The Rue and Causal Thread--Philosophical Grudge Match! by Causal

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM in the last thread:
Can I inject $0.02 here? As far as I can tell there really are several assumptions that one must make w/ the benefit of proof.

I think this is an interesting statement, because it certainly does seem to be the case. Take for instance, the Uniformity Principle (UP): nature works according to natural laws which remain (essentially) consistent over time (in both directions). This is what allows us to make inferences about the future based on past experiences. The famous philosophical puzzle of the Problem of Induction (first set forth by David Hume) shows that any attempt to validate such inferences is viciously circular (that is, it will commit the fallacy of Begging the Question). But the UP seems to be a safe belief to have, even though one cannot prove it. Furthermore, there seem to be other things for which firm and final proof cannot be given. Rue takes one's own existence as such a belief (though I disagree on that count). The existence of an external world is another. Philosophers call these "properly basic beliefs." Such beliefs aren't based on other beliefs one has, but rather stand as the very foundation of a person's belief system. More significantly, properly basic beliefs aren't the result of chains of logical argument--rather they are known as brute facts of existence (I would assert that "I exist" merely is a brute fact of my existence and that I can be justified in believing it, even though I have not arrived there via chains of reasoning).

One interesting question might be this: what sorts of beliefs must simply be assumed without proof? Surely religious believers will put the existence of God in this category--and just as surely, atheists will argue against that. Another interesting question might be: why are we justified in believing certain things in spite of a lack of evidence, and not believing certain other things?

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 7:52 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Interesting post.

I need to get some laundry done, stop into work on my day off

and a few other things. I'll be back tomorrow !

"Ahhll be baaa ck"

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
why are we justified in believing certain things in spite of a lack of evidence, and not believing certain other things?

I think we need to make the distinction between lack of evidence and lack of proof. Certainly the Uniformity Principle has plenty of evidence to support it. There's no proof, and we can't really deduce it from more basic premises, but we do see evidence every waking day that UP holds.

I do wonder about the urge to believe certain things (usually religious convictions) that have no evidence. You can argue that emotional predilection (it just feels right) is a type of evidence, but it doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark as direct experience.

Another fundamental question that colors these kinds of discussions is just what "I exist", or rather what "I", means. Put another way, are you a product of your body, a "thinking machine", or a supervening entity that connects to your body somehow? The supervening entity proposition generally assumes a type of dualism and dualism is something I've never been able to make any sense of.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 8:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

One interesting question might be this: what sorts of beliefs must simply be assumed without proof?

That life is valuable, that love makes it so, and that animals and the Earth are all connected to us through our devine spirit.

Quote:
Another interesting question might be: why are we justified in believing certain things in spite of a lack of evidence, and not believing certain other things?

Might gives us our justification, otherwise logical and emotional debate (like this) would take the place of various written gospels...

Lee-like Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Might gives us our justification, otherwise logical and emotional debate (like this) would take the place of various written gospels...

Ah, I think you may be mistaking moral justification for philosophical justification. When I speak of justification, I mean only this: in virtue of what can I properly call some belief knowledge? That is to say, there may be no firm and final proof that there is an external world; yet nearly everyone believes that that is so, and furthermore thinks that they "know" it to be so. In virtue of what, then, are we justified in holding that we "know" certain things for which no proof can be given?

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 8:24 AM

NVGHOSTRIDER

Caught my interest Casual.

Growing up in a culture with implied spirituality I half heartedly accepted many things just because they are. But after growing into my own views and perceptions it seems that the natural laws have more bearing on my everyday functioning. The circle, though seemingly vicious, is one of the few truths offered to those of us left wondering. Sure there are things that seem off the path of the circle, but they all flow in the same direction. Some call it a downward spiral. But after a little understanding is found most people can comprehend the onward movement in spite of what we think or feel.

Believers and nonbelievers alike should (at the very least) enjoy the world around them on occasion without question. To have the simple feeling of being and connectivity to all that surrounds us helps answer questions more for ourselves outside of the rules and laws of others.

No matter what the worlds rules and laws say nothing is the truth unless we can perceive the truth and accept it as our own.

Death is not death unless you accept it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 8:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I think we need to make the distinction between lack of evidence and lack of proof. Certainly the Uniformity Principle has plenty of evidence to support it. There's no proof, and we can't really deduce it from more basic premises, but we do see evidence every waking day that UP holds.

Yes, but how would one argue that it will continue to hold? We can give evidence upon evidence that the UP has held in the past. But we have to assume that it will continue to hold in the future, because any argument to that effect will be viciously circular. So, given the Problem of Induction, we are basically always in the exact same position when making arguments from past experience to future expectations: that is to say, we can only assume that it will work again.

Quote:
I do wonder about the urge to believe certain things (usually religious convictions) that have no evidence. You can argue that emotional predilection (it just feels right) is a type of evidence, but it doesn't seem to be in the same ballpark as direct experience.

To be fair, you'd have to say something like, "no evidence that I would accept." Because many a religious believer would tell you that their life was a wreck before they came to Jesus (or Brahman or Buddha or Allah), but that they have changed utterly since their conversion experience. They will point to the effect of a changed life and say that that is evidence for their beliefs. I daresay that you would explain the effect as being caused by something else, but that only means that you don't accept their experience as having evidentiary value, not that there is no evidence at all. It's not as if there is some one objectively true standard for what constitutes evidence and what does not. Unless, like Plantinga, you think that we have epistemological duties in somewhat the same way as we have ethical duties?

Quote:
Another fundamental question that colors these kinds of discussions is just what "I exist", or rather what "I", means. Put another way, are you a product of your body, a "thinking machine", or a supervening entity that connects to your body somehow? The supervening entity proposition generally assumes a type of dualism and dualism is something I've never been able to make any sense of.

Well, again, what I find interesting here is that while your views are in keeping with the 3 basic premises that we've all agreed to (cf. the first post of the thread) you can't derive material reductionism from those basic beliefs alone. The fact that you can't make any sense of dualism and that you don't see that there is any evidence for theism indicates to me not a fundamental disagreement with our three basic beliefs, but rather some other belief(s) which render dualism and theism untenable for you. But I am both a theist and a (mind-body) dualist and I agree whole-heartedly with the three basic beliefs we've laid out.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 8:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
In virtue of what, then, are we justified in holding that we "know" certain things for which no proof can be given.

Er...no.

But who needs justification Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Yes, but how would one argue that it will continue to hold?... that is to say, we can only assume that it will work again.

True, but it can be an informed assumption. I was pointing out that beliefs can be characterized by on how much evidence supports them. Some beliefs have so much evidence we accept them as givens, others are more debatable.

Quote:
To be fair, you'd have to say something like, "no evidence that I would accept." Because many a religious believer would tell you that their life was a wreck before they came to Jesus (or Brahman or Buddha or Allah), but that they have changed utterly since their conversion experience. They will point to the effect of a changed life and say that that is evidence for their beliefs. I daresay that you would explain the effect as being caused by something else, but that only means that you don't accept their experience as having evidentiary value, not that there is no evidence at all...

Actually this is evidence I would accept, but it's evidence of the effects of their belief, not evidence that the thing they believe in is true. There's lots of evidence supporting the transformative nature of religious belief.

The other thing I'm curious about is how a lack of belief fits into this framework. Are we assuming that lack of belief and belief are the same thing? This is the proposition generally put forward by the ID people. They want to equate not believing in god with believing in god - they want to us to accept that each is a matter of faith.

The dictionary often contains both definitions of atheism:
1. A belief that there is no god. and
2. A lack of belief in a god or gods.

Most atheists I've met are of the second variety and it's a distinctly different position than the first. They don't deny the possibility that a god could exist, but they haven't seen any evidence compelling enough to prompt such a belief.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 1:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
2. A lack of belief in a god or gods.

Most atheists I've met are of the second variety and it's a distinctly different position than the first. They don't deny the possibility that a god could exist, but they haven't seen any evidence compelling enough to prompt such a belief.

Isn't that generally referred to as Agnostic?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 2:07 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

And here's another word for y'all, redundant. Or how about superfluous, another good word.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 2:13 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

How about unimportant, trivial, inconsequential, irrelevant, insignificant ... all of which describe your contribution ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 2:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Isn't that generally referred to as Agnostic?

Agnosticism is the idea that we can't know whether god exists or not. This is often misconstrued, and used popularly, to refer to those who are undecided on the issue. A real agnostic makes the point that the existence of a god can never be proven or disproven. That conviction doesn't necessarily imply a belief, or lack of belief.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 2:30 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How about unimportant, trivial, inconsequential, irrelevant, insignificant ... all of which describe your contribution ...

As opposed to your own post, or Citizen's.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 2:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
To be fair, you'd have to say something like, "no evidence that I would accept." Because many a religious believer would tell you that their life was a wreck before they came to Jesus (or Brahman or Buddha or Allah), but that they have changed utterly since their conversion experience. They will point to the effect of a changed life and say that that is evidence for their beliefs. I daresay that you would explain the effect as being caused by something else, but that only means that you don't accept their experience as having evidentiary value, not that there is no evidence at all...

Actually this is evidence I would accept, but it's evidence of the effects of their belief, not evidence that the thing they believe in is true. There's lots of evidence supporting the transformative nature of religious belief.

Well, but see that's just the thing. If I point to my profoundly changed life and say, "See? The effects of God. That's evidence." You'll just say, "No, that's evidence of religious belief." Take prayer, for instance. It seems to be the case that prayer really does have a a positive impact. There's a memory floating around the cranium to the effect that people who profess to pray regularly are in generally better health. The religious believer (though not this one) might say, "See? Evidence for God." But if I may be so bold, I imagine that you'd offer some sort of psychological explanation. The trouble here is that I'm not sure there is anything that you would accept as having evidentiary value for spiritual beliefs. Your presuppositions won't let you. It's not that you're inherently more rational--it's that your worldview is shaped by presuppositions buried so deeply into the substrata of your thinking that you can hardly see that there might be any alternative at all! Not, of course, that anyone else is any different. But you do have the choice to unbury and examine those presuppositions critically. Even if you don't change your mind, you'll still be better equipped to argue your case (and, I might add, to be sympathetic to those who disagree with you) (not that you're doing a bad job on that count, so far; just saying).

Quote:
The other thing I'm curious about is how a lack of belief fits into this framework. Are we assuming that lack of belief and belief are the same thing? This is the proposition generally put forward by the ID people. They want to equate not believing in god with believing in god - they want to us to accept that each is a matter of faith.

I'm not sure about which ID proponent you're thinking of. Which article/book did you draw that conclusion from?

In any event, it does happen to be true that both the assertion "some non-physical things exist" and the assertion, "no non-physical things exist" are beyond firm and final proof. At the end of the day, both the believer in dualism and the believer in material reductionism must do one of two things: 1) accept their belief blindly; or, 2) make justificatory arguments which, while not conclusively settling the issue, convince them that theirs is the right position. I obviously accept the proposition "some non-physical things exist." And I've also thought through some arguments both for and against my position. And I've come to the conclusion that my position is the more likely of the two. If anyone differs, that's OK. But if you differ, I'll be much happier if you have counter-arguments (rather than more rhetoric) and if you respect my autonomous right to choose on my own what constitutes evidence and what arguments I find compelling.

It's instructive to me that most of the highly trained and respected philosophers on both sides of this issue can discuss their respective positions amiably, and without rancor, and can at least respect that the other side has autonomy and valid (though not necessarily sound) arguments. It seems to be the less-well-educated amateurs that get angry over this stuff.

Quote:
The dictionary often contains both definitions of atheism:
1. A belief that there is no god. and
2. A lack of belief in a god or gods.

Most atheists I've met are of the second variety and it's a distinctly different position than the first. They don't deny the possibility that a god could exist, but they haven't seen any evidence compelling enough to prompt such a belief.

Yeah, I'm with Citizen: I'm pretty sure that #2 should properly be called agnosticism.

There's a pretty fine distinction between two different types of atheism (and these are my labels).

The first type I call philosophical atheism. Think Kai Nielsen here. Philosophical atheism is the belief that because there are no good arguments to believe that God exists (on their view), it is more rational to believe that there is no God than that there is. Some of the really hardcore guys just say, "There's no good reason to believe in God," and leave it at that (though I would argue that such a position will collapse back into agnosticism). In any event, these guys believe that there's no reason to believe in a God, so they don't.

The second type of atheism I call dogmatic atheism. Think Walter-Sinnott Armstrong or J.L. Mackie. Dogmatic atheists argue that there is no God at all, and attempt to offer proof for that idea. Given the philosophical difficulty in disproving the existence of a logical possible being, dogmatic atheists attempt to prove that God is not a logically possible being via the Logical Problem of Evil which, in a nutshell, asserts that it is impossible for there to be an all-powerful, all-good God, and for evil to exist.

Unfortunately for the dogmatic atheist, the Logical Problem of Evil is regarded by most philosophers (according to my Philosophy of Religion professor, who is himself an atheist) as having been solved by Alvin Plantinga. Plantinga published a series of books and papers in the mid-70s during which he developed several key philosophical ideas (such as transworld depravity). Plantinga attempted to show only that it is possible that God could not have created a world containing moral good but no moral evil. Most philosophers believe that Plantinga has successfully established that that is possible, and so have conceded (contrary to the Logical Problem of evil) that it is not impossible for an all-good, all-powerful God to exist, and for evil to also exist. Most atheist philosophers now rely on the probabilistic argument from evil, by which they hope to show that it is more likely for there to be no God, rather than for there to be one, given the moral evil in the world. Of course, "more probable" doesn't mean impossible, so this would be an argument for the philosophical atheist, not the dogmatic one.

If you're interested, you can read my term paper on Plantinga's solution to the logical problem of evil here: http://calebkeller.blogspot.com/2007/05/plantinga-and-problem-of-evil.
html. My professor gave me quite a good grade indeed, even though I argued against one of his own journal articles!

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 3:03 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

1) I exist
2) Other minds like mine exist
3) The external world exists

Don't forget 4) The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists....

Nice thread title Casual. Gave me a chuckle.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 3:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Nice thread title CaUSal. Gave me a chuckle.

Thanks! The first half was Rue's idea--that second half is all me. Ho-yeah!

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 23, 2007 5:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Well, but see that's just the thing. If I point to my profoundly changed life and say, "See? The effects of God. That's evidence." You'll just say, "No, that's evidence of religious belief." Take prayer, for instance. It seems to be the case that prayer really does have a a positive impact. There's a memory floating around the cranium to the effect that people who profess to pray regularly are in generally better health. The religious believer (though not this one) might say, "See? Evidence for God." But if I may be so bold, I imagine that you'd offer some sort of psychological explanation.

I might. But what I'd really want to ask is how you'd attribute the evidence to the existence of a god in such a case. Evidence needs a logical link to be taken seriously. Otherwise you could just as easily claim your transformation was because you ate your spinach.

I will agree that testimonials of this nature are evidence of something, and while I'm doubtful of supernatural explanations, I'm willing to take the existence of gods as the source of such changes at face value. If you're defining god by the effects he/she has on believers, I'll grant that god is a real entity, one that I might describe as a powerful meme in the minds of followers, but no less real for that.

Quote:
Your presuppositions won't let you. It's not that you're inherently more rational--it's that your worldview is shaped by presuppositions buried so deeply into the substrata of your thinking that you can hardly see that there might be any alternative at all! Not, of course, that anyone else is any different. But you do have the choice to unbury and examine those presuppositions critically. Even if you don't change your mind, you'll still be better equipped to argue your case (and, I might add, to be sympathetic to those who disagree with you) (not that you're doing a bad job on that count, so far; just saying).

I totally agree. This is advice I gave my oldest such just three days ago. Most of my friends are religious so we have this discussion at various levels frequently.

Quote:
Quote:
... - they want to us to accept that each is a matter of faith.

I'm not sure about which ID proponent you're thinking of. Which article/book did you draw that conclusion from?

Just observation. Mostly in discussions like this one. It seems to be the first thing they want to do is level the playing field by presuming every conviction or proposition to be, ultimately, a matter of blind faith. I suppose it's possible to paint yourself into some dark corner of epistemology where you see everything is equal valid and unprovable, but no one lives that way. We test our beliefs against experience and make guesses likewise. Some more sound than others.

Quote:
At the end of the day, both the believer in dualism and the believer in material reductionism must do one of two things: 1) accept their belief blindly; or, 2) make justificatory arguments which, while not conclusively settling the issue, convince them that theirs is the right position.

-or- 3) accept their belief tentatively, remaining open to evidence for or against.

Quote:
I obviously accept the proposition "some non-physical things exist."

This is interesting because this statement seems obviously true to me. Could you elaborate on what you mean by 'non-physical'?

Quote:
It seems to be the less-well-educated amateurs that get angry over this stuff.

What are you trying to say??

Quote:
Yeah, I'm with Citizen: I'm pretty sure that #2 should properly be called agnosticism.

Whichever. As long as we're clear on what the terms mean when we use them. It's probably the case that most people who self identify as agnostics mean 'unsure'. But I do hold to my observation that most self identifying atheists are in the 'without belief' camp. Here's a link I just found. (first google hit for 'definition of atheism'):

http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm

Quote:
...an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist.

Quote:
If you're interested, you can read my term paper on Plantinga's solution to the logical problem of evil here: http://calebkeller.blogspot.com/2007/05/plantinga-and-problem-of-evil.
html. My professor gave me quite a good grade indeed, even though I argued against one of his own journal articles!

I'll give it a read, thanks for the link!

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 3:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
It seems to be the less-well-educated amateurs that get angry over this stuff.

What are you trying to say??

Given the nice calm tone and the well-thought-out nature of your posts, I'm not sure we can put you in either the angry camp or the uneducated camp!

Anyway, just wanted to get that out, 'cause that made me smile. I'll make an effort to get 'round to the rest of the post later today.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 4:57 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Angry camp all the way here... sorry about that....

Like to think that I'm not uneducated though, and not by public school cirriculum standards anyhow, though I've already jumped through those hoops too...

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:01 AM

"NOTHING UNREAL EXISTS."

The Vulcan Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 5:55 AM

MAL4PREZ

Hi, catching up slowly. I have to get tangent-y on a few little bits that came up on the old thread. But it does seem to apply to the psychological effects of belief issue, so maybe it's not so off topic...

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
And how would you account for the fact that thousands of years ago, nearly every human being on the planet "intuitively thought" that there were gods?

Because all humans, in all eras from prehistoric to now, live in the natural world, and the natural world does some funky stuff. Scary stuff. I submit that it's comforting to attribute that funky stuff to powers that are like us. It makes us feel more important and less helpless if nature is controlled by "gods," and those gods are in our image.

The way I see it,

Human psychology + scary nature = religion

And I haven't drawn that conclusion purely from science. It's funny how these debates focus purely on science, but never get into the things in religion that make it seem, to me anyway, a creation of human beings. I don't think it's a bad thing. Religious beliefs have done us good. Done us bad too, but hey - we're not perfect. Neither is anything we create. (I'm so gonna get flamed LOL!)

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
im not sure you can accurately explain every aspect of human nature, simply by making inferences of natural selection processes and environmental factors.

Hey, I'm also freaked out by the incredible complexity of life. I mean - look at the structure of the inner ear! It's amazing! How in the hell did that come about? It boggles the mind...

But saying that only a being who is like us (but a whole lot more powerful) could be behind it is rather a limited point of view, and also, I say, self-centered. Human-race-centered. How about the idea that nature itself is God? It's an engineering machine that operates completely differently than us, and doesn't have the kind of consciousness we do (emotions and such), but it's acheived a whole lot more than we can ever hope. How's that for a Higher Power?

(So, maybe there is a sentient being that set up the natural system. Now, that I could see...)

IMHO, it's our inability to accept that creation can happen in a far different way than we would do it that leads to so much resistance to evolution. Why is it so hard to accept that the physical and chemical structure of the universe have set up an environment that, in the right conditions and over eons and eons and eons, made us? Inner ears and all? I mean - can you even conceptualize how long a time evolution has had to work? How complicated the chemical system involved? Amazing things surely could come of that.

But, then, seeing it that way, seeing God as something completely non-human, doesn't make us Special and better than everything else. It's not particularly comforting. It also doesn't give believers any right to tell other people who to sleep with and what to eat and how many days of the week to work and stuff like that, which would be a nice improvement, I say...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 7:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Agnosticism is the idea that we can't know whether god exists or not. This is often misconstrued, and used popularly, to refer to those who are undecided on the issue. A real agnostic makes the point that the existence of a god can never be proven or disproven. That conviction doesn't necessarily imply a belief, or lack of belief.

Ok, thanks.

RUE: I don't sweat the trolls no more, they're too stupid to make a meaningful contribution.

If they had the basic human decency they'd have let their mothers kill them as children instead of fighting back.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
IMHO, it's our inability to accept that creation can happen in a far different way than we would do it that leads to so much resistance to evolution. Why is it so hard to accept that the physical and chemical structure of the universe have set up an environment that, in the right conditions and over eons and eons and eons, made us? Inner ears and all? I mean - can you even conceptualize how long a time evolution has had to work? How complicated the chemical system involved? Amazing things surely could come of that.

Reminds me of the weak and strong Anthropic principles.

If the univerese wasn't exactly the way it is, if it's physical laws were even slightly different, we wouldn't be able to survive, so the universe must have been made to produce us.

Or

We evolved in this universe, so we evolved to live in this universe, so we don't need to survive in any other.

Is the universe the way it is because of us, or are we the way we are because of the universe?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 9:00 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If the univerese wasn't exactly the way it is, if it's physical laws were even slightly different, we wouldn't be able to survive, so the universe must have been made to produce us.

I had a physics teacher say that if gravity didn't go as 1/r^2, if it was 1/r^2.000001, or 1/r^1.999999, the universe couldn't exist as it does. Not even close; the forces would be all out of balance.

I can't quit wrap my head around it, but it's a cool idea. (Though I could argue that indeed there's no other way, because you can get to that law by integrating or deriving, so it's got to be a whole number... sorry, you guys talk technical philosophy, right? So I can talk physics

)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 24, 2007 2:02 PM

KANEMAN

My GOD you fools have nothing left to talk about....Should I come back more often to tell you to eat shit, die, bang your mom, hang upside down and get your balls slapped? I mean....Jeez! What is going on? When a thread title names a PHILOSOPHER!!!( which Causal must point out in every post he is a part of) and the biggest cunt on the planet........Things have SSSSLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNN.............DOWN.

Where is CITZ when we need him?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 9:23 AM

Can I just point out the delicious irony of being insulted by a troll, and then having that troll use the word "slown"? That's good stuff.

Well, the thread's died down a mite, so I thought I'd add this, if anyone is still interested. I'm reading a book co-authored by theist William Lane Craig and atheist Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, in which they debate about the question of God's existence. Craig attempts to use the Big Bang as indirect evidence of God (after all, he thinks, if the universe had a beginning, and everything that has a beginning has a cause, then the universe must have had a cause, and that cause is God--remember, this is Craig's argument). Armstrong says this just won't work. A causal statement is supposed to tell you why something happen when and why it did, as opposed to at another time and in another way. Merely positing God as the creator doesn't satisfy that requirement for causal explanations. "God," Armstrong says, "adds nothing to the scientific explanations."

Thankfully, Armstrong has given me an "in" on a subject that has been brewing (though subconsciously). It seems to me that science, if elevated to the status of unquestioned comprehensive worldview, can become awfully imperial in its aims. I refer to those who think that given any question, science can answer that question, or those who think that the scientific method is the only way to discover truth. I refer to those who hold out science as the last, best hope for mankind to have a brighter tomorrow. It seems clear to me that science cannot live up to such expectations. Science seems to be of much better use as a tool than as a comprehensive way of understanding everything. Take one example: scientific explanations (at least the ones that I've seen) for morality seem to be utterly uncompelling. I've yet to see a scientific explanation for why I ought to do some thing and not do another. Morality (or Ethics, if you prefer) seem to be a subject best left to philosophic or religious inquiry (depending on your other metaphysical views).

The criticism I have for Armstrong, I guess is this: who says scientific explanations are the only explanations that carry any weight? Science is great at telling us the "how" of things (that is, great at discovering descriptive truths) but it doesn't seem to have any ability to discuss the "why" of things (that is, prescriptive truths). And I submit that the mere fact that science can't speak to prescriptive truth does not mean that there is not any such truth to be had.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:33 AM

In the interest of discussion, I have a question for you--and anyone else here, of course, who has any thoughts on the matter:

Who says God is all powerful anyway? Why do the God fans hereabouts like this model so much that they present it as the only model for consideration?

Looks to me like belief in such a God is a belief in the final transcendent efficacy of control and dominance. It reflects a personal belief in the moral ascendancy of centralized authority and is therefore deeply hierarchical, judgemental and hostile to innocence, ignorance and egalitarianism. Such a view of the cosmos strikes me as, therefore, pathological. Such a God supports the belief that control is possible and desirable. Such a God would be a dangerous psychopath were we so unlucky as to be His children.

But there are a lot of other ways of looking at reality and, therefore, god.

In shamanistic animism, f'rinstance, there is no centralized authority in the sky, only an infinite field of consciousness. Within all things there is what I might call a "consciousness drive" which propels us all toward higher and higher awareness and meaning.

So in the place of "God," we could say there was a Universal "consensus" of experience. Consciousness has tendencies and we here can ally ourselves with this "Universal Consciousness" or we can cling to our private illusions.

Where it will all end is up to us. Do you like human nature or not? Do you like yourself or don't you?

I'm a big fan of human nature. In my own life I have found that the healthy human subconscious is a wondrous and powerful tool for survival. Unfortunately, all too often we ignore and debase our subconscious selves to the point that many of us fear our subconscious--fear our impulses and our instincts. Trouble is, such an ignored and abused subconscious can indeed be dangerous. When we stop listening to our intuition we must rely on very strict rules and formulae and things can go pretty badly for us in spite of our "best laid plans."

The shamans teach that during the era when the world's "Great Religions" were formed, consciousness was going to sleep on a wide scale. That is, the clarity of meaning which the Universe offered was becoming more opaque. That's when religions grew up around drug cults--wine, mead, peyote. The drugs were used as a way of bringing the old awake consciousness closer again so the world still made sense even as we were beginning to forget. And so, in those twilight days of consciousness, the great religious books were written; but by the time they were completed, human consciousness was sound asleep, so a lot of what we read in these books is gobbeldigook.

Anyone reading the Holy Bible can see that it points toward some deeper wholeness, some kind of awesome vision, but when we examine the text closely such vision fades before the gobbeldigook. A lot of folks cling to the vision by blanking out the gobbeldigook, denying it, but it is the power of the text that such denial tends to drive folk a little nuts.

So the God that we get out of all that is an anti-intuition God. A God of blanking out what doesn't fit. A God that will take the place of intuition and self-knowledge. "You shall have no gods before Me." A God of rules and repression. A God that teaches you that Nature is "the other," a "thing" to be used. A God that teaches you that alien ideas are dangerous, and evil.

So, Causal, though I see that a lot of religious folks worship this kind of God, I see also that plenty of scientific people worship at this arrogant God's altar as well (thankfully, none of them on this board); the God of Being Right, of Being Better, of Being Alone.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:54 AM

Whew! Lots of anger coming off that post. Were I a betting man I'd say you'd had some deeply personal hurt perpetrated against you by somebody in the name of religiosity. In any event, I'm not sure how to approach this in a non-defensive way, because I just feel lots of hostility in your post. It's not that I think that someone couldn't hold any or all of these positions rationally; it's just that I think that you hold them and dammit, you're mad about all this! I'm afraid that if that's the case, no amount of reply is going to move you a single iota--not even in the direction of being a smidge more tolerant toward those of us who do believe in a monotheistic religion. I am, therefore, going to decline to answer most of what you've said because I started the thread with the intent of discussing these issues calmly and philosophically, and not from a heated emotional base. That being said...

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Who says God is all powerful anyway? Why do the God fans hereabouts like this model so much that they present it as the only model for consideration?

I don't recall making the proposition anywhere above that God is all-powerful, but I suppose I might have. I do, of course, hold the philosophical position that God can do any logically possible thing, which is how most philosophers of religion define "all-powerful" (though there are a few interesting cats who claim that God isn't even limited by what is logically possible--i.e. God could make a round square it he wanted). In any event, if I presented God as all-powerful at any point, that is because that's what I consider him to be. I'm not sure that I'm at fault for presenting my own views (as opposed to some sort of philosophy of religious omnibus). I'll leave the "other views" to others. Omnipotence is certainly not "the only model for consideration"--but why would I discuss in depth something I don't believe? I'll leave it to others to broach alternative models and then talk about them as necessary.

Quote:
So, causal, though I see that a lot of religious folks worship this kind of God, I see also that plenty of scientific people worship at this arrogant God's altar as well (thankfully, none of them on this board); the God of Being Right, of Being Better, of Being Alone.

Did I do something at some point in the past to offend you? Because I get the impression (and I mean no snark here) that I'm having a finger wagged at me as I read this. If I've done something that's hurt you in some way, I'd be glad to hear your grievance and deal with it.

In any event, as far as the Being Right things goes, hell yes I want to be right--but not in the sense of beating others down. When I say I want to be right, I mean that I want to hold as many true beliefs and as few false ones as I can. I take truth to be that which corresponds to the way things really are. That is to say, "I have a cell phone on my desk" is true if and only if it really is the case that there is a cell phone on my desk. I think that knowing the way things really are is about the best way to successfully navigate the hazards of life, so I place quite a high premium on truth, indeed. And I also place quite a high premium on knowing what the truth is on a matter. If that makes me a bad person on your view, I regret to have made you sad, but I'll not be moved merely because you think that I should.

As far as the "being better" and "being alone" see my comments at the top of the thread. This post is one made in anger, not the spirit of inquiry for which I started the thread in the first place. You are airing your views, not engaging in dialogue. And that's interesting as far as it goes, but not quite what I had in mind.

Also, serious: if I've done something to make your personal hit list, let me know. I'd like to have the chance to work that out.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:59 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BTW - I went away for a day - and got SO far behind on this thread. I'm going to need some time to do my homework.

***************************************************************
The dog ate it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:01 PM

By all means. I like talking calmly with you way better than yelling back and forth, btw. We should do more of the former and none of the latter.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 12:26 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Who says God is all powerful anyway? Why do the God fans hereabouts like this model so much that they present it as the only model for consideration?

Christian dogma holds God to be all-powerful, most of the people on this board who want to argue about it are Christian or atheists brought up in a country steeped in Christian tradition, therefore most people on the board either believe in an all-powerful god or disbelieve in an all-powerful god but have said god as the greatest influence on their opinion of religion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:15 PM

I'm terribly worried about Kaneman. He still holds those deep seated feelings for me, unrequited love can really screw someone up.

On the matter of where the universe comes from, it makes no sense to try and prove Gods existence by the idea that the Universe has to have come from somewhere. The problem is that it doesn't answer the question, it off lays the question somewhere else.

For an attempt to give a logical reasoning for the existence of god, it's kinda illogical.

When people say they think Science will someday answer all questions, I think they're not including metaphysical matters. I think there's a disconnect because some people accept that answering all questions means only those that science poses, which doesn't necessarily mean all pose able questions.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Whew! Lots of anger coming off that post.

What? Who should I be angry at and what did they do?

Folks, I'm genuinely surprised at this assessment. Do any others of you reading this share Causal's feeling that I was all kinds of pissed off when I wrote my last post?

I felt pretty happy as I was writing it, thought I was making a lot of sense. I thought I got to the bottom of what, to my mind, is wrong with monotheism as it is practiced in the world today. I thought I'd distilled it down, you know, to its essencials. I was so happy, in fact, that I decided to take the risk of including the material on consciousness "going to sleep" which I was afraid folks would just laugh at and dismiss as whimsical nonsense, 'cause that's what folks so often seem to do. Generally I avoid posting such patently "woo-woo" stuff, but I was in a particularly good mood and decided to let it stand.

I don't feel at all Christopher Hitchensy about any of this. It's just that the more I think seriously about an "Almighty God" as He is discussed in threads like this one, the more disfunctional the whole proposition looks.

I can see that my anti-monotheism puts you on the defensive, Causal, but good gravy, you're calling out the atheists here, so why should my thoughts about monotheism be such a big deal? I'm really just trying to take you seriously and ponder the issues you bring up and discuss them calmly and clearly.

It occurs to me that you might take my characterizing the God of the Bible as a "psychopath" as just something one would say in anger. It's not. It's my considered opinion. And I take it pretty much for granted these days. I'm a pretty irreverent person, I guess.

(btw, have you read "God: a Biography?")

If anything annoys me about this thread it's the false dichotomy of God/no God at its center. I will grant you that it was this annoyance that inspired me to put in my 2 cents in the first place. I'm not a big fan of false dichotomy and this God (as you define Him)/no God (as anyone defines the idea) business is pretty dang false.

I'm sorry. As you yourself observed, the thread was dying. I came here to see if my "minority report" could liven things up. I did not intend to shut you down.

(Edited to add: I wasn't wagging my finger at you, Causal, with my final comments. I was referring to religious fundamentalists and I do not include you in that category.)

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:40 PM

Just have to put this up there before I finish it--sorry to have misread your tone! The knife of bad experience cuts both ways, I guess. I suppose I was on the receiving end this time! I'll read through the rest and respond in a minute.

My favorite part of your post was this:

Quote:
I wasn't wagging my finger at you, Causal, with my final comments. I was referring to religious fundamentalists and I do not include you in that category.

Thank heavens for that! I try to represent what I think is, unfortunately, a dwindling population: deep-thinking, calm, rational Christians. And of course, I confess that I don't do that perfectly. I just hope that people will attribute my screw-ups to my own stupidity, and not to my religion.

In any event, I guess what saddens me is your perspective that monotheism inevitably leads to all those horrible consequences you mentioned. I can't see that monotheism is sufficient for those effects in a strictly logical sense. That is to say, I'm not sure that the proposition, "If there is one God, then the world will be an awful place" is actually true. Of course, I make no excuse for the excesses that have been perpetrated in the name of religion. But as with my own screw-ups, I attribute most of those as being the result of nasty humans, not a monotheistic God. For goodness sake, Jesus was a monotheist, and even if you don't think he is who Christians say he is, he certainly wasn't all those terrible things that you said would come of monotheism. I know nearly no one who says Jesus was a bad guy--and he was a Jew, the original monotheists! In any event, philosophically I think you'd have a tough time establishing the string of entailments that you want to propose come from monotheism. But that is you opinion, and I'm not sure that you're trying to put forth a philosophical argument so much as you're just trying to toss out a new subject for discussion.

I guess where I get shaky with respect to your opinions is the implications of those opinions. You think that it's not the case that God exists--that's fine. I respect many atheists more than many theists, because typically atheists have actually reasoned through their positions. But where it gets tenuous to me is this: if you think that the God I claim to worship is a psychopath, you can't have a very high opinion of me or any other believer. And that frightens me a little. You may not be going Chris Hitchens on me, but those folks have a growing voice. Richard Dawkins has strongly implied that religious parents should have their children taken away--or at the very least they should be prevented from "indoctrinating" their children in religious teachings ( http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1914). There is something ominously Orwellian in that. Perhaps that's not what you're suggesting, but on these very boards I've heard the suggestion that all Christians ought to be burned at the stake--and the poster said he'd enjoy the spectacle. This obviously goes pretty far afield of where I started, but suffice it to say that when I hear that someone believes that I'm not only incorrect, but the worshipper of a "psychotic" God, I have to wonder if I'm even respected as a person. I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not you can respect me and my freedom to choose for myself irrespective of my choice for a "psychotic" God.

Quote:
If anything annoys me about this thread it's the false dichotomy of God/no God at its center. I will grant you that it was this annoyance that inspired me to put in my 2 cents in the first place. I'm not a big fan of false dichotomy and this God (as you define Him)/no God (as anyone defines the idea) business is pretty dang false.

Well, I guess it depends on how you see the question. You could be right--some of us might see the question as monotheist God or no supernatural anything of any kind. Obviously, we would be committing the fallacy of False Dilemma ( http://www.fallacyfiles.org/eitheror.html). But I don't think that's what we're doing. I've presented my views (which mainly consists in "God exists") and folks have argued against that (which mainly consists in saying, "it is not the case that God exists"). That's not false dilemma--that's the law of excluded middle! According to that law, for any proposition P, it is either the case that P is true, or it is the case that not-P is true. And I believe that that is the way we are arguing. I've never said (that I can remember) that it is absolutely the case that either the Christian God exists, or no supernatural thing exists at all. I'm just trying to make my case for the former. Of course, it remains possible that the Hindu pantheon exists. But typically, I do not find myself engaging in serious philosophical debate against someone who would try to disprove my concept of God in favor of their concept of God. Typically I find myself engaging with people who believe that there is no God of any kind (and often that physical things are all that exist). I'll have to beg your pardon for not arguing for Brahman--I don't believe there is such a being; why would I argue for his existence?

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:41 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Whew! Lots of anger coming off that post.

What? Who should I be angry at and what did they do?

Folks, I'm genuinely surprised at this assessment. Do any others of you reading this share Causal's feeling that I was all kinds of pissed off when I wrote my last post?

IMO you did sound a bit confrontational and angry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
...most of the people on this board who want to argue about it are Christian or atheists brought up in a country steeped in Christian tradition...

Yes, certainly, but the more unexamined assumptions one has cluttering up their mind about a subject the harder it is to discuss it in any meaningful way, don't you agree?

In Causal's paper, he talked about the three assumptions:

(1) God is wholly good
(2) God is all-powerful
and
(3) Evil exists

And I wanted to question the necessity of #2. I was put in mind of the many aboriginal and shamanistic cultures world wide which don't need an "all-powerful" god to protect them from or explain away the evils of the world.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
IMO you did sound a bit confrontational and angry.

Confrontational? Absolutely, wholeheartedly. Angry? I'm sorry you got that impression. I hope my subsequent comments have clarified my feelings for you.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm terribly worried about Kaneman. He still holds those deep seated feelings for me, unrequited love can really screw someone up.

I couldn't help but notice that myself. Curious, isn't it? Some people he insults, some he sends Valentine's to. Either way, I reckon his aim is to piss off as many people as possible. But all things considered, I'd rather be in your shoes. Valentines are nicer, even when they come from raving nutters like him.

Quote:
When people say they think Science will someday answer all questions, I think they're not including metaphysical matters. I think there's a disconnect because some people accept that answering all questions means only those that science poses, which doesn't necessarily mean all pose able questions.

What do you take to be the questions that science poses?

Do you think that there are some questions that stand in need of answering that aren't the ken of scientific inquiry? If so, what might they be?

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well, not on the question of the nature of reality ...

I guess I'd be an agnostic.

As far as god/ no god (in the traditional sense) over a number of threads we had sort-of parsed out where is god in the scheme of things. By definition (that kind of) god is about faith. The minute a matter has evidence then it falls out of the metaphysical realm of faith and into the realm of science.

HKC, I didn't think you sounded angry. And I appreciate your post. It did bring up a different way of looking at things and gets past the scheme: 'a', 'b', 'a and b' and brings up a credible 'neither a nor b'

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 5:32 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Causal,

Debating proof of religion with SergeantX - when you said some people who had found religion experienced a profound change, you mentioned several different religions: "their life was a wreck before they came to Jesus (or Brahman or Buddha or Allah)".

Technically, Buddha isn't a god, merely a teacher who points the way. Others have found transformation in Zen Buddhism, which doesn't reference a god (or gods) at all.

And I have had my own personal transformation which is not about god, but human thought.

So I'd have to say that while this kind of experience may point to the power of the human mind, it doesn't address the nature of any particular god, or any god at all.

Anway, I have to get on with my evening.

Be back later.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 26, 2007 6:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
By definition (that kind of) god is about faith. The minute a matter has evidence then it falls out of the metaphysical realm of faith and into the realm of science.

Yes, but there are some beliefs that are fundamental to science that are beyond proof. Take, for instance the rules of logic, the Uniformity Principle, and Material Reductionism. All (except maybe Material Reductionism) are fundamental to the scientific enterprise. But none can be proven. So it seems that no matter what you believe, some of it is going to be beyond proof.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 5:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Yes, but there are some beliefs that are fundamental to science that are beyond proof. Take, for instance the rules of logic, the Uniformity Principle, and Material Reductionism.

They're beyond proof, but they aren't matters of 'faith', at least not in the same sense that religion is. Belief in these principles is of a distinctly different character than religious belief, where faith - even in the face of contradictory evidence - is the point. If we find significant phenomena that contradict logic and UP our understanding of reality will change.

I hope you can at least acknowledge this difference. If the kind of 'faith' involved in religion were truly the same as that required for science, I doubt we'd be having this conversation.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 5:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Yes, but there are some beliefs that are fundamental to science that are beyond proof. Take, for instance the rules of logic, the Uniformity Principle, and Material Reductionism.

They're beyond proof, but they aren't matters of 'faith', at least not in the same sense that religion is. Belief in these principles is of a distinctly different character than religious belief, where faith - even in the face of contradictory evidence - is the point. If we find significant phenomena that contradict logic and UP our understanding of reality will change.

I hope you can at least acknowledge this difference. If the kind of 'faith' involved in religion were truly the same as that required for science, I doubt we'd be having this conversation.

You are right about one thing: religious belief is "about faith" in a pretty significant way. Science, on the other hand, isn't about faith, it's about empirical verifiability. So you're on the right track when you say that where religious belief is concerned, "faith is the point" and right to draw a distinction between that and science.

I'm not sure that I can agree with you regarding the character of faith. It seems to be taken for granted that "faith" means something like, "belief in the face of contradictory evidence" or "belief in the plainly illogical" (in the strictly philosophical sense of the word "illogical"). But that's not exactly what I take faith to be. I take faith to be the acceptance of some proposition for which firm and final proof cannot be given (e.g. "There is a God"). Obviously, no such proof can be given for the existence of God nor for many of the claims of religion. But one of the things that has motivated me to stay engaged on the boards and in these sorts of discussions is the desire to show that one can be a calm rationally-minded person and still believe the claims of religion. Now, there may be things that I believe that you think that are plainly false or plainly irrational. And if that is the case, I'd love to discuss those with you, because I think that's wrong. But I'm not ready to say that my beliefs are of an inferior category to scientific beliefs.

To be fair to my science-minded friends, I do not apply the term "faith" to the foundational beliefs of science because that would obviously cause them great distress. But I think that is true to say that there are some things that must be accepted even though they cannot be firmly and finally proven. What I am curious about is what differentiates the sorts of acceptances that I hold (in spite of a lack of final proof) from the sorts of acceptances you hold (in spite of a lack of firm and final proof). Please recognize that I'm not saying there isn't any difference. I just want to know what you think that difference is. Because your plea for me to acknowledge the difference tells me that you have some obvious difference in mind, and I'm curious to know what it is.

Congrats to everybody, by the way, for the continued calm in the thread!

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 5:39 AM

MAL4PREZ

HK - I didn't get anything angry from your post. Not at all! I was very confused at Causal's reply. But I note that those who tend to debate on the side of Believers are the ones who read anger in your post. Interesting, but it makes sense. Belief is a very personal and emotional thing, and any statement against it would seem like an attack.

I thought your post was reasonable in tone and quite insightful. I love the idea of the human subconscious being a powerful thing that is ignored at our own peril. I totally believe this. Example: when a pianist is thundering through Rachmaninov's 2nd, do you really think they are consciously aware of each key being hit? Of the slight variations of tempo and level that make the music so expressive and divine? Of course not! They've trained these patterns into their subconscious. That's the part of the artist that can speak so wonderfully - it requires shutting down conscious thought so the inner voice can speak.

The flip side: these public leaders who rally against gay rights and then we find out that they've been having gay affairs. Or high school students who are cast aside because they don't fit the norm, and they're unable to be themselves and the hate piles up until they lash out. It's a scary thing.

Anyway, I enjoyed the post HK. I hope the discussion continues... I never heard anything back about the idea of the universe as God. Strange how trying to move the discussion away from bashing science made it kind of dry up... or is that just my own talent for thread killing?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 6:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Do any others of you reading this share Causal's feeling that I was all kinds of pissed off when I wrote my last post?

I gleaned a small resentment at the sillyness of it all, but no bile or anything. Heck, as far as irreverant goes, I challenged the all-powerfull God to a fistfight when I was a kid, and I won (He didn't show).
To be fair, I also challenged big D. He punked out too.
I'm with ya on the false dichotomy thing, HK. I don't believe in a Bible-like Big Dude, nor do I believe there's nothing metaphysical out there (and in here); I absolutely don't like absolutes...

Modified Buddhist-boy Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 6:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
HK - I didn't get anything angry from your post. Not at all! I was very confused at Causal's reply. But I note that those who tend to debate on the side of Believers are the ones who read anger in your post. Interesting, but it makes sense. Belief is a very personal and emotional thing, and any statement against it would seem like an attack.

In my defense, I'm not the only one to whom that posted sounded angry--and I'm not sure that I would put Fred in the category of Believer!

It's not that any statement against what I hold to be true reads like an attack to me. Many, many people have contradicted my beliefs in this thread alone, and HK's was the only post that seemed hostile to me. I think that that is the combination of two things: an utter lack of respect for the things I believe (e.g. "God is a psychopath" seems to be pretty plainly a confrontational thing to say) and the attendant implication that anyone who believes the things I do is stupid, crazy, or evil--or some combination thereof. There's quite a good deal of ugliness of both sides of the God debate--and it's not just religious folk that can perpetrate wrongs. Thus I approach anyone who makes the kinds of comments that HK did very cautiously indeed because I've had enough experience with the disciples of Richard Dawkins et al to know that they are fighting dirty, and for keeps (though it remains an open question for me whether HK falls into that camp).

By the way, the interpretting according to your beliefs knife cuts both ways, you know. Someone predisposed to agree with HK's assessment might read it as wholly innocent and inoffensive--but mere agreement doesn't entail correctness. Were the situation reversed, and religious believers in the majority, someone might make an attack on you using similar language about atheism. And to someone who professed a lack of belief (or a different belief) such an attack would be offensive. But to someone already convinced of the correctness of their theism, such an attack would make good plain sense. Try this, if you're up for it. Try to get yourself into my metaphysical headspace (theism) and read the post again. Tell me if it doesn't come off as angry and hostile to you. I'm just not sure how else to interpret, "Your God is a psychopath." That seems like a blatantly inflammatory sort of a remark to make.

________________________________________________________________________

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 6:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I never heard anything back about the idea of the universe as God.

As I believe the Earth to be a living being, so too would I hold with the idea that everything IS God.

Thinks-too-much Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, July 27, 2007 6:27 AM