5 of 13
5
In search of WILLPOWER—I am here to inquire: Is it a real power?
Posted: 31 July 2012 01:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30
DarronS - 31 July 2012 05:40 AM

... William Tiller’s work is New Age pseudoscientific psychobabble, which means it fits right in with theology as they are both divorced from reality. ... Good reverend, you need to get your head out of the clouds and study some real science. This is perfect example of why Bertrand Russell considered theists “feeble and a little contemptible.”

Edit: Added Wikipedia link and quote.


===============================
Darron,  for the record: I have no evidence that the writings of Tiller, or for that matter other so-called “experts” on science, philosophy the arts, whatever, have THE FINAL TRUTH in them. Whenever I post links like this, I do so simply to put “theories” out there for all who claim to know to give feed-back. 

I am very much an explorer-type of guy. Sure I have an active and vivid imagination, which I always try to keep in check.  smile

BTW, I appreciate that perhaps you can’t help using what I feel is an in-your-face, cocky and know-it-all way of writing; but—and I hope I have your permission to be frank—I do not enjoy being should upon, and told that I need to get my head out of the clouds. Even as a preacher, before I jumped to conclusions—the only exercise some minds get—I always tried to remember to ask a few questions. It has helped me to not to preach AT people.

BTW 2, I can’t resist asking: Perhaps the clouds you saw were made by cigar smoke, eh? However, as I do not smoke, now, they are not clouds of my making.  LOL  But seriously, years ago I did become seriously addicted (it almost cost me my health and even my daughter’s life) to nicotine. Would I be intruding (let me know) to ask: Have you been able to avoid being addicted?

LOOKING BACK AS TO HOW AND WHY I BECAME ADDICTED
Interestingly, I did not begin to actually smoke until I was about 26—three years in the ministry. First came the pipe. Later I added cigars. 

At that time—the fifties and early sixties—there was no public campaign against smoking as such that I can recall. Evangelical Christians, then and now—believing the body to be a “house of God” condemned smoking as a sin. Maybe some of them, who were also medical doctors, were among the first to blow the whistle, publicly. The more liberal Christians, while they did not advocate smoking, tolerated it simply as a bad habit. After all, some intellects like Bertrand Russell smoked the pipe. Even some Anglican bishops and clergy smoked the pipe. Doctors and nurses smoked. I think I was influenced by the fact that some of my fellow United Church clergy smoked—one was an older and a much-admired mentor of mine.

YES STRESS WAS A FACTOR—and in Toronto, I once heard Dr. Hans Selye, a then famous researcher talk about the issue When I explained to him what I was doing with Ericksonian hypnosis, he spoke approvingly of the work of Dr. Milton Erickson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Selye
http://www.stresscanada.org/

Without really being aware of THE STRESS OF LIFE (the name of Selye’s book, which I have) and what was going on in my life, I developed what I now call a full-blown pneuma-psychosomatic (self-inflicted) stress-related and dangerous addiction. Yes, there was a lot of poverty and illness-causing stress in the King family. I knew that my father had smoked the pipe, and chewed tobacco—something I later tried (bad choice) as part of my effort to stop smoking. I should have realized that this—plus the iron-ore dust he inhaled (ten hours a day, six days a week)—was a major factor in what brought on a life-threatening illness in his fifties that led to his early death. My three older brothers all smoked—mostly roll-your-own cigs (like in the cowboy movies). 

When I realized what tobacco was doing to my health and to my daughter’s health—she was then just over seven—I began using what I now call pneumatherapy—hypnosis without the hocus pocus. In the mid-nineteen sixties I began the process of breaking the habit. It worked for both my daughter’s lung problem, for my smoking problem and for hundreds of others, who later came to the series of talks that were given over the years..

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2012 01:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4865
Joined  2007-10-05
RevLGKing - 31 July 2012 01:03 PM
DarronS - 31 July 2012 05:40 AM

... William Tiller’s work is New Age pseudoscientific psychobabble, which means it fits right in with theology as they are both divorced from reality. ... Good reverend, you need to get your head out of the clouds and study some real science. This is perfect example of why Bertrand Russell considered theists “feeble and a little contemptible.”

Edit: Added Wikipedia link and quote.


===============================
Darron,  for the record: I have no evidence that the writings of Tiller, or for that matter other so-called “experts” on science, philosophy the arts, whatever, have THE FINAL TRUTH in them. Whenever I post links like this, I do so simply to put “theories” out there for all who claim to know to give feed-back.

I’m glad you used the scare quotes around “theories,” because Tiller’s work is not a theory.  A scientific theory is testable and based on evidence. Tiller is a crackpot and his speculations are so far off base they are not even wrong.

I am very much an explorer-type of guy. Sure I have an active and vivid imagination, which I always try to keep in check.  smile

I have seen no evidence of you trying to keep your imagination in check. What I have seen is you consistently avoiding any sound science and instead spreading your unfounded ideas and trying to support them with wild speculations. Frankly, I don’t believe you even know how to evaluate anything related to science. If you did you would have known better than to link to Tiller’s website. If you are so interested in seeking knowledge why do you waste your time on imaginary topics? The scientific method is not perfect, but it is the best humankind has created to peel the layers of uncertainty and discover what is really going on in the universe, from the subatomic level to the cosmological scale, and this includes how our brains operate. Mystics have been trying for millennia and have come up empty. Science works.

BTW, I appreciate that perhaps you can’t help using what I feel is an in-your-face, cocky and know-it-all way of writing; but—and I hope I have your permission to be frank—I do not enjoy being should upon, and told that I need to get my head out of the clouds. Even as a preacher, before I jumped to conclusions—the only exercise some minds get—I always tried to remember to ask a few questions. It has helped me to not to preach AT people.

Then consider what we have said on these forums instead of repeatedly writing rambling, semi-coherent screeds. I tried being nice, but you refuse to show any signs of critical thinking skills, preferring to indulge in fantasies and trying to pass them off as deep thinking. As I mentioned earlier, I have no time for such self-indulgence.

BTW 2, I can’t resist asking: Perhaps the clouds you saw were made by cigar smoke, eh? However, as I do not smoke, now, they are not clouds of my making.  LOL  But seriously, years ago I did become seriously addicted (it almost cost me my health and even my daughter’s life) to nicotine. Would I be intruding (let me know) to ask: Have you been able to avoid being addicted?

Not only would you be intruding, this is nothing but a red herring distracting from the topic.

I suggest you read William Clifford’s The Ethics of Belief to get an idea why pursuing the truth is important, not just to society but to yourself.

Now excuse me while I go outside and smoke a cigar.

Edit: Fixed typo

[ Edited: 31 July 2012 09:33 PM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2012 03:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30

“The Ethcis of Belief” ?  What is, or are “Ethcis” ?  blank stare  Not to worry! I found http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html

[ Edited: 31 July 2012 03:36 PM by RevLGKing ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2012 04:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I’m not certain, but I seem to recall that in the movie, “What the Bleep Do We Know?” Tiller was used as an example of someone who was irrational in the area of theism/nontheism.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2012 09:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4865
Joined  2007-10-05
RevLGKing - 31 July 2012 03:33 PM

“The Ethcis of Belief” ?  What is, or are “Ethcis” ?  blank stare  Not to worry! I found http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html

Nice job of ignoring the substance of my remarks and focusing on a typo. I bet you really had to search hard for that link when I provided it for you.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 06:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
RevLGKing - 31 July 2012 03:33 PM

“The Ethcis of Belief” ?  What is, or are “Ethcis” ?  blank stare

Very classy. You had an opportunity to engage in a discussion with one of our most interesting and fun members, but you decide to act like a complete fool instead.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 08:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4865
Joined  2007-10-05
Occam. - 31 July 2012 04:54 PM

I’m not certain, but I seem to recall that in the movie, “What the Bleep Do We Know?” Tiller was used as an example of someone who was irrational in the area of theism/nontheism.

Occam

I watched the first 15 minutes of that movie then turned it off in disgust. If Tiller is too over the top for that pile of woo then he is very far into fantasy land. RevGLK linking to Tiller’s site gives us some insight into the Rev’s thinking process: reach a conclusion with no evidence then uncritically embrace anything that seems to support the conclusion.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 09:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30
DarronS - 31 July 2012 01:33 PM

... I suggest you read William Clifford’s The Ethics of Belief to get an idea why pursuing the truth is important, not just to society but to yourself. Now excuse me while I go outside and smoke a cigar. Edit: Fixed typo

W.K. Clifford (1845-1879). He lived an interesting, useful but tragically short life—
  http://www.philosopedia.org/index.php/W._K._Clifford

Clifford, William Kingdon (4 May 1845 - 3 March 1879)

Clifford, the skeptic and English mathematician-philosopher, was the the son of a bookseller. Clifford was born in Exeter, went to King’s College, London (when 15 years old), and Trinity College, Cambridge. In 1870 he went to Italy to observe an eclipse, and he survived a shipwreck along the Sicilian coast.

In 1871 he was appointed professor of mathematics and mechanics at University College, London, and in 1874 became a fellow of the Royal Society.

He married Lucy Lane of Barbados in 1875, but in the following year he suffered a breakdown, teaching by day, writing by night. Possibly from overwork, he collapsed, went to Madeira to recover, but died there of tuberculosis, leaving a widow and two children. The geometric theory of gravity that Clifford had suggested was developed by Albert Einstein, 36 years later.

Clifford formulated skepticism as an ethical imperative and was one of the first to appreciate the relevance of Darwin’s evolutionary theory to human ethics.

When thirty-one, he delivered “The Ethics of Belief” (1876) to the Metaphysical Society, a group that met in London nine times a year to discuss philosophical ideas and religious beliefs. Members included William Gladstone, Thomas Henry Huxley Archbishop Henry Manning, John Ruskin, and Alfred Lord Tennyson.

He wrote Seeing and Thinking (1879); Lectures and Essays, Volumes I and II (1879, edited by Leslie Stephen and Frederick Pollock, with an introduction by Pollock); Mathematical Papers (1882, edited by Robert Tucker); and. The Common Sense of the Exact Sciences (published in 1946, with a preface by Bertrand Russell).

His attacks on Christianity were profound. Religion, “that awful plague which has destroyed two civilizations,” had its priests, “at all times in all places the enemy of all men,” he accused. He also wrote,

      It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.:

[ Edited: 01 August 2012 09:42 AM by RevLGKing ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 10:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4865
Joined  2007-10-05

For those who don’t want to wade through Clifford’s entire essay (I found it quite interesting) Massimo Pigliucci discusses it here.

I am waiting for RevGLK to let us know his thoughts on Clifford’s essay.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 01:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30
DarronS - 01 August 2012 10:00 AM

For those who don’t want to wade through Clifford’s entire essay (I found it quite interesting) Massimo Pigliucci discusses it here.

I am waiting for RevGLK to let us know his thoughts on Clifford’s essay.

I did wade through most of the essay. Also, before your recent post, Darron, I was in the process of reading what I found at   http://www.philosopedia.org/index.php/W._K._Clifford

Clifford, William Kingdon (4 May 1845 - 3 March 1879)—who lived a useful and tragically-short life.

Clifford, the skeptic and English mathematician-philosopher, was the the son of a bookseller. Clifford was born in Exeter, went to King’s College, London (when 15 years old), and Trinity College, Cambridge. In 1870 he went to Italy to observe an eclipse, and he survived a shipwreck along the Sicilian coast.

In 1871 he was appointed professor of mathematics and mechanics at University College, London, and in 1874 became a fellow of the Royal Society.

He married Lucy Lane of Barbados in 1875, but in the following year he suffered a breakdown, teaching by day, writing by night. Possibly from overwork, he collapsed, went to Madeira to recover, but died there of tuberculosis, leaving a widow and two children. The geometric theory of gravity that Clifford had suggested was developed by Albert Einstein, 36 years later.

Clifford formulated skepticism as an ethical imperative and was one of the first to appreciate the relevance of Darwin’s evolutionary theory to human ethics.

When thirty-one, he delivered “The Ethics of Belief” (1876) to the Metaphysical Society, a group that met in London nine times a year to discuss philosophical ideas and religious beliefs. Members included William Gladstone, Thomas Henry Huxley Archbishop Henry Manning, John Ruskin, and Alfred Lord Tennyson.

He wrote Seeing and Thinking (1879); Lectures and Essays, Volumes I and II (1879, edited by Leslie Stephen and Frederick Pollock, with an introduction by Pollock); Mathematical Papers (1882, edited by Robert Tucker); and. The Common Sense of the Exact Sciences (published in 1946, with a preface by Bertrand Russell).

His attacks on Christianity were profound. Religion, “that awful plague which has destroyed two civilizations,” had its priests, “at all times in all places the enemy of all men,” he accused. He also wrote,

      It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for everyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.:

Joseph M. Wheeler cites Clifford as “an outspoken Atheist, and he wrote of Christianity as a religion which wrecked one civilisation and very nearly wrecked another.”

MY THOUGHTS ON CLIFFORD’S ATTACKS ON 19TH. CENTURY RELIGION?
I will be passing the material above on to friends at a United Church-sponsored forum: 
  http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/religion-and-faith/g-0-d-willpower-life-do-delegate-defer-drop 
  and to the inter-church forum at:
  http://progressivechristianity.ca/prc/
I know that most leaders in both forums, like me, are NOT defenders of either blind-faith or hide-bound tradition.

[ Edited: 01 August 2012 01:41 PM by RevLGKing ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 01:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4865
Joined  2007-10-05
RevLGKing - 01 August 2012 01:31 PM

MY THOUGHTS ON CLIFFORD’S ATTACKS ON 19TH. CENTURY RELIGION?
I will be passing the material above on to friends at a United Church-sponsored forum: 
  http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/religion-and-faith/g-0-d-willpower-life-do-delegate-defer-drop 
  and to the inter-church forum at:
  http://progressivechristianity.ca/prc/
I know that most leaders in both forums, like me, are NOT defenders of either blind-faith or hide-bound tradition.

I fail to understand what an unrelated six-month-old essay has to do with Clifford’s essay The Ethics of Belief.

As for that essay, you obviously do not know the difference between science and philosophy. Science is a discipline dedicated to discovering reality. Ethics is philosophy’s purview.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 02:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30

Is it wrong of me to assume that ethics is: the study of the standards of right and wrong; that it is that part of science and philosophy having to do with moral conduct and judgement? That “all science begins as a philosophy and ends as an art”?  You say, “Ethics is philosophy’s purview.” Okay elaborate, please.

Morality? I understand that it is the relative right or wrong of an action.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 02:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4865
Joined  2007-10-05
RevLGKing - 01 August 2012 02:32 PM

Is it wrong of me to assume that ethics is: the study of the standards of right and wrong; that it is that part of science and philosophy having to do with moral conduct and judgement? That “all science begins as a philosophy and ends as an art”?  You say, “Ethics is philosophy’s purview.” Okay elaborate, please.

Yes, you are wrong. Science has nothing to do with moral conduct. Science studies reality. Ethics is a branch of philosophy, which is the discipline that studies how we should act. Science studies “is,” philosophy studies “ought.” Conflating the two is a mistake theists make all the time.

Morality? I understand that it is the relative right or wrong of an action.

Yes, and Clifford’s essay lays out quite clearly how ignoring reality in favor of comforting beliefs is morally wrong.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 08:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  193
Joined  2011-12-30
DarronS - 01 August 2012 02:41 PM

... Science studies “is,” philosophy studies “ought.” Conflating the two is a mistake theists make all the time.

Morality? I understand that it is the relative right or wrong of an action.

Yes, and Clifford’s essay lays out quite clearly how ignoring reality in favor of comforting beliefs is morally wrong.

Philosophy studies “ought”? This reminds me of the writings of Immanuel Kant and his use of the famous words, “the categorical imperative”. Other than the following link http://sguthrie.net/kant.htm  do you know of anything that could help explain to the average mind what Kant had in mind?

Are you saying, “conflating (that is, bringing together) the two (philosophy & science) is a mistake theists make all the time.”? Are you also saying that it is always a mistake for anyone to conflate (that is, put together) science studies with philosophy studies? If so, what problem does this cause?

BTW, perhaps this is a silly question: Do you know of any philosophers who tell stories—give examples, analogies, metaphors, whatever—to get their points across? I have in mind Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason 
Which prompt me to ask: Pure reason? What is an example of “impure” reason?

[ Edited: 01 August 2012 08:21 PM by RevLGKing ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2012 08:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4865
Joined  2007-10-05

Philosophy studies “ought”? This reminds me of the writings of Immanuel Kant and his use of the famous words, “the categorical imperative”. Other than the following link http://sguthrie.net/kant.htm  do you know of anything that could help explain to the average mind what Kant had in mind?

How Should We Live? An Introduction to Ethics by Louis J. Pojman gives a good, albeit brief, overview of the strengths and weaknesses of Deontology (Kant), Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics.

Are you saying, “conflating (that is, bringing together) the two (philosophy & science) is a mistake theists make all the time.” Are you also saying that it is always a mistake for anyone to conflate (that is, put together) science studies with philosophy studies? If so, what problem does this cause?

Of course it is not always a problem. Science and philosophy are intertwined when scientists speculate on unknowns without being able to test their ideas. The problem arises when people practice sloppy thinking and challenge science to evaluate and answer moral questions. People who don’t know better think you scored a point because science can’t explain morality.

BTW, are there any philosophers who tell stories—give analogies, metaphors, whatever—to get their points across?

Probably.

[ Edited: 01 August 2012 08:30 PM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 13
5