View Full Version : Regarding Atheism, Agnosticism, Humanism, Rational Skepticism, etc...
I've got better things to do than argue that logic works the way it does and fend of continuous personal attack. I'll start a new thread about discussion of proofs of God's existence and not post in this thread any more since you keep taking up all threads of hostility and personal attacks again and again to no end. Hopefully you'll avoid posting in my new thread unless you have something to say about the arguments rather than the persons.
Again it seems you misread Pinder's initial premise in post 120. And have argued a false premise ever since. I wonder what logical fallacy you committed in doing this.
Rather an amusing way to back out of that situation.......Blame others for your own failures and actions.
Interesting. So Pindar, you have strong atheism and weak atheism both of which have problems; I presume you would say then that strong theism and weak theism have problems. Is this correct?
Correct, If one says I believe X they are not making a knowledge claim. They are simply expressing a preference or personal conviction. This applies to both weak forms of atheism and theism. Strong atheism has the logical issues I've already explained. Strong theism doesn't suffer from a logical implosion, but would obviously need to answer for the claim. So, if someone said: 'God exists' they would have to give the wherefore when someone naturally asked: how do you know?
Banquo's Ghost
01-17-2007, 19:32
OK everyone. Is this debate going to move on or are we stuck?
I'm willing to leave it to develop on, but if it continues in this cul-de-sac, I feel only bad feeling is likely to result.
New challenge: convince me that it's worth leaving open. :beam:
:bow:
Sasaki Kojiro
01-17-2007, 19:40
Correct, If one says I believe X they are not making a knowledge claim. They are simply expressing a preference or personal conviction. This applies to both weak forms of atheism and theism. Strong atheism has the logical issues I've already explained. Strong theism doesn't suffer from a logical implosion, but would obviously need to answer for the claim. So, if someone said: 'God exists' they would have to give the wherefore when someone naturally asked: how do you know?
What is your definition of God? Are there any characteristics beyond that necessary being thing?
@Pindar: Now you're making a fallacy again. First you have a valid argument proving that "something that must exist must exist". So far ok. Then you follow that argument with: "therefore God exists". That step is a logical argument, but you're not stating it explicitly:
something that must exist must exist
============
therefore God exists
This argument is invalid unless God by defininition is "something that must exist"...
God is something that if it exists, cannot be otherwise by definition. This was explained earlier in the thread. God cannot be something that is dependant on an other for its existence, either causally, ontically or in any other way. This has been part of the logic of perfection that informs Western Thought from the Greeks forward.
If you define God as "something that must exist", the argument becomes valid, but then it's simply the assertion that: "x is true, therefore x is true", which is basically a less elegant and longer version of the pantheistic argument.
The argument is not the simple conclusion of an assertion: X therefore X.
The argument has nothing to do with pantheism. The argument makes no conflation of God with contingent reality.
I know what a sufficiency argument is, and that it certainly isn't a part of the rules of logic, but that it is an informal argument proposed by Leibniz' stating that...
No, you are referring to Leibniz's Principle of Sufficient Reason (which is what I cited for you earlier in the thread). This isn't what a sufficiency argument is.
Do you have anything to discuss regarding Gödel's formalization?
No, it doesn't relate to my proof.
Last but not least, remember that nobody so far has successfully proven God's existence, so if you want to convince the masses...
This is not correct. There are multiple proofs for God that span the history of philosophical thought. From a devotional perspective the Catholic Tradition considers the rational demonstration for God to be a settled question. Within Sunni Islam the Mutazilite rationalists would be another example. From a purely secular perspective there a numerous philosophers who have held God's existence rationally explicated. I gave three simple examples earlier. Historically, theism amongst philosophers has is in fact has been the standard, atheism is an old idea, but was rarely embraced due to its problematic character.
I particularly like this bible passage...
This doesn't relate to the focus or my argument which isn't sectarian.
Rodion Romanovich
01-17-2007, 19:44
@BG: I think there is more eagerness to show who said the worst personal attacks during the quite long and even exchange of personal attacks, than to discuss the actual subject. If there would be a fresh start over, after which all the personal attacks tracks would end, and be replaced by discussing the actual matter, I'd like the thread open. But if such a start over won't happen, I'd rather be pleased if it were closed, since it seems the only thing it's used for is to hand out personal attacks and telling how evil personal attacks the other side handed out, as well as complaining that the other side complained over personal attacks etc. etc. in an infinite loop, caused ex nihilo ~:)
It's interesting on rereading this thread to note that I've made 5 or so rather obvious fallacies in my actual arguments, but none of them have been pointed out :shrug:
OK everyone. Is this debate going to move on or are we stuck?
I'm willing to leave it to develop on, but if it continues in this cul-de-sac, I feel only bad feeling is likely to result.
New challenge: convince me that it's worth leaving open. :beam:
:bow:
LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix said he wasn't going to post in this thread anymore so I think the issue is resolved.
What is your definition of God? Are there any characteristics beyond that necessary being thing?
For the purposes of this discussion I've just been going with the standard notion as seen in rational thought from the Greeks forward. This would include all the standard ideas implied by a perfect being: the necessary merger of existence and essence, maximal knowledge, maximal moral standing etc.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-17-2007, 20:03
For the purposes of this discussion I've just been going with the standard notion as seen in rational thought from the Greeks forward. This would include all the standard ideas implied by a perfect being: the necessary merger of existence and essence, maximal knowledge, maximal moral standing etc.
How can those be reasonably claimed? They aren't part of the proof you offered earlier.
How can those be reasonably claimed? They aren't part of the proof you offered earlier.
You're right, My proof only looks to one essential feature of God. The other standard ideas/characteristics associated with God are part of the basic definition of the concept: much like a square must have four sides. The basic thrust of rational inquiry into God revolves around the idea of perfection. God is a perfect being. The maximal possession of all positive traits inherent in perfection is then delineated along the lines I mentioned: maximal knowledge, maximal moral standing etc. These are the Omni's that Christian thinkers adopted as they assumed a Greek intellectual posture to explain their faith.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-17-2007, 20:29
You're right, My proof only looks to one essential feature of God. The other standard ideas/characteristics associated with God are part of the basic definition of the concept: much like a square must have four sides. The basic thrust of rational inquiry into God revolves around the idea of perfection. God is a perfect being. The maximal possession of all positive traits inherent in perfection is then delineated along the lines I mentioned: maximal knowledge, maximal moral standing etc. These are the Omni's that Christian thinkers adopted as they assumed a Greek intellectual posture to explain their faith.
But you could have a necessary being without maximal knowledge.
But you could have a necessary being without maximal knowledge.
You could argue that, but to the Greeks to be aware was superior to its opposite. By the same calculus more knowledge is better. In other words, a hedgehog is superior to a rock. Think in these terms: if a man has knowledge and can increase in knowledge then it would be problematic to say God lacks that same knowledge or in fact doesn't possess the maximal extent already.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-17-2007, 21:03
You could argue that, but to the Greeks to be aware was superior to its opposite. By the same calculus more knowledge is better. In other words, a hedgehog is superior to a rock. Think in these terms: if a man has knowledge and can increase in knowledge then it would be problematic to say God lacks that same knowledge or in fact doesn't possess the maximal extent already.
Not particularly. He could be capable only of creating universe by some sort of fixed process. This doesn't even require consciousness.
Not particularly. He could be capable only of creating universe by some sort of fixed process. This doesn't even require consciousness.
I think you misunderstood my comment. If man is aware (has knowledge) and one also posits a God, but denies God has knowledge, then man is superior to God which would be problematic. Moreover, the way you've described things above suggests a God who could create unintentionally. This is also problematic.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-17-2007, 22:38
I think you misunderstood my comment. If man is aware (has knowledge) and one also posits a God, but denies God has knowledge, then man is superior to God which would be problematic. Moreover, the way you've described things above suggests a God who could create unintentionally. This is also problematic.
Why are they problematic?
Why are they problematic?
The first is problematic because if man is superior to God (having positive trait X that God lacks) then God isn't God (perfect).
The second is problematic because if God could create unintentionally then God could have accidents. This undercuts notions of control over His own acts. Moreover, accidents can be mistakes. Mistakes are errors. This undercuts the notion of perfection.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-18-2007, 00:19
The first is problematic because if man is superior to God (having positive trait X that God lacks) then God isn't God (perfect).
The second is problematic because if God could create unintentionally then God could have accidents. This undercuts notions of control over His own acts. Moreover, accidents can be mistakes. Mistakes are errors. This undercuts the notion of perfection.
Right. So there is no God. Or at least your earlier proof has no relation to God.
Right. So there is no God. Or at least your earlier proof has no relation to God.
? This doesn't follow from anything I've posted. The knowledge, moral standing etc. of God do not impact His necessary being.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-18-2007, 03:32
? This doesn't follow from anything I've posted. The knowledge, moral standing etc. of God do not impact His necessary being.
If knowledge and moral standing and required for a being to qualify as god, that a proof merely of a necessary being is not a proof of god.
If knowledge and moral standing and required for a being to qualify as god, that a proof merely of a necessary being is not a proof of god.
You do not understand. If I'm arguing for the existence of a mammal and I demonstrate the object produces milk then whether the object has hair, vertebrate, gives live birth etc., all of which may be true, is nonetheless ancillary.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-18-2007, 09:16
You do not understand. If I'm arguing for the existence of a mammal and I demonstrate the object produces milk then whether the object has hair, vertebrate, gives live birth etc., all of which may be true, is nonetheless ancillary.
On the contrary, I'm sure they could create milk by machine if they wanted to. Anyway, the definition of mammal comes from observation of the natural world. We know that creatures which produce milk also have hair, vertebrate etc because we have seen it. I could say that a necessary being implies whatever I want to, it isn't defined.
On the contrary, I'm sure they could create milk by machine if they wanted to. Anyway, the definition of mammal comes from observation of the natural world. We know that creatures which produce milk also have hair, vertebrate etc because we have seen it. I could say that a necessary being implies whatever I want to, it isn't defined.
You missed the point. I'm referring to necessary vs. sufficient conditions.
One cannot say a necessary being implies whatever they want. The concept is constrained by the base meaning.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-19-2007, 01:17
You missed the point. I'm referring to necessary vs. sufficient conditions.
One cannot say a necessary being implies whatever they want. The concept is constrained by the base meaning.
What is the base meaning of "necessary being"?
Beren Son Of Barahi
01-19-2007, 01:33
One cannot say a necessary being implies whatever they want. The concept is constrained by the base meaning.
Does the concept constrain the base meaning, since both are contructed by man, i.e they exsist in no other place in the known world then in man's thoughts, was the meaning invented to suit the concept.
start with a god, and work backwards to make everything else fit that.
What is the base meaning of "necessary being"?
Necessary refers to what cannot be otherwise: what cannot, not be.
Being refers to what has ontic distinctiveness: meaning it has a stuffness about it that marks its separation and identity independence. Necessary being therefore means some stuff that cannot not be.
Does the concept constrain the base meaning, since both are contructed by man, i.e they exsist in no other place in the known world then in man's thoughts, was the meaning invented to suit the concept.
start with a god, and work backwards to make everything else fit that.
Any concept has reference to thought and thereby a thinker. This does not mean what is thought is only a thought (though it may be) or that there isn't some necessary continuity to the concept considered. For example: If I think about a unicorn an idea comes to mind. This would include certain essential features: like perhaps a single horn. If someone put forward an creature with no horn as a unicorn then one could challenge in what way the thing is indeed a unicorn. With the God question understanding the concept's perfection requires an independence from any other object under a rational rubric. This is where God as necessary being comes from.
Understanding the nature (essence) of a thing whether a unicorn or God does not mean the thing thereby is. If we say God entails necessary being that does not mean we have to accept there actually is a necessary being, merely that is what the concept indicates.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-19-2007, 23:08
Necessary refers to what cannot be otherwise: what cannot, not be.
Being refers to what has ontic distinctiveness: meaning it has a stuffness about it that marks its separation and identity independence. Necessary being therefore means some stuff that cannot not be.
Right, and this doesn't have the characteristics of god you mentioned.
Sjakihata
01-20-2007, 01:12
Right, and this doesn't have the characteristics of god you mentioned.
Well it does. Pindar isnt arguing about a sectarian god, but of a god stripped of all distinctions, other than what requires him to exist, as a god.
if you wont call him a god, call him the first mover, like someone once did.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-20-2007, 02:33
Well it does. Pindar isnt arguing about a sectarian god, but of a god stripped of all distinctions, other than what requires him to exist, as a god.
if you wont call him a god, call him the first mover, like someone once did.
This would include all the standard ideas implied by a perfect being: the necessary merger of existence and essence, maximal knowledge, maximal moral standing etc.
:balloon2:
Sjakihata
01-20-2007, 02:39
:balloon2:
This is not his original claim. Try to follow the debate and you'll see that Pindar is only offering an answer to what other qualities a god might possess.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-20-2007, 02:46
This is not his original claim. Try to follow the debate and you'll see that Pindar is only offering an answer to what other qualities a god might possess.
For the purposes of this discussion I've just been going with the standard notion as seen in rational thought from the Greeks forward. This would include all the standard ideas implied by a perfect being: the necessary merger of existence and essence, maximal knowledge, maximal moral standing etc.
https://img251.imageshack.us/img251/2158/emotpsyduckvv0.gif
Regardless, that's the definition he's going with now.
Sjakihata
01-20-2007, 02:47
https://img251.imageshack.us/img251/2158/emotpsyduckvv0.gif
Regardless, that's the definition he's going with now.
Well, that's your take on it. To me the last two or three pages has just been a sidestep. Let's wait for Pindar to turn up.
Necessary refers to what cannot be otherwise: what cannot, not be.
Being refers to what has ontic distinctiveness: meaning it has a stuffness about it that marks its separation and identity independence. Necessary being therefore means some stuff that cannot not be.
Right, and this doesn't have the characteristics of god you mentioned.
? I'm not sure what the pronoun is referring to in the above, but if the 'this' is necessary being that is exactly the characteristic of God I mentioned. It is in fact the conclusion of the proof. Necessary Being has been part and parcel of God's definition since reason turned to the question.
As far as what I see in the posts between yourself and Sjakihata. The stance I have taken is not an exclusivist position in that I am not arguing God is only necessary being. God may include a whole host of other traits. I have mentioned some of these that fall under the standard rational meaning of the word. The point is identifying one essential trait. Necessary Being is one such trait.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-20-2007, 04:31
? I'm not sure what the pronoun is referring to in the above, but if the 'this' is necessary being that is exactly the characteristic of God I mentioned. It is in fact the conclusion of the proof. Necessary Being has been part and parcel of God's definition since reason turned to the question.
As far as what I see in the posts between yourself and Sjakihata. The stance I have taken is not an exclusivist position in that I am not arguing God is only necessary being. God may include a whole host of other traits. I have mentioned some of these that fall under the standard rational meaning of the word. The point is identifying one essential trait. Necessary Being is one such trait.
The reason I ask is I originally claimed that there wasn't a logical proof of god. If necessary being != god then I haven't been shown one. I don't think you can define god as necessary being and maximal knowledge + all that other stuff. It would be like saying that mammals have to be warm blooded so if something is warm blooded it must be a mammal.
@Sjakahita: I don't see how this is a sidestep.
I don't think you can define god as necessary being and maximal knowledge + all that other stuff.
Why do you think this?
Sasaki Kojiro
01-20-2007, 18:58
Why do you think this?
To use your analogy, it's like saying that being warm blooded means your a mammal, when in fact there are lot's of other requirements to being a mammal and birds are also warm blooded.
It's not rigorous :tongue3:
Reenk Roink
01-20-2007, 19:07
Sasaki, I don't know why you are continuing on this tangent, especially given Pindar's remarks on the matter.
Other attributes of God are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The proof does not concern itself with other attributes that are ascribed to God, and Pindar has made clear of its nonsectarian-ness.
I'm quite surprised, especially given the number of interlocutors and objections to Pindar and his proof, that there have only been a few passing remarks on the PSR. That's where the debate really lies...
*Don't expect me to bring up objections, I like the PSR...* :beam:
Sasaki Kojiro
01-20-2007, 19:19
Sasaki, I don't know why you are continuing on this tangent, especially given Pindar's remarks on the matter.
Other attributes of God are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The proof does not concern itself with other attributes that are ascribed to God, and Pindar has made clear of its nonsectarian-ness.
I think it's significant if the only attribute of god you can offer a proof of is minor and irrelevant. The phrase is "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts" and you don't even have most of the parts. I could invent my own creature and say that being the necessary being is one of it's attributes. Would you believe in it?
I don't know what psr is.
Sjakihata
01-20-2007, 19:24
Principle of Sufficient Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason)
Sasaki Kojiro
01-20-2007, 19:42
Principle of Sufficient Reason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason)
Singapore Conference Hall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Conference_Hall)
Sjakihata
01-20-2007, 20:56
What?
Sasaki Kojiro
01-20-2007, 22:49
What?
You mean I didn't get my point across with just a link to a wikipedia article? Well fancy that.
Sjakihata
01-20-2007, 23:54
You mean I didn't get my point across with just a link to a wikipedia article? Well fancy that.
You asked what PSR was. I gave you a link so you could read. Not that hard, is it?
Sasaki Kojiro
01-21-2007, 00:29
You asked what PSR was. I gave you a link so you could read. Not that hard, is it?
Thanks. I just didn't know what you meant.
To use your analogy, it's like saying that being warm blooded means your a mammal, when in fact there are lot's of other requirements to being a mammal and birds are also warm blooded.
It's not rigorous :tongue3:
My analogy was not with warm bloodedness, but creatures that produce milk. You have confused necessary and sufficient conditions.
I think it's significant if the only attribute of god you can offer a proof of is minor and irrelevant.
Necessary being is not a minor attribute: it speaks to the foundational being of a thing: its basic ontic standing.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-22-2007, 16:25
My analogy was not with warm bloodedness, but creatures that produce milk. You have confused necessary and sufficient conditions.
There are birds that produce milk as well.
Necessary being is not a minor attribute: it speaks to the foundational being of a thing: its basic ontic standing.
Whether the universe was created or came into being on it's own has no effect on our lives. You're evading the point.
There are birds that produce milk as well.
You've missed the point again: necessary and sufficient conditions are distinct logical categories.
Necessary being is not a minor attribute: it speaks to the foundational being of a thing: its basic ontic standing.
Whether the universe was created or came into being on it's own has no effect on our lives. You're evading the point.
Your post doesn't relate to my post which is not concerned with any ex nihilo commentary. My comment is concerned with the importance of a thing's ontic status and that that is fundamental.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-22-2007, 18:15
*stuff*
Have you given any proof of attributes of god other than "first mover"?
Have you given any proof of attributes of god other than "first mover"?
I gave a proof of God as necessary being. First Mover doesn't appear in the proof.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-23-2007, 23:10
I gave a proof of God as necessary being. First Mover doesn't appear in the proof.
I understood them to be the same, but whatever. Insert other phrase, same question?
This is taking way longer than it should.
I understood them to be the same, but whatever. Insert other phrase, same question?
This is taking way longer than it should.
They are not the same. I don't know what the "it" refers to above.
As far as the new question: I've only put forward one proof. It focuses on one essential feature of God. It is all that is needed. A proof for God does not require a taxonomy for very aspect of God i.e. the necessarily best basketball player. I chose one simple proof that revolves around the basic being of God. The proof is more than sufficient for its purpose which was to give an example why your earlier statement that "all strong statements about God are illogical" was incorrect. The absurdity of strong atheism, which I pointed out, remains, but none have been able to show my proof as invalid, despite some rather bizarre tangents.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-24-2007, 03:46
They are not the same. I don't know what the "it" refers to above.
As far as the new question: I've only put forward one proof. It focuses on one essential feature of God. It is all that is needed. A proof for God does not require a taxonomy for very aspect of God i.e. the necessarily best basketball player. I choose one simple proof that revolves around the basic being of God. The proof is more than sufficient for its purpose which was to give an example why your earlier statement that "all strong statements about God are illogical" was incorrect. The absurdity of strong atheism, which I pointed out, remains, but none have been able to show my proof as invalid, despite some rather bizarre tangents.
Your proof leaves no way of differentiating between:
"Thou shalt not post on message boards or you will be cast into the fiery pit"--God
and
"Thou shalt post on message boards or you will be cast into the fiery pit"--God
Which does God believe?
There has to be some significance to god's existence, or he is irrelevant. Necessary being provides no significance.
There has to be some significance to god's existence, or he is irrelevant. Necessary being provides no significance.
If you believe God may exist, but is irrelevant- you're not an atheist. Just sayin... :wink:
Papewaio
01-24-2007, 07:38
What is God necessary for?
Actually what is difference between the Big Bang and God?
Your proof leaves no way of differentiating between:
"Thou shalt not post on message boards or you will be cast into the fiery pit"--God
and
"Thou shalt post on message boards or you will be cast into the fiery pit"--God
Which does God believe?
There has to be some significance to god's existence, or he is irrelevant. Necessary being provides no significance.
The proof is concerned with the existence of God not a particular Divine edict. There has been a penchant in the thread to confuse sectarian notions (i.e. God commanding X) with rational display. They are not the same.
The significance of God's existence can be seen in the proof.
What is God necessary for?
See the proof.
Actually what is difference between the Big Bang and God?
The former is an event the latter is a being.
Haudegen
01-24-2007, 09:57
Hi,
I have watched this debate for a long time and I will now throw in my 2 cents.
The proof, Pindar has put, is based on the word "god". And god is obviously understood to be the necessary being, the "First Mover".
The word "god" has been shaped in our culture by the jewish/christian tradition. In this tradition god is indeed the necessary being. But I would argue that the connection of "god" with "necessary being" itself is not necessary.
To illustrate the point:
Imagine the first chapter of Genesis was slightly different and it would be like this: There was a BIG BANG and god came into being. He was almighty and omniscient and had many ideas about morality, but somehow he felt lonely. So he created Earth, plants and animals and finally mankind....
Kanamori
01-24-2007, 20:46
Reenk Roink,
Reason is inevitable. Any conclusion assumes its own rightness and the correctness of the means used to get there. It is contrary to any point we would wish to make to say that we cannot make a point. Organizing our understanding is an attempt to perfect what we must use. In the experience of humans so far, the scientific method of testing conclusions against our environment has been more successful than simply tossing the dice and coming to contradictory beliefs.
Pindar,
Just what qualities do you suppose that God necessarily has, and what leads to say that it has those qualities?
Hi,
I have watched this debate for a long time and I will now throw in my 2 cents.
The proof, Pindar has put, is based on the word "god". And god is obviously understood to be the necessary being, the "First Mover".
The word "god" has been shaped in our culture by the jewish/christian tradition. In this tradition god is indeed the necessary being. But I would argue that the connection of "god" with "necessary being" itself is not necessary.
To illustrate the point:
Imagine the first chapter of Genesis was slightly different and it would be like this: There was a BIG BANG and god came into being. He was almighty and omniscient and had many ideas about morality, but somehow he felt lonely. So he created Earth, plants and animals and finally mankind....
Hi Haudegen,
The proof I've given for God makes no reference to Biblical Tradition, not is it dependent on it. It is based on the logic of perfection as first demonstrated by the Greeks. God's necessity is considered part and parcel of the very concept God. God indicates perfection. This means not only the maximalization of all positive qualities, but also an ontic independence. What is necessary being in logical terms has being independent of any other act, actor or temporal consideration. A God who was dependent on another thing or is temporally bound (there was a time when it was not) in any degree would by that same degree be less than the maximal standard required for the designation God. In simple terms: a God created by a Big Bang or any other factor could not be God.
Pindar,
Just what qualities do you suppose that God necessarily has, and what leads to say that it has those qualities?
God has all the qualities entailed in the idea of perfection. This is because to be God under any rational rubric means to be perfect.
Haudegen
01-24-2007, 21:40
Thanks for the response, Pindar. I´m not at all familiar with the logic of perfection. Perhaps you have a link for me? Googling myself didn´t help. :oops:
Right now I ask myself (and you ~:) ): Why should I accept that there is one being that is perfect in every way? In fact I think all beings in the world have specialised in some aspects and perform poorly in other areas. Perfection can nowhere be found in nature.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-25-2007, 00:36
1) God is perfect
2) The universe is not perfect
3) Therefore god did not create the universe
??
Reenk Roink
01-25-2007, 02:30
Reenk Roink,
You got back to me. :beam: :smiley:
Reason is inevitable. Any conclusion assumes its own rightness and the correctness of the means used to get there. It is contrary to any point we would wish to make to say that we cannot make a point. Organizing our understanding is an attempt to perfect what we must use.
Exactly, but you have just admitted that we cannot escape circularity. And with circularity, we can prove anything.
You are essentially giving the "reason works" answer, am I right?
In the experience of humans so far, the scientific method of testing conclusions against our environment has been more successful than simply tossing the dice and coming to contradictory beliefs.
Now there is one big (I would say fatal) objection to this. I posted it earlier on the thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1377205&postcount=367).
I suggest reading the whole article, though the spoiler parts contain the important snippets if you're short on time.
I'll put it bluntly and allow Prof. Salmon to expound the point:
There is no reason why we should prefer the scientific method over crystal gazing, astrology, or dice throwing.
Papewaio
01-25-2007, 05:52
See the proof.
The former is an event the latter is a being.
My apologies but which page is the proof on?
Also if the proof relies on a prime mover it is like so 19th century and just can't handle the heat. :sweatdrop:
Thanks for the response, Pindar. I´m not at all familiar with the logic of perfection. Perhaps you have a link for me? Googling myself didn´t help. :oops:
I don't know about what Google has to offer. The Logic of Perfection is the rational rubric that attended Greek Thought on the question of the Absolute. This is seen from Parmenides through to Plotinus. It is also the rational standard adopted by a Hellenized Christianity and Islam. The former assuming a Neo-Platonic model the latter an Aristotelian one.
Right now I ask myself (and you ~:) ): Why should I accept that there is one being that is perfect in every way?
Should suggests some kind of ought: questions of prudence are not my concern here. I have been focused on the rational and irrational elements behind theistic and atheistic stances.
1) God is perfect
2) The universe is not perfect
3) Therefore god did not create the universe
??
This doesn't follow. Neither is it related to the existence or non-existence of God.
My apologies but which page is the proof on?
Also if the proof relies on a prime mover it is like so 19th century and just can't handle the heat. :sweatdrop:
I think the first reference is on page four, post 120. The proof is a model of an argument that is much much older than the 19th Century. It is millennia old in its scope.
Kanamori
01-26-2007, 22:22
God has all the qualities entailed in the idea of perfection. This is because to be God under any rational rubric means to be perfect.
What this means isn't clear to me. This, along the notions of "being" and that the universe couldn't have caused itself, seems a little vague. If you're interested in spending the time, I'd like to see a fairly detailed description of this portion of the proof.
Could the being shown in the proof not have perfection pulled from the ideas that make it up? Why can there only be one god? Why must we not be a part of this being? My organs are probably not aware of me, and it could be argued that we are processes, so we may be simply be lacking conciousness of some entity that we belong to.
Along with that, I've been thinking about conciousness and whether or not we can really be beings that continue to exist through time. Most of our body's cells do not stay with us for all of our lives, and the cells that do stay with us -- nerves I think do -- change and are never the same for all our lives, not to mention that the fact that I never actually remember existing, I just have memories.
Also, there are empirically based theories that say that the universe could have just always existed; relativity can go along these lines, I think. As in, time does not exist without spatiality, and without spatiality there is no matter.
You got back to me.
I only had time to make it a daydreaming project.
Exactly, but you have just admitted that we cannot escape circularity. And with circularity, we can prove anything.
You are essentially giving the "reason works" answer, am I right?
No, I'm not so audacious as to say that I know reason works, only that I am forced to assume that it does. Any statement, inlcuding "reason doesn't work," rely on us thinking that our thinking can be right; rightness and wrongness are judgments coming from evaluation. Denying reason is trying to deny pointedness that thinking is. Trying to deny the thinkning is just a trick of the words that are used as representations. (I know I'll have to expound on this later...)
I'll put it bluntly and allow Prof. Salmon to expound the point:
There is no reason why we should prefer the scientific method over crystal gazing, astrology, or dice throwing.
After hearing about a person gitting run over by a car, I think that it is in my best interestto avoid putting myself in the way of cars. The same methodology has resulted in more expansive and testable theories about our environments.
Reenk Roink
01-27-2007, 03:02
No, I'm not so audacious as to say that I know reason works, only that I am forced to assume that it does. Any statement, inlcuding "reason doesn't work," rely on us thinking that our thinking can be right; rightness and wrongness are judgments coming from evaluation. Denying reason is trying to deny pointedness that thinking is. Trying to deny the thinkning is just a trick of the words that are used as representations. (I know I'll have to expound on this later...)
Very astute point. I thought of it myself in a bit different way. I guessed that one possible objection would be "But Reenk, are you not yourself presupposing the validity of reason simply by using it to show that it is an unwarranted assumption?".
I would have to concede the point, but also reply with two of my own:
1) I am using reason simply because it is the only method that would be convincing to my audience (you). It would be more effective to use a crystal ball prediction to convince someone who holds crystal ball predictions as the epistemic foundation of knowledge, and the same is true in our case.
I could very well argue:
fripalu :hippy: iu-yoi
...but somehow, I don't think you would be as convinced...
2) It still runs in to the problem of circularity.
I have heard people criticize the argument of:
"I believe in God because the Bible says so, and I believe in the Bible because it is from God".
...and yet would not any justification of reason would run into the same problem?
Haudegen
01-27-2007, 10:47
Should suggests some kind of ought: questions of prudence are not my concern here. I have been focused on the rational and irrational elements behind theistic and atheistic stances.
Well, I consider myself open for rational arguments. Therefore I feel like I should believe something if it seems rational to me. ~:)
But I´m still struggling with this idea of perfection. I assume perfection means "the best that can possibly be". When you say that one aspect of perfection is non-contingency, I would argue that I simply don´t know whether non-contingency is possible at all, and I doubt that anyone (except god, if he exists) can know for sure. If I remember correctly you said earlier that a non-contingent being was necessary because otherwise there would be an infinite regress. Well, IMHO the infinite regress has the same problem: I don´t know if it´s possible, and probably nobody can know for sure. So in my view one has theses choices here:
1) Assume that non-contingent beings are possible. In this case the proof would probably convince me that there is a god.
2) Assume that an infinite regress is possible. In this case the proof would be faulty.
3) Concede that there is not enough information available to give a definite answer.
I´ll pick #3.
Papewaio
01-29-2007, 00:35
I think the first reference is on page four, post 120. The proof is a model of an argument that is much much older than the 19th Century. It is millennia old in its scope.
Age of arguments does not auto-validate them. It does mean we should carefully consider them rather then casually cast them off for a quick pop culture buzz...
In any case, as a simple example I'll give you a form of an argument that finds reference in Plato, Aristotle and Leibniz.
1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.
The above is a simple valid argument.
7 is true if the previous ones are correct.
5 not the main thrust but why must an infinite regression be any more logically absurd then a single step? If there is a cut off point at which point is it 2 steps logical, 3 steps not? If such a definitive line exists a definitive reason for such must also, not a whimsy that infinity is too large a concept for man hence too large a concept for the universe, the reason should not circumcised by our infallibilities.
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause.
Why not?
Reenk Roink
01-29-2007, 15:24
I think the first reference is on page four, post 120. The proof is a model of an argument that is much much older than the 19th Century. It is millennia old in its scope.
Age of arguments does not auto-validate them. It does mean we should carefully consider them rather then casually cast them off for a quick pop culture buzz...
I don't think he ever tried to imply that. I think he was just answering your question of:
"My apologies but which page is the proof on?"
...and then replying to your comment of:
"Also if the proof relies on a prime mover it is like so 19th century and just can't handle the heat. :sweatdrop:"
7 is true if the previous ones are correct.
5 not the main thrust but why must an infinite regression be any more logically absurd then a single step? If there is a cut off point at which point is it 2 steps logical, 3 steps not? If such a definitive line exists a definitive reason for such must also, not a whimsy that infinity is too large a concept for man hence too large a concept for the universe, the reason should not circumcised by our infallibilities.
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause.
Why not?
PSR
(finally, somebody going on the right tangent :2thumbsup:)
Sir Moody
01-29-2007, 16:01
1- Contingent beings exist
2- Contingent beings have a cause
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause
4- The cause must be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
5- A causality resting solely on contingent beings leads to a reductio ad absurdum (an infinate regress: a logical fallacy).
6- Therefore the ultimate cause must be a non-contingent being (a necessary being).
7- Therefore a necessary being must exist.
ooo goody i love logic was one of my favorite courses in Computing
1 - This is logically correct - it is a universal truth and thus a good starting point for a logical argument - we exist, we are Contingent Beings therefore Contingent Beings Exist
2 - Again Logically correct - All effects must have a cause - we are an effect therefore we must have a cause
3 - Logically Correct - An Effect cannot be its own cause - an effect comes into existence because of a cause - if the effect is the cause it will never come into existence. We are an effect - we exist - therefore we cant be the cause.
4 - oh dear and it was all going so well - this is logically a fallacy - a cause does not have to be a being it can in fact be anything - without some more logic to justify why it a contingent or non-contingent being are required for us to exist this statement fails
5 - Logically Correct - if the cause of a contingent being is another contingent being then the cause of that contingent being is another contingent being. A is the Effect of B is the effect of C is the effect of D etc - an eternal loop therefore the Cause of Contingent Beings cannot be Contingent beings.
6 - this would be true if 4 had passed but it didnt so this falls down
7 - same as above
4 needs some work to prove this but i dont think it can be done
Papewaio
01-29-2007, 21:43
"Also if the proof relies on a prime mover it is like so 19th century and just can't handle the heat. :sweatdrop:"
Thermodynamics. :sweatdrop:
God has all the qualities entailed in the idea of perfection. This is because to be God under any rational rubric means to be perfect.
What this means isn't clear to me. This, along the notions of "being" and that the universe couldn't have caused itself, seems a little vague. If you're interested in spending the time, I'd like to see a fairly detailed description of this portion of the proof.
The above means that under a rational paradigm the base meaning of God is wrapped up with the notion of being perfect. In short: something imperfect cannot be God.
Regarding your questions on being: being is the reference to what exists, has ontic independence: often noted by individual extension. It is the base stuffness that makes a thing, a thing.
On self causality: Let me see if this explains the problem: a self caused X is an absurdity. Why? Because it is impossible for an effect to be its own cause. Why? because there is no point at which the necessary precursor (the cause) can then be established without always already positing the consequent (the effect) and also avoid a circularity. This means it begs the question (X comes from X) and simply becomes an assertion.
Could the being shown in the proof not have perfection pulled from the ideas that make it up? Why can there only be one god? Why must we not be a part of this being? My organs are probably not aware of me, and it could be argued that we are processes, so we may be simply be lacking conciousness of some entity that we belong to.
The argument turns on a logical distinction: necessary and contingent being. These two are distinct by definition. If something is contingent, say a hedgehog (it has a beginning and end etc.) then it cannot be a necessary being.
Along with that, I've been thinking about conciousness and whether or not we can really be beings that continue to exist through time. Most of our body's cells do not stay with us for all of our lives, and the cells that do stay with us -- nerves I think do -- change and are never the same for all our lives, not to mention that the fact that I never actually remember existing, I just have memories.
To admit change is to admit a sustained position from which such can be noted. Otherwise it is impossible to verify the asserted change.
Well, I consider myself open for rational arguments. Therefore I feel like I should believe something if it seems rational to me. ~:)
I understand. So you are simply wanting to be consistent (a rational person holds rational positions) and not asking about any moral question per say.
But I´m still struggling with this idea of perfection. I assume perfection means "the best that can possibly be". When you say that one aspect of perfection is non-contingency, I would argue that I simply don´t know whether non-contingency is possible at all, and I doubt that anyone (except god, if he exists) can know for sure. If I remember correctly you said earlier that a non-contingent being was necessary because otherwise there would be an infinite regress. Well, IMHO the infinite regress has the same problem: I don´t know if it´s possible, and probably nobody can know for sure. So in my view one has theses choices here:
1) Assume that non-contingent beings are possible. In this case the proof would probably convince me that there is a god.
2) Assume that an infinite regress is possible. In this case the proof would be faulty.
3) Concede that there is not enough information available to give a definite answer.
I´ll pick #3.
The proof assumes contingent beings exist. It then concludes that a necessary being must exist because of that initial assumption. This is based on a logical framework. It is valid and thereby complete in form.
To accept an infinite regress is to move outside the bounds of reason due to the absurdity such entails (this has been explained previously in the thread).
Age of arguments does not auto-validate them. It does mean we should carefully consider them rather then casually cast them off for a quick pop culture buzz...
See Roink's comments.
7 is true if the previous ones are correct.
5 not the main thrust but why must an infinite regression be any more logically absurd then a single step?
Because it begs the question.
3- The cause of a contingent being cannot be itself as an effect cannot be its own cause.
Why not?
Because it begs the question
Papewaio
01-30-2007, 03:04
T
On self causality: Let me see if this explains the problem: a self caused X is an absurdity. Why? Because it is impossible for an effect to be its own cause. Why? because there is no point at which the necessary precursor (the cause) can then be established without always already positing the consequent (the effect) and also avoid a circularity. This means it begs the question (X comes from X) and simply becomes an assertion.
Well heres the rub.
IF logic says its impossible.
YET nature does so.
WHICH is wrong? Logic or Nature?
4 - oh dear and it was all going so well - this is logically a fallacy - a cause does not have to be a being it can in fact be anything - without some more logic to justify why it a contingent or non-contingent being are required for us to exist this statement fails
Hello,
To claim a being can be caused by a non-being is problematic.
The logical distinction between contingent and non-contingent being is inclusive of what is. Therefore, for any posited contingent being X its cause can only be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
Well heres the rub.
IF logic says its impossible.
YET nature does so.
WHICH is wrong? Logic or Nature?
Are you an irrationalist? That is interesting. Regardless, nature does not do so.
Papewaio
01-30-2007, 03:12
Thats not answering my question.
What if nature does one and logic the other, which is correct?
Thats not answering my question.
What if nature does one and logic the other, which is correct?
That depends on if your a rationalist or not.
Reenk Roink
01-30-2007, 03:19
Thats not answering my question.
What if nature does one and logic the other, which is correct?
It's an odd question though... :rolleyes4:
If you are positing that there is something that is empirically verifiable which contradicts a logical axiom, then you could either make the case to revise or remove the axiom or hold that the empirical phenomenon is not what it is (i.e not logically possible and therefore not possible)...
Papewaio
01-30-2007, 03:23
Ok for yourself Pindar-sama, If you found that nature says one thing and logic another, which of the two is correct?
Reenk Roink
01-30-2007, 03:32
A man is walking down the street and he can't believe his eyes when he catches a glimpse of something! A four-sided triangle! He rubs his eyes, but the four-sided triangle is still there.
He has a choice to make. Mathematical axioms tell him that a four-sided triangle is impossible. His eyes tell him it is lying right in front of him.
Should he believe his sense experience and perception of his mind or should he believe the mathematical axioms?
Is this what you were going at Papewaio?
Sir Moody
01-30-2007, 11:09
Hello,
To claim a being can be caused by a non-being is problematic.
The logical distinction between contingent and non-contingent being is inclusive of what is. Therefore, for any posited contingent being X its cause can only be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
not quite doesnt anwser my point - the difference between the two is logical - a Contingent being is one who at some point will not exist - an non-Contingent Being is one who will always exist
the point is there is no logical arguement that holds up as to why a being is required to create another being (most likely because we cannot quite understand how we came into being so cannot apply logic too it)
Ok for yourself Pindar-sama, If you found that nature says one thing and logic another, which of the two is correct?
I'm a rationalist. Some may believe that the light of the full moon can make young girls pregnant, others may believe square-circles exist, still others may believe nothing can produce something. All would be logically problematic. I agree with Kant: "sensation without an attending concept is blind" meaning: phenomena without an over arching transcendental (and thereby rational ordering principle) is meaningless.
The logical distinction between contingent and non-contingent being is inclusive of what is. Therefore, for any posited contingent being X its cause can only be another contingent being or a non-contingent being.
not quite doesnt anwser my point - the difference between the two is logical - a Contingent being is one who at some point will not exist - an non-Contingent Being is one who will always exist
This is not correct. Contingent Being status does not require a given thing end (though it very well may). Rather, a contingent being is something that lacks logical necessity: it need not be. Therefore, any posit of a contingent being needs an explanation for why it is and opposed to not. In short, a contingent being, by the label, has a cause. This is the thrust of the proof. Point 4 then indicates that any cause of a contingent being must be from another contingent being or a non-contingent being. This is not a remarkable claim.
the point is there is no logical arguement that holds up as to why a being is required to create another being (most likely because we cannot quite understand how we came into being so cannot apply logic too it)
The proof makes no demands that a given thing create another. The proof does look into the wherefore of any given contingent being. The focus is backward, not forward.
Kanamori
01-30-2007, 20:44
1) I am using reason simply because it is the only method that would be convincing to my audience (you). It would be more effective to use a crystal ball prediction to convince someone who holds crystal ball predictions as the epistemic foundation of knowledge, and the same is true in our case.
I could very well argue:
fripalu iu-yoi
...but somehow, I don't think you would be as convinced...
I think that there's a disconnect here. What I am arguing for is connected thought, where thoughts relate to one another, that is what I call reason. The man who claims that God exists does so for his own reason and thinks his belief is justified. In claiming the supremacy of reason, I am saying that his view can be attacked, and shown to be right or wrong. So, if "fripalu iu-yoi" means something, I should be able to learn it, and thus should also be able to evaluate what it says. In this way, crystal ball gazing is using 'reason', as ball gazers see it. The problem is that people tend to explain away things that happen contrary to their predictions or problems that arise in their systems, by relying on the systems that they already have. Their explanations of things don't necessarily reach the conclusion that they have come to; it was just one possible explanation, and they don't consider the possibility of others. The scientific method isn't to discount possible explanations, it is to try to see all possibe explanations and give reasons why one is the best.
2) It still runs in to the problem of circularity.
I have heard people criticize the argument of:
"I believe in God because the Bible says so, and I believe in the Bible because it is from God".
...and yet would not any justification of reason would run into the same problem?
I've got class in a bit, and can't answer the question fully in the time I have.
Reenk Roink
01-30-2007, 21:08
I think that there's a disconnect here. What I am arguing for is connected thought, where thoughts relate to one another, that is what I call reason. The man who claims that God exists does so for his own reason and thinks his belief is justified. In claiming the supremacy of reason, I am saying that his view can be attacked, and shown to be right or wrong. So, if "fripalu iu-yoi" means something, I should be able to learn it, and thus should also be able to evaluate what it says. In this way, crystal ball gazing is using 'reason', as ball gazers see it. The problem is that people tend to explain away things that happen contrary to their predictions or problems that arise in their systems, by relying on the systems that they already have. Their explanations of things don't necessarily reach the conclusion that they have come to; it was just one possible explanation, and they don't consider the possibility of others. The scientific method isn't to discount possible explanations, it is to try to see all possibe explanations and give reasons why one is the best.
Interesting point.
Since "reason" is proving to be a tough thing to nail down (as you have said, crystal ball gazing could be using reason too), let us then narrow it down to the scientific method.
Now, I do think that Salmon makes a very strong case that we have no reason to prefer the methodology of the scientific method over things like crystal ball gazing or astrology.
Papewaio
01-30-2007, 21:44
[student mode]On self causality: Where do feedback mechanisms and freewill stand?[/student mode]
I'm a rationalist. Some may believe that the light of the full moon can make young girls pregnant, others may believe square-circles exist, still others may believe nothing can produce something. All would be logically problematic. I agree with Kant: "sensation without an attending concept is blind" meaning: phenomena without an over arching transcendental (and thereby rational ordering principle) is meaningless.
[debate mode]Good we can at least agree on 2 of those 3 items.
Nature does create particles out of nothing. [/debate mode]
Kanamori
01-31-2007, 17:52
Now, I do think that Salmon makes a very strong case that we have no reason to prefer the methodology of the scientific method over things like crystal ball gazing or astrology.
Well, there is no concrete and unshakable link between the conclusions the scientific method has reached, and what's actually going to happen, so far as we know. However, astrology has not produced any concrete discoveries, whereas science has sent us to the moon, says things often seen as offensive to the norm, and at least makes an attempt to reconcile its theories with actual events that have been repeatedly seen. I'm not much of a gambler, so I'll put my confidence in something that is backed up by all previous observations when I have to make some decision about what to do. The fact that we do not know the future does not show that all methods of trying to understand what's going on around us are equal. This is mentioned in the .pdf: if the world can never be predicted in any way, then all methods of trying to predict something are equally bad and disconnected from events; and, if the world can be predicted and is governed by laws, then knowing the laws is useful. In one case, no predictions matter, in the other, it seems more productive for humans to try to observe, theorize, and test theory in hopes of finding the natural laws.
2) It still runs in to the problem of circularity.
I have heard people criticize the argument of:
"I believe in God because the Bible says so, and I believe in the Bible because it is from God".
...and yet would not any justification of reason would run into the same problem?
Yes, though religious belief does it on a larger scale. In order for someone to claim that the Bible was made by God, they must also suppose that they can know something. In my experiences, making things more complicated than they have to be has caused me to be more prone to error.
ooo goody i love logic was one of my favorite courses in Computing
1 - This is logically correct - it is a universal truth and thus a good starting point for a logical argument - we exist, we are Contingent Beings therefore Contingent Beings Exist
2 - Again Logically correct - All effects must have a cause - we are an effect therefore we must have a cause
3 - Logically Correct - An Effect cannot be its own cause - an effect comes into existence because of a cause - if the effect is the cause it will never come into existence. We are an effect - we exist - therefore we cant be the cause.
4 - oh dear and it was all going so well - this is logically a fallacy - a cause does not have to be a being it can in fact be anything - without some more logic to justify why it a contingent or non-contingent being are required for us to exist this statement fails
5 - Logically Correct - if the cause of a contingent being is another contingent being then the cause of that contingent being is another contingent being. A is the Effect of B is the effect of C is the effect of D etc - an eternal loop therefore the Cause of Contingent Beings cannot be Contingent beings.
6 - this would be true if 4 had passed but it didnt so this falls down
7 - same as above
4 needs some work to prove this but i dont think it can be done
Doesn't the creation of the universe provide the cause without requiring a god? And seeing as the universe didn't exist prior to that, logic doesn't work, so it may not need a cause at all.
To be honest these sorts of logical arguments annoy me. They're always so... weak.
Reenk Roink
01-31-2007, 19:26
Well, there is no concrete and unshakable link between the conclusions the scientific method has reached, and what's actually going to happen, so far as we know. However, astrology has not produced any concrete discoveries, whereas science has sent us to the moon, says things often seen as offensive to the norm, and at least makes an attempt to reconcile its theories with actual events that have been repeatedly seen. I'm not much of a gambler, so I'll put my confidence in something that is backed up by all previous observations when I have to make some decision about what to do. The fact that we do not know the future does not show that all methods of trying to understand what's going on around us are equal. This is mentioned in the .pdf: if the world can never be predicted in any way, then all methods of trying to predict something are equally bad and disconnected from events; and, if the world can be predicted and is governed by laws, then knowing the laws is useful. In one case, no predictions matter, in the other, it seems more productive for humans to try to observe, theorize, and test theory in hopes of finding the natural laws.
I think this point of yours (Pragmatic justification) was anticipated in the essay:
“Look,” you say a bit brusquely, “I see that Hume was right about our inability to prove that nature is uniform. But suppose that nature does play a trick on us, so to speak. Suppose that after all this time of appearing quite uniform, manifesting all sorts of regularities such as the laws of physics, she turns chaotic. Then there isn’t anything we can do anyhow. Someone might make a lucky guess about some future event, but there would be no systematic method for anticipating the chaos successfully. It seems to me I’ve got a way of predicting the future which will work if nature is uniform – the scientific method, or if you like, the inductive method – and if nature isn’t uniform, I’m out of luck whatever I do. It seems to me I’ve got everything to gain and nothing to lose (except a lot of hard work) if I attempt to adhere to the scientific approach. That seems good enough to me; what do you think?”
To which Salmon (Professor Philo) gives his answer concerning the difficulties of such a position, although it may be one we like.
I think it is interesting you alluded to the point that the scientific method has led to benefits for us, and it is productive to use it over astrology, religion, crystal ball gazing etc...
In reply, one could affirm that science has been productive so far (or to deny that as science has led to some extremely destructive consequences). However (or "On top of that"), previous success (or failure) has absolutely no bearing on the future, and so it is a moot and irrelevant point.
I guess to sum it up, you may not be a gambler, but the scientific method is no more likely than another methodology to pay returns.
Yes, though religious belief does it on a larger scale. In order for someone to claim that the Bible was made by God, they must also suppose that they can know something. In my experiences, making things more complicated than they have to be has caused me to be more prone to error.
I really don't see how religious belief would do it on a larger scale.
In order for someone to claim that the best way of gaining/deriving knowledge is by the scientific method, they must also assume that:
1) The scientific method is a reliable method for acquiring knowledge.
2) One can actually have knowledge.
3) There actually is knowledge.
Seems quite similar to the religious believer who says the best way of gaining/deriving knowledge is through religious scripture. He must assume that:
1) Religious scripture is a reliable method for acquiring knowledge.
2) One can actually have knowledge.
3) There actually is knowledge.
And you could do the same with crystal balls, astrology, etc...
[student mode]On self causality: Where do feedback mechanisms and freewill stand?[/student mode]
Feedback systems do not posit spontaneous generation or ex nihilo postures.
Freewill is concerned with moral responsibility and comes into play when looking at deterministic systems. It is an ethical consideration. The focus here is formally epistemological as far as atheism is the issue and ontology when looking at my proof.
Nature does create particles out of nothing.
No, it does not. Heisenberg would shudder at the thought. Virtual particles do not help on this issue.
Papewaio
02-01-2007, 01:00
Feedback systems do not posit spontaneous generation or ex nihilo postures.
[student mode]Don't they show that a Contingent Being is the same effect and cause...so how does that play out on the idea that a thing cannot be its own cause? [/student mode]
Freewill is concerned with moral responsibility and comes into play when looking at deterministic systems. It is an ethical consideration. The focus here is formally epistemological as far as atheism is the issue and ontology when looking at my proof.
[student mode]If I have freewill doesn't that freewill require that I make those choices internally without an external force pushing them on me. Hence my decisions (effect) are from my own freewill (cause) so as a Contingent Being I am the cause and effect. Or do we split the I Contingent Being: Human into Contingent Being: Freewill (cause) and Contingent Being: Decision (effect) [/student mode]
No, it does not. Heisenberg would shudder at the thought. Virtual particles do not help on this issue.
Virtual Particles:
a) Spontaneously generate
b) Out of nothing
Nor is nature limited to just these instances. Where does thermodynamics, nuclear decay and quantum theory (and the foreshadowed uncertainty principle) have on spontaneous generation?
Kanamori
02-01-2007, 01:57
In reply, one could affirm that science has been productive so far (or to deny that as science has led to some extremely destructive consequences). However (or "On top of that"), previous success (or failure) has absolutely no bearing on the future, and so it is a moot and irrelevant point.
I guess to sum it up, you may not be a gambler, but the scientific method is no more likely than another methodology to pay returns.
It is important that you say "the scientific method is no more likely..." If nature is going to go haywire, then we have no idea about what's going to happen. Liklihood assumes that there is some pattern... it's more that no theory from us will predict what's going to happen. However, before any of that, we don't know whether or not things can be predicted, and there may easily be methods that are better than others if nature does act in a uniform way. Expanding on the argument I made before, two scenarios are possible: One, if nature is ever unpredictable, then all forms of prediction are useless; Two, if nature is uniform, then it may be predictable in some way. In the first scenario, any direction we give ourselves, including the scientific method, is equally bad. In the second, our predictions may bear semblance to the natural laws, and it may turn out to be very useful to understand things. We may be in either scenario, and the best choice of scenario 2 is a choice in scenario 1. I can cover for the whole situation of choices best by opting for the Scientific Method, so I'm going to. Now, I honestly doubt that any sane person is going to choose to operate as if they're in scenario 1 unless you also tell me that it is just blind luck that people don't waltz in dangerous places, like the middle of an interstate. (I do have the infamous Liar Argument in reserve, so don't you make me take it out!)
I don't see, anywhere in the Bible, Thou Shalt Not Waltz In The Way Of Cars.
Personally, I'm happy without taking up some religion, but if it makes somebody else happier to take up some religion, then I've got no problems with them taking it up. It's unnecessary in my life, so I'm not going to put the time into it.
Reenk Roink
02-01-2007, 03:42
It is important that you say "the scientific method is no more likely..." If nature is going to go haywire, then we have no idea about what's going to happen. Liklihood assumes that there is some pattern... it's more that no theory from us will predict what's going to happen. However, before any of that, we don't know whether or not things can be predicted, and there may easily be methods that are better than others if nature does act in a uniform way. Expanding on the argument I made before, two scenarios are possible: One, if nature is ever unpredictable, then all forms of prediction are useless; Two, if nature is uniform, then it may be predictable in some way. In the first scenario, any direction we give ourselves, including the scientific method, is equally bad. In the second, our predictions may bear semblance to the natural laws, and it may turn out to be very useful to understand things. We may be in either scenario, and the best choice of scenario 2 is a choice in scenario 1. I can cover for the whole situation of choices best by opting for the Scientific Method, so I'm going to. Now, I honestly doubt that any sane person is going to choose to operate as if they're in scenario 1 unless you also tell me that it is just blind luck that people don't waltz in dangerous places, like the middle of an interstate. (I do have the infamous Liar Argument in reserve, so don't you make me take it out!)
You are putting forward pragmatic justification here, I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that the position was anticipated and responded to in the essay itself.
The student said this:
“Look,” you say a bit brusquely, “I see that Hume was right about our inability to prove that nature is uniform. But suppose that nature does play a trick on us, so to speak. Suppose that after all this time of appearing quite uniform, manifesting all sorts of regularities such as the laws of physics, she turns chaotic. Then there isn’t anything we can do anyhow. Someone might make a lucky guess about some future event, but there would be no systematic method for anticipating the chaos successfully. It seems to me I’ve got a way of predicting the future which will work if nature is uniform – the scientific method, or if you like, the inductive method – and if nature isn’t uniform, I’m out of luck whatever I do. It seems to me I’ve got everything to gain and nothing to lose (except a lot of hard work) if I attempt to adhere to the scientific approach. That seems good enough to me; what do you think?”
To which the Professor replied:
“Your suggestion is a good one,” she replies, “but modern philosophers have found it surprisingly difficult to say precisely what type of statement can qualify as a possible law of nature. It is a law of nature, most physicists would agree, that no material objects travel faster than light; they would refuse to admit, as a law of nature, that no golden spheres are more than one mile in diameter. It is not easy to state clearly the basis for this distinction. Both statements are generalizations, and both are true to the best of our knowledge.”
“Isn’t the difference simply that you cannot, even in principle, accelerate a material object to the speed of light, while it is possible in principle to fabricate an enormous sphere of gold?”
“That is precisely the question at issue,” she replies. “The problem is, what basis do we have for claiming possibility in the one case and impossibility in the other. You seem to be saying that a law of nature prevents the one but not the other, which is obviously circular. And if you bring in the notion of causation – causing something to go faster than light vs. causing a large golden sphere to be created – you only compound the difficulty, for the concept of causation is itself a source of great perplexity.
So you see, even if you were to say that the Scientific Method is the best choice for all situations, you would have the problem of these scientific laws.
What would be the criterion of these laws? Certainly the criterion used now (inference based on past events) is rendered useless.
The position just runs into serious problems of begging the question, even if you avoid the problem of induction.
As for the last part of your post:
"Now, I honestly doubt that any sane person is going to choose to operate as if they're in scenario 1 unless you also tell me that it is just blind luck that people don't waltz in dangerous places, like the middle of an interstate. (I do have the infamous Liar Argument in reserve, so don't you make me take it out!)"
This may be so. In fact, most people would question the sanity of one who does not believe in an material world or even one who does not believe in free will, but the fact is, that they are at least as justified and perhaps more justified in denying these things as compared to one who accepts them.
It just strikes me as odd that some will come out and criticize religious belief for being questionable from a rational standpoint while some of the beliefs that they posit as a replacement (i.e. scientific method) suffer from serious challenges as well. I find some of the rigorous logical arguments for God, though still limited in some ways, to be much more rationally convincing than arguments in favor for the scientific method.
Still, I cannot help but think that if I walk out of a building window 3 stories above the ground, that I will fall down, despite the fact that I have no rational reason to do so. It's pure psychological habit. Of course, it is not too much of a problem for me, as I have accepted our irrationality in many areas.
One other beef I have with the scientific method which is much more relevant is Feyerabend's critique of the concept of a scientific method, but of course, that is for another topic...
Papewaio
02-01-2007, 05:28
Lets say we enter a universe and that we have no prior knowledge about it.
It has an equal chance of being uniform or chaotic.
In a chaotic universe all methods of inquiry are equal. Crystal Ball Gazing is as useful as using Science, both have the same use in predictions (which include technology). In the chaotic universe if you want to make TV transistors you have as much chance to do so by playing Tarots as silicon manufacture.
In the uniform universe, science seems to yield more results then crystal ball gazing.
So in the Chaotic universe the payoff is evens.
In the Uniform universe the payoff is very much in favour of science.
So on average science has a better payoff. It works as well as everything else in a chaotic universe and it out performs the rest in a uniform one.
Kanamori
02-01-2007, 05:47
Well, I guess it's about time that I learn relativity and the basis of scientific theory.~:sullen: (I.e., it's probably going to be a while before I have something that adresses that well enough.)
Reenk Roink
02-01-2007, 18:05
Lets say we enter a universe and that we have no prior knowledge about it.
It has an equal chance of being uniform or chaotic.
In a chaotic universe all methods of inquiry are equal. Crystal Ball Gazing is as useful as using Science, both have the same use in predictions (which include technology). In the chaotic universe if you want to make TV transistors you have as much chance to do so by playing Tarots as silicon manufacture.
In the uniform universe, science seems to yield more results then crystal ball gazing.
So in the Chaotic universe the payoff is evens.
In the Uniform universe the payoff is very much in favour of science.
So on average science has a better payoff. It works as well as everything else in a chaotic universe and it out performs the rest in a uniform one.
Pragmatic Justification.
I understand what you guys are saying, however, even if we were to use this argument, there would still be that touchy problem of what is the criterion for our scientific laws.
Even if we were to find a sufficient criterion...
Pascal's Wager? :wink:
Papewaio
02-02-2007, 06:24
Okay you show me how the internet and all the devices that you use to connect weren't based on science but instead by the equivalent of tarot reading.
And yes it is Pascal's Wager applied to the idea that we may or may not be living in a universe where science can help us predict what will happen next...
BTW I did state science not scientific method...subtle nuance.
Reenk Roink
02-02-2007, 16:17
BTW I did state science not scientific method...subtle nuance.
This was the last part of your post, but I will address it first because of it's priority.
I am speaking of the scientific method, which is generally understood to be the foundation of "science" as we understand it today. I really have no wish to go over the meaning of "science" because it is a very broad term. Ghazali, who preceded Hume in the critique of causality, used to term the Sufism he espoused to be "the Science of the Heart".
Scientific laws and scientific theories are based on the scientific method, and that is my area of critique. As the adage goes, I am going for the head, without which the body would fall apart.
The scientific method is the epistemic base on which our scientific knowledge rests.
Okay you show me how the internet and all the devices that you use to connect weren't based on science but instead by the equivalent of tarot reading.
You are using the "Science has given us good things" argument.
It's a good response. After all, I am indebted to science who made it possible for me to use the computer (of course, we could split hairs and say it was mechanics (hardware) and mathematics (software) who made it possible for me to use the computer, but I have no wish to do that at the moment).
However, there are some responses to this response (of course keeping in mind that this does not at all justify the reliability of the scientific method in the future).
I could also say that science has brought on a host of evils in this world. Terrifying and destructive weaponry and the risk to our privacy are two main examples that pop up, and I'm sure there are others.
Also, I could say that tarot cards give other benefits, separate from a material paradigm. Obviously, given the fact that psychics, fortune tellers, crystal ball gazers, astrologers, etc, have quite a large niche following, it is reasonable to conclude that they are deriving some benefit from these things. Perhaps it gives them peace of mind, comfort, happiness, a sense of control, etc.
In fact, the things that psychics, fortune tellers, crystal ball gazers, astrologers, etc, give to some people are more important to me than material goods (I don't personally derive any of those things from the above methods). I know I could live without a computer, a TV, a phone, or even electricity.
Lastly, I would bring up one of Feyerabend's main legs in his argument against a scientific method. The fact that scientific progress is usually made by going against the grain of the scientific method. Backing his thesis up with the examples of Copernicus and Galileo (figureheads of the Scientific Revolution and paragons of Scientific progress).
And yes it is Pascal's Wager applied to the idea that we may or may not be living in a universe where science can help us predict what will happen next...
I found it difficult to accept the Wager, which would ask me to believe in something despite the fact that they could give no evidence for it. I find psychological experience and cosmological/ontological proofs much more convincing than the Wager.
Given that, I simply cannot accept pragmatic justification either.
I have a question for you though:
Since you put forth this type of argumentation to justify your belief in the scientific method (or if you will, that science can help us predict what will happen next), what relevant difference stops you from accept the Wager and believing in God?
mystic brew
02-02-2007, 18:18
Pragmatic Justification.
Even if we were to find a sufficient criterion...
Pascal's Wager? :wink:
which is, as your wink implies, a crock! I falls down on about 50 different criteria!
Banquo's Ghost
02-02-2007, 18:50
Lastly, I would bring up one of Feyerabend's main legs in his argument against a scientific method. The fact that scientific progress is usually made by going against the grain of the scientific method. Backing his thesis up with the examples of Copernicus and Galileo (figureheads of the Scientific Revolution and paragons of Scientific progress).
Well, if that's one of his main legs, he's going to fall over.
It's precisely by application of scientific method (making observations, formulating a theory, testing that theory to see if it fits more observations) that Copernicus and Galileo - most especially the latter - advanced science.
They didn't go against the grain of scientific method at all - their observations challenged the existing paradigm. To explain these observations, a new theory was proposed. Copernicus was unable to demonstrate his theory effectively because he hadn't got the necessary tools, so when Galileo used a telescope to make observations that supported Copernican theory, the advance became incontrovertible.
Pure science. Excellent science. Perhaps the worst possible example that your man could have chosen to refute the method.
To say that science has given us both bad and good things is a distraction. Science is neutral - men make the choice of how to apply scientific knowledge. The acquisition of that knowledge is subject to a method that has shown its worth many times over. If we had relied on theology as our method (to take one alternative) we would still be in the Dark Ages.
Is the method able to investigate all facets of the universe? - perhaps not.
But it is safe to say that we would be unlikely to labour under the threat of nuclear war if the alchemists had attempted to discover the atom by waving the Tower of God card and shouting bang impressively. :beam:
Sasaki Kojiro
02-02-2007, 19:11
I'm still not getting how necessary being could in any way be construed as proof of a perfect being.
Reenk Roink
02-02-2007, 19:25
double post
Reenk Roink
02-02-2007, 19:31
Well, if that's one of his main legs, he's going to fall over.
It's precisely by application of scientific method (making observations, formulating a theory, testing that theory to see if it fits more observations) that Copernicus and Galileo - most especially the latter - advanced science.
They didn't go against the grain of scientific method at all - their observations challenged the existing paradigm. To explain these observations, a new theory was proposed. Copernicus was unable to demonstrate his theory effectively because he hadn't got the necessary tools, so when Galileo used a telescope to make observations that supported Copernican theory, the advance became incontrovertible.
Pure science. Excellent science. Perhaps the worst possible example that your man could have chosen to refute the method.
Do not think you quite understand Banquo, and that is probably my fault in the way I phrased it.
I really recommend reading his book, Against Method, but the man is misunderstood. Here is a good link summarizing his points (http://www.galilean-library.org/feyerabend.html).
Feyerabend preferred to use another – more famous – example from the history of science: Galileo's work on geostaticism. His reductio consisted in three stages, designed to critique naïve empiricism, Popper's falsificationism and Lakatos' Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes in turn – each being an instance of a rationalist approach to science (in the case of the latter two, the most common even today). For the first of these, he considered the famous Tower Argument, a circumstance relied upon by Aristotelians to discount the possibility of a moving Earth. Its proponents pointed to the fact that a stone dropped from a tower lands at its base. If the Earth was moving, as some supposed, the tower would move with it and hence the stone would drop some distance away. (A variant of the same argument stated that an arrow fired vertically into the air should fall far from the firer, since he or she would have moved along with the earth while the arrow was in flight.) This was an idea everyone could understand and hence served as a powerful refutation of the notion that the Earth moves.
It matters not at this stage whether Galileo was an empiricist or not: in order to undertake a reductio, we assume that he was and see what follows. What Galileo did was to accept the observations made by those who had tested this theory (that the stone falls at the base) and then appeal to a principle of relativity (often called Galilean relativity). He asked his readers to imagine two friends throwing a ball to each other while inside a cabin on a ship alongside and then the same situation while the ship was underway, considering whether more (or less) force would be required to throw the ball when the ship was moving. This was also a test that most people could understand and it helped him to explain that there was no difference because any motion of the ship would also be shared by the passengers. That is, whichever direction the ship moved in, the cabin would, too - along with everything inside it.
As a result of this discussion, Galileo was able to demonstrate that the very same "fact" used by the Tower Argument itself - the stone falling at the base - also supported the idea that the Earth was rotating, since any evidence that the geostaticist could appeal to would likewise support the alternative (this is actually an example of underdetermination by data and the theory-ladenness of observational terms). The naïve empiricist has no means of deciding between these two rival theories and hence any choice made by Galileo would violate this form of empiricism. If our methodology insists that only those decisions made on the basis of evidence can be called rational then Galileo and the Aristotelians alike were irrational to prefer geokineticism or geostaticism respectively. We are thus forced either to give up on calling Galileo's behaviour rational or else admit that naïve empiricism is inadequate.
Galileo did indeed not only go against the paradigm, but also the scientific method.
Same with Einstien. Progress once again, after going against the grain of the (or "a") scientific method.
If we subscribe to the tenets of dogmatic falsificationism (or else advocate basing our acceptance and rejection of scientific theories on so-called decisive experiments) and suppose Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to have been a step in the right direction with regard to gaining knowledge of our universe, we find that we run into a problem. Falsificationists do not dispute the historical account of 1905, in which the first response to Einstein's paper noted that his theory had already been refuted by Kaufman's experimental results, published in the Annalen der Physik in that year. The dogmatic falsificationist is thus forced to admit that Einstein should have dismissed his theory as falsified – which, of course, he did not. We are led to the unfortunate position of either arguing that Einstein was irrational (or mistaken, if we wish to be more charitable) in his refusal to give up the special theory (and moreover that we, as good falsificationists, would have rejected it, along with any consequences) – a demand we would probably call absurd – or else accepting that dogmatic falsificationism fails.
To say that science has given us both bad and good things is a distraction. Science is neutral - men make the choice of how to apply scientific knowledge. The acquisition of that knowledge is subject to a method that has shown its worth many times over. If we had relied on theology as our method (to take one alternative) we would still be in the Dark Ages.
The exact point of Feyerabend's work was to show that:
i) Science is not neutral (or objective).
ii) Science should really abandon it's claim to be the superior methodology for deriving knowledge.
I think your comment about theology basically makes his point. What criterion do you have for saying that the scientific method is "better" then theology. I think once you begin to answer that question, you will see the obvious circularity.
Like Salmon puts it:
The Wednesday philosophy lecture begins with a sort of rhetorical question, “What reason do we have (Hume is, at bottom, asking) for trusting the scientific method; what grounds do we have for believing that scientific predictions are reliable?” You have been pondering that very question quite a bit in the last couple of days, and – rhetorical or not – your hand shoots up. You have a thing or two to say on the subject.
“Philosophers may have trouble answering such questions,” you assert, “but it seems to me there is an obvious reply. As my physics professor has often said, the scientist takes a very practical attitude. He puts forth a hypothesis; if it works he believes in it, and he continues to believe in it as long as it works. If it starts giving him bad predictions, he starts looking for another hypothesis, or for a way of revising his old one. Now the important thing about the scientific method, it seems to me, is that it works. Not only has it led to a vast amount of knowledge about the physical world, but it has been applied in all sorts of practical ways – though these applications may not have been uniformly beneficial – for better or worse they were successful. Not always, of course, but by and large. Astrology, crystal gazing, and other such superstitious methods simply do not work very well. That’s good enough for me.”
“That is, indeed, a very tempting answer,” Professor Philo replies, “and in one form or another, it has been advanced by several modern philosophers. But Hume actually answered that one himself. You might put it this way. We can all agree that science has, up till now, a very impressive record of success in predicting the future. The question we are asking, however, is this: should we predict that science will continue to have the kind of success it has had in the past? It is quite natural to assume that its record will continue, but this is just a case of applying the scientific method to itself. In studying conservation of momentum, you inferred that future experiments would have results similar to those of your past experiments; in appraising the scientific method, you are assuming that its future success will match its past success. But using the scientific method to judge the scientific method is circular reasoning. It is as if a man goes to a bank to cash a check. When the teller refuses, on the grounds that he does not know this man, the man replies, ‘That is no problem; permit me to introduce myself – I am John Smith, just as it says on the check.’
“Suppose that I were a believer in crystal gazing. You tell me that your method is better than mine because it has been more successful than mine. You say that this is a good reason for preferring your method to mine. I object. Since you are using your method to judge my method (as well as your method), I demand the right to use my method to evaluate yours. I gaze into my crystal ball and announce the result: from now on crystal gazing will be very successful in predicting the future, while the scientific method is due for a long run of bad luck.” You are about to protest, but she continues.
“The trouble with circular arguments is that they can be used to prove anything; if you assume what you are trying to prove, then there isn’t much difficulty in proving it. You find the scientific justification of the scientific method convincing because you already trust the scientific method; if you had equal trust in crystal gazing, I should think you would find the crystal gazer’s justification of his method equally convincing.
To Feyerabend, he certainly accepts the fact that the scientific method can bring results that other methodologies cannot, but it is equally obvious that the scientific method has serious limitations and cannot bring results that other methodologies can.
From this, he wonders why we can apply the scientific method to say, theology, but not the latter to the former?
I think he does a very good job of bringing the obvious circularity present when the scientific method is claimed to be superior to other methods.
Banquo's Ghost
02-02-2007, 19:39
Do not think you quite understand Banquo, and that is probably my fault in the way I phrased it.
I really recommend reading his book, Against Method, but the man is misunderstood. Here is a good link summarizing his points (http://www.galilean-library.org/feyerabend.html).
Feyerabend essentially "exposes" Galileo (and naive inductionism) for being, essentially a con-artist. Galileo, according to Feyerabend, was irrational because he induced more than the facts would allow, and yet used persuasive rhetoric (which was more than any hard science he had), to sell his ideas.
OK, I had better read his book, because I think he is way off beam if that's his assertion. Some of Galileo's work was speculative, but demonstrating Copernicus was not. You can do it yourself on a few clear nights.
The exact point of Feyerabend's work was to show that:
i) Science is not neutral (or objective).
ii) Science should really abandon it's claim to be the superior methodology for deriving knowledge.
I think your comment about theology basically makes his point. What criterion do you have for saying that the scientific method is "better" then theology? I think once you examine that question, you will see the circularity...
To Feyerabend, he certainly accepts the fact that the scientific method can bring results that other methodologies cannot, but it is equally obvious that the scientific method has serious limitations and cannot bring results that other methodologies can.
From this, he wonders why we can apply the scientific method to say, theology, but not the latter to the former?
I think he does a very good job of bringing the obvious circularity present when the scientific method is claimed to be superior to other methods.
Well, I can see the value in challenging accepted paradigms, but many, many other methods for advancing our knowledge have been tried and all found wanting save the scientific method.
It works, which is why its "superior." If Mr Feyerabend can show me another methodology that works as well or better for explaining the world and thereby being able to manipulate that world for advancement, I'm all ears. Maybe his book details how this computer works other than through scientific understandings.
For example, you ask for theology to be applied to science but what is the theological method? Which theology? Do I have to have a revelation of faith to be able to do this, or can I learn it independently and have others verify my conclusions?
Reenk Roink
02-02-2007, 19:55
Perfect. This review makes every point I wanted to make, in a much more clearer and cogent manner than I could have ever hoped for:
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=341
Paul Feyerabend’s Against Method (originally published in 1975) is another one of those books I have been meaning to read for years, but never got around to before now. Feyerabend (1924-1994) was a philosopher of science, famous (or notorious) for his “epistemological anarchism,” his insistence that “the only principle” that can be justified for scientific research is that “anything goes.” I’ve turned to him now, partly out of my interest in science studies, and partly because I’m supposed to give a talk in a few months at a symposium on “foundations and methods in the humanities,” a task I am finding difficult because I have no belief in foundations, and little use for methodologies.
Feyerabend critiques and rejects the attempt — by philosophers of science, primarily, but also by popular apologists for science, and sometimes by scientists themselves — to establish norms and criteria to govern the way science works, and to establish what practices and results are valid for scientific research. Feyerabend’s particular target is Karl Popper’s doctrine of “falsification,” but more generally he opposes any a priori attempt to legislate what can and cannot be done in science.
Feyerabend’s argument is partly “deconstructive” (by which I mean he showed how rationalist arguments were necessarily internally inconsistent and incoherent — though he does not seem to have much use for Derridean deconstruction as a philosophy), and partly historical and sociological. He argues that actual scientific practice did not, does not, and indeed cannot, make use of the rationalist norms that philosophers of science, and ideologists of science, have proclaimed. He analyzes Galileo’s defense of heliocentrism at great length, and shows that Galileo’s arguments were riddled with non sequiturs, loose analogies, ad hoc assumptions, self-contradictory and easily falsifiable assertions, rhetorical grandstanding, and so on. The point is not to undermine Galileo, or to assert that there are no grounds for choosing between seeing the earth and the sun as the center. Rather, Feyerabend wants to show that such (disreputable) strategies were strictly necessary; without them, Copernicus and Galileo never could have overthrown the earth-centered view, which had both the theoretical knowledge and the “common sense” of their time, as well as the authority of the Church, on their side. It was not a matter of a “more accurate” theory displacing a less accurate one; but rather, a radical shift of paradigms, one which could only be accomplished by violently disrupting both accepted truths and accepted procedures. It is only in the hundreds of years after Galileo convinced the world of the heliocentric theory, that the empirical evidence backing up the theory was generated and catalogued.
Feyerabend is drawing, of course, on Thomas Kuhn’s work on “paradigm shifts,” but he is pushing it in a much more radical direction than Kuhn would accept. Kuhn distinguishes between “normal science,” when generally accepted research programs and paradigms are in place, and rationalistic criteria do in fact function, and times of crisis, when paradigms break down under the weight of accumulating anomalies, thus forcing scientists to cast about for a new paradigm. For Feyerabend, however, there is no “normal science.” There was no crisis, or weight of anomalies, that forced Copernicus and then Galileo to cast about for a new astronomical paradigm; it would be more to the point to say that Galileo deliberately and artificially created a crisis, in order to undermine a paradigm that was generally accepted and that worked well, and put in its place a new paradigm that he supported more out of passion and intuition than out of anything like solid empirical evidence. Because “facts” are never independent of social contexts and theoretical assumptions, Galileo could not have provoked a shift in the theoretical assumptions of his time merely by appealing to what were understood then as the “facts.”
Such an argument was quite shocking in 1975. It has become much less so in the years since, as rhetorical theorists, sociologists, and others in “science studies” have studied in great depth the way science actually works, and have contested many other instances of (capital-S) Science and (capital-R) Reason on historical and sociological grounds.
There remains a subtle but important difference, however, between Feyerabend and more recent science studies historians and thinkers like Bruno Latour, Stephen Shapin, Steve Fuller, and many others. Feyerabend justifies his “epistemological anarchism” on the ground that it is necessary for the actual, successful practice of science, and indeed for the “progress” of science — though he explicitly refuses (page 18) to define what he means by “progress.” What this means is that Feyerabend opposes methodological norms and fixed principles of validation largely on pragmatic grounds : which I do not think is quite true of Latour et al. Where Latour sees a long process of negotiation, and a “settlement,” between Pasteur and the bacilli he was studying, Feyerabend doesn’t see Galileo (or Einstein, for that matter) in engaging in any such process vis-a-vis the earth, or the sun, or the universe. Instead, he sees them as blithely ignoring rules of evidence and of verification or falsification, in order to impose radically new perspectives (less upon the world than upon their own cultures). Galileo’s and Einstein’s justification is that their proposals indeed worked, and were accepted; this is what separates them from crackpots, though no criteria existed that could have assured these successes in advance.
What I don’t see enough of in contemporary science studies — though one finds it in Deleuze and Guattari, in Isabelle Stengers, and in the work of my friend Richard Doyle — is Feyerabend’s sense of the kinship between scientific and aesthetic creativity, in that both are engaged in creating the very criteria according to which they will be judged.
More generally, Feyerabend, like Latour and other more recent science studies thinkers, is deeply concerned with democracy, and with the way that the imperialism of Big Science threatens democracy by trying to decree that its Way is the Only Way. Indeed, one probably sees more of this threat today — in the “science wars” that reached a flash point in the mid 1990s, but that are still smouldering, in the popularization of science, and in the pronouncements of biologists like Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson, and physicists like Steven Weinberg and Alan Sokal — than one did when Feyerabend was writing Against Method. But Feyerabend wisely refuses to get lost (as I fear Latour does at times) in the attempt to propose an alternative “settlement” or “constitution” to the one that Big Science has proclaimed for itself. Feyerabend’s genial anarchism, pluralism, and “relativism” (a term he accepts, but only in certain carefully outlined contexts) simply precludes the need for any single alternative account, such as the one Latour struggles to provide. Finally, for Feyerabend, there is no such thing as Science; we should rather speak of the sciences, as a multitude of often conflicting and contradictory practices, none of which can pretend to ultimate authority, and all of which have to be judged and dealt with according to a range of needs, interests, and contexts.
Pluralism is often derided as wishy-washy, wimpy, “soft,” unwilling to take a stand. None of this is true of Feyerabend’s pluralism, though I am not sure how much of his exemption from such charges is due to the rigor of his arguments, and how much to the charm of his rhetorical style — he’s an engaging, inviting, and unaffected writer, able to be clear and focused without becoming simplistic, and able to argue complexly without becoming abstruse. Of course, the attempt to separate logical rigor from stylistic effects is precisely the sort of pseudo-rational distinction that Feyerabend is continually warning us against.
Note: bolded/underlined emphasis mine for...well emphasis
Reenk Roink
02-03-2007, 00:37
I know some of my posts are convoluted, so I'm just going to clarify some things:
i) I think it's basically uncontroversial that so far, the scientific method (very broadly and generally) has been the one of the better methodologies when it comes to knowledge about the material world (theology is really a different game altogether as it is unconcerned about this).
ii) That being said, I also think it quite clear that we have no reason to believe that the scientific method will be a good method in the future. In fact, I would say that holding that belief is clearly irrational.
iii) I also think that the current criterion for what is a scientific law is quite arbitrary and confused.
iv) I do have suspicions on whether the scientific method actually inhibits progress in some ways (if Galileo and Einstein had followed the scientific method, they would have to reject their conclusions).
Banquo's Ghost
02-03-2007, 11:08
I know some of my posts are convoluted, so I'm just going to clarify some things:
i) I think it's basically uncontroversial that so far, the scientific method (very broadly and generally) has been the one of the better methodologies when it comes to knowledge about the material world (theology is really a different game altogether as it is unconcerned about this).
ii) That being said, I also think it quite clear that we have no reason to believe that the scientific method will be a good method in the future. In fact, I would say that holding that belief is clearly irrational.
iii) I also think that the current criterion for what is a scientific law is quite arbitrary and confused.
iv) I do have suspicions on whether the scientific method actually inhibits progress in some ways (if Galileo and Einstein had followed the scientific method, they would have to reject their conclusions).
And in fact therefore, we agree in the main. Point iv might have some life in it, because it tends to expect that the formulator of a theorem must also then gain all the observations necessary to prove it - which is actually more of a problem for Darwin and Copernicus say, than for the two noted - but the role of inspiration or intuition in the formulation of theory is not disputed, by me at least.
Rodion Romanovich
02-03-2007, 15:54
I'm still not getting how necessary being could in any way be construed as proof of a perfect being.
Agreed, and furthermore, one may ask: what is a perfect being? Something that a certain person thinks is perfect? Something that everybody thinks is perfect, assuming all people think the same thing is perfection? Something that is perfect - but perfect in what aspect? An optimally fast algorithm for computing the sum of a list of numbers is perfect in the aspect of being fast, but that doesn't make it a God. Perfection is a partially defined word which requires an extra attribute explaining in which aspect are we checking perfection/optimality. To say "God is perfect" contains about as little information as when a little child says "I'm the best". Best in what aspect? Perfect in what/which aspect/aspects? The even more interesting case is when someone says: "but we are just humans, so we can't know what perfection is, only God can know that". Well, if we don't know what perfection is, we certainly can't prove the existence of something that is perfect. It would be like trying to prove that there exists something that is "fdastfdsfg". What is "fdastfdsfg", you may ask. I answer: we can't know what fdastfdsfg is, only the being that is fdastfdsfg can know what it is, but I have proven that fdastfdsfg exists because it is more fdastfdsfg if it exists than if it doesn't exist. :rolleyes:
KukriKhan
02-03-2007, 16:42
What is "fdastfdsfg", you may ask
fdastfdsfg is my out-of-control left hand on the home row of my keyboard. I don't think it's self-aware, but IT might.
(I've been looking for some way to get into this thread; thanks for the door-opener) :bow:
I'll be quiet and continue reading now. Promise.
Rodion Romanovich
02-03-2007, 16:50
fdastfdsfg is my out-of-control left hand on the home row of my keyboard. I don't think it's self-aware, but IT might.
(I've been looking for some way to get into this thread; thanks for the door-opener) :bow:
I'll be quiet and continue reading now. Promise.
:oops: You are welcome :bow:
it's difficult to find good examples in metaphysics...
KukriKhan
02-03-2007, 17:06
:oops: You are welcome :bow:
it's difficult to find good examples in metaphysics...
Indeed.
If metaphysics is being qua being;
and if epistomology is knowing qua knowing;
then metaphilosophy must be... qua qua qua.
Sorry. I really will stop now. I appreciate the readers' tolerance.
Kanamori
02-03-2007, 19:43
I haven't really seen a reason for why Einstein's relativity wouldn't fall in the scientific method, just some claims that it doesn't...
Reenk Roink
02-03-2007, 23:34
I haven't really seen a reason for why Einstein's relativity wouldn't fall in the scientific method, just some claims that it doesn't...
Short answer - Falsification
If we subscribe to the tenets of dogmatic falsificationism (or else advocate basing our acceptance and rejection of scientific theories on so-called decisive experiments) and suppose Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to have been a step in the right direction with regard to gaining knowledge of our universe, we find that we run into a problem. Falsificationists do not dispute the historical account of 1905, in which the first response to Einstein's paper noted that his theory had already been refuted by Kaufman's experimental results, published in the Annalen der Physik in that year. The dogmatic falsificationist is thus forced to admit that Einstein should have dismissed his theory as falsified – which, of course, he did not. We are led to the unfortunate position of either arguing that Einstein was irrational (or mistaken, if we wish to be more charitable) in his refusal to give up the special theory (and moreover that we, as good falsificationists, would have rejected it, along with any consequences) – a demand we would probably call absurd – or else accepting that dogmatic falsificationism fails.
Kanamori
02-03-2007, 23:58
Alright then, I see the problem... and it's a pretty big one. Namely, why explain it with limiting the speed of light, and not something else? I'll try to come up w/ another definition, or understanding that I don't have now. Wish me luck.:laugh4:
Papewaio
02-04-2007, 23:31
This was the last part of your post, but I will address it first because of it's priority.
I am speaking of the scientific method, which is generally understood to be the foundation of "science" as we understand it today. I really have no wish to go over the meaning of "science" because it is a very broad term. Ghazali, who preceded Hume in the critique of causality, used to term the Sufism he espoused to be "the Science of the Heart".
Scientific laws and scientific theories are based on the scientific method, and that is my area of critique. As the adage goes, I am going for the head, without which the body would fall apart.
The scientific method is the epistemic base on which our scientific knowledge rests.
Like Democracy, find me a better system and I will employ it.
You are using the "Science has given us good things" argument.
It's a good response. After all, I am indebted to science who made it possible for me to use the computer (of course, we could split hairs and say it was mechanics (hardware) and mathematics (software) who made it possible for me to use the computer, but I have no wish to do that at the moment).
However, there are some responses to this response (of course keeping in mind that this does not at all justify the reliability of the scientific method in the future).
I could also say that science has brought on a host of evils in this world. Terrifying and destructive weaponry and the risk to our privacy are two main examples that pop up, and I'm sure there are others.
Actually I am using the "Science has given us the ability to understand the world around us, and hence the ability to employ technology be they good or bad"... or more blithely "Science has led us to things". Good or Bad, science has helped us to achieve things that other ways have not.
I don't think the employment of technology disproves science. Having nuclear weapons does not disprove the scientific method. The onus is on you to show how other ways could have done it, and more accurately you have to show which way is equal to or superior in understanding the (physical) world around us.
Also, I could say that tarot cards give other benefits, separate from a material paradigm. Obviously, given the fact that psychics, fortune tellers, crystal ball gazers, astrologers, etc, have quite a large niche following, it is reasonable to conclude that they are deriving some benefit from these things. Perhaps it gives them peace of mind, comfort, happiness, a sense of control, etc.
In fact, the things that psychics, fortune tellers, crystal ball gazers, astrologers, etc, give to some people are more important to me than material goods (I don't personally derive any of those things from the above methods). I know I could live without a computer, a TV, a phone, or even electricity.
Staying in ones comfort zone isn't science. Nor does sheer numbers make an argument or a model for our world correct. Science isn't a democracy, reality is not decided in a vote... their might be the most popular flavoured theory of the moment, but that is a fault in the human group think. A good scientist needs to test their ideas and be prepared to be wrong.
Lastly, I would bring up one of Feyerabend's main legs in his argument against a scientific method. The fact that scientific progress is usually made by going against the grain of the scientific method. Backing his thesis up with the examples of Copernicus and Galileo (figureheads of the Scientific Revolution and paragons of Scientific progress).
Actually it is done by going against not the scientific method (even Feyerabend's examples don't show that the scientific method is wrong, just the group think of scientists), progress is often done by exploring the edge...which often includes re-examing past dogma and seeing if it is correct, hence progress can be found by going against the communities group think. Feyerabend's examples show the scientist using the scientific method to disprove the group think in the scientific community.
A more careful consideration of Feyerabend's technique beyond the slavering slave sequences yields that the scientific community and bad scientists are often at fault and the the scientific method when properly employed is a useful way of lifting the veil of ignorance.
I found it difficult to accept the Wager, which would ask me to believe in something despite the fact that they could give no evidence for it. I find psychological experience and cosmological/ontological proofs much more convincing than the Wager.
Given that, I simply cannot accept pragmatic justification either.
I have a question for you though:
Since you put forth this type of argumentation to justify your belief in the scientific method (or if you will, that science can help us predict what will happen next), what relevant difference stops you from accept the Wager and believing in God?
Testability.
Every time I spill coffee on myself my lack of physical coordination, the sequence verifies gravity.
Every time as the hot coffee scolds my crotch and I utter His name in vain, I'm not turned into a pillar of salt, disproves Him. ;)
Reenk Roink
02-05-2007, 01:49
Like Democracy, find me a better system and I will employ it.
The entire point is that the we have as good of a reason to believe that the scientific method will be reliable in the future as any other method (i.e we have no reason either way)...
Actually I am using the "Science has given us the ability to understand the world around us, and hence the ability to employ technology be they good or bad"... or more blithely "Science has led us to things". Good or Bad, science has helped us to achieve things that other ways have not.
I don't think the employment of technology disproves science. Having nuclear weapons does not disprove the scientific method. The onus is on you to show how other ways could have done it, and more accurately you have to show which way is equal to or superior in understanding the (physical) world around us.
I don't think I ever claimed employment of technology disproves science or nukes disproves the nuclear method. I claimed that for advances in technology made possible by science, there was both good and bad. I affirmed that science did indeed lead to advances in technology.
Staying in ones comfort zone isn't science. Nor does sheer numbers make an argument or a model for our world correct. Science isn't a democracy, reality is not decided in a vote... their might be the most popular flavoured theory of the moment, but that is a fault in the human group think. A good scientist needs to test their ideas and be prepared to be wrong.
These points are irrelevant at hand. If one is going to attempt to justify the scientific method by point out "good" things it has given us, one must know that other methodologies also give "good" things as well.
I stated that we could not justify our beliefs of the reliability of scientific laws/scientific theories/scientific method's in the future.
You basically stated:
"Okay you show me how the internet and all the devices that you use to connect weren't based on science but instead by the equivalent of tarot reading."
I took that as you appealing to science's success in the past. Now, it's clear to me that no matter how successful science has been in the past concerning our knowledge of the material world, we have no rational justification to think it will be successful in the future.
Actually it is done by going against not the scientific method (even Feyerabend's examples don't show that the scientific method is wrong, just the group think of scientists), progress is often done by exploring the edge...which often includes re-examing past dogma and seeing if it is correct, hence progress can be found by going against the communities group think. Feyerabend's examples show the scientist using the scientific method to disprove the group think in the scientific community.
A more careful consideration of Feyerabend's technique beyond the slavering slave sequences yields that the scientific community and bad scientists are often at fault and the the scientific method when properly employed is a useful way of lifting the veil of ignorance.
I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding of Feyerabend. He seems to conclude himself that any attempt at methodology in science constricts knowledge, not that "the scientific method when properly employed is a useful way of lifting the veil of ignorance".
In fact, if you'll examine what Feyerabend suggested about science in schools, you will see that your interpretation cannot be a correct interpretation of Feyerabend's conclusion:
Feyerabend saw himself as having undermined the arguments for science's privileged position within culture, and much of his later work was a critique of the position of science within Western societies. Because there is no scientific method, we can't justify science as the best way of acquiring knowledge. And the results of science don't prove its excellence, since these results have often depended on the presence of non-scientific elements, science prevails only because “the show has been rigged in its favour” (SFS, p. 102), and other traditions, despite their achievements, have never been given a chance. The truth, he suggests, is that
science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without ever having examined its advantages and its limits (AM, p. 295).
The separation of church and state should therefore be supplemented by the separation of science and state, in order for us to achieve the humanity we are capable of. Setting up the ideal of a free society as “a society in which all traditions have equal rights and equal access to the centres of power” (SFS, p. 9), Feyerabend argues that science is a threat to democracy. To defend society against science we should place science under democratic control and be intensely sceptical about scientific “experts”, consulting them only if they are controlled democratically by juries of laypeople.
(bold emphasis mine)
Testability.
Every time I spill coffee on myself my lack of physical coordination, the sequence verifies gravity.
Every time as the hot coffee scolds my crotch and I utter His name in vain, I'm not turned into a pillar of salt, disproves Him. ;)
Now this statement makes me wonder if I've just been talking past you the entire time... :wall:
You are essentially saying that because up to this point, the coffee, when spilled, falls on your lap, then gravity is verified.
OK, but how does this apply to the future?
The entire point of Salmon is to show that we have no rational justification to believe that scientific laws/theories will hold up in the future at all.
This is the problem of induction, and is a serious (currently fatal) problem for scientific laws and theories.
Papewaio
02-05-2007, 03:21
The entire point is that the we have as good of a reason to believe that the scientific method will be reliable in the future as any other method (i.e we have no reason either way)...
If one method leads to models with a 99% accuracy and another has 1 in 12 track history... you would say both are as reliable in the future.
I don't think I ever claimed employment of technology disproves science or nukes disproves the nuclear method. I claimed that for advances in technology made possible by science, there was both good and bad. I affirmed that science did indeed lead to advances in technology.
So, doesn't that prove that the science method works in some way...
These points are irrelevant at hand. If one is going to attempt to justify the scientific method by point out "good" things it has given us, one must know that other methodologies also give "good" things as well.
The weight of achievements in the physical world is weighted towards those of science above those of alchemy.
I stated that we could not justify our beliefs of the reliability of scientific laws/scientific theories/scientific method's in the future.
You basically stated:
"Okay you show me how the internet and all the devices that you use to connect weren't based on science but instead by the equivalent of tarot reading."
I took that as you appealing to science's success in the past. Now, it's clear to me that no matter how successful science has been in the past concerning our knowledge of the material world, we have no rational justification to think it will be successful in the future.
Show me that there is no link between past and future and you have a case.
I'm afraid this is a misunderstanding of Feyerabend. He seems to conclude himself that any attempt at methodology in science constricts knowledge, not that "the scientific method when properly employed is a useful way of lifting the veil of ignorance".
In fact, if you'll examine what Feyerabend suggested about science in schools, you will see that your interpretation cannot be a correct interpretation of Feyerabend's conclusion:
You see, I was a good little scientist and didn't take what was at face value. I read some of his work and found what he said didn't hold up to what he tried to achieve nor the group think that has sprung about it:
====
Science, on the other hand, is characterised by an essential scepticism; 'when failures start to come thick and fast, defence of the theory switches inexorably to attack on it'.' This is possible because of the 'openness' of the scientific enterprise, because of the pluralism of ideas it contains and also because whatever defies or fails to fit into the established category system is not something horrifying, to be isolated or expelled. On the contrary, it is an intriguing 'phenomenon' - a starting-point and a challenge for the invention of new classifications and new theories. We can see that Horton has read his Popper well. A field study of science itself shows a very different picture.
Such a study reveals that, while some scientists may proceed as described, the great majority follow a different path. Scepticism is at a minimum; it is directed against the view of the opposition and against minor ramifications of one's own basic ideas, never against the basic ideas themselves.
This is the point where he switches from scientific method, to look at the scientists. He goes and shows how what they do is wrong.
]Attacking the basic ideas evokes taboo reactions which are no weaker than are the taboo reactions in so-called "primitive societies." Basic beliefs are protected by this reaction as well as by secondary elaborations, as we have seen, and whatever fails to fit into the established category system or is said to be incompatible with this system is either viewed as something quite horrifying or, more frequently, it is simply declared to be non-existent.
Yeap, in agreement scientists can be bad when they commit to group think.
Then still not able to do more then say that some scientists are not critical enough he goes on to a broad slander attack:
We need not fear that such a separation will lead to a breakdown of technology. There will always be people who prefer being scientists to being the masters of their fate and who gladly submit to the meanest kind of (intellectual and institutional) slavery provided they are paid well and provided also there are some people around who examine their work and sing their praise. Greece developed and progressed because it could rely on the services of unwilling slaves. We shall develop and progress with the help of the numerous willing slaves in universities and laboratories who provide us with pills, gas, electricity, atom bombs, frozen dinners and, occasionally, with a few interesting fairy-tales. We shall treat these slaves well, we shall even listen to them, for they have occasionally some interesting stories to tell, but we shall not permit them to impose their ideology on our children in the guise of 'progressive' theories of education. We shall not permit them to teach the fancies of science as if they were the only factual statements in existence. This separation of science and state may be our only chance to overcome the hectic barbarism of our scientific-technical age and to achieve a humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realised. Let us, therefore, in conclusion review the arguments that can be adduced for such a procedure.
Wow, can't get enough proof he attacks the people that use the method. :laugh4: Still hasn't actually disproved the method. Just debased himself.
The image of 20th-century science in the minds of scientists and laymen is determined by technological miracles such as colour television, the moon shots, the infra-red oven, as well as by a somewhat vague but still quite influential rumour, or fairy-tale, concerning the manner in which these miracles are produced.
According to the fairy-tale the success of science is the result of a subtle, but carefully balanced combination of inventiveness and control. Scientists have ideas. And they have special methods for improving ideas. The theories of science have passed the test of method. They give a better account of the world than ideas which have not passed the test.
Again can't disprove it with evidence, so sweep it under the carpet by calling the methods used rumour, fairy-tales and miracles.
No actual substantive disproving of the scientific method. Just name calling of scientists who use it and pointing out how it is often incorrectly used.
====
Now this statement makes me wonder if I've just been talking past you the entire time... :wall:
You are essentially saying that because up to this point, the coffee, when spilled, falls on your lap, then gravity is verified.
OK, but how does this apply to the future?
Again prove that there is no link between past and future and you may, just may have a sense of justification. If you can show that just because a 6 sided dice has always in the past rolled a number from 1 to 6 that there is no way to state it won't roll a twelve in the future then do so... or transform into a handsome prince.
The entire point of Salmon is to show that we have no rational justification to believe that scientific laws/theories will hold up in the future at all.
This is the problem of induction, and is a serious (currently fatal) problem for scientific laws and theories.
As above, show the disconnection between past and future and you may have a point.
Reenk Roink
02-05-2007, 03:47
If one method leads to models with a 99% accuracy and another has 1 in 12 track history... you would say both are as reliable in the future.
Yes.
So, doesn't that prove that the science method works in some way...
It certainly doesn't even begin to prove that it will work in the future...
The weight of achievements in the physical world is weighted towards those of science above those of alchemy.
Yes.
Show me that there is no link between past and future and you have a case.
Read this. (http://individual.utoronto.ca/weisberg/phl355/readings/salmon.pdf)
Think about this:
You've seen the sun rise in the morning for a good chunk of time correct?
Based on the fact that the sun has risen in the past, does it follow that the sun will rise tomorrow?
The answer is no. There is no logical reason for it to do so.
You may say:
"Ah, but I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, not because of the fact that it has risen in the past, but because it is a scientific law".
I will reply:
"The law is a generalization based on the fact that the sun has risen in the past".
You see, I was a good little scientist and didn't take what was at face value. I read some of his work and found what he said didn't hold up to what he tried to achieve nor the group think that has sprung about it:
You bring up certain quotes where Feyerabend attacks scientists for their groupthink, dogmatism, and hypocrisy, and say that he is only able to attack them, and not the scientific method.
You say he is unable to "disprove" the scientific method, and now we have a disconnect.
Feyerabend is not trying to "disprove" the scientific method so he can replace it with another methodology, he is trying to show that a scientific "method" itself hinders progress and should be done away with.
I find it hard to believe that someone who had read his work would not see the epistemological anarchism he advocates (and he advocates very little, preferring to criticize).
I find it hard to believe that someone who had read his work would have missed his examples of Galielo and Einstien of how exactly the scientific method hampers progress.
After all, Einstein would have had to reject his theory if he had stuck by the scientific method and it's falsification clause. Feyerabend makes sure to include that.
If we subscribe to the tenets of dogmatic falsificationism (or else advocate basing our acceptance and rejection of scientific theories on so-called decisive experiments) and suppose Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity to have been a step in the right direction with regard to gaining knowledge of our universe, we find that we run into a problem. Falsificationists do not dispute the historical account of 1905, in which the first response to Einstein's paper noted that his theory had already been refuted by Kaufman's experimental results, published in the Annalen der Physik in that year. The dogmatic falsificationist is thus forced to admit that Einstein should have dismissed his theory as falsified – which, of course, he did not. We are led to the unfortunate position of either arguing that Einstein was irrational (or mistaken, if we wish to be more charitable) in his refusal to give up the special theory (and moreover that we, as good falsificationists, would have rejected it, along with any consequences) – a demand we would probably call absurd – or else accepting that dogmatic falsificationism fails.
By the way, Feyerabend was quite caustic and rude to those he disagreed with, true, kind of like how you are to Feyerabend... :wink:
Again prove that there is no link between past and future and you may, just may have a sense of justification. If you can show that just because a 6 sided dice has always in the past rolled a number from 1 to 6 that there is no way to state it won't roll a twelve in the future then do so... or transform into a handsome prince.
Done.
As above, show the disconnection between past and future and you may have a point.
Done.
It is not me who has a point. It is rationality...
Papewaio
02-05-2007, 05:31
Read this. (http://individual.utoronto.ca/weisberg/phl355/readings/salmon.pdf)
Thankyou. All knowledge is useful.
Think about this:
You've seen the sun rise in the morning for a good chunk of time correct?
Based on the fact that the sun has risen in the past, does it follow that the sun will rise tomorrow?
The answer is no. There is no logical reason for it to do so.
You may say:
"Ah, but I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, not because of the fact that it has risen in the past, but because it is a scientific law".
I will reply:
"The law is a generalization based on the fact that the sun has risen in the past".
Actually the Sun doesn't rise... so we have a disjunction in the discourse.
You bring up certain quotes where Feyerabend attacks scientists for their groupthink, dogmatism, and hypocrisy, and say that he is only able to attack them, and not the scientific method.
You say he is unable to "disprove" the scientific method, and now we have a disconnect.
Feyerabend is not trying to "disprove" the scientific method so he can replace it with another methodology, he is trying to show that a scientific "method" itself hinders progress and should be done away with.
I find it hard to believe that someone who had read his work would not see the epistemological anarchism he advocates (and he advocates very little, preferring to criticize).
I think he assumes that the scientific method is the only tool of science. He makes a few assumptions and if tested they fall not true.
For instance:
The questions reach their polemical aim only if one assumes that the results of science which no one will deny have arisen without any help from non-scientific elements, and that they cannot be improved by an admixture of such elements either. 'Unscientific' procedures such as the herbal lore of witches and cunning men, the astronomy of mystics, the treatment of the ill in primitive societies are totally without merit. Science alone gives us a useful astronomy, an effective medicine, a trustworthy technology.
Science uses the knowledge of others, but goes and tests it. For instance a lot of chemistry is based on the knowledge from Alchemy that has been tested by the scientific method, and this is taught at school and undergrad level. Herbal lore is used by drug manufacturers (there is even a movie with Sean Connery about that very detail), elements of astrology were used as knowledge for astronomy. Read Guns, Germs and Steel and you will see how a scientist uses local 'primitive' societies to help gather information about flora and fauna... to the point that he is in awe about their wealth of information.
So that paragraph is patently untrue.
Look at the uncertainty principle and look at the influence of eastern mysticism on some of the ideas seen in quantum physics.
Scientists don't reject other ideas out of hand. They will test them, use them as is, refine them, or use them as inspiration. Science is about understanding the laws of nature, no reason for a good scientist to cut themselves off from those who live closest to it.
I find it hard to believe that someone who had read his work would have missed his examples of Galielo and Einstien of how exactly the scientific method hampers progress.
After all, Einstein would have had to reject his theory if he had stuck by the scientific method and it's falsification clause. Feyerabend makes sure to include that.
Incorrect, G's and E's theories were both tested using SM. The group think of the time may have not liked it, but empirical testing proved otherwise.
By the way, Feyerabend was quite caustic and rude to those he disagreed with, true, kind of like how you are to Feyerabend... :wink:
If I didn't respect him, I would have rejected him out of hand. His insights are good even if his conclusions are in my experience incorrect.
Reenk Roink
02-05-2007, 18:44
Thankyou. All knowledge is useful.
:bow:
Actually the Sun doesn't rise... so we have a disjunction in the discourse.
https://img292.imageshack.us/img292/7177/16ka9.gif (https://imageshack.us)
I won't let you evade the point so easily though...
Now, you asked me to show you that there is no link between the past and future (in the context of our discussion).
I was first going to simply reply that it is you who needs to show me that there is a necessary link between the past and future concerning the uniformity of nature as it is one of the assumptions of all scientific laws.
However, I decided to go ahead and show you that there is certainly no necessary link anyway (using the sun example).
I will use another example now (it follows the exact same pattern):
Whenever I have in the past, broken into art galleries, I proceeded to drop the fine crystal vases on exhibit (after I raided the vending machines for my Twix).
Everytime in the past, I have seen the crystal vases fall downward and break when I drop them.
Now, I’m planning another hit tomorrow as I heard they got some new Twix (old ones were getting stale) and new vases from Polynesia.
I want to drop and break the vases again.
Now, based (and only based) on the fact that they have fallen down and broken in the past, does it follow that they will fall downward and break if I drop them tomorrow?
The answer is of course, no. There is nothing that necessitates them falling downward and breaking just because they have done so in the past. I have no reason to believe that the vases will fall downward and break tomorrow. If I do believe that, it will be irrational.
Now, you may reply: “Ah, but our belief that the vase will fall downward and break if dropped is not based on the fact that it has happened in the past, it is because of the law of gravity”.
I will respond: “The law of gravity is simply a generalization based on the fact that things have fallen downward in the past when dropped".
Here is the central problem of scientific laws, scientific theories, and scientific predictions.
The entire Salmon article is on this point.
That article is simply wonderful, as it states the problem, and all the possible replies to the problem, as well as the replies to those replies.
In the end, Salmon (Professor Philo) is forced to admit that there is no solution (yet) to the problem raised by Hume (which is another reason that article is great because he is so intellectually honest :smiley:).
*********
Now to Feyerabend (who is making a completely distinct point from anything we have discussed above).
I think he assumes that the scientific method is the only tool of science. He makes a few assumptions and if tested they fall not true.
I don’t think it is him who assumes that the scientific method is the only tool of science, I think it is the scientists he criticizes who do that…
For example:
The questions reach their polemical aim only if one assumes that the results of science which no one will deny have arisen without any help from non-scientific elements, and that they cannot be improved by an admixture of such elements either. 'Unscientific' procedures such as the herbal lore of witches and cunning men, the astronomy of mystics, the treatment of the ill in primitive societies are totally without merit. Science alone gives us a useful astronomy, an effective medicine, a trustworthy technology.
Science uses the knowledge of others, but goes and tests it. For instance a lot of chemistry is based on the knowledge from Alchemy that has been tested by the scientific method, and this is taught at school and undergrad level. Herbal lore is used by drug manufacturers (there is even a movie with Sean Connery about that very detail), elements of astrology were used as knowledge for astronomy. Read Guns, Germs and Steel and you will see how a scientist uses local 'primitive' societies to help gather information about flora and fauna... to the point that he is in awe about their wealth of information.
So that paragraph is patently untrue.
Look at the uncertainty principle and look at the influence of eastern mysticism on some of the ideas seen in quantum physics.
Scientists don't reject other ideas out of hand. They will test them, use them as is, refine them, or use them as inspiration. Science is about understanding the laws of nature, no reason for a good scientist to cut themselves off from those who live closest to it.
I think you need to look a bit more closely at what Feyerabend is saying. On this point, I think you and him are just talking past each other…
Incorrect, G's and E's theories were both tested using SM. The group think of the time may have not liked it, but empirical testing proved otherwise.
You have simply restated you conclusion, provided no argument for it, and ignored my argument against it.
If Einstein was following the scientific method, he would have to declare his theory as falsified. He did not. Einstein ignored the issue of falsification and pushed his theory ahead anyway.
If I didn't respect him, I would have rejected him out of hand. His insights are good even if his conclusions are in my experience incorrect.
You would reject him if you didn’t respect him? I don’t have respect for some people, but I would not reject their arguments if they were valid.
Besides, it’s kinda hard to to get the vibe that you don’t respect him given your previous posts concerning him.
Anyway, I think his insights are good, if a bit too radical, but not incorrect. He has certainly shown (me) that following the scientific method will hamper progress using the paragon cases of Einstein and Galileo to back him up no less.
Banquo's Ghost
02-05-2007, 20:01
Anyway, I think his insights are good, if a bit too radical, but not incorrect. He has certainly shown (me) that following the scientific method will hamper progress using the paragon cases of Einstein and Galileo to back him up no less.
The great thing about philosophy is that it can discuss very silly ideas and seem relevant. :stupido2:
The last question I have for you, esteemed Reenk (and I've learned a lot here, even if I dispute the conclusions) is:
Will your pal's insights still be good for you next morning?* :wink3:
*Let's assume, for the argument's sake, the sun does indeed come up tomorrow. Indulge me.
Papewaio
02-05-2007, 22:56
https://img292.imageshack.us/img292/7177/16ka9.gif (https://imageshack.us)
ROFL
What chance would you assign to seeing the sun as the earth rotates?
I won't let you evade the point so easily though...
Now, you asked me to show you that there is no link between the past and future (in the context of our discussion).
I was first going to simply reply that it is you who needs to show me that there is a necessary link between the past and future concerning the uniformity of nature as it is one of the assumptions of all scientific laws.
You have to disprove it. You cannot play word games and whoosh there disappears a set of laws. The link between past and future is the same as the link between one location and another. You will have to disprove the existence of space if you want to disprove time.
However, I decided to go ahead and show you that there is certainly no necessary link anyway (using the sun example).
I will use another example now (it follows the exact same pattern):
Whenever I have in the past, broken into art galleries, I proceeded to drop the fine crystal vases on exhibit (after I raided the vending machines for my Twix).
Everytime in the past, I have seen the crystal vases fall downward and break when I drop them.
Now, I’m planning another hit tomorrow as I heard they got some new Twix (old ones were getting stale) and new vases from Polynesia.
I want to drop and break the vases again.
Now, based (and only based) on the fact that they have fallen down and broken in the past, does it follow that they will fall downward and break if I drop them tomorrow?
The answer is of course, no. There is nothing that necessitates them falling downward and breaking just because they have done so in the past. I have no reason to believe that the vases will fall downward and break tomorrow. If I do believe that, it will be irrational.
Actually the link would be the number of times the vase have broken divided by the number of times the vase has dropped. And to be really conservative you would add one to the denominator.
So if you had done 6 twix runs and destroyed 6 vases. I would assign at least a 6 out of 7 chance that you would break the 7th vase on the 7th run.
Now, you may reply: “Ah, but our belief that the vase will fall downward and break if dropped is not based on the fact that it has happened in the past, it is because of the law of gravity”.
I will respond: “The law of gravity is simply a generalization based on the fact that things have fallen downward in the past when dropped".
Here is the central problem of scientific laws, scientific theories, and scientific predictions.
Sorry I fail to see the problem. There only is one if you can show that time does not exist.
The entire Salmon article is on this point.
That article is simply wonderful, as it states the problem, and all the possible replies to the problem, as well as the replies to those replies.
In the end, Salmon (Professor Philo) is forced to admit that there is no solution (yet) to the problem raised by Hume (which is another reason that article is great because he is so intellectually honest :smiley:).
Couple of pages into Salmon's article. There is a point I would like to raise, if he is correct then what use is his ideas... wouldn't all ideas have zero ability in predicting the future... including his own... so wouldn't it be self annulling?
*********
Now to Feyerabend (who is making a completely distinct point from anything we have discussed above).
I don’t think it is him who assumes that the scientific method is the only tool of science, I think it is the scientists he criticizes who do that…
Yet as a student of science I have seen that there is more to science then just the method. A healthy injection of humour and self reflection is needed. One needs to be flexible. And like poker you have to understand the correct context in which to use it. What he criticizes is (bad) scientists. He does not successfully disprove the SM, he just shows that some scientists are not using their full faculties. He criticizes quite soundly poor scientists, he doesn't look at the wider field of good, knowledgeable scientists. He disproves SM by using guilt by association... the guilt of being associated with people who don't use the method very well.
The equivalent of this would be going: Look formula one drivers cars can't function because learners have accidents in their cars. Yes some car drivers have problems driving cars, this is not the cars, it is the drivers.
Blaming the tool and not the user is not a valid disproof.
I think you need to look a bit more closely at what Feyerabend is saying. On this point, I think you and him are just talking past each other…
No, I think not. He states that science is exclusive and ignores all other formats of knowledge. I show very quickly that science does use other forms of knowledge. Simply put he is not talking past me, he is wrong.
Also I find it ironic and amusing that he refers to 'primitive' societies... primitive in what aspect?
Different DNA? No
No Language? No
No Social Rules? No
No social customs, mythologies or religion? No
Oh the big difference is :drummer: toolsets. Wow calling a society more primitive because your own has more technology which is derived from what?
You have simply restated you conclusion, provided no argument for it, and ignored my argument against it.
If Einstein was following the scientific method, he would have to declare his theory as falsified. He did not. Einstein ignored the issue of falsification and pushed his theory ahead anyway.
I think you will have to show proof of this before I have to disprove it. If his theory has been show to be falsified that should be an easily enough thing to properly reference. I don't think I have to create the proof of the disprove to this to then disprove it. Apologies to Yes, Minister.
You would reject him if you didn’t respect him? I don’t have respect for some people, but I would not reject their arguments if they were valid.
Besides, it’s kinda hard to to get the vibe that you don’t respect him given your previous posts concerning him.
If I thought he was an out and out idiot I would be far more gentle with my comments. An intelligent person who makes such claims will have his remarks dealt with in a more stringent and caustic manner, particularly when the most he comes up with is obfuscation and misdirection.
Anyway, I think his insights are good, if a bit too radical, but not incorrect. He has certainly shown (me) that following the scientific method will hamper progress using the paragon cases of Einstein and Galileo to back him up no less.c
I really do think he is misrepresenting these scenarios. He shows that the establishment was wrong he their beliefs, he doesn't be any means prove that the scientific method doesn't work nor does he come close to proving it is a fairy tale. Very much a man with an agenda finding bits of data to fit it.
Reenk Roink
02-06-2007, 02:43
The great thing about philosophy is that it can discuss very silly ideas and seem relevant. :stupido2:
The last question I have for you, esteemed Reenk (and I've learned a lot here, even if I dispute the conclusions) is:
Will your pal's insights still be good for you next morning?* :wink3:
*Let's assume, for the argument's sake, the sun does indeed come up tomorrow. Indulge me.
Banquo, it is I who should be addressing you as esteemed... :bow:
As to your question, it is an interesting one.
Are you speaking of his insights in the broad sense, or his concept of epistemological and methodological anarchism?
I would say that as long as his insights avoid the problem of induction, they are fine.
I guess you could say that any method, is equally doomed to having no way to predict the future if it relies on observations of regularities in the past. Be it scientific laws or crystal ball predictions...
By the way, I already assume that the sun will come up tomorrow. I just don't have any pretensions of it being a rational assumption... :wink:
Reenk Roink
02-06-2007, 03:19
What chance would you assign to seeing the sun as the earth rotates?
I have no rational reason to believe the earth will continue to rotate in the future. Chance and probability don't matter.
You have to disprove it. You cannot play word games and whoosh there disappears a set of laws. The link between past and future is the same as the link between one location and another. You will have to disprove the existence of space if you want to disprove time.
Actually, the principle of the uniformity of nature is a key assumption in scientific laws. That means that proponents of scientific laws must show why we should hold it.
However, I have already shown that it does not follow ("disprove"/"prove" are the wrong words to use) rationally.
Even if things have always fell downward in the past when dropped, there is no rational reason to conclude that they will fall down in the future, as it does not follow. The arguments form is invalid. An invalid argument cannot be sound. Unsound arguments are not convincing.
No word games there, just basic logic...
Actually the link would be the number of times the vase have broken divided by the number of times the vase has dropped. And to be really conservative you would add one to the denominator.
So if you had done 6 twix runs and destroyed 6 vases. I would assign at least a 6 out of 7 chance that you would break the 7th vase on the 7th run.
No, you are saying that there is an inferential link between the past occurrences and what will happen in the future. That argument form is invalid.
To show how mistaken your probability example is, say you have flipped a coin 6 times and it has shown up heads 6 times. There still remains a 50/50 chance for heads on the next flip, not a 6/7 chance.
Sorry I fail to see the problem. There only is one if you can show that time does not exist.
I have stated it above (form invalid), and no, it is not only a problem if time does not exist. How did you come to that conclusion?
Reading the Salmon article, or better yet, Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding may clear the problem up...
Couple of pages into Salmon's article. There is a point I would like to raise, if he is correct then what use is his ideas... wouldn't all ideas have zero ability in predicting the future... including his own... so wouldn't it be self annulling?
No. Only methods that rely on the inductive reasoning abovementioned would run into that problem. That is why he says that scientific laws have as good of a chance as predicting the future as blind guessing.
Salmon does not propose an alternative method (indeed, he is sympathetic to the scientific method).
*********
Yet as a student of science I have seen that there is more to science then just the method. A healthy injection of humour and self reflection is needed. One needs to be flexible. And like poker you have to understand the correct context in which to use it. What he criticizes is (bad) scientists. He does not successfully disprove the SM, he just shows that some scientists are not using their full faculties. He criticizes quite soundly poor scientists, he doesn't look at the wider field of good, knowledgeable scientists. He disproves SM by using guilt by association... the guilt of being associated with people who don't use the method very well.
The equivalent of this would be going: Look formula one drivers cars can't function because learners have accidents in their cars. Yes some car drivers have problems driving cars, this is not the cars, it is the drivers.
Blaming the tool and not the user is not a valid disproof.
Feyerabend in his introduction (where all the excerpts you quoted come from) does not really get into the problems of the scientific method just yet. You are right that he criticizes bad science and their supercilious attitude towards "nonscientific" methods. His critique of the scientific method is later on in his book. It is not in the introduction or conclusion.
His critiques of the scientific method are not the "guilt by association" type, but rather by the reductio ad absurdum type.
I have pointed out some examples he brings up (Galileo, Einstien).
No, I think not. He states that science is exclusive and ignores all other formats of knowledge. I show very quickly that science does use other forms of knowledge. Simply put he is not talking past me, he is wrong.
No, now I see that you are not talking past him (nor him you) but rather you have completely misinterpreted him.
Feyerabend also shows that science relies on other forms of knowledge. He only criticizes the attitude of closed minded scientists. If you had read carefully, you would see this:
The questions reach their polemical aim only if one assumes that the results of science which no one will deny have arisen without any help from non-scientific elements, and that they cannot be improved by an admixture of such elements either. 'Unscientific' procedures such as the herbal lore of witches and cunning men, the astronomy of mystics, the treatment of the ill in primitive societies are totally without merit. Science alone gives us a useful astronomy, an effective medicine, a trustworthy technology.
This is what you quoted to make your point. If you had read the next few lines down, you would have seen this:
One must also ' assume that science owes its success to the correct method and not merely to a lucky accident. It was not a fortunate cosmological guess that led to progress, but the correct and cosmologically neutral handling of data. These are the assumptions we must make to give the questions the polemical force they are supposed to have. Not a single one of them stands up to closer examination.
Modern astronomy started with the attempt of Copernicus to adapt the old ideas of Philolaos to the needs of astronomical predictions. Philolaos was not a precise scientist, he was a muddle-headed Pythagorean, as we have seen, and the consequences of his doctrine were called 'incredibly ridiculous' by a professional astronomer such as Ptolemy. Even Galileo, who had the much improved Copernican version of Philolaos before him, says: 'There is no limit to my astonishment when I reflect that Aristarchus and Copernicus were able to make reason to conquer sense that, in defiance of the latter, the former became mistress of their belief' (Dialogue, 328). 'Sense' here refers to the experiences which Aristotle and others had used to show that the earth must be at rest. The 'reason' which Copernicus opposes to their arguments is the very mystical reason of Philolaos combined with an equally mystical faith ('mystical' from the point of view of today's rationalists) in the fundamental character of circular motion. I have shown that modern astronomy and modern dynamics could not have advanced without this unscientific use of antediluvian ideas.
While astronomy profited from Pythagoreanism and from the Platonic love for circles, medicine profited from herbalism, from the psychology, the metaphysics, the physiology of witches, midwives, cunning men, wandering druggists. It is well known that 16th- and 17th-century medicine while theoretically hypertrophic was quite helpless in the face of disease (and stayed that way for a long time after the 'scientific revolution'). Innovators such as Paracelsus fell back on the earlier ideas and improved medicine. Everywhere science is enriched by unscientific methods and unscientific results, while procedures which have often been regarded as essential parts of science are quietly suspended or circumvented.
The process is not restricted to the early history of modern science. It is not merely a consequence of the primitive state of the sciences of the 16th and 17th centuries. Even today science can and does profit from an admixture of unscientific ingredients. An example which was discussed above, in Chapter 4, is the revival of traditional medicine in Communist China. When the Communists in the fifties forced hospitals and medical schools to teach the ideas and the methods contained in the Yellow Emperor's Textbook of Internal Medicine and to use them in the treatment of patients, many Western experts (among them Eccles, one of the 'Popperian Knights') were aghast and predicted the downfall of Chinese medicine. What happened was the exact opposite. Acupuncture, moxibustion, pulse diagnosis have led to new insights, new methods of treatment, new problems both for the Western and for the Chinese physician.
And those who do not like to see the state meddling in scientific matters should remember the sizeable chauvinism of science: for most scientists the slogan 'freedom for science' means the freedom to indoctrinate not only those who have joined them, but the rest of society as well. Of course - not every mixture of scientific and non-scientific elements is successful (example: Lysenko). But science is not always successful either. If mixtures are to be avoided because they occasionally misfire, then pure science (if there is such a thing) must be avoided as well. (It is not the interference of the state that is objectionable in the Lysenko case, but the totalitarian interference that kills the opponent instead of letting him go his own way.)
Combining this observation with the insight that science has no special method, we arrive at the result that the separation of science and non-science is not only artificial but also detrimental to the advancement of knowledge. If we want to understand nature, if we want to master our physical surroundings, then we must use all ideas, all methods, and not 'just a small selection of them. The assertion, however, that there is no knowledge outside science - extra scientiam nulla salus - is nothing but another and most convenient fairy-tale. Primitive tribes have more detailed classifications of animals and plants than contemporary scientific zoology and botany, they know remedies whose effectiveness astounds physicians (while the pharmaceutical industry already smells here a new source of income), they have means of influencing their fellow men which science for a long time regarded as non-existent (Voodoo), they solve difficult problems in ways which are still not quite understood (building of the pyramids; Polynesian travels), there existed a highly developed and internationally known astronomy in the old Stone Age, this astronomy was factually adequate as well as emotionally satisfying, it solved both physical and social problems (one cannot say the same about modern astronomy) and it was tested in very simple and ingenious ways (stone observatories in England and in the South Pacific; astronomical schools in Polynesia - for a more detailed treatment and references concerning all these assertions c.f. my Einführung in die Naturphilosophie). There was the domestication of animals, the invention of rotating agriculture, new types of plants were bred and kept pure by careful avoidance of cross fertilisation, we have chemical inventions, we have a most amazing art that can compare with the best achievements of the present. True, there were no collective excursions to the moon, but single individuals, disregarding great dangers to their soul and their sanity, rose from sphere to sphere to sphere until they finally faced God himself in all His splendour while others changed into animals and back into humans again. At all times man approached his surroundings w' h wide open senses and a fertile intelligence, at all times he made incredible discoveries, at all times we can learn from his ideas.
Look at what he is saying. All your allegations against him are false, and it is probably because of misinterpretation.
Do you actually have his book (Against Method) or were you getting select quotes off the internet? If it is the latter, I can see why this happened.
Also I find it ironic and amusing that he refers to 'primitive' societies... primitive in what aspect?
Different DNA? No
No Language? No
No Social Rules? No
No social customs, mythologies or religion? No
Oh the big difference is :drummer: toolsets. Wow calling a society more primitive because your own has more technology which is derived from what?
Again, read above. I would find it hard to believe Feyerabend, such a critic of Western imperialism and such a relativist would hold those views. The irony is right, as if he had held those views (which he clearly did not) it would kinda be contradictory to what he was saying...
I think you will have to show proof of this before I have to disprove it. If his theory has been show to be falsified that should be an easily enough thing to properly reference. I don't think I have to create the proof of the disprove to this to then disprove it. Apologies to Yes, Minister.
There is a well documented experiment by Kaufman published in the Annalen der Physik in 1905 (contemporary with Einstein's theory).
The very first response to Einstein's paper noted that results by the experiment had already falsified Einstein's theory.
Had Einstein been a good boy following the scientific method, he would have discarded his theory as falsified.
If I thought he was an out and out idiot I would be far more gentle with my comments. An intelligent person who makes such claims will have his remarks dealt with in a more stringent and caustic manner, particularly when the most he comes up with is obfuscation and misdirection.
I really do think he is misrepresenting these scenarios. He shows that the establishment was wrong he their beliefs, he doesn't be any means prove that the scientific method doesn't work nor does he come close to proving it is a fairy tale. Very much a man with an agenda finding bits of data to fit it.
We have to backtrack significantly due to the misinterpretation, so I will leave personal opinions on Feyerabend and his views for the moment.
TevashSzat
02-06-2007, 03:45
Reenk Roink. Regarding Feyerabend's example regarding Einstein's special relativity. The scientific method specifically says that in order for a hypothesis to be correct, multiple different scientists must perform the experiment multiple times and reach the same results before the hypothesis has a chance of being deemed true. Walter Kaufmann's experiments does seem that it disproved Eistein''s theories, but it was just one experiment and have not been properly analyzed by other scientists. Planck would later analyze Kaufmann's findings and find that the Lorentz theory would more accurately describe the electric field of the electrons from the data of kaufman's experiments which would support Einstein's theory. Further experiments done by Bestelmeyer, Bucherer, and Neumann that were replicas of those done by Kaufman would find that they were all inconclusive or in support of Lorentz which was contrary to what Kaufman's experiment suggested. Kaufman only had a couple of experiments not confirmed by anyone else which in reality should have made Einstein challenge the validity of.
Furthermore, even if several scientists had found results similar to those of Kaufman, the scientific method generally states that all hypothesis and theories are subject to disproof which means that one such as Einstein could have still pondered on special relativity.
Reenk Roink
02-06-2007, 04:22
Reenk Roink. Regarding Feyerabend's example regarding Einstein's special relativity. The scientific method specifically says that in order for a hypothesis to be correct, multiple different scientists must perform the experiment multiple times and reach the same results before the hypothesis has a chance of being deemed true. Walter Kaufmann's experiments does seem that it disproved Eistein''s theories, but it was just one experiment and have not been properly analyzed by other scientists. Planck would later analyze Kaufmann's findings and find that the Lorentz theory would more accurately describe the electric field of the electrons from the data of kaufman's experiments which would support Einstein's theory. Further experiments done by Bestelmeyer, Bucherer, and Neumann that were replicas of those done by Kaufman would find that they were all inconclusive or in support of Lorentz which was contrary to what Kaufman's experiment suggested. Kaufman only had a couple of experiments not confirmed by anyone else which in reality should have made Einstein challenge the validity of.
Furthermore, even if several scientists had found results similar to those of Kaufman, the scientific method generally states that all hypothesis and theories are subject to disproof which means that one such as Einstein could have still pondered on special relativity.
This is not what Popper's dogmatic falsificationism claims (the Einstein example of Feyerabend was specifically directed at the Popper's falsificationist horn of the scientific method, Feyerabend uses other examples to pick at other aspects of the method (i.e Galileo and naive inductionsim)).
Besides, at that time, Kaufman's experiments were verified by some others, including the person who wrote the first response to Einstein's paper...
Papewaio
02-06-2007, 05:46
I have no rational reason to believe the earth will continue to rotate in the future. Chance and probability don't matter.
Actually they possibly matter more then logic. ~;)
Even if things have always fell downward in the past when dropped, there is no rational reason to conclude that they will fall down in the future, as it does not follow. The arguments form is invalid. An invalid argument cannot be sound. Unsound arguments are not convincing.
No word games there, just basic logic...
No, you are saying that there is an inferential link between the past occurrences and what will happen in the future. That argument form is invalid.
I think this is were your understanding of nature is falling down. You have to disprove space to disprove time... they are essentially the same thing.
To show how mistaken your probability example is, say you have flipped a coin 6 times and it has shown up heads 6 times. There still remains a 50/50 chance for heads on the next flip, not a 6/7 chance.
Incorrect. Total tests on vases 6, total time broken 6. Therefore on the 7th attempt a conservative chance of 6/7 of breaking.
Coins, previous tests over the long term have determined that a coin is true and has a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. It has been heads the last 6 times. It has a 50/50 chance of being a head on the next throw.
Two different probability sets.
I have stated it above (form invalid), and no, it is not only a problem if time does not exist. How did you come to that conclusion?
Reading the Salmon article, or better yet, Hume's Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding may clear the problem up...
No. Only methods that rely on the inductive reasoning abovementioned would run into that problem. That is why he says that scientific laws have as good of a chance as predicting the future as blind guessing.
Salmon does not propose an alternative method (indeed, he is sympathetic to the scientific method).
I'm reading it.
I will leave most of Mr F for another day... except one point. Disproving a theory... a disproof has to be repeatable. That is why Einstein still stands, the 'disproof' of it was not found to be valid. This is similar to the guys who published cold fusion... no one could repeat what they did, so it was considered invalid.
Reenk Roink
02-06-2007, 17:27
Actually they possibly matter more then logic. ~;)
OK, this statement makes me suspect that you are just not getting the problem of induction at all. You are just continuing to assume that which is called into question, and irrelevantly adding probability to the mix.
Before I proceed with addressing your statements, I will try one more time to make this clear.
The problem of induction is an issue looking at the relation between inductive reasoning and empirical facts.
It is a serious problem for those who accept the inductive method (very critical to the broader scientific method) as a good and reliable way to obtain knowledge.
This Britannica short on the topic puts it succinctly:
induction, problem of:
Problem of justifying the inductive inference from the observed to the unobserved.
It was given its classic formulation by David Hume, who noted that such inferences typically rely on the assumption that the future will resemble the past, or on the assumption that events of a certain type are necessarily connected, via a relation of causation, to events of another type.
(1) If we were asked why we believe that the sun will rise tomorrow, we would say that in the past the Earth turned on its axis every 24 hours (more or less), and that there is a uniformity in nature that guarantees that such events always happen in the same way. But how do we know that nature is uniform in this sense? We might answer that, in the past, nature has always exhibited this kind of uniformity, and so it will continue to be uniform in the future. But this inference is justified only if we assume that the future must resemble the past. How do we justify this assumption? We might say that in the past, the future turned out to resemble the past, and so in the future, the future will again turn out to resemble the past. The inference is obviously circular: it succeeds only by tacitly assuming what it sets out to prove, namely that the future will resemble the past.
(2) If we are asked why we believe we will feel heat when we approach a fire, we would say that fire causes heat—i.e., there is a “necessary connection” between fire and heat, such that whenever one occurs, the other must follow. But, Hume asks, what is this “necessary connection”? Do we observe it when we see the fire or feel the heat? If not, what evidence do we have that it exists? All we have is our observation, in the past, of a “constant conjunction” of instances of fire being followed by instances of heat. This observation does not show that, in the future, instances of fire will continue to be followed by instances of heat; to say that it does is to assume that the future must resemble the past. But if our observation is consistent with the possibility that fire may not be followed by heat in the future, then it cannot show that there is a necessary connection between the two that makes heat follow fire whenever fire occurs.
Thus we are not justified in believing that:
(1) the sun will rise tomorrow or that
(2) we will feel heat when we approach a fire.
It is important to note that Hume did not deny that he or anyone else formed beliefs about the future on the basis of induction; he denied only that we could know with certainty that these beliefs are true. Philosophers have responded to the problem of induction in a variety of ways, though none has gained wide acceptance.
Scientific laws and theories are built upon the very kind of inductive reasoning that is seriously (and as of right now, fatally) called into question. The very scientific method operates on this form of inductive reasoning.
I have not seen one convincing response to the problem of induction, though there have been many attempts.
Salmon does a great job of stating many of the responses, but he also (disappointingly) shows that these response are not going to cut it.
So...
This is why when asked questions like:
"Don't you believe that the sun will rise tomorrow?"
"Don't you believe that if you drop something it will fall downwards?"
I will have to reply:
"Well, technically, I believe them, though I have absolutely no reason to do so; they are irrational beliefs".
I will have to dismiss all scientific laws and scientific theories based on this inductive method as irrational.
I will have to dismiss all scientific predictions based on these laws and theories as irrational (even though I still may personally believe that I will fall downward if I jump off a cliff).
So if someone is criticizing someone else for being irrational in his faith of God while touting that the law of universal gravitation is the way to go, I will be forced to say:
"Hey man, it is actually you who holds the considerably irrational belief, as while arguments for God may have limitations (mainly in their difficulty of proving a sectarian God), the modern forms of the Modal Ontological Argument and the Kalam Cosmological Argument are much stronger than any response to the problem of induction".
"His belief is sounder than yours".
So now to your statements:
Actually they possibly matter more then logic. ~;)
No, chance/probability don't matter at all in this discussion*.
*There is an attempted response to the problem of induction using Baysean probability, but it is not the chance/probability you were talking about at all.
I think this is were your understanding of nature is falling down. You have to disprove space to disprove time... they are essentially the same thing.
No. See above.
By the way, I have no idea where you are pulling this "disprove space"/"disprove time" thing from. :huh:
Incorrect. Total tests on vases 6, total time broken 6. Therefore on the 7th attempt a conservative chance of 6/7 of breaking.
Coins, previous tests over the long term have determined that a coin is true and has a 50/50 chance of being heads or tails. It has been heads the last 6 times. It has a 50/50 chance of being a head on the next throw.
Two different probability sets.
You are assuming uniformity of nature, thus begging the question. Adding probability does nothing to remedy that.
I will leave most of Mr F for another day... except one point. Disproving a theory... a disproof has to be repeatable. That is why Einstein still stands, the 'disproof' of it was not found to be valid. This is similar to the guys who published cold fusion... no one could repeat what they did, so it was considered invalid.
You actually have to read his book to avoid misunderstandings like before.
As to the Einstien/Galileo examples, there is much more analysis in the book itself that I have omitted. Feyerabend obviously has a good grasp of scientific theories and the history of science. I think, even though you may disagree, you will find it an interesting read. I did (this coming from a guy who hates reading and reads less than 10% of books assigned in school).
Howdy, Sorry for the delay. I was engaged in making a better Fatlington, but now I'm dead. :skull:
Below I've put my earlier statements along with your comments/questions so you may recall.
Feedback systems do not posit spontaneous generation or ex nihilo postures.
[student mode]Don't they show that a Contingent Being is the same effect and cause...so how does that play out on the idea that a thing cannot be its own cause? [/student mode]
No, they do not. A feedback system first requires a system. This means the larger operata that allow any looping of energy to commence in the first place. A simple example would be a water clock: without the mechanic of the clock the water can't be about its business to tell me the time. This alone indicates a prior causative. There is also the issue of the X that is being looped. Whether water or electricity or whatever, there is that T1 point from which the operation begins that leads to the feedback.
Freewill is concerned with moral responsibility and comes into play when looking at deterministic systems. It is an ethical consideration. The focus here is formally epistemological as far as atheism is the issue and ontology when looking at my proof.
[student mode]If I have freewill doesn't that freewill require that I make those choices internally without an external force pushing them on me. Hence my decisions (effect) are from my own freewill (cause) so as a Contingent Being I am the cause and effect. Or do we split the I Contingent Being: Human into Contingent Being: Freewill (cause) and Contingent Being: Decision (effect) [/student mode]
You are mixing categories which will lead to confusion. Even so, any free will schema requires space for the agent to choose and be amenable for that choice. That is correct. However, the effect of that choice extends beyond any choosing alone. For example, if I pull the trigger and take down grandma: my choice to pull the trigger at T1 is distinct from grandma's injury and/or death at T2 though they are casually linked.
As far as a simple logical posture: any effect is necessarily subsequent to its cause.
No, it does not. Heisenberg would shudder at the thought. Virtual particles do not help on this issue.
Virtual Particles:
a) Spontaneously generate
b) Out of nothing
Nor is nature limited to just these instances. Where does thermodynamics, nuclear decay and quantum theory (and the foreshadowed uncertainty principle) have on spontaneous generation?
Virtual particles do not spontaneously generate out of nothing. Look at Feynman again. Virtual particle is an unfortunate name as it leads people to think such are actual and distinct things. This is an error. The dynamic or process where virtual particles are meaningful is necessarily tied to a prior extant.
Regarding thermodynamics, nuclear decay, and quantum theory: have nothing on spontaneous generation. Each involves things that then undergo a process.
I'm still not getting how necessary being could in any way be construed as proof of a perfect being.
Because a perfect being (God) is a necessary being. This was explained.
Papewaio,
I looked over the exchanges you've had with Roink. I don't think you understand the issue. Science is part of the Rational Tradition. This means it appeals to rationality. Rationality is logic. The logical basis of Science is induction. What Feyerabend, Kuhn and Hume before them are about is that by looking at the logical structure of Science, its inductive method, certain issues arise regarding epistemic claims. This same issue came to the fore when Vico went after Descartes.
Because the arguments are formal (dealing with the structure of the knowledge claim), pragmatic retorts do not address the critique.
Papewaio
02-06-2007, 21:30
Pindar,
If the philosophers believe this, then why don't they live their lives as if they do?
At least scientists and religious followers (and some are both) live their lives according to their thought systems. A lot of them die following these idealogies.
But I find that there is a large gap between what these philosophers say and what they do.
If they truly believe that there is no connection between past, present and future laws of nature then why haven't we seen a mass lemming like extinction in the past of philosophers testing their theories?
For instance if there is no link between what has happened in the past and future, why don't we see them testing it by playing Russian roulette with automatic pistols, parachuting without the parachute, embracing crystal healing in equal abundance to chemotherapy etc etc
The biggest assumption that I can see in what Salmon writes is that Iff the universe becomes chaotic then the laws of science won't predict the future. True change the game and the rules change. Rather childlike in its simplicity. The issue I have, is that I neither see any evidence that the game has changed, and no reason to play the game as if the rules of the universe are about to change. Nor do I see those who tout it, play the game of life as if the rules of the universe are about to change. That leaves me wondering how true they are or if they truely believe it why they don't live like it? Truly their is a gap between what they derive and what they do. And the most important question is why?
Reenk Roink
02-06-2007, 21:54
Pindar,
If the philosophers believe this, then why don't they live their lives as if they do?
At least scientists and religious followers (and some are both) live their lives according to their thought systems. A lot of them die following these idealogies.
But I find that there is a large gap between what these philosophers say and what they do.
If they truly believe that there is no connection between past, present and future laws of nature then why haven't we seen a mass lemming like extinction in the past of philosophers testing their theories?
For instance if there is no link between what has happened in the past and future, why don't we see them testing it by playing Russian roulette with automatic pistols, parachuting without the parachute, embracing crystal healing in equal abundance to chemotherapy etc etc
Question has already been answered by Hume (and it's in the Salmon article):
Psychological habit.
Even so, it is recognized that it is not rational...
Oh, just to tell you, Feyerabend used to see a healer instead of go to the hospital. He advocated teaching voodoo among other things. He used to jump out of a window after giving his lecture (1st story). Very eccentric man...
The biggest assumption that I can see in what Salmon writes is that Iff the universe becomes chaotic then the laws of science won't predict the future. True change the game and the rules change. Rather childlike in its simplicity.
Why would you call it "childlike"? Do you even have an answer to it?
Some of the greatest minds have tried to tangle with the problem and have not gotten far.
The issue I have, is that I neither see any evidence that the game has changed, and no reason to play the game as if the rules of the universe are about to change. Nor do I see those who tout it, play the game of life as if the rules of the universe are about to change. That leaves me wondering how true they are or if they truely believe it why they don't live like it? Truly their is a gap between what they derive and what they do. And the most important question is why?
There no evidence to say that the game won't change. That's the point. The skeptical argument is not proposing an alternative, it is questioning our assumption.
Also, just by looking at the number of innovative attempts to bypass this problem, one can tell that people don't like the problem. Professor Philo is disappointed when he has to tell the student that the proposed solution doesn't work.
Yet all of the stuff you have said, Papewaio, doesn't put a dent in the problem of induction...
Pindar,
If the philosophers believe this, then why don't they live their lives as if they do?
But I find that there is a large gap between what these philosophers say and what they do.
If they truly believe that there is no connection between past, present and future laws of nature then why haven't we seen a mass lemming like extinction in the past of philosophers testing their theories?
I don't understand the above. If 'philosophers' believe that induction has inherit epistemic limits then why don't they live their lives like they believe this? Is this meant as a retort that induction doesn't have limits? If not, then I don't see the value. Are you wanting to argue that sacrificing one's life for a thing makes that thing more true or valid?
One other thing to note: philosophy is theoretical, not practical: theoria not praxis.
For instance if there is no link between what has happened in the past and future, why don't we see them testing it by playing Russian roulette with automatic pistols, parachuting without the parachute, embracing crystal healing in equal abundance to chemotherapy etc etc
To point out the limits of a thing does not in itself mean a rejection of that thing.
Papewaio
02-06-2007, 22:40
Why would you call it "childlike"? Do you even have an answer to it?
Because of its clarity... from the mouth of babes.
To paraphrase Feynman, the less trained an individual needs to be for the explanation to be explained, the better we understand a situation.
Papewaio
02-07-2007, 00:32
Question has already been answered by Hume (and it's in the Salmon article):
Psychological habit.
Oh really. They continue to do something because of psychological habit, even though they think that it is not correct. They all don't test their ideas because of psychological habit. Why then do scientists test their ideas and put themselves in harms way to do so, but philosophers get off lightly by not doing so on a cop out of 'psychological habit. You have to see that is a weak argument to support a theory. Philo profs 'We don't test it out of habit'... no they don't test it because to do so would earn them a Darwin award because they are wrong.
Even so, it is recognized that it is not rational...
Oh, just to tell you, Feyerabend used to see a healer instead of go to the hospital. He advocated teaching voodoo among other things. He used to jump out of a window after giving his lecture (1st story). Very eccentric man...
Ohhh a 1 story building, why not a 10th? That really is the crux, why don't they. It has to be more then a psychological habit that every other discipline out their can get over.
There no evidence to say that the game won't change. That's the point. The skeptical argument is not proposing an alternative, it is questioning our assumption.
There is no evidence to say that the game has ever or will ever change. And I still don't see any of them seriously running around testing their ideas. Every other discipline has great thinkers that will actually put themselves on the line in proving what they do. To avoid testing something based on habit has to be one of the largest cop outs I have seen.
Reenk Roink
02-07-2007, 02:00
Oh really. They continue to do something because of psychological habit, even though they think that it is not correct. They all don't test their ideas because of psychological habit. Why then do scientists test their ideas and put themselves in harms way to do so, but philosophers get off lightly by not doing so on a cop out of 'psychological habit. You have to see that is a weak argument to support a theory. Philo profs 'We don't test it out of habit'... no they don't test it because to do so would earn them a Darwin award because they are wrong.
What on earth are you talking about?
We naturally reason in the way that is being called into question. Humans think this way...
It is the way we think. The question is, is it a valid way of thinking?
From the Britannica short:
"It is important to note that Hume did not deny that he or anyone else formed beliefs about the future on the basis of induction; he denied only that we could know with certainty that these beliefs are true. Philosophers have responded to the problem of induction in a variety of ways, though none has gained wide acceptance."
You seem intent on making philosophers to be hypocrites.
OK, philosophers are hypocrites. :rolleyes:
Now, does this refute the problem of induction one bit? No... :rolleyes:
Ohhh a 1 story building, why not a 10th? That really is the crux, why don't they. It has to be more then a psychological habit that every other discipline out their can get over.
:rolleyes:
I remind you that Feyerabend did not write a book criticizing scientific reasoning by way of the problem of induction.
His focus was different.
You can't accuse him of being a hypocrite in that sense... :rolleyes:
There is no evidence to say that the game has ever or will ever change. And I still don't see any of them seriously running around testing their ideas. Every other discipline has great thinkers that will actually put themselves on the line in proving what they do. To avoid testing something based on habit has to be one of the largest cop outs I have seen.
Exactly, there is no evidence either way. What is rational to do is be a skeptic.
You may go ahead and try to paint philosophy/philosophers in as bad a light as you want, and I'm not going to try to defend them because I really don't care.
I just want to point out that you still haven't been able to offer any argument against the problem of induction... :laugh4:
Oh really. They continue to do something because of psychological habit, even though they think that it is not correct. They all don't test their ideas because of psychological habit.
Hi Papewaio,
I thought I would weigh in a second time on your discussion with Roink. I don't think this hypocrisy avenue gets you anywhere. The reason is because it fails to address the nature of the issue. The crux of the problem with induction does not revolve around the belief(s) or the confidence (however great) of any person about a thing, but the justification of the knowledge claim itself. Let me try and illustrate the point Roink has been explaining a little differently. If one releases an apple from their hand they may expect it to fall downwards. This would no doubt be based on the fact it has always done so. Their neighbors may confirm this same experience. However, the phenomena of the apple dropping contains no necessity. There is nothing that says apples when released from a hand must always fall down. Why is necessity important? Necessity is the Grail from which real knowledge is based upon according to the Rational Tradition. What marked the Ancient Greeks as different from everybody else was they developed a intellectual rubric that was distinct from base expectation from experience and/or religious appeal and yet also allowed conclusions that could not not be, meaning: the conclusion was not 99.9999%, but 100%. This rubric is logic. Under a logical schema necessity is everything. Without necessity any conclusion falls back under the standard of doxa (opinion) and thus could be theoretically wrong. Induction, which is the rational touchstone of Modern Science, lacks this necessity.
Reenk Roink
02-08-2007, 01:36
For instance if there is no link between what has happened in the past and future, why don't we see them testing it by playing Russian roulette with automatic pistols, parachuting without the parachute, embracing crystal healing in equal abundance to chemotherapy etc etc
Yet another point (in the line of several) that shows that your contentions really are meaningless:
Philosophers who argue that we have no rational reason to believe that scientific laws and theories will work in the future are using the problem of induction for their contention.
It is not as if they are saying that the laws of nature will be different in the future.
They are merely pointing out that we have no justification to believe that they will remain the same (as the present justification is based on induction, yadda yadda yadda...).
It is a skeptical position.
Compare the situation with this:
There are the people who believe in the existence of an external world.
There are the people (solipsists) who believe that the external world does not exist .
There are the people (skeptics) who believe that we have no justification to believe in an external world.
With this in mind, there is no reason for them to jump off cliffs.
They simply hold that we have no reason to believe gravity will work in the future, not that gravity won't work in the future...
Papewaio
02-08-2007, 02:21
Hi Papewaio,
I thought I would weigh in a second time on your discussion with Roink. I don't think this hypocrisy avenue gets you anywhere. The reason is because it fails to address the nature of the issue. The crux of the problem with induction does not revolve around the belief(s) or the confidence (however great) of any person about a thing, but the justification of the knowledge claim itself. Let me try and illustrate the point Roink has been explaining a little differently. If one releases an apple from their hand they may expect it to fall downwards. This would no doubt be based on the fact it has always done so. Their neighbors may confirm this same experience. However, the phenomena of the apple dropping contains no necessity. There is nothing that says apples when released from a hand must always fall down. Why is necessity important? Necessity is the Grail from which real knowledge is based upon according to the Rational Tradition. What marked the Ancient Greeks as different from everybody else was they developed a intellectual rubric that was distinct from base expectation from experience and/or religious appeal and yet also allowed conclusions that could not not be, meaning: the conclusion was not 99.9999%, but 100%. This rubric is logic. Under a logical schema necessity is everything. Without necessity any conclusion falls back under the standard of doxa (opinion) and thus could be theoretically wrong. Induction, which is the rational touchstone of Modern Science, lacks this necessity.
So let me get this right.
Science states that it cannot be 100% correct.
Science states that its models are all open to change.
Therefore science is all opinion based/irrational.
====
Can the Uncertainty Principle work in a Rational Tradition?
====
Is it possible to use more the one tradition to approach an issue, or does one have to go all ultra-orthodox?
Papewaio
02-08-2007, 02:31
It is not as if they are saying that the laws of nature will be different in the future.
They are merely pointing out that we have no justification to believe that they will remain the same (as the present justification is based on induction, yadda yadda yadda...)
For the following two scenarios:
A) If you knew that the laws of nature where going to be uniform and never change, what system of knowledge would you use?
B) If you knew that the laws of nature where going to change, what system of knowledge would you use to determine that it had changed?
So let me get this right.
Science states that it cannot be 100% correct.
Science states that its models are all open to change.
Therefore science is all opinion based/irrational.
If science is taken as a mechanism for knowledge (the scientific conclusion X constitutes knowledge) then such is problematic as the logical schema of science (induction) is an inference mechanism which can never be definitive or ground necessity.
Can the Uncertainty Principle work in a Rational Tradition?
The Uncertainty Principle is a product of the Rational Tradition. I don't know what you mean by work. If work means useful, then that depends on the goal.
Is it possible to use more the one tradition to approach an issue, or does one have to go all ultra-orthodox?
Yes, its possible. Of course, different traditions will reveal different answers and may not be able to agree on what the issue is. For example, a rationalist and a Zen abbot assume mutually exclusive positions. This would effect any knowledge claim, how it was obtained as well as the object of knowledge itself.
Papewaio
02-09-2007, 08:06
If science is taken as a mechanism for knowledge (the scientific conclusion X constitutes knowledge) then such is problematic as the logical schema of science (induction) is an inference mechanism which can never be definitive or ground necessity.
The Uncertainty Principle is a product of the Rational Tradition. I don't know what you mean by work. If work means useful, then that depends on the goal.
Does knowledge have to be conclusive? Can't we operate under the idea that the model is the best current fit and accept that it is not absolute?
The problem stated with science is that because of induction it cannot make valid claims about the future because the nature of the universe may change.
Don't all knowledge claims fail in the future if the nature of the universe may change?
And aren't some methods of finding knowledge even weaker as the knowledge claims may fail without the universe having to change its physical laws.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-09-2007, 15:26
Because a perfect being (God) is a necessary being. This was explained.
I asked you to show that a necessary being is a perfect being.
Does knowledge have to be conclusive? Can't we operate under the idea that the model is the best current fit and accept that it is not absolute?
To claim to know a thing is to draw a conclusion. The pragmatic question above has a certain appeal. Of course, to even opt for that route is to cede the ground on any scientific knowledge claims. This means science is no longer about uncovering what is true, but what is the best fit (in your words). The use of fit is suggestive as it indicates a form, a pattern or preconception (as indicated by the methodology itself) and this demonstrates part of the problem. A pragmatic approach has science abandoning the field of knowledge (as the true is beyond reach) and is now about 'fitness'. This standard is myopic and begs the question as it presupposes one already knows the proper pattern. Science as haberdashery is unsound.
The problem stated with science is that because of induction it cannot make valid claims about the future because the nature of the universe may change.
Don't all knowledge claims fail in the future if the nature of the universe may change?
The problem with induction is not just that it cannot guarantee any conclusion vis-a-vis the future, but also that any conclusion can never be exhaustive. It is a self limiting mechanic: the true always remains outside of reach. It is precisely because of these deep seated theoretical problems that Popper argued that science can never derive truth and put forward his falsification standard as a replacement. Of course, even this was savaged by Feyerabend who Roink has already referenced.
Not all knowledge claims suffer from or are weak regarding any unrolling future. A simple example would be Hegel's epistemology. It is a difference between deductive and inductive logics. This does not mean deductive systems do not have their own problems, but those problems are not the same as what science faces.
And aren't some methods of finding knowledge even weaker as the knowledge claims may fail without the universe having to change its physical laws.
Not all methodologies are equal. I think that is right.
I asked you to show that a necessary being is a perfect being.
Actually, in your last post you didn't ask anything, but simply pointed out how you weren't getting how necessary being could be a proof of a perfect being. God by definition must be necessary being. This was explained. God by definition must be perfect. This was explained. The proof identifies God via His necessity: all other attributes follow.
Papewaio
02-12-2007, 02:22
To claim to know a thing is to draw a conclusion. The pragmatic question above has a certain appeal. Of course, to even opt for that route is to cede the ground on any scientific knowledge claims. This means science is no longer about uncovering what is true, but what is the best fit (in your words). The use of fit is suggestive as it indicates a form, a pattern or preconception (as indicated by the methodology itself) and this demonstrates part of the problem. A pragmatic approach has science abandoning the field of knowledge (as the true is beyond reach) and is now about 'fitness'. This standard is myopic and begs the question as it presupposes one already knows the proper pattern. Science as haberdashery is unsound.
The assumption is that the universe has absolute answers to find. Nor do I buy the idea that you have to know something with 100% certainty, that you can't know something with a lesser confidence. This seems to play into an understanding of our world that doesn't exist, and hasn't for some time.
As I mentioned the Uncertainty Principle, this seems to indicate that we can't know everything about quantum objects.
The problem with induction is not just that it cannot guarantee any conclusion vis-a-vis the future, but also that any conclusion can never be exhaustive. It is a self limiting mechanic: the true always remains outside of reach. It is precisely because of these deep seated theoretical problems that Popper argued that science can never derive truth and put forward his falsification standard as a replacement. Of course, even this was savaged by Feyerabend who Roink has already referenced.
Or it takes into account a fuzzy non-absolute universe.
Not all knowledge claims suffer from or are weak regarding any unrolling future. A simple example would be Hegel's epistemology. It is a difference between deductive and inductive logics. This does not mean deductive systems do not have their own problems, but those problems are not the same as what science faces.
Can deductive knowledge tell us anything about what we already don't know?
And is it immune to a universe in which its laws change?
I don't see that deductive has anything above inductive... change the rules of the universe and some people might be immortal and pigs may fly. Logic cannot predict this so it is under the same problems of future guessing as induction is in a universe with changing laws.
In all honesty I don't think any knowledge system we have is anything other then based on past facts that would be utterly useless if the schema that upheld them changed.
I thought this thread had died.
The assumption is that the universe has absolute answers to find.
Of course, the rationalist believes there is such a thing as truth, it is knowable via reason and applies to what is.
Nor do I buy the idea that you have to know something with 100% certainty...
Then you need not concern yourself with the rigors of logic.
(T)hat you can't know something with a lesser confidence.
Knowledge lacking confidence? That is an interesting notion.
Or it takes into account a fuzzy non-absolute universe.
Is 'it' above induction? Induction is part and parcel of logic. As such, it is by definition absolutist: it is a construct with universally applicable rules.
Can deductive knowledge tell us anything about what we already don't know?
Yes.
And is it immune to a universe in which its laws change?
The notion of law is itself a theoretical construct. Are you wanting to argue for a-rational law? What does that mean?
I don't see that deductive has anything above inductive... change the rules of the universe and some people might be immortal and pigs may fly. Logic cannot predict this so it is under the same problems of future guessing as induction is in a universe with changing laws.
The above doesn't understand its subject matter. Logic isn't content specific. It is formal.
In all honesty I don't think any knowledge system we have is anything other then based on past facts that would be utterly useless if the schema that upheld them changed.
Maybe, a rationalist holds that the schema whereby a fact can be construed as a fact is reason, not whimsy
Papewaio
02-13-2007, 03:53
Of course, the rationalist believes there is such a thing as truth, it is knowable via reason and applies to what is.
All ideas should be reviewed. Axioms more so then others.
Then you need not concern yourself with the rigors of logic.
A whetstone may not be the best instrument to cut the cheese. But the knife still needs it to sharpen.
Knowledge lacking confidence? That is an interesting notion.
Not all juries have to be unanimous. I'm not saying no confidence, I'm talking uncertainty (not the principle, error bars). More like treating knowledge as a horse race and that we have odds on which is most likely to win the next race. And just like horse racing, sometimes there is a dubious undercurrent due to human influence that is tainting the presented odds.
The notion of law is itself a theoretical construct. Are you wanting to argue for a-rational law? What does that mean?
Rules, laws, character being non-uniform. Not physical laws as expressed by science (which is just a title for a theory anyway)... but the actual mechanics of the universe.
Is 'it' above induction? Induction is part and parcel of logic. As such, it is by definition absolutist: it is a construct with universally applicable rules.
The issue that was brought up about induction cannot predict the future if the universes laws (rules, schema, uniformity) etc changes.
Does not the whole of logic suffer the same fate?
Surely if the data that logic is based on is no longer valid if the data changes.
All Animals Fly.
Pigs are Animals.
Therefore Pigs Fly.
Untrue in our (current) Universe, because the very first step is false. Change the rules of the Universe and suddenly all animals can fly, therefore pigs can fly. Logic cannot predict if or when such a change will occur. Therefore at least some of its outcomes are similarly mired in the past as induction.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-13-2007, 06:41
Actually, in your last post you didn't ask anything, but simply pointed out how you weren't getting how necessary being could be a proof of a perfect being. God by definition must be necessary being. This was explained. God by definition must be perfect. This was explained. The proof identifies God via His necessity: all other attributes follow.
Why don't you just make existence part of god's definition too :laugh4:
This is really silly.
Reenk Roink
02-13-2007, 16:01
Does not the whole of logic suffer the same fate?
Deductive inferences are non-ampliative.
Inductive inferences are ampliative.
Also, the problem of induction does not merely state that science will not be 100% correct. There is a good reason that Salmon points out that scientific predictions of the future are just as good as crystal ball gazing... Holding scientific predictions to be more likely to be correct than crystal ball predictions is irrational, unless you can show me a reason to the contrary...
All ideas should be reviewed. Axioms more so then others.
Certainly, this does not relate to my post.
A whetstone may not be the best instrument to cut the cheese. But the knife still needs it to sharpen.
What does this mean? Are you wanting to argue induction doesn't suffer from the limitations so far explained? Are you wanting to argue that science, which is dependant on such a schema, isn't therefore similarly limited?
Not all juries have to be unanimous. I'm not saying no confidence, I'm talking uncertainty (not the principle, error bars). More like treating knowledge as a horse race and that we have odds on which is most likely to win the next race. And just like horse racing, sometimes there is a dubious undercurrent due to human influence that is tainting the presented odds.
Uncertainty is not knowledge, by definition.
If you follow the horse race analogy (with its admitted possible tainting by human influence) the problem is there is no conclusion: the race never ends.
The notion of law is itself a theoretical construct. Are you wanting to argue for a-rational law? What does that mean?
Rules, laws, character being non-uniform. Not physical laws as expressed by science (which is just a title for a theory anyway)... but the actual mechanics of the universe.
The reference to law is not simply a title. Law is not synonymous with theory. Laws exist within theories. Both are constructs. As far as the actual mechanics of the universe, or what is reality, is a question with many different answers.
The issue that was brought up about induction cannot predict the future if the universes laws (rules, schema, uniformity) etc changes.
Does not the whole of logic suffer the same fate?
See Roink's reply.
Actually, in your last post you didn't ask anything, but simply pointed out how you weren't getting how necessary being could be a proof of a perfect being. God by definition must be necessary being. This was explained. God by definition must be perfect. This was explained. The proof identifies God via His necessity: all other attributes follow.
Why don't you just make existence part of god's definition too :laugh4:
This is really silly.
Existence is part of God's definition. This is tied up in the idea of necessary being. This was explained. Your comment suggests you haven't understood. Your last sentence above suggests you celebrate that lack of understanding. This is a little disturbing given you're a student.
Fisherking
02-13-2007, 21:37
Existence is part of God's definition. This is tied up in the idea of necessary being. This was explained. Your comment suggests you haven't understood. Your last sentence above suggests you celebrate that lack of understanding. This is a little disturbing given you're a student.
Just butting in but: There are very few of us who think, and even fewer that understand.
I said that but I am sure it has been said before…
Just butting in but: There are very few of us who think, and even fewer that understand.
That's a grim thought.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-13-2007, 22:57
Existence is part of God's definition. This is tied up in the idea of necessary being. This was explained. Your comment suggests you haven't understood. Your last sentence above suggests you celebrate that lack of understanding. This is a little disturbing given you're a student.
There is this being called "foo". By definition foo exists and by definition must be the necessary being. Do you believe in foo?
There is this being called "foo". By definition foo exists and by definition must be the necessary being. Do you believe in foo?
What one names a thing is not the issue. A label whether foo, god, the absolute etc. isn't relevant. What is relevant is the abiding concept. When discussing a thing that is perfect: the maximal expression of reality then certain conclusions follow.
What one believes isn't relevant. Recall, this tangent on God followed the explanation of the logical problems of atheism and your presumptuous statement that then all strong statements about God were illogical. This was a flawed view and has been demonstrated as such. Your dogmatic penchant to resist even when unable to refute speaks to your person, but is not my concern. I am only concerned with the logic.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-14-2007, 00:20
foo is by definition evil as well. So, not the same as your god. Do you see the problem now?
Papewaio
02-14-2007, 00:36
Certainly, this does not relate to my post.
It relates to reviewing the underpinnings of any knowledge system.
What does this mean? Are you wanting to argue induction doesn't suffer from the limitations so far explained? Are you wanting to argue that science, which is dependant on such a schema, isn't therefore similarly limited?
Quite the opposite, science has many limitations including but not limited to the inability to deal with metaphysics. Being limited is not an issue, making sure you use it within its limits is the path to wisdom. Science for me is a tool, it's use is based on a few assumptions... for instance that the laws of physics are the same throughout this Universe, which to me automatically means they are in doubt outside of this Universe. However as my physical self is stuck here, I'm happy using the cheese knife (science) to eat cheese. I do see the utility in sharpening the knife with a whetstone (logic)... but I also realise that the whetstone isn't better at cutting the cheese.
Uncertainty is not knowledge, by definition.
If you follow the horse race analogy (with its admitted possible tainting by human influence) the problem is there is no conclusion: the race never ends.
No, each test of a hypothesis is a horse race. Every cup that falls, every apple etc is one of these tests. What science predicts has uncertainties attached to it.
The reference to law is not simply a title. Law is not synonymous with theory. Laws exist within theories. Both are constructs. As far as the actual mechanics of the universe, or what is reality, is a question with many different answers.
Again I wasn't talking about the Laws of science, I was talking about the universes laws...I referred to it not science in my first post... and I elaborated on it in the second. The idea that if the laws/ways of the universe change induction will fall apart... pretty obvious. When it does, science will not be able to use the old predictions, heck the universe may become unable to support life. I do hazard a guess that science being the best model so far, that it will be the quickest to realise that the fundamentals of the universe have changed.
See Roink's reply.
Yes, Sir!
Papewaio
02-14-2007, 00:50
Deductive inferences are non-ampliative.
Inductive inferences are ampliative.
So. Deductive will still not work if the data sets change (changed universe).
Therefore any logical claims may not work if the universes fundamental nature changes.
X can do M, is true.
Y is a part of Set X.
Therefore Y can do M.
Universe changes, Induction Fails. Sets attributes change.
X can do M, is no longer true.
Y is a part of Set X.
Therefore Y can no longer do M.
So doesn't logic suffer in a changing universe in that its past inferences will no longer hold true?
foo is by definition evil as well. So, not the same as your god. Do you see the problem now?
I do not own any god. The possessive pronoun is confused.
More to the point, typing a series of letters doesn't make a concept. Asserting a necessary evil being is problematic.
You shouldn't pretend you have a point, which the tale end question above indicates, when it is clear you do not understand the basic issue. The issue is a logical point.
It relates to reviewing the underpinnings of any knowledge system.
The underpinnings of rationality is logic. That truth is amenable to rationality is an assumption. An assumption is the theoretical zero point. One either accepts or rejects it. Those on opposite sides of the rational assumption cannot dialogue as they have no point of contact.
Quite the opposite, science has many limitations including but not limited to the inability to deal with metaphysics. Being limited is not an issue, making sure you use it within its limits is the path to wisdom. Science for me is a tool, it's use is based on a few assumptions... for instance that the laws of physics are the same throughout this Universe, which to me automatically means they are in doubt outside of this Universe. However as my physical self is stuck here, I'm happy using the cheese knife (science) to eat cheese. I do see the utility in sharpening the knife with a whetstone (logic)... but I also realise that the whetstone isn't better at cutting the cheese.
The above creates a false dichotomy. Science is a rational enterprise. It is dependant on logic. It cannot be separated from logic.
No, each test of a hypothesis is a horse race. Every cup that falls, every apple etc is one of these tests. What science predicts has uncertainties attached to it.
What has uncertainty isn't knowledge. If you admit science has uncertainty attached then you are ipso facto admitting science and its conclusions are separate from knowledge.
Again I wasn't talking about the Laws of science, I was talking about the universes laws...I referred to it not science in my first post... and I elaborated on it in the second. The idea that if the laws/ways of the universe change induction will fall apart... pretty obvious. When it does, science will not be able to use the old predictions, heck the universe may become unable to support life. I do hazard a guess that science being the best model so far, that it will be the quickest to realise that the fundamentals of the universe have changed.
The universe doesn't have laws. Laws are theoretical constructs.
Papewaio
02-14-2007, 02:53
The universe doesn't have laws. Laws are theoretical constructs.
I said how the universe works, its rules, laws whatever you wish to name them, and I said it wasn't the theoretical constructs of science I was talking about. I did not think you would be so rude by behaving in such an uncharitable manner. Then you focus on that and even after multiple posts by myself clarifying my position you keep ignoring what I meant.
In the end of the day if the Universe changes then Induction fails. So does logic. Logic deals with sets, the universe changes then so does those sets. Neither Induction or Logic are immune to being able to make any statements about the future if the universe changes as they are based on past knowledge.
Deductive reasoning has no special ability to avoid having its conclusions debased by a changing universe.
What would be interesting is a system that could
a) Predict a change happening.
b) Say what the change would be.
Reenk Roink
02-14-2007, 03:10
Papewaio, I'm thinking that you are confusing several things.
Like I've said: Deductive reasoning is non-ampliative. There is no information in the conclusion that is not already contained in the premises.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-14-2007, 04:41
I do not own any god. The possessive pronoun is confused.
More to the point, typing a series of letters doesn't make a concept. Asserting a necessary evil being is problematic.
You shouldn't pretend you have a point, which the tale end question above indicates, when it is clear you do not understand the basic issue. The issue is a logical point.
Asserting evil is problematic, but asserting perfection is not? How arbitrary. It doesn't have to be evil, it can be anything you like.
I do indeed have a point. You have said necessary being implies god because that is part of it's definition. But you base this on the definition of god which is man made. If I create my own definition of god, and make part of it's definition the necessary being, you can't claim your definition of god is any more true and following it would be merely a matter of preference.
Papewaio
02-14-2007, 05:38
Papewaio, I'm thinking that you are confusing several things.
Like I've said: Deductive reasoning is non-ampliative. There is no information in the conclusion that is not already contained in the premises.
But, if the universe changes so do the premises...
Papewaio
02-14-2007, 05:43
What has uncertainty isn't knowledge. If you admit science has uncertainty attached then you are ipso facto admitting science and its conclusions are separate from knowledge.
Man is Mortal.
Socrates is a Man.
Socrates is therefore Mortal.
How certain are you that man is mortal?
Until everyone is 'measured' you cannot be absolutely sure that man is mortal. You have an uncertainty in the measurement.
Not only that, as the observer is also a Man and part of the set. He can never be sure until he is dead, and once he is dead he cannot finish the measurement, so he can never be certain in this life about Man being Mortal.
I said how the universe works, its rules, laws whatever you wish to name them, and I said it wasn't the theoretical constructs of science I was talking about. I did not think you would be so rude by behaving in such an uncharitable manner. Then you focus on that and even after multiple posts by myself clarifying my position you keep ignoring what I meant.
I'm not trying to be rude. I simply don't think the distinction you want to make is possible. There is no way to discuss the 'universe' without appealing to a theoria. There is a contrived element that is part and parcel to the process.
In the end of the day if the Universe changes then Induction fails. So does logic. Logic deals with sets, the universe changes then so does those sets.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what logic is. Logic is formal. It does not depend on any outside mechanic. Whether the universe is X or Y, or does P or Q has no impact on logic proper. Let me see if I can explain a little before you charge me with being rude again. Logic as a formal system can be about its business without any outside reference, for example:
A then B
Not B
Therefore not A
Now a rationalist may take this formal system and attempt to apply it to the world. Science is an example of such an application. In science's case, the applicative logic is induction. This means going from little to big. The problem is this mechanic is inherently self limiting such that a definitive stance is impossible. It doesn't follow however that because induction is thus and so that deduction is similarly thus and so. Neither does it follow that any state of the world X has any impact of the formality and function of logic. Do you see?
What would be interesting is a system that could
a) Predict a change happening.
b) Say what the change would be.
The above notion is neither remarkable or rare. Hegelian epistemology does just this. The same can be said for a wide variety of religious traditions.
Man is Mortal.
Socrates is a Man.
Socrates is therefore Mortal.
How certain are you that man is mortal?
Until everyone is 'measured' you cannot be absolutely sure that man is mortal. You have an uncertainty in the measurement.
Whether the first premise is accepted or not, the argument is valid. This means the conclusion cannot not be. There is no uncertainty in the argument. The same would be the case if one were to say:
Martians love disco
Bob is a Martian
Therefore Bob loves disco.
The argument doesn't turn on questioning all Martians on their musical tastes. You are confusing content with form. A deductive argument is exhaustive. There is nothing outside its premises and conclusion. This is not the case with induction.
Asserting evil is problematic, but asserting perfection is not? How arbitrary. It doesn't have to be evil, it can be anything you like. I do indeed have a point. You have said necessary being implies god because that is part of it's definition. But you base this on the definition of god which is man made. If I create my own definition of god, and make part of it's definition the necessary being, you can't claim your definition of god is any more true and following it would be merely a matter of preference.
You are confused. The notion of god, as distilled through reason, is not subject specific. Rather, the concept must have certain properties in order to be coherent. There is nothing arbitrary to it. The logic of perfection has stood at the core of the Rational Tradition for over two and half millennia. If this bothers you or isn't convenient is not my concern.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-14-2007, 09:01
So, at last, "tradition" is your answer. Not too surprising.
Reenk Roink
02-14-2007, 17:42
So, at last, "tradition" is your answer. Not too surprising.
What? :huh:
So, at last, "tradition" is your answer. Not too surprising.
This doesn't make any sense nor does it relate to my post above. Oppositionism is never a good thing.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-14-2007, 19:10
This doesn't make any sense nor does it relate to my post above. Oppositionism is never a good thing.
Your post didn't respond directly to the scenario I put forward...what am I supposed to say?
Your post didn't respond directly to the scenario I put forward...what am I supposed to say?
My reply responded directly to the thrust of your post. Expressed another way: your 'scenario' is absurd. One cannot simply say a tea table is god or god is evil or god is a "it can be anything you like". Concepts have meaning. Under a rational rubric (which is what we are dealing with here) the notion of god is constrained by the meaning of perfection. This is not arbitrary or simply an appeal to tradition.
So, at last, "tradition" is your answer. Not too surprising.
For an individual that is a student - and claims knowledge of logic - your attempt here is rather amusing considering the illogical nature of the stance.
But its been really interesting reading the exchange between Pape and Pinder. Very enlightening and informative.
Reenk Roink
02-14-2007, 20:06
But, if the universe changes so do the premises...
...but that doesn't change anything...
Deductive inferences remain non-ampliative.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-14-2007, 23:36
My reply responded directly to the thrust of your post. Expressed another way: your 'scenario' is absurd. One cannot simply say a tea table is god or god is evil or god is a "it can be anything you like". Concepts have meaning. Under a rational rubric (which is what we are dealing with here) the notion of god is constrained by the meaning of perfection. This is not arbitrary or simply an appeal to tradition.
It is not a problem if you disagree with an individual scenario. It is presumptuous to say that a necessary being has to be perfect. They are in no way tied together. An imperfect being could just have easily created the universe. You disagree with my foo example for the exact reason I disagree with your example. That was the point.
It is not a problem if you disagree with an individual scenario. It is presumptuous to say that a necessary being has to be perfect. They are in no way tied together. An imperfect being could just have easily created the universe. You disagree with my foo example for the exact reason I disagree with your example. That was the point.
Most of the above is incoherent, worse it is uninteresting. It is not presumptuous to identify god as perfect. It is definitional. It is not presumptuous to identify god with necessary being. It is definitional. The wherefore of the definition has been explained more than once. One shouldn't ape a vernacular if the meaning isn't understood. A presumption is a rush to judgment as was the case with your statement: all strong statements about god are illogical. Your foo fetish failed because it was incoherent. The rational conception of god is not similarly confused. Now, if you disagree then present a rational conception of god that is imperfect or god that is contingent. Recall, something contingent would be ontically dependent and thereby caused. Now if you cannot do this then we can dispense with any silly parallel between your foo fetish and the rational conception of god.
But its been really interesting reading the exchange between Pape and Pinder. Very enlightening and informative.
If you have any questions from the discussion pipe up.
ShadeHonestus
02-15-2007, 02:32
If you have any questions from the discussion pipe up.
How does the positivist scientific view reconcile itself with an absolute exclusion of a supreme being when by its own admission the laws of physics break down prior to creation of the universe and, depending on the nature of its end, after its finale? I keep hearing these positivists take the stand of the impossible god. While they may not have the evidence they desire to include a god in their TOE, they neither have the evidence to exclude and be a postivist but in the same breath they accept the anthropic principle past evidence.
On the other hand I once heard a positivist string theorist state that God could be music resonating in dimensional hyperspace.
Claudius the God
02-15-2007, 02:35
I'm back after the last month or two of working on my history Thesis, I will contribute to the debate once I've read what I've missed out on over the last few weeks... :book: :whip:
Sasaki Kojiro
02-15-2007, 04:23
Most of the above is incoherent, worse it is uninteresting. It is not presumptuous to identify god as perfect. It is definitional. It is not presumptuous to identify god with necessary being. It is definitional. The wherefore of the definition has been explained more than once. One shouldn't ape a vernacular if the meaning isn't understood. A presumption is a rush to judgment as was the case with your statement: all strong statements about god are illogical. Your foo fetish failed because it was incoherent. The rational conception of god is not similarly confused. Now, if you disagree then present a rational conception of god that is imperfect or god that is contingent. Recall, something contingent would be ontically dependent and thereby caused. Now if you cannot do this then we can dispense with any silly parallel between your foo fetish and the rational conception of god.
I've already said this: foo is exactly the same as god with just one small imperfection.
A first mover is not required to be anything more than a first mover. Your claim that only a perfect being can be the first mover is unsupported. You've said a perfect being must be the first mover, but you haven't shown that a perfect being must exist.
Claudius the God
02-15-2007, 05:42
since this thread I created has become stuck on debating over Pindar's "proof", I have found discussions at another forum to be more interresting of late.
here is something interresting I read today:
Here is a FAQ for anyone that wants to know the basics of atheism.
you can also download the entire movie in high quality(144 mb) from http://digitalfreethought.com/
here:
http://www.digitalfreethought.com/video/Streaming/atheism101.wmv
here is the complete text spoken in the video:
Q. What exactly IS an atheist?
A. An atheist is a person who is without a belief in a god or gods.
However, if you look up "Atheist" in certain dictionaries, you might encounter phrases like "one who denies the existence of God" (implying that we are in denial of reality), "infidel", "non-believer", "immoral", "evil". Good examples of this can be found in the older versions of Webster's Dictionary. Webster was a Christian and obviously had an axe to grind against atheists.
Q. Don't you atheists worship SATAN?
A. No we don't. We don't believe in any gods, devils, demons, angels, spirits, ghosts, witches, miracles, or just about anything supernatural.. Why would we worship something that we don't believe exists?
Back to top
Q. Why don't you believe in God??
Why don't you believe in Zeus, Thor or Green People on Venus? Same reason. There's no evidence.
There is no evidence; and before you say "What do you mean? You're evidence of God".. I'll have to point out the logical fallacy that you would be using: Presupposition
You pre-suppose the existence of a God, assign Him the power to create me, then say "How can you say there is no God, you're standing right there!"... Then I would say "See that car there? I made that car from toothpicks.. How can you doubt it.. There it is!" I have presupposed my ability to make cars out of toothpicks before I made the argument.
Also, there is actually reason to believe that a Christian God of your description (All Loving, All Knowing, All powerful) doesn't exist in this universe. If He did, why would He allow innocent children to get cancer? Why would He send hurricanes and earthquakes kill so many people? Why would He allow people to fly planes into our skyscrapers and kill thousands of His "children"? And on and on and on.
Actually, siting the Riddle of Epicuris":
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
- Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
- Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
- Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Therefore the All Knowing, All powerful, All loving God of your description is logically impossible.
If he allows children to get cancer, and allows tsunamis and hurricanes to kill thousands. If he allows bad men to rape women. If he even allows evil to exist in the world, then:
1) he can't be all loving
or 2) he can't know about it
or 3) he's not powerful enough to stop it.
You can have 2 out of three, but not all three
When looking at the world through the eyes of a rationalist/atheist, the world makes perfect sense. Some people, good and bad, will die in natural disasters. Little children will get cancer as a certain percentage of the population. There's no malice, and no "mysterious plan".
Also, if you will re-read your bible (you're planning to anyway, right?) with critical mind, you'll notice that the God of the Bible actually is:
- Extremely Violent and Cruel
- Jealous
- Murderous
- Impetuous
- Peevish
- Possessive
- Threatening
- Irrational
- Misogynistic
- Irresponsible
ALL of these are human traits! And every Christian apologist that I've ever heard, constantly says that "God is so far above humans, that we could never understand his motives.".. Well, reading the bible, you're supposed to understand his motives! That's where the supposed lessons come from!
Not only that, but in the Bible, God directly ordered 2,017,956 People Killed.
Not counting 65 entire cities.
Not counting those that died from the His various Plagues.
And not counting the entire population of the world in the Flood.
Heck, the only people Satan killed was Job's kids, and that was only after God told him he could. And he's constantly surprised by the actions of Humans. How can he be all knowing, be surprised by anything we do, and get angry (a human emotion) when we're simply "following the plan" that he laid down in the first place!
What this boils down to is that God was really created by men, and the bible authored by men, not the other way around. Also, do the actions of your God make sense to you? Or does he really seem to act like a spoiled 8 year old?
Q. Well then, prove that God does not exist.
A. It's not up to us. Carl Sagan once wrote: "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence". Believers are making the extraordinary claim that you know how the universe was created, that the universe was created by your personal God, that that God still exists, and is personally involved in every part of our lives. The burden of proof is on the one making the claims. You. We simply say we do not believe it.
Also, one could argue that it is hardly necessary to disprove something that has never been proven in the first place.
Back to top
Q. How can you say that there is no GOD? I personally feel his "power" in church!
A. Well, I don't know exactly what you felt, but from the atheist standpoint we'd say you've experienced a mass induced psychosis. It is quite a commonly accepted psychological phenomenon. People in large groups can become emotionally charged rather easily. (Do some research on the psychology of lynchings, witch hunts, etc.)
Back to top
Q. But EVERYONE believes in God, why don't you?
A. Well, actually everybody doesn't believe in God. About 15% of Americans (that's 30 Million people as of the 2000 census) say they don't believe in a god. There are about twice as many Atheists in America as Jews. Also, most people around the world believe in different gods. Yours in only one of 1,000+ deities that people believe in.
Also, there are whole "religions" without a Supreme Being: Buddhism, Confucism, Taoism, etc. And many, whole countries without pervasive religions: China, Japan, and the Scandinavian countries.
Back to top
Q. You should believe, millions of believers can't be wrong!
A. Sure they can. How many people believe in Astrology, Numerology, Psychics, and magic? People are easily duped, and especially so in large numbers. Also, your "believers" can't even agree on what they DO believe. The sectarian violence taking place in IRAQ is between devout Moslems. They all follow Mohammed, and Allah, but disagree on the details. Disagree so strongly, that they are willing to kill each other.
J. H. Johnson writes: "[Some] 433,000,000 Muslims believe that the Koran was brought by an angel from heaven; 335,000,000 Hindus believe one of their gods, Siva, has six arms; 153,000,000 Buddhists believe they will be reincarnated; 904,000,000 Christians believe a god made the world in six days, Joshua stopped the sun by yelling at it, and Jesus was born of a virgin and nullified natural laws to perform miracles. "
Why should we believe any of these fantastic tales, brought to us from 2-3000 years ago by ignorant, superstitious people?
Q. Why don't you just have faith?
A. Uh Yeah. Faith is nothing more that voluntary gullibility.
"Faith is what your preacher says you must have so that you'll believe all the other stuff he wants to tell you." - Unknown
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets." - Arthur C Clarke, science fiction writer (1917- )
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
If you insist that "everyone has faith in something", then I'll admit that my faith lies in the human ability to deal with the real world using human reason and compassion. I have faith that we are not born as flawed sinners; we are born whole, with brains capable of dealing with life's challenges unassisted by mythology and supernatural belief systems.
Dr. Charlie Web writes in his article "Think For Yourself":
"Faith" is nothing more than thought control. Blind faith is legalized slavery. Faith tells us never to question the evidence for truth. But should we care about the truth? Absolutely! Because if we don't know what reality is, how can we ever expect to know how to deal with reality?
To find the truth we simply need to think for ourselves and examine the evidence. Evidence is everything.
All the world's evidence tells us that whoever wrote the Bible and whoever wrote the Koran knew absolutely nothing about geography, geology, astronomy, biology, or evolution. They thought their world was flat! They shared the profound ignorance of their time, and yet we are told to have "faith" that these primitive people knew more than we do. Only blind faith could swallow such a yarn. " Ask yourself, honestly, what basis do you have for believing that the Bible is the true word of a God?
Also, if faith is all that is necessary to believe in God and accept the Bible as true, doesn't that make all of the other religions true too? They also require "faith".
Q. Why don't you believe in God anyway? If He's not real you haven't lost anything. But if He is real, you get to go to heaven..
You are basically talking about Pascal's wager. There are several reasons this doesn't work for us. The main answering points are:
1. Few, if any, atheists disbelieve in deities out of choice. It's not as if we know the god is really there, but somehow refuse to believe in it. We are convinced that He is simply not there.
2. Which God? And how do you know which God to believe in? What if you're wrong?
3. If God really exists, He is not stupid. He would know that I'd just be trying to get a free ride into Heaven by just saying we believe.
4. You couldn't just "believe in God", you would also have to believe in the whole religious package. In Christianity that would mean also believing in angels, demons, Satan, heaven, hell, saints, sin, resurrection, prophets, miracles, cherubim, etc. etc. etc.
5. AND If there is no God, you have lost something by worshipping Him. You have wasted a good portion of your life performing various devotional rituals, attending church, praying, reading scripture and discussing your deity with His other followers. Not to mention giving your hard-earned money to the church, wasting your intelligence on theological endeavors and boring the hell out of people who really don't want to hear your "Good News".*
Also, Believing when you actually don't, you would have lost a great deal of self-respect by being intellectually dishonest with yourself for your whole life.
(These answers were drawn from Adrian Barnett's site. Go there for more information.)
* Speaking of Good News... In order for a Christian to spread the "Good News", he must first spread the Bad News: That all people are born sinners, bound for Hell. Christians conveniently forget that part.
Q. If you don't believe in God, then what is the point of living?
Why does living need to have a "point" at all? Do the "lilies of the field" need to have a point to live?
If you must have a "point", then decide on your own meaning of life. We believe that it's much better do determine our own purpose, than to have some church do it for you based on their agenda!
Back to top
Q. Doesn't being an Atheist "cheapen" life?
A. Actually religion cheapens life. Being an Atheist makes life more precious. Since there is no after-life, you must come to terms with the fact that this is the ONLY life you'll get. If an atheist throws himself in front of a bus in order to save a child, that action is much more meaningful than if a Christian did the same thing. The Christian thinks they'll just go to heaven and live there!
Look at the 9/11/2001 massacre in New York and Washington D.C. Those religious (Muslim) people thought that their actions would hasten and ensure their entry into eternal bliss, but what they actually did was throw away the only life they had in an act of "faith".
Back to top
Q. Well what DO you believe?
A. We DO believe in Human Dignity! We're NOT born "dirty sinners". We are born as earth's most intelligent and adaptive creatures. We have the ability to overcome adversity without help from mysticism, superstition and "invisible friends".
- We believe in treating our fellow man as we would like to be treated; which is a Humanist Idea, thousands of years older than Christianity.
- We believe that Humans are fully capable of deciding our own "purpose" in life.
- We believe that the "comfort" that religion theoretically offers is more than off-set by the amount of pain, death and suffering it has caused throughout history.
- And we believe that religion has hindered the advancement of human knowledge more than any other single cause, and is still doing so today.
There are several versions of the Atheist 10 Commandments on the internet these days, here is one set, drawn from http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/ten_commandments.html
1. Thou SHALT NOT believe all thee art told.
2. Thou SHALT constantly seek knowledge and truth.
3. Thou SHALT educate thy fellow man in the Laws of Science.
4. Thou SHALT NOT forget the atrocities committed in the name of god.
5. Thou SHALT leave valuable contributions for future generations.
6. Thou SHALT live in peace with thy fellow man.
7. Thou SHALT live this one life thy have to its fullest.
8. Thou SHALT follow a Personal Code of Ethics.
9. Thou SHALT maintain a strict separation between Church and State.
10. Thou SHALT support ye who follow these commandments.
And I believe in a future that allows humans to be free of the blinders superstition and religion. Free to use their minds to question the universe around them unafraid of the wrath of an invisible, omni-present Judge. (Or His even more present, and judgemental, human representatives.)
But mostly I believe that the world actually HAS a future. Unlike the Christian who envisions a very short future indeed; where the "King of Creation" is coming next week, or next year, to loose horrible demons and monsters and plagues and disease upon the world, before totally destroying it. (See Revelations)
Q. How can you not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
A. Well, rationally considered, it is a pretty outlandish claim. Nobody in the history of the world has ever done it. And outside of the bible, there is no mention of Jesus' resurrection anywhere in the historical documents. NOR is there a mention of any of the other "resurrections" that took place on the same day: According to Matthew chapter 27:52-53 "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." You would think that someone outside of the Bible would have written about that.
Carrying this a bit further, let’s look at the logic of Jesus’s death.
1) God is angry at us for disobeying Him in the Garden of Eden, and condemns us all.
2) He sends His son to die on earth to appease himself.
3) Then He forgives only those who believe in His son, the rest are still condemned.
Or as Julia Sweeney puts it:
"Why would a God create people so imperfect? And then blame them for his own imperfections? Then send his own son to be murdered by those imperfect people, to make up for how imperfect those people were? And how imperfect they were inevitably going to be? I mean, what a crazy idea."
Why didn't He just forgive us outright? Why did he condemn His son to all that suffering and torment at the hands of the people he's planning to forgive just so He wouldn't send us all to hell!? And if your Catholic, it gets even stranger! God and Jesus are the same person.. So in essence, He sent Himself to be tortured and crucified to appease Himself!
Look at it another way.
1) God's mad at us for eating the apple.
2) God sends His son to earth to be killed by us (He had to know it was going to happen!).
3) We kill Him.
4) God's not mad at us any more.
Does that make any sense?
Again... Why not just forgive us? What kind of father would have his son tortured and killed, when he had the power to prevent it?
Q. Don't you believe in an immortal soul?
A. No. Your personality is basically an organic and chemical structure and resides mostly in the frontal lobes of your brain. Many studies have been done to show that the application of certain chemicals and/or surgery can change the way your personality behaves. A simple surgical procedure known as a lobotomy, for example, will erase your personality altogether. How can a soul (i.e. your personality) exist when it has no physical brain to reside in?
Back to top
Q. Don't you wish that you could go to Heaven?
A. Sure.. We'd love to believe that Heaven was real and that we could live forever. But there has never been anyone who has ever come back and said it was there. There is no evidence whatsoever of life continuing after death. (The Bible doesn't count, since it was written by very superstitious people who believed that demons cause illness, the earth is flat, the sun travels around the earth, etc., etc.)
Also, if Heaven is to be total happiness, forever, then how can you be totally happy if you know that one or more of your loved one's are in Hell? (Or if anyone is in Hell?) And if God removes your memories of those loved ones so that you can be happy, is He not altering the thing that is "You". If He alters you very much, you cease to be the "You" that you were.
Also, are babies still babies in Heaven forever? Do retarded people become smart? How smart? If Jesus says that riches are to be frowned upon, why are the streets made of Gold, and the Heavenly Gates Pearl? Every religion/sect has a different "Heaven", how do we know which is the correct heaven? Indeed, how do we know ANYTHING about heaven? Even the bible is extremely sketchy in this respect.
Doesn’t it make more sense that the ancient church would just make up Heaven and Hell to keep it’s followers in line? After all, Hell is the ultimate threat and Heaven the ultimate Bribe.
Anyway, according to the Bible, the prospects of you going to Heaven are pretty slim too:
Revelation 7:4 says that only 144,000 people will be going to heaven, and those will be "of the children of Israel."
Revelation 14:3-4 says that "These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins."
So unless your a Jewish man, and a Virgin, sorry.
Back to top
Q. But you must be forgiven for your sins!
A. What if I told you that there is no such thing as a sin?
"Sin" is a concept that is sold to you by your religion. Would you buy a bandage from a person who comes up to you and cuts you in order to sell you a bandage?
Paraphrasing Dan Barker in his excellent book: "Losing Faith in Faith": "Religion tries to sell you a cure for a problem of it's own making."
Back to top
Q. What do you do if you feel that you've really wronged another person or done something bad? You can't go to Jesus for forgiveness.
A. That's right we can't, so we either have to get forgiveness from the person we've wronged or live with it. If you think about it, it makes us think a lot harder about doing something before we do it. The religious person can just go on and do it, knowing that he can easily be forgiven by his church, Jesus, etc. He doesn't even have to ask forgiveness from the person he's wronged.
Did you know that Hitler was a Christian (a Catholic)? And since he probably asked for forgiveness in his last hours, he should be in heaven right now. Right? And Anne Frank's only "sin" was that she was Jewish. So to Christians, she should be in hell now, along with Albert Schweitzer (a non-believer). Right?
Back to top
Q. Well then, where do you think the universe came from?
A. I don't know. Nobody does. Not even your preacher. Besides, saying that "God did it" really explains nothing. You're in essence saying that an unseen, unknowable being created it in a way that we could never understand. You might as well say it was "magic", or fairies!
Also, when you say "God created the universe." it begs the question "Who/what created God?" and then "Who/what created that entity?"
Here's the problem... People do have questions about the universe: Where did it come from? Where did WE come from? Do we have a purpose?
These questions are very basic human questions, and it would be wonderful if the answers were easy to come by, and easy to understand. However, they are anything BUT basic or easy to answer. To arrive at any kind of respectable/defendable answer you would have to study Anthropology, Biology, Physics and/or Philosophy just to begin with! We have long since passed the point where the layman can do more than can scratch the surface of all of these diverse fields. The answers are very hard to arrive at. But religion makes it easy! Just study one book and get some help from your preacher! "God created the Universe.", "We're here because he put us here." "Our purpose is to serve Him (and the church)".
These answers are easy, but 1) they're really not answers because we don't know how He did it, or where He came from, or what His purpose was for putting us here. 2) When we follow religion, we are not following the SAME religion. And it's very divisive. It causes elitism, intolerance, and war. These are paths we can no longer afford to take. Humanity is too interlinked, and the world is too small (and nuclear weapons too abundant) for us to continue down this path.
The difference between Scientific and Religious answers is the way they go about getting these answers.
David W. Key, director of Baptist Studies at the Candler School of Theology at Emory, put it this way: "The real underlying issue is that fundamentalism [...] is incompatible with higher education," Professor Key said. "In fundamentalism, you have all the truths. In education, you're searching for truths."
Science looks at the universe and tries to figure it out, working from the data to the answer. Religion works backwards. It teaches us that it's answers are "Revelations from God" (or at least "inspired by God"), and tries to find data in the universe that supports them; ignoring or denying evidence that contradicts it. Therein lies the problem.
In the past, Religion has denied that the world is round, that the sun is the center of the solar system, and that illness can be caused by microscopic organisms.
Religion currently is denying Evolution. This at a time when every major accredited institution of higher-education in the world accepts it.
Galileo Galilei was imprisoned, and Giordano Bruno killed, for espousing their scientific discoveries during a time when religion contridicted their findings.
By the way.. the Catholic Church is after a kinder image now I guess. On it's web-site: The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition. They say it wasn't Millions of heretics they killed, but only 3,000 to 5,000. Of course this does not even touch on the number of people who where maimed and tortured, and/or dispossessed of their lands/properties during the 350 years that it endured. (1481-1834). (www.reference.com)
So what do you do? Take some time and learn about the world around you! I, personally, enjoy the study of these different fields. The internet has put all of the sciences at our finger-tips. You would be surprised has how accessible, and understandable, the information is nowadays, if you will only take the time to ASK the questions, and use your brain. "Learning is lifelong." and fun! Just open your mind and start!
Q. Don't you believe God created man in the Garden of Eden?
A. No. Anthropology, Paleontology, Biology and Genetic Research all point to evolution being the correct theory for the arrival of man on earth. They also point to the fact that man originated in Africa, and then traveled to Europe, Asia and the rest of the world.
(For more information about Evolution and the science behind it, visit Mark I. Vuletic's pages)
The ONLY proponent of Creationism is religion. And different religions have different creation stories. You figure it out. And it doesn’t make any sense!
Let's go into this a little farther using the Judeo/Christianity creation story as an example: God tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge or they will die. (Genesis 2:17)
1. They eat from it and they do not die. Doesn't that mean that God lied?
2. How can they know what "to die" even means? Nothing has ever died anywhere in their experience.
3. How do they even know what "wrong" is, if it takes eating from the Tree of Knowledge to know the difference between right and wrong!?
4. If God knows everything that will ever happen, then when he made the Garden of Eden, and placed the Tree of Knowledge in the very center of it, and told them not to eat from it, and allowed Satan there to tempt them; He knew at that time that they would! (Remember they were not sinners yet, and like children.) Yet he acted surprised, he acted angry, and punished them and all of their descendents for the rest of time. It sounds to any reasonable ear like he was just laying a trap for humanity.
5. Also, God knows everything! He must have known that all this was going to happen. Why did he even go through the exercise of creating Man anyway, if he knew it was going to fail?
Q. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?
A. We didn't come from Monkeys. Monkeys and Humans came from a common ancestor that lived several million years ago. A few Million years ago there were actually 4 or 5 distinct humanoid variations sharing the planet. Heck, the Neanderthals were still around only 30,000 years ago!
Why don't you try studying a little Anthropology if you really want to learn more about it? Do you really think the people 2000 to 5000 years ago knew more about human origins that we do now?
Back to top
Q. But surely you must concede that there are some things that science can't explain.
A. Of course. It has always been that way, and probably always will be. But just because we don't know something, doesn't mean some supernatural intelligent being is responsible. Carl Sagan called this human tendency to attribute to God that which we do not know as putting "God in the gaps". Atheists are quite content to say that they simply don't know yet and rely on the scientific method to find the answers.
Back to top
Q. How can you trust Science since it's always changing what it says?
A. That is simply the way that science works. You conduct tests on nature and gather results. Then you re-test the results with updated knowledge and techniques that improve over time. Sometimes we do get it wrong, but we're the first to admit it when it happens and continue on with our investigations. The Church also follows scientific findings, but with about a 100-500 year lag! In the meantime, they persecute the scientific community as heretics.
Also, the Scientific Method (which is responsible for modern medicine, space flight, and just about every modern convenience you take for granted today) would come to a grinding halt if scientists today started saying, "Oh, God did it", and stopped searching for further answers. This actually was the thought process dominant for 1000 years of scientific stagnation and religious oppression called the Dark and Middle Ages.
And don't forget that the Church changes too. The Catholic Church just recently did away with "Limbo", which it created hundreds of years ago to explain where babies went when they died.
Back to top
Q. Christian morals are founded on the Bible! How can you say you're a moral person and not believe in the Bible?
A. First of all human morals pre-date the bible by thousands of years, they weren't invented with the Ten Commandments. It has always been against human values to be dishonest, to kill or harm your fellow man or steal his possessions. All societies, ancient and modern, have been founded on these principals, they had to be, else they would not have long endured.
Also, even strong Catholics and Christians cannot agree among themselves on issues like abortion, birth control, homosexuality, women's rights, etc. Not too long ago the Bible was used to justify slavery and deny women's rights. It's still being used to justify killing doctors who work in women's health clinics.
Tom Paine, in his "The Age of Reason", wrote one of the most scathing attacks on the Bible to date. To quote one passage: "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."
Isaac Asimov, says in the Canadian Atheists Newsletter, 1994
"Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centures since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly."
Even Hellen Keller felt that the bible was extremely cruel and inhumane:
Q. Well SURELY you believe that America was founded on Christianity?
A. When religious leaders portray the American Founding Fathers as universally Christian, they are being downright dishonest. There were some Christians to be sure but many, perhaps most of the Founding Fathers, were Deists. They believed that God may have created the Universe, but he either died or went away after that.
For example:
Thomas Jefferson once wrote that "All religions are alike; founded on fables and myths." He was also a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."
Benjamin Franklin wrote in his "Poor Richards Almanac" that "Lighthouses ware more helpful than churches" and "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
James Madison said, "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
Even George Washington was a luke-warm supporter of religion at best, putting his support behind human reason and education: "There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
Also, the original Pledge of Allegiance didn't contain the words "under god". The congress voted to include that in 1954 during the McCarthy era. The purpose was to distinguish the U.S. from the "godless communists", and in doing so, clearly violated the constitutionally established separation of church and state. McCarthy was later revealed as a zealous opportunist, liar, and fraud. One must ask: Why is his legacy still recited daily in our nation's schools?
Q. What have you got against religion?
A. Well, to begin with, it's divisive. It splits all of humanity in to warring factions.
Religious beliefs were the cause of and/or the justification for:
- The Spanish Inquisition
- The Crusades
- The Divine Rights of Kings
- Witch Trials in Europe and America
- The perpetuation of Slavery
- The Dehumanization of other religion's believers (and non-believers)
- The Subjugation of Women
- The Refusal of some parents to give medical treatment to their children, relying instead on payers and faith-healers
- The decades of violence between Jews and Moslems in the Middle East
- The decades of violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland
- Capital Crimes against Women's Health Centers
- The 9-11 tragedy (a true faith-based act) and the subsequent War on Terror
- The Suppression of Science, and indeed the suppression of reason itself. *
- ("Thinking" is frowned upon even from the beginning.. The "Original sin" itself comes from Man eating from the "Tree of Knowledge".)
The list goes on and on.. for more information, visit http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/harm.html and The Root Causes of Religious Atrocities
-Religion teaches us that the earth is put here for our disposal. We can use it up, or trash it, and it's Ok. Besides, Jesus in coming back shortly to put an end to it anyway, right?.
- Religion teaches us that we are all born tainted with sin; impure and dirty. We must spend our entire lives trying to "make up for" the sins of the first humans.
- When religious leaders answer all of our questions for us, we lose our own natural curiosity. It atrophies, and we are left acting as automatons, going through our routine activities like robots.
- Religion stymies the wonder of Nature. It's not nature that is wonderful when we give the Great Father all the credit for creating it in all it's wonder. Further, religion teaches us that certain areas of Nature are off-limits. For example:
- Stem-cell research, which has great potential for reducing human suffering and disease, has been defunded by the Federal Government.
- The Creation of the Universe. No less a personage than the Pope has told us that we should not study the Big Bang, because it should be left in the domain of God
- Evolution: The study of the descent of man, would be outlawed if we gave the religious-right half a chance. Every year sees new law suits being introduced in an attempt to get the teaching of evolution banned from our schools.
Also, it redirects hundreds of billions dollars and man-hours away from more productive pursuits. Religion is directly responsible for the bilking of billions of dollars from the old and infirm.Religion teaches that morality is rigid and unchanging, rather than subject to changing circumstances.
It's "supernatural" foundation keeps millions, if not billions, of people in educational and cultural stagnation. If societies believe that they can find the answers to all of life's questions in their holy books, why study anything else?
People pray rather that seek legitimate medical attention for illnesses for themselves and their children. Christian Science "Practitioners", are actually paid by insurance companies to pray for the recovery of the sick and infirm under their care, as opposed to actually giving them even minimal medical treatment.
Most religions tell you that your life on earth is infinitesimally small compared to that which awaits you in heaven. So why even bother trying to do anything but praise God while here on earth?
It's can't be conducive to good mental heath to have an All-Powerful "Judge of Right and Wrong" watching your every move and reading your every thought, ready to cast you into Hell forever for the slightest infraction. You could easily see where this could lead directly to paranoia. Indeed, does this not define paranoia?
In War, religion teaches us that there is no reason to try to quickly end it. After all, God is on our side, and all the fallen soldiers are going to heaven anyway since they are fighting in a Holy cause.
And finally, if we accept Religion's version of human history, we are denying our own true history, the actual human story. Homo Sapiens have endured for a 150,000 years, not 6,000. We have survived global catastrophes (ex: The Toba Caldera Eruption, the Yellowstone Eruption, and an Ice Age), and have battled the Neanderthal for human supremacy of the planet. We have fought the mighty Mammoth, the Mastodon, and the Saber-Tooth tiger. And, in spite of this, and in spite of being constantly plagued by superstition and religion, we have managed to develop Reason and the Scientific Method to a finely honed tool for examining, and explaining, the universe around us.
Back to top
Q. So why did you write these pages?
A. There a really three reasons:
1) To give the atheist perspective. Many religious leaders are engaged in constant misinformation campaigns aimed at painting atheists as immoral, dissolute, god-haters (if not outright Satan worshippers). Most religious leaders know that it's a lie, but say it anyway. How many times have I heard Christians confide that it is OK to tell a lie as long as it brings more people to Christ. (We're talking about breaking a commandment here! But it's apparently OK as long as the end justifies the means.)
2) As a resource for people to are just beginning to doubt the veracity of their religion. I only wish there had been such a resource when I was beginning to question the church. The journey from faith to reason could have been a much quicker, less painful, one for me.
3) To get people to think just a little bit. Many people just go day-to-day believing that whatever their religious leader tells them, that whatever happens is just "God's Will" and that there is no other way to think about the world and the universe. THINK! The universe is just as gorgeous, just as wondrous! And without an all-powerful, judgmental God watching your every move and monitoring your every thought, I would say that it is even more so. :)
Sasaki Kojiro
02-15-2007, 06:02
Haha, that's a long list. If we were going to debate his proof it has trouble with the claims that everything has a cause and with it's assumption that the universe came into being at some point. But I don't think that's a very interesting discussion.
since this thread I created has become stuck on debating over Pindar's "proof", I have found discussions at another forum to be more interresting of late.
here is something interresting I read today:
Here is a FAQ for anyone that wants to know the basics of atheism.
you can also download the entire movie in high quality(144 mb) from http://digitalfreethought.com/
here:
http://www.digitalfreethought.com/video/Streaming/atheism101.wmv
here is the complete text spoken in the video:
Q. What exactly IS an atheist?
A. An atheist is a person who is without a belief in a god or gods.
However, if you look up "Atheist" in certain dictionaries, you might encounter phrases like "one who denies the existence of God" (implying that we are in denial of reality), "infidel", "non-believer", "immoral", "evil". Good examples of this can be found in the older versions of Webster's Dictionary. Webster was a Christian and obviously had an axe to grind against atheists.
Q. Don't you atheists worship SATAN?
A. No we don't. We don't believe in any gods, devils, demons, angels, spirits, ghosts, witches, miracles, or just about anything supernatural.. Why would we worship something that we don't believe exists?
Back to top
Q. Why don't you believe in God??
Why don't you believe in Zeus, Thor or Green People on Venus? Same reason. There's no evidence.
There is no evidence; and before you say "What do you mean? You're evidence of God".. I'll have to point out the logical fallacy that you would be using: Presupposition
You pre-suppose the existence of a God, assign Him the power to create me, then say "How can you say there is no God, you're standing right there!"... Then I would say "See that car there? I made that car from toothpicks.. How can you doubt it.. There it is!" I have presupposed my ability to make cars out of toothpicks before I made the argument.
Also, there is actually reason to believe that a Christian God of your description (All Loving, All Knowing, All powerful) doesn't exist in this universe. If He did, why would He allow innocent children to get cancer? Why would He send hurricanes and earthquakes kill so many people? Why would He allow people to fly planes into our skyscrapers and kill thousands of His "children"? And on and on and on.
Actually, siting the Riddle of Epicuris":
- Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
- Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
- Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
- Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Therefore the All Knowing, All powerful, All loving God of your description is logically impossible.
If he allows children to get cancer, and allows tsunamis and hurricanes to kill thousands. If he allows bad men to rape women. If he even allows evil to exist in the world, then:
1) he can't be all loving
or 2) he can't know about it
or 3) he's not powerful enough to stop it.
You can have 2 out of three, but not all three
When looking at the world through the eyes of a rationalist/atheist, the world makes perfect sense. Some people, good and bad, will die in natural disasters. Little children will get cancer as a certain percentage of the population. There's no malice, and no "mysterious plan".
Also, if you will re-read your bible (you're planning to anyway, right?) with critical mind, you'll notice that the God of the Bible actually is:
- Extremely Violent and Cruel
- Jealous
- Murderous
- Impetuous
- Peevish
- Possessive
- Threatening
- Irrational
- Misogynistic
- Irresponsible
ALL of these are human traits! And every Christian apologist that I've ever heard, constantly says that "God is so far above humans, that we could never understand his motives.".. Well, reading the bible, you're supposed to understand his motives! That's where the supposed lessons come from!
Not only that, but in the Bible, God directly ordered 2,017,956 People Killed.
Not counting 65 entire cities.
Not counting those that died from the His various Plagues.
And not counting the entire population of the world in the Flood.
Heck, the only people Satan killed was Job's kids, and that was only after God told him he could. And he's constantly surprised by the actions of Humans. How can he be all knowing, be surprised by anything we do, and get angry (a human emotion) when we're simply "following the plan" that he laid down in the first place!
What this boils down to is that God was really created by men, and the bible authored by men, not the other way around. Also, do the actions of your God make sense to you? Or does he really seem to act like a spoiled 8 year old?
Q. Well then, prove that God does not exist.
A. It's not up to us. Carl Sagan once wrote: "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence". Believers are making the extraordinary claim that you know how the universe was created, that the universe was created by your personal God, that that God still exists, and is personally involved in every part of our lives. The burden of proof is on the one making the claims. You. We simply say we do not believe it.
Also, one could argue that it is hardly necessary to disprove something that has never been proven in the first place.
Back to top
Q. How can you say that there is no GOD? I personally feel his "power" in church!
A. Well, I don't know exactly what you felt, but from the atheist standpoint we'd say you've experienced a mass induced psychosis. It is quite a commonly accepted psychological phenomenon. People in large groups can become emotionally charged rather easily. (Do some research on the psychology of lynchings, witch hunts, etc.)
Back to top
Q. But EVERYONE believes in God, why don't you?
A. Well, actually everybody doesn't believe in God. About 15% of Americans (that's 30 Million people as of the 2000 census) say they don't believe in a god. There are about twice as many Atheists in America as Jews. Also, most people around the world believe in different gods. Yours in only one of 1,000+ deities that people believe in.
Also, there are whole "religions" without a Supreme Being: Buddhism, Confucism, Taoism, etc. And many, whole countries without pervasive religions: China, Japan, and the Scandinavian countries.
Back to top
Q. You should believe, millions of believers can't be wrong!
A. Sure they can. How many people believe in Astrology, Numerology, Psychics, and magic? People are easily duped, and especially so in large numbers. Also, your "believers" can't even agree on what they DO believe. The sectarian violence taking place in IRAQ is between devout Moslems. They all follow Mohammed, and Allah, but disagree on the details. Disagree so strongly, that they are willing to kill each other.
J. H. Johnson writes: "[Some] 433,000,000 Muslims believe that the Koran was brought by an angel from heaven; 335,000,000 Hindus believe one of their gods, Siva, has six arms; 153,000,000 Buddhists believe they will be reincarnated; 904,000,000 Christians believe a god made the world in six days, Joshua stopped the sun by yelling at it, and Jesus was born of a virgin and nullified natural laws to perform miracles. "
Why should we believe any of these fantastic tales, brought to us from 2-3000 years ago by ignorant, superstitious people?
Q. Why don't you just have faith?
A. Uh Yeah. Faith is nothing more that voluntary gullibility.
"Faith is what your preacher says you must have so that you'll believe all the other stuff he wants to tell you." - Unknown
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets." - Arthur C Clarke, science fiction writer (1917- )
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
If you insist that "everyone has faith in something", then I'll admit that my faith lies in the human ability to deal with the real world using human reason and compassion. I have faith that we are not born as flawed sinners; we are born whole, with brains capable of dealing with life's challenges unassisted by mythology and supernatural belief systems.
Dr. Charlie Web writes in his article "Think For Yourself":
"Faith" is nothing more than thought control. Blind faith is legalized slavery. Faith tells us never to question the evidence for truth. But should we care about the truth? Absolutely! Because if we don't know what reality is, how can we ever expect to know how to deal with reality?
To find the truth we simply need to think for ourselves and examine the evidence. Evidence is everything.
All the world's evidence tells us that whoever wrote the Bible and whoever wrote the Koran knew absolutely nothing about geography, geology, astronomy, biology, or evolution. They thought their world was flat! They shared the profound ignorance of their time, and yet we are told to have "faith" that these primitive people knew more than we do. Only blind faith could swallow such a yarn. " Ask yourself, honestly, what basis do you have for believing that the Bible is the true word of a God?
Also, if faith is all that is necessary to believe in God and accept the Bible as true, doesn't that make all of the other religions true too? They also require "faith".
Q. Why don't you believe in God anyway? If He's not real you haven't lost anything. But if He is real, you get to go to heaven..
You are basically talking about Pascal's wager. There are several reasons this doesn't work for us. The main answering points are:
1. Few, if any, atheists disbelieve in deities out of choice. It's not as if we know the god is really there, but somehow refuse to believe in it. We are convinced that He is simply not there.
2. Which God? And how do you know which God to believe in? What if you're wrong?
3. If God really exists, He is not stupid. He would know that I'd just be trying to get a free ride into Heaven by just saying we believe.
4. You couldn't just "believe in God", you would also have to believe in the whole religious package. In Christianity that would mean also believing in angels, demons, Satan, heaven, hell, saints, sin, resurrection, prophets, miracles, cherubim, etc. etc. etc.
5. AND If there is no God, you have lost something by worshipping Him. You have wasted a good portion of your life performing various devotional rituals, attending church, praying, reading scripture and discussing your deity with His other followers. Not to mention giving your hard-earned money to the church, wasting your intelligence on theological endeavors and boring the hell out of people who really don't want to hear your "Good News".*
Also, Believing when you actually don't, you would have lost a great deal of self-respect by being intellectually dishonest with yourself for your whole life.
(These answers were drawn from Adrian Barnett's site. Go there for more information.)
* Speaking of Good News... In order for a Christian to spread the "Good News", he must first spread the Bad News: That all people are born sinners, bound for Hell. Christians conveniently forget that part.
Q. If you don't believe in God, then what is the point of living?
Why does living need to have a "point" at all? Do the "lilies of the field" need to have a point to live?
If you must have a "point", then decide on your own meaning of life. We believe that it's much better do determine our own purpose, than to have some church do it for you based on their agenda!
Back to top
Q. Doesn't being an Atheist "cheapen" life?
A. Actually religion cheapens life. Being an Atheist makes life more precious. Since there is no after-life, you must come to terms with the fact that this is the ONLY life you'll get. If an atheist throws himself in front of a bus in order to save a child, that action is much more meaningful than if a Christian did the same thing. The Christian thinks they'll just go to heaven and live there!
Look at the 9/11/2001 massacre in New York and Washington D.C. Those religious (Muslim) people thought that their actions would hasten and ensure their entry into eternal bliss, but what they actually did was throw away the only life they had in an act of "faith".
Back to top
Q. Well what DO you believe?
A. We DO believe in Human Dignity! We're NOT born "dirty sinners". We are born as earth's most intelligent and adaptive creatures. We have the ability to overcome adversity without help from mysticism, superstition and "invisible friends".
- We believe in treating our fellow man as we would like to be treated; which is a Humanist Idea, thousands of years older than Christianity.
- We believe that Humans are fully capable of deciding our own "purpose" in life.
- We believe that the "comfort" that religion theoretically offers is more than off-set by the amount of pain, death and suffering it has caused throughout history.
- And we believe that religion has hindered the advancement of human knowledge more than any other single cause, and is still doing so today.
There are several versions of the Atheist 10 Commandments on the internet these days, here is one set, drawn from http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/ten_commandments.html
1. Thou SHALT NOT believe all thee art told.
2. Thou SHALT constantly seek knowledge and truth.
3. Thou SHALT educate thy fellow man in the Laws of Science.
4. Thou SHALT NOT forget the atrocities committed in the name of god.
5. Thou SHALT leave valuable contributions for future generations.
6. Thou SHALT live in peace with thy fellow man.
7. Thou SHALT live this one life thy have to its fullest.
8. Thou SHALT follow a Personal Code of Ethics.
9. Thou SHALT maintain a strict separation between Church and State.
10. Thou SHALT support ye who follow these commandments.
And I believe in a future that allows humans to be free of the blinders superstition and religion. Free to use their minds to question the universe around them unafraid of the wrath of an invisible, omni-present Judge. (Or His even more present, and judgemental, human representatives.)
But mostly I believe that the world actually HAS a future. Unlike the Christian who envisions a very short future indeed; where the "King of Creation" is coming next week, or next year, to loose horrible demons and monsters and plagues and disease upon the world, before totally destroying it. (See Revelations)
Q. How can you not believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
A. Well, rationally considered, it is a pretty outlandish claim. Nobody in the history of the world has ever done it. And outside of the bible, there is no mention of Jesus' resurrection anywhere in the historical documents. NOR is there a mention of any of the other "resurrections" that took place on the same day: According to Matthew chapter 27:52-53 "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." You would think that someone outside of the Bible would have written about that.
Carrying this a bit further, let’s look at the logic of Jesus’s death.
1) God is angry at us for disobeying Him in the Garden of Eden, and condemns us all.
2) He sends His son to die on earth to appease himself.
3) Then He forgives only those who believe in His son, the rest are still condemned.
Or as Julia Sweeney puts it:
"Why would a God create people so imperfect? And then blame them for his own imperfections? Then send his own son to be murdered by those imperfect people, to make up for how imperfect those people were? And how imperfect they were inevitably going to be? I mean, what a crazy idea."
Why didn't He just forgive us outright? Why did he condemn His son to all that suffering and torment at the hands of the people he's planning to forgive just so He wouldn't send us all to hell!? And if your Catholic, it gets even stranger! God and Jesus are the same person.. So in essence, He sent Himself to be tortured and crucified to appease Himself!
Look at it another way.
1) God's mad at us for eating the apple.
2) God sends His son to earth to be killed by us (He had to know it was going to happen!).
3) We kill Him.
4) God's not mad at us any more.
Does that make any sense?
Again... Why not just forgive us? What kind of father would have his son tortured and killed, when he had the power to prevent it?
Q. Don't you believe in an immortal soul?
A. No. Your personality is basically an organic and chemical structure and resides mostly in the frontal lobes of your brain. Many studies have been done to show that the application of certain chemicals and/or surgery can change the way your personality behaves. A simple surgical procedure known as a lobotomy, for example, will erase your personality altogether. How can a soul (i.e. your personality) exist when it has no physical brain to reside in?
Back to top
Q. Don't you wish that you could go to Heaven?
A. Sure.. We'd love to believe that Heaven was real and that we could live forever. But there has never been anyone who has ever come back and said it was there. There is no evidence whatsoever of life continuing after death. (The Bible doesn't count, since it was written by very superstitious people who believed that demons cause illness, the earth is flat, the sun travels around the earth, etc., etc.)
Also, if Heaven is to be total happiness, forever, then how can you be totally happy if you know that one or more of your loved one's are in Hell? (Or if anyone is in Hell?) And if God removes your memories of those loved ones so that you can be happy, is He not altering the thing that is "You". If He alters you very much, you cease to be the "You" that you were.
Also, are babies still babies in Heaven forever? Do retarded people become smart? How smart? If Jesus says that riches are to be frowned upon, why are the streets made of Gold, and the Heavenly Gates Pearl? Every religion/sect has a different "Heaven", how do we know which is the correct heaven? Indeed, how do we know ANYTHING about heaven? Even the bible is extremely sketchy in this respect.
Doesn’t it make more sense that the ancient church would just make up Heaven and Hell to keep it’s followers in line? After all, Hell is the ultimate threat and Heaven the ultimate Bribe.
Anyway, according to the Bible, the prospects of you going to Heaven are pretty slim too:
Revelation 7:4 says that only 144,000 people will be going to heaven, and those will be "of the children of Israel."
Revelation 14:3-4 says that "These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins."
So unless your a Jewish man, and a Virgin, sorry.
Back to top
Q. But you must be forgiven for your sins!
A. What if I told you that there is no such thing as a sin?
"Sin" is a concept that is sold to you by your religion. Would you buy a bandage from a person who comes up to you and cuts you in order to sell you a bandage?
Paraphrasing Dan Barker in his excellent book: "Losing Faith in Faith": "Religion tries to sell you a cure for a problem of it's own making."
Back to top
Q. What do you do if you feel that you've really wronged another person or done something bad? You can't go to Jesus for forgiveness.
A. That's right we can't, so we either have to get forgiveness from the person we've wronged or live with it. If you think about it, it makes us think a lot harder about doing something before we do it. The religious person can just go on and do it, knowing that he can easily be forgiven by his church, Jesus, etc. He doesn't even have to ask forgiveness from the person he's wronged.
Did you know that Hitler was a Christian (a Catholic)? And since he probably asked for forgiveness in his last hours, he should be in heaven right now. Right? And Anne Frank's only "sin" was that she was Jewish. So to Christians, she should be in hell now, along with Albert Schweitzer (a non-believer). Right?
Back to top
Q. Well then, where do you think the universe came from?
A. I don't know. Nobody does. Not even your preacher. Besides, saying that "God did it" really explains nothing. You're in essence saying that an unseen, unknowable being created it in a way that we could never understand. You might as well say it was "magic", or fairies!
Also, when you say "God created the universe." it begs the question "Who/what created God?" and then "Who/what created that entity?"
Here's the problem... People do have questions about the universe: Where did it come from? Where did WE come from? Do we have a purpose?
These questions are very basic human questions, and it would be wonderful if the answers were easy to come by, and easy to understand. However, they are anything BUT basic or easy to answer. To arrive at any kind of respectable/defendable answer you would have to study Anthropology, Biology, Physics and/or Philosophy just to begin with! We have long since passed the point where the layman can do more than can scratch the surface of all of these diverse fields. The answers are very hard to arrive at. But religion makes it easy! Just study one book and get some help from your preacher! "God created the Universe.", "We're here because he put us here." "Our purpose is to serve Him (and the church)".
These answers are easy, but 1) they're really not answers because we don't know how He did it, or where He came from, or what His purpose was for putting us here. 2) When we follow religion, we are not following the SAME religion. And it's very divisive. It causes elitism, intolerance, and war. These are paths we can no longer afford to take. Humanity is too interlinked, and the world is too small (and nuclear weapons too abundant) for us to continue down this path.
The difference between Scientific and Religious answers is the way they go about getting these answers.
David W. Key, director of Baptist Studies at the Candler School of Theology at Emory, put it this way: "The real underlying issue is that fundamentalism [...] is incompatible with higher education," Professor Key said. "In fundamentalism, you have all the truths. In education, you're searching for truths."
Science looks at the universe and tries to figure it out, working from the data to the answer. Religion works backwards. It teaches us that it's answers are "Revelations from God" (or at least "inspired by God"), and tries to find data in the universe that supports them; ignoring or denying evidence that contradicts it. Therein lies the problem.
In the past, Religion has denied that the world is round, that the sun is the center of the solar system, and that illness can be caused by microscopic organisms.
Religion currently is denying Evolution. This at a time when every major accredited institution of higher-education in the world accepts it.
Galileo Galilei was imprisoned, and Giordano Bruno killed, for espousing their scientific discoveries during a time when religion contridicted their findings.
By the way.. the Catholic Church is after a kinder image now I guess. On it's web-site: The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition. They say it wasn't Millions of heretics they killed, but only 3,000 to 5,000. Of course this does not even touch on the number of people who where maimed and tortured, and/or dispossessed of their lands/properties during the 350 years that it endured. (1481-1834). (www.reference.com)
So what do you do? Take some time and learn about the world around you! I, personally, enjoy the study of these different fields. The internet has put all of the sciences at our finger-tips. You would be surprised has how accessible, and understandable, the information is nowadays, if you will only take the time to ASK the questions, and use your brain. "Learning is lifelong." and fun! Just open your mind and start!
Q. Don't you believe God created man in the Garden of Eden?
A. No. Anthropology, Paleontology, Biology and Genetic Research all point to evolution being the correct theory for the arrival of man on earth. They also point to the fact that man originated in Africa, and then traveled to Europe, Asia and the rest of the world.
(For more information about Evolution and the science behind it, visit Mark I. Vuletic's pages)
The ONLY proponent of Creationism is religion. And different religions have different creation stories. You figure it out. And it doesn’t make any sense!
Let's go into this a little farther using the Judeo/Christianity creation story as an example: God tells Adam and Eve not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge or they will die. (Genesis 2:17)
1. They eat from it and they do not die. Doesn't that mean that God lied?
2. How can they know what "to die" even means? Nothing has ever died anywhere in their experience.
3. How do they even know what "wrong" is, if it takes eating from the Tree of Knowledge to know the difference between right and wrong!?
4. If God knows everything that will ever happen, then when he made the Garden of Eden, and placed the Tree of Knowledge in the very center of it, and told them not to eat from it, and allowed Satan there to tempt them; He knew at that time that they would! (Remember they were not sinners yet, and like children.) Yet he acted surprised, he acted angry, and punished them and all of their descendents for the rest of time. It sounds to any reasonable ear like he was just laying a trap for humanity.
5. Also, God knows everything! He must have known that all this was going to happen. Why did he even go through the exercise of creating Man anyway, if he knew it was going to fail?
Q. If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?
A. We didn't come from Monkeys. Monkeys and Humans came from a common ancestor that lived several million years ago. A few Million years ago there were actually 4 or 5 distinct humanoid variations sharing the planet. Heck, the Neanderthals were still around only 30,000 years ago!
Why don't you try studying a little Anthropology if you really want to learn more about it? Do you really think the people 2000 to 5000 years ago knew more about human origins that we do now?
Back to top
Q. But surely you must concede that there are some things that science can't explain.
A. Of course. It has always been that way, and probably always will be. But just because we don't know something, doesn't mean some supernatural intelligent being is responsible. Carl Sagan called this human tendency to attribute to God that which we do not know as putting "God in the gaps". Atheists are quite content to say that they simply don't know yet and rely on the scientific method to find the answers.
Back to top
Q. How can you trust Science since it's always changing what it says?
A. That is simply the way that science works. You conduct tests on nature and gather results. Then you re-test the results with updated knowledge and techniques that improve over time. Sometimes we do get it wrong, but we're the first to admit it when it happens and continue on with our investigations. The Church also follows scientific findings, but with about a 100-500 year lag! In the meantime, they persecute the scientific community as heretics.
Also, the Scientific Method (which is responsible for modern medicine, space flight, and just about every modern convenience you take for granted today) would come to a grinding halt if scientists today started saying, "Oh, God did it", and stopped searching for further answers. This actually was the thought process dominant for 1000 years of scientific stagnation and religious oppression called the Dark and Middle Ages.
And don't forget that the Church changes too. The Catholic Church just recently did away with "Limbo", which it created hundreds of years ago to explain where babies went when they died.
Back to top
Q. Christian morals are founded on the Bible! How can you say you're a moral person and not believe in the Bible?
A. First of all human morals pre-date the bible by thousands of years, they weren't invented with the Ten Commandments. It has always been against human values to be dishonest, to kill or harm your fellow man or steal his possessions. All societies, ancient and modern, have been founded on these principals, they had to be, else they would not have long endured.
Also, even strong Catholics and Christians cannot agree among themselves on issues like abortion, birth control, homosexuality, women's rights, etc. Not too long ago the Bible was used to justify slavery and deny women's rights. It's still being used to justify killing doctors who work in women's health clinics.
Tom Paine, in his "The Age of Reason", wrote one of the most scathing attacks on the Bible to date. To quote one passage: "Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."
Isaac Asimov, says in the Canadian Atheists Newsletter, 1994
"Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centures since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly."
Even Hellen Keller felt that the bible was extremely cruel and inhumane:
Q. Well SURELY you believe that America was founded on Christianity?
A. When religious leaders portray the American Founding Fathers as universally Christian, they are being downright dishonest. There were some Christians to be sure but many, perhaps most of the Founding Fathers, were Deists. They believed that God may have created the Universe, but he either died or went away after that.
For example:
Thomas Jefferson once wrote that "All religions are alike; founded on fables and myths." He was also a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state: "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."
Benjamin Franklin wrote in his "Poor Richards Almanac" that "Lighthouses ware more helpful than churches" and "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
James Madison said, "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
Even George Washington was a luke-warm supporter of religion at best, putting his support behind human reason and education: "There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
Also, the original Pledge of Allegiance didn't contain the words "under god". The congress voted to include that in 1954 during the McCarthy era. The purpose was to distinguish the U.S. from the "godless communists", and in doing so, clearly violated the constitutionally established separation of church and state. McCarthy was later revealed as a zealous opportunist, liar, and fraud. One must ask: Why is his legacy still recited daily in our nation's schools?
Q. What have you got against religion?
A. Well, to begin with, it's divisive. It splits all of humanity in to warring factions.
Religious beliefs were the cause of and/or the justification for:
- The Spanish Inquisition
- The Crusades
- The Divine Rights of Kings
- Witch Trials in Europe and America
- The perpetuation of Slavery
- The Dehumanization of other religion's believers (and non-believers)
- The Subjugation of Women
- The Refusal of some parents to give medical treatment to their children, relying instead on payers and faith-healers
- The decades of violence between Jews and Moslems in the Middle East
- The decades of violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland
- Capital Crimes against Women's Health Centers
- The 9-11 tragedy (a true faith-based act) and the subsequent War on Terror
- The Suppression of Science, and indeed the suppression of reason itself. *
- ("Thinking" is frowned upon even from the beginning.. The "Original sin" itself comes from Man eating from the "Tree of Knowledge".)
The list goes on and on.. for more information, visit http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/harm.html and The Root Causes of Religious Atrocities
-Religion teaches us that the earth is put here for our disposal. We can use it up, or trash it, and it's Ok. Besides, Jesus in coming back shortly to put an end to it anyway, right?.
- Religion teaches us that we are all born tainted with sin; impure and dirty. We must spend our entire lives trying to "make up for" the sins of the first humans.
- When religious leaders answer all of our questions for us, we lose our own natural curiosity. It atrophies, and we are left acting as automatons, going through our routine activities like robots.
- Religion stymies the wonder of Nature. It's not nature that is wonderful when we give the Great Father all the credit for creating it in all it's wonder. Further, religion teaches us that certain areas of Nature are off-limits. For example:
- Stem-cell research, which has great potential for reducing human suffering and disease, has been defunded by the Federal Government.
- The Creation of the Universe. No less a personage than the Pope has told us that we should not study the Big Bang, because it should be left in the domain of God
- Evolution: The study of the descent of man, would be outlawed if we gave the religious-right half a chance. Every year sees new law suits being introduced in an attempt to get the teaching of evolution banned from our schools.
Also, it redirects hundreds of billions dollars and man-hours away from more productive pursuits. Religion is directly responsible for the bilking of billions of dollars from the old and infirm.Religion teaches that morality is rigid and unchanging, rather than subject to changing circumstances.
It's "supernatural" foundation keeps millions, if not billions, of people in educational and cultural stagnation. If societies believe that they can find the answers to all of life's questions in their holy books, why study anything else?
People pray rather that seek legitimate medical attention for illnesses for themselves and their children. Christian Science "Practitioners", are actually paid by insurance companies to pray for the recovery of the sick and infirm under their care, as opposed to actually giving them even minimal medical treatment.
Most religions tell you that your life on earth is infinitesimally small compared to that which awaits you in heaven. So why even bother trying to do anything but praise God while here on earth?
It's can't be conducive to good mental heath to have an All-Powerful "Judge of Right and Wrong" watching your every move and reading your every thought, ready to cast you into Hell forever for the slightest infraction. You could easily see where this could lead directly to paranoia. Indeed, does this not define paranoia?
In War, religion teaches us that there is no reason to try to quickly end it. After all, God is on our side, and all the fallen soldiers are going to heaven anyway since they are fighting in a Holy cause.
And finally, if we accept Religion's version of human history, we are denying our own true history, the actual human story. Homo Sapiens have endured for a 150,000 years, not 6,000. We have survived global catastrophes (ex: The Toba Caldera Eruption, the Yellowstone Eruption, and an Ice Age), and have battled the Neanderthal for human supremacy of the planet. We have fought the mighty Mammoth, the Mastodon, and the Saber-Tooth tiger. And, in spite of this, and in spite of being constantly plagued by superstition and religion, we have managed to develop Reason and the Scientific Method to a finely honed tool for examining, and explaining, the universe around us.
Back to top
Q. So why did you write these pages?
A. There a really three reasons:
1) To give the atheist perspective. Many religious leaders are engaged in constant misinformation campaigns aimed at painting atheists as immoral, dissolute, god-haters (if not outright Satan worshippers). Most religious leaders know that it's a lie, but say it anyway. How many times have I heard Christians confide that it is OK to tell a lie as long as it brings more people to Christ. (We're talking about breaking a commandment here! But it's apparently OK as long as the end justifies the means.)
2) As a resource for people to are just beginning to doubt the veracity of their religion. I only wish there had been such a resource when I was beginning to question the church. The journey from faith to reason could have been a much quicker, less painful, one for me.
3) To get people to think just a little bit. Many people just go day-to-day believing that whatever their religious leader tells them, that whatever happens is just "God's Will" and that there is no other way to think about the world and the universe. THINK! The universe is just as gorgeous, just as wondrous! And without an all-powerful, judgmental God watching your every move and monitoring your every thought, I would say that it is even more so. :)
How does the positivist scientific view reconcile itself with an absolute exclusion of a supreme being when by its own admission the laws of physics break down prior to creation of the universe and, depending on the nature of its end, after its finale? I keep hearing these positivists take the stand of the impossible god. While they may not have the evidence they desire to include a god in their TOE, they neither have the evidence to exclude and be a postivist but in the same breath they accept the anthropic principle past evidence.
On the other hand I once heard a positivist string theorist state that God could be music resonating in dimensional hyperspace.
Hi ShadeHonestus,
A positivist stance cannot reconcile the exclusion. The impotence regarding metaphysical questions is one reason a TOE from such a perspective is impossible. One of the unfortunate by products of when natural philosophy became science (aside from the increased bracketing within science so that scientists become less and less exposed to other disciplines) is that scientists became unfamiliar with the larger Intellectual Tradition from which they sprang and no longer studied logic. This has led to an almost stupefying level of ignorance and theoretical sloppiness amongst far too many. Earlier in the thread there was a post that quoted from a Richard Dawkins. It serves as a perfect illustration of the point. While Dawkins seems more than accomplished in his field, when attempting to discuss philosophical fair, his stance was akin to a first year philosophy undergraduate: really quite amazing stuff and rather sad.
I've already said this: foo is exactly the same as god with just one small imperfection.
Actually, you said your foo was evil you also said it could be anything. The former is incompatible with the idea of god and incoherent. The latter simply incoherent. This is why the foo fetish fails.
A first mover is not required to be anything more than a first mover. Your claim that only a perfect being can be the first mover is unsupported. You've said a perfect being must be the first mover, but you haven't shown that a perfect being must exist.
My proof doesn't speak of a first mover. I haven't referenced a first mover. You are confused.
Haha, that's a long list. If we were going to debate his proof it has trouble with the claims that everything has a cause and with it's assumption that the universe came into being at some point. But I don't think that's a very interesting discussion.
I assume I'm the pronoun above. My proof doesn't claim everything has a cause, neither does it reference the universe. You are confused, again.
since this thread I created has become stuck on debating over Pindar's "proof", I have found discussions at another forum to be more interresting of late.
Hello Claudius the God,
I remember you. Your the fellow that likes to cite things and has a penchant for quite long posts. Your thread has gone through three basic shifts that I see. The first was atheism where its logical problems were brought to the fore. Once a few self described atheists were unable to cope with these problems the next phase began which was a proof for god. None have been able to show the simple proof provided was invalid (again more frustrated self described atheists). The third phase is a discussion of the epistemic merits of science.
Note: you shouldn't use scare quotes around proof unless you can actually demonstrate there is a flaw: otherwise you simply appear cheeky.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-15-2007, 22:42
Actually, you said your foo was evil you also said it could be anything. The former is incompatible with the idea of god and incoherent. The latter simply incoherent. This is why the foo fetish fails.
Yes..it is incompatible with the idea of god. :dizzy2: Why did you only focus on whether I'd said it already or not? There is no reason for the necessary being to be perfect. Tell me why you think it must.
btw, foo is not an object.
My proof doesn't speak of a first mover. I haven't referenced a first mover. You are confused.
I assume I'm the pronoun above. My proof doesn't claim everything has a cause, neither does it reference the universe. You are confused, again.
hmm I was thinking of the other cosmological arguments. But in any case, it is not necessary for their to be a being that started it all, infinity is not a problem. But I find the other discussion more interesting.
Yes..it is incompatible with the idea of god.
Good, then your foo fetish doesn't relate to the subject matter which is god.
There is no reason for the necessary being to be perfect. Tell me why you think it must.
Alas, god is the only object that qualifies as necessary being. Thus, to demonstrate necessary being is to demonstrate god.
btw, foo is not an object.
According to this statement of yours: "There is this being called "foo". By definition foo exists and by definition must be the necessary being." foo is a noun and thus an object.
hmm I was thinking of the other cosmological arguments. But in any case, it is not necessary for their to be a being that started it all, infinity is not a problem. But I find the other discussion more interesting.
More sloppiness. If you admit an infinite series of contingent beings then you have admitted to an absurdity. This was explained. If you're OK with that then we can simply move you to the realm of the irrational.
ShadeHonestus
02-16-2007, 03:49
Thank you Pindar for your contribution to my question.
Rodion Romanovich
02-16-2007, 08:53
Necessary being is, per definition, something that wasn't created by something else. If science is right that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, then all matter and energy counts as necessary beings. There are also various other suggestions of entities that fulfill the definition of necessary being.
Rodion Romanovich
02-16-2007, 17:31
According to this statement of yours: "There is this being called "foo". By definition foo exists and by definition must be the necessary being." foo is a noun and thus an object.
Nouns can apart from being objects also have the grammatical role of subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_%28grammar%29
Nouns can apart from denoting objects also denote phenomenons and abstract or non-existing imagined things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun
Thus a noun isn't necessarily an object.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-17-2007, 03:57
Good, then your foo fetish doesn't relate to the subject matter which is god.
Incompatible but just as viable.
Alas, god is the only object that qualifies as necessary being. Thus, to demonstrate necessary being is to demonstrate god.
Foo qualifies.
According to this statement of yours: "There is this being called "foo". By definition foo exists and by definition must be the necessary being." foo is a noun and thus an object.
Are women objects?
More sloppiness. If you admit an infinite series of contingent beings then you have admitted to an absurdity. This was explained. If you're OK with that then we can simply move you to the realm of the irrational.
Nothing absurd about infinity. Aquinas had a naive view of time.
Reenk Roink
02-17-2007, 04:14
Nothing absurd about infinity. Aquinas had a naive view of time.
It's not Aquinas...
Sasaki Kojiro
02-17-2007, 05:12
Whoever.
I could swear he said something along those lines though.
Thank you Pindar for your contribution to my question.
My pleasure. :bow:
Necessary being is, per definition, something that wasn't created by something else. If science is right that matter and energy can't be created or destroyed, then all matter and energy counts as necessary beings. There are also various other suggestions of entities that fulfill the definition of necessary being.
A necessary being cannot be created or destroyed that is right. However, that is not the only, nor vital characteristic of necessary being. The key component is logical in scope: it cannot not be or it could not have failed to be. This means it is inconceivable (logically) for a designated necessary being not to be.
Note: matter/energy is typically seen as a property or characteristic of a thing: not a thing itself.
(I thought you had stated you wouldn't post in this thread again?)
Good, then your foo fetish doesn't relate to the subject matter which is god.
Incompatible but just as viable.
?
Foo qualifies.
Sasaki my good fellow: simply asserting a thing does not make it so. You need to think a little, before you reply. The foo fetish tangent has no value other than to cause me pain for the educational standards of the land.
Are women objects?
Yes.
More sloppiness. If you admit an infinite series of contingent beings then you have admitted to an absurdity. This was explained. If you're OK with that then we can simply move you to the realm of the irrational.
Nothing absurd about infinity. Aquinas had a naive view of time.
Read the comment again, your reply doesn't relate to my post.
Rodion Romanovich
02-18-2007, 09:49
A necessary being cannot be created or destroyed that is right. However, that is not the only, nor vital characteristic of necessary being. The key component is logical in scope: it cannot not be or it could not have failed to be.
A simplified version:
Below in this post I'll let foo denote something that can't be destroyed or created. If the first mover argument is correct, then it follows directly that foo can't not be. If the first mover argument is correct, necessary being and foo are then exactly equivalent concepts, and "can't not be" isn't an additional characteristic, but a characteristic which follows automatically from the other characteristic. Thus matter and energy also qualify as necessary beings.
Only way matter and energy can't qualify as necessary beings would be if the first mover argument is incorrect, because only then can foo and necessary being can be non-equivalent concepts.
==
The more complex version:
Making existence a characteristic of a concept is a good way to confuse oneself, especially when trying to prove the existence or non-existence of something. Generally, a defined concept should not contain the characteristic of existence, unless that is the only characteristic it has in the definition. Examples:
- necessary being - something that exists (= can't not be), that can't be created, and can't be destroyed
- foobar - define foobar as something that is a Leprechaun, is green, is 30 centimeters, and exists
* The way to look upon any concept is to divide every concept X into two sets, one set S denoting non-existing versions of the concept, and one set T denoting existing versions of the concept. If we prove logical existence of X, we know that S isn't an empty set, and once we have asserted that, we let X denote the set S alone, rather than the union of sets S and T. We can make any assertions we want about set T, since those objects don't exist, and it doesn't matter what properties a non-existing object has - these properties are undefined.
* NOTE: one way of avoiding the problem of existence in a definition, is by letting the definition state: "the existing objects of the class of object which have the properties x, y, z... This is the method used in dividing the concept into sets S and T above. Necessary being could very well be defined as "of those things that can't be created and can't be destroyed, those that exist". The problem, is that S may very well then be an empty set for necessary being in that case.
* NOTE2: if the only characteristic necessary being has is that of existence, then the definition is valid, but proving the existence of it would then mean nothing else than the existence of at least one object, which could be anything - atoms, bicycles, Leprechauns, God, gods, pie, foo etc. for all we know. While it is valid to let a concept denote something with the characteristic of existence with existence as its only characteristic, beginners at logic and philosophy often confuse themselves as to what their proofs have actually demonstrated, when they use such concepts.
Second thing to point out is that no concept definitions may contain the characteristic "only one exists", for the same reasons mentioned above. Example:
- car - something with 4 wheels and an engine, and only one exists
Socratic question to think about: If we make this definition to refer to our own car in our garage at home, what happens when we find something else that has 4 wheels and an engine?
* That only one object with certain properties can exist is something which needs to be proven, and it should never be part of a definition. That means that for every concept we have the option of pluralis, and reasoning about several, until we have proven that only one can exist. Again, we get two sets S and T, and we must show that the size of set S must be no larger than 1. But we must also show that S is nonempty, before we can let X denote S. After showing that S is nonempty, we will let the concept X denote the set S, rather than the union of set S and T. We are seldom interested in the properties of the objects contained in set T, since set T can usually be infinitely large.
Applying this above would be done as follows:
- let foo denote something that can't be created nor destroyed
If the first mover argument is correct, then the size of set S must be at least 1, but possibly larger. Now, foo denotes the set S, and we ignore the objects in set T. Then foo is exactly equivalent to the definition of necessary being.
If the first mover argument is incorrect, then the size of set S could be larger than 0, but isn't necessarily so. Since we have no idea yet, foo must still denote the union of S and T, and thus isn't equivalent to necessary being. But this case (the case that the first mover argument would be incorrect) is one which Pindar considers a contradiction. If he is correct in that it is a contradiction, only the previous case, in which foo and necessary being were equivalent concepts, is relevant.
Since foo and necessary being are equivalent in that case, the "can't not be" part follows automatically from not possible to create and not possible to destroy. We thus need only look for items that are indestructible and impossible to create, to fulfill the definition of necessary being. Sasaki Kojiro's foo qualitifes, as does matter and energy.
Now if we would be even more exact, we would apply combinatorial reasoning to the first mover argument, making it more complex. We would divide beings into more than just contingent and necessary beings, depending on how, if at all, their existence can be bounded in positive and negative time. Basically we have the following possible beings that we need to treat as separate cases:
- something that wasn't created, and can't be destroyed
- something that wasn't created, but can be destroyed
- something that was created, but can't be destroyed
- something that was created, and can be destroyed
these are all the possible combinations of bounded/unbounded in negative time and bounded/unbounded in positive time. Depending on our choice of definition of existence, we may also need to consider different cases of "respawning" items, if we think that an object which is created, and is exactly equivalent to some that was previously destroyed, is a single existence and not two separate beings. In any case, a stricter definition of existence is required, to make the reasoning more serious. Among other things to consider in the problem of existence, is for instance whether something that doesn't interact really exists. Or if potential of interaction is a suitable definition. Metaphysical existence is meaningless, since it asserts no property of the existing being, or about how it will interact. Logical existence is interesting, but requires that our assumptions are absolute truths, which we can't guarantee, unless we work from the basis of no assumption at all or get the same result covering all different combinations of assumptions, but then we are also relying on the assumption that the laws of logic are correct, which can't be proven.
Papewaio
02-19-2007, 04:20
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what logic is. Logic is formal. It does not depend on any outside mechanic. Whether the universe is X or Y, or does P or Q has no impact on logic proper. Let me see if I can explain a little before you charge me with being rude again. Logic as a formal system can be about its business without any outside reference, for example:
A then B
Not B
Therefore not A
Which is fine, until it starts applying itself to real world sets. Change the data in those sets and then they conclusions have to be re-examined.
All Animals Can Fly.
Pigs Are Animals.
Pigs therefore can fly.
In this universe that is untrue. Change the universe to one where the first line is true and it is now true. Therefore the conclusions made, change with a changing universe. Logic cannot predict the outcome of its conclusions in a changing universe. It has no more immunity to this then induction. Both work on data sets, change the data in the sets and the original conclusions made change. And these data sets are based on the past. Neither can predict what the data sets will be in the future if the universe and its data sets change.
So logic's conclusions are only useful on the past data. Change the data and the conclusions change.
====
Man is Mortal.
Socrates is a Man.
Therefore Socrates is Mortal.
Whether the first premise is accepted or not, the argument is valid. This means the conclusion cannot not be. There is no uncertainty in the argument.
Incorrect, you only have certainty if you know that every man is mortal. Until all members of the set are measured you have an uncertainty attached with the statement. Basic statistics of sample vs entire populations, and logic is not immune to it.
Man is Mortal. You do not know with 100% certainty if that is true. Until you measure every Man you are operating within a sample population.
So any Logic conclusion that is only using a sample of the entire population will only have an error attached to it, it will not be known with 100% certainty.
he's just using "valid" to mean that IF the premise is true, the conclusion cannot be false. Valid does not necessarily = true.
Note: matter/energy is typically seen as a property or characteristic of a thing: not a thing itself.
This is completely wrong though. Almost all of our science uses reductionism. Reductionism would say, for example, that the human is a collection of organs. Organs are a collection of tissue. Tissue is a collection of cells. Cells are a collection of molecules. I've skipped steps here, but you can see that a molecule is certainly as much of a thing itself as a human. Surely this is how we "typically" see things today. Matter and energy perhaps WERE seen as exclusively a property or characteristic of a thing before that philosophical notion gave way to another type of thought.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-19-2007, 07:16
? My point was that foo was incompatible...which is why god shouldn't be assumed.
Sasaki my good fellow: simply asserting a thing does not make it so. You need to think a little, before you reply. The foo fetish tangent has no value other than to cause me pain for the educational standards of the land.
You haven't done more than asserted.
Yes.
:bounce:
Reenk Roink
02-20-2007, 00:15
Nothing absurd about infinity. Aquinas had a naive view of time.
Whoever.
I could swear he said something along those lines though.
What I meant was that Aquinas is not the only one who holds this view. It starts with Aristotle (as far as we can discern), and many philosophers, logicians, and mathematicians hold this view.
As David Hilbert (renowned mathematician) put it:
The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. ... The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.
I don't think the view is naive at all...
Sasaki Kojiro
02-20-2007, 01:18
err, what makes you think the infinite appears nowhere in nature? There's an edge to the universe, but what makes you think there isn't empty space beyond that? How could it possibly stop?
Reenk Roink
02-20-2007, 01:28
err, what makes you think the infinite appears nowhere in nature? There's an edge to the universe, but what makes you think there isn't empty space beyond that? How could it possibly stop?
Um, there isn't any infinite that appears in nature (at least that we know of). Show me one please (your example clearly doesn't work).
With that, I also put value on the argument of a mathematician who has certainly put a fair share of thought into it...
Papewaio
02-20-2007, 02:36
Infinite complete set or Infinite set of options?
Sasaki Kojiro
02-20-2007, 04:18
Um, there isn't any infinite that appears in nature (at least that we know of). Show me one please (your example clearly doesn't work).
With that, I also put value on the argument of a mathematician who has certainly put a fair share of thought into it...
You don't provide any reasoning against my example. What's your argument against eternity btw?
ShadeHonestus
02-20-2007, 07:59
You don't provide any reasoning against my example. What's your argument against eternity btw?
The general consensus is that the universe is finite, with a finite beginning, and depending on the nature of the end (a great crunch or a whimper[cold burn out]), a finite end.
err, what makes you think the infinite appears nowhere in nature? There's an edge to the universe, but what makes you think there isn't empty space beyond that? How could it possibly stop?
What is the universe?
Sjakihata
02-20-2007, 14:59
Um, there isn't any infinite that appears in nature (at least that we know of). Show me one please (your example clearly doesn't work).
With that, I also put value on the argument of a mathematician who has certainly put a fair share of thought into it...
My imagination is infinite and so is the human intellect. The ability to construct concepts and tie ideas together to complex ideas is infinite. (illustrated by numbers)
At least nature created that, but I know you're looking for a physical infinity.
Reenk Roink
02-20-2007, 16:50
You don't provide any reasoning against my example. What's your argument against eternity btw?
Um, what is asserted without reason can be dismissed without reason...
My imagination is infinite and so is the human intellect. The ability to construct concepts and tie ideas together to complex ideas is infinite. (illustrated by numbers)
At least nature created that, but I know you're looking for a physical infinity.
Well yeah, I guess that is an example, but like you predicted, that's not what I was looking for. Hilbert doesn't deny that we can have an infinite in our ideas:
The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature, nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. ... The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.
Um, there isn't any infinite that appears in nature (at least that we know of). Show me one please (your example clearly doesn't work).
With that, I also put value on the argument of a mathematician who has certainly put a fair share of thought into it...
There's something wrong in the question I think. You have to specify, are you looking for infinite physical things or not?
If so, the universe has edges supposedly, so there is not enough room for there to exist anything "infinite". The only "infinite", your term here, in nature could be the dimensions of space. Not the universe, but "space" in the most literal sense.
If not then, if I were to do something as simple as toss a coin, the number of different vectors of force I could apply are infinite. I'm not a fan of this type of thought, but there you have it.
Reenk Roink
02-21-2007, 00:43
There's something wrong in the question I think. You have to specify, are you looking for infinite physical things or not?
If so, the universe has edges supposedly, so there is not enough room for there to exist anything "infinite". The only "infinite", your term here, in nature could be the dimensions of space. Not the universe, but "space" in the most literal sense.
If not then, if I were to do something as simple as toss a coin, the number of different vectors of force I could apply are infinite. I'm not a fan of this type of thought, but there you have it.
I don't think there is anything wrong with my question. I clearly meant "actual infinite" which is a basic term in logic when dealing with the issue.
Again, potential infinites can and do exist (we can understand the idea of an infinite, it is employed in mathematics), while actual infinites cannot exist without contradiction.
Uh ok, then see the "if so" paragraph.
Reenk Roink
02-21-2007, 01:37
Uh ok, then see the "if so" paragraph.
Examples of potential infinites.
LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix,
This will sound harsh, but I see no value in a renewed discussion with yourself. Previously, I humored your claims/charges in this thread and suffered through a long and rather tedious series of posts that seemed to confuse verbosity with substance. The final result was the earlier claims were rescinded and the obvious was again recognized as obvious. Not long after this result, you stated in an exchange with Redleg you wouldn't post in this thread any longer. I think this was a prudent decision on your part. We both know you have never studied logic formally and are not familiar with the intellectual history of the Western Tradition. This means exchanges often are reduced to a remedial quality which is OK save for a certain penchant of personality that leads to mundane points being quite drawn out before they are recognized. Now, given you have taken to enter the fray again and sacrifice the credibility of your earlier commitment suggests an agenda. This, and the quality of the recent post indicate the beginning of a repeat of what was before: where it may be a long time before the obvious is recognized. A repeat performance isn't interesting.
So as not to leave you totally high and dry as it were, I'll give you just a couple points for you to mull over for your personal study:
One, your simplified version has no logical entailment. It is incoherent. Also note: my proof makes no reference to a First Mover. It is not a First Mover proof. This means your references either do not relate to my stuff, or you do not understand.
Two, your more complex version contains some good things and some not so good things. There are actually some parallels to a rather famous logical argument, but it is intermixed with some vacuous and unrelated points. To my mind, this indicates either you had an idea on a thing, but do not recognize it for what it is, or are aping someone else's work. Regardless, the presentation is not anywhere near as strong, or as cleanly presented, as it could be which is unfortunate.
Again sorry for the harshness, but repetition of form is not interesting and given the multiple posters I have to respond to, unnecessary.
Papewaio
02-21-2007, 01:50
Points on a line, Angles, backroom debates... infinites?
No physical infinities.
Also can there be a universe that is infinite in size that is not infinite in smallness?
Reenk Roink
02-21-2007, 01:56
I'm not attacking you or even really answering you directly, why don't you let my post stand without capping it off?
I am pointing out that you have given me examples of potential infinites. There is no "attack" (you are confusing it with the Mafia thread where things are different).
However, I am already aware of potential infinites and am asking for examples of actual infinites.
Try doing a search for "Hilbert's Hotel" and you will see what I mean...
Which is fine, until it starts applying itself to real world sets. Change the data in those sets and then they conclusions have to be re-examined.
All Animals Can Fly.
Pigs Are Animals.
Pigs therefore can fly.
In this universe that is untrue.
Logic doesn't turn on truth. It turns on validity. The above example is exhaustive. It has nothing to do with time, space, or any other factor. That this may not be amenable to science is not a factor. Under a deductive schema (where we go from big to little) any valid conclusion is 100% certain and unavoidable.This same degree of certainty cannot be held with inductive conclusions. Consider: (shifting from pigs to elephants for more flare)
Dumbo can fly
Dumbo is an elephant.
Therefore elephants can fly
Is the above compelling? Hopefully it is not (the above is an informal fallacy). What if we saw several Dumbos?
There are five Dumbos
These Dumbos are elephants
Therefore elephants can fly
One might be more confident about the conclusion the more flying Dumbos they met, but there is nothing in the schema itself that requires the conclusion. This is the point: comfortability is not the same as certainty/necessity. If the sky were littered with flying Dumbos (despite the damage such may do to one's car) the conclusion is not a guarantee.
Now, let me bring in the truth consideration for a moment. In the flying pig argument if the first two premises are true then the conclusion must also be true. There is no avoiding it given the deductive schema. In our flying Dumbo argument (an inductive argument) even if the two premises were true it doesn't require the conclusion be true. Induction always has an open space in the conclusions and thus truth remains always out of reach. This is what has befuddled science (which follows an inductive schema) and why fellows such a Popper then argued science was not about truth nor could it be.
Whether the first premise is accepted or not, the argument is valid. This means the conclusion cannot not be. There is no uncertainty in the argument.
Man is Mortal.
Socrates is a Man.
Therefore Socrates is Mortal.
Incorrect, you only have certainty if you know that every man is mortal.
No, no, no. in the above example the conclusion is valid. That means its conclusion 100% certain. Whether a particular premise is true or not is another issue. An argument with true premises is called sound. Soundness is a separate consideration. See my comments above.
This is completely wrong though. Almost all of our science uses reductionism. Reductionism would say, for example, that the human is a collection of organs. Organs are a collection of tissue. Tissue is a collection of cells. Cells are a collection of molecules. I've skipped steps here, but you can see that a molecule is certainly as much of a thing itself as a human. Surely this is how we "typically" see things today. Matter and energy perhaps WERE seen as exclusively a property or characteristic of a thing before that philosophical notion gave way to another type of thought.
Hello,
My statement isn't completely wrong: matter/energy is typically seen as a characteristic. This has been the case from Aristotle forward. If we were to use Lockean language materiality would be a primary quality. This means it is a characteristic that is intrinsic to the object, but nonetheless a quality. Another example of a primary quality would be: mass, extension etc.
Now, science is reductionistic as you note, but our consideration here is not confined to science and hopefully more rigorous than simple science. Regardless the reduction: atom, quark etc. where one wants to posit a materiality, that materiality is but one quality of the thing.
My point was that foo was incompatible...which is why god shouldn't be assumed.
The above doesn't follow. What you put forward was incoherent. This isn't the case with god.
You haven't done more than asserted.
This is not correct my good man. I have nowhere simply asserted god exists.
Are women objects?
yes.
:bounce:
I thought you would like that.
Papewaio
02-21-2007, 02:31
Logic doesn't turn on truth. It turns on validity. The above example is exhaustive. It has nothing to do with time, space, or any other factor. That this may not be amenable to science is not a factor. Under a deductive schema (where we go from big to little) any valid conclusion is 100% certain and unavoidable.This same degree of certainty cannot be held with inductive conclusions. Consider: (shifting from pigs to elephants for more flare)
Dumbo can fly
Dumbo is an elephant.
Therefore elephants can fly
Universe changes, Dumbo is now the only elephant. The conclusion is now true?
I am pointing out that you have given me examples of potential infinites. There is no "attack" (you are confusing it with the Mafia thread where things are different).
Hm, I don't appreciate your condescension. By saying "if so" I was trying to offer a more free-standing explanation, not a direct response to you. Maybe "attack" was the wrong word to use, but you dismissed my contribution as if I was addressing only you, which was very far from the case.
Now, science is reductionistic as you note, but our consideration here is not confined to science and hopefully more rigorous than simple science. Regardless the reduction: atom, quark etc. where one wants to posit a materiality, that materiality is but one quality of the thing.
Well then it's going to be difficult to argue if we have to abide by something other than science or logic.
Papewaio
02-21-2007, 02:48
I won't try that line in an argument with my wife...
Universe changes, Dumbo is now the only elephant. The conclusion is now true?
No. As long as the argument remains inductive, no truth claim can be certain.
ShadeHonestus
02-21-2007, 03:16
I won't try that line in an argument with my wife...
Gold
Well then it's going to be difficult to argue if we have to abide by something other than science or logic.
That would be a bugger! I've not said anything against reason. My point was the discussion is not strictly confined to science, but moves along larger rational lines.
I won't try that line in an argument with my wife...
I think this would be an example of a truism. :bow:
Papewaio
02-21-2007, 03:22
No. As long as the argument remains inductive, no truth claim can be certain.
IFF Dumbo is all the elephants is it still inductive?
IFF Dumbo is all the elephants is it still inductive?
Yes, as long as one is using a particular to make a generalization (from an inductive schema you could never really be sure Dumbo is all the elephants unless all of reality could be verified at once).
Rodion Romanovich
02-22-2007, 17:32
Pindar, this will sound harsh, but I see no value in a renewed discussion with yourself. Previously, I humored your claims/charges in this thread and suffered through a long and rather tedious series of posts that seemed to confuse verbosity with substance. The final result was the earlier claims were rescinded and the obvious was again recognized as obvious.
We both know you have never studied logic formally and are not familiar with the intellectual history of the Western Tradition. This means exchanges often are reduced to a remedial quality which is OK save for a certain penchant of personality that leads to mundane points being quite drawn out before they are recognized. Now, given you have taken to enter the fray again and sacrifice the credibility of your earlier commitment suggests an agenda. This, and the quality of the recent post indicate the beginning of a repeat of what was before: where it may be a long time before the obvious is recognized. A repeat performance isn't interesting.
So as not to leave you totally high and dry as it were, I'll give you just a couple points for you to mull over for your personal study:
One, your posts are incoherent, lack references to sources justifying your views, and directly contradict all sources I have provided against your points. Not only have you made claims going against the most basic definitions and rules of logic, but also made repeated claims that simple example textbook arguments are incorrect, or, when textbook examples of errors were presented, stated that they were correct arguments. The most funny thing is how you claim you have invented a proof of God, and think it would need no scrutiny at all, despite the fact that all previous attempts at proof of God have failed. You not only oppose all attempts at scrutinizing your argument with the laws of logic, but also try to hide behind redefining your words to hide subtle equivocations.
Your proof has no logical entailment. It is incoherent. Also note: your proof switches between making a reference to a First Mover, and between Anselm's (proven incorrect) Ontological argument.
Two, you mix up logical and metaphysical existence. Logical existence of x means "one or more x exists", this means that even if you had proven logical existence of a being with all properties of God, you would need to also prove that there is at most one, before you have proven the existence of God. Regardless, the presentation is not anywhere near as strong, or as cleanly presented, as it could be which is unfortunate.
Again sorry for the harshness, but your repeated insults and attempts to hide your argument in redefinitions of words and letting existence be part of your definitions, is not interesting, and given the multiple posters that have refuted your incoherent and invalid argumentation, the status of your argument should be quite clear.
Finally, your repeated statements "I thought you were going to stop posting in this thread" and trying to make me do so, are harsh insults. While perhaps allowed within the rules of the guild, they are harsh humiliations and that you have to resort to humiliation and personal attacks to hide your logical fallacies is quite telling.
Rodion Romanovich
02-22-2007, 18:07
Universe changes, Dumbo is now the only elephant. The conclusion is now true?
If it is true that
- Dumbo is an elephant
- elephants can fly
- Dumbo is the only elephant in the universe
Then it is true that
- all elephants in the universe can fly
By Modus ponens, a conclusion is true if the argument leading to the conclusion is valid, and the assumptions made in the argument are true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens
Modus ponens is used in all axiom systems, including physics, mathematics and many other fields. Basically the axioms are no better than assumptions, other than that we have by general consensus arrived at the conclusion that they are to be treated as truths (in religion, certain assumptions are given axiom status because they are mentioned in holy books, whereas in science, the justification for making something an axiom is if no statistical data known by those working with the subject contradict the axioms, and they also seem sound by some kind of gut feeling).
Modus ponens fails in a pure ontological philosophy where we try to make no assumptions at all, since without any assumptions made at all, we can't conclude anything to be true. In most cases therefore, people out of practical reasons choose some assumptions to be treated as truths, i.e. give them axiom status. This is done when logic is used - i.e. when we use logic we automatically assume that the rules of logic are true. Usually, the laws of logic alone can't prove anything of any value - for instance God's existence doesn't follow from the laws of logic alone. Most arguments therefore add even more axioms (i.e. decide to treat certain assumptions as absolute truths) or assumptions. To make it even more interesting, it has also been proven that no ontological system can justify its own existence. Because of this, all reasoning must rest of assumptions. The question of whether the assumptions are sound or not, becomes the key issue in argumentation, when most people (excluding Pindar) agree with and follow the laws of logic. The laws of logic are so exact, that machines can perform automated reasoning by applying the laws of logic - it would be interested to run Pindar's fallacious argument through an automated reasoning program, and see how it would reject it ~:), since he doesn't trust all the dozens of sources I have provided, and that he is repeatedly refusing modus ponens. Does anyone know if there is any online automated reasoning program available, so we can test Pindar's proof so he will realize he has lost and stops insulting all people in this thread who don't agree with his quite unorthodox views of logic?
Do you realize that in order to be a lawyer in the United States logic and philosphy happen to be part of the course of study? It seems in your response that you have failed to actually read what Pinder wrote. In fact some of your statements read exactly like Pinder's initial post.
Have you conducted the error of plagiarism? A more orginial rebuttal would have been interesting.
Rodion Romanovich
02-22-2007, 18:24
Lawyers read classical logic and are most concerned with natural language arguments. Natural language arguments are inexact, and belong to before the 18th century or possibly even further back in history. Verbal logic has been largely abandoned because of its inexactness, and the tendencies of making equivocation fallacies when using it. The modern formal logic as developed by among others Peano, Bertrand Russel, Kurt Gödel and George Boole has mostly replaced the natural language oriented logic used over two thousand years ago, because of its exactness, its ability to spot fallacies, and the fact that it is, unlike ad hoc natural language arguments, possible to construct automated reasoning computer programs from. I doubt a lawyer in the USA studies more logic than Computer Engineers, whose education consist to nearly 80% of logic - formal logic. It is also possible to pass through education consisting of a single small course on logic without very good grades or good knowledge on the subject, but more difficult to pass a complete master's degree and 5 years of studies without getting a grasp of what 80% about the education is about. What is most interesting is however the fact that Pindar openly refutes quotes coming right out of typical logic textbooks.
Lawyers read classical logic and are most concerned with verbal arguments. Verbal arguments are inexact, and belong to before the 18th century, possibly even further back in history. Verbal logic has been largely abandoned because of its inexactness, and the tendencies of making equivocation fallacies repeatedly. The modern formal logic as developed by among others Peano, Bertrand Russel, Kurt Gödel and George Boole has mostly replaced the natural language oriented logic used over two thousand years ago. I doubt a lawyer in the USA studies more logic than Computer Engineers, whose education consist to nearly 80% of logic - formal logic.
Yep you just disprove your own response to Pinder with this answer. I wonder if you realize the fallacy of your own arguement. In regrads to this statement taken from the previous post and your response here.
We both know you have never studied logic formally and are not familiar with the intellectual history of the Western Tradition. This means exchanges often are reduced to a remedial quality which is OK save for a certain penchant of personality that leads to mundane points being quite drawn out before they are recognized. Now, given you have taken to enter the fray again and sacrifice the credibility of your earlier commitment suggests an agenda. This, and the quality of the recent post indicate the beginning of a repeat of what was before: where it may be a long time before the obvious is recognized. A repeat performance isn't interesting.
I have again been rather amused about the attacks on logic presented by both of you. It seems that you want to dismiss one form of logic because it does not suit your premise. Now Pinder could also be guilty of such a stance - but I find yours more amusing especially given your claim of superior knowledge on logicial arguements, in a discussion using verbal arguements concerning logic. It really is a rather hypocritical stance on your part, you yourself are using a verbal arguement in this discussion.
ShadeHonestus
02-22-2007, 18:32
The proof is in the pudding and so far I'd have to say Pindar's is the one without cat hair in it.
Rodion Romanovich
02-22-2007, 18:33
I copied parts of his post, since I'm bad at thinking up personal attacks myself, and his personal attacks were apparently allowed since he still has his signature. It saves me boring work and lets me concentrate on the logical aspects of the situation, rather than a quite ridiculous exchange of humiliations. It would seem like lawyers read more about how to make personal attacks and fallacious arguments with well hidden fallacies, than they read about logic.
The proof is in the pudding and so far I'd have to say Pindar's is the one without cat hair in it.
That's probably because Pinder is using skim milk. Cat's hate skim milk.:laugh4: :laugh4: That and cats don't like lawyers either. There too much alike. Sneaky little things that like to screw with your mind.
I copied parts of his post, since I'm bad at thinking up personal attacks myself, and his personal attacks were apparently allowed since he still has his signature. It saves me boring work and lets me concentrate on the logical aspects of the situation, rather than a quite ridiculous exchange of humiliations. It would seem like lawyers read more about how to make personal attacks and fallacious arguments with well hidden fallacies, than they read about logic.
So are you claiming that your plagiarism stems from boredom?
Your responses are getting even more amusing for me, I am rather enjoying my reading today.:laugh4: :2thumbsup:
ShadeHonestus
02-22-2007, 18:39
True, however my statement is probalby invalid because I expressed the sum of my logic through language and the perspective of the knower.
Now if only I could weave a construct whereby all knowers using said construct could only embrace the knowledge I set as true then I can remove the known and the knower and we can just praise my construct and the inevitable knowledge as superior.
Rodion Romanovich
02-22-2007, 18:40
So are you claiming that your plagiarism stems from boredom?
Your responses are getting even more amusing for me, I am rather enjoying my reading today.:laugh4: :2thumbsup:
I will probably have to plagiarize you if you continue these pointless off-topic posts. This was once a thread about the impossibility of proving God's existence, now it is a thread about two ******** ********* (Redleg and ShadesHonestus) cheering on someone (Pindar) who tries to prove that God must exist because something that must exist must exist, and only God is something that must exist, therefore nothing else can be the something that must exist that must exist", while Papewaio, Sasaki Kojiro, Reenk Roink and myself keep trying to demonstrate the basics of logic.
As I said, it would be interesting to feed this so called proof into an automated reasoning system, or send it to someone who is logician by profession. Apparently a near-logician isn't trustworthy enough for a laywer's fantastic knowledge on the subject of logic. Would be interesting to have Bertrand Russel, Peano, George Boole and the others here witnessing this spectacle.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.