AJ Philips,

“But I have not asked you to say that”.

Neither did I claim you asked me to say anything. So again, please let us leave it at that. I am sure you will find others who can understand (and accept) your “corrections of arguments” by those whose way of expressing their views you do not see as being up to your standards.

Craig Minns,

It looks like we’re about to come full circle now. I’ve already addressed everything you said in that last post of yours.

This is what I mean by you ducking and weaving…

<<...the point is that the "bad ideas" are not driven by religious experience, [but that some] (mis)use it to promote some power agenda.">>

Okay, so now you're talking about "religious experience", not religion. I asked you to explain what you mean by “religious experience” on the other thread, but I don’t think I got a response. You would need to define it before I could respond to this.

You’ve also switched from religion to “holy books” regarding the “misuse” of religion. Okay, but this (and the above) does not negate my point about religion being able to influence undesirable behaviour in a way that science cannot.

By the way, nothing I have said suggests that I “have a very strongly grounded view of the world that limits [my] ability to observe anomalies.” This is another ad hominem and a red herring.

.

George,

That had nothing to do with the thrust of my post.

<<Neither did I claim you asked me to say anything.>>

But let’s have a look at what you said again anyway:

“I thought we had already agreed on this, namely that one of the differences between us two is that I would not say that only a crazy person could believe what you do or have an understanding for.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17075#301759)

So I mentioned that I didn’t ask you to “say that only a crazy person could believe what [I] do”, before proceeding to the actual crux of my response. Namely, that I did not say that your views were crazy. In fact, quite the opposite, given the context of our current reality.

<<I am sure you will find others who can understand (and accept) your “corrections of arguments” by those whose way of expressing their views you do not see as being up to your standards.>>

How people express their views is irrelevant. It’s the content I’m concerned with.

AJ, we've come full circle because you don't want to go anywhere.

I don't know how to explain the religious experience, or I would do so and this discussion wouldn't exist. I've always been talking about the human experience, I've never, ever claimed otherwise. You, on the other hand, have a particular beef with a particular form of organised religion and a particular church, which you have coupled to your faith is scientism to draw a particular conclusion that you want to convince everyone is the only possible one to draw. All of your efforts are directed not at understanding another point of view, but at trying to prove, using your own assumptions, that it cannot be of any value.

That is not scientific, my friend and if you think it is, you are wrong.

Holy books are what is used by those who wish to claim some form of divine sanction for their choice of actions, or if you prefer the modern terminology, use a selection bias in service of their confirmation bias. In the case of adherents to scientism that might include such things as "A Brief History of Time" or "On the Origin of Species" or "The God Delusion". It's extremely doubtful that many of those who might speak glowingly of such works have any genuine understanding of the ideas, any more than those who sit dutifully in church every Sunday understand what was in the mind of someone like Jesus. Instead, what is relied on is the interpretation of a go-betweeen, such as Dillahunty or Ken Ham.

Calling you well-grounded isn't an ad hom any more than calling you intelligent is. You have a very strong belief in and a matrix of justifications for a particular world view which makes you largely immune to anything that doesn't fit. As I said, have a read of von Neumann on subjective probability, which is strongly related to game theory although most work on it is done using Bayesian techniques and an assumption of rationality to avoid the difficult subjectivity aspects and have a good look into Nash's story.

Craig Minns,

I’m happy to go other places, but not because you want to duck and weave and slink away from a failed point.

<<I don't know how to explain the religious experience...>>

I didn’t ask you to explain the religious experience, I just need you to tell me what you’re referring to when you mention it.

<<I've always been talking about the human experience, I've never, ever claimed otherwise.>>

While making comparisons between religion and science that were demonstrably false. Again, I need to drag you back!

<<You, on the other hand, have a particular beef with a particular form of organised religion and a particular church...>>

Nope. I’m talking about all religion to some extent, and the concept of religion itself. A “particular church” though? Where did you get that?!

<<All of your efforts are directed not at understanding another point of view, but at trying to prove, using your own assumptions, that it cannot be of any value.>>

I have never said that certain beliefs “cannot be of any value”. You’re making this up. Either way, try providing one example of where I continue to argue in vain due to my inability to hear what the other is saying.

Or make things up as you have here, for that matter.

Your comparison between holy books and the works of scientists/atheist writers only demonstrates my point about scientism being nothing more than a caricature. You might get some naive teenager on the internet like that, but that’s about it.

<<You have a very strong belief in and a matrix of justifications for a particular world view which makes you largely immune to anything that doesn't fit.>>

I have altered and refined my beliefs many times. It is the constant refining of my beliefs that is my strength in debate. It never stops. I am, for example, extremely embarrassed about some of my posts from years ago on OLO.

You will never see me argue a flawed point that has been demonstrated to be false, only to then slink off to a different thread and then repeat it.

Sheesh mate, this is why I keep telling your we're at cross purposes

I'm not trying to "get" anyone, nor am I trying to convince anyone of anything other than the value of discussion.

I don't care whether you agree with me. I don't care whether you understand me, because unless you want to do so there's not a thing I can do to make it happen. I already understand you; I was once very much like you in my own views.

No matter what I say, you will seek to show that my argument is flawed unless I completely agree with you, at which point you will tell me I don't, not really, not like a TRUE believer. If I give you a recipe for a different way of looking at things, you will argue that I have not properly explained it. If I take the trouble to explain it you will argue that it doesn't and couldn't possibly work and you will be right, because your own cognitive biases mean that for you it cannot.

This is standard apologetics, mate and it's pointless at best, destructive at worst.

Science requires a genuinely open mind, but you are locked into a dogmatic model which says that having an open mind is a flaw. You think of yourself as a "skeptic", but you have no real understanding of what the term means.

As I said earlier, I wish you well. I think you're a smart guy, but you lack confidence in your judgement and so you rely on a rigid framework of rules. I hope you get past that. Be prepared to be wrong occasionally. Experiment with ideas. Learn how to think, my friend. At the moment you've just learnt one model of how to reason.

Craig Minns,

We are not at cross purposes and here’s why:

You claim(ed) that scientists have a faith. I showed (in the other thread) that they didn’t.
You claim(ed) that science has a dogma. I explained that it didn’t and why.
You claim that religion is no more to blame for the actions of those who utilise it for bad deeds (or do bad things in its name) than science. I demonstrated that it was by pointing out that your first two claims were false.

Whether or not one of us is trying to “get”, or convince, the other is a side issue. Here you are again implying that this is my motivation. You need to make this personal now because there is nowhere left for you to go. Take your understanding of faith, for example. Before, it was just an innocent and necessary tool used to make sense of the world, now it’s a dogmatic burden that you’ve managed to rise above, and brand me with. Christians do the same thing: one minute faith is a virtue, then next it’s an unavoidable burden that atheists must necessarily have too.

If your mission is to learn about human experience, then great. But doing so does not necessitate clinging to the idea that religion and science are more alike than what they really are. If you're going to cling to this notion to the extent where any proof that it is bogus provokes from you offensive claims regarding the supposed motives and goals of others, then I can guarantee you that any answers you find in your search for a greater understanding of human experience will almost certainly be false. As you said earlier...

“That is not scientific, my friend..."

I'll ignore the rest of what you said because it is still just attacking the strawman you have created regarding my mindset and motives; both of which you couldn't possibly know until you demonstrate that I am wrong on something and witness me duck and weave and make assumptions about your motivations to avoid facing the fact.

Just as you have.