Another athiest question.

[De Selby]

Well, there's your post...at the level of the obvious, as if no possible debate could arise concerning the meanings of these values you've listed.

But like I said, that's fundamentalism..."questions? Meaning? wha? Come on dude...it's OBVIOUS!"

And that is also why secular fundamentalism has led to so many obviously horrible situations...because like religious fundamentalism, it is unreflective and shallow, and presumes its righteousness with remarkable ease no matter the level of scrutiny/questioning it faces.

"What the heck do you mean define good? It's obvious!"

"Come on, you knowwwww you agree with me! It's obvious!  [Okay, so you don't agree but I'm right anyway....so I'll ignore that]"

If you can't elaborate on the terms you use to describe your values, you'll always face this problem, and your moral analysis of any situation is always going to appear thuggish and shallow compared to what you'll get from the religious traditions.

This is why most people continue to be religious, and why you have such a hard time convincing people that all your beliefs are just "obvious."

[roo_ster]

Let's assume for the moment that I demonstrate complete genesis from chemical elements to simple single-cell organisms. What will be the reaction of the creationist and ID community?

I don't know.  Maybe most will complete their breakfast and go to work.  From what you have written, I would guess that your hope would be their loss of faith in God.  That seems to be a recurring hobbyhorse of yours.

If you're content to write off portions of the Bible as metaphor whenever scientific development conflicts with a literal interpretation, your "religion" is nothing more than a general set of morals and ethics, which are then open to philosophical debate.

tyme, you are making two awfully large assumptions: That I'll write off portions of the Bible as metaphor given empirical data of some sort.  That if the Bible has portions that are read as metaphor, the Christian faith is somehow not a religion, just a checklist of dos & don'ts.

Well, some of the Bible is metaphor.  The best candidates for this are the later (meaning, authored later in time) books in the Old Testament that refer to the way the Babylonians were such nasty folks & such.  The authors were using the Babylonians and their brutal dealings with the Jews as a metaphor for the (then) current Roman occupation.  The authors would have been rounded up & treated rather poorly by the Romans had they come out & written that Caesar was a bastitch & his occupying soldiers smelled of elderberries.

Understanding* the above facet of the later books of the OT does not change the fundamental nature of their message.  It just provides a better understanding of the situation and how the folks coped with it.

Another book that has been widely understood to contain heaping helpings of metaphor is Revelations.  Read straight through without understanding that it was, like several books of the Bible:
1. Intended to be read aloud  before an audience of Christian (with all that implies: repetition, various POV, etc.)
and
2.It was a, ahem, reveleation/vision,
You get three explicit judgements & two expicit second comings.  This is not how the Roman, Eastern, or protestant (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli; at least) church leaders understood Revelations to mean. 
Understanding Revelations as three visions describing the same thing form three POV and having a(n) pre/post/a-millenarian** understanding is not some sort of faith-cheapening exercise.

OK, how 'bout data or a process that the ignorant might suppose strikes at the root of the Bible?  Let us talk Genesis in both upper & lower case.

So, what if CAnnoneer figures out a materialistic process to perform the evolutionary hat trick for real and turns non-living stuff into something indisputably living...on live TV?  Is Geneis & the rest of the Bible now somehow diminished?  Is my faith reduced to philosophy?  I doubt it.  God used many means to work His will.  Sometimes they were processes understood by humans (floods, plagues, sling stone) and sometimes less well understood (fire/energy from the Ark, non-consuming fire, holding back the sun).  Just because we figure out one more means...means little to someone who has faith in God.


One last note.  There are more means to knowledge than the empirical. 


* Understanding that took some time & scholarship to figure out, rather than thinking, "For the love of the minor prophets, can't the Jews stop whining about the Babylonians? It has been a LONG time since the Captivity..." 

** Boy, has THIS topic been a bone of contention.

[CAnnoneer]

But like I said, that's fundamentalism..."questions? Meaning? wha? Come on dude...it's OBVIOUS!"

That's one of the most useless and contentless posts out of you to date. Which part of what I said is not obvious to you?

I have established a simple list of personal preferences, call them values if you want, that make objective sense from the viewpoint of survival and propagation in the material world. Like it or not, we are a biological species and thus subject to natural laws. They determine if what we do increases our survival chance or decreases it. We do have the choice to do so or not, but that is a loaded choice, for everyone who chooses to hurt himself than help himself in this framework is subject to extinction and thus long-term irrelevance. What trips you here?

Yeah, theoretically you can choose that breathing, eating, hydrating, etc. are evil activities in your set of values, but you will quickly discover that such moral choices are unworkable, or if you like, you can die content in your moral superiority. Others will laugh and take your place under the sun. Say "hi" to the dodoes for me.

[CAnnoneer]

jfruser, I think tyme's use of "metaphor" tripped you in your last post.

What he meant was what I have been harping awhile on: A religion ultimately makes only two types of statements: phenomenological ones and ethical ones. When science proves that a religious phenomenological statement is false, religious authorities (e.g. the Vatican in particular) say that their holy text is not wrong, but their old interpretation of it was. Therefore, the rational conclusion is that while the text may be right, its interpreters are wrong at any time with very high probability. Therefore, religious phenomenological statements are practically unusable, because their only official conduit is a clergy who is most likely (phenomenologically if not ethically) wrong at any time. Then the only thing left warranting consideration is the particular set of ethical values, which are now open for discussion.

The only valid non-empirical way of generating knowledge is deduction, induction, and invention. However, to be proclaimed valid, their results are tested empirically as well. Any knowledge that is completely divorced of empiricism is indistinguishable from self-delusion.

[wmenorr67]

You know one of these days people if we aren't careful a simple yes or no question on this board will end up with us solving all the worlds problems.  Peace will break out everywhere and there will be no more wars, all the ills will be cured and everyone will live long and healthy lives.  Hell if we really get lucky all the damn illegal laws will be repealed also.

[De Selby]

The only valid non-empirical way of generating knowledge is deduction, induction, and invention. However, to be proclaimed valid, their results are tested empirically as well. Any knowledge that is completely divorced of empiricism is indistinguishable from self-delusion.

This statement is itself invalid by the very measure it establishes.

You can't have an inductive, deductive, or any other kind of proof that proves which methods of generating knowledge are "valid."  Hence, you can't possibly have "valid knowledge" that these methods of gaining knowledge are the only valid ones.

Any thing that is known is known subjectively; there's no such thing as knowledge that exists outside of your mind.  So in a very real sense, all empirical knowledge is also indistinguishable from self-delusion.  It is entirely mental and subjective; if it weren't subjective and entirely within your mind, you wouldn't even call it "knowledge."

[Manedwolf]

Any thing that is known is known subjectively; there's no such thing as knowledge that exists outside of your mind.  So in a very real sense, all empirical knowledge is also indistinguishable from self-delusion.  It is entirely mental and subjective; if it weren't subjective and entirely within your mind, you wouldn't even call it "knowledge."

I disagree, for the simple reason that written mathematical proofs are most certainly knowledge that exists outside of your mind. Once a conclusive mathematical proof exists, it's a fact. And some things in that regard are certainly easy to grasp. Pi is a universal constant, it is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. It just IS. It might not have been "known" until ancient mathematicians expressed it, but once it was recorded, you cannot "disprove" Pi.

It is knowledge that exists outside of the mind. Someone who does not know it can pick up a written document explaining it, and absorb it.

In even more practical terms, a chemical formula that is recorded is knowledge that exists outside of the mind. Mixing certain compounds will result in, say, an explosive substance. That is an indisputable fact, if you mix them and light the resultant mixture, it will explode. That can be recorded...and it is knowledge.

[De Selby]

I disagree, for the simple reason that written mathematical proofs are most certainly knowledge that exists outside of your mind. Once a conclusive mathematical proof exists, it's a fact.

Well, how do you become aware of this fact except through your mind?  What extra-mental means of perception do you have to confirm this claim?  Since you can't ever exit your mind and compare what's in your mind to what's outside of it from some "God's eye perspective", there just no possible way to prove this point.

It is knowledge that exists outside of the mind. Someone who does not know it can pick up a written document explaining it, and absorb it.

Again, you would not know of anyone who did this except through your own mind.  That isn't confirmation that it's outside of your mind; that's entirely confined to your own subjective experience.  So the confirmation you have here is still 100 percent entirely subjective-there's no way to experience it or know it except through your own mind.

[Manedwolf]

I disagree, for the simple reason that written mathematical proofs are most certainly knowledge that exists outside of your mind. Once a conclusive mathematical proof exists, it's a fact.

Well, how do you become aware of this fact except through your mind?  What extra-mental means of perception do you have to confirm this claim?  Since you can't ever exit your mind and compare what's in your mind to what's outside of it from some "God's eye perspective", there just no possible way to prove this point.

It is knowledge that exists outside of the mind. Someone who does not know it can pick up a written document explaining it, and absorb it.

Again, you would not know of anyone who did this except through your own mind.  That isn't confirmation that it's outside of your mind; that's entirely confined to your own subjective experience.  So the confirmation you have here is still 100 percent entirely subjective-there's no way to experience it or know it except through your own mind.

You know, I had a philosophy prof once who made that same argument, and had published a paper on it. I asked them why they had bothered to publish the paper, since what they were asserting implied that there was nothing provable to existence save their own thought...so who would exist to read it?

[De Selby]

Manedwolf,

That's actually a good question.  It doesn't refute the objection though.  Maybe we do all think this way...but that doesn't mean we're not saying something silly when we talk about "objective reality" or "facts outside of the mind"

[tyme]

tyme, you are making two awfully large assumptions: That I'll write off portions of the Bible as metaphor given empirical data of some sort.

You already have.  If you really believed, you should take the entire Bible literally, and consider all empirical evidence to the contrary a trick on His part.

So, what if CAnnoneer figures out a materialistic process to perform the evolutionary hat trick for real and turns non-living stuff into something indisputably living...on live TV?  Is Genesis & the rest of the Bible now somehow diminished?  Is my faith reduced to philosophy?  I doubt it.  God used many means to work His will.  Sometimes they were processes understood by humans (floods, plagues, sling stone) and sometimes less well understood (fire/energy from the Ark, non-consuming fire, holding back the sun).  Just because we figure out one more means...means little to someone who has faith in God.

Can you give me a reason to think that God is omnipotent/omniscient rather than just a technologically-advanced alien?  In order to do that, you have to assert that certain events in the Bible are technologically impossible.  Can you think of any such biblical events?  Will you reject your faith if those events are shown at some later time to be technologically possible?

[roo_ster]

tyme, you are making two awfully large assumptions: That I'll write off portions of the Bible as metaphor given empirical data of some sort.

You already have.  If you really believed, you should take the entire Bible literally, and consider all empirical evidence to the contrary a trick on His part...

Really?  If my faith does not conform to the straw man arguments you erect, it is false?  Atheist theosophs never fail to provide comic relief!

I would suggest you read & understand the Bible, then take a gander at the past several thousand years of Christian, Jewish, and other theologies.  It might help future posts pass the laugh test.

[roo_ster]

jfruser, I think tyme's use of "metaphor" tripped you in your last post.

What he meant was what I have been harping awhile on: A religion ultimately makes only two types of statements: phenomenological ones and ethical ones.

Read Leviticus sometime for non-phenomenological, non-ethical statements.  There are many others in the Bible, but Leviticus has a bumper crop.

tyme's use of the term "metaphor" showed a lack of understanding of Christian theology.

--------------

You don't know many religious folks, do you?  I don't mean as acquaintances, but as friends you might have conversations with that go deeper than:

CAnnoneer: Hey, Bob, how was your weekend?
Bob: Pretty good.  Went to the church pot luck dinner and our son hit a triple for his Little League team.  What a slugger!
CAnnoneer: Hmmm...I went the shooting range, but I am not sure how well I shot relative to other shooters displaced in space and time from myself, since I refuse to acquire knowledge by means other than empiricism, deduction, induction, or invention.*
Bob: That's great, CAnnoneer.  Mind if I get back to work?  I have a project deadline approaching, and...
[Bob quickly turns the corner and beats feet to his work station.]
* I'll (jfruser) get to that in a bit.

The reason I ask is because the conception of religious communities and believers you present is, well, pretty one-dimensional.  Referring to the Vatican & "official conduits" for the majority of Christians in the USA is pretty meaningless, since most American Christians are not Catholic and a good proportion of the non-Catholics belong to non-creedal denomniations whose entire membership are at liberty to interpret the Bible for themselves.

Ah, well, perhaps I expect too much. 

----------------------

The only valid non-empirical way of generating knowledge is deduction, induction, and invention. However, to be proclaimed valid, their results are tested empirically as well. Any knowledge that is completely divorced of empiricism is indistinguishable from self-delusion.

So, your belief in materialistic abiogenesis is a self-delusion?  I don't recall you reporting on any verifible, repeatable experiments to that end?

Oh, maybe you're such a polymath that you have, personally, empirically tested all the technology & scientific concepts around yourself, so as not to delude yourself?  That technology you have not personally tested, you have logically deduced or induced the nature of its underlying scientific principles?  Not even your birth date was accepted without proper investigation (mamma could be pulling a fast one)?  Impressive. 

Maybe, just maybe, you used other...means...of...acquiring...knowledge?

Most folks would not be ashamed to admit that they, say, read a textbook or software documentation** and relied on its testimony as to the veracity of some scientific or technological fact, principle, or process.

Also, others might even rely on their science prof or Stephen Hawkings as an authority on some subject and call it good 'nuff.

Yeah, the above (^^^) is bustin' yer chops, I'll admit.  You come by it honestly, though, when you insist that "The only valid non-empirical way of generating knowledge is deduction, induction, and invention."  Talk about absolutist, fundamentalist statements...





** Yeah, relying of software documentation is fraught with peril.  There ia a special place in Hell ( eighth circle, fifth ditch in Dante's reckoning...Hell v7.5.0 ) for coders who pitch functionality that does not work outside their development machine.

[CAnnoneer]

Well, how do you become aware of this fact except through your mind?  What extra-mental means of perception do you have to confirm this claim? 

What you are arguing is known as solipsism - the idea that the entire universe is in your mind and therefore no such thing as objective reality exists. Read up on padre Berkeley (sp?). He strove with the same. Nobody takes him seriously today.

It is a nice philosophical exercise but nothing more. Anyone who exposes himself to other people's ideas understands them and himself far better. Then it is a simple matter to deduce that objective reality does exist, e.g. by realizing that certain ideas are so alien to your mind that the probability you would ever think them up subconsciously and then put them in some imaginary puppet's mouth is infinitesimal. For example, I don't think that I'd ever come up with the kind of sexual abuse you can find on this very internet. To me, that is an indication that independent entities out there do exist.

Another evidence against the non-existence of objective reality is that each one of us has very little control over what happens to them, because even the best of us have very little power. If reality is just another subjective dream, why is it that we essentially cannot control it, while we can control our dreams to a significant or almost total extent?

If you convince yourself that there is no such thing than objective reality, then you must admit that you live in a nightmare of your own making. Also, if it is all a dream, why do you take care of your body? It is imaginary anyway, isn't it? Try that experiment and let us know how it went. Don't worry, if you are right, you will certainly survive it. Hehehe.

[CAnnoneer]

Read Leviticus sometime for non-phenomenological, non-ethical statements.

Save us the time and provide a few examples.

since I refuse to acquire knowledge by means other than empiricism, deduction, induction, or invention.

Nope. They can tell me they did 1in groups at 30 feet a standard pistol with metal sights and without rest. The empirical evidence is that they said so, not that they did it. Now if they show me their targets, I will have empirical evidence that they did it. In all cases, this is empirical evidence, just to different effects.

Referring to the Vatican & "official conduits" for the majority of Christians in the USA is pretty meaningless, since most American Christians are not Catholic and a good proportion of the non-Catholics belong to non-creedal denomniations whose entire membership are at liberty to interpret the Bible for themselves.

How does this make my statement a poor one? What does it matter if it is the Vatican, yourself, Uncle Jim, or Rev Lovejoy that does the interpretation? In all cases, once anyone of you guys bumps into a contradiction, you change your interpretation but maintain your text is right. The functionality is the same. It is also the same for those "christians" that write their own bibles.

So, your belief in materialistic abiogenesis is a self-delusion?  I don't recall you reporting on any verifible, repeatable experiments to that end?

If you have done any wet organic chemistry work, you wouldn't say that. Fusion, fission, and high-energy physics experiments and astronomical observations have produced a robust testable theory of atomic physics and the resultant chemical elements. Chemistry combines atoms in molecules. There is evidence of aminoacids in interstellar clouds, showing that they can appear far from earth and without the presence of life. Combining aminoacids into proteins is a straightforward reaction. In fact, it is done all the time in industry. The same is true for DNA, which we can currently synthesize from scratch. All of the above shows that the building elements of life can be synthesized spontaneously. Going from that to simple organisms is indeed a big step, but there is nothing we know now that overrules it. In fact, people are playing with vesicles as chemical microreactors all the time. A very simple procaryotic cell is not much more than a vesicle with some enzymes and plasmids inside.

Oh, maybe you're such a polymath that you have, personally, empirically tested all the technology & scientific concepts around yourself, so as not to delude yourself? 

You are testing those concepts a million times a day, even without knowing it. If physicists were wrong about thermodynamics, electromagnetism, etc., the engineers that built your car would never had made it, that is unless you believe they were 1000 monkeys that managed to type Shakespeare. As far as math goes, good courses generally go through most of the proofs.

Yeah, the above (^^^) is bustin' yer chops, I'll admit. 

I think deep inside you, you know I am right. You just wish I wasn't. Hehehe.

[De Selby]

What you are arguing is known as solipsism - the idea that the entire universe is in your mind and therefore no such thing as objective reality exists. Read up on padre Berkeley (sp?). He strove with the same. Nobody takes him seriously today.

No, I'm not arguing Solipsism, and no, that's not what Bishop Berkeley argued.  To claim that no one takes him seriously today is quite shocking...his contribution to Kantian and later Continental Idealism are beyond comparison.

Be honest:  Have you ever actually read a single piece of his writing, or even a complete scholarly article that discusses Berkeley? 

I doubt it.  But in any case, I can't think of a single proponent of the straight-up correspondence theory of truth, as formulated by CAnnoneer.  It's not just an unpopular philosophy, it's been so thoroughly destroyed in the literature that you would have a hard time not being laughed out of the department trying to defend it.

nyone who exposes himself to other people's ideas understands them and himself far better. Then it is a simple matter to deduce that objective reality does exist, e.g. by realizing that certain ideas are so alien to your mind that the probability you would ever think them up subconsciously and then put them in some imaginary puppet's mouth is infinitesimal.

Wow.  That has to be the least inductive, or deductive, or empirical claim I've seen on this thread yet.

Just two posts ago, the only valid way to attain knowledge was empirical study, deduction, or induction.  Now you're claiming that you know others thoughts exist because, via introspection into your own subjective experience, you "probably" would not come up with similar thoughts!?

To me, that is an indication that independent entities out there do exist.

But then again, by your own measure, things that only indicate "To you" are worthless.  Your subjective evaluation of other people's expressed ideas isn't available for empirical study, nor is it deduced from anything. 

So, by your definition, this must be "invalid knowledge", right?

Another evidence against the non-existence of objective reality is that each one of us has very little control over what happens to them, because even the best of us have very little power. If reality is just another subjective dream, why is it that we essentially cannot control it, while we can control our dreams to a significant or almost total extent?

This is a terrible argument for several reasons.  For one, you are presuming:

"If there is only subjective experience, then we must be able to control it."  That assumption is totally groundless, and it's obvious that people do not voluntarily control subjective experience.  If someone puts a pill in your drink and you hallucinate a figure, must that figure be real because you can't control its apparition?

Asking a question based on a groundless assumption doesn't even remotely challenge the point.  All of those limits you experience are things you become aware of only subjectively; you can't experience a limit to your abilities outside of your own mind.  So again, the fact that you can't do something only reaches you...via subjective experience.  Unless you can somehow "step out of your mind" to view the cause and effect of that situation, it is pure assertion (again, this is by your standard of empirical proof)and nothing else that there is anything at all outside of consciousness that causes the effect.

I don't believe this is true, but then again, I'm not the one claiming that only empirical study results in valid knowledge.  This is why your standard is ridiculous: because if we accept your measure of truth, then we can't ever reasonably assert that there is anything other than subjective experience (since all verification is subjective).

If you convince yourself that there is no such thing than objective reality, then you must admit that you live in a nightmare of your own making. Also, if it is all a dream, why do you take care of your body? It is imaginary anyway, isn't it? Try that experiment and let us know how it went. Don't worry, if you are right, you will certainly survive it. Hehehe.

Again, none of these things are even remotely approaching logical flaws in the point.  Giving a set of claims that make something seem silly to an average person doesn't constitute deductive, inductive, or empirical reasoning. 

So which is it CAnnoneer:  are you spewing forth tons of "invalid knowledge", or might it possibly be the case that you implicitly recognize that your standard for "valid knowledge" is ridiculous?

[RevDisk]

I disagree, for the simple reason that written mathematical proofs are most certainly knowledge that exists outside of your mind. Once a conclusive mathematical proof exists, it's a fact. And some things in that regard are certainly easy to grasp. Pi is a universal constant, it is the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle. It just IS. It might not have been "known" until ancient mathematicians expressed it, but once it was recorded, you cannot "disprove" Pi.

Not to nitpick, but it's theoretically not possible to know what Pi truly is.  It's the only non-repeating number we've yet discovered.  We can only make approximations, even if we compute to trillions of decimals.  No patterns have yet been detected.  Very nifty, learning about Pi was probably one of the first things that set me on the path to being a geek.   

[roo_ster]

RevDisk:

Yep, Pi is really cool.

I must admit I spent some time delving into Pi, but my first physics course could have been subtitled:How I Learned to Stop Worrying about Pi and Love Significant Digits.

[CAnnoneer]

that you would have a hard time not being laughed out of the department trying to defend it.

Hehehe. Destroyed in the philosophical literature? I think I would take that as a compliment, if it were true. People that become philosophers are usually those that don't have the horsepower to study a real science e.g. math, physics, chemistry. They are certainly amusing though, so keep it up. Dance for us. You might earn a peanut.

Wow.  That has to be the least inductive, or deductive, or empirical claim I've seen on this thread yet.

Nice try. If you consider yourself a solipsist, then everything you see in your mind is empirical evidence, in fact there is no other observation or process, so there is no contradiction. If you say that is not empirical evidence, then what is? You must really decide if you believe in objective reality or not. You must decide if you believe all of us here, and everything else, is just a figment of your mind playing tricks upon itself. The problem is these concepts are not clear in your mind, and so you keep jumping ship discontinuously, then accuse me of being inconsistent.

But then again, by your own measure, things that only indicate "To you" are worthless.  Your subjective evaluation of other people's expressed ideas isn't available for empirical study, nor is it deduced from anything. 

Again, totally wrong. My system makes use of subjective observations as a raw material to establish a shared objective reality. That is the basis of collaborative science. There is no such thing as objective observation; even one made by a machine is ultimately subjective. However, by uniting subjective observations through reasoning, we establish a better mental picture of the objective reality. It is a form of generalized triangulation. That is my perspective.

From a solipsist's perspective, everything already is in your mind. There is no objective reality or objective truth. Just random nightmares. By studying the properties of these nightmares, the solipsist can gain empirical knowledge for his own universe and induce/deduce its laws if there are any. He will not be able to triangulate because other people are part of him, but he can use the rest of the apparatus.

As mentioned previously, my assessment is that solipsism is wrong, and I encourage anyone who gives it even an ounce of credit to dehydrate/starve himself to death and prove me wrong.

"If there is only subjective experience, then we must be able to control it." 

It is not a proof, but evidence. You certainly should know the difference, being the dedicated semanticist. And my point was that if the entire universe is a superdream, then it is reasonable to expect that its properties would be the same as a dream within the superdream. There certainly are no guarantees, ergo evidence, not proof.

because if we accept your measure of truth, then we can't ever reasonably assert that there is anything other than subjective experience (since all verification is subjective).

You will have to explain to us why that would be a problem. It seems pretty straightforward and defensible from a mechanistic perspective of our minds observing reality through the senses. Total subjective experience does not nullify the existence of objective reality. You, the self-proclaimed philosopher, should know that only too well, starting from Plato's shadows and going to Locke's world beyond our senses.

Giving a set of claims that make something seem silly

It seems silly because it is silly. I again encourage you to put your money where your mouth is and dehydrate/starve yourself since your body is ultimately a figment of your imagination. But you won't. Why not?

[Rooster]

1 No
2 Yes

Not right now anyway - most definitely in another 50 to 100 years in this country.

I have a feeling that this whole James Cameron discovery of Jesus' bones is going to changes some things - for better or worse, who knows.

[wmenorr67]

Now would that Pi be apple or cherry?

[Matthew Carberry]

1 No
2 Yes

Not right now anyway - most definitely in another 50 to 100 years in this country.

I have a feeling that this whole James Cameron discovery of Jesus' bones is going to changes some things - for better or worse, who knows.

Why would a moviemaker trumping up claims about a 20 year old, already discussed and dismissed by secular archeologists as not significant, find of ossuaries change anything other than James Cameron's credibility the next time he "discovers" something?

It is, archeologically and religiously, apparently a non-event.  And that's in the opinion's of folks who are not defender's of any faith.

Heck, even logically it fails.  That a non-secret gravesite with labeled caskets could have been hidden at the time from both the Roman Empire and the entire Jewish leadership of the day and for decades afterward, which both had a motivation to destroy the reputation of the "Christ", as well as having no rumor of its existence remain in any cultic history, Christian, Essene or Gnostic, is a bit of a stretch.  That it would have been undiscovered and/or ignored (and not either revered or destroyed depending on your conspiratorial bent) in the centuries that followed by those in on the secret or by the Christian and then Muslim rulers of the day also is incredulous.

These finds are, in the opinion of the trained, non-religious archeologists who found them two decades ago, nothing.  Just James Cameron doing a bit of self-promotion.

Sorry if I sound so vehement, but as someone with an interest in history, the modern trend of trumpeting as "new discoveries" the same old well-known stuff gets annoying.  Like the "Gospel of Judas" non-event, whoop-dee-do, another gnostic gospel to go with the dozen we have.  If most people weren't so ignorant the showmen would have to at least try a little harder.

[De Selby]

You must really decide if you believe in objective reality or not. You must decide if you believe all of us here, and everything else, is just a figment of your mind playing tricks upon itself.

This is the crux of your problem.  Answer the question: How does  "deciding that objective reality exists" constitute "valid knowledge" under your test?

You wrote a lot, and avoided that simple question.  A couple of posts ago, you said that only inductive, deductive, or empirical knowledge was valid.  Now you're saying that it's okay to just "decide" that something exists, and then use that as a starting point.  So how can that, under your claims, be "valid knowledge"?

Or is "invalid knowledge" the starting point for everything you know?

People that become philosophers are usually those that don't have the horsepower to study a real science e.g. math, physics, chemistry

Haha, like which people?   Most of the famous philosophers ARE scientists, mathematicians, and physicists.  Philosophy as ethics is practically ancient history....so yeah, this is just weird. 

Again, totally wrong. My system makes use of subjective observations as a raw material to establish a shared objective reality.

Ah ha...so out of something that has no validity under your test for "valid knowledge" (subjective experience), grows something more?  Every single component of a "shared observation" is subjective....but you just "decide" that there's more and that's valid?

On what grounds?

From a solipsist's perspective, everything already is in your mind.

That's true, but I'm not a solipsist, and neither are most philosophers.  But so what?

And my point was that if the entire universe is a superdream, then it is reasonable to expect that its properties would be the same as a dream within the superdream.

But how can you possibly assert this as a "valid objection'?  After all, "it is reasonable to expect" isn't a deductive claim, an empirical claim, or even an inductive claim in this context.  So why should anyone consider this to be a valid objection?

Total subjective experience does not nullify the existence of objective reality.

But how does it prove it?

But you won't. Why not?

Because of the subjective experience of pain.

What again would that prove, according to your own demands for "valid knowledge"?

[CAnnoneer]

How does  "deciding that objective reality exists" constitute "valid knowledge" under your test?

I collect empirical evidence - what I see, hear, smell, touch, and taste, and use induction to conclude that objective reality exists as the most rational explanation of the observed. Others are free to decide objective reality does not exist and all they have is their own solipsistic nightmares, just as I am free to laugh at them and encourage them to dehydrate/starve.

Most of the famous philosophers ARE scientists, mathematicians, and physicists.  Philosophy as ethics is practically ancient history....so yeah, this is just weird. 

If you strip ethics/aesthetics out of philosophy, what is left? Phenomenology and cognition. The former is addressed far better by science and the latter by medicine. Traditional philosophy is thus obsolete. Thus to maintain a department of philosophy as anything beyond a history tour is laughable.

Ah ha...so out of something that has no validity under your test for "valid knowledge" (subjective experience), grows something more?  Every single component of a "shared observation" is subjective....but you just "decide" that there's more and that's valid?

I do not remember to have excluded subjective observation as a source of evidence; it is included under empirical observation. In experimental work, you always would like to have more datapoints. If a high number of independent tests produce the same result, you must expect that one more test will produce the same result again. If it does not, you have a new empirical evidence which you now must incorporate in your understanding of the world.

Because of the subjective experience of pain. What again would that prove, according to your own demands for "valid knowledge"?

If pain is what stops you, find some painless ways to damage your imaginary body. My point is you don't believe in solipsism either and that is why you would not take the chance.

[De Selby]

I collect empirical evidence - what I see, hear, smell, touch, and taste, and use induction to conclude that objective reality exists as the most rational explanation of the observed.

But the evidence is only that you perceive-there's zero confirmation or evidence that there are things out there causing the perception. 

The fact that neither of us agrees with solipsists does not constitute empirical evidence that your perceptions are caused by something outside of your subjective experience.

If you strip ethics/aesthetics out of philosophy, what is left? Phenomenology and cognition. The former is addressed far better by science and the latter by medicine. Traditional philosophy is thus obsolete.

? Logic?  Epistemology?  Ontology? The analytic tradition....list goes on.

Ethics and Aesthetics stopped being the focus of Philosophy like...100 years ago.  I think maybe you're confusing philosophy for another discipline that you might have been familiar with once.

I do not remember to have excluded subjective observation as a source of evidence; it is included under empirical observation. In experimental work, you always would like to have more datapoints.

Ah, I see.  So if subjective observation is evidence, then say....visions of God, repeatedly, giving religious commands would constitute empirical evidence?

Or no?  Why not?  I mean....if subjective observation can serve as "valid knowledge", then surely people who subjectively experience God can rightly say "I have empirical evidence that God exists." 

If pain is what stops you, find some painless ways to damage your imaginary body. My point is you don't believe in solipsism either and that is why you would not take the chance.

It isn't solipsism to point out the obvious: that you don't have any independent confirmation that there are things outside of subjective experience.  You can make funny examples all you want, but those examples didn't get you outside of your mind to verify the point.