circular reasoning, so accordingly, one must accept that critical thought can operate without objective scrutiny.
As for successes, again, that is cherry picking. Successes are defined by objective scrutiny, so claiming greater successes is circular reasoning. You would need to independently confirm the number of successes through objective verification versus methods without, and in doing so, you’re using objective verification, hence the circular reasoning.
Again, I’m not denying the benefits of objective verification, I’m just pointing out limitations in some frameworks. It’s ideal for what it does, but the expectation that it can be applied in all things (or to things where it can’t be applied) is wrong.
based on what method? How are you making such an assessment?
If the answer is objective verification, then this only highlights the circular reasoning involved.
“The objective verification category has relentlessly reliable results, but when we use objective verification to compare how the religion category performs, it has unreliable results” - you’re judging a fish by its ability to climb a tree. The tree climbers category is relentlessly reliable at climbing trees, where the fish category is unreliable.
Doesn’t matter how many times you state that, it doesn’t change the fact that beliefs and claims are different. Claims have the burden of proof. Doesn’t matter what a person believes, no matter how reasonable or ludicrous it might be - no matter if it flies in the face of all known facts, no person has to justify their beliefs if they don’t want to.
I’m only arguing that critical thought can occur with religion.
It’s not a false equivalence because I stated I wasn’t comparing it to religion. That’s why I specifically said, “this example only serves to demonstrate that there can be something that is not objectively verifiable…”
My point there was that something can exist yet not be objectively verifiable with measurable results. No further direct comparison or equivalence was being made with the example.
This in turn supports that critical thought can occur without objective verification.
A person’s belief is something internal to them. They can have inter-subjective agreements, but any objective claims would fail because there is no objective verification. Critical thought can occur with regard to those internal beliefs and inter-subjective agreements, but that critical thought will lack objective verification - accordingly it is not so easy to critically think, but how each individual reconciles that is up to them.
I think you misread what I said. I was acknowledging that you would hold the view that referencing “the supernatural” to dismiss any conflicting evidence would be handwaving (i.e., a creationist dismissing evolution by handwaving “supernatural entity”) - I was making your argument for you and then agreeing with that point - that such handwaving wouldn’t be sufficient for critical thought.
I haven’t made a claim - I understand you view beliefs as a claim, but I haven’t even expressed my beliefs in relation to such.
I am not calling objective verification insufficient - it’s sufficient where it applies. I’m saying it doesn’t apply everywhere because it has a specific purpose and that purpose doesn’t apply to a potential metaphysical reality.
That’s the question - objectively speaking, it can’t be objectively known.
But consider the atom, and sub-atomics, and so on. At some point in history, people didn’t know there was anything to be found beyond a certain level. I understand that atoms, etc. are different because they are something objectively verifiable, but the mindset is the same, even if the framework is different.
I accept that makes critical thinking harder, because if objective verification was applicable, things would be much simpler, relatively speaking.
I didn’t mean a specific thing, I just meant that critical thought needs to compensate for the absence of objective verification.
I don’t disagree that organised religion, and religious belief isn’t conducive to critical thinking. I’m only disagreeing, as per the original comment, that religion requires critical thinking to be repressed - as an absolute.
I don’t think blind belief/faith is helpful to anyone.
Why do scientists take on a hypothesis, devoting their lives to proving something, perhaps to never accomplish the task, or worse - to spend years only to find they are wrong? Investment of belief is not exclusive to religion.
Not all truths are easy. If there is a hypothetical truth that cannot be objectively verified, should people dismiss that truth because they have no means to objectively verify it?
In the first comment, I am saying that religion does not require critical thought to be repressed (i.e., “you can think critically, but you can’t think too much”)
in the second comment, I am saying that critical thought is more difficult (i.e., it’s not a case of looking for objective verification, seeing that something has been demonstrated or disproved, checking the methodology, data, findings, agreeing with the results, and then done)
That’s fine, I wouldn’t ask or expect you to do otherwise.
My apologies, I think you have misunderstood the position I was taking here, in the middle of a lengthy discussion with Sheldon. Please be assured, I am not trying to dismiss peer review by any means, I was simply pointing out its understandable limits in the context of critical thought and objective verification.
I agree, and I understand this.
Also agree, and understand this. No disputes from me here.
Of course not. Peer review, as the term states, is conducted by peers. It needs to be scientists reviewing other scientists. People with years of experience and reputation capable of understanding the methodology, data, findings, etc. and spotting any errors, bias, etc.
No, I don’t think that, and I fully appreciate the role of peer reviewing and the benefits to the scientific community.
No, that is not true - I think this is where you were misunderstanding my point in the context of the debate with Sheldon.
I was arguing against critical thought needing objective verification, which involves re-testing and reproducibility.
I was simply pointing out that the peer review process does not involve re-testing and does not attempt to reproduce the data. It accepts the data itself (I should add: unless there is reason to determine the data is flawed/incorrect/erroneous), but it examines the methodology used to obtain the data, and the findings, etc.
I was not seeking to undermine the peer review process. To the contrary, the benefit it brings serves to support my point that even though it doesn’t re-test and reproduce (i.e., the peer reviewers didn’t go to CERN and re-do the experiments) - their critical thought is still valid and accepted.
No, I fully understand this and appreciate it.
Again, I was not seeking to undermine peer review in any way - quite the opposite.
I am aware, and again, I fully appreciate the role and benefits it brings to science.
I can assure you that was not what I was trying to say in the least. I was only trying to distinguish that they were not re-testing and reproducing the data, but the role they do conduct is invaluable and that was supporting my point.
I do not. I understand and appreciate the system and, although I understand too that it’s not perfect, and there are cases where “bad science” has slipped through, this is a rare occurrence and not representative of the scientific community as a whole. I have no criticisms for the scientific community and I appreciate the valuable roles that scientists and peer reviewers hold.
I hope that clears up any misunderstanding and resolves any misunderstandings about my position.
That’s the point. I’m not trying to make a case - I have not and am not making any claims about the existence of anything requiring evidence or a case.
Again, I’m not going to present any such thing. I’m not making any such arguments of that nature.
That’s fine, because I’m not trying to make any such arguments.
If you want to dismiss any unrelated arguments I make, that is of course up to you, but why should the fact that a label applies to me, undermine any unrelated arguments I make?
As before, my intention is for my arguments to stand or fall on their own. If I make an argument, it is because I consider it to be supportable and that I can defend it with evidence. If/when I am wrong, I will acknowledge this and learn from it.
I won’t make arguments that can’t be supported, and yes, as per Hitchen’s razor, I fully accept that any arguments without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I’m fully in agreement with that.
My position in regards to my debate with Sheldon is that we are in disagreement, but we are both making points from a presumed basis of fact and supported by presumed evidence, with logic.
I accept that we are in disagreement over the facts, over the evidence, and the logic in places - but in this and other discussions, there has been movement toward agreement in different ways.
I stand by my point that I am using facts and logic to the best of my ability.
Have I said anything specifically that doesn’t come across as reasonably recognisable as being factual/logical in context, even if you consider it to be incorrect/fallacious?
I consider Sheldon to be astute and a seasoned debater. We may disagree on a lot, but I would like to think he wouldn’t waste his time responding to me if my points were not from an (attempted) position of fact and logic, even if he disagrees on them.
What use is any hypothesis that can’t be objectively verified – religious or not? What hypotheses are you aware of that are assumed true without such verification? The very definition of a hypothesis is an educated and testable (falsifiable) guess. If a hypothesis can’t be tested then what basis would you have to elevate that hypothesis over any other?
The benefit of hypotheses is that there isn’t an assumption of truth - it’s a means to investigate or reason, without needing to assume something is true.
a scientific hypothesis needs to be testable, sure, and I accept that when it comes to such metaphysical matters, it can’t meet the standard of science.
As to what use there is of a hypothesis that can’t be objectively verified? I acknowledge that it’s limited - scientific theories, etc. are not going to emerge from them. But that doesn’t mean there is no use for them. When it comes to discussing metaphysical things for example, a hypothetical can be useful to side-step the need to assume a truth, while discussing and reasoning about elements of a proposition.
The quote from my comment you included is an example - I mentioned a “hypothetical truth” to discuss the possibility of a truth that can’t be objectively verified, to ask whether such a truth should be dismissed or not.
By posing the “truth” as a hypothetical, it doesn’t need to be any specific “truth”, it doesn’t need to be justified or assumed, etc. It’s just a way of posing a question in the manner of a thought experiment.
I never said it was required, and I never equated it to critical thought.
Necessary here is a matter of personal choice, based on what one wishes to achieve.
I already explained this isn’t true, it just wouldn’t be as successful a game. It was an analogy not a claim the two things were equal, thus not a false equivalence. It was offered to show how including objective verification to critical examination is much more successful, I think you’re getting too focused on the analogy itself.
It is thus far just your bare opinion that anything exists outside of objective scrutiny, so you’d need to offer more than bare assertions else your argument provides no data to examine.
Again that’s your unevidenced opinion, why would anyone accept this unsupported assertion?
noun
the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
Since you are making a bare claim something exists beyond or outside of objective reality, then magic is precisely what you are describing.
And as I have explained critical thought is a scale, not a binary condition, so if one is accepting bare claims, and indulging subjective beliefs that could believe any idea we imagined was outside of objective scrutiny, then how critical can their process have been.
That is not what you have asserted thus far, but you obviously can’t know something is possible of it provides not measurable data, so no more than epistemic possibility. And I am not sure exist is the right word:
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Neither of those are beyond objective verification.
Part of objective reality but offering no data, or objectively verifiable results, you seem to want to have your magic cake, and eat it, but by all means evidence this claim with something beyond a bare subjective assertion.
If anything is part of objective reality then it falls well within the purview of methods using objective verification, like science, and would offer some measurable data, you already said it does not.
I don’t view it that way no, I merely note it is an objective fact that it exists, and we have, and you are offering, naught but bare claims for the magical realm you assert exists beyond objective reality.
Reality
noun
1.
the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
So far the latter is all I have seen religions offer, and you have been unequivocal in explaining deities offer no measurable results, objective reality does offer measurable results. Also the (magic) fence between the deities imagined and objectively verifiable reality, seems to move in a very convenient and ad hoc way, this is as far from critical thinking as I can imagine.
By creating imaginary realms with deities that offer (your own words) no measurable data, I have form the start suspected that you and I mean different things when we use the phrase critical thinking, but I am starting to wonder if the word critical means the same thing to me as it appears to do to you.
adjective
expressing adverse or disapproving comments or judgements.
At every turn you seem to be doing the opposite, and lowering the bar for credulity to let it pass over, indeed where pretty much any subjective belief could pass over, all one need do is make it untestable.
That does not seem critical at all, where’s is the critical scrutiny of the claim, what does it involve exactly?
And of course this gets you no closer to Allah, Jesus or Yahweh, than it does to Thor, Zeus or Apollo, or the Aztec deity of gluttony come to that. All your work would still be before you even if one were inclined to lower the bar that far, but if they do then it appears to be the opposite of subjecting the claim to critical examination, all of that seems to be coming only form me.
I already explained why this was not the case? In a circular reasoning fallacy the conclusion is assumed prima facie, or in the opening premise, but we have sufficient evidence that objective verification in methods works, planes remain airborne, cars travel to their destinations, antibiotics cure patients, etc etc etc, countless examples of the efficacy of using objective verification, compare that then to countless and wildly differing deities and religions humans have imagined using subjective belief, or the countless millennia they peddled things as immutable truths, that turned out to be utterly erroneous.
It’s hardly cherry picking to point out a fact, objective scrutiny works exceptionally well in helping us understand reality, in stark contrast to subjective beliefs like religious beliefs. This can’t really be a surprise as you admit they offer no measurable data, and they arrive at wildly different conclusions, there is no Christian physics, or Muslim physics, or Jewis physics etc etc.
No, you are claiming without even the pretence of evidence, that it is a limitation of our best methods that they fail to detect magical or supernatural realms that exist outside of any objective scrutiny, but now form part of objective reality, there is a much simpler answer if one examines those bare claims critically, one that requires no unevidenced assumptions about reality, and that subjects all claims to the same standard, without any bias.
I have done so repeatedly, in this post again I explained how science and objective verification returns facts about reality, facts that don’t vary from time to time or place to place, or between cultures, or religions, whereas religions return wildly different claims / beliefs.
No, you are pointing at a naked man, and insisting his new suit “exists”, while also insisting we can’t test his nakedness.
I am not suggesting objective verification can falsify claims for magic, or the supernatural, only asking what you have beyond the claim that these exists?
It is an objective fact that science can’t detect non-existent things, it is an objective fact that the physical natural world exists, you’re the one adding categories without evidence, and decrying methods we know are astonishingly successful at explaining reality as unsuitable, because you imagine deities in a way that suggests they would be.
I never said they were the same.
Beliefs are the affirmation of claims, do you mean to say if one doesn’t express them then no burden of proof is incurred? If so then one incurs this oneself not to others, but I think we can both agree that religions don’t do this, nor are you here, you didn’t bring your theistic arguments to an atheist debate forum by accident.
If they express them in a public debate forum they do.
When religions and all the religious keep their beliefs entirely to themselves, then there will be nothing to debate, and we won’t need a word for not holding belief in a deity.
.
One can believe or disbelieve, depending what one wishes to achieve. However if one were to believe one such claim, on what basis would withhold belief from all other such claims, other than bias. Even if one believed a deity existed on such a basis, one would have no more reason to believe it was Allah, Jesus or Yahweh, than Zeus or Apollo.
So religion does present a challenge or barrier to critical thinking, but does not eradicate it entirely?
But the whole point of religion is to assume its hypotheses are true – in some cases to the point of people being classified as evil or degenerate for not assuming so. Religious hypotheses are asserted truths or dogmas that are, by design, independent of knowable facts, evidence or in most ways even logical argument.
“My invisible god exists and has certain attributes and makes this and that claim on an individual” would be one such hypothesis. And it’s a biggie.
In actual practice in my experience and observation it is indeed a way to side-step truth, but discussion and reasoning are in short supply. It is more asserting and, particularly in the case of authoritarian religion, hectoring.
In the manner of a thought experiment, in a sense. But it’s not an actual experiment because the core assertions of religious dogma aren’t up for discussion or really even toying with the possibility of anything except them being true.
Literally the only tools at your disposal within that framework are fallacious. Appeals to incredulity, to emotion, to need, to primal fears. What else could you appeal to?
You can use logic within the framework but not to actually probe the framework itself. You can say that given my deity and given my dogma it would be better to do X than to do Y, or it is reasonable to infer doctrine Z. But you cannot use it on the “givens” because they are simply asserted and neither proven, nor provable.
You cannot truly “investigate” or “reason” concerning any basic tenet of religious faith beyond “do enough people share these beliefs to appeal to me as a herd animal – would they accept me and afford me belonging and refuge?”.
Not directed towards fireflies, but I know all Christians are different. The vast majority of them use their own head canonical theories on what they think their imaginary sky daddy can or won’t do. And a lot of those self made religious theories are pretty absurd.
If it’s not required or related to critical thought, then we are not in disagreement on this point then. I think that resolves much of the discussion in that case.
I’ve given examples (music) of things existing outside of objective scrutiny. Also objective scrutiny itself must be outside of objective scrutiny as critical thought in regards to objective scrutiny can’t involve the thing being assessed (circular reasoning)
However, as above, if objective verification isn’t required, the outcome of this point seems moot to the original discussion.
Circular reasoning again. The requirement of objective evidence for there being something that can’t be objectively evidenced is a fallacy.
I didn’t make any such claim. We are talking about “if” there is something that cannot be objectively verified / in a metaphysical reality. I have made no claims as to there actually being anything, we’re just talking about critical thought being employed in relation to such a thing (and belief thereof)
Also, based on that very general description, it is only about the hypothetical existence of a thing. As per your own quoted definition of “magic”, that is dependent on the influence of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.
Existence in the general sense is not an influence of events by any means, so there is no cause to label something merely hypothetically existing but not objectively verifiable as being magic.
I agree it’s a scale, not a binary condition, but it can be binary in the sense of it being used or not. Like a tap, it can be binary (on, off) and it can be a scale in terms of how much water is flowing out when it is on.
Unlike water, the scale of critical thought is unquantifiable no matter what the critical thought is being applied to, so any discussion about where on a scale it occurs is going to be difficult. I am making the argument that religion does not require critical thought to be repressed, so to detail that further, there is no aspect that needs to be exempted from critical thought, or given leniency compared to other things a person may give critical thought to, to the extent that a claim could be made that religion requires critical thought to be repressed. Beyond that, it’s down to individuals how and to what degree they employ critical thought in anything.
I have been discussing critical thought and things that are not objectively verifiable. I have given examples of there being known things that are not objectively verifiable (beauty of music for example), to indicate metaphysics is a thing.
You keep presenting something not objectively verifiable as outside objective reality, and I countered this in my previous comment. Something can be outside observable reality, it can be considered metaphysical reality (if it exists), but if something exists then it is part of objective reality.
It can’t be said that all things in objective reality are necessarily objectively verifiable. There would be no means to support this claim, and it would be circular reasoning as you can’t objectively verify something as not being objectively verifiable, and the negative can’t be proved.
I didn’t make a claim. I used the word if for a reason. It remains hypothetical because it can’t be proved or disproved. I’m not making any claim as to anything specific existing that is not objectively verifiable (aside from the examples given such as music), the discussion is about how critical thought would apply in such cases - largely a moot point now as per the beginning of this comment.
This claim would carry the burden of proof. My argument is that you cannot prove such a claim. You would have to make a claim using objective verification itself, and that would be a circular argument.
I don’t understand your response here. I literally stated that any metaphysical reality if it exists would exist within objective reality, and you’re responding that I am claiming something exists beyond objective reality.
Also, as above, I have made no such claims. I am simply arguing about the involvement of critical thought in relation to such positions.
Reality is what is regardless. Science, religion, etc. all offer views on things that exist, and whether or not those views are supported, and how one may assign value to that support is beside the point. Reality isn’t based on the strength of any support or even if something is claimed, believed, considered, hypothesised or not. As per your quoted definition, it is the state of things as they actually exist.
Your own definition does not state this. Any claim to this would be circular, as above.
I have been actively rejecting the idea that any subjective belief could pass it over. As per my previous comment when I specifically stated “I vehemently reject” one such example you gave.
My argument was, is and continues to be that critical thought can occur with religion, and that critical thought does not require objective verification if objective verification cannot apply to something.
Beyond that I have repeatedly tried to state that I am not claiming anything can pass critical thought, that anything specifically exists, or that anything can be believed and accepted. You keep trying to strawman my arguments as such and I keep trying to state the boundaries of my argument.
As per the beginning of this comment, it seems we both agree that objective verification is not required in critical thought, so in that aspect, there isn’t anything further to argue, and I am not trying to argue beyond that in that aspect.
That’s literally what cherry picking is in this context - picking out specific facts that support an argument, while ignoring anything that doesn’t.
I’m not disputing that objective verification/scrutiny works in the frameworks it applies to, but I am stating it doesn’t apply to all frameworks. If you pick successes from frameworks it does apply to and use those examples to argue it applies to everything that exists, then that’s cherry picking.
Strawman. I have given examples of frameworks where objective verification doesn’t exist - such as music. That is evidence.
Science has varied though. That is the strength of science. it adapts when new information disproves older points. Different times have seen different scientific views. Different locations have had different scientific views, etc. Science is becoming more unified, but accepted knowledge changes with new data.
That’s not a criticism of science. As I say, it’s a strength of it, but it can’t be claimed that facts don’t vary from time to time or place to place as history proves otherwise.
If you group all religions together, then sure there’s a diverse range of beliefs. That’s not in dispute. One could just as easily point out flat earthers exist and have conflicting views on science, and yes, you would be right to point out their position doesn’t stand up to objective scrutiny, and I agree with you, but it still comes under the same category even though they’re completely wrong.
If you’re going to draw a comparison between religion and science in that manner, the comparison needs to be equal. If you’re comparing a wide range of beliefs in religion, then the equivalent in science is belief in scientific positions. We have flerthers, antivaxxers, moon landing deniers - all manner of conspiracy theorists that have beliefs that fly in the face of objectively verified science - wildly different claims / beliefs that are based within science.
Obviously, proper scientists would dismiss all those views as unscientific, wrong, illogical, ignoring evidence, etc.; and just as equally, most people with religious belief would dismiss opposing beliefs as wrong.
The fact that there are people who are wrong doesn’t count against reality or truth. I am not making any claims as to what is truth/reality, but I am making the argument that truth/reality is, regardless of how knowable it is, how accepted it is, how much evidence there is or could be, etc.
Science has objective verification working for it, which is great. Again, not disputing its role or benefits here. Religion does not. But if something is reality/truth, then it is regardless.
I am making no such claim. You could say I am saying that if there is an invisible suit, we can’t assess whether it exists or not visually. That some things can exist that cannot be visually verified.
Just because I am making an argument that if there is something invisible existing, it needs to be determined by a method other than visual verification doesn’t equate to me claiming invisible clothes exist.
If I point to an example of the wind not being visual, I can acknowledge that although the wind is not a tangible invisible thing, it is kinetic force, it still gives an example of something that cannot be assessed visually, even though it is not in the same category of something tangible yet invisible - it only serves to highlight that there are frameworks of non-visual things that visual assessment cannot apply to. That does not undermine the benefits of visual assessment, and visual assessment is ideal for frameworks where something can be seen, but if there is something that cannot be seen, visual assessment cannot apply.
Of course, in the example of invisible clothes, one would still be able to touch them and perform a tactile assessment. Equivalently, I am not ruling out there being a means to assess metaphysical claims, but as it’s not something objectively verifiable, I cannot give any objective methods as to how such could occur.
I’m not adding categories, I am acknowledging that the categories are present, whether or not it is agreed or accepted that anything within those categories actually exists.
The category is present, and because it is present, the question of whether something within that category exists or not is a valid question. I am merely arguing that critical thought can apply to that question. As to how exactly it applies, given that objective verification is not applicable, is a different question, and one that cannot be objectively answered because objective verification is not applicable.
I am not decrying objective verification. Again, I have repeatedly stated it is ideal in the frameworks it applies to. You keep strawmanning my argument beyond the very clear boundaries I keep stating.
I even gave very clear examples of these boundaries, such as scales for weighing things being ideal for what it applies to, but being useless if you tried to weigh the planet by turning the scales upside down. That is not decrying scales, it’s recognising the limits and frameworks they operate in.
You said:
If I say “it is not X it is Y” and you say “Y is an affirmation of X” in response, either you’re making a non sequitur, or you are countering my point that I am talking about beliefs not claims, in which case it is false equivalence.
If you’re not saying they’re the same, then why did you raise it when I said it is about beliefs, not a claim?
Either you accept that I am talking about belief, not a claim, or you don’t. If you do then there’s no argument, if you don’t then you need to clarify your position.
In terms of belief, any burden of proof is internal. As with burden of proof for claims, the burden of proof only applies in the sense that if a claim is made, someone else can request evidence for that claim, and the burden of proving the claim lies with the claimant.
If I say “grass is green”, someone could ask me to evidence the claim, or they could accept it as true. Burden of proof only states that the person making the claim has the burden if proof/evidence is required.
In terms of belief, if a person requires proof for their belief, it is up to them to handle that accordingly, but naturally if someone has a belief, then by definition, there is no burden - they’ve moved past the stage where something is accepted or not as they have the belief already. If they later choose to doubt that belief, and seek justification for it (critical thought), that is within their power.
I haven’t brought any specifically theistic arguments to the forum. I have brought arguments of fact and logic that could to some degree favour a theistic position, but I’m not making an argument that any specific theistic position is correct, nor have I made an argument that a theistic position in general is correct.
At most, I have made arguments that a theistic position in general can’t be ruled out/dismissed, but when I have done so, I believe I have made it clear that by making such an argument, I am only establishing the position as “uncertain”, not positively supported in any way, just not ruled out either.
As per with this particular discussion, I have limited my argument to the position that religion does not require critical thought to be repressed. I have not made any argument in favour of any religion or religion generally - I have acknowledged that organised religions and beliefs are often not conducive to critical thought, and in some cases actively try to dissuade adherents from critical thought, but I am merely arguing that critical thought can occur, and doesn’t need any aspect of belief to be exempted or treated more leniently.
I have also argued that objective verification does not apply, but again, in doing so I have also stated that critical thought needs to compensate for that - although I have not given any specifics as to how that could happen, because there can’t be an objective answer. I’ve also acknowledged the difficulty of this.
Correct, and I’m not disputing that. I expect you have seen me responding to others who have made theistic claims in this forum, and I have argued against certain claims being made incorrectly/fallaciously.
A word for not holding belief is still necessary. Even if people don’t push their beliefs or religions onto others, or at least not onto others who are unwilling to hear it, or make unsolicited expressions of belief, etc., it can still be known that people have such beliefs.
The word would be necessary both for people who don’t hold such beliefs, and for people who do hold such beliefs in reference of those who don’t.
Critical thought. Evidently it must happen. There’s all manner of things to believe in - infinite possible things, and a vast number of known things to believe in - conspiracy theories, myth, magic, etc. - one could make an argument of bias in terms of religion “well they grew up in X religion so they’ll dismiss all others because they are biased toward their parent’s religion”, but that argument wouldn’t fit other things. Why don’t people believe in unicorns? They wouldn’t be incompatible with religious belief or the withholding of belief in religion (depending on the reason for withholding belief of course), but the vast majority - I would say nearly everyone in the world - doesn’t believe unicorns exist, so clearly there must be other factors involved in terms of belief. People believe some things, everyone has beliefs, but just because everyone has beliefs doesn’t mean they treat all beliefs equally, and it’s not just bias - that would be an over-simplification.
Yes, to be specific, the nature of religious belief and metaphysical-related belief generally presents a challenge and obstacle to critical thinking - it’s not as easy/straight forward/objectively clear as objectively verifiable things would be, but it is still possible.
In terms of religion, if a religious belief is stated openly (claimed) in any way, then it is an assertion of an alleged truth, and yes, it would be independent of objectively knowable facts, objective evidence, and in some cases, logic.
If a religious belief is not stated openly, it is still internally held as an alleged truth, and the same “independent of” list still applies.
In both cases, I wouldn’t call them a hypothesis in those contexts, because the contexts are either a claim being made, or a belief being held, respectively.
My reference to hypotheses was in relation to discussions taking place here. There is a distinction between a person having an internal belief and that same person discussing something hypothetically, even if it pertains to their internal belief - in order that whether or not the participants in the discussion agree on a particular premise, the implications of the premise can be discussed regardless.
If assertions and hectoring occur, it’s not a hypothetical in my view, and someone trying to frame something as a hypothetical in order to target others (hectoring) like “hypothetically if my belief in x is correct then y people are going to z”, that would be intellectually dishonest. However if someone says, “hypothetically, if x exists, then x must necessarily be y”, it would allow discussions over the implication “y” without needing to prove “x”. Any agreement or disagreement on “y” would remain within the hypothetical - just because everyone in the discussion agrees with “y” doesn’t mean they must then agree x, because the premise x was hypothetical.
“hypothetically if there is someone called Bob who has travelled to China officially, then someone in China must have seen Bob”
People can agree with the implication, “someone in China must have seen Bob (if someone called Bob has hypothetically travelled to China officially)”, without needing to accept that someone called Bob has travelled to China officially.
That’s right, it’s not an actual experiment or test of any position, but nor is it an assertion either. If someone else makes an assertion that’s up to them, but in my case, I am not making assertions of religious dogma, so there is no assertion of truth (from me) pertaining to them in the first place.
I agree, but I am not making any such assertions or appeals. The context of the hypothetical in this discussion thread has been that “if there is a (metaphysical) truth, the implications of that are that critical thought can occur, but objective verification would not apply to the framework.”
No defense is being made for any particular truth or category of truth, just a discussion of implications pertaining to the premise in terms of critical thought and objective verification.
I would say a person can internally investigate and reason regarding a belief, but that then cannot apply objectively - cannot be asserted and objectively supported, etc., and that other people are well within their rights to dismiss any such claims without evidence, as the claim itself would be without evidence.
Well i have not seen what the alternative is yet, but of course it is a personal choice of how critical one is when examining beliefs.
Music doesn’t exist outside outside of objective scrutiny?
Already refuted more than once?
It nonetheless underpins the best methods we have at examining and understanding objective reality.
You seem to have produced a claim I never made, from a question about a claim you are making. How are you establishing that deities or the supernatural exist, if you can’t do this in any reliable way, then it is just a bare claim that they are “beyond objective scrutiny”.
Lets not waste our time with semantics, do you or do you not believe a deity exists, do you or do you not believe this deity is beyond objective scrutiny?
Which is exactly what you have described thus far. A deity that can influence and exists within objective reality, but can’t be detected in any objectively verifiable way.
We have no need of such a false dichotomy though, as you have already agreed that religion can diminish critical thinking by making it more difficult.
No, you gave an example of a subjective opinion, the opinion a piece of music is beautiful is not meant offered as an objective truth, thus it differs from the belief a deity exists, and is (your own words) part of objective reality. Even were this not the case, it would not remotely evidence any deity.
Music is objectively real, we can objectively verify its existence, and the subjective opinion music is beautiful or not, is just that. Again if you are saying deities appear to exist only as subjective opinion, then fine, we don’t disagree.
No, I am giving the OED definition of exitance, to demonstrate why claiming a deity exists in the way you have suggested is at odds with that definition. Just as it is nonsensical to claim something exists as part of objective reality, yet is beyond objective scrutiny.
And if it part of objective reality it can be objectively scrutinised, so thinking about the claim critically makes the claim dubious, even as an if.
It can be said that we have no examples of anything in objective reality that is not, and we have countless examples of things that are. Since theism is adding one they can’t evidence, we don’t need to reverse the burden of proof.
Are you saying the deity you believe exists is not as you’ve described?
We have countless confirms that support this, and since we have not one counter example, it’s the claim that something exists as part of objective reality, but magically beyond objective scrutiny that remains entirely unevidenced.
I can however offer overwhelming evidence, and you have offered none that a deity exists, let alone that it is magically part of objective reality yet beyond objective scrutiny. Thinking critically the evidence all points one way.
Already refuted several times that this is circular reasoning.
Your claim contradicts all the countless examples we have, and is unsupported by even one example. The burden of proof is yours as it is the larger claim.
Is the deity you believe exists not as you have described?
A vapid tautology.
So do comic books, this is a false equivalence. As what science claims can be supported by overwhelming objective evidence, whereas the subjective beliefs of religions produce unreliable results that vary wildly.
Existence means either alive or part of objective reality, if something is part of objective reality there is no reason to believe it is beyond objective scrutiny.
Are you now saying that objective reality does not offer measurable results? We have countless examples to refute this, and it is not circular at all, as I explained above, since it has applications that work in the real world.
Which dies not address my point at all? Since critical thinking is a scale, and religious belief seems to diminish this ability, as we can see here.
You believe a deity exists, are you saying the way you have described here is not what you believe?
That depends what one wants to achieve. In all the apologetics I have encountered critical thinking is dismissed by attempts to argue for a deity and the supernatural.
What facts have I ignored? Could you list them please?
No indeed, non existent things for example are beyond objective verification. I you’re adding anything else then you’d need to evidence that claim, and this time you did make a claim.
We can objectively verify that music exists, no one has claimed it is objectively true that music is beautiful, again you are using the same false equivalence I have pointed out repeatedly, unlessyou are claiming deities only exist as subjective opinion, then your comparison is not a false equivalence.
What you have not evidenced is that anything can exist as part of objective reality, and be beyond objective scrutiny.
Indeed, but this is again a false equivalence, as a) science only changes when the objective evidence demands, and b) it does not vary to provide relentlessly differing results, unlike religion.
Unlike religions, which are not based on objective data, but on subjective beliefs.
Flat eithers not only have no scientific basis, their bs is utterly refuted by scientific facts, so that is a risible false equivalence.
None of those are remotely based within science. False equivalence…
False equivalence, science only offers the best evidence, if claims are contradicted by that they are not science, but using subjective beliefs one could choose to believe anything, as your examples amply desaturate, they belong with the category of subjective beliefs like religions, not with science.
So which religion is true and why?
Literally what I just said, claiming a man is wearing a suit that can’t be seen?
Then we have no credible reason to claim it is there, or we can claim literally anything is there. Now which position is the more critically thought out.
False equivalence as wind pressure can be objectively evidenced to exist, deities cannot can they?
That’s risible semantics. However please set about evidencing the claim they are there.
A vapid tautology, do you imagine this is a compelling argument?
I don’t believe you, please demonstrate that anything exists beyond objective scrutiny?
Which is not a claim they are the same, things can share similarities but not be the same. All beliefs contain the affirmation of a claim.
belief
noun
an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
When we assert we believe X, we are claiming X is true.
As before, because beliefs are the affirmation of a claim.
You can say I believe X, and simultaneously say this is not a claim about X.
Only if the belief is never expressed, which is moot in a public debate forum.
Where did my sentence say “specific” theistic arguments? If I wanted to be unkind I might call that a straw man.
I tend to base belief on sufficient evidence, not on uncertainty, and to that end examine them as critically as I am able.
This then suggests that religious apologetics by the nature of its claims, hinders critical thinking.
What is the word for not believing in mermaids?
On this I am inclined to agree, as this has been my experience when debating apologetics in general, though some ideas are more subtle than others of course.
The example was whether a piece of music (Beethoven was the specific example) was beautiful or not.
This is something that critical thought can be applied to, but can’t have objective verification for.
It is the best method we have at examining and understanding reality for which there are measurable results.
Once again, I am not making that claim. I keep repeating this, I don’t know why it’s not being accepted?
We’ve been through this on earlier discussions. I am not making any claim of such, and I am not going to go into any detail about any beliefs I may or may not have. They are not relevant to the discussion.
What are you claiming is a false dichotomy?
Again, I’ve already addressed this point when you claimed false equivalence. I’m not trying to compare music to religion. When I initially stated this and gave the example, I pointed out it only served to evidence that critical thought can occur without objective verification.
Nothing is being offered with belief - a belief exists internally. if someone wants to express belief / make a claim, that’s a different thing entirely and out of the scope of the discussion here. I’ve already pointed out repeatedly that if someone were to make a claim, they would then have the burden of proof.
except it doesn’t, which was my point. Something can be in objective reality but that doesn’t mean it has to be objectively verifiable. You would need to prove this claim otherwise.
Bare assertion fallacy. You can’t just call it nonsensical. You have to prove it, which as I mentioned before, would need to be proved without objective scrutiny.
As above. Your assertion needs to be supported.
Begging the question/circular reasoning. You can’t rule out examples of things that can’t be objectively verifiable because there are no objectively verified examples of things that can’t be objectively verifiable.
Burden of proof applies to the person making the claim. You made the claim, so there is no reversal going on here.
I have not expressed any specific belief in, or described any such entity or entities.
Again, this is begging the question/circular reasoning.
And just because the counter is unevidenced doesn’t support your claim either - I am not claiming there is something, I’m just arguing for the default position (uncertainty) - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Evidence of things being objectively verified is not evidence of there not being something that cannot be objectively verified. Your evidence would fail.
Because I haven’t made any such claims. I keep repeating this and it keeps being ignored.
If you agree it’s circular reasoning, it’s circular reasoning on your side.
Burden of proof is on claims. Doesn’t matter how large the claim is. You made the claim. I have not made a corresponding claim. I’ve only challenged the claim you made, and spoken about if a metaphysical reality exists - keeping it hypothetical only.
I don’t know why you’re literally responding to me pointing out that you’re telling me that I’m making a claim when I did not, by stating I have the greater burden of proof for the claim (I never made)
Not vapid. It highlights that reality is not dependent on knowledge, belief, evidence, etc. I did explain that in the full paragraph, so snipping a single sentence out of context to make this point is illogical.
Comic books for the most part are fiction. They may include and offer views on things that do exist but that would be false equivalence as my comment that you have taken pieces out of context was discussing reality as per the definition you provided and how views on reality are provided.
How are you claiming what I said was a false equivalence here? if you didn’t take sentences out of context, the equivalence would be seen. Your rebuttal ignores the point I was making:
I was pointing out, as per your own quoted definition, that reality is what actually exists. Science and religion offer views.
I’m not disagreeing that science presents objectively verified views that one can be certain is in alignment with reality, I was merely relating to your definition that reality is “the state of things as they actually exist”, and when it references “as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them”, what this means is that, sure, there is overwhelming evidence as you say, for all manner of things that have been objectively verified, but if (heavy emphasis on “IF”) there is any discrepancy between reality and what has been objectively verified, reality takes precedence. Similarly, if what has been objectively verified and what can possibly be objectively verified is not the entirety of reality, then again, reality takes precedence.
That is not to state that objective verification is wrong in any way, but just to highlight, as per the definition you quoted, that there is essentially a hierarchy, and reality is at the top of that hierarchy - objectively verified knowledge can at best match it, but cannot define it.
I’m saying that it cannot be claimed that all objective reality necessarily offers measurable results, and that the definition you provided does not state this.
as before, just because there are things that support the existence of objectively verifiable things does not prove the non-existence of things that cannot be objectively verified.
Just because there are things that can be weighed on scales doesn’t mean there are things that cannot be weighed on scales. Pointing to infinite number of weighable things doesn’t change this limitation.
Well, my argument was first, you responded to that initial argument. My argument was in response to the claim that religion requires critical thought to be repressed.
Religious belief does not require the ability of critical thought to be diminished, it just rules out objective verification as a method.
It’s like saying the request to build a historically authentic wooden chest diminishes the ability of a carpenter. If we consider that the carpenter has to build the wooden chest using tools that would be historically accurate, it makes the job more difficult - they can’t use power tools, etc., so their available tools are reduced but that doesn’t mean the carpenter’s ability has been reduced - as long as they have the skills and experience to build the historically authentic wooden chest, and they apply them to the task, it is possible for them to successfully complete the task.
Once again, I acknowledge that the example is limited to providing an example of how removing a tool doesn’t diminish an ability but it does make it more difficult - I am not attempting to draw any equivalence between the example and religion beyond that specific point. I acknowledge that the success of producing a historically accurate wooden chest is objectively verifiable, etc.
My argument is in a general sense. Not specific to me and what my internal position may or may not be.
I am not intending to speak for how individuals may have acted. I’m just making an argument in the general sense that critical thought can still be applied.
As I later explained in my comment, the issue is that you’re picking things that confirm your argument only, but in doing so, it doesn’t confirm the exclusivity of your argument.
For example. A person looks at a duck pond and declares that all ducks that exist are in the pond. They point to each duck in the pond as evidence that all ducks that exist are in the pond.
They are correct that each duck they point to as evidence supports the claim, but they are also ignoring the fact that ducks exist outside the duck pond.
Now let’s imagine this duck pond is inside a special self-supporting environment dome experiment where a family have grown up isolated from the rest of the world. They have no means to objectively verify anything outside the dome in which they reside. They have no knowledge from the outside world.
Just because the only ducks in the dome are in the duck pond doesn’t mean that there are no ducks outside the dome - which, to the person making the claim, they have no means to objectively verify the possibility otherwise. As far as they’re concerned, there is no outside the dome - they’ve never seen or heard of an outside.
The point is, that evidence supporting there being ducks in the pond does not support in any way the claim that there are no ducks outside.
Equally, the evidence that there are objectively verifiable things does not support in any way the claim that there is nothing that cannot be objectively verified.
Yes, because I have given the example of finding a piece of music beautiful as a framework. And yes, that framework is subjective belief/opinion, but it’s still a framework and my point is supported on this basis.
We’re not talking about objective truth, we’re talking about objective verification.
I haven’t claimed it does, I’m just pointing out it cannot be said that it doesn’t.
That’s not a false equivalence, and I literally stated that already so you’re making a point that is agreeing with what I said.
Shifting the goalposts fallacy. You can’t shift the goalposts and then claim false equivalence with the new goalposts when I was addressing the originals. You said science does not vary from time to time, or place to place. I pointed out that it does, even though this is the strength of science to adapt when new data disproves old positions.
Once again you are repeating the very point I stated myself and try to call it false equivalence. You began with the category error and I was balancing the equivalence.
In terms of religion there are 2 distinct possibilities:
One or more religions are correct.
No religions are correct
if one or more religions are correct, then the fact that there are numerous incorrect religions doesn’t have any bearing on the hypothetical fact that one or more are correct.
In the same way, science has knowledge that is accepted as correct, but there are also beliefs that contradict this.
Of course, science has objective verification that can override the incorrect beliefs - that means that the certainty of that knowledge being correct is objective, but correct is correct - it doesn’t make it more correct, and it doesn’t mean that if something else is correct but not objectively known to be correct, it is somehow less correct.
Going back to your definition of reality, Reality is what actually exists. That is a binary state. Either something exists or it doesn’t. There’s no sliding scale. if something does happen to be correct, then it is reality.
I also disagree that flat earthers have no scientific basis. They base their arguments in science, but their applications of science are wrong, illogical, etc. That doesn’t remove the basis itself, it just means it’s wrong.
It’s like building a house on sand - just because it’s the wrong foundation doesn’t mean the house doesn’t have a foundation. The house is still going to collapse though. Stating it has a foundation doesn’t legitimise it in any way.
Equally, saying that flat earthers base their arguments on science only serves to highlight their fallacies and how wrong they are because science destroys their arguments.
As above, they are on a basis of science, and accordingly, science can destroy their arguments.
Just because science is incorrectly applied, doesn’t mean it isn’t science.
If a person tries to build a wooden house, and incorrectly uses the saw to try and hammer nails, uses a screwdriver to chop wood, etc. and ends up with a heap of broken, twisted, damaged timber in a pile, you can easily say they failed to build a house, but you can’t claim they weren’t using carpentry.
I’m not making any such claim.
You gave an example of me making a claim, and I countered by using your example to present my argument - which is not that I am making a claim, but addressing a hypothetical - hence the word if in my version.
pre-emptive rebuttal. You should read the whole thing before responding out of context.
Not a false equivalence, the example was not talking about whether it could be objectively evidenced, it was talking about whether it could be visually evidenced.
A category is a category, not a claim of something existing. Asking for evidence that a category exists is like asking for evidence that science exists. There’s nothing to point to that is science, and there is nothing to point to that is a category. They’re concepts.
if you keep cutting even parts of sentences out of context, you can call anything vapid.
Begging the question/circular reasoning. A demonstration by definition would make something within objective scrutiny.
Incorrect. False equivalence.
When we assert we believe X, we are claiming that we believe X is true.
If I say I believe it will rain tomorrow. I am claiming I hold a belief about a future event.
If I say “It will rain tomorrow” I am making a claim about a future event.
An assertion that a person believes X does not have a burden of proof for X, whereas an assertion of X does.
Also, notice in both examples, they’re assertions. Just because someone has a belief does not mean it’s a claim, and doesn’t mean it has been asserted.
In this case, I am talking about belief, but no belief has been asserted.
then it is moot. It is not the belief that is being discussed, it is implications pertaining to belief.
You said “your theistic arguments”, which makes it specific. As does the “you didn’t bring”.
If you said, “theistic arguments have not been brought to an atheist debate forum by accident”, you could make the argument that they are non-specific. But the moment you involved me and called them my arguments, you were introducing a degree of specificity.
That’s fine. I’m not asking you to change any beliefs. If something is uncertain, there’s no reason not to withhold belief.
If Sheldon agrees, I think we have reached some measure of understanding in terms of critical thought and objective verification not being required, but being ideal for things that can be objectively measured. - given that that was the primary aspect of my disagreement with the generalisation, while we still have other disagreements, I think that’s going to be par for the course between us, but I would be fine with stepping back from this line of discussion on the basis that some measure of agreement has been reached.
We have presented opposing views, and it seems we are somewhat intractable on opposing positions for one reason or another.
So if @Sheldon agrees, we can call it concluded for now?
