View Full Version : Judgment Day
ToranagaSama
09-16-2003, 23:04
This post is directly inspired by the What are your beliefs thread and is a reflection of The Good the Bad the Ugly Pt. II thread, though composed before.
Regarding, What are your beliefs (please see initial post), its impossible to vote as some questions are contrary in addition to the fact that one can believe in an amalgamation of questions 1, 2 and 3.
I'd like to ask the Atheist and Agnositics a question, if you all would be so kind as to answer, I thank you.
1) If there is no G_d, then, do you have a sense of morality, and what is it based upon and/or where does it come from?
2) Without G_d's morality, commandments and the consequence of Damnation, what then is your motivation for moral action and to live a moral life (presuming the general understanding of morality).
In addition, what would be the motivation for anyone to live a moral life? Wouldn't you agree that in a G_dless world, that anyone can then determine one's own definition of morality and conduct one's life accordingly? Would this NOT then result in a worldstate of Anarchy.
Given the realities of the above paragraph, and that Anarchy isn't appealing, then your Belief and Faith must reside in Government, and particularly, the Law--that is--the Legal System? In effect, from a religious point of view or a G_d view, then your Faith is in your fellow Man. Man who is without Morality or, at best/worst, defines his own, individual, Morality.
[Hmmm...the above might be a good description for Hell, an existence without Morality....hmmmm.]
Damnation is G_d's moral consequence. If one's Faith and Belief is in the Law, the obvious question, then, is where is the Law's moral consequence?
Can Man's Law define morality for all of man? The Law's consequence for immoral actions contrary to the Law is Prison, is it not? Yet, this consequence is escapable in a number and variety of ways; AND the Law's consequence is rendered inequitably. I would argue that this is the state in which we live (anarchanistic). The Law's consequence provides no true motivation toward morality for those, who, are willing and/or are capable of enduring or escaping the Law's consequence. Consquently, there is little or no habor nor ultimate protection for Man.
G_d's consequence, on the other hand, is absolute, inescapable and equitable. It serves as a moral compass and inhibitor to a degree that the Law, Man's Law, can NEVER serve.
Damnation is a strong (individual) motivator. What is the individual motivation for moral action under Man's Law? It can only be a sensical group attempt to forestall some or certain, presumably, accepted and agreed negative consequences to Anarchy. Yet, if any individual does not cede to the accepted or agreed (or the presumption) then he is morally free to define his morality and conduct his life and actions.
In addition to the individualist nature to morality, there is the group attempt at morality I mention above. The consequences of one group's morality differing from another group's has all too clearly been exhibited inumerably and devestatingly in history, and is, again, being played out on a world stage as I type and you read.
Such is the make of the Hilters of this world. While the Hilter's can be cited as an extreme example of the fallacy's of Man's Law, and are short-lived, the immorality that they've wrought is not, and to a far greater extent are the immoral actions of lesser Hitlers, those who define their own morality. There numbers are greater, there effect is cumulative and there is no Judgment day for them.
---
I also ask, if you believe in the concepts of Good and Evil (this does not have to be defined in a biblical sense, but in whatever worldly sense you prefer, but I ask the question in the generally accepted concept of Good and Evil)?
If there is, in fact, Good and Evil, how can it be defined? Without a *certain* (literal definition) moral base, can Good and/or Evil be defined and known? Doesn't Morality require a certainty.
----
IMHO, I believe that many who are without Faith or Belief, are so, greatly, because of a confusion between G_d and religion. The two are not the same and that's another thread....
finally, a few sensible questions http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
1) If there is no G_d, then, do you have a sense of morality
yep, i do have a sence of morality, it is based upon my feelings of right and wrong, not because a book or preacher told me to think one way or another.
if you see someone hurt, would you help them or not?
i would help them, they are a human being, as am i.
no devine intervention is necessary for such a decision, on the contrary, some people would not help BECAUSE they follow a DIFFERENT FAITH than the person who is hurt (i`m sure a lot of people here know of the parable of good samaratin!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
and what is it based upon and/or where does it come from?
it comes from my parents telling me what was right and what was wrong and later on from what i myself thought i could accept or reject as good or bad and be able to accept that choice in my conscence(spelling?).
most religions have good points on what is helpful to your fellow man, but sorting it out from all of the accumulated dross can be a problem.
2) Without G_d's morality, commandments and the consequence of Damnation, what then is your motivation for moral action and to live a moral life (presuming the general understanding of morality).
being able to look in a mirror and not feel pain or guilt in regard to my actions, to know that i helped someone without reward or recompence.
i may not be remembered for anything in my life, but i will know that i have chosen well in what i have done with it.
regarding consequences; at the end of the day i am my own judge and exicutioner.
In addition, what would be the motivation for anyone to live a moral life? Wouldn't you agree that in a G_dless world, that anyone can then determine one's own definition of morality and conduct one's life accordingly? Would this NOT then result in a worldstate of Anarchy.
motivation; feeling good, feeling fufilled.
result in anarchy?
no, you don`t need to be an atheist to be a murderer... etc.. ,
and according to some extreme versions of several religions you can get a free entrance ticket to heaven by doing exactly that
can you tell me where the morals are in that?
Doesn't Morality require a certainty.
we live, we die.
that is my moral certainty, you can deal with it however you wish.
p.s. why do you spell God as G_d ? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
ToranagaSama, I don't think the connection between morality and damnation is as close as you suggest, even for the religious. I believe many systems of religious belief do not stress damnation or even the reward of an afterlife, but nonetheless promote morality.
As an aetheist, I find the idea that someone only does the right thing because he is afraid of being fried in the afterlife alternately amusing and frankly scarey. If someone was really only doing what is right in order to promote his own interests (albeit in an afterlife), that would reduce my respect for his good behaviour considerably. To me, the essence of morality is that it is at heart not self-interest (however enlightened) but something that constrains self-interest.
We do what is right because an inner voice tells us it is what should be done. Yes, sometimes we are weak and ignore that voice, but even then we still hear it and know that we have done wrong. We may walk away unobserved and go scot free, but there remains a lingering guilt and conscience inside. Do it wrong too often and we feel lesser beings, and the worth of our life becomes diminished in our own eyes.
I suspect the previous paragraph describes the real ethical motivations of many religious people as well as aetheists, regardless of their professed doctrines.
Archlight
09-17-2003, 00:34
Quote[/b] ]1) If there is no G_d, then, do you have a sense of morality, and what is it based upon and/or where does it come from?
I do have a sense of morality and it is based on my interactions with human beings as well as the influence of my parents. I know that I have done things that have hurt people in the past, whether mentally/emotionally or physically(never seriously) and even just seeing the look on their face makes me feel so terrible I can barely stand it. How would I feel if I were that person? There is one of the christian tenents I actually agree with. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I know that not everyone will live by that, but that is my personal choice. Maybe I could be considered weak because of it, but at least I can live with myself. I suppose this answers #2 partly as well.
Quote[/b] ]In addition, what would be the motivation for anyone to live a moral life? Wouldn't you agree that in a G_dless world, that anyone can then determine one's own definition of morality and conduct one's life accordingly? Would this NOT then result in a worldstate of Anarchy.
Anarchy my or may not result as those with the same moral convictions would group together and not accept the actions of those they considered amoral. If there are large enough groups, then there would most likely be nations formed based on these ideals. Just like the Constitution could be likened to the morals of the United States in general.
Quote[/b] ]Given the realities of the above paragraph, and that Anarchy isn't appealing, then your Belief and Faith must reside in Government, and particularly, the Law--that is--the Legal System?
Just because someone does not believe in God does not automatically mean they believe in their government. I myself feel that our government is broken and in need of fixing. Going about that is another matter. So along these lines I guess I'm just a faithless cur.
Quote[/b] ]Damnation is G_d's moral consequence. If one's Faith and Belief is in the Law, the obvious question, then, is where is the Law's moral consequence?
It's called capital punishment(the death penalty). People oppose it, but I say to the religious fundamentalists that oppose it, Isn't it just speeding that person to God's Judgement? If we're wrong about the person, well then he'll go to heaven.... On a more secular note, at least that person will never commit those crimes again. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... On the prison subject. Our prisons here aren't prisons, they're summer camps for thugs. If they're going to prison it should be PRISON No TV, no books, no conjugal visits, no extensive workout facilities. I say hard labor if they want to get into shape.
Quote[/b] ]We do what is right because an inner voice tells us it is what should be done. Yes, sometimes we are weak and ignore that voice, but even then we still hear it and know that we have done wrong. We may walk away unobserved and go scot free, but there remains a lingering guilt and conscience inside. Do it wrong too often and we feel lesser beings, and the worth of our life becomes diminished in our own eyes.
i took half a page to explain myself and you sum it up a lot better in four lines, nice one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Archlight
09-17-2003, 00:41
GAH Hit the wrong button and posted before done.... Is there an edit post button that I'm missing?
To finish, Morality does not stem from religion or religious institutions. Certain religions may promote a certain set of morals, but that does not mean that with no religion or no god that there are no proper morals.
Yes, various groups' morals will be vastly different and cause conflict. Such is life. Humans ARE still goverened by survival of the fittest, though we try our hardest to circumvent it.
OK I'm out of banter for now. I look forward to reading more replies, and thank you for the thought provoking thread.
Archlight
09-17-2003, 01:17
Togakure, You bring up an interesting scenario, thank you for posting.
In the Beliefs thread someone mentioned that God wasn't a being per se, but was the energy of the universe and more. Quite the possibility. One reason I'm an agnostic and not an outright atheist.
Quote[/b] ]For me, the inner voice you mentioned--that which causes us to feel good or bad about a thing--is the voice of God.
as far as i`m concerned that inner voice i feel is ME, not some outside controlling force.
rory_20_uk
09-17-2003, 10:46
As an agnostic, I feel scared that religious people feel that the only reason that they are good is because they fear damnation
On a personal level, I think that my own moral code is set by myself. I think that religion sets the norms for society in virtually all cases, and those that are not complete god bods usually follow the dictats of society.
I personally feel no need to help anyone that is not either a friend or member of my family unless I've got nothing else to do, or it is of gain to myself. On a similar note, I feel that if the situation arose I would do almost anything to protect a friend or member of family - even if this meant the death of many others... But that's just me.
I think that you have got this the wrong way round: do wolves / dolphins / schools of fish / flocks of birds / nests of beavers require a G_D to tell them how to behave in a group? Not as far as I am aware.
I think that humans link to religion qualities that most humans instinctively do in any case: not killing members of the social group is of course benefit to the group - just as killing with religious fervour is laudable if the people are outside of the group.
Indeed, religions can be thought of as parasites of the mind: infect others, provide money (tithes) to spread the infection, build buildings (churches) to keep the populace infected, and DESTROY other similar infections.
Other apects of religion are there to protect us: Mulsims view pigs as unclean - and they are a scource of intestinal parasites. Hindus view cows as sacred - and they are another scourse of parasites. Savred anduncean may seem very different, but the result is that neither animal is eaten. But I digress...
The bottom line is that religion is something that has survived everything that has been thrown at it. It's one of the most amazing diesases that is unique to the human race.
Duke John
09-17-2003, 11:07
So ToranagaSama you're saying that for you believers the only reason to behave socially is because you will be judged?
Isn't this a bit egoistic and totally asocial?
Really you can't say with an honest heart that believing improves peace and happiness for everybody. Especially saying it on a forum where the focus is on the Medieval times where the crusades killed thousands of people, so-called witches were burned and the church milked out the poor.
Cheers, Duke John
el_slapper
09-17-2003, 11:29
I believe in god(that makes of me an alien in France, but that is offtopic). But it is not what defines my morals.
What defines my morals is that I like to live in a good world, and that depends of the existence of morals. Those morals, though, may vary upon life conditions. People living in harsher conditions need harsher reaction to survive, while in our civilized & rich world, it does make no sense to be violent. Thou shall not kill, IMHO, is far more useful now than at Moses's times.....
rory_20_uk
09-17-2003, 11:44
Decrees such as thou shalt not kill being viewed as being open to debate or viewed as thou shalt not kill - unless you REALLY need to, or they are foreign, or you've got a damn good reason. Things were tough in Moses's time, but so what? The plea but I am down on my luck IMO holds little sway either legally or morally.
Personally, I have never killed anyone, and I hope that I never have to. BUT in extreme situations I would do so without much in the way of compunction. That is my own belief, admittedly one so loosely structured as to allow practically anything under sufficiently difficult situations.
The extreme situations do not mean poverty or wealth, as such things are only useful for the things that they can do. Poverty may bring me closer to stealing from friends to survive, but only threats to my life would cause me to kill others.
mystic brew
09-17-2003, 11:53
Speaking as an atheist, I would say that for religious and non-religious people the urge 'to be good' comes from within. Largely, anyway.
Being religious, having a belief in god, is absolutely not synonynous with morality. For those with a belief in the grand plan and the big picture - from there comes the thinking of the inquisition and Vietnam - it was necessary to kill these people to save their souls/ it became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it
Put it this way - a very good summary of the secular humanist position
- if there is no grand plan; if there is no big picture; if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.
i don't know if this makes it any clearer.
But it is a fallacy that the godless man is without morals. just as it is a fallacy that those who have a loving relationship with god are moral by definition.
Just a thought but not sure wether i'm in the right topic. Has the world been a better place since medieval times when more and more people for go religion and God ? Have we seen and experience less war ?
Just a thought... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
Fortebraccio
09-17-2003, 13:38
I am an atheist, and funny enough, I never thought my
non-religious affiliation could have anything to do with morality.
I think that morality is basically a matter of expectations. What I expect from others and what I expect from myself concur to define my morality. Where such expectations come from? From my instinctive nature, from my (mis)understanding of life's dynamics, from my cultural background. Morality is not equal to reason...it is not equal to emotion, and it is certainly not equal to social environment. Yet, you would not understand what morality is if you don't consider each of those factors, and the expectations they create.
el_slapper
09-17-2003, 16:01
Ah, forgot to give a broader example. In my beloved country, there are privately funded organizations that help the poor, thanks to donations. Biggest of them are Secours Catholique & Secours populaire. No need to translate, I think. They do exactly the same very good job. Only difference is some believe in god, others don't. Despite that difference, they have the same morals : helping the poor on their spare time. And I praise both.
Quote[/b] ]Just a thought but not sure wether i'm in the right topic. Has the world been a better place since medieval times when more and more people for go religion and God ? Have we seen and experience less war ?
with or without religion you seem to have discovered one of the main flaws in humanity; just because you know right from wrong does not mean that you have to follow the correct path.
lots of people who do bad things already know that it is bad, but it suits them to choose otherwise. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Parmenio
09-17-2003, 18:32
Human beings are far from a optimal evolved design physically. Obvious examples include the backbone (inappropriate for vertical weight distribution in a biped, though excellent for horizontal quadrupeds,) the appendix (left over obsolete organ occasionally requiring surgical removal) and feet (neither hand nor paw nor hoof.) Still for the most part they work and get us around.
I suspect that the human mind too is of similar condition.
At some point the ability to believe in and act upon things that could not be immediately seen or heard or otherwise detected, and existed only in an imagined future, became a survival trait of singular importance to our ancestors. The addition of language and tool-making not being enough in and of themselves.
There is a subset of mathematics called Game Theory in which co-operation is shown to be more profitable under certain conditions. Further it can be demonstrated that game behaviour that might be interpreted as ‘morality’ or ‘honour’ has long term advantage in sequences of games, though occasional games may need to be deliberately lost or ‘thrown’ by adherence to such concepts.
Scientifically then, morality needs no God, to be a useful long term survival trait in terms of oneself and one’s genetic descendants.
Yet God or Gods or other belief systems are very useful things.
It is the nature of human minds to equate strength of action in proportion to strength of belief. Absolute belief, enables one to perform heroic actions otherwise considered dangerous, irrational or in some cases inhuman.
The addition attribute of absolute belief systems - being easy to graft hierarchical power structures onto – is of course of extreme interest to those who would wield power and shape human societies. Religion and propaganda share much common ground.
“If God did not exist he would have to be invented.” – Voltaire
I personally require no God. I understand that ‘morality’ or at least the outward appearance of adherence to morality is a stratagem in acquiring power.
And I am very much interested in power.
Archlight
09-17-2003, 19:08
Quote[/b] ]I personally require no God. I understand that ‘morality’ or at least the outward appearance of adherence to morality is a stratagem in acquiring power.
And I am very much interested in power.
Yet another flaw in human make-up. Desire for power and it's corrupting influence.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
bhutavarna
09-17-2003, 21:23
mr toranagasama,
what's with g_d???? can't you just say god? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
i want to point out a flaw in your argument. god's law of morality is nothing but compilation of group or individual human law of morality, because god's law is written by human. your questions implies that there is difference in god's moral laws and atheist moral laws, in that god's law is actually written by god.
so unless you can prove to me that god exists and it actually wrote god's laws, i can throw the same questions you asked to the god believing folks, including yourself i presume.
Quote[/b] (Parmenio @ Sep. 18 2003,03:32)]Human beings are far from a optimal evolved design physically. Obvious examples include the backbone (inappropriate for vertical weight distribution in a biped, though excellent for horizontal quadrupeds,) the appendix (left over obsolete organ occasionally requiring surgical removal) and feet (neither hand nor paw nor hoof.) Still for the most part they work and get us around.
I suspect that the human mind too is of similar condition.
This my friend, is giving ammo to the ones that believe we are Gods in the making…
I agree to Parmenio’s view of the morality question, that our species survival depends on or benefits from a moral code. Moreover, I think Religion was instituted as a channel to teach and implement this notion.
Quote[/b] ]This my friend, is giving ammo to the ones that believe we are Gods in the making…
humanity as gods?
that has got to be one of the silliest ideas iv`e ever heard in my life
anyone who who thinks that is a loon. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 18 2003,02:58)]
Quote[/b] ]This my friend, is giving ammo to the ones that believe we are Gods in the making…
humanity as gods?
that has got to be one of the silliest ideas iv`e ever heard in my life
anyone who who thinks that is a loon. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
Really? I think gods a wuss by comaprison with humanity.
God burned down the odd city here and there. We burned Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
God killed the first born sons of egypt in one night. We could do that with biowarfare, now or soon.
God was apparently ignorant of the fact that the earth rotated around the sun; humanity is not so ignorant.
God offers us imortality of the spirit, but humanity is working diligently on immortality in the flesh.
We kick gods butt.
rory_20_uk
09-18-2003, 11:35
Giod thinks of himself as all powerful and tried to control us. We, whilst knowing that wer are not still strive to control our environment, make discoveries and understand our world. individually we are weaker, but we show far more grit in attempting to push back the boundries, even knowing that there is no great reason to do so.
God doesn't want us in Eden. Well, we don't want him here.
Another thought. Isn't atheist is religion itself ? To believe in denying the existence of God (and other spritual beings) is a form of belief itself, right ?
A.Saturnus
09-18-2003, 13:25
Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 18 2003,09:58)]
Quote[/b] ]This my friend, is giving ammo to the ones that believe we are Gods in the making…
humanity as gods?
that has got to be one of the silliest ideas iv`e ever heard in my life
anyone who who thinks that is a loon. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
Every man and every woman is a star - Aleister Crowley
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
As I have pointed out in another thread, morality can not be founded on the divine without connecting it with the divine power to punish the mortals. God`s law is the law of the strongest. Otherwise, any theological foundation of morality is as relativistic as secular ones.
But a relativistic moral can work. Actually, the idea it couldn`t is probably based on the false assumtion that man can decide upon his behaviour out of a 'free will'. Which is of course, wrong. 'Relativistic' ethic refers to the philosophical reasoning behind it. Anyone may be able to define his moral theoretically, but the conscience is a product of socialization. Kids take over the moral code their parents (and the rest of society) educate upon them. Ethical behaviour can be learned just like any other behaviour.
Quote[/b] ]Another thought. Isn't atheist is religion itself ? To believe in denying the existence of God (and other spritual beings) is a form of belief itself, right ?
Hasn`t that been discussed to death in several other threads now?
Quote[/b] ]Another thought. Isn't atheist is religion itself ? To believe in denying the existence of God (and other spritual beings) is a form of belief itself, right ?
if you keep thinking like that you`ll just end up like a dog chasing it`s own tail, eternally frustrated http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Quote[/b] (squippy @ Sep. 18 2003,20:17)]
Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 18 2003,02:58)]
Quote[/b] ]This my friend, is giving ammo to the ones that believe we are Gods in the making…
humanity as gods?
that has got to be one of the silliest ideas iv`e ever heard in my life
anyone who who thinks that is a loon. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
Really? I think gods a wuss by comaprison with humanity.
God burned down the odd city here and there. We burned Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
God killed the first born sons of egypt in one night. We could do that with biowarfare, now or soon.
God was apparently ignorant of the fact that the earth rotated around the sun; humanity is not so ignorant.
God offers us imortality of the spirit, but humanity is working diligently on immortality in the flesh.
We kick gods butt.
Exactly,
Most “miracles” of the Old Testament is possible for us to do by using known science.
Who knows what is possible in 1000 years time (if we manage to keep humanity alive for that long).
We might be the new “gods” of this universe, able to Terraform planets and implement ecosystems etc.
We could even stumble across systems with life bearing planets.
It would be interesting to see how ‘they’ would view us IF we did find life in other systems.
I am not a believer in the “Chariots of the Gods” theories, but find such readings interesting as an alternative explanation for the stories in e.g. the Bible.
Gregoshi
09-23-2003, 04:01
Let's keep this to intelligent debate - not My non-god can kick your god's butt (or vis-versa). http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/argue.gif
I thought we had buried this thread...
Gregoshi
09-23-2003, 08:05
Would you like it closed since your poll is done?
I think I am just a selfish ba***rd. I do good to others simply to have a good life myself; because I would expect some favours returned. I don't believe in 'damnation' nor do I believe in being made 'holy'. I live my life as I would expect others to live theirs. I have been taught moral ethics by my parents and later made up my own. I reckon everybody has got a fair chance to live (on a moral standpoint) and a fair chance to let live. If you muck it up, then you pay the price by not being content with your actions.
I think everybody has some sort of moral 'feeling' inside them and a large majority has been taught what is good and bad. Further I believe that most morality comes from within and is more like an instinct rather than steared by our conscious minds. After all, I believe that we always (def more often than not) do things that are to our advantage in the long run. Hence the selfishness.
Quid
A.Saturnus
09-23-2003, 12:00
The concept of altruism breaks down under a intensive analysis anyway.
Teutonic Knight
09-23-2003, 14:02
Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Sep. 16 2003,17:04)]This post is directly inspired by the What are your beliefs thread and is a reflection of The Good the Bad the Ugly Pt. II thread, though composed before.
Regarding, What are your beliefs (please see initial post), its impossible to vote as some questions are contrary in addition to the fact that one can believe in an amalgamation of questions 1, 2 and 3.
I'd like to ask the Atheist and Agnositics a question, if you all would be so kind as to answer, I thank you.
1) If there is no G_d, then, do you have a sense of morality, and what is it based upon and/or where does it come from?
2) Without G_d's morality, commandments and the consequence of Damnation, what then is your motivation for moral action and to live a moral life (presuming the general understanding of morality).
In addition, what would be the motivation for anyone to live a moral life? Wouldn't you agree that in a G_dless world, that anyone can then determine one's own definition of morality and conduct one's life accordingly? Would this NOT then result in a worldstate of .
Given the realities of the above paragraph, and that % isn't appealing, then your Belief and Faith must reside in Government, and particularly, the Law--that is--the Legal System? In effect, from a religious point of view or a G_d view, then your Faith is in your fellow Man. Man who is without Morality or, at best/worst, defines his own, individual, Morality.
[Hmmm...the above might be a good description for Hell, an existence without Morality....hmmmm.]
Damnation is G_d's moral consequence. If one's Faith and Belief is in the Law, the obvious question, then, is where is the Law's moral consequence?
Can Man's Law define morality for all of man? The Law's consequence for immoral actions contrary to the Law is Prison, is it not? Yet, this consequence is escapable in a number and variety of ways; AND the Law's consequence is rendered inequitably. I would argue that this is the state in which we live (anarchanistic). The Law's consequence provides no true motivation toward morality for those, who, are willing and/or are capable of enduring or escaping the Law's consequence. Consquently, there is little or no habor nor ultimate protection for Man.
G_d's consequence, on the other hand, is absolute, inescapable and equitable. It serves as a moral compass and inhibitor to a degree that the Law, Man's Law, can NEVER serve.
Damnation is a strong (individual) motivator. What is the individual motivation for moral action under Man's Law? It can only be a sensical group attempt to forestall some or certain, presumably, accepted and agreed negative consequences to . Yet, if any individual does not cede to the accepted or agreed (or the presumption) then he is morally free to define his morality and conduct his life and actions.
In addition to the individualist nature to morality, there is the group attempt at morality I mention above. The consequences of one group's morality differing from another group's has all too clearly been exhibited inumerably and devestatingly in history, and is, again, being played out on a world stage as I type and you read.
Such is the make of the Hilters of this world. While the Hilter's can be cited as an extreme example of the fallacy's of Man's Law, and are short-lived, the immorality that they've wrought is not, and to a far greater extent are the immoral actions of lesser % s, those who define their own morality. There numbers are greater, there effect is cumulative and there is no Judgment day for them.
---
I also ask, if you believe in the concepts of Good and Evil (this does not have to be defined in a biblical sense, but in whatever worldly sense you prefer, but I ask the question in the generally accepted concept of Good and Evil)?
If there is, in fact, Good and Evil, how can it be defined? Without a *certain* (literal definition) moral base, can Good and/or Evil be defined and known? Doesn't Morality require a certainty.
----
IMHO, I believe that many who are without Faith or Belief, are so, greatly, because of a confusion between G_d and religion. The two are not the same and that's another thread....
I just said that not too long ago http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
of course they said well you can have morality without religion, it's been proven right.......
Portuguese Rebel
09-23-2003, 14:42
Quote[/b] ]In addition to the individualist nature to morality, there is the group attempt at morality I mention above. The consequences of one group's morality differing from another group's has all too clearly been exhibited inumerably and devestatingly in history, and is, again, being played out on a world stage as I type and you read.
Such is the make of the Hilters of this world. While the Hilter's can be cited as an extreme example of the fallacy's of Man's Law, and are short-lived, the immorality that they've wrought is not, and to a far greater extent are the immoral actions of lesser Hitlers, those who define their own morality. There numbers are greater, there effect is cumulative and there is no Judgment day for them.
Hmmm the you are an immoral atheist accusation. I was wondering when this would come up. How many atheists nuts are blowing people away as we speak? How many moral religious people are doing so.
Plus, Hitler used an enourmous amount of religious quotes to justify his stand. Hitler was not atheist, as many good chrsitians say. I find this more or less association of atheists with Hitler to be rather insulting, and could easily brought up more christian butchers to line up after Hitler but i won't.
Quote[/b] ]I just said that not too long ago
of course they said well you can have morality without religion, it's been proven right.......
I have a moral of my own. You don't see me running around killing people and sutch. Yet i'm an atheist. So it is possible to have morals without religion. What is so hard to understand about this?
All the atheists i know are moral people. Many religious ones are not.
Quote[/b] (Gregoshi @ Sep. 23 2003,17:05)]Would you like it closed since your poll is done?
Ouch.. a ‘light’ stab with the sarcasm knife... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
I was merely commenting on “Bumping” this thread.
Teutonic Knight
09-23-2003, 15:13
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 23 2003,08:42)]I just said that not too long ago
of course they said well you can have morality without religion, it's been proven right.......
I have a moral of my own. You don't see me running around people and sutch. Yet i'm an atheist. So it is possible to have morals without religion. What is so hard to understand about this?
All the atheists i know are moral people. Many religious ones are not.
but what are the origins of your morality?
In Judeo-Christian values right?
so there you go, society could not have ever funcitoned without religion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif
Portuguese Rebel
09-23-2003, 15:32
Quote[/b] ]but what are the origins of your morality?
In Judeo-Christian values right?
so there you go, society could not have ever funcitoned without religion
No dude, not by a long shot. I have sex with my girlfriend and i treat her as my equal. If i had judeo-christian values i would first get married, then have sex and then treat her like another household prop made from one of my ribs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]so there you go, society could not have ever funcitoned without religion
children eventually learn to walk by themselves, humanity will do the same, and leave religions behind.
as to when?
your guess is as good as mine http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Parmenio
09-23-2003, 15:57
Humanity as gods? is almost a self contradiction.
‘Humans as gods’ has some precedent though. The divine right of monarchs, the god emperors, and others deified in their own lifetimes or afterwards and worshiped in all seriousness by populations, shows that this is not an unlikely phenomena.
‘Humanity as god-like’ on the other hand is perhaps just a relative term. Before the end of this century technology will possibly advance to the point where god-like attributes will be in the grasp of the powerful, and by their own ambition they will be unlikely to deny themselves it.
Chemical, surgical and mechanical augmentation already exists today without anyone thinking much of it, and perform enhancements ranging from greater functionality for the disabled, improved mental balance and physical health, to self esteem boosting cosmetic procedures.
Further steps seem likely, and though I doubt our descendants will believe themselves gods, their definition of ‘Humanity’ will not necessarily be ours, likewise their belief systems and morality.
Gregoshi
09-23-2003, 16:50
Quote[/b] (Sigurd Fafnesbane @ Sep. 23 2003,08:52)]Ouch.. a ‘light’ stab with the sarcasm knife... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
I was merely commenting on “Bumping” this thread.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Fair enough Sigurd. After all the reading I did last night I'd have missed a big swing with a sarcasm machette. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif This topic still seems to have the legs to go on for a bit yet.
Portuguese Rebel
09-23-2003, 18:11
I think uncle Greg is pissed due to all the phylosophical/religious post he has to read now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Teutonic Knight
09-23-2003, 18:20
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 23 2003,09:32)]
Quote[/b] ]but what are the origins of your morality?
In Judeo-Christian values right?
so there you go, society could not have ever funcitoned without religion
No dude, not by a long shot. I with my friend and i treat her as my equal. If i had judeo-christian values i would first get married, then and then treat her like another household prop made from one of my ribs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
you may not obey strictly the judeo-christian values, but most of your main sociological moral codes are based on Judeo-Christian values, based on the ten commandments
Quote[/b] ]based on the ten commandments
and just how many christians follow them? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Teutonic Knight
09-23-2003, 18:56
Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 23 2003,12:27)]
Quote[/b] ]based on the ten commandments
and just how many christians follow them? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
many try to the best of their human ability to follow the laws of their faith, and I would think that would command a little more respect from you folks....
Parmenio
09-23-2003, 19:16
Quote[/b] ]
you may not obey strictly the judeo-christian values, but most of your main sociological moral codes are based on Judeo-Christian values, based on the ten commandments
The ten commandments were certainly well crafted. I would expect nothing less from an educated Egyptian prince.
Dragon2003
09-23-2003, 19:18
Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 16 2003,17:47)]p.s. why do you spell God as G_d ?
I have noticed ( i think i have neway http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif ) that this question has not been answered. The reason is that some religions call G_d the 'big G' and loads of other things as they belive that they should not speak G_d's real name.
Quote[/b] ]try
i wasn`t aware that you were allowed anything less that ten out of ten. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Quote[/b] ]call G_d the 'big G'
even if you put the o back in G_d, that would still not be it`s real name, only a human label for it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Portuguese Rebel
09-23-2003, 22:47
The ten commandments are basic humanitary values. And religion is all about trying to make a society in wich it is possible to live. In religion this is achieved by threats and promises of rewards.
An atheist derives his moral code from ethics. Basically, our fredoom goes until the next guy's freedom begins. We act according to our moral not because we were threaten into it (or promised great rewards) but because we freely choose to do so. The principles pointed out in the ten commandments were around before Moses. the egyptians had codes of conduct too. In fact, in almost any society there is some sort of modified #ten commandments. Sometimes very modified, since some societies have open marriages wich invalidates at least one of the commandments.
Before judaism and christianism people did not went killing as they pleased. In any human organization there are rules that try to keep you from getting harmed. The ten commandments are an ancient and quite simple code of law, and an admirable one, except for the first three. I would be happier with the last seven. The first three are basically saying i'm THE ONE believe and don't question...
I always thought the ten commandments was a result of the Jews’ inability to live the “real law” which Moses initially brought down from the mountain of the Lord, and which he destroyed with a sweep of the hand.
I don't need god to tell me what to do, how to act, how to think. I've got my wife for that.
Portuguese Rebel
09-24-2003, 14:12
Quote[/b] (Sigurd Fafnesbane @ Sep. 23 2003,21:08)]I always thought the ten commandments was a result of the Jews’ inability to live the “real law” which Moses initially brought down from the mountain of the Lord, and which he destroyed with a sweep of the hand.
Hehehe, perhaps there were more commandments and they forgot a few on the way... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]I don't need god to tell me what to do, how to act, how to think. I've got my wife for that.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Teutonic Knight
09-24-2003, 14:26
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 23 2003,16:47)]The ten commandments are basic humanitary values. And religion is all about trying to make a society in wich it is possible to live. In religion this is achieved by threats and promises of rewards.
An atheist derives his moral code from ethics. Basically, our fredoom goes until the next guy's freedom begins. We act according to our moral not because we were threaten into it (or promised great rewards) but because we freely choose to do so. The principles pointed out in the ten commandments were around before Moses. the egyptians had codes of conduct too. In fact, in almost any society there is some sort of modified #ten commandments. Sometimes very modified, since some societies have open marriages wich invalidates at least one of the commandments.
Before judaism and christianism people did not went as they pleased. In any human organization there are rules that try to keep you from getting harmed. The ten commandments are an ancient and quite simple code of law, and an admirable one, except for the first three. I would be happier with the last seven. The first three are basically saying i'm THE ONE believe and don't question...
ah, but where did your ethics originate?
The ten commandments are not basic human values because no one else in the world at that time had the same ethical values as the Jews did
And even the values that other peoples had were based on their religious beliefs, and not maturation of their societies.
Quote[/b] ]Hehehe, perhaps there were more commandments and they forgot a few on the way...
no, the original offer was buy ten, get one free
but they thought they had enough on their plate with the first selection http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Sep. 24 2003,08:26)]
Quote[/b] ] The ten commandments are not basic human values because no one else in the world at that time had the same ethical values as the Jews did
Eh? Are you claiming that absoluetley nobody ever though these things before they were divinely revealed? Thats just silly, I'm afraid.
The Lex Talionis, for example, is not exactly rthe same ethics, but certainly shows AN ethical system, codified and socially established.
Quote[/b] ] And even the values that other peoples had were based on their religious beliefs, and not maturation of their societies.
Wrong, becuase changing religious mores IS maturatiojn of culture.
Quote[/b] ]Lex Talionis
not familiar with the name, any info? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 23 2003,12:27)]
Quote[/b] ]based on the ten commandments
and just how many christians follow them? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I follow some of them. When I can. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
[quote=Teutonic Knight,Sep. 24 2003,08:26]
And even the values that other peoples had were based on their religious beliefs, and not maturation of their societies.
[QUOTE=Quote ]
Wrong, becuase changing religious mores IS maturatiojn of culture..
You misquoted him squippy. He said societies, not culture. These are quite different.
Also, rather than maturation I would say evolution, since maturation implies a qualitative improvement, which may not be the case.
Further, rather than saying that religious mores is, I think it would be more accurate to say that religion is part of, or plays a role in the evolution of culture.
All this considered, I agree pretty much with both of these statements.
A.Saturnus
09-24-2003, 18:52
It`s quite a claim to say that our ethical code is Judaic. You find some parts of humanism in Judaism, but others developed against it. And others can be found in other cultures. Freedom of belief for example was non existent in ancient Judaism. In the Hatti-empire on the other hand it was extended to a level that is uncommon in many societies today. No single culture can claim to have produced humanism.
And BTW, it`s irrelevant. Even if atheists would follow exactly the same rules as some theists before them, what matters is the way they justify their ethics. And the atheists` point is that humanism can be justified without assumptions of the divine. The fact that we use a time scale that dates on a religious event (more or less), doesn`t make our society any more theistic. The same counts for the supposed origin of our morality.
Teutonic Knight
09-24-2003, 19:20
yes, but my point is that secular wonderlands didn't devise the ethical codes that we follow today, and furthermore I think that religion is necessary to keep these values in place.
All I was trying to say was that religion always has and always will have an important role in society, whether you believe in God(s) or not....
A.Saturnus
09-24-2003, 21:13
Don`t you think Voltaire had an influence on our ethical system?
In what way is religion necessary to keep those values in place? I`m an atheist, but I can still have a morality.
Parmenio
09-24-2003, 22:27
Quote[/b] ]yes, but my point is that secular wonderlands didn't devise the ethical codes that we follow today, and furthermore I think that religion is necessary to keep these values in place.
The rational - if not entirely secular - movement of the Hellenistic World is responsible for a great deal of today's Western outlook, and additionally influcenced Jewish theology at that time.
Teutonic Knight
09-24-2003, 22:39
Quote[/b] (Parmenio @ Sep. 24 2003,16:27)]
Quote[/b] ]yes, but my point is that secular wonderlands didn't devise the ethical codes that we follow today, and furthermore I think that religion is necessary to keep these values in place.
The rational - if not entirely secular - movement of the Hellenistic World is responsible for a great deal of today's Western outlook, and additionally influcenced Jewish theology at that time.
who says there's a contradiction between being reasonable and being religous (don't use me as an examply plz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif )
Parmenio
09-24-2003, 23:10
The point being, Greek ethics were argued on reason rather than faith (demonstrating one ancient system of morality not based upon religion, though perhaps the fact that many of today’s atheists are ethical should be demonstration enough, ) and that Jewish theology borrowed from those around it. (Thus cannot have been originally responsible for conceiving morality.)
Portuguese Rebel
09-25-2003, 00:05
TK, what if i showed you that many of the jewsish laws can be traced back to a heathen, would that make you happy?
The code of Hammurabi (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/ham/)
This heathen fellow made the first version (a quite harsh and cruel one but still the first) of what, after events and modifications came to be known as the Talmud.
By your arrogant ways, i can clearly see you are a Portuguese. Well, so am I. Eheheh. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Well, the fact is, there isn't one culture able to completely trace their cultural origins. All cultures have traits from different cultures, and that's what makes cultures richer (cultures, cultures, cultures.....) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Cheers Mates
Fica bem pa Es de onde?
Ok, here goes....the world at large people are either Humanist or life centered on themselves or they center their life on a deity....be it Christ or another religion. Humanism basicaslly sets you on the throne and all is relevance to you. But for example living a Christ centered life puts Christ on the throne and you walk with Him sacrificing your life to His will for you.
Humanist`s have the view that Man created God, and that Christianity is only as good as the people who claim to follow it. (I use Christianity as an example as I am more familiar with it than with other religions). When Humanist`s seek religion they tend to seek what `works for them`. And do not surrender their place on the throne.
Religion is the man made institution of worship. It is guided by man who is fallible and prone to sin. Even followers of deities can still sin or go astray. Thus all the abuse in the name of God or gods. And by all means not everyone who claims to be a follower in reality is.
My view after 46 years of life and readings in the major religions of this world. God created Man. Christ came to this earth and died for all of our sins. man created the Christian Church to create a fellowship of worship. Sadly man in many ways screwed it up royally. Why, how? Because man at all times retains freedom of choice. But make the distinction between the `institutionb of the Church....and the person of jesus Christ...who is real and alive. And aside from the religion of the Church. Humanists only see the religion...but when the Holy Spirit touches the heart you see the reality of Christ.
Sermon over.
Dimeolas
Teutonic Knight
09-25-2003, 12:53
Quote[/b] (Portuguese Rebel @ Sep. 24 2003,18:05)]TK, what if i showed you that many of the jewsish laws can be traced back to a heathen, would that make you happy?
The code of Hammurabi (http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/ham/)
This heathen fellow made the first version (a quite harsh and cruel one but still the first) of what, after events and modifications came to be known as the Talmud.
My point is not whether they are heathen or Jewish, my point is that these moral codes were established by relgious sects within societies, how many times do I have to say that?
I was trying to make a point that moral law came not from atheistic wonderlands, but from religious societies.
Quote[/b] ]The point being, Greek ethics were argued on reason rather than faith (demonstrating one ancient system of morality not based upon religion, though perhaps the fact that many of today’s atheists are ethical should be demonstration enough, ) and that Jewish theology borrowed from those around it. (Thus cannot have been originally responsible for conceiving morality.)
ok, first you will find that the Greeks had a moral code long before the golden age and the Socratic philosophers, so they shouldn't even be in this conversation.
Hence the Greeks figured their moral code through religion not through philosophical thought.
Quote[/b] ]I was trying to make a point that moral law came not from atheistic wonderlands, but from religious societies.
it may or not be correct, the thing is a lot of us no longer find religions relevant/beneficial to our lives and have left them behind.
for me they are now about as necessary as wisdom teeth. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Teutonic Knight
09-25-2003, 13:34
Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 25 2003,07:08)]
Quote[/b] ]I was trying to make a point that moral law came not from atheistic wonderlands, but from religious societies.
it may or not be correct, the thing is a lot of us no longer find religions relevant/beneficial to our lives and have left them behind.
for me they are now about as necessary as wisdom teeth. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
yes, but I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about society in general...
Quote[/b] ]yes, but I'm not talking about individuals, I'm talking about society in general...
get enough individuals together and that`s usually what you get, a society. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Portuguese Rebel
09-25-2003, 14:18
Quote[/b] (Manji @ Sep. 24 2003,18:13)]By your arrogant ways, i can clearly see you are a Portuguese. Well, so am I. Eheheh. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Well, the fact is, there isn't one culture able to completely trace their cultural origins. All cultures have traits from different cultures, and that's what makes cultures richer (cultures, cultures, cultures.....) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Cheers Mates
Fica bem pa Es de onde?
From Quinta do Conde city...
In case you are wondering, it's somewhere between Lisbon and Setubal. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Welcome to the org Manji http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
We can always use some more tugas in here http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Sep. 25 2003,06:53)]
Quote[/b] ] My point is not whether they are heathen or Jewish, my point is that these moral codes were established by relgious sects within societies, how many times do I have to say that?
I was trying to make a point that moral law came not from atheistic wonderlands, but from religious societies.
On problem for you: it is unclear that the Sumerians/Babylonians actually believed in gods. Sure, they talked about gods, but seemed to have quite an existentialist view of mortality. So the claim that they wer e a theistic society is itself a bit of a can of worms. I certainly do not think they possessed anything resembling the christian form of Faith at all.
So, are we really talking about religion and if so in what sense, or are we talking about social organisation and the metaphors emplyed for articulating collective interest? A thorny problem.
Teutonic Knight
09-25-2003, 15:10
Quote[/b] (squippy @ Sep. 25 2003,08:55)]
Quote[/b] ] My point is not whether they are heathen or Jewish, my point is that these moral codes were established by relgious sects within societies, how many times do I have to say that?
I was trying to make a point that moral law came not from atheistic wonderlands, but from religious societies.
On problem for you: it is unclear that the Sumerians/Babylonians actually believed in gods. Sure, they talked about gods, but seemed to have quite an existentialist view of mortality. So the claim that they wer e a theistic society is itself a bit of a can of worms. I certainly do not think they possessed anything resembling the christian form of Faith at all.
So, are we really talking about religion and if so in what sense, or are we talking about social organisation and the metaphors emplyed for articulating collective interest? A thorny problem.
do you people listen to nothing I say?
I never said it had to be a Christian faith, I merely said that these people baseda good amount of their morality on what thy believed would be just retribution from their god(s)
can you back up the claim that the Babylonians were an atheistic society? No you can't, but I can back up mine by the many many references to dieties in their writings....
Parmenio
09-25-2003, 15:16
However the theme original theme of this thread was the discussion of individuals rather than societies.
I'll concede that the earliest societies search for truth was bond up in spirituality if not formal religion. However time and again movements spring up based on a reasoned set of ethics, strong enough to influence and change contemporary theology, if not superseding previous religions altogether.
Having read a couple of the posts, I believe the Teutonic Knight's position is that a moral code must be based upon an appeal to a divine source. The reason being: such an appeal provides the necessary justification, the rationale for the ought that explains, why one does X as opposed to Y.
With a divine appeal the action is moral by definition given that deity is perfect and goodness is a mode of perfection. Therefore if the Israelites are commanded by The Lord to slaughter every man, woman, and child of a particular group, the action is ipso facto just.
One may argue that such genocide is wrong because there is no god, or they misunderstood the command, but the basic structure of the moral appeal is valid.
An extention of the Teutonic Knight's view is that secular moral appeals are arbitrary and because of the arbitrariness cannot adequately ground the ought standard of a moral system. One may say I belive, men must not abuse women but where is the compelling force? A differant man may say rape is justified because the strong should be able to do what they want. The consequences of such a position may be societal breakdown, but that begs the question that society needs to be preserved.
Aside from simple ascertion, I believe only Parmenio has provided a possible alternative in an early post namely: a secular ethic may be traced to a base survival of the species.
Quote[/b] ]I belive, men must not abuse women but where is the compelling force?
a reasonable human being does not need to be forced to reach that conclusion by a threat from a god or any outside source.
not doing bad things is equally possible for believers AND non-believers, with or without any religion at all.
the fact that humanity has twisted/interperited the teachings/words of many religions to give an excuse to do bad things cannot be ignored, nor can the fact that humans are to blame for such things and not the devine/G_d. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Quote[/b] ]Quote
I belive, men must not abuse women but where is the compelling force?
a reasonable human being does not need to be forced to reach that conclusion by a threat from a god or any outside source.
Unfortunately, an ascertion, regardless of the confidence behind it does not a logical arguement make.
Quote[/b] ]Unfortunately, an ascertion, regardless of the confidence behind it does not a logical arguement make.
can you dumb that down a bit as i don`t understand what you said. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
EDIT: this is not a sarcastic comment. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
Teutonic Knight
09-25-2003, 20:35
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Sep. 25 2003,12:33)]Having read a couple of the posts, I believe the Teutonic Knight's position is that a moral code must be based upon an appeal to a divine source. The reason being: such an appeal provides the necessary justification, the rationale for the ought that explains, why one does X as opposed to Y.
With a divine appeal the action is moral by definition given that deity is perfect and goodness is a mode of perfection. Therefore if the Israelites are commanded by The Lord to slaughter every man, woman, and child of a particular group, the action is ipso facto just.
One may argue that such genocide is wrong because there is no god, or they misunderstood the command, but the basic structure of the moral appeal is valid.
An extention of the Teutonic Knight's view is that secular moral appeals are arbitrary and because of the arbitrariness cannot adequately ground the ought standard of a moral system. One may say I belive, men must not abuse women but where is the compelling force? A differant man may say is justified because the strong should be able to do what they want. The consequences of such a position may be societal breakdown, but that begs the question that society needs to be preserved.
Aside from simple ascertion, I believe only Parmenio has provided a possible alternative in an early post namely: a secular ethic may be traced to a base survival of the species.
I think you've understood me pretty well
Portuguese Rebel
09-25-2003, 22:40
The main question is, are societies have their morality due to the existance of religion, or was religion created to justify the leader's particular view of rules to follow?
Religion is a great way to hold control of the mob.
Quote[/b] ]The main question is, are societies have their morality due to the existance of religion, or was religion created to justify the leader's particular view of rules to follow?
Religion is a great way to hold control of the mob.
can`t answer your question but leaders do adapt religions when it can suit their needs, or destroy them when it also suits their needs.
if the state controls the religion, it controls the mob, and then if you go against the state you go against god.
it isn`t any better when the religion controls the state, then any transgression is now a sin against god.
i`m an atheist, but i could live with gods, it`s the followers that you have to be worried about, and especially their interpratations of what god says. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
Katar,
Quote[/b] ]reasonable human being does not need to be forced to reach that conclusion by a threat from a god or any outside source.
Unfortunately, an ascertion, regardless of the confidence behind it does not a logical arguement make.....
can you dumb that down a bit as i don`t understand what you said
Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse.
Your post, I was responding to, referred to a reasonable human being and his moral choices. I think, you mean one who has common sense. The problem I wanted to point out, is appeals to being reasonable or common sense in and of themselves have no force regardless of how obvious it may appear to the subject. A logical arguement, is such that the conclusion is demanded based upon the premises laid out. If one says X is wrong: wrong constitutes the conclusion. Naturally, this leads to the question, why? To refuse to provide an explantion is to refuse to give an arguement. To provide an adequate answer one has to provide prior premises that compel the conclusion you already provided. An appeal to reasonableness is insufficient because reasonableness is abritrary. What seems clear to you my be quite the opposite to another.
Quote[/b] ]The main question is, are societies have their morality due to the existance of religion, or was religion created to justify the leader's particular view of rules to follow?
Religion is a great way to hold control of the mob.
I don't think the key is the social componet of relgion, that certainly exists and has been used just as you say, but rather the truth claims being made. Religions that weigh in on moral questions do so becasue they are claiming to know what is correct, what is right, true. Typically, this is done by/through claims to know the divine will. Different religions may answer a moral dilemna differently, but the logical structure of their appeal is the same.
A secular approach must be able to provide a coherent moral system that provides the same degree of internal continuity and force religious appeals do.
Quote[/b] ]a reasonable human being does not need to be forced to reach that conclusion by a threat from a god or any outside source.
Quote[/b] ]An appeal to reasonableness is insufficient because reasonableness is abritrary.
my choice of reasonable was unnecessary and led you away from what i was saying, i should have just said:
a human being does not need to be forced to reach that conclusion by a threat from a god or any outside source.
does that change your response? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Parmenio
09-26-2003, 04:36
The existence of multicultural/secular societies past and present, and the common denominator of moral rules that appear across all societies would suggest (to me) that an underlying secular ethic based on essential human nature provides the foundation for morality.
That aside.
In order to answer why one should act in a particular fashion, one can either simply claim authority, or demonstrate why such a choice of behaviour works and is of benefit. The former method is clearly open to imposing far more arbitrary forms of behaviour than the latter, which because it is open to debate must be more plausible if not rigorous.
That many of the enlightened religious teachers also often choose the latter method in explaining moral doctrine ought to be informative. When the famous Rabbi summed up the entire Jewish Law as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This was a product of reason, that required no external divine authority to be understood to be self evident.
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Sep. 25 2003,09:10)]
Quote[/b] ] do you people listen to nothing I say?
I never said it had to be a Christian faith, I merely said that these people baseda good amount of their morality on what thy believed would be just retribution from their god(s)
OK now listen carefully.... a good argument can be made that No They Didn't. That their gods were just a metaphor for We The People. That they did NOT think that gods were really existing beings who passed moral judgement.
Now I would not say that is definately known to be the case - as I say its a thorny problem. But you cannot just assume that faith exists because people talk about gods.
Quote[/b] ] can you back up the claim that the Babylonians were an atheistic society? No you can't, but I can back up mine by the many many references to dieties in their writings....
No, I didnt say they were an ATHEISTIC society. But we can see in the epic of gilgamesh that they had no real expectation of an afterlife. So whatever morality they had, it was NOT based on the claim that they will be judged after death - at least, not in certain periods. What YOU should not be doing is making thr lazy assumption that just becuase they talk about deities they believe in those deities the same way that modern christians believe in god. That is not a given.
A.Saturnus
09-26-2003, 14:15
Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ Sep. 25 2003,21:35)]
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Sep. 25 2003,12:33)]Having read a couple of the posts, I believe the Teutonic Knight's position is that a moral code must be based upon an appeal to a divine source. The reason being: such an appeal provides the necessary justification, the rationale for the ought that explains, why one does X as opposed to Y.
With a divine appeal the action is moral by definition given that deity is perfect and goodness is a mode of perfection. Therefore if the Israelites are commanded by The Lord to slaughter every man, woman, and child of a particular group, the action is ipso facto just.
One may argue that such genocide is wrong because there is no god, or they misunderstood the command, but the basic structure of the moral appeal is valid.
An extention of the Teutonic Knight's view is that secular moral appeals are arbitrary and because of the arbitrariness cannot adequately ground the ought standard of a moral system. One may say I belive, men must not abuse women but where is the compelling force? A differant man may say is justified because the strong should be able to do what they want. The consequences of such a position may be societal breakdown, but that begs the question that society needs to be preserved.
Aside from simple ascertion, I believe only Parmenio has provided a possible alternative in an early post namely: a secular ethic may be traced to a base survival of the species.
I think you've understood me pretty well
But, TK, this way, there`s nothing deontic in your moral code. The only motivation is fear of punishment. Don`t you think that people might have a motivation to behave what they see as morally by themselves? Do you believe man is bad by nature?
BTW, your explanation for morality is not that of any Christian creed I know of.
Portuguese Rebel
09-26-2003, 14:41
Quote[/b] ]“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
I do like this line...
Katar,
Quote[/b] ]a human being does not need to be forced to reach that conclusion by a threat from a god or any outside source.
does that change your response?
This is a more defendable postion. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Parmenio,
Quote[/b] ]The existence of multicultural/secular societies past and present, and the common denominator of moral rules that appear across all societies would suggest (to me) that an underlying secular ethic based on essential human nature provides the foundation for morality.
Which past secular societies are you thinking of? Would you be arguing that the common denominator of moral rules referenced is secular or religiously derrived?
Quote[/b] ]That many of the enlightened religious teachers also often choose the latter method in explaining moral doctrine ought to be informative. When the famous Rabbi summed up the entire Jewish Law as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This was a product of reason, that required no external divine authority to be understood to be self evident.
It seems to me, most, if not all, of the founders of major religious movements made appeals to divine authority or an epiphany to ground their position. Moses, Buddha, Chirst, Mohammad would be examples.
The Rabbi reference is certainly an example of a mental excercise, but the conclusion he arrives at is a distilation of Jewish Law. Jewish law is the Torah, considered the supreme revalation of Diety to men.
You've asked a long question and it is late already, but this is subject that stands near to my hart. As an atheist, I always find it repelling when people claim that atheist heve no moral and/or will burn in hell. It is perfectly possible to lead a morally good live without believing in God. I'd like to point out that in the new testament the man who does not know God but lives a decent live is praised above a man who does kwow Him but doesn't live to his rules. The good samaritian is another tale of the unbeliever being the good guy.
Your morality is mainly set by society, through your parents. Despite the fact that I do not suscribe to the Christian God, a lot of my moral guidelines are derrived from the Christian religion. For example, though I cannot think of a logical reason against walking naked (short of catching cold), I still don't even dare go near a nudist resort.
But I can prove why a man should behave morally even if there is no heaven or hell. Suppose a world on which there are two small islands. On each island there live fifty people. The first island is named (for no particular reason) Atlantis. The people who live on this island are normal, but the have morality. This allows them to work together without fear that, as soon is the mutual project is complete, someone else will kill the others and have al the benefit for him (or her) self.
The second island is called Lemuria. The people who live on this island are stonger and smarter than the people who live on Atlantis. But they don't have moral, and therefor they cannot work together for fear that the other will steal their work and kill them. They don't have any conscience, so they don't trust each other. Result: an all-out (total) war of everyone against everyone, in which the work of one day is destroyed the next day.
Now, due to a freak chance, a landbrigde forms between those two islands, and because of the nature of the Lemurians, war errupts. Although the Lemurians have an edge in intelligence and strenght, this is negated by the fact that they work alone. The Atlanteans, on the other hand, will work together, and no matter how strong the Lemurians will be, 3 Atlanteans will bring him/her down.
Conclusion: without morals and conscience, you cannot cooperate, and you are in danger of losing everything, your work or even your life, at every moment. (This story has appaerently been invented before, I believe by Thomas Hobbes, who also used the total-war image).
Of course this is a simplification, and one can bring countless argument against it, like the supposition that morality = conscience. But I've given you a reason why people have morals and SHOULD have them. Not because of God, certainly not because of Law, but because it benefits everybody. Yourself, your children (you can behave like a bastard now, but your children will reap its consequences), your family, your friends, and in the end, the whole world.
Of course, in modern society, where not everyone knows everyone, so you can behave as you like and then move on if the situation becomes to hot to handle, this story does not apply, but the principle does. You cann't do things if cann't trust each other. And to trust each other, you need to know that other won't destroy your trust. This certainty can come out of a rational profit-calculation, or, more often, out of the believe that other people won't just impose upon and misuse you.
Because they, too, have a conscience.
The only difference difference between this moral system and a believers moral system is that a believers moral system is enforced by a god (either immediatly by diseases or lightning http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif , or slower, through a heaven and a hell). In the former case, it needs to be enforced by society, which includes, but is NOT the same as the law.
Allright, I've already used more space than I planned, so I should leave it at that. But I've given you insight in my thoughts about how I could create a moral world, without refering to a God in which I cannot, without untruth, claim to still believe in.
One thing, though. Since I became an atheist, I have started to think more and more about God and Morality.
I am a Christian, and when debating I don't like to throw the Bible in, becuase I veiw it as infallable, and those I debate agaisnts, abviously don't. A few questions is all I want to post. There have been very interesting articles posted here, some have a very good argument. Here are some questions relating to this post, most of wich I thought of while sitting here, some, however are standards.
1. Considering Moral Standards
How can man, (assuming that the atheist is also an evolutionist), coming from carbon based cells not evenly classifiable as lifefroms, somehow come through all the amazing happenstanses, and luck that evolution would require, and still, not only be intelligent, but manage not only to survive and arguably dominate Earth, but create so complex a moral code as what most live by now. Summed up by a verse in the Bible? (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Would it not be more logical to consider something greater, somehting in control infinitly wise that put together all of our complex organisms that scientists (man) still have not cracked even a small percentage of its miracles? Not to mention our code of morality. How could happenstance and guessing have everyithing pan out the way it has. Darwin used *we may well suppose* over 800 times in his two volume work the Descent of Man, i state this and other facts not entirely to debunk evolution, becuase that is not the topic. My point being that without some stndard to hold on to, we simply suppose.
2. Concerning Afterlife
So we all are born, and we all die. The code of life that cannot end, cannot be altered. Everyone dies, some may life for a few years more than may have seemed possible, but in the end, all die. After this, many people belive somehting great is awaiting for the good, and somehting bad for the evil. So all unbelievers.....what if you're wrong? What are you risking. As a practising, beliveing Christian, there is little I risk. I follow my God's guide to heaven, and I also do good works. I also live a decent life(not in God's eyes of course, but in man's) so most other religions, I am safe on. Why would you risk beliveing nothing?
3. Concerning the lack of a moral law.
I heard somewhere that certain phsycologists are now saying that there is no certainy for morality. Makes sense when all we have to base it on it ourselves. If i shoot someone, as long as I get away with it, I don't suffer the lawful consequesnces, I get away with it. Not with God my friends. The Christian relgion and all concerning a God show that you can't get out of it. You WILL pay the consequences.
4. Concerning the Bible an science.
This is the only point I will make using the Bible as one of the main arguments. Did you know that the Bible states many scientific facts? More amazingly, these facts were stated sometimes more than 3000 years before scientists realized them as facts. Moses in Genisis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuternomy stated several times that life is to continue, in this manner. All things will reproduce there kind. Even if you belive evolution, you must admit, a dog doesnt give birth to anything but a dog. A cat doesnt give birth to anything but a cat. Its law, the only possible way to alter that is science, and that is man's interference. And so far it hasnt been done. There is a verse in Leviticus, and I hope you forgive me for the lack of verse refernces, the site i use for them, well i cant find it, but this verse states that the life is in the blood. How long did it take scientists to figure that one out? George washington died, becuase of a common practise gone wrong. This practise was bleeding. Scientists would drain the blood of an ill person, and he would supposedly get better. George was forgotten and bled to death, becuase while pratially right, the disease was carried by the blood, these scientists didn't realize that life was in the blood. There is a passage in Psalms on the paths of the sea, and how long did it take before seamen realized the currents of the ocean? Now this is just a small handful of the verses, even lacking refernces, but consider them none the less. I hope this post might do some good God Bless
kataphraktoi
11-22-2003, 04:28
Chris nails it on the head.
When u get a person who believes in the infallibility of their texts and a person who doesn't believe in its infallibaility you have a stalemate.
Kinda like this:
Person A but my god says you must do this
Person B I don't give a crap, I don't recognise his authority, whats your poinit
I think we've done a good job in steering from that course.
ToranagaSama's use of G_D as opposed to God could be due to two reasons:
a) he's Jewish, Jews have a traditional revereence for the name of God as sacred, thats they they never write the wholething and somoetimes they substitute it with Adonai or the abbreviated Hebrew form YHWH.
b) sensitive to Jewish sensibilities.
Too think, I wanted to be a theologian when I was 15, but now I have a politics history degree and am trying to do an Archoitecture degree. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
The irony.
I was about to make my comments but realized that I have already done so...
what the??? old topic resurfacing..
It makes me cringe every time I hear comments of the infallibility of the canon of scripture. I will not enter that debate to accomodate the wish of the commenter. I will however slip in the two issues that I would base my arguments on; that of the history of the canon (how it came about) and that of the current compilation of books.
I would say though that I admire true believers.
[edit]: Oh, there are some very good threads with religious discussions in the archive of this forum... like this one, it was (is) buried in the back pages.
Chris,
In this response I'd like to answer to some of the objections you've placed against atheism. We may not be able to convince each other, but a free exchange of opinions is always good, fot it allows us to discover the errors in our opinions so we can discard them or, more often, adapt them.
1. Concerning moral standards.
It is indeed hard to imagine that such a complex lifeform as man developed out of such simple things. We cannot explain this with science, so a creator is very viable hypothesis.
But, can you prove it? The fact that it happened is not proof of the existence of God, but a clue that it is unlikely that it happened by the evolutionary forces we know. But, over the past few decades, science has made enormous leaps in postulating and discovering unknown forces which make the unlikely more likely. I would say that science cannot explain everything, while the creator-hypothesis can, but it looks like science is beginning to overtake the religious position. In a thousand years time, possibly we can explain everything without the creator (or not, we don't know that http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ).
If you do not accept this, fine. Just as your position was a hint, but not proof, so is this one.
As for the complex moral systems, how do you account for the fact that there are complex moral systems which are not like our Christian ones. If you reason that they are too complex to be derived from man, so there must be a guiding, superior power, then why are there more than one?
Your second and third position boils down to reasons why it would be good to have a Divine Judge who judges our actions. But it doesn't prove that there actually is one. And if I should die, and appear before the divine court, I would feel a bit awkward if I had to say: well, I saw no logical reason to believe in Your existence, but I did believe in You because it was in my advantage.
This is the same as commiting crimes you can get away with if it is in your advantage. It is just opportunism, and we both agree that this kind of reasoning is absolutely amoral.
4. Concerning the bible and science
The blood does NOT contain life. Neither does the heart, the brain, the liver. Only together the CAN contain live.
Yes, the bible does contain statements which are true. But why do you declare that this makes it a work of science? Just because it made a statement that applies today, does not prove that the writer knew what he was talking about. You could just as well claim that Plato invented the evolution theory (Symposion). There are a lot of statements in the bible, some which are true, or contain a hint of truth, and some of which are obviously false (for example the double story about the creation of man: there are actually 2 different stories, one in Genesis 1 and one in Genesis 2).
That being said, I do admit that religion can be wonderous thing. It can bring comfort to those with miserable lives, and provides a basis for moral behavior.
But since I cannot believe in Gods existence, because of the insanity and cruelity of world, sometimes even committed in His name, I have to seek other grounds for moral behavoir. A world without morale, as represented in my two islands mind-experiment, is a world which nobody would want.
Another thought though, We are discussing morality on a forum called Total War.
A.Saturnus
11-22-2003, 20:50
happy to see that this old thread inspires people again, even if we have a certain amount of repetition.
chris,
1.
Evolution is a problem-driven process. To someone not into the matter I can imagine it must be incomprehensible how a mindless, simple process can achieve such things, but this is not a scientific objection. Because it is scientifical explainable that this simple process indeed can do this. I assure you that there´s nothing mysterical about the develoment of the species. Unsolved scientific problems, yes - mysteries, no. The number of times Darwin used we may well suppose is irrelevant, it´s a manner of speeking. Also don´t forget that evolutionary biology is much further now than at his times. I recommand books from Dawkins, Dennett and Gould for understandable and accurate explanations of evolution.
There are also several works about the sociobiological approaches to moralitiy. In short we may well suppose - if I may say so - that morality can mean an evolutonairy advantage (see Ludens post).
2.
Pascal´s argument: the gambler would uphold god´s rules just to be sure.
William James` answer: if I were go, I would send this gambler surely to hell
In addition to that, how can you assume that you are more saved than I am? There´s an infinite number of possible gods and an infinite number of possible rules you have to follow. You violate as much possible rules as I do (infinite), therefore you´re chance to go to hell is the same as mine.
3.
The point is certainty. You can´t be certain that god will punish you(he might not exist). Or why do you think criminality is as high among believers as unbelievers? But again this is a morality that is based on fear of punishment. Some moralists would deny this to be morality at all. If we can base morality on punishment, we can as well base it on socialisation.
4.
That´s a common phenomenon. It doesn´t work only for the Bible but also for the Quran, ancient Chinese scripts, Bach´s compositions and - if you search long enough - for the backsides of cornflakes boxes. It works only for information we already have. It´s based on the vagueness of interpretation.
Ludens, a very good thought experiment. Can it be that the names of these islands were influenced by what I think it is influenced by? (Lemuria ) Though one could bring up some objevtions, for example that you don´t necessary need to have morality to co-operate. But I won´t go into that now.
BTW, welcome to the Org http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
I would first like to say, all of you, very well put. The level of maturity in this post is quite scarce, sad to say. Most people like previously said, simply say My God said so, and I don;t care. Ludens, I commend you and, i will leave 4. alone, becuase of my lack of knowledge on that issue. I refuse to shou about and argue on things about wich I have no knowledge. Yes the Usage of a divine being does explain alot of things, and even to me at times it seems like a childish thing, to beive in somehting just becuase it is the most logical explanation. I tend to lean towards logical and anylitical thinking, nothing profound, just slightly more than most. So, while still believeing, I did search out the whole Is there a God issue. I found that, there are just to many
Quote[/b] ]a common phenomenon 's to not belive. I don't critisize you for not believing, and I am not going to preach the plan of slavation, that is not the point of this topic. I suppose to all those believing in something, even believeing in nothing, have a tendancy to be willing to stand somewhat on it, and defend it. Most however, don't follow that tendancy, but rather *go wiht the flow* You and all posting here (Well as far as i can see) follow that tendancy. In short, I admire you for believeing in something, and standing on that. I know CHristians, who by the way have somehting to stand for, if they will belive it, who hide when the chance to say yes i blieive God
A. Saturnus
Your points are interesting, and seeing how I am not a Creation Scientists, by no stretched imagination, I won't argue on point 1. Point 3 however is interesting. I am certain, even certain enough to belive that I will go to heaven, and you will not, if the time is right to say so. To me, and millions of others, it made more sense to belive in something greater than hapernstance, and i still refer to it as happenstance. I agree al scientific laws, don;t alter. And the most complicated of things can make sense, if one can analyze them enoug. However, the amount of somple coinsidences in the Bible, are too many for me to just ignore, far to many. I won't go into them here, but there are many.
Also, I believe in something greater than a punishment relationship. I belive that a God, that is powerful, and far greater than man, gave up that seat in heaven, and became a ma for 33 years. I belive that man went trough life, not as some great God, but as a humble man. I beive that humble man died one of the worst ways of dieing, and he knew he was going too the entire time. I believe that on that day, yours and my sinse had the potential to be forgivien. ANd three days later I believe that my savior rose, showing power, an majesty. You can belive in a scientific happenstance if you wish (I say all of this with good spirit), but I belive in a God of love. Someone who, like a father, we love and adore and while small children wish to be like. On the other hand he can be an angry father, and punish me when i need it. So as we go our seperate ways, I will spend my life thinking and looking ahead to a great afterlife with a God I love, and sadly, you will go believing in a scientific error. Again i say all with a good nature. Please don't think this preaching, I don't expect you to change, and come with a bring grin on your face. I say this to explain somehting that even my analytical mind can accept, a God (one who is powerfula nd all knowing) of love.
kataphraktoi
11-23-2003, 14:48
God can't be proven - to the standards that science requires. Simply because it never has or needed to be proven by science. When we talk of proof there are two kinds of acceptable proof:
a) proof that we accept
b) proof that we exclude
Point is prood is what we are willing to accept. A Christian has his proofs that he accepts but someone who isn't does not accept that proof.
A.Saturnus
11-23-2003, 21:43
chris,
When you say you believe in a god of love, then that´s a good thing. I have respect for this kind of belief. On an emotional basis, it´s simply so that you believe and I don´t. I guess believing is the right thing to do for you. For me it´s not possible to believe and I don´t need to. I´m better off without believe.
But that´s not the reason I discuss these things here. As I said emotionally one believes or does not, but the existence of god and the truth behind religion is also an epistemic question. There´s also a level were it´s not only a decision one makes for himself, but a question that has one - and only one - true answer. And the answer to this question is important for me. I have to make sure that the answer I accept is the rational one. And so, whenever someone presents a proof of god or argues that religion has the reasonable, the likely answer to this question, I perceive this as a challenge. When I say I´m an atheist then this doesn´t mean that I simply think there isn´t a god, but it means that I went through all the arguments for and against, considered as much evidence as I could find and analysed the problem to the tiniest detail and came to the conclusion that a purely rationalistic world view cannot be a theistic one. The epistemic question whether god exists or not will always remain unanswered (as so many other questions), but the rational estimation based on what we know now is that the answer is no. If at some time someone presents an argument for theism that I cannot refute, then I may have to rethink my life, but that hasn´t happened so far.
kataphraktoi, that sounds terribly relativistic. What a proof is and what not can be shown on an objective basis. In praxis, we may make mistakes and be biased, but in theory there´s a method to reveal truth.
Truth is definite and objective - Sir Karl Popper
All certainty arises from the comparison of ideas - David Hume
Quote[/b] ]God can't be proven - to the standards that science requires. Simply because it never has or needed to be proven by science.
The existence of Deity, or its lack, is not something that can fall under the rubric of scientific scrutiny. This is a catergory mistake.
Quote[/b] ]The epistemic question whether god exists or not will always remain unanswered (as so many other questions), but the rational estimation based on what we know now is that the answer is no.
This is an amazing statement given the history of Western Thought. Few thinkers focused on ontological questions would be so bold.
A.Saturnus
11-23-2003, 23:52
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Nov. 23 2003,23:17)]
Quote[/b] ]The epistemic question whether god exists or not will always remain unanswered (as so many other questions), but the rational estimation based on what we know now is that the answer is no.
This is an amazing statement given the history of Western Thought. Few thinkers focused on ontological questions would be so bold.
Do you mean the impossibility to answer it or that the rational estimation is no?
In the first case: Kant
In the second: Nietzsche, Feuerbach, LaPlace, Russell, Popper, Buggle etc.
Quote[/b] ]I don't critisize you for not believing, that is not the point of this topic. I suppose to all those believing in something, even believing in nothing, have a tendancy to be willing to stand somewhat on it, and defend it. Most however, don't follow that tendancy, but rather *go with the flow* You and all posting here (Well, as far as I can see) follow that tendancy. In short, I admire you for believeing in something, and standing on that. I know Christians, who by the way have something to stand for, if they will believe it, who hide when the chance to say yes I believe God
Very well put Chris,
You believe and I don't, and we cannot convince each other, so we should leave it at that. I do envy you your faith, because it gives one certainity in an uncertain world. But, like Saturnus, I find it impossible to believe after years of thinking about the subject.
But that was not the point of this post. The question asked was wether it was wether atheist have a sense of morality, on what is was based and what was the motivation for leading a moral life. Also there was a question wether one believed in good and evil.
My answer to this is
1) Atheist do have a sense of morality,
2) It derived mainly from society (the only people without morality are the psychopaths) and
3) the reason to lead a moral life is because without morality and conscience one cannot trust each other, therefor will have difficulties cooperating and risk having their works and lives destroyed at every moment (uncertainty). One should live a moral live for the greater good or common sense, or call it personal advantage (depenging on your level of cynism http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).
(The question about trust, cooperation and personal gain is, of course, the well known Prisoner's Dillema)
About the existence of Good and Evil: wheter something is good or evil, depends on how you define it. This is relative to the morals of the observer. Wheter there is a universal guide to moral behavoir I do not know, but there is a universal duideline: Don't do unto others what you don't want them to do unto you.
However, this moral relativism doesn't mean that I do not judge actions if they don't concern me. I find that some actions, like supression of countries or mass murder, are immoral from every reasonable point of view. They are only commited because the ones doing it are either not reasonable or not concerned with moral because something else is on stake (like their one gain, or pride). On the same lines there actions which I approve of, and think no one reasonable could disaprove of.
There, I answered all three questions of Toranaga Sama.
Kataphraktoi, there is such a thing as thruth and therefor there is such a thing as proof. When you say that we ignore proofs we don't like, you have got a point. Humans in general have a tendency to ignore things they dislike, even the scientifically orietated, like me, who are supposed to be open-minded. But we all have a point on which we cannot longer ignore it, when it is flung in our face that WE ARE WRONG. This is painful and humilitating, but we will accept it sooner or later, unless we are so dogged that we will even lie to ourselves. But none of us are, because we are listening to each other, and accept each others position. If we would be so dogged we wouldn't even be discussing this.
We would just have a flaming row.
As a scientist I reason that, if it exists, we should be able to prove it. We just need to find the right test. If it doesn't exist then we can neither prove its existence nor its un-existence.
A.Saturnus, the names of the islands are both derived from sunken continents (sunken in our imagination I suppose http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif ), like you probably suspected. I named them so because my teacher philosophy in the fifth grade liked a joke. Afterwards I discovered that Hobbes had beaten me to it. Just my luck http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ...
Indeed, the model isn't waterthight, but it illustrates the following: if you no moral or conscience, you cannot trust each other and because of that cooperation becomes difficult (but not impossible). Result: you can achieve little, and what you can achieve is in danger at every moment.
And that's my reason to live a moral life.
(See also: prisoners dillema)
My last reply was not up to date, but that was because I spent more than an hour composing it.
My, doesn't time fly when you are philosophizing http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif .
Papewaio
11-24-2003, 02:40
Religion is an evolved adaptation just like the ability to stand upright, having a thumb and the ability to think logically.
WTF?
Simple take the ten commandments and live by the opposites.
Don't respect your parents and end up all alone trying to survive with real predators.
Kill your neighbours... tough luck if you are the neigbour.
Other laws and customs...
Eat shellfish that has been left out on a sunny day with a leg of uncured pork as a dessert. See how long that tribe will last in a desert.
Instead of wearing traditional ME gear go walkabout in a desert in a speedo if you are European or for those who have the appropriate adapation of the environment go walkabout in the Artic in a speedo.
----
Moral values can be seen as what makes the tribe stronger. Just like white cells sacrifce themselves for the greater good of the body, most moral values are about self sacrifice on some scale for the greater good of the society.
Quote[/b] ]Do you mean the impossibility to answer it or that the rational estimation is no?
In the first case: Kant
First case: Kant. An empirical methodology cannot examine an object that is by necessity beyond the phenomenal realm.
Quote[/b] ]In the second: Nietzsche, Feuerbach, LaPlace, Russell, Popper, Buggle etc.
Nietzsche - Contrary to popular opinion, Nietzsche's thrust was not necessarily a denouncement of God as much as an attack on systemic philosophy. Working in the wake of a Kantian model, Nietzsche attacked epistemologies that claimed knowledge of the absolute (i.e. Hegel, natural theology). This should not be confused with a claim there is no absolute.
LaPlace, Fuerbach - Both were mathmaticians. Mathematics assumes number to have independant reality. There is an absolutist element inherent in mathematics.
Russell, Popper - Logical Positivism (LP) did not concern itself with ontology. LP imploded in on itself by its inability to ground truth claims.
Buggle - Psychologists with a dislike for the Bible do not a systemic philosopher make.
Even should we grant all of the above through a charitable act, none worked out a complete philosophical system of knowledge. The difficulty that concerns your earlier statement goes all the way back to Parmenides and finds a new voice in the latest ontology: Phenomenology via Heidegger, why is there something as opposed to nothing? Any system that seeks to give an accounting of being must be able to answer this question. Traditionally, this has been done through absolutist appeals. One may suspend judgement on this issue, but one cannot claim rationality has determined being exists, sui generis, without any attendant causality. This is not only historically inaccurate, but also to beg the question.
kataphraktoi
11-24-2003, 04:35
Quote[/b] ]Kataphraktoi, there is such a thing as thruth and therefor there is such a thing as proof. When you say that we ignore proofs we don't like, you have got a point. Humans in general have a tendency to ignore things they dislike, even the scientifically orietated, like me, who are supposed to be open-minded. But we all have a point on which we cannot longer ignore it, when it is flung in our face that WE ARE WRONG. This is painful and humilitating, but we will accept it sooner or later, unless we are so dogged that we will even lie to ourselves. But none of us are, because we are listening to each other, and accept each others position. If we would be so dogged we wouldn't even be discussing this.
We would just have a flaming row.
Basically, our points meet at the concept of personal subjectivity. Whether we like to believe ourselves to be unbiased, we have a tendency to view the world in our bias. Not that it is a bad thing As we are all rational in our own way, we accept or reject what is before us.
Quote[/b] ]kataphraktoi, that sounds terribly relativistic. What a proof is and what not can be shown on an objective basis. In praxis, we may make mistakes and be biased, but in theory there´s a method to reveal truth.
I've given up on philosophy last year, so relativism is lost on me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif The only thing that was enjoyable was St. Augustine and Ferdinand Braudel.
Quote[/b] ]1) Atheist do have a sense of morality,
2) It derived mainly from society (the only people without morality are the psychopaths) and
3) the reason to lead a moral life is because without morality and conscience one cannot trust each other, therefor will have difficulties cooperating and risk having their works and lives destroyed at every moment (uncertainty). One should live a moral live for the greater good or common sense, or call it personal advantage (depenging on your level of cynism ).
1) Agreed. There is no moral monopoly if your religious or spiritual
2) Its safe to say morality is another neutral concept for the athiest, believer, agnostic, etc.
3) Downright Dirty Communism. Just kidding. Yes, humans live in a society that is a composite organism. One has to think of others too besides oneself.
Kekvit Irae
11-24-2003, 08:09
Quote[/b] (ToranagaSama @ Sep. 16 2003,17:04)]1) If there is no G_d, then, do you have a sense of morality, and what is it based upon and/or where does it come from?
2) Without G_d's morality, commandments and the consequence of Damnation, what then is your motivation for moral action and to live a moral life (presuming the general understanding of morality).
In addition, what would be the motivation for anyone to live a moral life? Wouldn't you agree that in a G_dless world, that anyone can then determine one's own definition of morality and conduct one's life accordingly? Would this NOT then result in a worldstate of Anarchy.
Given the realities of the above paragraph, and that Anarchy isn't appealing, then your Belief and Faith must reside in Government, and particularly, the Law--that is--the Legal System? In effect, from a religious point of view or a G_d view, then your Faith is in your fellow Man. Man who is without Morality or, at best/worst, defines his own, individual, Morality.
[Hmmm...the above might be a good description for Hell, an existence without Morality....hmmmm.]
Damnation is G_d's moral consequence. If one's Faith and Belief is in the Law, the obvious question, then, is where is the Law's moral consequence?
Can Man's Law define morality for all of man? blahblahblah etc etc etc
1. Yes, I have morals. I base my morals on the emotions of others.
2. My motivation is that if you follow the law and better others' lives, then your life in general will be full of joy. Many religions do not preach this, as they simply force you to their edicts through blackmail (join us or burn in the afterlife).
2b. The motivation for anyone to live a moral life is to better the lives around then, thus bettering themselves. Even if your life turns out to be a complete sh**hole in the end, you still have the pride in knowing that you made others happy.
2c. The majority of the world determines one's own definition of morality and conducts their own lives accordingly already. Those who live their entire lives (and I mean ENTIRE lives) usually end up in prison, as their views on how the world should act conflict with other people's views and often the law's view.
2d. Every nation on earth has some form of revision or another of the ancient Code of Hammurabi, the first laws to be put down in writing. I hardly believe the world has gone into anarchy by doing this.
2e (because the original author forgot to write down the numbers for the questions). Law's moral consequence is imprisonment, execution, torture, and various other punishments, depending on the government. This is no different than what many religous fanatics in history has done to those who broke their moral code. Read: Salem Witch Hunts. In fact, this is no different than the concept of hell. Would you know agree?
2f. No, it only defines the morality of the person(s) who wrote said laws.
I really hate religious threads. I'll just leave what else I have to say here: http://www.geocities.com/evoatheism/main.html
A.Saturnus
11-24-2003, 22:11
Very good Pindar, I didn´t expect to get a comment to all of them, certainly not to Buggle - respect.
Quote[/b] ]First case: Kant. An empirical methodology cannot examine an object that is by necessity beyond the phenomenal realm.
This is what I meant.
I guess you´re right about Nietzsche. I just included him because he sounds so atheist. He´s not one of my favorite philosophers.
LaPlace and Feuerbach were mathematicians. So what? They were also very good philosophers (LaPlace is one of my favorites). Mathematics does not assume numbers to have an independent reality. Mathematics doesn´t bother with reality. It´s about the consequences of defined axiomas. Mathematics is as much absolutist as chess is (actually, you could say chess is mathematics - or mathematics is chess if you like it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ).
Russell and Popper are another two of my favorites. That logical positivism is dropped today doesn´t mean that everything Russell said is wrong. Far from it. In Why I am not a Christian he has made good arguments for his position and that has nothing to do with LP. And Popper wasn´t a logical positivist (as I said you before http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif ). So what´s the point?
Buggle: ad hominem. Yes he doesn´t like christianity to much. But the question was if there are thinkers who made the same claim as I did above and Buggle did. You are surely aware that most philosophers were theists. Thus, it is not surprising that few made claims of rationality being on atheist side. But what I insist on is that those who favored atheism had better arguments than the others.
I would say no philosopher ever worked out a complete and consistent system of knowledge (certainly not Heidegger)with the possible exception of myself http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif . Parmenides` question is unanswerable in principle because for any answer I could say but it could have been different - there could be nothing. You cannot find an ultimate principle that explains itself and everything else. So the best answer we can get is why not?
The theists´ trick is that the claim they had an answer. But they don´t. God isn´t an answer because his existence would beg the question just like any other answer. If god exists -> why?
Because this is so, is Parmenides` question of no importance for the question whether god exists or not. But the discussion has shifted to the boldness of my claim anyway. Actually, it isn´t at all an unusual claim and you should know that. Or do you think most atheists would be satisfied with the claim atheism is at least not worse an ontology? When Ludens just said that he cannot believe with the knowledge he has, he made the same claim, he just worded it more diplomatic.
But however bold you find my claim, I find it pointless to count thinkers for and against a statement. I trust more in thoughts than in thinkers, so I invite you to challenge my claim. Then we´ll see how bold it really was http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Sir Saturnus,
Quote[/b] ]LaPlace and Feuerbach were mathematicians. So what? They were also very good philosophers (LaPlace is one of my favorites). Mathematics does not assume numbers to have an independent reality. Mathematics doesn´t bother with reality. It´s about the consequences of defined axiomas.
If one wishes to restrict mathematics to a simple coherence scheme that is fine. However, that is not how mathematics has typically been viewed for to do so would mean removing any truth value by creating a system of tautologies.
From Pythagoras on through to the Modern Period mathematics has been assigned an ontic status. Indeed, it is difficult work to find a mathematician who would sees his craft as divorced from the question of truth.
Quote[/b] ]Russell and Popper are another two of my favorites. That logical positivism is dropped today doesn´t mean that everything Russell said is wrong. Far from it. In Why I am not a Christian he has made good arguments for his position and that has nothing to do with LP. And Popper wasn´t a logical positivist
The point my good man, was not that LP has fallen from grace (that was just a side note I threw in to mark the passing of a debunked system http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif) but rather, LP focused on epistemic questions not ontology. Consequently, questions relating to an absolute were beyond their perview. Insofar as Russell decided in one of his more social activist moods to address his issues with Christendom, he did not really deal with in a rigrous way with fundamental questions of being.
Regarding Popper: Popper was initally part of the Vienna School. And while he did distance himself from LP and critique its verification system, his own ideas of falisfication and theory of demarcation are clearly influenced by LP. He is an LP heretic.
Quote[/b] ]But the question was if there are thinkers who made the same claim as I did above and Buggle did. You are surely aware that most philosophers were theists. Thus, it is not surprising that few made claims of rationality being on atheist side. But what I insist on is that those who favored atheism had better arguments than the others.
Actually, the issue wasn't whether an ahteist ever existed but whether the rational estimation has been an atheistic one. From a historical analysis this is clearly not the case.
I was responding to your statement that the epistemic question as to whether god exists will always remain unanswered. There are quite a few answers. You just happen not to agree with them.
Quote[/b] ]I would say no philosopher ever worked out a complete and consistent system of knowledge (certainly not Heidegger)with the possible exception of myself . Parmenides` question is unanswerable in principle because for any answer I could say but it could have been different - there could be nothing. You cannot find an ultimate principle that explains itself and everything else.
In addition to yourself, several thinkers up to the Modern Period worked out systems of thought. Plato and Aristotle would be two: Kant and Hegel would be two more. Whether they were right or wrong is a separate question.
Concerning Parmenides: from a theoretical perspective it is arguable that the void is an alternative possibility. However, the key point for Parmenides was that given being exists, it could not have sprung from nothing: nothing cannot produce a something. The question then becomes: does being have a starting point, a primary cause? If one accepts a first cause (god), that acts as the ultimate self expalining principle and source for everything else by definition.
Quote[/b] ]The theists´ trick is that the claim they had an answer. But they don´t. God isn´t an answer because his existence would beg the question just like any other answer. If god exists -> why?
An absolute does not beg the question because it is necessarily the case. Much like the axioms you previously mentioned. One may reject the posit, but a necessarly prior source cannot be anything other than the first.
Quote[/b] ]But the discussion has shifted to the boldness of my claim anyway. Actually, it isn´t at all an unusual claim and you should know that. Or do you think most atheists would be satisfied with the claim atheism is at least not worse an ontology? When Ludens just said that he cannot believe with the knowledge he has, he made the same claim, he just worded it more diplomatic.
The boldness of your claim revolved around your sense of Westen Intellectual history not your atheism.
Even so, for one to claim an atheist position is certainly not new. Further, depending on the parameters of the discussion, arguable.
Intellectual systems insofar as they have a logical dynamic require an internal coherence. As to whether this actually corresponds to reality (the true) is another matter. Thus the need for some mechanism to verify the claims being made whether those claims involve Buddha or quarks.
For religious claims this would require revelation.
Papewaio
11-25-2003, 00:35
Physics and the Physical Sciences use mathematics to sort the truth of a situation.
Maths isn't so much the truth, it is a logic system that can be used to prove something.
By being able to make a predication about something in the future. using mathematics based on laws in science, it gives science a utility that is far more useful then just the laws stated as sentences of words.
A.Saturnus
11-25-2003, 01:19
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Nov. 24 2003,23:35)]If one wishes to restrict mathematics to a simple coherence scheme that is fine. However, that is not how mathematics has typically been viewed for to do so would mean removing any truth value by creating a system of tautologies.
From Pythagoras on through to the Modern Period mathematics has been assigned an ontic status. Indeed, it is difficult work to find a mathematician who would sees his craft as divorced from the question of truth.
Mathematics are a system of tautologies. And I´ve never heard a mathematician claim something different. The ontic status is something not inherit in mathematics. It´s a claim that reality is mathematically organized. Pythagoras´ term is a truth. It is true for Euclidian geometry. This is unrefutable. But it´s not true for hyperbolic geometry.
Quote[/b] ]The point my good man, was not that LP has fallen from grace (that was just a side note I threw in to mark the passing of a debunked system http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif) but rather, LP focused on epistemic questions not ontology. Consequently, questions relating to an absolute were beyond their perview. Insofar as Russell decided in one of his more social activist moods to address his issues with Christendom, he did not really deal with in a rigrous way with fundamental questions of being.
Well, I think the subjct of discussion is epistemic and not ontic (since the ontologic question is unanswerable). Russell dealed with the way I find important.
Quote[/b] ]Regarding Popper: Popper was initally part of the Vienna School. And while he did distance himself from LP and critique its verification system, his own ideas of falisfication and theory of demarcation are clearly influenced by LP. He is an LP heretic.
Agreeable. But unlike LP, Popper´s school is still alive and even favoured in science (a bit unfortunately).
Quote[/b] ]Actually, the issue wasn't whether an ahteist ever existed but whether the rational estimation has been an atheistic one. From a historical analysis this is clearly not the case.
Since the rational estimation is implicit in almost any atheistic position, as Ludens´ example shows, I disagree. At least in the case of LaPlace it´s a explicit historical fact. I might add Abu`l-` Ala´ al-Ma´arri, but his was of course not a philosophical statement (let´s see if you know that one http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif ).
Quote[/b] ]I was responding to your statement that the epistemic question as to whether god exists will always remain unanswered. There are quite a few answers. You just happen not to agree with them.
I agree with one of them. As most people do. I meant of course remain unanswered with certainty.
Quote[/b] ]In addition to yourself, several thinkers up to the Modern Period worked out systems of thought. Plato and Aristotle would be two: Kant and Hegel would be two more. Whether they were right or wrong is a separate question.
Note that I added consistent system of thought. I also want to say that you don´t need to have created a complete system of thought to be entitled to make the claim I made.
Quote[/b] ]An absolute does not beg the question because it is necessarily the case. Much like the axioms you previously mentioned. One may reject the posit, but a necessarly prior source cannot be anything other than the first.
So your point comes down to the age old first cause-Proof of God. A proof AFAIK long abandoned by theist thinkers. Just because you name something an absolute it doesn´t become sacro sanct to questioning the cause. If god can be an absolute, so can existence of the world. It´s not an answer but a way to un-ask the question at the point you want to come out. You may compare it to axioms but it still begs the question why you accept god as an absolute/axioma but not the world. In addition to that, mathematic axioms of are just statements. The are assumed to be true for the sake of the argument or to set the rules. Like then rules in chess.
Quote[/b] ]The boldness of your claim revolved around your sense of Westen Intellectual history not your atheism.
I didn´t speak of Western Intellectual history before you did. I merely made a statement about the likelyhood of my atheist position.
Quote[/b] ]Intellectual systems insofar as they have a logical dynamic require an internal coherence. As to whether this actually corresponds to reality (the true) is another matter. Thus the need for some mechanism to verify the claims being made whether those claims involve Buddha or quarks.
For religious claims this would require revelation.
Certainly. I only claim that when one drops revelations as a source of true knowledge, theist positions become unlikely, since they aren´t supported by the scientific accepted sources of knowledge. The claim of the rational estimation remains true because rationality is the criterium by which science chooses it´s sources. Science is not just one method, as some want to make you believe. It is the rational method.
Icerian Rex
11-25-2003, 04:44
What a fun subject.
I will say that in my experience, those that would call themselves religious (especially of the christian faith) seem to be the most in need of (er) god's forgiveness. They walk through life doing nasty things to others, but fortunately god gave them a get out of jail free card... it's ridiculous. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone speeding through traffic, only to see that stupid little fishy on the back of their Yukon as they've cut me off... and then they have the nerve to talk about morality. Honestly, do you need a special book to tell you it's not right to hurt another human being?
In my opinion, good ol' christianity has caused far more harm than good. It was, in part, responsible for wiping out many of the native Americans (gosh, how god smiled on them), it was responsible for sending tens of thousands of innocent women and men to their deaths as witches, and in part it was responsible for the enslavement of a large segment of the American population prior to the Civil War.
Want to know a fun fact? There is less historical information on Jesus than there is on Santa Clause Take away the good book, and you really have little or no information, save for a few scraps of (conflicting) information supposedly discovered during a time when people were searching high and low for anything to justify their religion.
Some say that atheists are crazy for believing as they do... I myself really have to question anyone that believes in a book written several thousand years ago, riddled with contradictions, and in many ways is anything but a story of morality. The thing is - most Christians have never actually read the good book in it's entirety, and those that have seem to possess a remarkable ability for doublethink straight out of Orwell's 1984.
Fun Thoughts:
It is written in the good book that God supposedly visited the earth several hundred times.... where's he been for the past 2000 years??? I mean, here's a guy smiting whole armies because of the way they cook their chicken, and yet he couldn't even get motivated to put a stop to WWII????
If we are supposed to be taught the idea of creationism in school as an alternative to evolution, should we not also be teaching the stork theory as an alternative to the more generally accepted sperm and egg idea?
Last final fun thought: Go back and tell me (from the good book) what the final moments were during the period of crucifixion, and then going into the ressurrection. There were four eye-witnesses who wrote books about it (a large part of the new testament), surely they would have agreed, right? After all, God made sure they put it down for the ages, surely they got their stories straight, right?
The trouble is, explaining anything of this nature to a deeply religious person is akin to trying to explain colors to a blind person (and then factor in that the blind person is staunchly against believing anything you might happen to say in the first place).
Let's get back to game-talk.
Pindar and A.Saturnus,
Much as I admire your discussion, could you PLEASE pull it down to a level comprehensible by ordinary mortals, whos grasps of philosophy and English are not as firm as yours.
Icerian Rex,
Yes, Christianity has done at lot af bad things, one might even say evil, but that is the case with every religon enforced by zealots. Christianity has also done a lot of good, as is the case with religion as followed by people with less rigid and more practical attitudes. It makes life more bareable, by giving people comfort and hope, and charities.
Brutal DLX
11-25-2003, 12:30
Nah, go on Sat and Pindar It is getting interesting now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Kekvit Irae
11-25-2003, 16:27
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Nov. 25 2003,04:18)]Icerian Rex,
Yes, Christianity has done at lot af bad things, one might even say evil, but that is the case with every religon enforced by zealots. Christianity has also done a lot of good, as is the case with religion as followed by people with less rigid and more practical attitudes. It makes life more bareable, by giving people comfort and hope, and charities.
Christianity has hardly done anything evil. It is those who take the religion to an extreme and commit evil are those who are at fault.
For example, the First Crusade was called to liberate the holy land from muslim invaders. The Pope honestly believed (in my opinion, which could conflict with actual history) that what he was doing was right for the faith. However, it was the majority of those who took up arms who were at fault since many desired plunder, status, titles, and other spoils of war. And so it was with all future crusades, slowly leaning away from piety and more toward greed and conquest. And all because those with evil in their hearts perverted a well-to-do faith.
Well, that's my view anyway, and my other views are that the Bible hardly preaches peace and love. Jesus himself said Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send peace but a sword. (Matthew 10:34), drowned innocent animals (Matthew 8:32), and various other things that contradict the morals the church preaches nowadays. However, it is those morals and the willingness to preach those morals that make me respect the church (to an extent, of course).
EDIT: For those who are wondering, I am a closet Wiccan (it's kinda hard to practice when you live in the heart of the Bible Belt: Alabama), but I have a very open mind when it comes to religion, so I have no problems looking at both the bad things and the good things of religions and giving my own opinions.
Quote[/b] ]Maths isn't so much the truth, it is a logic system that can be used to prove something.
Mathematics is not reduceable to logic. The Pincipia Mathmatica project failed. The former is tautological that latter is not.
Quote[/b] ]Pindar and A.Saturnus,
Much as I admire your discussion, could you PLEASE pull it down to a level comprehensible by ordinary mortals, whos grasps of philosophy and English are not as firm as yours.
Ludens,
All you need to know is that Saturnus is confused. Saturn wasn't bound with rings for nothing and I won't comment on the notion of Saturn being castrated. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Quote[/b] ]Mathematics are a system of tautologies. And I´ve never heard a mathematician claim something different. The ontic status is something not inherit in mathematics. It´s a claim that reality is mathematically organized. Pythagoras´ term is a truth. It is true for Euclidian geometry. This is unrefutable. But it´s not true for hyperbolic geometry.
If one claims reality is mathematically organized one is ipso facto admitting that mathematics is a element of being. Moreover, if Euclidian geometry is true then it is always the case and therefore an admission of an absolutist principle.
Quote[/b] ]Well, I think the subjct of discussion is epistemic and not ontic (since the ontologic question is unanswerable)
Prioritizing epistemology has the unforunate difficulty of having to admit an object whose knowability is to come under scrutiny. Thus, there is already a phenomenal appreance. In short, one must assume being in order to call any of its elements into question. Ontology has a logically prior status.
Quote[/b] ]Since the rational estimation is implicit in almost any atheistic position, as Ludens´ example shows, I disagree
There are many atheists whose sentiments are based on just that, sentiments. Even so, all arguments insofar as they can be qualified as such contain a rational estimation. Whether the subject wishese to argue pro or contra a Divine source is not important. My point, which I'm sure you understood, was historical in its orientation.
Quote[/b] ]I might add Abu`l-` Ala´ al-Ma´arri, but his was of course not a philosophical statement (let´s see if you know that one
Is this the Arab Dante? Next your going to referrence Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Tufail.
Quote[/b] ]So your point comes down to the age old first cause-Proof of God. A proof AFAIK long abandoned by theist thinkers. Just because you name something an absolute it doesn´t become sacro sanct to questioning the cause. If god can be an absolute, so can existence of the world. It´s not an answer but a way to un-ask the question at the point you want to come out. You may compare it to axioms but it still begs the question why you accept god as an absolute/axioma but not the world. In addition to that, mathematic axioms of are just statements. The are assumed to be true for the sake of the argument or to set the rules. Like then rules in chess.
If something is named as a first cause it maintains logical priority regardless of one's comfort level. The distinction between the Welt and Deity is one is temporal the other isn't. The World and all its constiutive parts are considered to have a beginning. This moves back to the Parmenidean difficulty previously mentioned.
Coherrance theories are one of the three catergories whereby true claims are made. The other two would be correspondence and pragmatic respectively.
Quote[/b] ]I only claim that when one drops revelations as a source of true knowledge, theist positions become unlikely, since they aren´t supported by the scientific accepted sources of knowledge. The claim of the rational estimation remains true because rationality is the criterium by which science chooses it´s sources. Science is not just one method, as some want to make you believe. It is the rational method.
Actually, logic is the rational method. Science is a method but one bound to empirical phenomena. Science cannot prove a triangle or the number four. Neither can it disqualify my self-awarness.
Appeals to revelatory knowledge can fit under one of two catergories: an intuitive appeal or something akin to empirical knowledge claims. Which is used may depend on the religious system. But if Moses comes down from the mountain and says he just spoke with God: one cannot either prove or disprove the statement any more than one can immediately disqualify someone who says they have tasted salt. Whether salt exists may be called into question, but the experience of tasting salt remains exclusive (nontransferable, without the attendant experience) to the subject.
A.Saturnus
11-25-2003, 22:57
Quote[/b] ]Mathematics is not reduceable to logic. The Pincipia Mathmatica project failed. The former is tautological that latter is not.
The Principia Mathematica was a try to reduce all mathematical laws to logical ones. But it´s failure doesn´t imply that mathematics isn´t a logical system. Actually I can´t think mathematics could anything else but a logical system. All steps in maths are logical. It´s just that we have to accept axiomas that can´t be reduced to logic. But that is a difficult topic, I fear we can´t discuss to end.
Quote[/b] ]If one claims reality is mathematically organized one is ipso facto admitting that mathematics is a element of being. Moreover, if Euclidian geometry is true then it is always the case and therefore an admission of an absolutist principle.
That claim is one about reality not about mathematics. The ontic status of reality has no influence on mathematics. It´s a historic error to assume existence had any meaning for mathematics.
Someone who´d say Euclidian geometry is true, didn´t fully understand the nature of mathematic systems. But I admit it´s a tempting thought.
Quote[/b] ]Prioritizing epistemology has the unforunate difficulty of having to admit an object whose knowability is to come under scrutiny. Thus, there is already a phenomenal appreance. In short, one must assume being in order to call any of its elements into question. Ontology has a logically prior status.
That is true and maybe I was not carefully enough so that it seems I would prioritise epistemology on ontology in general. That´s certainly not so. It´s just that the ontological problem in question is unanswerable and it´s required to make an epistemic statement. And I won´t grant theism any epistemic validity just because theists claim they can cast a ontological proof of god out of the hat. The ontological question whether the world really exists or is just imagination doesn´t let you park your car in front of the hospital either.
Quote[/b] ]There are many atheists whose sentiments are based on just that, sentiments. Even so, all arguments insofar as they can be qualified as such contain a rational estimation. Whether the subject wishese to argue pro or contra a Divine source is not important. My point, which I'm sure you understood, was historical in its orientation.
Historical in what way? Do you mean my way of expressing the atheistic position is unlike the tenor of aknowledged thinkers? Maybe I misunderstand you, but you said my claim were bold, something unusual. All I´m saying is that I´m not the first atheist claiming to be right.
Quote[/b] ]If something is named as a first cause it maintains logical priority regardless of one's comfort level. The distinction between the Welt and Deity is one is temporal the other isn't. The World and all its constiutive parts are considered to have a beginning. This moves back to the Parmenidean difficulty previously mentioned.
Sorry, I can´t see the argument behind that. I can claim that the world is eternal and god is temporal (or non-existent) just as well. I won´t accept god as self-proving and undeniable just because you name it a first cause, so you still have the same problem: what caused the first cause.
Quote[/b] ]Coherrance theories are one of the three catergories whereby true claims are made. The other two would be correspondence and pragmatic respectively.
Don´t know where this is referring to. This are (IMO failed) attempts to consitute the nature of truth, what do they have to do with our problem?
Quote[/b] ]Actually, logic is the rational method. Science is a method but one bound to empirical phenomena. Science cannot prove a triangle or the number four. Neither can it disqualify my self-awarness.
The same problem as above. Logic = rationality, but this doen´t mean science can´t be rational method. With rational method I would say is meant a method that will, as far as one can expect, yield the desired results. If you have to count something it´s more or less rational to use your fingers or any other device that might help you. Hitting your head against the wall untill you know the answer is usually not considered rational. At least under specific assumptions. Science works with empiric evidence but to do so is rationally justified. That makes it a rational method. This too might be against the common philosophical tenor, but I think it´s what most scientists and positivists belief.
Quote[/b] ]Appeals to revelatory knowledge can fit under one of two catergories: an intuitive appeal or something akin to empirical knowledge claims. Which is used may depend on the religious system. But if Moses comes down from the mountain and says he just spoke with God: one cannot either prove or disprove the statement any more than one can immediately disqualify someone who says they have tasted salt. Whether salt exists may be called into question, but the experience of tasting salt remains exclusive (nontransferable, without the attendant experience) to the subject.
The experiences I have, cannot be disproved, that´s right. But this experiences prove themselves nothing but their mere existence. If I feel the tast of salt, but scientists can show me that I didn´t came in contact with salt, then it would be irrational to claim that salt was the source of my experience. If someone claims he has spoken to god, he may either lie or really have had the experience. But neither proves the existence of god. Neither to me nor to him who claims this. Revelations are not a rational method to gain knowledge, because their way to distinguish between knowledge and madness is ad hoc and unreliable.
A.Saturnus
11-26-2003, 00:38
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Nov. 25 2003,11:18)]Pindar and A.Saturnus,
Much as I admire your discussion, could you PLEASE pull it down to a level comprehensible by ordinary mortals, whos grasps of philosophy and English are not as firm as yours.
I fear that´s hardly possible. A philosophical vocabulary is needed to transmit complex thoughts in acceptable space as well as to show-off.
Feel free to ask for explanation if the terminology is confusing you.
Gregoshi
11-26-2003, 07:51
Guys, just tell us who won the debate, if anyone, when you're done. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Let's see if I got this straight. Pindar and A.Saturnus are discussing the likelihood of God versus Science as the explanation for everything. A.Saturnus claims that God can not be proven. Pinder agrees, but states that neither can scientiffic laws, if one tries to prove them rationally. A.Saturnus denies that.
Either that, or you are so absorbed in throwing difficult words at each other that you have forgotten why you are throwing them in the first place http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif .
If my (first) explanation is true, isn't this just the old induction/deduction-problem? Induction cannot prove anything and deduction can, but you need something to deduct from, and that can only be obtained through induction.
Quote[/b] ]Let's see if I got this straight. Pindar and A.Saturnus are discussing the likelihood of God versus Science as the explanation for everything. A.Saturnus claims that God can not be proven. Pinder agrees, but states that neither can scientiffic laws, if one tries to prove them rationally. A.Saturnus denies that.
These types of forum discussion invariably end up sputtering out of control. I entered the fray because I thought Sat. claimed his atheism was simply a reiteration of the larger rational tradition. I argued that the bulk of Western Thought was, in point of fact, theistic of one stripe or another. Sat. has stated that his views are a reflection of his own analysis and therefore not connected to any tradition theistic or otherwise.
The another main point of discussion has been on whether science, simplicitus is qualified to speak to the issues of god. I argued that Science is a rational methodology necessarily tied to natural phenomena (i.e. the world or physical strata). The question of God is not part of the arena science can make a decision on given, there is no data (or object) to study (God is supposed to be transcendant).
Somewhat tied to the science question has been a discussion on the limits of rationality. I argued that various rational systems exist i.e. science, logic, mathematics (maybe) etc.
We have also dealt with whether the notion of God can legitimately claim some special prior status. Sat. argues that God, like any other concept is subject to causal questions: meaning, just like I can say where does a tree come from?, one can also ask where does God come from. I aruged that God is a distinct notion because the basic definition of God includes a prior, or first status: like saying a creator must also be prior to any creation.
I further argued that if a religious system was to make a claim to know the truth about God or something, this is done via revelation. I argued that revelation claims to know a thing may be similar in form to normal knowledge claims in everyday experience meaning: someone claims an experinece (this tastes salty ), whether it occured or not cannot, necessarily, be dismissed out of hand by a logical device. Sat. does not give revelation claims any credence.
So, there is no center to the discussion. Rather, there are a few points being presented that roughly tie to the notion of God's status and how one knows these things.
I hope that makes it a little clearer. If there are words being used in an unfamiliar way or new words you are curious about, please ask.
Quote[/b] ]The Principia Mathematica was a try to reduce all mathematical laws to logical ones. But it´s failure doesn´t imply that mathematics isn´t a logical system. Actually I can´t think mathematics could anything else but a logical system. All steps in maths are logical. It´s just that we have to accept axiomas that can´t be reduced to logic. But that is a difficult topic, I fear we can´t discuss to end.
I tend to restrict logic to arguments. Mathematics, given its tautological condition, is distinct from logic regardless of its following rules. I think, one could argue math is rational, but not stricly speaking the same as logic.
Quote[/b] ]That claim is one about reality not about mathematics. The ontic status of reality has no influence on mathematics. It´s a historic error to assume existence had any meaning for mathematics.
This view undercuts theoretical physics.
Quote[/b] ]It´s just that the ontological problem in question is unanswerable and it´s required to make an epistemic statement. And I won´t grant theism any epistemic validity just because theists claim they can cast a ontological proof of god out of the hat.
This is a tough nut. I cringe at this unanswerable statement. If one takes this as a hard position then all systems that make epistemic claims must be suspended (including the whole of science) given a complete metaphysic has yet to be produced.
Quote[/b] ]Historical in what way? Do you mean my way of expressing the atheistic position is unlike the tenor of aknowledged thinkers? Maybe I misunderstand you, but you said my claim were bold, something unusual. All I´m saying is that I´m not the first atheist claiming to be right.
My answer was alluded to in my post to Ludens. I don't think we really have a disagrement here. I initially understood your position to be that rationality had concluded an atheistic position. This is obviously not the case and why I used bold to describe what was written. That atheists exist, or that you have confidence in you own views I do not take issue with.
Quote[/b] ]Sorry, I can´t see the argument behind that. I can claim that the world is eternal and god is temporal (or non-existent) just as well. I won´t accept god as self-proving and undeniable just because you name it a first cause, so you still have the same problem: what caused the first cause.
One can claim a whole host of things. I am working off of basic conceptions. Most scientists and thinkers consider the world to be temporal and thereby contingent. These same folk generally would take the notion of a Deity to imply something eternal and necessary. The basic definiton of deity is not the construct of some religious zealot. The meaning of God has been delineated in rational thought from the Greeks forward. That such a thing actually exists can be disputed, but the basic meaning of the proposition has been basically consistant from Xenophanes to the Present. You may propose some alternate understanding of what the meaning of God is, but you have yet to do so. Thus, I am working off of the standard definition your objections to which make no more sense than one constantly demanding to see the wife of a bachelor.
Quote[/b] ]Don´t know where this is referring to. This are (IMO failed) attempts to consitute the nature of truth, what do they have to do with our problem?
My referrence to: coherrence, corespondence and pragamtic approaches was meant to remind you that these are the three catergories whereby all rational systems make truth claims. I didn't link it to anything. I assumed you would understand why I made the referrence. My apologies.
Science typically is seen as a corespondence theory. However, many systems opt for one of the other: for example theoretical physics is more often operating under a coherence rubric. The whole of the rationalist tradition from Descartes up to Kant is another example of a Coherrence approache to knowledge. Formal systems like logic and mathematics are yet other examples. The point is: knowledge claims can and are made differing from the standard science model.
Quote[/b] ]The same problem as above. Logic = rationality, but this doen´t mean science can´t be rational method. With rational method I would say is meant a method that will, as far as one can expect, yield the desired results. If you have to count something it´s more or less rational to use your fingers or any other device that might help you. Hitting your head against the wall untill you know the answer is usually not considered rational. At least under specific assumptions. Science works with empiric evidence but to do so is rationally justified. That makes it a rational method.
I agree science is in its formal presentation rational. I don't particularly have a problem with defining rational in expeditious terms either. I do disagree with the notion science is the only rational method.
Quote[/b] ]The experiences I have, cannot be disproved, that´s right. But this experiences prove themselves nothing but their mere existence. If I feel the tast of salt, but scientists can show me that I didn´t came in contact with salt, then it would be irrational to claim that salt was the source of my experience. If someone claims he has spoken to god, he may either lie or really have had the experience. But neither proves the existence of god. Neither to me nor to him who claims this. Revelations are not a rational method to gain knowledge, because their way to distinguish between knowledge and madness is ad hoc and unreliable.
Experiences are exclusive claims. Whether a symmetry exists whereby it is repeatable and open to others is perhaps the key factor in persuation. Thus religous claims to X that do not provide any attendant symmetry risk being not believed or considered irrelevant. However, even when a experience is singular it remains impervious to scienfic scrutiny. If one says they feel cold, regardless of room temperature the statement stands. Even when Stephen (of New Testement fame) claims to see the Lord standing on the right hand of God while he is in the presence of various Jewish authorities who see only him, his statement maintains the same internal coherrence as any other claimed experience. It's believabilty is a separate issue.
Religious experience does not have to be mantic. The Bible's presentation of revelation and William James' Varieties of Religious Experience point to other revelatory forms.
A.Saturnus
11-26-2003, 20:01
To be honest, we´re actually talking about girls, just in a cryptic way. You got hot ears if you knew what Parmenides´problem actually means. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
No, Pindar has summarized pretty well.
Ludens, in addition to the claim that god cannot be proven, I claimed that it is more rational to drop the assumption. He noted that this is an uncommon claim in Western philosophy. I answered that it a part of most atheist positions even if not explicitely stated (that doesn´t refute his comment, since there is doubtless a strong theist tradition in Western philosophy).
Quote[/b] ]If my (first) explanation is true, isn't this just the old induction/deduction-problem? Induction cannot prove anything and deduction can, but you need something to deduct from, and that can only be obtained through induction.
It has to do with this. I think we agree on the status of induction and deduction (we haven´t discussed it though) but Pindar claimed science is not a rational method because it involves induction. I countered that it justifies the use of induction with rational arguments (thus, by deduction). I would expect now that he challenges this counter by questioning the sources of this deduction. If so, the nature of Rationality itself will enter discussion and we´ll try for the next two pages to calibrate our terms on each other.
Sidenote: I once discussed some details of Kant´s morality with my ex-gf. It took more than an hour for us to know what we were actually talking about.
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Nov. 26 2003,14:01)]Sidenote: I once discussed some details of Kant´s morality with my ex-gf. It took more than an hour for us to know what we were actually talking about.
One of my friends in college took a course on Kant, after a couple of weeks we had to institute a No Kant Rule at our table in the dining hall because an innocent question like Adam, how was class? could turn into a veeeeerrrrry loooonggg drawwwnnn ooouuut discussion of morality and everybody would end up confused. After the rule was instituted we went back to discussing beer and circumstances in which we had consumed it or were going to consume it. Beer is a lot simpler than Kant. It was a good rule. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
For my part, I believe in God, but fear does not motivate me to lead a good life. I don't really spend much time thinking about the nature of god, or god's existence, because I figure that after I die it will all be plenty clear. If nothing happens and all awareness ceases then Aetheists were right, there is no god and we just end. If I end up in heaven, all the better, if I end up in hell at least I was prepared for it by heavy metal videos. If I am reborn as something then I guess I should have paid more attention in my class on Eastern Religion.
I suppose if some big white bearded deity asks for an account of myself I'll just say, I did the best I could, sometimes I suceeded and sometimes I failed. I tried to do what was right and I always felt bad when I didn't and other times it was unclear what I should do.
A.Saturnus
11-26-2003, 21:07
I begun my last post before you posted yours, so I didn´t see where you were up too. Now, you´ll proberbly answer that post before I finished this and we´ll have two synchrone discussions http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
Quote[/b] ]I tend to restrict logic to arguments. Mathematics, given its tautological condition, is distinct from logic regardless of its following rules. I think, one could argue math is rational, but not stricly speaking the same as logic.
It´s not the same as logic, but it can still be a logical system because it´s purely deduction.
Quote[/b] ]This view undercuts theoretical physics.
Not at all. As I said before, it´s no problem that existing entities have mathematical properties. But it´s a physical finding, not a mathematical one. Maths doesn´t deal with the real world, the real world deals with maths.
Quote[/b] ]This is a tough nut. I cringe at this unanswerable statement. If one takes this as a hard position then all systems that make epistemic claims must be suspended (including the whole of science) given a complete metaphysic has yet to be produced.
Again, no. That´s actually a great virtue of science. It´s based on the phenomenological world and on Rationality. We don´t have to know the Ding-an-sich to make scientific statements about it. It is from the phenomenological world we can conclude that the assumption of god is irrational. There might be a god out there. Maybe he´s not phenomenological observable, but then we´ll never know. And that is as good as the assumption of his non-existence (by Occam´s Law).
Quote[/b] ]One can claim a whole host of things. I am working off of basic conceptions. Most scientists and thinkers consider the world to be temporal and thereby contingent. These same folk generally would take the notion of a Deity to imply something eternal and necessary. The basic definiton of deity is not the construct of some religious zealot. The meaning of God has been delineated in rational thought from the Greeks forward. That such a thing actually exists can be disputed, but the basic meaning of the proposition has been basically consistant from Xenophanes to the Present. You may propose some alternate understanding of what the meaning of God is, but you have yet to do so. Thus, I am working off of the standard definition your objections to which make no more sense than one constantly demanding to see the wife of a bachelor.
I deny that the meaning of god has been so consitant as you claim. Folk religion rather has an image of god as the old guy with a long white beard up in heaven and that one can surely be questioned. Define something as sacro sanct to the question of the cause as you wish, but that´s not a proof or an answer to any philosophical problem. Not more than the ontological proof of god is. It still stands as I said:
And I won´t grant theism any epistemic validity just because theists claim they can cast a ontological proof of god out of the hat. The ontological question whether the world really exists or is just imagination doesn´t let you park your car in front of the hospital either.
Quote[/b] ]
Science typically is seen as a corespondence theory. However, many systems opt for one of the other: for example theoretical physics is more often operating under a coherence rubric. The whole of the rationalist tradition from Descartes up to Kant is another example of a Coherrence approache to knowledge. Formal systems like logic and mathematics are yet other examples. The point is: knowledge claims can and are made differing from the standard science model.
You´re understanding of philosophical terminology may be more precise than mine (in fact, I bet it is), but whenever I read an explanation of one of these theories (correspondence etc.), I got the impression that they are theories about truth. I think they all failed because I doubt very much truth can be defined at all. Since truth is something different than knowledge, these theories have not much to do with epistemology (I know that´s a major misconception in modern philosophy). So the knowledge claims of the standard science model are pretty much independent of what theory of knowledge one uses, as long as there is a truth.
Quote[/b] ]I agree science is in its formal presentation rational. I don't particularly have a problem with defining rational in expeditious terms either. I do disagree with the notion science is the only rational method.
Depends on what the rational model is for. For a certain purpose, namely the acquiremant of systematic knowledge about the world, it´s the best available method and thus the only rational one.
Quote[/b] ]Experiences are exclusive claims. Whether a symmetry exists whereby it is repeatable and open to others is perhaps the key factor in persuation. Thus religous claims to X that do not provide any attendant symmetry risk being not believed or considered irrelevant. However, even when a experience is singular it remains impervious to scienfic scrutiny. If one says they feel cold, regardless of room temperature the statement stands. Even when Stephen (of New Testement fame) claims to see the Lord standing on the right hand of God while he is in the presence of various Jewish authorities who see only him, his statement maintains the same internal coherrence as any other claimed experience. It's believabilty is a separate issue.
All very well, but the undoubtfullness of experiences (to the experiencer) cannot overrule scientific findings about the world. Isn´t the question we´re discussing here an epistemic one? The theists claim that god exists. One what basis do they make this claim? If they have only their experinces as support than I´m right to say that the rational estimation is atheist.
Quote[/b] ]
Religious experience does not have to be mantic. The Bible's presentation of revelation and William James' Varieties of Religious Experience point to other revelatory forms.
It does not have to. But how distinguishes the revelationist between them? If revelation is a rational source of knowledge, in what way is the experience of meeting god on the mountain different from the experience of getting orders from your heating?
Papewaio
11-27-2003, 02:18
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Nov. 26 2003,02:42)]
Quote[/b] ]Mathematics are a system of tautologies. And I´ve never heard a mathematician claim something different. The ontic status is something not inherit in mathematics. It´s a claim that reality is mathematically organized. Pythagoras´ term is a truth. It is true for Euclidian geometry. This is unrefutable. But it´s not true for hyperbolic geometry.
If one claims reality is mathematically organized one is ipso facto admitting that mathematics is a element of being. Moreover, if Euclidian geometry is true then it is always the case and therefore an admission of an absolutist principle.
Since when?
Mathematics is more like language. It is a way of saying something. Just because I make a logical statement in English for a certain situation does not make the whole of English a logical language in every situation.
Most mathematics I am used to are those of Physics. And they come with boundary conditions. In other words for these conditions these rules hold.
Euclidian geometry holds true in certain situations. Go outside those boundaries and they do not. For instance draw a triangle on a sphere and Euclidian geometry will not hold true.
Quote[/b] ]The another main point of discussion has been on whether science, simplicitus is qualified to speak to the issues of god. I argued that Science is a rational methodology necessarily tied to natural phenomena (i.e. the world or physical strata). The question of God is not part of the arena science can make a decision on given, there is no data (or object) to study (God is supposed to be transcendant).
If God is beyond Data then what Effect does he have? If he has an Effect then we could measure the Data of His Prescence. If there is no Data, then he has no Effect. If there is a God that does nothing that can be Measured surely this has the same Measureable Effect as the situation of no God. The more simple of those two options is the most likely. Hence no God.
----
I am no philosopher. I abide by very simple rules (even some from the Bible).
The Golden Rule
The Pareto Principle
KISS
&
ORC
Brutal DLX
11-27-2003, 09:43
Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Nov. 27 2003,01:18)]If God is beyond Data then what Effect does he have? If he has an Effect then we could measure the Data of His Prescence. If there is no Data, then he has no Effect. If there is a God that does nothing that can be Measured surely this has the same Measureable Effect as the situation of no God. The more simple of those two options is the most likely. Hence no God.
----
Zero data is a value in itself. You then could either say God possibly doesn't exist, God is currently inactive (afk) or your means of data aquisition is not up to the task. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I sure like those dicsussions. Rock on http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
A.Saturnus
11-27-2003, 23:12
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Nov. 27 2003,09:43)]
Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Nov. 27 2003,01:18)]If God is beyond Data then what Effect does he have? If he has an Effect then we could measure the Data of His Prescence. If there is no Data, then he has no Effect. If there is a God that does nothing that can be Measured surely this has the same Measureable Effect as the situation of no God. The more simple of those two options is the most likely. Hence no God.
----
Zero data is a value in itself. You then could either say God possibly doesn't exist, God is currently inactive (afk) or your means of data aquisition is not up to the task. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I sure like those dicsussions. Rock on http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
That zero data is a value is the oint here. The assumption that god doesn´t exist is certainly more simple than that he does exist but is currently inactive. If the our means of data aquisition is not up to the task, then the question is which is? If you claim your favorite hypothesis is not fairly treated, you have to specific a valid way to do it.
Brutal DLX
11-28-2003, 10:39
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Nov. 27 2003,22:12)]That zero data is a value is the oint here. The assumption that god doesn´t exist is certainly more simple than that he does exist but is currently inactive. If the our means of data aquisition is not up to the task, then the question is which is? If you claim your favorite hypothesis is not fairly treated, you have to specific a valid way to do it.
No I don't have to. I would only have to if I tried to convince someone with a scientific mindset and rational/logical approach to things in the very same manner they prefer. Personally, it's not my favourite hypothesis, I'm taking just a somewhat neutral (nice term!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif stance, and I don't want to convince you, I just pointed out what options logic gives you in this case.
As we can see, this approach doesn't answer the question at the moment, but if you step outside the boundaries of logic you can of course make any statement, the veracity of which can't be proven in logical ways because by definition, we've left the rational level. Such statements are commonly known as beliefs. If one does refute there are things that can't be explained by logical things, then I'd say that one has a very narrow mindset. I'm not talking about this particular example of the existence of god, but of other things as well.
Also, define simplicity in this context. Just because Occam postulated a scientific method of deduction that is right by common sense, doesn't mean it is right in this instance when there are no data available. So in my analysis, of the three options I stated, none is more right than the other, that's why science can't answer that question in a conclusive way (at the moment, at least).
A.Saturnus
11-28-2003, 19:06
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Nov. 28 2003,10:39)]
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Nov. 27 2003,22:12)]That zero data is a value is the oint here. The assumption that god doesn´t exist is certainly more simple than that he does exist but is currently inactive. If the our means of data aquisition is not up to the task, then the question is which is? If you claim your favorite hypothesis is not fairly treated, you have to specific a valid way to do it.
No I don't have to. I would only have to if I tried to convince someone with a scientific mindset and rational/logical approach to things in the very same manner they prefer. Personally, it's not my favourite hypothesis, I'm taking just a somewhat neutral (nice term!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif stance, and I don't want to convince you, I just pointed out what options logic gives you in this case.
Logic gives us these choices, but it´s scientifically dishonest not to choose if there are indicators that can lead the choice. I said that the rational estimation favours the atheist position. I can support this with reasons to think so. If you claim my arguments are false, you have to state what supports your position (neutrality, in this case). If you say the scientific method is not appliable in the case of the hypothesis of god without propose a valid method that is appliable, then you´re unfair towards atheists. You must give us a chance to support our hypothesis.
Quote[/b] ]As we can see, this approach doesn't answer the question at the moment, but if you step outside the boundaries of logic you can of course make any statement, the veracity of which can't be proven in logical ways because by definition, we've left the rational level. Such statements are commonly known as beliefs. If one does refute there are things that can't be explained by logical things, then I'd say that one has a very narrow mindset. I'm not talking about this particular example of the existence of god, but of other things as well.
If not giving way to irrationalism is narrow-minded, than call me narrow-minded but I prefer reason over belief. What does can´t be explained by logical things mean anyway? If it means the world cannot be studied by logic alone, it´s trivial. We need empirical evidence, which is non-logical. If it says these things can´t be analysed by logical thought then it´s absurd. Every thinkable concept can be descriped by logic.
Quote[/b] ]Also, define simplicity in this context. Just because Occam postulated a scientific method of deduction that is right by common sense, doesn't mean it is right in this instance when there are no data available. So in my analysis, of the three options I stated, none is more right than the other, that's why science can't answer that question in a conclusive way (at the moment, at least).
Oh, simplicity is well-definable, it just involves a lot of formulas. It´s a stochastical concept. Occam´s Law is more than common sense, it´s a fundamental priciple of reasoning. And its purpose is to decide situations without satisfying data. So, simply saying it is not appliable in this situation is not only unfair but also utterly wrong.
If the conclusive answer you expect from science is an ultimate truth, then ok, science cannot provide this. But this counts for everything we belive to be knowledge. The scientifical situation of god is the same as that of the soul, invisible dragons and pixies. You can claim it´s not, but mostly this claim is only supported by immunization.
Brutal DLX
11-28-2003, 22:03
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Nov. 28 2003,18:06)]If the conclusive answer you expect from science is an ultimate truth, then ok, science cannot provide this. But this counts for everything we belive to be knowledge. The scientifical situation of god is the same as that of the soul, invisible dragons and pixies. You can claim it´s not, but mostly this claim is only supported by immunization.
Sat, I don't expect a conclusive answer for this question, but science expects it, because it is based on the foundation of logic. Just because you base your atheistic beliefs on the rational approach doesn't mean it's the only valid way to do. Science can't give you an answer as of right now, so you can't support your stance by the very same approach you seem to view as elementary.
More on this on Monday. The weekends aren't meant for these types of discussions, don't you think? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
A.Saturnus
11-29-2003, 02:36
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Nov. 28 2003,22:03)]Sat, I don't expect a conclusive answer for this question, but science expects it, because it is based on the foundation of logic. Just because you base your atheistic beliefs on the rational approach doesn't mean it's the only valid way to do. Science can't give you an answer as of right now, so you can't support your stance by the very same approach you seem to view as elementary.
More on this on Monday. The weekends aren't meant for these types of discussions, don't you think? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Are you saying you have anything better to do than philosophy??? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/eek.gif
Science expects no more a conclusive answer on that than on is element 288 stable? We don´t know if it is. There´s no way at the moment to find it out for sure whether it is or not (besides the nitpicking fact that science cannot find out anything for sure). But that doesn´t mean science cannot give an answer on the question. All elements above Uranium we know are unstable. And there are theories to predict the stableness of elements yet to discover. These theories aren´t proven yet, but they seem likely to be true. If these theories predict element 288 to be unstable, there´s really no reason to think it is stable.
I could give hundreds of examples. That´s the way science works. We accept the null-hypothesis untill the alternative is supported by evidence. Theists just don´t treat the hypothesis of god like they treat ordinary hypotheses. And I find the term atheistic belief to be insulting. Atheism is not a believe. It´s the absence of believe. And if atheism is the rational estimation (as I claim) then other estimations must be - by necessity - irrational.
Quote[/b] ]Atheism is not a belief. It´s the absence of belief. And if atheism is the rational estimation (as I claim) then other estimations must be - by necessity - irrational. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
that about covers it for me. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
After being absent for 3 days due to Internet and exam problems, I'm ready to join the fray again. CHARGE
The point under discussion is the rationality of the atheist's claim. The question that rises from it was: how came I to make that claim?
In my case, it went about like this:
As a child of Christian parent, I was taught to believe in the God of the Jews, the God who created the world, the God supported Israel in its battles against the non-believers, the God who opened the Red Sea, and so on. These examples point to an active God, a God whose hand could be seen in the events. At one point in my life (I don’t exactly remember when, I suppose it came on gradually), I looked around and I couldn’t find it. I couldn’t see Gods hand in events anymore. There were no miracles. So I decided that the active God of the Jews didn’t exist. At this point I denied the existence all gods, even the “inactive”, transcendental ones (of course, in reality it didn’t go as neat and precise as represented here).
Admittedly, the last step, the denial of the existence of transcendental gods, was not logical, because my evidence only refuted the existence of “active” gods. But my point was valid, because:
A If they don't influence events (including revelations)in this world
1: They are not needed to explain reality, and I can ignore them (Occam’s razor).
2: How can we claim their existence, or even obtain knowledge of their existence?
B If they do influence this world
1: How can they be transcendental?
And finally:
2: If they do influence this world, through revelations to a transcendental soul that can somehow control a physical body, than I am still legitimised in not believing in them, because I never have had such a revelation, and I never met someone else who did have.
And even then, we can could explain revelations and near-death experiences as neurological processes, which can be evoked by specific stimuli: lack of oxygen for near-death experiences, and my religion teacher once showed me, full of indignation, a documentary about a scientist who managed to give people a religious experience by electrically stimulating specific parts of their brain (or something like that).
So, this explains the rationality behind my claim that there are no gods.
I apologize for the bad Lay-out in my last post. I accidentally sent it when I was making some last minute changes to lay-out and expressions (my grasp of English is good, but I often find that the English expressions I use are harsher then I meant, so I always double-check).
Edit:
But this has already been taken care off, because I just was promoted to senior patron, so I could edit the message, and remove the errors.
Papewaio
11-30-2003, 22:09
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Nov. 29 2003,03:06)]
Quote[/b] ]Also, define simplicity in this context. Just because Occam postulated a scientific method of deduction that is right by common sense, doesn't mean it is right in this instance when there are no data available. So in my analysis, of the three options I stated, none is more right than the other, that's why science can't answer that question in a conclusive way (at the moment, at least).
Oh, simplicity is well-definable, it just involves a lot of formulas. It´s a stochastical concept. Occam´s Law is more than common sense, it´s a fundamental priciple of reasoning. And its purpose is to decide situations without satisfying data. So, simply saying it is not appliable in this situation is not only unfair but also utterly wrong.
Sidebar:
Do you find it interesting that the universe has its own rule for trending towards the most simple solution for everything in the form of Entropy?
Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Nov. 30 2003,22:09)]Do you find it interesting that the universe has its own rule for trending towards the most simple solution for everything in the form of Entropy?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Could you explain that please? I do not see how entropy can be viewed as the most simple solution. The most simple solution would be that was no entropy, and that everything would stay the same, for ever (which isn't the case or at least, so I hope http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ).
However, I'm not a physicist so maybe I misunderstood you.
Ludens
Eastside Character
11-30-2003, 23:56
I think it makes no sense to argue whether there is a God or not.
I say: for me there is no God, but for you it/he/she can exist (just because you believe so). But if there is a God, I think it is more like the Borg from Star Trek than like that one from that film Dogma. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Oh and about those two questions this thread is about:
1. I think that your morality depends on the environment you live in.
2. I have some sense of morality, but for me it is not morality that determines my behaviour, but more the choice of what I think is better (better for me http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ). This doesnt mean I will do anything immoral (kill somebody etc).
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/idea.gif
Papewaio
12-01-2003, 02:07
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Dec. 01 2003,06:54)]
Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Nov. 30 2003,22:09)]Do you find it interesting that the universe has its own rule for trending towards the most simple solution for everything in the form of Entropy?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
Could you explain that please? I do not see how entropy can be viewed as the most simple solution. The most simple solution would be that was no entropy, and that everything would stay the same, for ever (which isn't the case or at least, so I hope http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ).
However, I'm not a physicist so maybe I misunderstood you.
Ludens
Entropy is the trend in which a system as a whole tends towards its most lowest (average/simple/quiet/) energy level.
Complex structures (organised information) require extra energy. Particularly good energy sources are those wiht a dramatic change ie boundaries like continental upwellings, volcanic soils, volcanoes for that matter...
Hmmmm, seems there's been some activity over the holiday. Well, once more unto the breach, what?
Sat.
I'm not sure you will recall what each of the following was conntectd to. My apologies.
Quote[/b] ]It´s not the same as logic, but it can still be a logical system because it´s purely deduction.
(it refers to mathematics)
Not the same as logic...but logical: so, the adjective means similar to? Is this what you are saying? That is fine. I'll just add: a deductive approach alone, is not sufficient grounds to qualify as logic.
Quote[/b] ]Not at all. As I said before, it´s no problem that existing entities have mathematical properties. But it´s a physical finding, not a mathematical one. Maths doesn´t deal with the real world, the real world deals with maths.
An object having mathematical qualities is not the difficulty. The touchy point reflects those objects that are mathematical constructs: i.e. singularities.
Quote[/b] ]Again, no. That´s actually a great virtue of science. It´s based on the phenomenological world and on Rationality. We don´t have to know the Ding-an-sich to make scientific statements about it. It is from the phenomenological world we can conclude that the assumption of god is irrational. There might be a god out there. Maybe he´s not phenomenological observable, but then we´ll never know. And that is as good as the assumption of his non-existence (by Occam´s Law).
Science is rightly constrained to the phenomenal. Science cannot comment on the Ding-an-sich. Neither can science assume, due to this constraint, there is no Ding-an-sich. To do so would force one into a solipism or a Humean skepticism. In fact, it is this very extra-phenomenal reality that has served as the theoretical bedrock for the empirism that makes science possible.
It is improper to say science can draw a conclusion about a thing that lies beyond its scrutiny. Further, it is a mistake to use the word irrational. Irrational applies to the misuse of logic. The point under discussion: the bounds of science and the possibility of Deity may point you to the use of nonrational as a replacement term. However, to claim the notion of Deity is nonrational, due to scientific norms, makes the mistake of assuming all rationality is scientific, which is clearly not the case.
Quote[/b] ]I deny that the meaning of god has been so consitant as you claim. Folk religion rather has an image of god as the old guy with a long white beard up in heaven and that one can surely be questioned. Define something as sacro sanct to the question of the cause as you wish, but that´s not a proof or an answer to any philosophical problem. Not more than the ontological proof of god is. It still stands as I said:
And I won´t grant theism any epistemic validity just because theists claim they can cast a ontological proof of god out of the hat. The ontological question whether the world really exists or is just imagination doesn´t let you park your car in front of the hospital either.
Our discussion has not concerned itself with doctrinal statements of any belief system. We are focused on the rational possiblity of an absolute. St. Anselm's ontological proof aside, the necessity of an absolute has not been simply the position of the theologian.
Quote[/b] ]You´re understanding of philosophical terminology may be more precise than mine (in fact, I bet it is), but whenever I read an explanation of one of these theories (correspondence etc.), I got the impression that they are theories about truth. I think they all failed because I doubt very much truth can be defined at all. Since truth is something different than knowledge, these theories have not much to do with epistemology (I know that´s a major misconception in modern philosophy). So the knowledge claims of the standard science model are pretty much independent of what theory of knowledge one uses, as long as there is a truth.
If truth cannot be defined (and thereby known), then there is no point to building a system of knowledge. The one cannot exist without the other.
Quote[/b] ]Depends on what the rational model is for. For a certain purpose, namely the acquiremant of systematic knowledge about the world, it´s the best available method and thus the only rational one.
All rational models share a common purpose: the means whereby good vs. bad arguments and their attendant data can be distinguished so that truth may be ascertained. I agree science is the best methodology for the study of the world, but not the only rational system: logic and math (by your inclusion) would serve as two distinct systems.
Quote[/b] ]All very well, but the undoubtfullness of experiences (to the experiencer) cannot overrule scientific findings about the world. Isn´t the question we´re discussing here an epistemic one? The theists claim that god exists. One what basis do they make this claim? If they have only their experinces as support than I´m right to say that the rational estimation is atheist.
Actually, experience overrules scientific findings all the time. One says all geese are white, then some fellow claims he saw a black one: with verification, science changes. Even without this challenge an inductive system (science) can never make an absolute claim. You know this.
Regarding revelatory experience: The basis of the claim is the experience itself. Should one come down from the mountain and say: God just spoke to me one cannot then claim atheism is the rational conclusion.
If the academic hidden away in his ivory tower steps forward and claims an absolute exists as the necessary grounds for being: one cannot then claim the rational conclusion is atheism. Each of the above individuals may be in error, but there is no atheist trump card that can be used in either case. Both examples suffer from the fallacy of relevance.
Quote[/b] ]It does not have to. But how distinguishes the revelationist between them? If revelation is a rational source of knowledge, in what way is the experience of meeting god on the mountain different from the experience of getting orders from your heating?
Distinguishing between revelatory claims is a separate question than whether such claims constitute a knowledge claim. Just as scientific argument over data interpretation is a separate question than to whether science itself can make a knowledge claim.
Aside from perhaps more heat, from a logical perspective, a revelatory experience (of the nonmantic variety) may be structurally the same as a heating order: subject/object distinction etc.
Quote[/b] ]Mathematics is more like language. It is a way of saying something. Just because I make a logical statement in English for a certain situation does not make the whole of English a logical language in every situation.
Mathematics is a syntax devoid of semantic content which does not a language make.
Quote[/b] ]If God is beyond Data then what Effect does he have? If he has an Effect then we could measure the Data of His Prescence. If there is no Data, then he has no Effect. If there is a God that does nothing that can be Measured surely this has the same Measureable Effect as the situation of no God. The more simple of those two options is the most likely. Hence no God.
Science is best suited to the measure of material causality. It cannot catergorically speak to efficient causality. For example: there is a hospital paitent. The individual during an operation dies. The heart has stoped. There is no brain activity. Under normal analysis the fellow is dead. The doctors want to reverse this unhappy condition and try to jump start the heart. One of the person's loved ones prays to have the man spared: to be given more time. The heart begins to pump and brain activity returns. The doctors, much relieved and a little more confident in their skills, continue the operation. The patient's loved one thanks her God for the miracle.
The material causality is clear. The heart stopped, brain activity ceased, the man was dead. When both organs revived the individual was alive again. The electric pulse that went through the man constitues the material cause. However, the efficient cause remains unclear. The believer could claim God used the machine to bring the man back. God's handy work could have run parallel to the doctor's work, or it may have preceded them and acted as the impetus for a successful revival, then again, it might not have been there at all. Science cannot definatively speak to efficient causality.
Further, phenomenal data and effect are not co-equal. Go to a Pentecostal Revival there is plenty of effect.
Papewaio
12-01-2003, 06:08
Sorry not sure what semantic content equates to is it order or something else
Like multiplying before addition except when using brackets?
Or do you mean the ability to convey an idea?
Brutal DLX
12-01-2003, 09:59
Semantic content is somewhat a tautology in the way Pindar is referring to it. Semantic is about the meaning of sign systems (or linguistic signs specifically, eg words etc.) in light of what is expressed by these signs. Therefore mathematics is by definition a semantic system because each sign has a meaning that can be articulated. If it is a language or not, I wouldn't venture to give a conclusive answer, I'm no philologist after all.
Are you saying you have anything better to do than philosophy???
Sat, despite the amazement you put on display, I do figure you can relate quite strongly to the concept of weekends being used for fun, after all, you're/have been a student too. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I do apologise though for calling your atheistic view on the world a belief, you seem to feel strongly about that. However my point was that you cannot rationally prove the non-existence of god with the currently available means. You just chose to accept one possibility as the true one, without any other support than saying it is the most simple explanation, which I can't agree with. Note that I don't want to convince you otherwise, one can't prove the existence of God with this means either, I'm just making a few points here. Irrational or rational, there's no safe ground to walk on regarding this question, hence the closest term that I could find to describe one's thoughts about this matter was belief.
Oh, and science does expect conclusive answers, as it seeks knowledge, if findings are found inconclusive the search goes on instead of stopping. Hence why they still try to find element 288, just to be sure it's stable. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 01 2003,05:58)]
Quote[/b] ]If God is beyond Data then what Effect does he have? If he has an Effect then we could measure the Data of His Prescence. If there is no Data, then he has no Effect. If there is a God that does nothing that can be Measured surely this has the same Measureable Effect as the situation of no God. The more simple of those two options is the most likely. Hence no God.
Science is best suited to the measure of material causality. It cannot catergorically speak to efficient causality. For example: there is a hospital paitent. The individual during an operation dies. The heart has stoped. There is no brain activity. Under normal analysis the fellow is dead. The doctors want to reverse this unhappy condition and try to jump start the heart. One of the person's loved ones prays to have the man spared: to be given more time. The heart begins to pump and brain activity returns. The doctors, much relieved and a little more confident in their skills, continue the operation. The patient's loved one thanks her God for the miracle.
The material causality is clear. The heart stopped, brain activity ceased, the man was dead. When both organs revived the individual was alive again. The electric pulse that went through the man constitues the material cause. However, the efficient cause remains unclear. The believer could claim God used the machine to bring the man back. God's handy work could have run parallel to the doctor's work, or it may have preceded them and acted as the impetus for a successful revival, then again, it might not have been there at all. Science cannot definatively speak to efficient causality.
Yes, but we are back again at square one. You can claim that God used the machine to revive the man, but that is not proof. The way I understand it, is that you see God in chance-factors. The whole idea of sciences (or at least natural sciences), is that there are laws. If something is a chance, you just don't know all the laws. That leaves no place for God push the world this or that way. Either that, or God would be able to violate natural laws.
You can see God in small miracles, but you can just as easy blame them on luck (that is, factors not in our control). According to Occam's Law, luck would be a better explanation, since it assumes the existences of less... Laws? Absolutes? (I don't know the correct word for this).
BTW I think that many atheists actually rejected the notion of a personal God (like me), a God who is clearly active in the world. But now we are discussing the existence of a rather different kind of god, a God which is not as easily discerned in this world.
It is rather like this:
Believer: You should believe in the God of the Bible
Atheist: But the God of the Bible cannot exist
Another believer: Yes, but God is not the way like you perceive Him.
How can you fight them if you can't catch them? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif
Teutonic Knight
12-01-2003, 17:15
Quote[/b] (Eastside Character @ Nov. 30 2003,17:56)]I think it makes no sense to argue whether there is a God or not.
I say: for me there is no God, but for you it/he/she can exist (just because you believe so). But if there is a God, I think it is more like the Borg from Star Trek than like that one from that film Dogma. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
sooo...you believe in a Blik God?
Quote[/b] ]Yes, but we are back again at square one. You can claim that God used the machine to revive the man, but that is not proof. The way I understand it, is that you see God in chance-factors. The whole idea of sciences (or at least natural sciences), is that there are laws. If something is a chance, you just don't know all the laws. That leaves no place for God push the world this or that way. Either that, or God would be able to violate natural laws.
The simple scenario is not meant to serve as a proof. Rather, it demonstrates that efficient causality is an open question under a scientific paradigm.
Laws are the product of the theory which produced them. Newtonian law is concordant within Newtonian physics, but not necessarily within quantum theory.
Quote[/b] ]According to Occam's Law, luck would be a better explanation, since it assumes the existences of less... Laws? Absolutes? (I don't know the correct word for this).
The idea of Ockham's razor is not a logical necessity as much as an aesthetic principle.
Quote[/b] ]BTW I think that many atheists actually rejected the notion of a personal God (like me), a God who is clearly active in the world. But now we are discussing the existence of a rather different kind of god, a God which is not as easily discerned in this world.
It is rather like this:
Believer: You should believe in the God of the Bible
Atheist: But the God of the Bible cannot exist
Another believer: Yes, but God is not the way like you perceive Him.
Sectarian notions are not under investigation. Whether one believes in a active or inactive Deity is secondary to whether the Being actually exists. Even so, I argued that given the inability of science to answer the question possible alternatives are: revelation or a coherence theory.
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 01 2003,18:16)]
Quote[/b] ]Yes, but we are back again at square one. You can claim that God used the machine to revive the man, but that is not proof. The way I understand it, is that you see God in chance-factors. The whole idea of sciences (or at least natural sciences), is that there are laws. If something is a chance, you just don't know all the laws. That leaves no place for God push the world this or that way. Either that, or God would be able to violate natural laws.
The simple scenario is not meant to serve as a proof. Rather, it demonstrates that efficient causality is an open question under a scientific paradigm.
And what I ment to demonstrate whas that you can find God in small miracles, but it is simpler to explain them as luck, chance events. This is the more rational, according to Occam's priciple. Yet, same as yours, it proves nothing.
My end-remark was not ment as a contribution to the main discussion, rather as a sideline. I wanted to point out that my atheism originated in not believing in the God as it was presented to me, a God which is really involved in events. My rejection of any kind of God, including the small miracles kind of god of you example, was less rational than that.
Quote[/b] ]And what I ment to demonstrate whas that you can find God in small miracles, but it is simpler to explain them as luck, chance events. This is the more rational, according to Occam's priciple. Yet, same as yours, it proves nothing.
My end-remark was not ment as a contribution to the main discussion, rather as a sideline. I wanted to point out that my atheism originated in not believing in the God as it was presented to me, a God which is really involved in events. My rejection of any kind of God, including the small miracles kind of god of you example, was less rational than that.
I don't know what more rational or less rational means. If you are referring to probability: probability is not my concern. What is, concerns itself with rational determinations and their limits, particularly when one attempts to apply one catergory of study (i.e. science) with antoher (i.e. ontology).
I also don't know what a small miracle is, but evidently you take the idea of a God bringing back one who was dead as in the small catergory.
Somebody Else
12-01-2003, 22:02
My personal view is that God is either exists or doesn't. If God does exist as depicted, I'll be forgiven if I don't adhere to all that religious nonsense. If God doesn't exist, I haven't wasted my time. If God's an evil vindictive bastard, then I'm pretty much screwed already, so why be weak-willed now?
But... on my death-bed, it'll be... buy me a pig
(Someone will know what I mean I'm sure)
Papewaio
12-01-2003, 23:13
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 01 2003,13:58)]
Quote[/b] ]If God is beyond Data then what Effect does he have? If he has an Effect then we could measure the Data of His Prescence. If there is no Data, then he has no Effect. If there is a God that does nothing that can be Measured surely this has the same Measureable Effect as the situation of no God. The more simple of those two options is the most likely. Hence no God.
Science is best suited to the measure of material causality. It cannot catergorically speak to efficient causality. For example: there is a hospital paitent. The individual during an operation dies. The heart has stoped. There is no brain activity. Under normal analysis the fellow is dead. The doctors want to reverse this unhappy condition and try to jump start the heart. One of the person's loved ones prays to have the man spared: to be given more time. The heart begins to pump and brain activity returns. The doctors, much relieved and a little more confident in their skills, continue the operation. The patient's loved one thanks her God for the miracle.
The material causality is clear. The heart stopped, brain activity ceased, the man was dead. When both organs revived the individual was alive again. The electric pulse that went through the man constitues the material cause. However, the efficient cause remains unclear. The believer could claim God used the machine to bring the man back. God's handy work could have run parallel to the doctor's work, or it may have preceded them and acted as the impetus for a successful revival, then again, it might not have been there at all. Science cannot definatively speak to efficient causality.
Further, phenomenal data and effect are not co-equal. Go to a Pentecostal Revival there is plenty of effect.
I wish we where allowed to move the goal posts in the world cup... it really would have helped Australias chances of winning.
You can measure it. You just do a comparison of how many people survive the process. Divide it between believers and non-believers and then see who survives more often. If no discernable difference then God has no effect. If there is a difference you can write it up two ways... less believers die 'God looks after those who pray' or more believers die 'God is plucking the souls like flowers for the afterlife' (ie move the goal post so God actively knocks off believers).
Data and effect are only not co-equal if you are talking about non-reality ie special effects in Hollywood movies.
As I have already stated. If there is nothing to measure then there is nothing to cause it.
Quote[/b] ]You can measure it. You just do a comparison of how many people survive the process. Divide it between believers and non-believers and then see who survives more often. If no discernable difference then God has no effect. If there is a difference you can write it up two ways... less believers die 'God looks after those who pray' or more believers die 'God is plucking the souls like flowers for the afterlife' (ie move the goal post so God actively knocks off believers).
I know of no religious systems that claims Divine protection as a constant for either believers or the benefactories of believer's prayers. Regardless, I don't think you understood what I wrote. Finding a marked material causality will not make the logical point required. If you take the Pentecostal meeting I referrenced as another example, there are all sorts of physical differences that can be measured that will mark the participants as in a different physical condition than normal . Whether these differences are due to what the believers claim: the Spirit of the Lord is moving upon them or their condition is simply a product of their own self-induced hysteria cannot be determined through a simple investigation of physical processes.
Material causality can only speak to the physical properties of a thing for example: that a statue is made of marble. A material causality cannot definitively tell who the sculptor was however.
Quote[/b] ]Data and effect are only not co-equal if you are talking about non-reality ie special effects in Hollywood movies.
A religious system that assumes a creative force as responsible for the material world ipso facto assumes that same force can inform the world. Such a system does not assume that the world can inform the Creator or necessarliy have access to that Creator. Nor does it assume that the source of creation is presently or continuoulsy an active principle in the world.
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 01 2003,21:42)]I don't know what more rational or less rational means. If you are referring to probability: probability is not my concern. What is, concerns itself with rational determinations and their limits, particularly when one attempts to apply one catergory of study (i.e. science) with antoher (i.e. ontology).
I also don't know what a small miracle is, but evidently you take the idea of a God bringing back one who was dead as in the small catergory.
I understood that the discussion revolved around the claim that it would be more rational to drop the assumption of God. I assumed that this ment that the non-existence of God was more propable than his existence, and I used the word rational as meaning: chosing for the most probable option. If this is incorrect, please tell me what was ment with rational in this context.
The small miracels... Yes, the reviving of a man is indeed a large miracle for him http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif . I used small miracle meaning that is was not unexplainable, like for example the Red Sea opening to allow the Jews to escape. That is what I would consider a large miracle.
Quote[/b] ]we´ll try for the next two pages to calibrate our terms on each other.
A.Saturnus was right: I have to calibrate my terminolgy. Perhaps I was too eager to join the discussion http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif .
A.Saturnus
12-02-2003, 19:35
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 01 2003,05:50)]Not the same as logic...but logical: so, the adjective means similar to? Is this what you are saying? That is fine. I'll just add: a deductive approach alone, is not sufficient grounds to qualify as logic.
I could ask then would qualifies as logic, but this is only a question of definitions. Not really any problem here.
Quote[/b] ]An object having mathematical qualities is not the difficulty. The touchy point reflects those objects that are mathematical constructs: i.e. singularities.
I don´t see any problem with that. If we assign any existence to a mathematical construct it becomes an entity of empiry and therefore not different from an existent Euclidian triangle.
Quote[/b] ]Science is rightly constrained to the phenomenal. Science cannot comment on the Ding-an-sich. Neither can science assume, due to this constraint, there is no Ding-an-sich. To do so would force one into a solipism or a Humean skepticism. In fact, it is this very extra-phenomenal reality that has served as the theoretical bedrock for the empirism that makes science possible.
But to assume a Ding-an-sich without any phenomenological hints is absurd. Of course you can claim that there´s a Ding-an-sich called god without any phenomenological form but this is only one of an infinite number of such claims. The only reason we assume the existence of any Ding-an-sich is because we think that it is the source of our phenomenological experiences. Without the phenomenology, Occam´s Razor rules out every Ding-an-sich.
Quote[/b] ]It is improper to say science can draw a conclusion about a thing that lies beyond its scrutiny. Further, it is a mistake to use the word irrational. Irrational applies to the misuse of logic. The point under discussion: the bounds of science and the possibility of Deity may point you to the use of nonrational as a replacement term. However, to claim the notion of Deity is nonrational, due to scientific norms, makes the mistake of assuming all rationality is scientific, which is clearly not the case.
Irrational was maybe badly used. Nonrational is better. Not all Rationality is science, but - as I said - to decide epistemic questions, science is the one and only rational method. All other methods are invalid.
Quote[/b] ]Our discussion has not concerned itself with doctrinal statements of any belief system. We are focused on the rational possiblity of an absolute. St. Anselm's ontological proof aside, the necessity of an absolute has not been simply the position of the theologian.
But not mine.
Quote[/b] ]If truth cannot be defined (and thereby known), then there is no point to building a system of knowledge. The one cannot exist without the other.
Truth doesn´t have to be defined. It works well with an undefined concept. Also truth doesn´t have to be known to build a system of knowledge, Popper has showed that very well (and this part of his philosophy is AFAIK undisputed).
Quote[/b] ]All rational models share a common purpose: the means whereby good vs. bad arguments and their attendant data can be distinguished so that truth may be ascertained. I agree science is the best methodology for the study of the world, but not the only rational system: logic and math (by your inclusion) would serve as two distinct systems.
Logic and maths are not methods to acquire knowledge of the world in themselves. Of course, science makes use of them, but it is necessary to rely on empiric evidence. Again, the purpose of science is not to acquire truth but knowledge.
Quote[/b] ]Actually, experience overrules scientific findings all the time. One says all geese are white, then some fellow claims he saw a black one: with verification, science changes. Even without this challenge an inductive system (science) can never make an absolute claim. You know this.
Of course I know that. Don´t do as if I hadn´t made clear that experience is beyond doubt to the experiencer. What I meant was that systematic experience has priority in explaining the world. An explanation of the world that uses unsystematic experience is inferior to a systematic one.
Quote[/b] ]Regarding revelatory experience: The basis of the claim is the experience itself. Should one come down from the mountain and say: God just spoke to me one cannot then claim atheism is the rational conclusion.
Let me alter that a bit: Should one come from the bathroom and say: the heating just spoke to me one cannot then claim psychopathology is the rational conclusion.
Do you seriously believe that? Madmen have all sorts of experiences, but it´s definitely not rational to accept these for an explanation of the world. In fact, it´s the the definition of insanity.
Quote[/b] ]If the academic hidden away in his ivory tower steps forward and claims an absolute exists as the necessary grounds for being: one cannot then claim the rational conclusion is atheism. Each of the above individuals may be in error, but there is no atheist trump card that can be used in either case. Both examples suffer from the fallacy of relevance.
The trump card of atheism is uncertainty. Because in a situation of uncertainty, Occam´s Razor speaks for the null-hypothesis: atheism.
Quote[/b] ]Distinguishing between revelatory claims is a separate question than whether such claims constitute a knowledge claim. Just as scientific argument over data interpretation is a separate question than to whether science itself can make a knowledge claim.
But this question is important here, because it´s the invalidity of this distingtion that makes it a inferior method.
All this discussion is only possible because god is treated so special. If we would substitute god with an some X, everybody would agree that the absence of evidence for X is not the evidence of absence but we would all apply Occam´s Razor and not assume X. In uncertainty we all would accept the null-hypothesis.
But you have already made clear that you don´t accept Occam´s Razor as necessity:
Quote[/b] ]The idea of Ockham's razor is not a logical necessity as much as an aesthetic principle.
But tell, if it would be different, if Occam´s Razor were more than an aesthetic principle, wouldn´t you then have to agree that it supports atheism and makes it the rational estimation?
A.Saturnus
12-02-2003, 19:50
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 01 2003,09:59)]Are you saying you have anything better to do than philosophy???
Sat, despite the amazement you put on display, I do figure you can relate quite strongly to the concept of weekends being used for fun, after all, you're/have been a student too. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I am a student. But you should remember that Aristotle said eudaimonia can only be achieved though arrete - and in case of humans (and I would students count among them) this is the state of contemplation. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]I do apologise though for calling your atheistic view on the world a belief, you seem to feel strongly about that. However my point was that you cannot rationally prove the non-existence of god with the currently available means. You just chose to accept one possibility as the true one, without any other support than saying it is the most simple explanation, which I can't agree with. Note that I don't want to convince you otherwise, one can't prove the existence of God with this means either, I'm just making a few points here. Irrational or rational, there's no safe ground to walk on regarding this question, hence the closest term that I could find to describe one's thoughts about this matter was belief.
Oh, and science does expect conclusive answers, as it seeks knowledge, if findings are found inconclusive the search goes on instead of stopping. Hence why they still try to find element 288, just to be sure it's stable. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
I know you didn´t mean it. But maybe you don´t realize that it is the absence of a safe ground that speaks for atheism. Atheism is the null-hypothesis of religion and by that has to be accepted untill any alternative is empirically supported.
I´m confused by your claim that science expects conclusive answers. Can you name one conclusive answer in science? The search always goes on, that´s just the point of science. The moment we stop questioning a scientific finding, we give up science. In that way, conclusive answers are the opposite of science. Science is the proces of evolving from wrong explanations to other wrong but better explanations.
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Dec. 02 2003,19:35)]The trump card of atheism is uncertainty. Because in a situation of uncertainty, Occam´s Razor speaks for the null-hypothesis: atheism.
What the...?
In these two sentences Saturnus sums up what I've been struggling to make clear for myself AND others for the last few days
Papewaio
12-02-2003, 22:49
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Dec. 03 2003,03:50)]Science is the proces of evolving from wrong explanations to other wrong but better explanations.
Sounds like most arguements with the better-half.
Quote[/b] ]Sounds like most arguements with the better-half.
why start an argument when you immediately know that she is right and you are wrong? and always will be wrong (even when you are right!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
Papewaio
12-03-2003, 00:18
Quote[/b] (katar @ Dec. 03 2003,08:13)]
Quote[/b] ]Sounds like most arguements with the better-half.
why start an argument when you immediately know that she is right and you are wrong? and always will be wrong (even when you are right!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
So you have never had an arguement you did not start?
Quote[/b] ]So you have never had an arguement you did not start?
aginst some people i am destined to loose http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
but the making up afterwards is so much fun http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Ludens,
Quote[/b] ]I understood that the discussion revolved around the claim that it would be more rational to drop the assumption of God. I assumed that this ment that the non-existence of God was more propable than his existence, and I used the word rational as meaning: chosing for the most probable option. If this is incorrect, please tell me what was ment with rational in this context.
This is a view Sat. would agree with. I have argued that science is an inappropriate methodology with which to come to any conclusion about God. As far as rationality itself is concerned, the absence of God is not an obvious conclusion.
A note regarding Ockham; the infamous razor is bascially the following: one should not add pluralities without necessity. Ockham, himself a theologian, would and did conclude God was a necessary condition. And there is the rub. What constitues necessity? An atheist view does not see any appeal to God as necessary while a theist does. Answering the issue of necessity is an enterprise with ontological overtones. Subsequently, it is a discussion that goes beyond science proper.
I would assume that the absence of a strict criterion enabling a conclusion on God would lead one to suspend judgement, not opt for the negative.
Quote[/b] ]The small miracels... Yes, the reviving of a man is indeed a large miracle for him . I used small miracle meaning that is was not unexplainable, like for example the Red Sea opening to allow the Jews to escape. That is what I would consider a large miracle.
I see.
Quote[/b] ]A.Saturnus was right: I have to calibrate my terminolgy. Perhaps I was too eager to join the discussion
Philosophical musing not only requires rigor, but a precision of language to be of any value. Learning the proper way to use the lingo, as it were, is a process. Either Sat. or myself would be happy to explain terms with specific meanings (i.e. Ding-an-sich) or any other question that comes up regarding the discussion. I think both participants and readers are pleased with and by your contribution. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Papewaio
12-03-2003, 02:24
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 03 2003,08:35)]A note regarding Ockham; the infamous razor is bascially the following: one should not add pluralities without necessity. Ockham, himself a theologian, would and did conclude God was a necessary condition. And there is the rub. What constitues necessity? An atheist view does not see any appeal to God as necessary while a theist does. Answering the issue of necessity is an enterprise with ontological overtones. Subsequently, it is a discussion that goes beyond science proper.
Ideas evolve in science. Occie's razor has been sharpened somewhat since its beginnings.
It is a scientific view using Occams razor that gets to the point the God is not necessary.
However another attitude in science is when choosing between something that is ugly and another that is beautiful... choose the beautiful one as it is likely to be correct.
If this discussion goes beyond science then it goes beyond reality. Science is the study of nature from the smallest of particles to singularities to life to the stars. If something is beyond science is to say it is beyond having an effect in our lives.
Magic, tooth fairy, and father christmas are all beyond science. They have an equal beautiful truth with God be it a Hindu one with an elephant head, a Christian one with a human form or another version as per Islam.
If you believe in God why not believe in these others?
Quote[/b] ]I could ask then would qualifies as logic, but this is only a question of definitions. Not really any problem here.
I would qualify logic as a system whereby the derived conclusion cannot be otherwise given the premises.
Quote[/b] ] don´t see any problem with that. If we assign any existence to a mathematical construct it becomes an entity of empiry and therefore not different from an existent Euclidian triangle.
Is empiry meant to be inquiry?
Agreed. But a mathematical entity is still a conceptual schema.
Quote[/b] ]But to assume a Ding-an-sich without any phenomenological hints is absurd. Of course you can claim that there´s a Ding-an-sich called god without any phenomenological form but this is only one of an infinite number of such claims. The only reason we assume the existence of any Ding-an-sich is because we think that it is the source of our phenomenological experiences. Without the phenomenology, Occam´s Razor rules out every Ding-an-sich.
I agree the Ding-an-sich is necessarily tied to phenomena. I don't think this idea is ever applied to Deity, unless one were to argue Deity acts as the Ding-an-sich for Being itself. I have not made that argument.
What is significant about the notion of a Ding-an-sich is (to the consternation of naive realists and those who see science as the only touch stone of all there is) that experience itself is bound to a non-empirical base.
Quote[/b] ]Irrational was maybe badly used. Nonrational is better. Not all Rationality is science, but - as I said - to decide epistemic questions, science is the one and only rational method. All other methods are invalid.
To which I reply: the notion of God is an ontological question first and formost.
Quote[/b] ]But not mine.
So, I have come to understand. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]Truth doesn´t have to be defined. It works well with an undefined concept. Also truth doesn´t have to be known to build a system of knowledge, Popper has showed that very well (and this part of his philosophy is AFAIK undisputed).
I don't believe Popper is quite the sounding board you take him for. Ask yourself: is falsifiability, falsifiable?
Further, if one suspends the definition of truth indefinately then all one is really concerned with is utility.
Quote[/b] ]Logic and maths are not methods to acquire knowledge of the world in themselves. Of course, science makes use of them, but it is necessary to rely on empiric evidence. Again, the purpose of science is not to acquire truth but knowledge.
With this view, the knowability of God, or its lack, cannot discount the possibility. One must suspend judgement if truth is no longer the goal. I don't think Popper would agree with this adandonment of the search for truth, but he would say regarding this truth knowledge distinction that Knowledge is thereby subjective and as such, not definitive.
Quote[/b] ]What I meant was that systematic experience has priority in explaining the world. An explanation of the world that uses unsystematic experience is inferior to a systematic one.
Prioritizing systemic experience is reasonable. Individual experience that runs contrary to the understood pattern has the burden to convince that X was, in fact, the case. If your neighbor Abraham tells you God has commanded him to sacrifice his son. You are obliged to stop him. At least, until God gives you the same revelation.
Quote[/b] ]Let me alter that a bit: Should one come from the bathroom and say: the heating just spoke to me one cannot then claim psychopathology is the rational conclusion.
Do you seriously believe that? Madmen have all sorts of experiences, but it´s definitely not rational to accept these for an explanation of the world. In fact, it´s the the definition of insanity.
Then all the founders of the mainline religions were loons. That's an interesting thought. I would think insanity is tied more to functional ability in society than belief itself. One must be able to distinguish between the stupid and the insane.
Quote[/b] ]The trump card of atheism is uncertainty. Because in a situation of uncertainty, Occam´s Razor speaks for the null-hypothesis: atheism.
I need a qualification. A strong atheism is a positive claim regarding a negative conclusion, which is an absurdity. That is what prompted Huxley to propose agnosticism as an alternative. Your positioning has agnostic shadings.
Quote[/b] ]All this discussion is only possible because god is treated so special. If we would substitute god with an some X, everybody would agree that the absence of evidence for X is not the evidence of absence but we would all apply Occam´s Razor and not assume X. In uncertainty we all would accept the null-hypothesis.
But you have already made clear that you don´t accept Occam´s Razor as necessity:
The notion of God is distinct from say, that of a unicorn. The one is considered necessary by definition, the other is not. Thus, the discussion is constrained in ways distinct from focus on contingent beings.
The Razor has no compelling force.
Quote[/b] ]But tell, if it would be different, if Occam´s Razor were more than an aesthetic principle, wouldn´t you then have to agree that it supports atheism and makes it the rational estimation?
If a thing were other than it is, would your view be different? Hmmm.
Ockham's Razor assumes being. That alone requires a metaphysic which forced the fellow for whom the blade is named toward a theistic view. Modern cosmologies have done little in answering some of the basic questions that inform a rational system. In fact, most practitioners of science I have run across are completely ignorant of the theoretical underpinnings of their craft. We are far away from a theory of everything.
As far as a personal view is concerned: I think an agnostic approach is more defendable.
Papewaio
12-03-2003, 04:22
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 03 2003,12:09)]
Quote[/b] ]All this discussion is only possible because god is treated so special. If we would substitute god with an some X, everybody would agree that the absence of evidence for X is not the evidence of absence but we would all apply Occam´s Razor and not assume X. In uncertainty we all would accept the null-hypothesis.
But you have already made clear that you don´t accept Occam´s Razor as necessity:
The notion of God is distinct from say, that of a unicorn. The one is considered necessary by definition, the other is not. Thus, the discussion is contrained in ways distinct from focus on contingent beings.
The Razor has no compelling force.
Do you have any more proof of God then the Unicorn?
Is your God any more real then any other religions?
Why?
Quote[/b] ]Ideas evolve in science.
Not really. Kuhn's paradigm model is a more telling understanding of science.
Quote[/b] ]It is a scientific view using Occams razor that gets to the point the God is not necessary.
God is not a scientific view. Okcham's Razor is not scientific either.
Quote[/b] ]However another attitude in science is when choosing between something that is ugly and another that is beautiful... choose the beautiful one as it is likely to be correct.
why?
Quote[/b] ]If this discussion goes beyond science then it goes beyond reality. Science is the study of nature from the smallest of particles to singularities to life to the stars.
What is the meaning of the universe?
Quote[/b] ]If something is beyond science is to say it is beyond having an effect in our lives.
So you are conflating effect and science. So, a girl screaming at a Bon Jovi concert is science?
Quote[/b] ]Magic, tooth fairy, and father christmas are all beyond science. They have an equal beautiful truth with God be it a Hindu one with an elephant head, a Christian one with a human form or another version as per Islam.
I don't know what the above here means. By the way, the elephant headed Hindu God, his name is Garnesh.
Quote[/b] ]If you believe in God why not believe in these others?
A belief in God and sectarian notions about God are not the same thing.
Quote[/b] ]Do you have any more proof of God then the Unicorn?
yes
Quote[/b] ]Is your God any more real then any other religions?
My God? Your making assumptions.
Papewaio,
Your getting too emotional. Relax.
Papewaio
12-03-2003, 07:50
No emotion at all. Just curious how you can make a statement of 'fact'/definition which has as much basis as any other fantasy.
Nominative statements are nice and cuddly.
Factual statements are a lot more useful.
-----
I do not believe in the number 4. It is a symbol for something such as 4 apples, or 2 squared. Its meaning can change according to the context of the situation as well.
----
Occam's Razor is a useful tool (just as mathematics) I have already stated in the past that science can be done with other tools just that Occam's Razor is a very useful one in cutting through all the detrus.
My alternative for instance is Pape's Hammer. Start with the most complex of the probable alternatives and pound and test it if it holds true. In all likely hood you end up at the same point as O's Razor... the simplest alternative is the true one. However O's Razor makes a lot of sense from the point of view that a simple answer has a higher probability of happening.
Papewaio
12-03-2003, 07:52
BTW can I have a link to a short version of Kuhn's paradigm.
I find it amusing that you state science does not evolve. Since it is anything other then static or absolute. The last century with the evolution of the theory of evolution...
Quote[/b] ]No emotion at all. Just curious how you can make a statement of 'fact'/definition which has as much basis as any other fantasy.
I have made no statement of fact.
Quote[/b] ]I do not believe in the number 4. It is a symbol for something such as 4 apples, or 2 squared. Its meaning can change according to the context of the situation as well.
I was editing my post when you wrote this. In any case, 4 and 4 apples are not the same thing. The meaning of 4 can change? Give me an exmaple.
Quote[/b] ] the simplest alternative is the true one.
Why?
Quote[/b] ]BTW can I have a link to a short version of Kuhn's paradigm.
Look up Thomas S. Khun The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Quote[/b] ]I find it amusing that you state science does not evolve. Since it is anything other then static or absolute. The last century with the evolution of the theory of evolution...
A light shineth in the dark, and the dark comprehended it not.
Brutal DLX
12-03-2003, 11:11
I am a student. But you should remember that Aristotle said eudaimonia can only be achieved though arrete - and in case of humans (and I would students count among them) this is the state of contemplation. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Sat, I was going to say you are a hopeless case but then I remembered seeing you ask for that pic of the bikerchick in one of Solypsist's threads. The subject of a contemplation obviously makes a difference. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I know you didn´t mean it. But maybe you don´t realize that it is the absence of a safe ground that speaks for atheism. Atheism is the null-hypothesis of religion and by that has to be accepted untill any alternative is empirically supported.
I´m confused by your claim that science expects conclusive answers. Can you name one conclusive answer in science? The search always goes on, that´s just the point of science. The moment we stop questioning a scientific finding, we give up science. In that way, conclusive answers are the opposite of science. Science is the proces of evolving from wrong explanations to other wrong but better explanations.
Well, I beg to differ. On the contrary, the absence of a safe ground speaks for not being able to make any claim with good evidence. In this case you can't take the absence of data as a proof that there is no data and never will be.
It is indeed a null-HYPOTHESIS, but as I said before you cannot postulate or assume this position to be right, mainly because the question of the existence of god cannot be answered at the moment within the logical or rational confines that your assumption would require. Possible absence of data cannot provide empirical proof to your claim. You would have to show the absence is final and the reason for that is that there is no phenomenon causing any data. Which is impossible to show for you at the moment. In that point I have to go conform with Pindar.
Which leads us again to the question of science, and as can be seen, you have a different and somewhat strange concept on science, from my point of view. Of course science does expect conclusive answers, maybe I should have added within the limits it has set for itself to work in. A lot of questions have been answered to satisfaction, and I'm sure I don't need to give you certain examples, let's just think of Physics and Biology. Whether or not the answers to those specific problems open up new possibilities or questions is another issue. That's the reason science moves on, because there is still more to be understood. But certain processes have been understood and explained in a conclusive, logical way, which is what science does. It explains and categorises formerly unknown phenomena or processes within our world. Note there are of course two fields of science, one that works within the material world, and the other in the more abstract world of the human mind, the latter might explain your personal stance. Personally, I think the latter shouldn't be classified as science per se because it is set in different boundaries where logic and rationality sometimes fail, as can be seen in the current debate. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif So maybe we should clearly state which science concept we refer to.
A.Saturnus
12-03-2003, 17:11
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 03 2003,04:09)]I agree the Ding-an-sich is necessarily tied to phenomena. I don't think this idea is ever applied to Deity, unless one were to argue Deity acts as the Ding-an-sich for Being itself. I have not made that argument.
What is significant about the notion of a Ding-an-sich is (to the consternation of naive realists and those who see science as the only touch stone of all there is) that experience itself is bound to a non-empirical base.
I don´t quite understand that part. Has the Deity a phenomenal appearance or not?
Quote[/b] ]To which I reply: the notion of God is an ontological question first and formost.
I´ve already made clear that I focus on the episdemic version of the question. I also made clear why.
Quote[/b] ]I don't believe Popper is quite the sounding board you take him for. Ask yourself: is falsifiability, falsifiable?
Further, if one suspends the definition of truth indefinately then all one is really concerned with is utility.
Popper is only one of the most influencal philosophers in the 20th century. Falsifiability is not falsifiable. Overly discussed in any work about Popper´s philosophy. What´s the point?
It is wrong to assume that the lack of definition of truth makes it impossible to have an usable notion of truth. But I fear to explain this will require a higher level of abstraction.
Quote[/b] ]I don't think Popper would agree with this adandonment of the search for truth, but he would say regarding this truth knowledge distinction that Knowledge is thereby subjective and as such, not definitive.
Popper made quite clear that truth is objective and definite but cannot be known. That´s why he introduces the term objective knowledge.
Quote[/b] ]
Then all the founders of the mainline religions were loons. That's an interesting thought. I would think insanity is tied more to functional ability in society than belief itself. One must be able to distinguish between the stupid and the insane.
The religious founders weren´t necessarily loons. They could have been lyers for example. Also certain revelations were clearly acquired under altered conditions of consciousness.
Quote[/b] ]I need a qualification. A strong atheism is a positive claim regarding a negative conclusion, which is an absurdity. That is what prompted Huxley to propose agnosticism as an alternative. Your positioning has agnostic shadings.
I hope it is clear what I mean with atheism. Atheism is the absence of believe, not the believe that god doesn´t exist. It´s not a strong claim.
Quote[/b] ]The notion of God is distinct from say, that of a unicorn. The one is considered necessary by definition, the other is not. Thus, the discussion is constrained in ways distinct from focus on contingent beings.
If you pose the ontological proof of god, I can pose an ontological proof of a unicorn. However you form the definition of god, I´m not willing to accept it any more than an unicorn.
Quote[/b] ]If a thing were other than it is, would your view be different? Hmmm.
Don´t avoid please. I and Ludens have demonstrated that Occam´s Razor supports our claim. Your argument against it was that it has no compelling force. If this argument were false and you have no other arguments to counter our reasoning, then you should accept it.
Quote[/b] ]Ockham's Razor assumes being. That alone requires a metaphysic which forced the fellow for whom the blade is named toward a theistic view. Modern cosmologies have done little in answering some of the basic questions that inform a rational system. In fact, most practitioners of science I have run across are completely ignorant of the theoretical underpinnings of their craft. We are far away from a theory of everything.
Occam´s Razor assumes being as much as a syllogism does.
We may not have theory of everything but I have reason to think we´re closer to it than it appears (even to many scientists - blame specialization).
Quote[/b] ]So you are conflating effect and science. So, a girl screaming at a Bon Jovi concert is science?
It is a subject of scienific investigation. Something that does have an effect on us can be studied scientifical.
A.Saturnus
12-03-2003, 17:33
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 03 2003,11:11)]Sat, I was going to say you are a hopeless case but then I remembered seeing you ask for that pic of the bikerchick in one of Solypsist's threads. The subject of a contemplation obviously makes a difference. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Indeed http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif But since no one reacted on my request, I´ll never reach arrete... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif
Quote[/b] ]Well, I beg to differ. On the contrary, the absence of a safe ground speaks for not being able to make any claim with good evidence. In this case you can't take the absence of data as a proof that there is no data and never will be.
It is indeed a null-HYPOTHESIS, but as I said before you cannot postulate or assume this position to be right, mainly because the question of the existence of god cannot be answered at the moment within the logical or rational confines that your assumption would require. Possible absence of data cannot provide empirical proof to your claim. You would have to show the absence is final and the reason for that is that there is no phenomenon causing any data. Which is impossible to show for you at the moment. In that point I have to go conform with Pindar.
It is the usual scientific practice to accept the null-hypothesis untill an alternative is supported. Nothing else am I doing here. I don´t have to show that the absence is final, I only have to show that all evidence against the null-hypothesis found yet is insignificant.
Quote[/b] ]Which leads us again to the question of science, and as can be seen, you have a different and somewhat strange concept on science, from my point of view. Of course science does expect conclusive answers, maybe I should have added within the limits it has set for itself to work in. A lot of questions have been answered to satisfaction, and I'm sure I don't need to give you certain examples, let's just think of Physics and Biology. Whether or not the answers to those specific problems open up new possibilities or questions is another issue. That's the reason science moves on, because there is still more to be understood. But certain processes have been understood and explained in a conclusive, logical way, which is what science does. It explains and categorises formerly unknown phenomena or processes within our world. Note there are of course two fields of science, one that works within the material world, and the other in the more abstract world of the human mind, the latter might explain your personal stance. Personally, I think the latter shouldn't be classified as science per se because it is set in different boundaries where logic and rationality sometimes fail, as can be seen in the current debate. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif So maybe we should clearly state which science concept we refer to.
I have a strange concept of science? Hmm, I think it´s more or less the same concept as those people have I´m working with and they are all scientists.
What is a conclusive scientific answer then? Was Newton´s mechanics final? Is the theory of relativity final? It´s the concept of finality I find unusual in a scientific context.
In what way is the abstract world of the human mind not science? Do you mean with that philosophy or psychology? I would call philosophy a science, but of course not a natural science. Psychology on the other hand is definitely a natural science.
The concept of science I apply in the discussion above is that of natural sciences, scince I´m refering to statements about the empirical world - god´s existence. Maybe this hasn´t been clear enough. In abstract science, final conclusions are possible.
Quote[/b] ]BTW can I have a link to a short version of Kuhn's paradigm.
The reasonable but not undisputed part of Kuhn´s claim is that science doesn´t evolve gradually but in abrupt steps from one paradigm to the next one. The absurd part of his claim is that these paradigms were incomensorable. To his defence is to say that it seems that he didn´t believe that nonsense himself.
Quote[/b] ]I don´t quite understand that part. Has the Deity a phenomenal appearance or not?
Depends on the religious metaphysic. The Biblical God does, so any Divine manifestation would fall under the same logical structure as say, a rose.
Quote[/b] ]I´ve already made clear that I focus on the episdemic version of the question. I also made clear why.
Then you are not working from the foundational level required to properly answer the question.
Quote[/b] ]Falsifiability is not falsifiable. Overly discussed in any work about Popper´s philosophy. What´s the point?
This is a sidenote: if under a falsifiability rubric any given conclusion is subject to revision and/or replacement. It should be possible for a formally discarded view to return to favor. Thus, falsifiability is contingent.
Quote[/b] ]It is wrong to assume that the lack of definition of truth makes it impossible to have an usable notion of truth. But I fear to explain this will require a higher level of abstraction.
So, this is being tabled.
Quote[/b] ]The religious founders weren´t necessarily loons. They could have been lyers for example. Also certain revelations were clearly acquired under altered conditions of consciousness.
Not a very charitable view.
Quote[/b] ]I hope it is clear what I mean with atheism. Atheism is the absence of believe, not the believe that god doesn´t exist. It´s not a strong claim.
I see.
Quote[/b] ]If you pose the ontological proof of god, I can pose an ontological proof of a unicorn. However you form the definition of god, I´m not willing to accept it any more than an unicorn.
Gaunilo's position is not very convincing given there is no ontological parity. Further, I gave no proof of god. My positon has simply been: the question of God cannot be answered from a scientific positioning.
Quote[/b] ]Don´t avoid please. I and Ludens have demonstrated that Occam´s Razor supports our claim. Your argument against it was that it has no compelling force. If this argument were false and you have no other arguments to counter our reasoning, then you should accept it.
False analogies do not point toward any truth. But, were a triangle to have four sides and thus become a square I would recognize it as such. Of course, then it's no longer a triangle.
Quote[/b] ]Occam´s Razor assumes being as much as a syllogism does.
That is correct. That is why Husserl's insight is so important. There is always already a world informing logical postulates. Consequently, the ontological question has priority and any epistemic formulae/conclusion is called into question.
Quote[/b] ]We may not have theory of everything but I have reason to think we´re closer to it than it appears (even to many scientists - blame specialization).
I'm not sure many scientists no what a syllogism is.
Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Dec. 03 2003,07:52)]BTW can I have a link to a short version of Kuhn's paradigm.
Kuhn didn't see science as a growing, evolving structure of theories, to which new theories are added with the passage of time. According to his theory, science didn't evolve (which suggest it mover forward), but it has revolutions (in double meaning: it changes drastically in a short time, but always ends op at same place).
One branch science, for example physics, is dominated by a set of ideas. This set of ideas (Kuhn spoke of assumptions) is called the paradigm, and consists of theories, definitions and procedures. A paradigm is a dogma: it is NOT under discussion. As time progress, all sort of evidence accumulate that these assumptions (the paradigm) are incorrect. They are ignored, because the paradigm is not under discussion. However, at some point, a scientist point to all this evidence and says: we are doing something wrong. Then a new paradigm is formulated. A fierce battle then ensues between supporters of the new and the old paradigm. Again, there is no real discussion, because neither party is reasonable and they are actually talking about different things (the differences in their paradigms). Usually the new paradigm wins, because its supporters are the new, young scientists and they litterally outlive the supporters of the old theory. This is the bases of the saying that a theory is not falsificated, it just dies out (I don't know if this saying is from Kuhn). After the paradigm change, the universe is seen differently, and therefor you can't compare paradigms. They just are about different things.
The the whole cylce starts again.
If this is true: why does it seem then that there is progress in science? Because, after every paradigm-change, history is rewritten.
I don't know wheter Kuhn didn't believed in this or not. I do know that in one of his later works, he contradicted himself, but this could just be a slip. Or it could be that Saturnus knows more than me.
Personally, I don't think that Kuhn was right if he claimed that science has made no progress (but I've never read that he actually claimed this). We can explain a lot more things now, than we could in the last physics-paradigm http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif . But he had a point when he said that science isn't as rational as it claims, and that it moves in jerks and stops, instead of a flowing movenment.
EDIT: added 'not' to a theory is not falsificated, it just dies out
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 03 2003,00:35)]Philosophical musing not only requires rigor, but a precision of language to be of any value. Learning the proper way to use the lingo, as it were, is a process. Either Sat. or myself would be happy to explain terms with specific meanings (i.e. Ding-an-sich) or any other question that comes up regarding the discussion. I think both participants and readers are pleased with and by your contribution. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Thank you for your kind words http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif . It is as the difficult words that pose the problem for me, but the more the greater context in which they are used. I understand the single words, but sometimes misunderstand the way in which they are used (and then misuse them myself http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).
But what exactly is your argument against the usage of Occam's razor (in the meaning of: choosing the simplest solution, or the one with the least assumptions), other than that it proves nothing.
My point for the usage is that, if you cannot prove it, you should chose the most 'likely' (???) one
(all right, is there a English -> Philosophical dictonary availible anywhere?)
And what are the episdemic and ontological versions of the question? How does this influence the discussion?
-----------------
BTW reading my last post, I can't help thinking: aren't we talking different paradigms here?
Papewaio
12-04-2003, 00:23
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 03 2003,16:17)]
Quote[/b] ]No emotion at all. Just curious how you can make a statement of 'fact'/definition which has as much basis as any other fantasy.
ave made no statement of fact.
You stated that by definition God existed... that to me is a statement of fact.
Quote[/b] ]I do not believe in the number 4. It is a symbol for something such as 4 apples, or 2 squared. Its meaning can change according to the context of the situation as well.
as editing my post when you wrote this. In any case, 4 and 4 apples are not the same thing. The meaning of 4 can change? Give me an exmaple.
I stated that the context in which something is used in maths changes the meaning of it. In other words somethings will have a physical example others will not.
4 can be 4 apples.
4 can be 2 apples by 2 apples.
But try and make -2 apples by -2 apples... it still is four but the context has changed.
Quote[/b] ] the simplest alternative is the true one.
Why?
Why not? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I did say in all likely hood it is the norm in nature that the direct path for the situation is taken. Not always true. But it is a very useful rule to follow and the most sensible unless shown wrong by evidence otherwise. God is not the simplest alternative and without evidence otherwise it is no the simplest alternative.
Quote[/b] ]I find it amusing that you state science does not evolve. Since it is anything other then static or absolute. The last century with the evolution of the theory of evolution...
A light shineth in the dark, and the dark comprehended it not.
I am the darkness in the night
Robert Frost.
Also the authour of the Path not Taken.
Papewaio
12-04-2003, 00:41
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Dec. 04 2003,04:45)]
Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Dec. 03 2003,07:52)]BTW can I have a link to a short version of Kuhn's paradigm.
Kuhn didn't see science as a growing, evolving structure of theories, to which new theories are added with the passage of time. According to his theory, science didn't evolve (which suggest it mover forward), but it has revolutions (in double meaning: it changes drastically in a short time, but always ends op at same place).
One branch science, for example physics, is dominated by a set of ideas. This set of ideas (Kuhn spoke of assumptions) is called the paradigm, and consists of theories, definitions and procedures. A paradigm is a dogma: it is NOT under discussion. As time progress, all sort of evidence accumulate that these assumptions (the paradigm) are incorrect. They are ignored, because the paradigm is not under discussion. However, at some point, a scientist point to all this evidence and says: we are doing something wrong. Then a new paradigm is formulated. A fierce battle then ensues between supporters of the new and the old paradigm. Again, there is no real discussion, because neither party is reasonable and they are actually talking about different things (the differences in their paradigms). Usually the new paradigm wins, because its supporters are the new, young scientists and they litterally outlive the supporters of the old theory. This is the bases of the saying that a theory is falsificated, it just dies out (I don't know if this saying is from Kuhn). After the paradigm change, the universe is seen differently, and therefor you can't compare paradigms. They just are about different things.
The the whole cylce starts again.
If this is true: why does it seem then that there is progress in science? Because, after every paradigm-change, history is rewritten.
I don't know wheter Kuhn didn't believed in this or not. I do know that in one of his later works, he contradicted himself, but this could just be a slip. Or it could be that Saturnus knows more than me.
Personally, I don't think that Kuhn was right if he claimed that science has made no progress (but I've never read that he actually claimed this). We can explain a lot more things now, than we could in the last physics-paradigm http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif . But he had a point when he said that science isn't as rational as it claims, and that it moves in jerks and stops, instead of a flowing movenment.
Interesting but Kuhn is incorrect.
Scienc is far more like evolution where ideas come to dominate areas and where a few specialised ones take up niche areas.
Evolution sometimes acts quickly in response to the change in an enviroment. Mass extinction events take place and then other animals come forth to take the place. A speices may quickly take over the environment in response to a change as well or it may take a slow path that eventually gives it the dominance of the enviroment.
Science is not a set of absolutes guarded by its adherents. It is more like a battle where the scientists set out to prove the others wrong. The last man standing wins. Then the next battle starts almost immediately and again the last theory standing wins.... the other theories may still exist, just one in this evolutionary exchange maintians superiority... it too will either adapt to new ideas or be proven inferior.
Relativity replaced Newtonian Physics.
All one has to do is study how the electrodynamic theories matured (evolved) over time to see that these ideas growed. It is also easy to see that sometimes punctuated explosions of ideas happened as when Rutherford proved the basic structure of an atom was not solid.
The revolutions can be slow or fast and it is often hindered by lack of communication.
Paradigms in Physics are constantly under discussion for the vast majority of situations. Even when we have something as vaunted as a Law it is seen as the current best model. Much like rev-heads, physicists are always looking out for the latest model and how to fine tune their current one.
Nor is it a case of outliving your opponents. Nor is it a case purely of two camps trying to push just their ideas. It is more like exploration and a race to a finish line. First to the South Pole, then First to the south pole and to the other side, first ot the south pole using only human power etc.
And you can compare paradigms in science even after an older theory has been proved wrong. Newtonian physics is still useful in the day to day environment that we live in. We use it for calulating things like the trajectory of a baseball... we do not go to the point of using relativity as that would be overkill. Also old theories that seemed wacky are revised to see if they hold some kernal of truth that with new experiments can see if something can come out of it.
Progress in Science is easy to see. The fruits of it is the technological world we live in.
Brutal DLX
12-04-2003, 10:54
Quote[/b] ]It is the usual scientific practice to accept the null-hypothesis untill an alternative is supported. Nothing else am I doing here. I don´t have to show that the absence is final, I only have to show that all evidence against the null-hypothesis found yet is insignificant.
Once again, this collides with the assumption of making empirical claims concerning this question, which is not doable, in my opinion. It is A scientinfic practice, but not THE scientific practice. The reason why a null hypothesis is often accepted is because the data suggest it, and it is a good starting point to expand from and conduct different experiments or try new theoretic approaches. But in any case this hypothesis would not be accepted as final. Of course you have to show the absence is final because the null hypothesis is in this case not the only possible assumption, let alone the most simple one. But I'm repeating myself. There is neither evidence for or against the question we are talking about, lack of any evidence doesn't support the null hypothesis Rather it supports the theory that this issue can't be handled by empirical means atm.
Quote[/b] ]I have a strange concept of science? Hmm, I think it´s more or less the same concept as those people have I´m working with and they are all scientists.
What is a conclusive scientific answer then? Was Newton´s mechanics final? Is the theory of relativity final? It´s the concept of finality I find unusual in a scientific context.
In what way is the abstract world of the human mind not science? Do you mean with that philosophy or psychology? I would call philosophy a science, but of course not a natural science. Psychology on the other hand is definitely a natural science.
The concept of science I apply in the discussion above is that of natural sciences, scince I´m refering to statements about the empirical world - god´s existence. Maybe this hasn´t been clear enough. In abstract science, final conclusions are possible.
Yes, we are all products of our environment, hm? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
If you do apply the natural concept of science, I would say that this one indeed is looking for final conclusion. I would rather argue abstract sciences do lack finality in some cases. The abstract world of a human mind is science, but not working with the same boundaries or approach as natural sciences. I think you would agree with me that the human mind is not exactly a prime example for logic or logical processes. Giving reasons for why we think about something at a specific moment, or do something just because we want it, for no real reason would look rather absurd to describe with some sort of logic, even though this is tried a lot. Why do we like a certain colour? Is it really so simple and logical to explain? I'm quite sceptical.
I've studied physics and therefore am familiar with natural science and its approaches. In physics, for example there is the ongoing dream to find the GUT , the grand unified theory, which describes and incorporates the relation between all forces that we know are at work in the physical world, and from which one is able to deduct specific laws for specific situations/phenomena. (gravity, magneticism, electricity, strong and weak forces at the particle level etc.) If this theory is ever found, I would assume it would look pretty final concerning this science. Of course the search would go on, focusing on detailed matters and the applications of what has been found, but the whole construct would stand as it has been found valid within the limits set. Chemistry is another example, it is an old science, and I think you could say that no new breakthrough findings are reported anymore, basic laws are found, verified and being constantly applied, this is what I would call final. In physics there's a finding that says all things drop equally fast in vacuum, I'm sure you can remember it from your days at school. It is looking very final. What would you expect to be added or changed?
Has it ever occured to you to place the question of god's existence between the empirical and the abstract world? Because I think that is exactly where it belongs, and that's why you cannot study or answer it to conclusion in the empirical field alone.
Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Dec. 04 2003,00:41)]Interesting but Kuhn is incorrect.
Scienc is far more like evolution where ideas come to dominate areas and where a few specialised ones take up niche areas.
Evolution sometimes acts quickly in response to the change in an enviroment. Mass extinction events take place and then other animals come forth to take the place. A speices may quickly take over the environment in response to a change as well or it may take a slow path that eventually gives it the dominance of the enviroment.
Science is not a set of absolutes guarded by its adherents. It is more like a battle where the scientists set out to prove the others wrong. The last man standing wins. Then the next battle starts almost immediately and again the last theory standing wins.... the other theories may still exist, just one in this evolutionary exchange maintians superiority... it too will either adapt to new ideas or be proven inferior.
Relativity replaced Newtonian Physics.
All one has to do is study how the electrodynamic theories matured (evolved) over time to see that these ideas growed. It is also easy to see that sometimes punctuated explosions of ideas happened as when Rutherford proved the basic structure of an atom was not solid.
The revolutions can be slow or fast and it is often hindered by lack of communication.
Paradigms in Physics are constantly under discussion for the vast majority of situations. Even when we have something as vaunted as a Law it is seen as the current best model. Much like rev-heads, physicists are always looking out for the latest model and how to fine tune their current one.
Nor is it a case of outliving your opponents. Nor is it a case purely of two camps trying to push just their ideas. It is more like exploration and a race to a finish line. First to the South Pole, then First to the south pole and to the other side, first ot the south pole using only human power etc.
And you can compare paradigms in science even after an older theory has been proved wrong. Newtonian physics is still useful in the day to day environment that we live in. We use it for calulating things like the trajectory of a baseball... we do not go to the point of using relativity as that would be overkill. Also old theories that seemed wacky are revised to see if they hold some kernal of truth that with new experiments can see if something can come out of it.
Progress in Science is easy to see. The fruits of it is the technological world we live in.
Let me first state that I think that Kuhn was it too cynical. Science does make progress, but I admit science is rather less rational then it seems.
But when you say that sciece does evolve, because new theories are created, Kuhn would reply that you were speaking of the time between paradigm-changes. And I think you would agree that there is but one main physics theory at the moment (Quantemmechanics & relativity). All other theories have fallen from grace. This is the paradigm, according to Kuhn. Not the small theories circulating around it, as you seem to assume. There has always been one main theory.
This is not like evolution, were a lot of species live together. If it were like that, there would be only a few species on this planet.
Quote[/b] ]physicists are always looking out for the latest model and how to fine tune their current one.
This is the point: they fine-tune it, but their main paradigm isn't under discussion. I've never heard of scientists who claim that quantummechanics are incorrect (perhaps there are a few, but they will be ignored).
Relativity replaced Newtonian physics because it explained a lot of phenomona, but also because the opponents died out. A theory is not falsificated, it just dies out, Kuhn seems to have said.
One of things about which Kuhn was right (I think), is that paradigms have 'blind spots'. Just before the 'discovery' of relativity, a physist claimed that they nearly understood the way the universe worked. This claim is identical to the claims about the theory of everything. So perhaps we are suffering from another blind spot? We cannot know our blind spots, we cannot know what we don't know.
Again, I think that Kuhn's theory was incorrect, but he had a point when he said that science wasn't as rational as it claims.
A.Saturnus
12-04-2003, 23:20
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 04 2003,10:54)]Once again, this collides with the assumption of making empirical claims concerning this question, which is not doable, in my opinion. It is A scientinfic practice, but not THE scientific practice. The reason why a null hypothesis is often accepted is because the data suggest it, and it is a good starting point to expand from and conduct different experiments or try new theoretic approaches. But in any case this hypothesis would not be accepted as final. Of course you have to show the absence is final because the null hypothesis is in this case not the only possible assumption, let alone the most simple one. But I'm repeating myself. There is neither evidence for or against the question we are talking about, lack of any evidence doesn't support the null hypothesis Rather it supports the theory that this issue can't be handled by empirical means atm.
No, no ,no, the null-hypothesis isn´t necessary supported by evidence. Often, it´s in the contrary. If we apply a statistical hypothesis test then we accept the null-hypothesis untill the evidence against it reaches significance. Significance is often at an alpha of 0.05 , that means we will reject the null-hypothesis only if the chance that it´s wrong is greater than 95%. If we find a p-value of 0.11 , we´ll accept null-hypothesis even though ít´s wrong with a chance of 89%
We aren´t that harsh with theist claims, but it still stands that Occam´s Law requires us to stay with the null-hypothesis untill enough evidence (a p-value of 50% may be enough here) forces us to reject it. Nothing else does the atheist. He stays with the absence of deity untill it´s existence is supported by enough evidence.
Quote[/b] ]If you do apply the natural concept of science, I would say that this one indeed is looking for final conclusion. I would rather argue abstract sciences do lack finality in some cases. The abstract world of a human mind is science, but not working with the same boundaries or approach as natural sciences. I think you would agree with me that the human mind is not exactly a prime example for logic or logical processes. Giving reasons for why we think about something at a specific moment, or do something just because we want it, for no real reason would look rather absurd to describe with some sort of logic, even though this is tried a lot. Why do we like a certain colour? Is it really so simple and logical to explain? I'm quite sceptical.
Empirical findings can never be certain, so there cannot be a final conclusion in an empirical science. The empirical sciences simply don´t have the methodology required for absolute proofs like maths.
I´m confused what you mean with the abstract world of human mind. The abstract sciences are all sciences that deal with analytic statements like in logic, maths, philosophy and informatics. The human mind doesn´t qualify as an 'abstract entity' as Searle would call it, because it´s part of the material world.
There is no between the empirical and the abstract world. Something is either abstract or not. And we talk about the existence of god, therefore some clearly in the empirical world.
Papewaio
12-04-2003, 23:39
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Dec. 05 2003,01:00)]Let me first state that I think that Kuhn was it too cynical. Science does make progress, but I admit science is rather less rational then it seems.
But when you say that sciece does evolve, because new theories are created, Kuhn would reply that you were speaking of the time between paradigm-changes. And I think you would agree that there is but one main physics theory at the moment (Quantemmechanics & relativity). All other theories have fallen from grace. This is the paradigm, according to Kuhn. Not the small theories circulating around it, as you seem to assume. There has always been one main theory.
This is not like evolution, were a lot of species live together. If it were like that, there would be only a few species on this planet.
Quote[/b] ]physicists are always looking out for the latest model and how to fine tune their current one.
This is the point: they fine-tune it, but their main paradigm isn't under discussion. I've never heard of scientists who claim that quantummechanics are incorrect (perhaps there are a few, but they will be ignored).
Relativity replaced Newtonian physics because it explained a lot of phenomona, but also because the opponents died out. A theory is not falsificated, it just dies out, Kuhn seems to have said.
One of things about which Kuhn was right (I think), is that paradigms have 'blind spots'. Just before the 'discovery' of relativity, a physist claimed that they nearly understood the way the universe worked. This claim is identical to the claims about the theory of everything. So perhaps we are suffering from another blind spot? We cannot know our blind spots, we cannot know what we don't know.
Again, I think that Kuhn's theory was incorrect, but he had a point when he said that science wasn't as rational as it claims.
Quantummechanics is a discipline (or field if you excuse the pun) not a single theory... it is comprised of many theories.
For instance without understanding that there was more then one type of meson scientists where confused with the results they where getting trying (unknown) to them at the time to compare two types.
The proponents did not die out they merely had more evidence revealed as they explored the new field.
Nor is quantum mechanics seen as absolutely correct... for instance it is correct within certain boundaries but it does not mesh yet to other theories to form the ToE. We know it is not fully understood yet. Otherwise the quest for the ToE or some other better theory would not be on.
Paradigms definitly have blind spots. That is why we constantly test them. It is fairly easy to see that the theories also do not just die out with the inventors. Newtonian physics lasted much longer then Newton. Relativity is still around after Einstein. Science is not some sort of democratic voting system... however it does have a lot of contamination with politics then a clean slate that some people think of it. Now the politics may cause the flow of money to change, but in the long term the most fit to survive theory will do so on its own merit.
As for fine tuning it they also pound it to see if it stands up. The theories keep getting investigated. Schrodingers equation has a series of paradigims added to it for various phenomena... such as the light emitted under a magnetic field etc.
The theory is accepted as the leading one, does not mean scientists are not hell bent on proving it wrong. Scienctists are not just in a race to be first to 'prove' something but they are also in a race to break 'disprove' someting first... a competition if you will between the theorists and the experimentors.
Brutal DLX
12-05-2003, 13:24
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Dec. 04 2003,22:20)]No, no ,no, the null-hypothesis isn´t necessary supported by evidence. Often, it´s in the contrary. If we apply a statistical hypothesis test then we accept the null-hypothesis untill the evidence against it reaches significance. Significance is often at an alpha of 0.05 , that means we will reject the null-hypothesis only if the chance that it´s wrong is greater than 95%. If we find a p-value of 0.11 , we´ll accept null-hypothesis even though ít´s wrong with a chance of 89%
We aren´t that harsh with theist claims, but it still stands that Occam´s Law requires us to stay with the null-hypothesis untill enough evidence (a p-value of 50% may be enough here) forces us to reject it. Nothing else does the atheist. He stays with the absence of deity untill it´s existence is supported by enough evidence.
Empirical findings can never be certain, so there cannot be a final conclusion in an empirical science. The empirical sciences simply don´t have the methodology required for absolute proofs like maths.
I´m confused what you mean with the abstract world of human mind. The abstract sciences are all sciences that deal with analytic statements like in logic, maths, philosophy and informatics. The human mind doesn´t qualify as an 'abstract entity' as Searle would call it, because it´s part of the material world.
There is no between the empirical and the abstract world. Something is either abstract or not. And we talk about the existence of god, therefore some clearly in the empirical world.
Well, empirical first and foremost means based on experience, gained by own experience, in science you add logic and rationality to go from experience to causalities and laws. In science, I agree with you, you don't have the methodology of dealing with certain problems, and one of these problems being the question we are discussing here.
Empirical findings are final within the boundaries we set for them, and that is the the same with the stochastical approach and error margins. This is introduced because we acknowledge our measuring methods not to be 100% exact. However, in our case we cannot even start measuring and therefore not postulate any hypothesis or back it up with any means, be it statistical narrowing or exact deduction. Our experience of the phenom of god or lack thereof is not expressable within the boundaries we defined as our working space.
I suggest you forget about Occam's law for the moment and try to view the matter at hand from another perspective, because if you think nothing is ever certain, and we do appear to agree on this, then you constantly have to doubt your own stance.
Mathematics is an abstract science, alright, but we apply it to describe material phenomena and processes. In that we assume that this viable, and within our definitions it is. But mathematical equations are still set in the abstract world and not in the material one. In this regard we truly cannot be certain that what we found behaves as the equations would show us, but still our findings are final, we just cannot find different outcomes anymore, nor do we have the means to describe them. Certain, we can never be. This applies for everything.
By abstract world of the human mind I refer not to the brain, but to the world it creates for its own. In my opinion I don't consider this part to be of the material world.
How can you analyse a subject when subject and tool used for analysing are the same and then claim to be analytic and logically correct? Being object and subject at the same time is certainly a very strange thing, which I consider an abstract concept.
However, you could say the human mind creates the physical world, it lives in it, and outside of it, and you could not be disproven. This is the place where material and abstract meet and overlap. The distinction we make between the two of them is purely artificial...or abstract http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/dizzy.gif
So, we can talk about the existence of god, in an empirical way, but not necessarily in a material or scientific way. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
PS: I'm sure glad the weekend is approaching now http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif time for.. contemplation. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
A.Saturnus
12-05-2003, 16:46
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 05 2003,13:24)]I suggest you forget about Occam's law for the moment and try to view the matter at hand from another perspective, because if you think nothing is ever certain, and we do appear to agree on this, then you constantly have to doubt your own stance.
Empirical findings can never be certain, but theoretical findings can be certain. In spite of what has been said before in this thread and what is widely believed, Occam´s Razor is a theoretical finding and can be proven. We apply it every day on questions that bear no evidence. In fact, that we don´t even ask these questions shows how unconsciously and automatically we apply it. You can invent an unlimited number of unusual concepts comparable to god, but most people wouldn´t bother even to consider them possibly true. These ideas get ruled out because they aren´t needed to explain the world. I have no intention to treat the concept of god different just because it may hurt feelings of some theists.
Quote[/b] ]How can you analyse a subject when subject and tool used for analysing are the same and then claim to be analytic and logically correct? Being object and subject at the same time is certainly a very strange thing, which I consider an abstract concept.
Aren´t physicists physical objects? Aren´t biologists organisms? That psychologists are psychological is no more a problem. Psychology is a natural science that studies a material object and it´s working with an experimental approach. If you have any critical comments on the methodology we psychologists use, I invite you to be more precise.
Quote[/b] ]However, you could say the human mind creates the physical world, it lives in it, and outside of it, and you could not be disproven.
Yes, but again you would have Occam´s Razor against you. But it is without doubt more ambiguous than the theist question.
Quote[/b] ]So, we can talk about the existence of god, in an empirical way, but not necessarily in a material or scientific way.
If we can talk about it in an empirical way, we can also talk about it in a scientific way, because science covers all that is empirical.
A.Saturnus
12-05-2003, 17:06
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 03 2003,20:10)]Then you are not working from the foundational level required to properly answer the question.
We had this before. Are we discussing in circles?
Quote[/b] ]This is a sidenote: if under a falsifiability rubric any given conclusion is subject to revision and/or replacement. It should be possible for a formally discarded view to return to favor. Thus, falsifiability is contingent.
Precisely That is one of the reasons I find Popper´s philosophy too dominant in scientific discurs. A falsification is actually no more proof than a verification.
Quote[/b] ]So, this is being tabled.
(about the notion of truth)
I´m not sure what the word to table means. My dictionary says to suspend discussion. If you want me to explain it, I´ll do, but don´t complain afterwards http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]Not a very charitable view.
(about religious founders)
I suppose not. But I guess most religious founders have also had conparable views on atheists.
Quote[/b] ]False analogies do not point toward any truth. But, were a triangle to have four sides and thus become a square I would recognize it as such. Of course, then it's no longer a triangle.
A.Saturnus sighs
I guess you won´t fall into my trap. I wanted to lure you into the statement I were right if Occam´s Razor were more than aesthetical. Then I only would have had to prove it to win the debate. You´re too intelligent to be tricked easily.
Teutonic Knight
12-05-2003, 23:18
Bravo Pindar Good Show
This has been most entertaining. So, does the debate end here or shall we introduce something provocative?
Quote[/b] ]But what exactly is your argument against the usage of Occam's razor (in the meaning of: choosing the simplest solution, or the one with the least assumptions), other than that it proves nothing.
The problem is: it's arbitrary. A logical system, to be of value, must have necessity tying the conclusion to any premises. The notion of probability, by the label itself, indicates a possible contrary conclusion. This may assist the scientist in narrowing a field of data, but logic is a theoretical enterprise: clarity cannot be compromised. The criterion of simplicity or beauty were from the Classical Period forward considered aspects of the Divine that is why they received preferrence. Regardless, one could argue the value set is complexity, or the ugly and there is nothing within the framwork to discount this choice. Thus, from a logical perspective, Ockham's blade is of no value.
Quote[/b] ]And what are the episdemic and ontological versions of the question? How does this influence the discussion?
These are more involved questions than their amount of space would suggest. Perhaps I can answer this way: philosophical sub-disciplines ( ethics, aesthetics etc.) do not operate along parallel plains. Rather, they are hierarchical. Epistemolocial questions require a subject and object. Consequently, there is a logical ontic priority. To ignore ontology and simply press forward with epistemic concerns is to not only assume an entire system of being (understandable for a theologian, but not a philosopher), but to leave any conclusion subject to rejection given epistemology is itself governed by the perameters of its grounding ontology. An example of this would be phenomenology where the subject and object are seen as inseparately connected: the subject informs and as is informed by the object. This relation effects being and attendant knowledge claims. There are numerous ontic systems, but each maintians logical priority over epistemology.
Looking to the epistemic system most often assumed in our own discussion: it is one that finds the force of its conclusions from an empirical source. This is not without merit, but it does restrict knowledge claims to the phenomenal realm. Consequently, one must forgo comment on objects outside of experience.
Quote[/b] ]ave made no statement of fact.
You stated that by definition God existed... that to me is a statement of fact.
Actually, I said Deity, by definition is necessary as opposed to things worldly that are considered contingent. Necessity is a philosophical term meaning self-existent, dependent on no outside force for its being or essence. God by definition is an independant being. Contingency refers to objects whose being could be otherwise and are dependant on an ouside source.
Quote[/b] ]I stated that the context in which something is used in maths changes the meaning of it. In other words somethings will have a physical example others will not.
4 can be 4 apples.
4 can be 2 apples by 2 apples.
But try and make -2 apples by -2 apples... it still is four but the context has changed.
4 is not primarily an adjective, but a noun. As such it is an unempircal concept.
Quote[/b] ]Why?
Why not?
I did say in all likely hood it is the norm in nature that the direct path for the situation is taken. Not always true. But it is a very useful rule to follow and the most sensible unless shown wrong by evidence otherwise. God is not the simplest alternative and without evidence otherwise it is no the simplest alternative.
Probable standards do not equal logical claims. Further, any system that forgoes God assumes the burden of explaining being. Whatever the systemic answer proffered, it may not be as simple as the notion of an overarching Deity. Do not hold too tightly to Ockham.
Quote[/b] ]I am the darkness in the night
Yes, you are. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]We had this before. Are we discussing in circles?
Only if you insist on making the same errors. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]Precisely That is one of the reasons I find Popper´s philosophy too dominant in scientific discurs. A falsification is actually no more proof than a verification.
I agree. So, we won't have to worry about appeals to Austrian exhiles any longer.
Quote[/b] ](about the notion of truth)
I´m not sure what the word to table means. My dictionary says to suspend discussion. If you want me to explain it, I´ll do, but don´t complain afterwards
I was using table to mean suspend, correct. I reserve the right to complain at a future date. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
Quote[/b] ]I guess you won´t fall into my trap. I wanted to lure you into the statement I were right if Occam´s Razor were more than aesthetical. Then I only would have had to prove it to win the debate. You´re too intelligent to be tricked easily.
Sorry I wasn't able to accomodate. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Quote[/b] ]This has been most entertaining. So, does the debate end here or shall we introduce something provocative?
A. Saturnus is a spider. I don't know if it would be wise for you to fly too close to his webs.
Papewaio
12-07-2003, 11:04
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 07 2003,14:05)]
Quote[/b] ]But what exactly is your argument against the usage of Occam's razor (in the meaning of: choosing the simplest solution, or the one with the least assumptions), other than that it proves nothing.
The problem is: it's arbitrary. A logical system, to be of value, must have necessity tying the conclusion to any premises. The notion of probability, by the label itself, indicates a possible contrary conclusion. This may assist the scientist in narrowing a field of data, but logic is a theoretical enterprise: clarity cannot be compromised. The criterion of simplicity or beauty were from the Classical Period forward considered aspects of the Divine that is why they received preferrence. Regardless, one could argue the value set is complexity, or the ugly and there is nothing within the framwork to discount this choice. Thus, from a logical perspective, Ockham's blade is of no value.
According to the Uncertainty Principle we can never measure all the attributes of a system. As such we have to use probability.
A system that uses absolutes for all cases does not reflect what we know of nature. Hence a system of thought that requires absolutes is flawed when asking questions of nature as we already know it is insufficient to describe it in all its glory. This would mean another system should be used if a superior one is available. Logic as such that discounts probability as a solution and seeks to look for exact answers is just a first order approximation at best of the true nature of nature.
Theory is as only as good as the models that it can create or the fun one can have manipulating (using, playing, researching etc) them.
If Logic can't handle the Truth then I suggest it leaves the Court of the Law of Nature to Probability which can go the distance. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Okay probably has more to do with A Few Good Men then anything else but you will have to go check out the Tavern for a strange twist in events in my world view.
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 07 2003,06:05)]
Quote[/b] ]But what exactly is your argument against the usage of Occam's razor (in the meaning of: choosing the simplest solution, or the one with the least assumptions), other than that it proves nothing.
The problem is: it's arbitrary. A logical system, to be of value, must have necessity tying the conclusion to any premises. The notion of probability, by the label itself, indicates a possible contrary conclusion. This may assist the scientist in narrowing a field of data, but logic is a theoretical enterprise: clarity cannot be ompromised. The criterion of simplicity or beauty were from the Classical Period forward considered aspects of the Divine that is why they received preferrence. Regardless, one could argue the value set is complexity, or the ugly and there is nothing within the framwork to discount this choice. Thus, from a logical perspective, Ockham's blade is of no value.
I can follow that untill regardless, so that I don't see your main point.
AND, of course its arbitrary. Everything that is used to deal with choices in situations were we don't know things for sure is arbitrary. If we new things things for sure, they wouldn't be needed That's the reason why we use it: we don't know for sure wether God exists or not. It doesn't proof anything, it gives an indication.
You can explain the universe with physical laws, with God, or both (neither explanation is waterthight). We know there are physical laws (know is perhaps not the proper word, but I'm trying to keep it simple), so that rules out the second explanation. So we can explain it with physical laws or with physical laws AND God. In this case I don't have to assume the existence God unless you prove to me that physical laws are insufficient.
One might argue that physical laws ARE God, but than I don't have to believe in him (other than believing like I believe in physical laws http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif ). That is not my idea of deity anyway. Of course, in this reasoning, God might have other tasks except physical laws, but again, you must give me evidence that points in that direction, before I have to accept that.
Again, this does not prove the un-existence of God, but it the key thing in the atheist position: there is no reason why we should believe in God. Thus: why should we?
This statement stands, no matter how many difficult words you throw against it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
But seriously now, we are repeating the same Occam's razor/null-hypothesis discussion over and over again, but it is all I can do untill we can find out whether or not Occam's razor can be used.
Quote[/b] ]Looking to the epistemic system most often assumed in our own discussion: it is one that finds the force of its conclusions from an empirical source. This is not without merit, but it does restrict knowledge claims to the phenomenal realm. Consequently, one must forgo comment on objects outside of experience.
But if its outside of experience, how can it possible influence us, not to mention how we should acquire knowledge of its existence. Claiming it is there is just as absurd as claiming it isn't there, since we cannot know it.
BTW thank you for your explanation of the the episdemic and ontological versions of the question http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif . I've given up trying to formulate them, other then that episdemic question revolves about observing (God),and the ontological question about being (God, but also the physical world).
Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Dec. 04 2003,23:39)]Quantummechanics is a discipline, not a single theory, it is comprised of many theories.
For instance without understanding that there was more then one type of meson scientists where confused with the results they where getting trying (unknown) to them at the time to compare two types.
The proponents did not die out they merely had more evidence revealed as they explored the new field.
Nor is quantum mechanics seen as absolutely correct... for instance it is correct within certain boundaries but it does not mesh yet to other theories to form the ToE. We know it is not fully understood yet. Otherwise the quest for the ToE or some other better theory would not be on.
Paradigms definitly have blind spots. That is why we constantly test them. It is fairly easy to see that the theories also do not just die out with the inventors. Newtonian physics lasted much longer then Newton. Relativity is still around after Einstein. Science is not some sort of democratic voting system... however it does have a lot of contamination with politics then a clean slate that some people think of it. Now the politics may cause the flow of money to change, but in the long term the most fit to survive theory will do so on its own merit.
As for fine tuning it they also pound it to see if it stands up. The theories keep getting investigated. Schrodingers equation has a series of paradigims added to it for various phenomena... such as the light emitted under a magnetic field etc.
The theory is accepted as the leading one, does not mean scientists are not hell bent on proving it wrong. Scienctists are not just in a race to be first to 'prove' something but they are also in a race to break 'disprove' someting first... a competition if you will between the theorists and the experimentors.
All right, all right, you obviously know more about physics than I do, I just wanted to point out that the current paradigm (relativity and quantummechanics-theories) isn't the end-stage of science, and that every main theory has its focus and its blind spots. And if people are trying to replace the paradigm with something completily different, then my (and Kuhn's) arguments are incorrect, and this discussion is over.
Ludens
A.Saturnus
12-07-2003, 20:07
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 07 2003,06:05)]The problem is: it's arbitrary. A logical system, to be of value, must have necessity tying the conclusion to any premises. The notion of probability, by the label itself, indicates a possible contrary conclusion. This may assist the scientist in narrowing a field of data, but logic is a theoretical enterprise: clarity cannot be compromised. The criterion of simplicity or beauty were from the Classical Period forward considered aspects of the Divine that is why they received preferrence. Regardless, one could argue the value set is complexity, or the ugly and there is nothing within the framwork to discount this choice. Thus, from a logical perspective, Ockham's blade is of no value.
If Occam´s Razor is arbitrary then the whole stochastic is arbitrary. It has never been my point that it can be logically proven that god does not exist. I´m trying to make a likely assumption about the world.
Do you think airplanes can fly? If you do, why? Do you have a logical proof that shows they have to? Have you considered the ontological situation of airplanes? From a pure ontological point of view, we don´t know if airplanes exist. We don´t know if air exists. We don´t even know if the space they could fly in exists. But according to you, we have to answer all these questions on a logical basis to be able to enter an airplane and fly with it to Ibiza. This is absurd. We only want to know will this phenomenon we call airplane crash or not? The ontological aspect is of no relevance. Any ontological proof that an airplane will fly is useless when I die in the crash because someone forgot to attach the phenomenon of wings to it. We are only interested in the epistemic question. And for this question we must apply probabilistic means. Otherwise we would still live in caves thinking about whether the world exists or not. The same is true for the question of god. To say we must settle the ontic dispute before we work on epistemic issues is an exclusion for only the question of god. It´s an argument of avoidance.
Quote[/b] ]Looking to the epistemic system most often assumed in our own discussion: it is one that finds the force of its conclusions from an empirical source. This is not without merit, but it does restrict knowledge claims to the phenomenal realm. Consequently, one must forgo comment on objects outside of experience.
But why do the theists keep on doing it then?
I guess they would say that it´s not outside of experience. If someone claims that there´s a deity that is outside of experience, he dosn´t have much room for a theological system. It would be like Epikur´s religion: the gods exist but are outside our world and therefore don´t matter to us. As soon as someone claims a divine influence on our world, the divine becomes an object of the phenomonological world and must face scientific tests.
Quote[/b] ]Quote
We had this before. Are we discussing in circles?
Only if you insist on making the same errors.
Now, don´t become intellectual dishonest. You have to show that I´m wrong before you can remember me of my errors.
Quote[/b] ]A. Saturnus is a spider. I don't know if it would be wise for you to fly too close to his webs.
Don´t know if this is an insult or a praise http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Hmmm, seems seems I have generated some response.
Quote[/b] ]According to the Uncertainty Principle we can never measure all the attributes of a system. As such we have to use probability.
This principle is based on an inductive logic. It does not apply to deductive systems.
Quote[/b] ]A system that uses absolutes for all cases does not reflect what we know of nature. Hence a system of thought that requires absolutes is flawed when asking questions of nature as we already know it is insufficient to describe it in all its glory. This would mean another system should be used if a superior one is available. Logic as such that discounts probability as a solution and seeks to look for exact answers is just a first order approximation at best of the true nature of nature.
God's nature is not as an object in nature. So, the true nature of nature is not my concern. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] ]If Logic can't handle the Truth then I suggest it leaves the Court of the Law of Nature to Probability which can go the distance.
The focus of logic is validity not truth.
Quote[/b] ]The problem is: it's arbitrary. A logical system, to be of value, must have necessity tying the conclusion to any premises. The notion of probability, by the label itself, indicates a possible contrary conclusion. This may assist the scientist in narrowing a field of data, but logic is a theoretical enterprise: clarity cannot be ompromised. The criterion of simplicity or beauty were from the Classical Period forward considered aspects of the Divine that is why they received preferrence. Regardless, one could argue the value set is complexity, or the ugly and there is nothing within the framwork to discount this choice. Thus, from a logical perspective, Ockham's blade is of no value.
I can follow that untill regardless, so that I don't see your main point.
AND, of course its arbitrary. Everything that is used to deal with choices in situations were we don't know things for sure is arbitrary. If we new things things for sure, they wouldn't be needed That's the reason why we use it: we don't know for sure wether God exists or not. It doesn't proof anything, it gives an indication.
Sorry, if I confused you. The regardless subclause was meant to simply illustrate that preference for simplicity or complexity is arbitrary and therfore any attendant conclusion is without weight. For example: I could say that pinkness is an aspect of the true and therefore discount all things not pink. This could give me a nice tight value set, but one could still ask, why pink? One could also ask, why simplicity? Neither option contains any necessity.
Regarding the arbitrary: actually not everything is simple guess work. The reason rationality is given the status within Western Thought it has is because the conclusions derrived are are necessary and do lead to new insight. A simple texbook example; If one states the following:
'All men are mortal' and
'Bob is a man' one can conclude
/ Bob is mortal.
The two premises are independant statements. When coupled, a conclusion can be given that is a new statement, derrived from the prior and necessary. This is the case whether such things as men or Bob exist or not.
The above is an example of a deductive pattern of inquiry. Science typically follows an inductive pattern. For example:
'There are ten swans' and
'All the swans are white' so one concludes
/ All swan are white.
The little to big approach can be overturned with one counter example. One might say Ha I saw a black swan in Siam when I was visting. If this fellow were the only one to make the claim, whether he actually saw a black swan or not, may go unheeded, but the sytem is always subject to such attack. Neither of the two methodologies are arbitrary though induction does contain an element of projection.
Quote[/b] ]If Occam´s Razor is arbitrary then the whole stochastic is arbitrary. It has never been my point that it can be logically proven that god does not exist. I´m trying to make a likely assumption about the world.
Is 'stochastic' scholarship? If so, that is not correct.
God is not in the world so you shouldn't be making any assumption.
Quote[/b] ]Do you think airplanes can fly? If you do, why? Do you have a logical proof that shows they have to? Have you considered the ontological situation of airplanes? From a pure ontological point of view, we don´t know if airplanes exist. We don´t know if air exists. We don´t even know if the space they could fly in exists. But according to you, we have to answer all these questions on a logical basis to be able to enter an airplane and fly with it to Ibiza. This is absurd. We only want to know will this phenomenon we call airplane crash or not? The ontological aspect is of no relevance. Any ontological proof that an airplane will fly is useless when I die in the crash because someone forgot to attach the phenomenon of wings to it. We are only interested in the epistemic question. And for this question we must apply probabilistic means. Otherwise we would still live in caves thinking about whether the world exists or not. The same is true for the question of god. To say we must settle the ontic dispute before we work on epistemic issues is an exclusion for only the question of god. It´s an argument of avoidance.
Philosophy is not practical it is theoretical.
Though most within the rational tradition would agree with Kant: sensations without concepts are blind.
Ontology maintains logical priority over all epistemic claims, not just God. That is why Plato introduced his theory of Forms, Kant had his catergories and trandscendental apparatus, and Hegel the dialectic of spirit.
Quote[/b] ]Now, don´t become intellectual dishonest. You have to show that I´m wrong before you can remember me of my errors.
Your error is the catergory mistake of applying an empirical critique to an object not part of the phenomenal realm.
Quote[/b] ]Quote
A. Saturnus is a spider. I don't know if it would be wise for you to fly too close to his webs.
Don´t know if this is an insult or a praise
I guess that depends on how you feel about spiders. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Papewaio
12-07-2003, 23:57
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 08 2003,06:02)]Ontology maintains logical priority over all epistemic claims, not just God. That is why Plato introduced his theory of Forms, Kant had his catergories and trandscendental apparatus, and Hegel the dialectic of spirit.
I must admit I am learning far more then it may appear... even this dogmatic wolf can learn a new trick.
However I am not sure about that last statement. Both what it means and from my interpretation if it is correct.
'Ontology maintains logical priority over all epistemic claims' is this just a case of stating that ones ball game is the best and hence superior to all others.
Sort of like the pride people have in their chosen field being the best. Which makes sense, for if your field of endeavour was not the best (at least for oneself) then why not pursue another field that is the best.
Essentially my question is Ontology making a statement that it is the basis of all other things and hence carries a superiority of some sort. Superiority being that it is to matter what atoms are (the fundamental building blocks) or is the superiority a function of its utility (it gets the 'correct answer' or is it superior because it is the standard of measurement (it goes beyond being the fundamental it is instead the way of measuring something.
----
O.R.C.
Brutal DLX
12-08-2003, 09:41
Quote[/b] ]Empirical findings can never be certain, but theoretical findings can be certain. In spite of what has been said before in this thread and what is widely believed, Occam´s Razor is a theoretical finding and can be proven.
How so? Just because we apply common knowledge in real life we still don't know if it is the best, or most simple solution, it just often works for us.
It is an empirical concept, wrapped into a theoretical cloth. That doesn't make it more right and it certainly isn't provable in this way.
Quote[/b] ]Aren´t physicists physical objects? Aren´t biologists organisms? That psychologists are psychological is no more a problem. Psychology is a natural science that studies a material object and it´s working with an experimental approach. If you have any critical comments on the methodology we psychologists use, I invite you to be more precise.
Yes, because we classify them so. Physicists and biologist don't study their own minds, don't you think? Whatever psychology is, I refute the notion that it can be an exact science, or a natural science in the way biology and physics is and since you study it, I suggest you explain it to me and then ask for more precise criticism.
Quote[/b] ]If we can talk about it in an empirical way, we can also talk about it in a scientific way, because science covers all that is empirical.
That's clearly false. Of course, you could call everything a science, just by saying so, but taking that direction would make a dispute quite pointless.
Quote[/b] ]'Ontology maintains logical priority over all epistemic claims' is this just a case of stating that ones ball game is the best and hence superior to all others.
Sort of like the pride people have in their chosen field being the best. Which makes sense, for if your field of endeavour was not the best (at least for oneself) then why not pursue another field that is the best.
Essentially my question is Ontology making a statement that it is the basis of all other things and hence carries a superiority of some sort. Superiority being that it is to matter what atoms are (the fundamental building blocks) or is the superiority a function of its utility (it gets the 'correct answer' or is it superior because it is the standard of measurement (it goes beyond being the fundamental it is instead the way of measuring something.
Ontology's priority is not based upon a value judgement. It is not a matter of which is better, superior or a career rivalry. Epistemology and ontology are both philosophical catergories that one trained in philosophy should be adept with.
Ontology's priority is a logical one. For example: a simple subject predicate statement,'the cat is fat' (A is B) contains a copula (the 'is' ) that makes an existence claim. Thus, there is an underlying assumption of being that informs the statement. Whether the subject is an actual thing or something fantastic i.e 'the Martian is fat' the format is the same and ontic priority is maintained.
Any epistemology operates under this rubric: there is a knower and a thing known already in operation that precedes any questioning. Ontology therefore is the theoretical bedrock position whereby a coherent rational structuring is to begin. Philosophy (which includes ontology) is not a science, nor does it pretend, like psychology, to be. Rather, it is pre-scientific whose purpose is to lay the theoretical groundwork for science. A simple Modern example would be Heidegger's phenomenological work involving the necessary ties between subject and object and how Heisenberg used it with quantum theory.
A.Saturnus
12-08-2003, 16:00
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 07 2003,22:02)]God is not in the world so you shouldn't be making any assumption.
The only assumption I make is that god is not in the world.
Quote[/b] ]
Ontology maintains logical priority over all epistemic claims, not just God. That is why Plato introduced his theory of Forms, Kant had his catergories and trandscendental apparatus, and Hegel the dialectic of spirit.
If you repeat that argument I can only repeat my answer to it: we´re discussing an empirical question. Ontology has priority, but that doesn´t mean all ontological questions must be settled before we can make rational statements about the world.
Quote[/b] ]Your error is the catergory mistake of applying an empirical critique to an object not part of the phenomenal realm.
No, I´m applying a rational critique. It is not rational to assume a Ding-an-sich that has no phenomenal appearance unless you can present a logical proof for the necessity of it´s existance.
Quote[/b] ]I guess that depends on how you feel about spiders.
Very, very bad http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif
A.Saturnus
12-08-2003, 16:26
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 08 2003,09:41)]How so? Just because we apply common knowledge in real life we still don't know if it is the best, or most simple solution, it just often works for us.
It is an empirical concept, wrapped into a theoretical cloth. That doesn't make it more right and it certainly isn't provable in this way.
I didn´t mean that Occam´s Razor is proven from what I said in this thread before. I have not presented the proof yet. I probably won´t do because it´s very long and contains a lot of formulas. But I can present an explanation of the proof if you wish. It´s in any case a logical proof. It´s a deduction from stochastics.
Quote[/b] ]Physicists and biologist don't study their own minds, don't you think?
I think you didn´t understand my argument. Your argument was of the kind entities of category X can not correctly study category X. I gave a counter-example.
Quote[/b] ]Whatever psychology is, I refute the notion that it can be an exact science, or a natural science in the way biology and physics is and since you study it, I suggest you explain it to me and then ask for more precise criticism.
Psychology isn´t an exact science, that´s true, but it´s a natural science because it studies a natural entity. Psychology works in general this way: psychologists make theories about how the human mind works. We then make predictions about behaviour derived from this theories. Then we design empirical studies (experiments, quasi-experiments, surveys or case-studies) to acquire data. Then we look if the data are in accordance to our predictions. If they are, we accept the theories untill contradicting evidence is found. If not, we drop or adapt our theories. At the moment our theories are mostly on a functional level for example what cognitive processes are required, but more and more theories have a link to the neurological implementation of these processes into the architacture of the brain.
Quote[/b] ]That's clearly false. Of course, you could call everything a science, just by saying so, but taking that direction would make a dispute quite pointless.
What is clearly false? That science covers all the empirical realm? Science is the quest to gain systematic knowledge about the world. If something has an influence on the world, it´s a natural subject to this quest. If we don´t try to incorporate it into our explanation of the world, our understanding will remain incomplete. To say it with Galileo Galilei: Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not measurable.
Papewaio
12-08-2003, 23:49
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 08 2003,18:29)]Ontology therefore is the theoretical bedrock position whereby a coherent rational structuring is to begin. Philosophy (which includes ontology) is not a science, nor does it pretend, like psychology, to be. Rather, it is pre-scientific whose purpose is to lay the theoretical groundwork for science. A simple Modern example would be Heidegger's phenomenological work involving the necessary ties between subject and object and how Heisenberg used it with quantum theory.
Thankyou Pindar, I am learning... just not agreeing all the way.
Logic being part of the groundwork does not make it the best instrument automatically to be used in the measurement of something.
From my point of view it is the ability of a theory to model nature that makes it viable. If logic can only deal within a very explicit set of absolutes it cannot then deal with things such as probables. As nature is not a system of absolutes it then means logic is not the tool to use in measuring.
Logic is merely the stone used to knap the stone axe. It is not the axe that is used to make the cut.
Science determines if something in the data makes sense. It may use the tools of logic, probability, calculus, trigonmetry, geometry on a plane, on a 3D surface, geometry in 4D etc.
If the only tool available is a hammer all problems become nails.
Science is the study of nature. Using science the data does not prove God. The Theory of God is not proven, as their is no data to uphold it. To hold onto something that you can not prove that is then the realm of the pedantic not the pragmatic.
Brutal DLX
12-09-2003, 11:40
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Dec. 08 2003,15:26)]
Quote[/b] ]I didn´t mean that Occam´s Razor is proven from what I said in this thread before. I have not presented the proof yet. I probably won´t do because it´s very long and contains a lot of formulas. But I can present an explanation of the proof if you wish. It´s in any case a logical proof. It´s a deduction from stochastics.
But you are aware that stochastics is based upon the assumption that you can repeat the same event under the same circumstances ad infinitum? As such using stochastics to prove anything that requires an exact result is a bit risky. You therefore could prove the viability of the razor in theory but not the necessity to use it in practice on the problem at hand.
Quote[/b] ]I think you didn´t understand my argument. Your argument was of the kind entities of category X can not correctly study category X. I gave a counter-example.
(....)
Hmm, just what I was going to say. In my opinion you didn't give a counter-example. I was referring to studying one specific thing, not a category, and in that case you would have to, for example, tell me about a rock analysing its own physical properties, or an organ understanding its functioning by itself. Because that is what you do in psychology as you explained. You are using your mind to study the workings of itself. It cannot deliver exact results, not do I consider the mind to be part of nature, we can say that thought processes seem to be related to neurological activity in the brain, but how much further can you go? All claims or findings being made rest on a very unstable foundation, as we don't have the means to analyse ourselves from the outside. That is true to some point for natural sciences as well, but at least in them we are aware of this and set limits as well as exception to work in. In psychology, it would be hard to define limits and carry on the research, thanks to the elusive definition of what thinking or mind really is.
Quote[/b] ]What is clearly false? That science covers all the empirical realm? Science is the quest to gain systematic knowledge about the world. If something has an influence on the world, it´s a natural subject to this quest. If we don´t try to incorporate it into our explanation of the world, our understanding will remain incomplete. To say it with Galileo Galilei: Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not measurable.
Indeed, that is false. There are experiences and phenomena that exist, but can't be covered by science because they are not describable and resist to logical analysis. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, but nowadays we apply that in a more strict fashion, as you said about the world, to which I want to add about the world we can perceive with our senses. But the world doesn't end there, only science does, as going outside those limits forces us to leave the current scientific approach behind and start making assumptions (or beliefs, if you will), that are not logically provable anymore. Perhaps one day we will have the means to measure even that, but for now, I think Galileo wouldn't like to be quoted in regard to our problem.
This leads us full circle back to the original question and I don't want to do another spin. You can have your own opinion, and other can have a different one, but neither one can be proven by some sort of science or rational thought, neither theory is more simple or appropriate, neither one is more logical than the other, we just pick the one that is most convenient for us to accept, and I honestly don't know how you could possibly deny that.
A.Saturnus
12-09-2003, 19:49
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 09 2003,11:40)]But you are aware that stochastics is based upon the assumption that you can repeat the same event under the same circumstances ad infinitum? As such using stochastics to prove anything that requires an exact result is a bit risky. You therefore could prove the viability of the razor in theory but not the necessity to use it in practice on the problem at hand.
That´s not quite right. The assumption of repeatability is only necessary when you want to generalize. It´s of more importance in statistics than pure stochastic. The only assumption required is that if we know nothing of two possibilities, we best grant them an equal probability.
Quote[/b] ]Hmm, just what I was going to say. In my opinion you didn't give a counter-example. I was referring to studying one specific thing, not a category, and in that case you would have to, for example, tell me about a rock analysing its own physical properties, or an organ understanding its functioning by itself. Because that is what you do in psychology as you explained. You are using your mind to study the workings of itself. It cannot deliver exact results, not do I consider the mind to be part of nature, we can say that thought processes seem to be related to neurological activity in the brain, but how much further can you go? All claims or findings being made rest on a very unstable foundation, as we don't have the means to analyse ourselves from the outside. That is true to some point for natural sciences as well, but at least in them we are aware of this and set limits as well as exception to work in. In psychology, it would be hard to define limits and carry on the research, thanks to the elusive definition of what thinking or mind really is.
It´s very unlikely that a psychologists studies his own mind directly, so it´s clearly about a category: human minds in general. If a physical object can study another physical object of the same type, why shouldn´t a mind be able to study another mind? Also, a stone clearly were able to study the physical properties of other stones or even itself if it had any cognitive means to do so. Remember that we have it to do with empirical data. Behaviour is measurable and if our theories of the mind make any predictions of behaviour, we can compare them with evidence. I just fail to see how the problem you describe can effect our results. I just finished an article about experimental research concerning memory. The experiment was so well thought out that I simply cannot believe that the interpretations are some much distorted of me being of the same species as the subjects. I don´t think aliens or intelligent robots or god could came to different conclusions. Your critique is simply to vague.
Our though processes are not only related to neurological activity, this activity is the cause of the thoughts, just like programs on my PC are caused by the electronical circuits. Mind is to brain like software is to hardware. Or like walking to legs like some philosopher once said. You can of course reject these statements and not few people do so, however, it means to deny a flood of empirical evidence.
Quote[/b] ]Indeed, that is false. There are experiences and phenomena that exist, but can't be covered by science because they are not describable and resist to logical analysis. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, but nowadays we apply that in a more strict fashion, as you said about the world, to which I want to add about the world we can perceive with our senses. But the world doesn't end there, only science does, as going outside those limits forces us to leave the current scientific approach behind and start making assumptions (or beliefs, if you will), that are not logically provable anymore.
Could you help me and point out one of these things that are clearly in the world but are outside those limits? They just have somehow eluded my memory, I think http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Of course their are things that cannot be perceived with our senses. Like atoms. That´s why we have scientific ways to measure them. If there are things that cannot be perceived and cannot be made perceivable with scientific methods, how do we know they exist? Belief starts were we simply postulate their existence without any evidence.
Quote[/b] ]
This leads us full circle back to the original question and I don't want to do another spin. You can have your own opinion, and other can have a different one, but neither one can be proven by some sort of science or rational thought, neither theory is more simple or appropriate, neither one is more logical than the other, we just pick the one that is most convenient for us to accept, and I honestly don't know how you could possibly deny that.
I deny it because it´s the type of anything-goes relativistic BS that disgusts me of contemporary philosophy (no offence intended). I don´t pick my theory on convienince, but on rational arguments. It is of course possible that the rationale is flawed, maybe my argumentations contains an invalid step, but unless anyone points out this invalidity, I´ll call my position the more rational one.
Teutonic Knight
12-10-2003, 00:11
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 07 2003,02:15)]
Quote[/b] ]This has been most entertaining. So, does the debate end here or shall we introduce something provocative?
A. Saturnus is a spider. I don't know if it would be wise for you to fly too close to his webs.
oh, I don't have nearly the amount of book knowledge of philosophy to even begin to involve myself in a philosophical-theological discussion with the likes of you and Saturnus. I think it's very interesting and entertaining to read your arguments http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif
Papewaio
12-10-2003, 00:16
What is the difference between a group of men in a beer garden and a group of philosophers at work?
The beer.
Teutonic Knight
12-10-2003, 03:55
Quote[/b] (Papewaio @ Dec. 09 2003,18:16)]What is the difference between a group of men in a beer garden and a group of philosophers at work?
The beer.
I had suspected it was little more than an extended vocabulary that makes them seem like they're speaking in tongues... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
A.Saturnus
12-10-2003, 18:11
Quote[/b] ]oh, I don't have nearly the amount of book knowledge of philosophy to even begin to involve myself in a philosophical-theological discussion with the likes of you and Saturnus. I think it's very interesting and entertaining to read your arguments
My book knowledge of philosophy isn´t as big as you might think. The number of books I read about philosophy isn´t that high. It´s just that I like to engage in philosophical debates and look up terminology I don´t understand (note: you need a philosophical wordbook for this, the explanations in normal dictionaries can be misleading). Pindar, on the other hand seems to have an educational background for philosophy.
In any case, what´s important is that you cannot understand philosophy only from books. You can read thousands of books about philosophy and still remain ignorant or you can be an illiterate philosopher. Philosophy is a matter of thinking, not reading. Any thoughtfull comment will be highly appreciated, no matter if it lacks the common terminology. And remember that questions can often be wiser than answers.
Pindar,
At this point, I think there are 3 unresolved issues in this discussion, so I'm going to sumarize them in order to sort this out (yes, I think we might be able to answer one of the greatest questions of our age http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif ). I have underlined the main points of my arguments.
1: Ontology versus epistemology
Quote[/b] ]Ontology's priority is a logical one. For example: a simple subject predicate statement,'the cat is fat' (A is B) contains a copula (the 'is' ) that makes an existence claim. Thus, there is an underlying assumption of being that informs the statement. Whether the subject is an actual thing or something fantastic i.e 'the Martian is fat' the format is the same and ontic priority is maintained.
Any epistemology operates under this rubric: there is a knower and a thing known already in operation that precedes any questioning. Ontology therefore is the theoretical bedrock position whereby a coherent rational structuring is to begin.
You are right that, logically, one should first establish the being of anything (not just God), before one starts to discuss it. But this problem is unsolved, and unlikely to be solved here and now, so the pragmatical approach would be to just assume that there is something. With that approach we can reach something, even if it is only conditionally (and nobody here claimed that anything definive could be said about our subject). This is also the approach with which one leads ones life http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif . If we can't ascertain the being of 'anything', why should that stop us from trying to find other things out? Or at least, the probability of those other things.
All in all, your argument is a theoretical one, which won't lead this discussion anywere. So I don't see why we should work out a system of being, before we ask ourselves any other questions.
2. Occam's Razor (my personal favourite)
Quote[/b] ]preference for simplicity or complexity is arbitrary and therefore any attendant conclusion is without weight. For example: I could say that pinkness is an aspect of the true and therefore discount all things not pink. This could give me a nice tight value set, but one could still ask, why pink? One could also ask, why simplicity? Neither option contains any necessity.
Quite so, but we aren't talking about thruth. We are talking about probability. And simplicity is an indicator of the probability of an explanation. If you disagree with that, why? I suppose one could even prove that with some complex mathematics (A.Saturnus).
3. The location of God (feel free to correct my terminology http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif )
Quote[/b] ]God is not in the world so you shouldn't be making any assumption.
I beg your pardon? Were is God? If He influences this world we should be able to find Him (if we don't find him we can discount him, assuming you accept Occam's razor). But if you say that God isn't in this world, then where is he?
Again, we are not talking certainity, because the atheist cannot prove the unexistence of God, but were talking probability. If we don't need God to explain this world, why should we assume he is here? To summarize the atheist position: there is no reason why we should believe in God. Thus: why should we?
Teutonic Knight
12-10-2003, 23:00
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Dec. 10 2003,12:11)]
Quote[/b] ]oh, I don't have nearly the amount of book knowledge of philosophy to even begin to involve myself in a philosophical-theological discussion with the likes of you and Saturnus. I think it's very interesting and entertaining to read your arguments
My book knowledge of philosophy isn´t as big as you might think. The number of books I read about philosophy isn´t that high. It´s just that I like to engage in philosophical debates and look up terminology I don´t understand (note: you need a philosophical wordbook for this, the explanations in normal dictionaries can be misleading). Pindar, on the other hand seems to have an educational background for philosophy.
In any case, what´s important is that you cannot understand philosophy only from books. You can read thousands of books about philosophy and still remain ignorant or you can be an illiterate philosopher. Philosophy is a matter of thinking, not reading. Any thoughtfull comment will be highly appreciated, no matter if it lacks the common terminology. And remember that questions can often be wiser than answers.
I thought as much...
Well I read and I learn to think and it is fun for me. In high school I am studying the writings of all the golden age Graeco-Roman Philosophers now so I've no background in modern philosophy...
Brutal DLX
12-11-2003, 11:36
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Dec. 09 2003,18:49)]
Quote[/b] ]That´s not quite right. The assumption of repeatability is only necessary when you want to generalize. It´s of more importance in statistics than pure stochastic. The only assumption required is that if we know nothing of two possibilities, we best grant them an equal probability.
And in this case we want to apply the theory to real world effects to make any statements about our empirical findings, and in this case you need statistics rather than pure stochastics. By definition such real world effects are not truly repeatable. Besides, you don't know whether god exists or not, the absence of data is no proof, as measurements could that exist that aren't used today. Therefore, by your own admission you would have to give equal probability to all possible answers.
Quote[/b] ]It´s very unlikely that a psychologists studies his own mind directly, so it´s clearly about a category: human minds in general. If a physical object can study another physical object of the same type, why shouldn´t a mind be able to study another mind? Also, a stone clearly were able to study the physical properties of other stones or even itself if it had any cognitive means to do so. Remember that we have it to do with empirical data. Behaviour is measurable and if our theories of the mind make any predictions of behaviour, we can compare them with evidence. I just fail to see how the problem you describe can effect our results. I just finished an article about experimental research concerning memory. The experiment was so well thought out that I simply cannot believe that the interpretations are some much distorted of me being of the same species as the subjects. I don´t think aliens or intelligent robots or god could came to different conclusions. Your critique is simply to vague.
Our though processes are not only related to neurological activity, this activity is the cause of the thoughts, just like programs on my PC are caused by the electronical circuits. Mind is to brain like software is to hardware. Or like walking to legs like some philosopher once said. You can of course reject these statements and not few people do so, however, it means to deny a flood of empirical evidence.
I'm sorry if it is too vague, but that is in the nature of the subject. Human minds are not alike, they define themselves and unless you are a mind reader you will never know what is going on in another person's mind at any time.
The human minds are a category, but as soon as you study one, you focus on a single object then, wouldn't you agree?
A physical object can't study itself, at least I and many others have never perceived that, it's the human mind of the experimentator that studies its physical environment. At least that is how we look at the world. There are a number of theories, mathematicians who developed systems to incorporate more than just the 4 dimensions we know about, there is one who adds at least 2 more dimensions who are used for information storage and interchange processes, but these are all not proven to be right. It's basically toying around, but that's not to say it is wrong
Behaviour is recognisable, I agree with you, and that you can make certain theories about behaviour and draw conclusions about some aspects of how the mind works. But a human mind isn't definable by behaviour alone, there are thoughts you cannot study no matter how smart the experiments are outlined, if the thoughts aren't expressed, or not even clear to the person thinking it, how can you study them? How can you be sure you can observed neutrally when you use your own mind for the analysis, unless you trust it to be right. And trust, is it measurable? A mind can study facets of another mind, but the results you get are vague indeed and may not apply if you want to generalise to the whole category of human minds, which you'll want to do in order for your newly-found theories to work.
You stated yourself that you can't believe the interpretations could be distorted. That doesn't sound very scientific or rational, does it? Once again, the point is, we cannot be sure about our own mind, how can we then make observations about another and be sure of our findings and perceptions to be exact?
And concerning the software-hardware. In fact, I do reject it. But it's my choice, I admit there is no final answer on this as of right now. So I'm rather inclined to think the activity in the brain is induced by the mind. If the brain is damaged, it can't properly relay the mind's will to the physical world anymore nor does it get full feedback from the world. If a person dies, or the brain stops functioning, do we have a way to measure if this person's mind is still in existence but can't manifest itself in the physical body anymore?
Quote[/b] ]Could you help me and point out one of these things that are clearly in the world but are outside those limits? They just have somehow eluded my memory, I think
Of course their are things that cannot be perceived with our senses. Like atoms. That´s why we have scientific ways to measure them. If there are things that cannot be perceived and cannot be made perceivable with scientific methods, how do we know they exist? Belief starts were we simply postulate their existence without any evidence.
I could, and I will. But I'm sure you can do a websearch and come up with at least a few sites that aren't total BS
and do infact come forth with strange phenomena that aren't explainable within the the limit set by definition and currently existing natural laws. You could browse this site, although it only contains a reference.
(German) (http://www.personalinnergy.de/unerkl.htm)
There was also a famous experiment of some sorts being conducted with a sort of apes in natural environment that learned how to wash a batate in salt water to increase the taste, and like a quantum leap, other ape colonies in different locations started doing that without any contact between them. I believe it is mentioned in one of Sheldrake's works, I'll have to look it up and state it more precisely. It was, however, the first to come to my mind at this time.
We know such things exist because they cause measurable changes that we perceive with our senses or the tools we construct to augment them, but they themselves aren't measurable with our currently available technology and scientifical approach. Hence the talk about limits.
Beliefs are indeed postulations, they may have no evidence to show to a non-believer, but they are based on experience or on singular or multiple events. They just don't pop up because you or I say so. That's not called a belief, but a statement.
If it weren't for beliefs, we wouldn't be where we are right now, beliefs are one step below knowing, and over the course of history we often went from beliefs to factual knowledge, and even gained some knowlegde when beliefs were disproven. So I wouldn't look down on them.
Quote[/b] ]I deny it because it´s the type of anything-goes relativistic BS that disgusts me of contemporary philosophy (no offence intended). I don´t pick my theory on convienince, but on rational arguments. It is of course possible that the rationale is flawed, maybe my argumentations contains an invalid step, but unless anyone points out this invalidity, I´ll call my position the more rational one.
Fair enough, but offense taken. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Flawed rationale sounds pretty much like BS to me, I'd rather leave my options open and never be too certain about anything if there are other possibilities that can't be ruled out. I think I raised a few points you should consider in your argumentation, you can discard them or ignore them, it's all good, Sat. I'll let you have your opinion if you grant me mine. And alas, we agree to disagree like so many people do. There I put that in relation again, eerie http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] ]The only assumption I make is that god is not in the world.
Good If this is your view, then I assume you won't be making any catergorical statements about the being of a transcendent existence in the world any longer.
Quote[/b] ]If you repeat that argument I can only repeat my answer to it: we´re discussing an empirical question. Ontology has priority, but that doesn´t mean all ontological questions must be settled before we can make rational statements about the world.
Actually, we're not discussing an empirical question. Deity is not an empirical question. Save for pantheist, no one argues that God is residing in Ohio or has a P.O box number (for the pantheist, God would be both Ohio and the P.O box). The traditional conception of Deity places the creator as prior to and distinct from the creation. An empirical approach will neither yield God nor allow for a dismissal. The question of God is an ontic question simplicitus.
Quote[/b] ]No, I´m applying a rational critique. It is not rational to assume a Ding-an-sich that has no phenomenal appearance unless you can present a logical proof for the necessity of it´s existance.
Deity is not considered a phenomenal object in the world. Recall, the Ding-an-sich is the conceptual grounding for phenomenal objects i.e. a flower. If the object is not something in the world, this grounding is not required.
If there is a localized Divine manifestation, a being, say the traditional notion of the ressurected Christ standing before His stunned Apostles or Krishna appearing to Prince Arjuna in his chariot, then the requirement for a something beyond the phenomena itself is necessary to maintain the otherness of the experience. Abscent such apparitions, a Thing-in-itself appeal is not needed.
Quote[/b] ]unless you can present a logical proof for the necessity of it´s existance.
This is a proper ontological question, (or a proper ontological fragment given the way I posted it).
Quote[/b] ]Logic being part of the groundwork does not make it the best instrument automatically to be used in the measurement of something.
I agree. However, a system (as long as it is not tautological) that is making a rational appeal is beholden to logic.
Quote[/b] ]From my point of view it is the ability of a theory to model nature that makes it viable. If logic can only deal within a very explicit set of absolutes it cannot then deal with things such as probables. As nature is not a system of absolutes it then means logic is not the tool to use in measuring.
The standard methodology of science is induction. Induction is a logical system which includes probability as part of any conclusion. This is perfectly appropriate for the study of the material world. The caveat is that such methodology does not allow for definative claims. There is always the possibility for a standard to be overturned.
Even so, I agree with your basic notion: the method of investigation and area or object of study must match. Not all objects can be approached with a single methodology.
This is, in point of fact, my argument: a scientific schema is not the appropirate field through which to approach the question of God given that Deity is not an object in nature.
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 11 2003,11:36)]There was also a famous experiment of some sorts being conducted with a sort of apes in natural environment that learned how to wash a batate in salt water to increase the taste, and like a quantum leap, other ape colonies in different locations started doing that without any contact between them. I believe it is mentioned in one of Sheldrake's works, I'll have to look it up and state it more precisely. It was, however, the first to come to my mind at this time.
Oh my God, your not talking about the myth of the one-hundreth monkey, are you?
I must assume you are, since the simularities are striking. OK, here's what hapened:
In the book Lifetide (1979) the biologist and author Lyall Watson wrote a story about how all the kolonies of a certain species of monkey (I don't know the English name for this particular species) around the island Koshima suddenly took over the habit of washing sweet potatoes. This happened after the hundreth monkey in the kolony ON the island Koshima had learned this trick. It was a sort of Paranormal knowledge explosion. This incident was made famous by The Hundreth Monkey (1982) of Ken Keyes. The story was based on a scientiffical study.
A certain Ron Amundson went to check this story in 1985, and found out it was nonsense. In the first place: the monkeycolony on Koshima consisted only of 30 to 50 monkeys, and the study showed gradually increasing numbers of washing-apes. On the other islands, this was only incidentally seen, and that could very well have been monkeys from Koshima, since this species swims very well.
When confronted with these facts, Watson didn't change his opinion: the story was ment as a metaphor for the New-Age idea of a kritical level for an insight (his example: protest against nuclear weapons). If this haden't happened on Koshima, it had happened somewere else. Anyway, he had the story from the head researcher (who denied that).
Sheldrakes famous example is the behavior of birds to pick open milkbottles, which suddenly spread over the world. Sheldrake explained this because of some wave-system. An alternative explanation might be that there was a trend among birdwatchers worldwide to not only not natural behavoir, but also how the birds adapted to humans.
This both are examples of people explaining things with their own set of ideas, without even bothering to look for other explanations. This is wat is called pseudo-science.
(A practical way of recognizing it is when Quantum is mentioned without any direct link with physics. Quantum is a trendy word, it is as if when you say Quantum, you can get away with the weirdest ideas.
This kind of thing makes me lose faith in my fellow man http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/frown.gif .)
Back to what you said: a lot of miracles (perhaps not all, but a lot) are actually cases were no one took the trouble of finding a logical explanation. It HAD to be a miracle.
If some rabid scientist (like myself) would try to find another explanation, he would be accused of spoiling the magic, and threatening god (A god). It wouldn't be a miracle anymore if he found one.
You might accuse scientist of trying to explain everything by our own rules (science), and you would be right. But the same can be said about a lot of miracle makers. But the difference between them and scientist, is that a scientist can revise his explanation. This does not happen as often as it should, but it does. A miracle maker doesn't do this however. Because they have A god on their side.
Ludens,
I'll respond to your three points.
1)Ontology vs. Epistemology
Quote[/b] ] logically, one should first establish the being of anything (not just God), before one starts to discuss it. But this problem is unsolved, and unlikely to be solved here and now, so the pragmatical approach would be to just assume that there is something. With that approach we can reach something, even if it is only conditionally (and nobody here claimed that anything definive could be said about our subject). This is also the approach with which one leads ones life . If we can't ascertain the being of 'anything', why should that stop us from trying to find other things out? Or at least, the probability of those other things.
I do not have a problem with assuming a thing in order to work out a thought experiment. The difficulty is in trying to apply a scientific standard to a thing that is not ameanable to science. First and formost, there is no datum. God is not in the world. One cannot study what what isn't present.
Quote[/b] ]All in all, your argument is a theoretical one, which won't lead this discussion anywere. So I don't see why we should work out a system of being, before we ask ourselves any other questions.
You are correct, I am arguing from a theoretical standard. I disagree that an appeal to logic cannot lead the discussion to a proper conclusion.
2)Ockahm's razor
Quote[/b] ]Quite so, but we aren't talking about thruth. We are talking about probability. And simplicity is an indicator of the probability of an explanation. If you disagree with that, why? I suppose one could even prove that with some complex mathematics (A.Saturnus).
Probability is only useful when using induction. One cannot use induction when there is no formal object to induce from.
Simplicity is a standard derrived from a Medieval Cosmology. In and of itself, it has no necessity.
3)Location of God
Quote[/b] ]I beg your pardon?
You are pardoned.;)
Quote[/b] ]Were is God? If He influences this world we should be able to find Him (if we don't find him we can discount him, assuming you accept Occam's razor). But if you say that God isn't in this world, then where is he?
The acitivity of God is a separate question. A Deist would be quite comfortable in saying God does not influence the world.
Location: a traditional notion of Deity sees God as transcendent. That means outside of space, time, and the temporal arena.
Quote[/b] ]Again, we are not talking certainity, because the atheist cannot prove the unexistence of God, but were talking probability. If we don't need God to explain this world, why should we assume he is here? To summarize the atheist position: there is no reason why we should believe in God. Thus: why should we?
I am uninterested in one's assumptions. I am also uninterested in personal beliefs, or there lack. My position has been consistant from when I entered the fray: one cannot apply a scientific methodology to the notion of an Absolute. It is a catergory mistake.
A.Saturnus
12-11-2003, 22:55
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 11 2003,11:36)]And in this case we want to apply the theory to real world effects to make any statements about our empirical findings, and in this case you need statistics rather than pure stochastics. By definition such real world effects are not truly repeatable. Besides, you don't know whether god exists or not, the absence of data is no proof, as measurements could that exist that aren't used today. Therefore, by your own admission you would have to give equal probability to all possible answers.
No I don´t. I will explain why as soon as I have enough time.
Quote[/b] ]
I'm sorry if it is too vague, but that is in the nature of the subject. Human minds are not alike, they define themselves and unless you are a mind reader you will never know what is going on in another person's mind at any time.
The human minds are a category, but as soon as you study one, you focus on a single object then, wouldn't you agree?
A physical object can't study itself, at least I and many others have never perceived that, it's the human mind of the experimentator that studies its physical environment. At least that is how we look at the world. There are a number of theories, mathematicians who developed systems to incorporate more than just the 4 dimensions we know about, there is one who adds at least 2 more dimensions who are used for information storage and interchange processes, but these are all not proven to be right. It's basically toying around, but that's not to say it is wrong
As I said, a psychologist doesn´t study his own mind (with exceptions). We study mainly the universal properties of the category mind. Biologists are usually also not interested in the conditions of one drosophila. Often they aren´t even interested in the species, but findings of one species are under restrictions generalizable to related species.
Quote[/b] ]Behaviour is recognisable, I agree with you, and that you can make certain theories about behaviour and draw conclusions about some aspects of how the mind works. But a human mind isn't definable by behaviour alone, there are thoughts you cannot study no matter how smart the experiments are outlined, if the thoughts aren't expressed, or not even clear to the person thinking it, how can you study them? How can you be sure you can observed neutrally when you use your own mind for the analysis, unless you trust it to be right. And trust, is it measurable? A mind can study facets of another mind, but the results you get are vague indeed and may not apply if you want to generalise to the whole category of human minds, which you'll want to do in order for your newly-found theories to work.
True, thought cannot be observed. That´s a problem for psychologists. But quarks cannot be observed either. We can study them by the interference they have with other objects. The same counts for thoughts. In cognitive psychology, we can access thoughts by comparing input and output. The data-processing steps required to get the output are thoughts. The question of generalizability can be addressed by statistics.
Quote[/b] ]You stated yourself that you can't believe the interpretations could be distorted. That doesn't sound very scientific or rational, does it? Once again, the point is, we cannot be sure about our own mind, how can we then make observations about another and be sure of our findings and perceptions to be exact?
I didn´t expect that all my sentences are tested on their scientific validity. All I meant was that the interpretations of these experiments is as obvious as those of physical experiments. All scientific findings can be hallucinations, not just those of psychos (short for psychologist).
Quote[/b] ]And concerning the software-hardware. In fact, I do reject it. But it's my choice, I admit there is no final answer on this as of right now. So I'm rather inclined to think the activity in the brain is induced by the mind. If the brain is damaged, it can't properly relay the mind's will to the physical world anymore nor does it get full feedback from the world. If a person dies, or the brain stops functioning, do we have a way to measure if this person's mind is still in existence but can't manifest itself in the physical body anymore?
You can of course believe what you want. Some believe the earth is 6000 years old, others still think it´s flat, dualism isn´t more absurd than that. But of course your believe is not an argument against my position.
Damages to the brain do not only impare the relay of the mind´s will, they affect the mind itself. Some injuries can make it difficult or impossible for you to think certain things.
If you turn your PC off, exist the programs forth at some other place?
Quote[/b] ]I could, and I will. But I'm sure you can do a websearch and come up with at least a few sites that aren't total BS
and do infact come forth with strange phenomena that aren't explainable within the the limit set by definition and currently existing natural laws. You could browse this site, although it only contains a reference.
I think Ludens has handled that already very well. Esoterics and charlatans like Sheldrake are really no reason to restrict science. The link you gave shows well how those phenomenons come to work. I grant that they honestly tried to test alternative healing practics scientifically, but the methodology of these tests was obviously very poor. There wasn´t even a control condition mentioned. They also assumed placebo effects couldn´t account for healing of animals, which is wrong. Animals can be influenced by placebos. Most likely, the whole effect they found disappears when you control for regression to the mean.
I don´t want to say that there aren´t phenomenons that cannot be explained satisfyingly at the moment. Psychology is full of those things, but that doesn´t mean they are outside the reach of science. We examine them and try to explain them. The tests of these explanations will make scientifical progress. These phenomenons aren´t the restrictions of science, they are it´s purpose.
Quote[/b] ]Fair enough, but offense taken. Flawed rationale sounds pretty much like BS to me, I'd rather leave my options open and never be too certain about anything if there are other possibilities that can't be ruled out. I think I raised a few points you should consider in your argumentation, you can discard them or ignore them, it's all good, Sat. I'll let you have your opinion if you grant me mine. And alas, we agree to disagree like so many people do. There I put that in relation again, eerie
I´m sorry if my expression in the last post was to strong. It was aimed at the idea, not at you.
I didn´t say I´m certain, but I make a choice in uncertainty. You did indeed raise some points that have to be considered. Otherwise I wouldn´t type this. I need my thoughts to be challenged.
I´ll of course let you have your opinion, I just point out that it´s false http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Papewaio
12-11-2003, 23:19
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 12 2003,05:52)]The acitivity of God is a separate question. A Deist would be quite comfortable in saying God does not influence the world.
Location: a traditional notion of Deity sees God as transcendent. That means outside of space, time, and the temporal arena.
Okay what is the difference between a God who is continously transcendent and no God?
Quote[/b] ]Okay what is the difference between a God who is continously transcendent and no God?
This question is separate from the one being discussed.
Even so, the answer depends on the metaphysic. A traditional answer would be that God acts as first cause and the source for being.
Papewaio
12-12-2003, 00:16
I think the answer to this question brings us closer to resolving the current question on the table.
Also if the answer depends on the metaphysic, surely I can wear the hat of a metaphysics and state There is no difference. God does not exist in nature, he effects no phenomena, his ways cannot be measured, so he might as well not exist for the net effect he doe.
Brutal DLX
12-12-2003, 12:02
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Dec. 11 2003,21:55)]
Quote[/b] ]As I said, a psychologist doesn´t study his own mind (with exceptions). We study mainly the universal properties of the category mind. Biologists are usually also not interested in the conditions of one drosophila. Often they aren´t even interested in the species, but findings of one species are under restrictions generalizable to related species.
I think you didn't get my point.
Quote[/b] ]True, thought cannot be observed. That´s a problem for psychologists. But quarks cannot be observed either. We can study them by the interference they have with other objects. The same counts for thoughts. In cognitive psychology, we can access thoughts by comparing input and output. The data-processing steps required to get the output are thoughts. The question of generalizability can be addressed by statistics.
Once again, in physics we have devices that can actually measure and allow for the calculation of the mass of a quark, which themselves are found in groups, not individually, held together by gluons. That is very different from the input output approach you describe.
You have a way to to register cause and effect as you stated, but you cannot measure the intermittant process we call thought. Furthermore, not all thoughts are alike, so I don't really see the point of how you want to generalise these findings with statistics, given there is an infintie number of thoughts which, even if managed to categorize, would surely exceed the cabability to be understood by us. There are also thoughts that don't produce an distinct output and thus don't allow you any kind of comparison or deduction that will get your to any revealing statement.
Quote[/b] ]I didn´t expect that all my sentences are tested on their scientific validity. All I meant was that the interpretations of these experiments is as obvious as those of physical experiments. All scientific findings can be hallucinations, not just those of psychos (short for psychologist).
Normally, they won't be tested. I just used this as an example since we are talking about what produced those sentences in the first place, your mind, and minds in general. Yes, all findings can be flawed because of our perception, but at least in natural sciences we acknowledge this by constructing our own fourdimensional reality and giving starting conditions as well a define limits in which what we found is repeatable and true. Same approach is much harder, if not impossible, for a science that studies the workings of the mind, that is all I'm saying. I just miss this statement when any findings are reported. One has to acknowledge it to oneself, as well as to the people who are not familiar with this science. That is not done, and therefore many ordinary people believe it to be sacrosanct.
Quote[/b] ]You can of course believe what you want. Some believe the earth is 6000 years old, others still think it´s flat, dualism isn´t more absurd than that. But of course your believe is not an argument against my position.
Damages to the brain do not only impare the relay of the mind´s will, they affect the mind itself. Some injuries can make it difficult or impossible for you to think certain things.
If you turn your PC off, exist the programs forth at some other place?
So can you, you can believe it, but you do not know it for certain. My belief is not an argument against your belief, but is an alternative to yours, which you cannot disprove as of right now.
The mind as I see it, isn't just the sum of thoughts, it is also the whole awareness or the consciousness of being. If the brain is damaged, it can effect the way thoughts are relayed, so that it could appear to an outsider that one is incapable of thinking certain things, because the person you were asking cannot articulate that thought anymore, however, you do not know whether the brain is responsible for generating thoughts or just responding and resonating to the thought.
And yes, programs cease to exist in the RAM, but they are still there on your data storage of choice and can be run again once you turn the PC on. That's not to say I buy your analogy between mind and brain and software and hardware of a PC. And remember, there is no spoon, Mr. Anderson. lol
About the examples, I will address Ludens seperately, but I don't have the time either to conduct a full study on this. And I dind't choose my examples with care, out of the same reasoning, which is condemnable in sucha discussion, really.
Furthermore, calling Sheldrake a charlatan just because of new theories is doing him injustice, and it is exactly that kind of intolerant approach and dogmatic attitude that science once had to face in form of the restrictive church at the end of the middle ages. I didn't think it would become a placeholder now.
These phenomena aren't explainable by science right now, I never stated they would never be. In fact, I would prefer it, and I'm glad that effort is made, and the limits of science be expanded if necessary. I just warn of premature conclusions, or complete dismissals as in the question about the existence of god.
Quote[/b] ]I´m sorry if my expression in the last post was to strong. It was aimed at the idea, not at you.
I didn´t say I´m certain, but I make a choice in uncertainty. You did indeed raise some points that have to be considered. Otherwise I wouldn´t type this. I need my thoughts to be challenged.
I´ll of course let you have your opinion, I just point out that it´s false http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I know it wasn't aimed at me, I can read. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif I just took offense on behalf philosophy because of a perceived injustice in your statement. And since you state you are making a choice in uncertainty, I can live pretty well with that and actually am content with that, as that's what I do as well.
And for the record, you just thought you pointed out my opinion is false, but it is forgivable, given the uncertainty of the matter at hand. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]I think the answer to this question brings us closer to resolving the current question on the table.
Also if the answer depends on the metaphysic, surely I can wear the hat of a metaphysics and state There is no difference. God does not exist in nature, he effects no phenomena, his ways cannot be measured, so he might as well not exist for the net effect he doe.
Given the way this was presented, I don't think this moves closer to a resolution. My critique is formal: meaning there is a positional flaw in drawing a conclusion about God from a scientific methodology. The quoted section above, appears to be an emotive atheism based on utility.
Regarding a counter metaphsyic: you have every right to propose an alternate or new understanding. Doing so requires an explanation of a host of issues. One simple example would be what I mentioned in an earlier post: rejecting any absolute means coming up with an explanation of the origin of being.
Two notes:
First, in the entire two and half millennia Western philosophical tradition there has never been a atheistic system of knoweldge put foward. This does not mean it cannot be done, rather it reflects certain persistent logical problems.
Second, the post prior to the one I am responding to referrenced a continuously transcendent God. This is not the God of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition. Just so you are aware.
Quote[/b] ]Well I read and I learn to think and it is fun for me. In high school I am studying the writings of all the golden age Graeco-Roman Philosophers now so I've no background in modern philosophy...
Philosophy is Plato, everything else is just footnotes.
-Whitehead
Papewaio
12-12-2003, 21:54
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 13 2003,04:22)]
Quote[/b] ]I think the answer to this question brings us closer to resolving the current question on the table.
Also if the answer depends on the metaphysic, surely I can wear the hat of a metaphysics and state There is no difference. God does not exist in nature, he effects no phenomena, his ways cannot be measured, so he might as well not exist for the net effect he doe.
Given the way this was presented, I don't think this moves closer to a resolution. My critique is formal: meaning there is a positional flaw in drawing a conclusion about God from a scientific methodology. The quoted section above, appears to be an emotive atheism based on utility.
Regarding a counter metaphsyic: you have every right to propose an alternate or new understanding. Doing so requires an explanation of a host of issues. One simple example would be what I mentioned in an earlier post: rejecting any absolute means coming up with an explanation of the origin of being.
Two notes:
First, in the entire two and half millennia Western philosophical tradition there has never been a atheistic system of knoweldge put foward. This does not mean it cannot be done, rather it reflects certain persistent logical problems.
Second, the post prior to the one I am responding to referrenced a continuously transcendent God. This is not the God of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition. Just so you are aware.
It would seem to be a bit pointless to have a metaphysics philosophy for atheisim. It would be contradictory and/or in a constant state of self-denial. If a broad definition of atheisim is the denial of any supernatural being not just
Quote[/b] ]God of the Judeo-Christo-Islamic (GotJCI) an even broader one is the denial of any supernatural environment.
Metaphysics itself would then be considered in the same pot as GotJCI, as metaphysics exists beyond physics. A true atheisit rejects not just God but New Age mystics, purple dragons etc as all belonging to a world with no data/effect/measurement to be seen.
If there is nothing beyond the natural world that effects the natural world then if it has no utility (includes training/beauty) then why bother?
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 12 2003,12:02)]Calling Sheldrake a charlatan just because of new theories is doing him injustice, and it is exactly that kind of intolerant approach and dogmatic attitude that science once had to face in form of the restrictive church at the end of the middle ages. I didn't think it would become a placeholder now.
I must admit I know little about Sheldrake, apart from that he is a biologist who has invented a theory about morfogentic field. Everything thas causes a pattern is explained by resonance in this field, which transmits it to other beings who will imitate this pattern. If enough beings imitate it, it will cause a paranormal knowledge explosion. Morfogenetic fields can not be observed, and can explain everything which follows the same pattern.
If my summary is correct (my sources are rather limited), then again, this is pseudo-science by any standard. You cannot prove the existence of these field because we don't know what they actually are (Vienna Circle) and you cannot falsify this theory (Popper). Popper would also have noted that this theory can be used to explain everything, which is also a feature of pseudo-science. My own ideas about what constitutes pseudo-science (science is progress, pseudo-science is stagnation, pseudo-science tends to stay in one position while science is contually moving. Its direction of movenment might not be consistent, nor do we always get were we planned to go, but the important thing is that we are moving) also point it out as a pseudoscience, since this is probably the first and last theory to be formulated about these fields.
Now, this might not make Sheldrake a charlatan, because he probably believes what he is saying, but it is definitly not scientiffic. And yet, whenever his theories are mentioned, a lot of fuss is made about his scientiffic status. This might not be a direct lie, but neither is it completely true.
Scientist don't dislike new theories. They even are prepared to accept strange theories (quantummechanics), but we really hate these kind of metaphysical theories. Because this kind of theories are dead-ends for science: it just because of something that man cannot understand (dogmaticism, this kind of thing is what I ment with god in my last mail).
So might accuse me of being dogmatic and intolerant, but scientist tend become that if they threathened with exctly that: dogmaticism.
Quote[/b] ]Metaphysics itself would then be considered in the same pot as GotJCI, as metaphysics exists beyond physics. A true atheisit rejects not just God but New Age mystics, purple dragons etc as all belonging to a world with no data/effect/measurement to be seen.
If there is nothing beyond the natural world that effects the natural world then if it has no utility (includes training/beauty) then why bother?
Purple dragons do not share ontic parity with Deity. For new age mystics, it depends on the pony-tail and toga color.
Utility arguments tend towards the emotive and do not answer questions relating to actual existence.
Traditional GofJCI would reject the notion there is no utility or effect. In addition, the argument would be the relation is asymetric. Simply because the creature does not have total access, it does not follow the same applies for the Creator.
From a philosophical perspective: an absolute acts as the necessary groundwork for truth claims. A physics devoid of metaphysics is blind.
A.Saturnus
12-13-2003, 01:09
Pindar, there are two rational ways of arguing for the existence of any entity. One is an empirical one. You can present facts to support your claim. Facts based on observations. On this basis, only the phenomenological world can be accessed.
The second approach is a logical one. You can argue that the existence of this entity is a necessity. You can show that the negation of your claim leads to contradictions or you can show that certain premises your opponent agrees on implicate that your claim must be true.
In the case of god, you obviously reject the possibility of the first way. Good, then present a logical proof of god. But I guess you won´t do that. It´s not your point to argue that god exists. You just want to protect theist beliefs from the cruelty of the scientific judgement. You say god isn´t in the world BUT he exists. That just can´t be. Your transcendent existence is a no-thing. Something either exists and is therefore part of the world (the world is all that is) or it doesn´t exist. Something can be an abstract entity like universalia. But that is not part of existence, because it is not part of causality.
Quote[/b] ]First, in the entire two and half millennia Western philosophical tradition there has never been a atheistic system of knoweldge put foward. This does not mean it cannot be done, rather it reflects certain persistent logical problems.
Is critical rationalism not a system of knowledge then? What defines a system of knowledge. However, claims of the basis of the history of philosophy are weak. During a big part of that time you mention, atheism was a reason to be prosecuted.
What are these logical problems? The origin of being? As I said above, there isn´t an answer to it. Not an atheistic one and not a theist one and there won´t be ever one. Just defining an anything that has the property of defying any further questioning is far too lame to be an answer. The question of the origin of being is the same with or without god. Therefore, god is an unnecessary assumption.
Quote[/b] ]In the case of god, you obviously reject the possibility of the first way. Good, then present a logical proof of god. But I guess you won´t do that. It´s not your point to argue that god exists. You just want to protect theist beliefs from the cruelty of the scientific judgement.
Sat,
You have shifted the argument.
I did not present the notion god exists. I simply responded to the challenge that a scientific approach is an appropriate method to judge God's existence. A response does not assume the burden of proof. Rather, its obligation is to show the error of the thesis. I have done that.
Quote[/b] ]Is critical rationalism not a system of knowledge then?
No, it is not. A system of knowledge does not refer to a methodology. A system of knoweldge makes positive claims about reality in all its major forms i.e. ontology, ethics, aesthetics, epistemology etc.
Quote[/b] ]However, claims of the basis of the history of philosophy are weak. During a big part of that time you mention, atheism was a reason to be prosecuted.
This is a disingenuous claim. During the Classical Period, roughtly Six Century B.C. through to the adoption of Christianity by Rome (325 A.D.) there was no real persecution of atheism. Neither was there any systemic atheism. The Medieval Period, to up shall we say 1453, saw a Christianity wrapped in Greek philosophical thought: Neo-Platoism initially, followed by the reintroduction of Aristotle. The dogmatism of the Era and its cultural moreas did not produce any new or independant philosophy atheistic or otherwise. The same is true in the Muslim World. The Renaissance, Enlightenment and Modern Periods, progressivly more open, again saw no systemic atheism. Two and half millennia is more than enought time to produce an systemic atheism.
Quote[/b] ]What are these logical problems? The origin of being? As I said above, there isn´t an answer to it.
There are several answers: God would be one example.
Quote[/b] ]Just defining an anything that has the property of defying any further questioning is far too lame to be an answer.
Lameness is not a disqualifier. Rise above your emotional predisposition.
Quote[/b] ]The question of the origin of being is the same with or without god.
No, it is not.
Addendum:
Quote[/b] ] You say god isn´t in the world BUT he exists.
I never argued God exists. I simply explained the definition of God. I wouldn't have expected this mistake from you.
A.Saturnus
12-13-2003, 03:13
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 13 2003,02:02)]I did not present the notion god exists. I simply responded to the challenge that a scientific approach is an appropriate method to judge God's existence. A response does not assume the burden of proof. Rather, its obligation is to show the error of the thesis. I have done that.
That was what I meant with protecting theist belief.
Quote[/b] ]No, it is not. A system of knowledge does not refer to a methodology. A system of knoweldge makes positive claims about reality in all its major forms i.e. ontology, ethics, aesthetics, epistemology etc.
Aesthetics? What have aesthetics to do with knowledge? No wonder there wasn´t an atheistic system of knowledge since atheism contains absolutely no statement concerning aesthetics. I would also say that if a system of knowledge requires all this, there have not been many in the last two millennia.
Quote[/b] ]This is a disingenuous claim. During the Classical Period, roughtly Six Century B.C. through to the adoption of Christianity by Rome (325 A.D.) there was no real persecution of atheism. Neither was there any systemic atheism. The Medieval Period, to up shall we say 1453, saw a Christianity wrapped in Greek philosophical thought: Neo-Platoism initially, followed by the reintroduction of Aristotle. The dogmatism of the Era and its cultural moreas did not produce any new or independant philosophy atheistic or otherwise. The same is true in the Muslim World. The Renaissance, Enlightenment and Modern Periods, progressivly more open, again saw no systemic atheism. Two and half millennia is more than enought time to produce an systemic atheism.
Atheists were prosecuted in the classical period. Denying the existence of gods was seen as blasphemy. Several Greek philosophers have faced charges of blasphemy, including Socrates and Epikur (the latter was accused of being an atheist, he defended himself by saying that he doesn´t deny them but they have no influence on humans). Atheists were prosecuted up to the 18th century. They faced massive social pressure up to 20th century and still face some today I think I can claim atheism is the most prosecuted worldview in history of man.
Quote[/b] ]
Lameness is not a disqualifier. Rise above your emotional predisposition.
I do. When I say this argument is lame I meant it has no validity whatsoever. A definition can never be a proof of existence. Otherwise I could simply invent the truly existing pegasus. Is this unemotional enough for you?
Quote[/b] ]
No, it is not.
Yes, it is. The question why does X exist? remains unanswered, when you simply step forward to why does X + god exist?, no matter how god is defined. The whole god doesn´t require a cause because he´s defined so is simply sophistry.
Quote[/b] ]
I never argued God exists. I simply explained the definition of God. I wouldn't have expected this mistake from you.
Alright, but you claimed that transcendent existence would be a valid counter against the atheist position, or why are we arguing at all?
A.Saturnus is correct, atheists were prosecuted in classical times.
post reformation they were in many countries put in the same category as catholics as regards prossecution and ostracism.
might i suggest that you recheck your sources before any more statements like that.
Quote[/b] ]Aesthetics? What have aesthetics to do with knowledge? No wonder there wasn´t an atheistic system of knowledge since atheism contains absolutely no statement concerning aesthetics. I would also say that if a system of knowledge requires all this, there have not been many in the last two millennia.
Art and the study of beauty has been part of human inquiry from the beginnings of the intellectual tradition. Atheism and an aesthetic theory are not mutually exclusive.
Quote[/b] ]Atheists were prosecuted in the classical period. Denying the existence of gods was seen as blasphemy. Several Greek philosophers have faced charges of blasphemy, including Socrates and Epikur (the latter was accused of being an atheist, he defended himself by saying that he doesn´t deny them but they have no influence on humans).
How many classical examples of atheist book (scroll) burnings can you name?
Socrates was not an atheist though he was condemned to death, true enough. Impiety was one of the charges leveled against him (along with corrupting the youth and sophistry). Impiety is not atheism.
In the 'Apology' part of the charges were that his youthful followers were turning away from belief in the Gods. This was not the case. Even so, assuming it were, lack of belief does not equal atheism. Even if we grant that all his sutdents did, in fact, embrace an atheistic view, where were the persecutions of the students?
Regardless the formal charges, it is widely taken for granted that the motivations for accusing Socrates were of a far more personal nature. As the trial progressed it was Socrates unyeilding personality more than any charge that led to his condemnation. Further, after the sentence means were provided whereby he could escape which appears to have been expected 'Crito'. Again Socrates own decision to see the formal verdict to its conclusion saw to his death. Afterwards, Socrates execution was condemned universally. Plato's account, written shortly after the event, clearly takes a side on the matter.
Recall, that cities of the Greek world had patron Deities. A charge of impiety was tantamount to a charge of treason, meaning the accused was considered to be working against the interests of the city. Socrates had earned many enemies in positions of power from the period of Thirty Tyrants on through to the actual trial.
Epicurus was not an atheist. However, he like Socrates was also accused of impiety, by the same fickle city.
Quote[/b] ]I meant it has no validity whatsoever. A definition can never be a proof of existence. Otherwise I could simply invent the truly existing pegasus.
I didn't offer the definition of God as a proof. I have put forward no thesis.
Quote[/b] ]Yes, it is. The question why does X exist? remains unanswered, when you simply step forward to why does X + god exist?, no matter how god is defined. The whole god doesn´t require a cause because he´s defined so is simply sophistry.
Sophistry is the inevitable retreat of those who have no counter argument. I have offered no fantastic claims regarding Deity. I have simply put forward the basic notions of what the ascription God means. Your inability to come to terms with that concept is one of the reasons your position is as untenable as it is. Building a staw man is not the way to truth, nor is it persuasive.
Quote[/b] ]Alright, but you claimed that transcendent existence would be a valid counter against the atheist position, or why are we arguing at all?
I have argued that an atheism based on science is a flawed position given that scientific claims are necessarily precluded from addressing the notion of God.
Quote[/b] ]A.Saturnus is correct, atheists were prosecuted in classical times.
Quote[/b] ]might i suggest that you recheck your sources before any more statements like that.
The 'profanum vulgus' speaks.
Perhaps you know the when and where of these vast persecusions. I'll be interested to read all your examples of classical inquisitions.
Quote[/b] ]The 'profanum vulgus' speaks.
indeed i do, and just to keep the Latin theme going you can chew on my subligata. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
A.Saturnus
12-13-2003, 18:18
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 13 2003,06:37)]Atheism and an aesthetic theory are not mutually exclusive.
Did anyone say so?
I didn´t say Socrates was an arheist. He was killed for political reasons and he wouldn´t have been killed if he hadn´t claimed to be innocent. But isn´t it obvious that when impiety is a crime, atheists are under danger? Claiming that there are no gods could definitely have legal repercussions. Hard to say whether Epikur was an atheist. As I say, he was accused of being an atheist (denying deities) and it´s quite possible that he´s notion of the gods was just an alibi.
But I´m not surprised. The world has always turned a blind eye on inhumanities against atheists.
Quote[/b] ]Sophistry is the inevitable retreat of those who have no counter argument. I have offered no fantastic claims regarding Deity. I have simply put forward the basic notions of what the ascription God means. Your inability to come to terms with that concept is one of the reasons your position is as untenable as it is. Building a staw man is not the way to truth, nor is it persuasive.
My point was that the basic notion of what the ascription god means, is not a solution to the problem. You have claimed that a theist position can solve this problem while an atheist one cannot. I have shown this is false. Any further arguments?
Quote[/b] ]I have argued that an atheism based on science is a flawed position given that scientific claims are necessarily precluded from addressing the notion of God.
And I have argued god must either be a part of the world and therefore be subject to scientific methodology or he´s an abstract entity and cannot influence the world in a causal way. There is no middle position.
A.Saturnus
12-13-2003, 22:17
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 12 2003,12:02)]I think you didn't get my point.
Possible. What was your point?
Quote[/b] ]Once again, in physics we have devices that can actually measure and allow for the calculation of the mass of a quark, which themselves are found in groups, not individually, held together by gluons. That is very different from the input output approach you describe.
You have a way to to register cause and effect as you stated, but you cannot measure the intermittant process we call thought. Furthermore, not all thoughts are alike, so I don't really see the point of how you want to generalise these findings with statistics, given there is an infintie number of thoughts which, even if managed to categorize, would surely exceed the cabability to be understood by us. There are also thoughts that don't produce an distinct output and thus don't allow you any kind of comparison or deduction that will get your to any revealing statement.
Normally, they won't be tested. I just used this as an example since we are talking about what produced those sentences in the first place, your mind, and minds in general. Yes, all findings can be flawed because of our perception, but at least in natural sciences we acknowledge this by constructing our own fourdimensional reality and giving starting conditions as well a define limits in which what we found is repeatable and true. Same approach is much harder, if not impossible, for a science that studies the workings of the mind, that is all I'm saying. I just miss this statement when any findings are reported. One has to acknowledge it to oneself, as well as to the people who are not familiar with this science. That is not done, and therefore many ordinary people believe it to be sacrosanct.
The measuring of quarks is not so different as you think. You cannot perceive quarks. You use devices of which you have reason to think that they can give you data from which you can conclude the mass of a quark or a group of quarks. Here, as well as in psychology, the validity of the measure is paramount. In physics the validity of the measure is proberbly less a problem than in psychology, because the quantification of values is exact to a high degree. Exactness is something that´s missing in psychology (just as in meteorology for example), but that doesn´t mean we don´t have valid measures.
Of course we can´t tell what a person thinks (most of the time). Individual thoughts are as oblivious to us as the movement of a individual atom in a gas. But psychological theories usually aren´t something like hey, you just thought of icescream, admit it No, our theories are rather like short-term memory isn´t maskable or cognitive style can mediate criminal behaviour. Individual thoughts aren´t important in these cases. We can measure short-term memory, cognitive styles and criminal behaviour. So we can test our theories. If we can reproduce our findings, reliability is assured. Whether this means our findings are true, is left open to philosophers. Just as in physics. Of course, we make our experiments in the same four-dimensional space as physicists do. We don´t enter twilight zone or something like that.
It is true that psychology faces methodological problems unknown in physics. That´s why a good methodology is very important in psychology. But it is still a natural science.
Quote[/b] ]So can you, you can believe it, but you do not know it for certain. My belief is not an argument against your belief, but is an alternative to yours, which you cannot disprove as of right now.
The mind as I see it, isn't just the sum of thoughts, it is also the whole awareness or the consciousness of being. If the brain is damaged, it can effect the way thoughts are relayed, so that it could appear to an outsider that one is incapable of thinking certain things, because the person you were asking cannot articulate that thought anymore, however, you do not know whether the brain is responsible for generating thoughts or just responding and resonating to the thought.
And yes, programs cease to exist in the RAM, but they are still there on your data storage of choice and can be run again once you turn the PC on. That's not to say I buy your analogy between mind and brain and software and hardware of a PC. And remember, there is no spoon, Mr. Anderson. lol
It may be possible that brain injuries only affect the relay of thoughts, not thoughts itself, but it´s unlikely. If patients have an injury in a certain brain region (V1 in Area Striata), they are missing the conscious experience of sight. They claim they are blind. Strangely, they still can avoid objects when moving. You can of course claim that they lie or that it´s the report that´s affected, but that´s unlikely, because we know that V1 has something to do with seeing (it´s activated when you see objects). The report involves other brain regions that aren´t injured. It is therefore likely that the brain injury affects directly consciousness and that people with this injury really have ne conscious sight.
You say your belief is an alternative to my belief. No doubt it is. But you do as if the one were as good as the other. Tell me, if someone would say programs in the PC aren´t gone when the PC is turned of. And they aren´t just memorized on the hard drive, no they still work in a transcendent RAM not attached to the profane matter. There´s workspace after shut-down
Wouldn´t you say this is rather silly? Isn´t it more reasonable to assume that active programs don´t exist without a working PC?
Quote[/b] ]Furthermore, calling Sheldrake a charlatan just because of new theories is doing him injustice, and it is exactly that kind of intolerant approach and dogmatic attitude that science once had to face in form of the restrictive church at the end of the middle ages. I didn't think it would become a placeholder now.
Sheldrake has distorted facts to support his theories. Maybe he didn´t do it deliberately, I grant that. Maybe he´s just a nad scientist.
I have a friend who´s a biologist and has his own opinion of Sheldrake. Maybe I should invite him to tell us his point of view.
Quote[/b] ]These phenomena aren't explainable by science right now, I never stated they would never be. In fact, I would prefer it, and I'm glad that effort is made, and the limits of science be expanded if necessary. I just warn of premature conclusions, or complete dismissals as in the question about the existence of god.
So you agree that these things aren´t outside science, they are just unsolved problems (if any).
A conclusion isn´t premature as long it´s open to revision. Atheism is a working hypothesis, not a dogma.
Quote[/b] ]And for the record, you just thought you pointed out my opinion is false, but it is forgivable, given the uncertainty of the matter at hand.
Well, at least one of us must be wrong. Maybe we´re both wrong, but we can´t be both right.
The problem with relativism is that it undermines the discurs. It is as dangerous as dogmatism.
Papewaio
12-15-2003, 01:07
Quote[/b] (Pindar @ Dec. 13 2003,08:29)]
Quote[/b] ]Utility arguments tend towards the emotive and do not answer questions relating to actual existence.
I think you have it the wrong way round.
If a hypothesis has no proof and has no utility then to hold on to that hypothesis is an emotional stance.
Quote[/b] ]From a philosophical perspective: an absolute acts as the necessary groundwork for truth claims. A physics devoid of metaphysics is blind.
You can do physics very well devoid of metaphysics. In fact by not holding on to preconceived misconceptions and other trappings of faith physics and science move along much more quickly.
It is easy enough to see that the prowess of a physicist is independent of the metaphysical tradition that they belong to or have rejected. Be they Hindi, Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic etc they all can operate in physics.
Metaphysics is an un-nessary overhead.
Quote[/b] ]Purple dragons do not share ontic parity with Deity...
Show me the proof. If they share 0 data and 0 phenomena what difference do they make?
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is either a duck or a mad cow.
More seriously how can you just give something attributes without a reason. A Deity has ontic parity, why?
Quote[/b] ]Traditional GofJCI would reject the notion there is no utility or effect. In addition, the argument would be the relation is asymetric. Simply because the creature does not have total access, it does not follow the same applies for the Creator.
If you have a hypothesis that can explain a situation in more elegant terms and it describes the situation just as accurately or more so then that is the one to choose in the pursuit of knowledge.
Since there are no phenomena that can be measured, no data of a Deity then the more elegant and simple solution that also matches that data set is that there is No metaphysical realm. Until proven wrong this hypothesis becomes what is a Theory and if we test it enough and keep finding it is correct then it is a Law. Now science does not use absolutes, it is always open to another more complex interpretation IFF that interpretation yields a more accurate and complete understanding of the world around us.
So until more data becomes available that points to the most simple model being incorrect it stands in place. As the most simple model (the one that yields the most accuracy with the least complexity) for the situation is that there is no God, no Diety, no metaphysical realm.
Brutal DLX
12-15-2003, 09:49
Quote[/b] (Ludens @ Dec. 12 2003,22:54)]I must admit I know little about Sheldrake, apart from that he is a biologist who has invented a theory about morfogentic field. Everything thas causes a pattern is explained by resonance in this field, which transmits it to other beings who will imitate this pattern. If enough beings imitate it, it will cause a paranormal knowledge explosion. Morfogenetic fields can not be observed, and can explain everything which follows the same pattern.
If my summary is correct (my sources are rather limited), then again, this is pseudo-science by any standard. You cannot prove the existence of these field because we don't know what they actually are (Vienna Circle) and you cannot falsify this theory (Popper). Popper would also have noted that this theory can be used to explain everything, which is also a feature of pseudo-science. My own ideas about what constitutes pseudo-science (science is progress, pseudo-science is stagnation, pseudo-science tends to stay in one position while science is contually moving. Its direction of movenment might not be consistent, nor do we always get were we planned to go, but the important thing is that we are moving) also point it out as a pseudoscience, since this is probably the first and last theory to be formulated about these fields.
Now, this might not make Sheldrake a charlatan, because he probably believes what he is saying, but it is definitly not scientiffic. And yet, whenever his theories are mentioned, a lot of fuss is made about his scientiffic status. This might not be a direct lie, but neither is it completely true.
Scientist don't dislike new theories. They even are prepared to accept strange theories (quantummechanics), but we really hate these kind of metaphysical theories. Because this kind of theories are dead-ends for science: it just because of something that man cannot understand (dogmaticism, this kind of thing is what I ment with god in my last mail).
So might accuse me of being dogmatic and intolerant, but scientist tend become that if they threathened with exctly that: dogmaticism.
Interesting stance. However, I didn't accuse you, I was speaking in the passive, referring to the charlatan statement Sat made, I believe.
I think your summary given is about correct, I have read one of Sheldrake's massive tomes like two years ago and wanted to look it up again over the course of the weekend, however real life issues interfered.
I don't really like the term pseudo-science, but whatever works for you.
The theory of his is not scientifically provable, but it might be true, which was exactly the point I wanted to make when discussing with Sat. Of course, this theory isn't a dogma, nobody demands of you that you have to accept it as true, and nobody ever said that it won't get modified in the future if science could tackle this subject with new methods or devices, and there may be a time when it can be proven scientifically up to satisfaction, and then you would have to accept it by your own accounts. Of course people other than scientists would still not be required to accept it... so it's not a dogma or a non moving subject at all. In science, there are findings of which you could say the same, they aren't changed anymore, they have been printed in text books in the same way for decades, but you can't make a general statement by picking out one theory. THAT reeks of dogmatism, and nothing else.
And for the record, a lot of established scientists laughed in the face of the men who brought forth revolutionary theories like relativity and quantum makeups, and that wasn't so long ago in the greater scheme of things. And it has gotten better, by and large, but this has not been rooted out. An open mind is essential to analyse any problem, in science as well as any other aspects of life.
Brutal DLX
12-15-2003, 11:24
Quote[/b] (A.Saturnus @ Dec. 13 2003,21:17)]
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 12 2003,12:02)]I think you didn't get my point.
Quote[/b] ]Possible. What was your point?
Read the paragraph again, and try to see the difference between our examples. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]The measuring of quarks is not so different as you think. You cannot perceive quarks. You use devices of which you have reason to think that they can give you data from which you can conclude the mass of a quark or a group of quarks. Here, as well as in psychology, the validity of the measure is paramount. In physics the validity of the measure is proberbly less a problem than in psychology, because the quantification of values is exact to a high degree. Exactness is something that´s missing in psychology (just as in meteorology for example), but that doesn´t mean we don´t have valid measures.
Of course we can´t tell what a person thinks (most of the time). Individual thoughts are as oblivious to us as the movement of a individual atom in a gas. But psychological theories usually aren´t something like hey, you just thought of icescream, admit it No, our theories are rather like short-term memory isn´t maskable or cognitive style can mediate criminal behaviour. Individual thoughts aren´t important in these cases. We can measure short-term memory, cognitive styles and criminal behaviour. So we can test our theories. If we can reproduce our findings, reliability is assured. Whether this means our findings are true, is left open to philosophers. Just as in physics. Of course, we make our experiments in the same four-dimensional space as physicists do. We don´t enter twilight zone or something like that.
It is true that psychology faces methodological problems unknown in physics. That´s why a good methodology is very important in psychology. But it is still a natural science.
Yes, the methodology might be related, but the exactness is missing as well as the thoroughness of the study field. You are admitting there are parts of the human mind such as thought that you cannot study, but your field of study involves all of the human mind, or doesn't it? If not, then of course you are correct and I don't have any critique to make. But if that is so, then there might be relations between that which you cannot study and the things you can, thoughts, or subconscious processes might play a role in the examples you gave, so there will be a much bigger margin of error in your findings than in my example. There was a theory quarks exist, and devices are built to study and confirm it. What is found is true wihin the limits defined from the get go. That is sufficient for a physicist. One could say they found what they wanted to.
You know the mind exists, and accept it as that without contemplating the implications of this. But there is the whole sum of consciousness, reality and perception in its wake, all those have to be taken into account implicitly when one is to conduct studies of processes that close to their origins. I am not sure the results can be within an acceptable degree of exactness that would suffice for me to call them scientific, an exact science, or a natural science. It incorporates a part of all these, but is not congruent with them.
And so I still don't think you can only analyse effects of the mind (for instance in the examples you gave) on our fourdimensional reality without adding the caveat that its origin cannot be defined conclusively as belonging to that same space in its entireness. This is a matter of definition I admit, but this strict ductus is required in a scientific approach.
Quote[/b] ]It may be possible that brain injuries only affect the relay of thoughts, not thoughts itself, but it´s unlikely. If patients have an injury in a certain brain region (V1 in Area Striata), they are missing the conscious experience of sight. They claim they are blind. Strangely, they still can avoid objects when moving. You can of course claim that they lie or that it´s the report that´s affected, but that´s unlikely, because we know that V1 has something to do with seeing (it´s activated when you see objects). The report involves other brain regions that aren´t injured. It is therefore likely that the brain injury affects directly consciousness and that people with this injury really have ne conscious sight.
You say your belief is an alternative to my belief. No doubt it is. But you do as if the one were as good as the other. Tell me, if someone would say programs in the PC aren´t gone when the PC is turned of. And they aren´t just memorized on the hard drive, no they still work in a transcendent RAM not attached to the profane matter. There´s workspace after shut-down
Wouldn´t you say this is rather silly? Isn´t it more reasonable to assume that active programs don´t exist without a working PC?
Yes, this is a good example. But it is not really focussing on the thought process, as an independent thing that unaffected in itself, but can receive input and output channeled by the brain. We could say that by damage of this specific area one input line to the mind from the physical world is disrupted, the conscious part of the mind doesn't get the information about what it sees, but another channel(s) is still open (or maybe the same one, as from your example it isn't clear if that part is damaged or completely destroyed), so an image is sent that gets too distorted for the conscious mind to analyse, or maybe doesn't reach it at all, but the feed to the purely reactionary, subconscious level of the mind is not affected. Of course I would need to know more, like is the person moving normally although claiming to be blind, do they have normal reactions/reflexes? You say the report is handled by other brain regions, so what does this region actually do that you have found out? How far can you analyse it with getting proper feedback from the outsider as well as the one you conduct the study on? It is tricky, but it can be explained by my theory as well.
Yes, I treat the theories equal and make a choice in uncertainty, I don't go by probability here until the probability for my theory stands at exactly 0%. This is due to the unexactness of the whole issue.
And once again, your PC analogy isn't matching, but illustrating the problem at least. I would not say that such a claim is silly, as it certainly isn't disprovable so it has to be given some precious probability. The data processing matrix that a specific program creates could as well resonate outside of the 4dimensional space that we know about, and maybe there is a dimension where probabilities are weighed, knowledge and data processed and results determined, and if one switches that PC off, the mark that this programme created there could still exist and work until it gets connected to our PC again and be given new input. It sounds strange, but not silly.
However, my take is that it is most reasonable to accept whatever theory suits you best and then use your PC without wasting further thought on it until this issue becomes a problem or you can't sleep over it. Until then, I will enjoy my fine MTW campaign, knowing it will wait for me in transcedent RAM or on my HD until I invoke it again. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] ]Sheldrake has distorted facts to support his theories. Maybe he didn´t do it deliberately, I grant that. Maybe he´s just a nad scientist.
I have a friend who´s a biologist and has his own opinion of Sheldrake. Maybe I should invite him to tell us his point of view.
Maybe you should. It is always good to get an update of the latest developments in this matter as I have not followed it for a long time.
However, he may have distorted facts while trying over and over to come up with examples to illustrate the feasibility of his theory, and I can't rule out that he messed up here or there. I'm no biologist into crystallogy and I didn't crosscheck every example he mentioned while reading... Have you read one of his books? They are massive works and a great part deals with philosophy too. It is easy to get a little lost in there.
Quote[/b] ]So you agree that these things aren´t outside science, they are just unsolved problems (if any).
A conclusion isn´t premature as long it´s open to revision. Atheism is a working hypothesis, not a dogma.
Not quite. I state that these things are currently outside the grasp of science, unsolved problems they are
per se, and that statement is general and not confined to science. Currently science cannot deal with this problem and cannot start working on it until a new fundamental groundwork has been established by philosophers or even scientists and then be given it's proper sub definitions and limits as well as measurement methods to work in. They don't exist at this moment, so they are outside of scientific approach.
About the latter part of your statement, I agree wholeheartedly, only I want to explicitly add it is one working hypothesis among others, not the only one. And no, you didn't imply it was, I am merely nitpicking.
Quote[/b] ]Well, at least one of us must be wrong. Maybe we´re both wrong, but we can´t be both right.
The problem with relativism is that it undermines the discurs. It is as dangerous as dogmatism.
That is a dogmatic approach, not a philosophic one. First, there is no must, as we can doubt everything. You are right however, in that one of us or we could both be wrong but maybe we can both be partially right... Who knows?
Relativism isn't as dangerous as dogmatism. A dogma makes discourses impossible, relativism makes them interesting and tends to bring the parties involved to a least common ground. It creates a basic consens while allowing room for interpretation and different opinions and that is never bad.
PS:
A few quotes I find appropriate here: http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Being a philosopher, I have a problem for every solution. ~Robert Zend
Philosophy begins in wonder. And, at the end, when philosophic thought has done its best, the wonder remains. ~Alfred North Whitehead
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. ~Bertrand Russell
Quote[/b] (Brutal DLX @ Dec. 15 2003,09:49)]I don't really like the term pseudo-science, but whatever works for you. The theory of his is not scientifically provable, but it might be true, which was exactly the point I wanted to make when discussing with Sat.
How would you call something that pretends to be science, but isn't, then? Sheldrake himself stated that it is not scientifically provable, so science should stay out of it. Yet the whole morfogentic fields theory has an aura of science around it. Even the name suggest it is a scientific theory.
Quote[/b] ]Of course, this theory isn't a dogma, nobody demands of you that you have to accept it as true, and nobody ever said that it won't get modified in the future if science could tackle this subject with new methods or devices, and there may be a time when it can be proven scientifically up to satisfaction, and then you would have to accept it by your own accounts. Of course people other than scientists would still not be required to accept it... so it's not a dogma or a non moving subject at all. In science, there are findings of which you could say the same, they aren't changed anymore, they have been printed in text books in the same way for decades, but you can't make a general statement by picking out one theory. THAT reeks of dogmatism, and nothing else.
1. Concerning the dogma: I admit that resembling it to a dogma was a bit far fetched, but I'd like to represent my reasoning to that point. If it is NOT provable by science (not now and not in the future), but is represented as a theory/hypothesis, then it sends, to a greater or lesser extent (lesser in the case of Sheldrake, I admit) the message: Man (with capital M) cannot hope to understand this. Something that falls out of the scope of Man, is magical or religious (from this point of view those two are about the same). Things that concern either magic or religion, are to be left alone by science: it would be sacrilege (spoiling the religous worth of the object) or spoiling the magic. Man is not ment to know this.
Hands off Hands off This should be left alone. This is certain
Because were a scientist to discover it was normal, the magic is spoiled, it is no miracle. But this reasoning that is what I ment with dogmatism in this discussion. Miracles should be left alone, science is not allowed to explain them. So you are right when you say that in this particular case the term dogmatism was incorrect. Sheldrake doesn't say that science shouldn't explain it, he says that science cannot explain it.
2. As for my ideas about pseudo-science: remember that I am but a humble student who doesn't even study philosofy, so if my theory cannot stand criticism, it is just because it is my first attempt at one. With moving, I didn't mean that science is continually changing, but just that it is growing. Basic evolutiontheory has been left unchanged since Darwin, but there have been at least two great battles about details (this is simplification, it were actually quite big issues, but Darwins observations still stand). Physics and farmacolgy might still use the same basic formulas as forty years ago, but there are a lot more advanced formulas.
Compare this to a pseudo-science: what are the changes in homeopathics? None since Hahnemann developed it. The only things that were added were pre-scription- and diagnosis-methods.
Is Sheldrake busy refining his theory? No, since it is already complete. The morfogentic field is the beginning and the end. What caused the field, how can we apply this knowledge? Obvious but unanswered questions. This is what separates scientist from pseudo-scientist. A scientist is continually looking for new questions and answers. A pseudo-scientist restricts himself to the answers, because he already has all the questions. His theory explains everything, his theory is the beginning and the end.
Sheldrake theory explains a observations, but quite a lot of those observations could be explained otherwise. This would make it redundant, and since it has no other base except for those observations, we could do just as well without it.
Quote[/b] ]And for the record, a lot of established scientists laughed in the face of the men who brought forth revolutionary theories like relativity and quantum makeups, and that wasn't so long ago in the greater scheme of things. And it has gotten better, by and large, but this has not been rooted out. An open mind is essential to analyse any problem, in science as well as any other aspects of life.
Of course a lot of men laughed. But another lot of men didn't and started thinking. Science is a social bussiness and scientist aren't perfect. This also means that my seperation between science and pseudo-science is more of an ideal than is should like. But because there a so many scientist, there is always something willing to kick against the legs of the current paradigm. But ever heard of a pseudo-scientist revoke his ideas?
Pindar,
After spending some time thinking about it, I've found 2 problems with your position.
In the first place: how can you call God the first cause and yet claim that He does not influence this universe? That is a contradictio in termino, or I have misunderstood your position.
But even if He does influence the universe as the first cause, what is the difference then between God an a physical law?
Secondly I must admit that the problem with the scientifical explanation of the universe is that it lacks a first cause. It will always have to go on looking for that first cause, or come up with something self-proving, like religion.
But there is one serious problem with the religious explanation of the first cause: it is a circular argument (I don't know the English word for this, but I think you will understand what I mean): God causes God causes God causes God. This logically invalid.
So the two explanations each have a logical error, 1: science lacks a first cause and 2: religion has an invalid first cause.
So we are back to the starting line again.
Quote[/b] ]Hard to say whether Epikur was an atheist. As I say, he was accused of being an atheist (denying deities) and it´s quite possible that he´s notion of the gods was just an alibi.
Epicurus arguing that Deity takes no interest in human affairs is not unlike Aristotle's view. Neither was an atheist.
Quote[/b] ]My point was that the basic notion of what the ascription god means, is not a solution to the problem. You have claimed that a theist position can solve this problem while an atheist one cannot. I have shown this is false. Any further arguments?
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/handball.gif ( I don't know what this thing is, but somehow think it applies).
Contingent being can be explained through an appeal to necessary Being. The logic is correct. Refusing to believe there is any necessary Being does not influence the validity of the statement. A base materialism cannot answer the question of causality without an appeal beyond itself.
Quote[/b] ]And I have argued god must either be a part of the world and therefore be subject to scientific methodology or he´s an abstract entity and cannot influence the world in a causal way. There is no middle position.
This excluded middle is incorrect. Science can only speak to material causality. Material casuality is not the only kind of cause.
Teutonic Knight
12-15-2003, 20:51
argument....slowly...deteriorating....into...triviality..... gaaaahh....
Papewaio
12-15-2003, 23:48
TK you have to understand that arguements like this are like going to the gym.
We are essentially acting as spotters for each other and doing intellecutal bench presses.
I'm not sure what the actual tenants of all the people debating this are. I would say some are acting as devils advocates, others are dyed in the wool (and hence wool over their own eyes http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ) followers of their positions.
Quote[/b] ]Quote
Utility arguments tend towards the emotive and do not answer questions relating to actual existence.
I think you have it the wrong way round.
If a hypothesis has no proof and has no utility then to hold on to that hypothesis is an emotional stance.
I think you misunderstood emotive. Emotive does not refer to emotion. Rather, it refers to the value placement of the subject as oppossed any inherent feature of an object. Thus, if an old Irish Catholic woman were to express her thankfulness for a lifetime of Heanvenly aid and comfort because of God's grace: the view would be telling regarding the obvious utility (benefit) such a devout life has had. Her statement does not act as a proof for God. A reverse claim would also be the case.
Quote[/b] ]You can do physics very well devoid of metaphysics. In fact by not holding on to preconceived misconceptions and other trappings of faith physics and science move along much more quickly.
Physics is a theory ladden enterprise. Theories involve ideas. Ideas are couched in metaphyiscs. Moreover, metaphysics and religion are not the same thing.
Whether one gives credence to notions of The Resurrected Christ or singularities or the number four, the point remains: science cannot speak definitively to issues beyond its established perview.
Quote[/b] ]Show me the proof. If they share 0 data and 0 phenomena what difference do they make?
More seriously how can you just give something attributes without a reason. A Deity has ontic parity, why?
(The immediate above and below are referring to purple dragons and God)
Understand, the 'proof' is a logical point. A purple dragon is not a thing that must exist. Depending on the definition of dragon, one may argue it must have scales, wings or breath fire, but actual existence is not a claim inherent in its existence. A dragon (regardless of color) is an object that is 'a posteriori'. This means it is an object whose existence and attributes are products of experience. Without any attendant experience, it will be simply an empty concept. A triangle is an object that is 'a priori'. This means experience is not required to know its attributes i.e its three sides. Indeed, a triangle may not be experienced, but nonetheless remains a self contained notion. God is a notion that, like triangle, has a certain built in meaning i.e perfection. This is knowable a priori. One of the features of Deity is necessity: meaning cannot not be, given God is prior to and the source for all things. Thus, God occupies a causal independence. This is definitionally the case. Do not misunderstand the above to be an argument for existential existence. Do understand this to show that purple dragons and God occupy different ontic levels.
Quote[/b] ]If you have a hypothesis that can explain a situation in more elegant terms and it describes the situation just as accurately or more so then that is the one to choose in the pursuit of knowledge.
Since there are no phenomena that can be measured, no data of a Deity then the more elegant and simple solution that also matches that data set is that there is No metaphysical realm. Until proven wrong this hypothesis becomes what is a Theory and if we test it enough and keep finding it is correct then it is a Law. Now science does not use absolutes, it is always open to another more complex interpretation IFF that interpretation yields a more accurate and complete understanding of the world around us.
As I noted previously, aestheitc appeals i.e. elegance, have no force. Neither do they inform existence claims.
Induction is not the only method whereby truth claims are made.
Sensation devoid of conceptual framework is blind. Conceptualization is itself extra-phenomenal.
Papewaio
12-16-2003, 00:44
Okay so I could make a though construct that is a Purple Dragon Diety that has the combined attributes as I select of both then?
Quote[/b] ]I think you misunderstood emotive. Emotive does not refer to emotion. Rather, it refers to the value placement of the subject as oppossed any inherent feature of an object. Thus, if an old Irish Catholic woman were to express her thankfulness for a lifetime of Heanvenly aid and comfort because of God's grace: the view would be telling regarding the obvious utility (benefit) such a devout life has had. Her statement does not act as a proof for God. A reverse claim would also be the case.
Okay I think I see the difference. However if I find through empirical evidence the usefulness of a tool is that not sufficient proof that it is viable?
Quote[/b] ]Physics is a theory ladden enterprise. Theories involve ideas. Ideas are couched in metaphyiscs. Moreover, metaphysics and religion are not the same thing.
Whether one gives credence to notions of The Resurrected Christ or singularities or the number four, the point remains: science cannot speak definitively to issues beyond its established perview.
Theory ladden but also tested against nature. Metaphysics from my understanding means beyond-physics, hence it has no place in physics by that defintion. I can 'test'/make a mathematical construct of a singularity, I can eat four apples, I cannot test and hence validate The Resurrected Christ.
Quote[/b] ]As I noted previously, aestheitc appeals i.e. elegance, have no force. Neither do they inform existence claims.
Induction is not the only method whereby truth claims are made.
Sensation devoid of conceptual framework is blind. Conceptualization is itself extra-phenomenal.
Elegance is the must simple way of stating a theory. It is akin to an axiom. Also elegance is a kind of beautiful simplicity of a statement. It is not its beauty that gives it use, it is the fact that nature is beautiful... a theory that is elegant reflects the nature of nature hence it has a higher probability of being correct. Elegance is useful because it gets results, however it does not mean we leave elegance to wander around by itself. We test it.
Just that elegance is a useful place to start... like a pencil line drawing before one starts to paint with oils.
Conceptualisation is not extra-phenomenal, I am sure that it occurs at the celluar/molecular/atomic or sub-atomic level. A concept is created by a phenomenal occurence.
Ludens,
Quote[/b] ]how can you call God the first cause and yet claim that He does not influence this universe?
I have made no claim, but I will explain that a creative act and influence are not the same thing. Thus, one could argue for a Divine beginning with a subsequent withdrawl or one could argue an abiding influence. Recall, most theistic systems consider the creature/Creator relation as asymetric meaning: one side is confined in its access while the other is not. Perhaps, a crude example would be a fish in an aquarium and the fellow who owns the fish, the aquarium and its contents.
Quote[/b] ]But even if He does influence the universe as the first cause, what is the difference then between God an a physical law?
Volition
Quote[/b] ]Secondly I must admit that the problem with the scientifical explanation of the universe is that it lacks a first cause. It will always have to go on looking for that first cause, or come up with something self-proving, like religion.
But there is one serious problem with the religious explanation of the first cause: it is a circular argument (I don't know the English word for this, but I think you will understand what I mean): God causes God causes God causes God. This logically invalid.
A circular argument is the correct English.
This is a good question.
I'll explain one way Aristotle approached the matter. Prior to Aristotle, Parmenides had noted that something cannot arise from nothing. Being cannot have come from a null set. It is a logical absurdity. However, being exists. Given that being exists, it must have a cause. A thing cannot be its own source. Consequently, there must be something that informs what is, that is independent of what is. The only thing that could inform being, its contingency and causality, is an absolute that acts as a necessary first cause. The absolute, as first cause, is self contained and prior by definition. It is therefore the only thing that can act as a sufficient condition for being.
To deny an absolute is to be forced to a 'reductio ad absurdum'
Papewaio
12-17-2003, 00:12
Quote[/b] ]Parmenides had noted that something cannot arise from nothing
This is a hypothesis like all others and is open to testing.
Quantum Field Theory and the Uncertainty Principle contradict this statement. A zero state photon over a period of a say a tiny part of a second can spontaneously come into being and then disappear. These are termed virtual particless.
Hence the hypothesis of Parmenides is not an absolute truth.
Silianat
12-17-2003, 02:11
I wish everyone a Happy Holidays
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/santa.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/snowman.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/santa.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/snowman.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/santa.gif
Silianat
12-17-2003, 03:40
Hello to everyone at the ORG http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/cheers.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.