talkmagic.co.uk

Hopefully this can be a reasonably sensible discussion without descending in to a flame war!

In the past life thread Mandrake asked if there was any evidence for past life regression or if it was pretty much taken on faith, I jokingly remarked that as a Christian he should know better.

This in no way a dig at our dear Mandrake but a question for the way we all look at things in general. I approach every situation from the same stand point, what evidence is there to support this suggestion and how strong/substantiated is this evidence.

This is to a vast extent the reason why I am (as much as it is certain to be) an atheist, it is also why I am reasonably cynical about unsubstantiated claims, especially those that rely almost exclusively on analytical rather than empirical evidence.

So the crux of this; do you all approach things in the same way, or do you change the way you view things depending on the situation or subject matter.

For example, if you are a religious person on the basis of faith do you then rely on empirical evidence when it suits you and vice versa. Do you ever switch from "I think this is the case because x, y and z says it is so" to "I think this is the case because of what I feel/believe".

If somebody is more likely to have a faith/cynicism about something, are they more likely to hold the same view when confronted with something else? What if it conflicts with an existing belief? Is it okay for people to switch between the two methods of viewing the world or is it just hypocrisy?

I don't think I'll be getting stuck into this one, but I thought it might help to repeat something I brought up in the past life thread.

It is not useful to compare theism (Christianity or otherwise) with psychic ability or past life regression.
The existence or otherwise of a supernatural being is not something we can test or analyse in any rigorous way.
However, the existence of psychic ability in a given individual can be tested rigorously.
The veracity of past lives could be tested in a number of ways including looking at the practitioner's methods (did they prompt the subject inappropriately?) and checking internal consistency, repeatability (same lives reported in multiple sittings?) and historical validity (where records exist, did the previous identity really exist and were events reported accurately?) uniqueness and so on of the subject's reported past life.

It is unreasonable to ask for hard evidence of a deity when none can exist (unless someone is claiming such evidence does exist or claims to be persuaded only by hard evidence) but to ask for evidence that past lives are more than ramblings under hypnosis or false memories is not so.

Just my thoughts on the matter. It does sound like this could be a good thread to read, so I may well follow along.

That's my contribution done though, since the Past Life thread I have reverted to my usual stance of no arguing on the internet.

Have at it.


EDIT
I cut some text but didn't paste it back in... then lost it... in short:
I don't believe there is any hypocrisy when a person accepts one thing on faith and demands evidence for another if it is reasonable to do so.

BigShot wrote:I don't believe there is any hypocrisy when a person accepts one thing on faith and demands evidence for another if it is reasonable to do so.

And from the rest of your post I take it you mean when the subject matter cannot be proved either way in your mind it is okay to take it on faith, however it can be tested and proven with empirical evidence then faith does not stand up as a good reason?

my life, my rules, my world...

i can do as i please, think as i please and believe what i choose to...

if i make it no business of yours, by that i mean - as long as i dont try and make you believe the same as me...

then leave me the hell alone...

you can find "fault" in just about anything...

Oh God! Here we go again....................................

mark lewis wrote:Oh God! Here we go again....................................

I do hope not !

Since religion has been mentioned I shall repeat what I said already. 75% of the world's religions believe in the concept of reincarnation. So that is part of the faith of many people and they don't ask for hard evidence of it either.

I live near a Hare Krishna temple. I really should do something about handing out leaflets to their members. It might be good for business if I take up past life regressions again. I am sure they would welcome someone like myself who is just as spiritual as they are.

IAIN wrote:my life, my rules, my world...

i can do as i please, think as i please and believe what i choose to...

if i make it no business of yours, by that i mean - as long as i dont try and make you believe the same as me...

then leave me the hell alone...

you can find "fault" in just about anything...

True. And to demonstrate the point (An analytic point demonstrated through the medium of empiricism... grroovy... but yeah, anyway...)-

ALL epistemology is a paradox.


Because if you are saying 'empirical evidence reveals reaity more than analytic arguments' you are assuming certain facts about reality which determine your epistemelogical position- namley that reality operates in a manor that can be observed. Therefore, you must already understand the nature of reality (metaphysics) before you can begin to speculate about how we can know the nature of reality (epistemology) and how enquiry ought to be conducted, ALTHOUGH you would by definition have no need to know how to know because you already know.

More importantly, your meta-beliefs are that 'something is true if it is substantiated' but how do you prove this statement to be true? With substantiated evidence that it's true? Is that not a circular argument? And does that now not just give me permision to say 'I know God exists because he told me he exists' or doesn't it, if we accept circular logic?

As unshakable and logical as it it appears, lots of science's specious epistemology is becoming more prone to being questioned as we approach more baffling and contradicting empirical results in studies such as quantum mechanics.

I did not really envisage this as ANOTHER religion versus atheism or psychic versus non psychic thread.

The core of my question is the way in which people approach their reality, rightly or wrongly, and if they do flip between things does their own hypocrisy result in contradiction.

Trying to move away from the more touchy subjects and give an example of what I mean;

As I said, rightly or wrongly, my own personal perspective on reality relies almost in it's entirety on empirical evidence. Even my wife (who I trust and love dearly) I do not take as being correct just because she says so as I like to know what source she derived that information from before I accept it as being accurate, however to a certain extent ANY subject in which I am not an expert (of which there are many!) I rely on the experiences, testing and knowledge of multiple sources with a better understanding than I in order to reach my conclusion, which in itself is having faith in that source, going back to my wife, as she is a midwife, I will however take much of what she has to say about child birth on "faith" not because she is a woman but because it is her area of expertise. Therefore is that hypocritical?

The reason I used the Mandrake example is because it raises an interesting contradiction (to my eyes at least). If a Christian believes in past life regression and therefore past lives then that conflicts with the view of eternal life in Heaven, if they disregard the past life idea on the basis of this view point then that, in itself does not create a conflict, but to decide it is faff based on there being no evidence smacks of hypocrisy, much like with my example of using scientific/empirical evidence that in many cases I cannot hope to completely understand, this in it's own way is faith.

As I said the main thing I am trying to get at though is how people individually view things, I would take from Iain post that he is of the opinion that as an individual he flicks and changes between the two. For me, although I consider myself to rely on more "solid" evidence, at the heart of things ironically still has it's own element of faith, although quite far removed from the initial suggestion, whatever form that may take.

I was curious because I wonder how it applies to our audiences as a whole which may go some way to explaining why certain performers end up pigeon holed while others work across the board, especially in the field of mentalism.

A_n_t wrote:

BigShot wrote:I don't believe there is any hypocrisy when a person accepts one thing on faith and demands evidence for another if it is reasonable to do so.

And from the rest of your post I take it you mean when the subject matter cannot be proved either way in your mind it is okay to take it on faith, however it can be tested and proven with empirical evidence then faith does not stand up as a good reason?

I'm not quite so sure of the phrasing of that, but I'd tentatively agree.
The "rest of [my] post" was an attempt to present, without running into pages of text, a rough explanation of what I think constitutes reasonable and unreasonable.

My main uncertainty is on the "okay to take it on faith" part is that I think it may be too simplistic; it sounds almost like "believe whatever you fancy" which isn't how I see it. Faith is just one piece of the puzzle when it isn't something that can be established with an entirely empirical approach.

On the topic of faith and who has it, I'd hold that all views - other than hardline agnosticism which accepts only that which can be established empirically (this writes off everything to do with life/human origins, for example) - actually require some degree of faith. That's only ironic when someone holds a faith-based view while insisting on pure empiricism.

I've already given my take on the lack of hypocrisy in the Mandrake Question. No need to retrace the steps there.

All of that said, I really hope this doesn't just descend into mudslinging - this has potential to be a fascinating discussion if it finds the right contributors and they behave themselves.

Now, I get back to reading.

and of course we are all pretty much hypocrites - some of us have lucky socks, pants, keyrings...yet, as an atheist and of a scientific bent, those same people should know that there's no such thing as luck...

while I'm here - has intuition been tested? some label it as gut reaction, but its still intuition...intuition sounds more "psychicy" so they avoid it and give it a more comfortabel word...

some of us even, when throwing balled up paper into the bin think *oooh go on then, if i get this in the bin from here - such and such will happen...*, then when we miss, it'll be best of 3, then best of 5...

i even find it amusing when atheists say "thank god for that...".

by the way, i am an atheist...but i don't feel I'm properly represented...i need a new box to put myself in...

http://www.visionlearning.com/library/m ... php?mid=49

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#Origi ... fic_theory

Oh dear. I have just read Ant's statement that his wife is not always right.
He has just made a major mistake. With women, and wives in particular, it is a major mistake to say this. You ALWAYS have to agree that they are right even if they aren't.

I think a disclaimer is needed on this thread. As interesting as it is, please don't get involved if you are going to be offended by what others say so we can try to keep it civil; people will have different views to you, and many people will get frustrated explaining why their point of view is right and yours is wrong.

That said, if you disagree with me then you are all wrong!

Note: I wrote the following at 8 am this morning then the battery on my laptop died so I haven't actually checked to see if anyone has posted in the interim!

Sam, we discussed relativism previously, this time I've only drunk tea rather than wine, so hopefully I won't seem too much of a pillock. I feel that your argument that epistemology is inherently paradoxical is a bit of a cop-out; despite the fact that your argument that the assumption that what appears to be observed is what is actually observed is logically sound, surely your metaphysical viewpoint requires and equal assumption that logic exists. Both of these points of view require a single base assumption which quite clearly could simply be a construct of our own point of view.

Based on this, I choose to make the assumption that the path of empiricism that led to a toaster being invented is as valid as any other since I've just had breakfast (or I think I have). Whether this viewpoint is true or not, philosphically speaking, is immaterial since we are not trying to decide if science is valid, simply whether people always rely on one viewpoint

IAIN wrote:by the way, i am an atheist...but i don't feel I'm properly represented...i need a new box to put myself in...

http://www.visionlearning.com/library/m ... php?mid=49

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#Origi ... fic_theory

There is room in the Jedi Council for you my friend!

Naughty person thread!!! I have taken bits and peices of various beliefs and probaly always will, therefore i have no religion. I refussed to go to church as a child, I was blessed once and gave the vicar an electric/static shock when he touched my bonce...scared the life out of me .
Do you know Richard Dawkins goes to church at Christmas to sing carols? Each to their very own I say.