St Paul, the New Atheists and District 9
On this week's Everyday Ethics podcast, we investigate the man some people say invented Christianity, and whose critics accuse of kick-starting sexism in the church: the Apostle Paul. Cambridge biblical scholars Professor Morna Hooker and Dr Simon Gathercole join the Irish Augustianian scholar Fr. Kieran O'Mahony to give listeners a beginner's guide to the latest academic studies on St Paul, his letters and their essential message. I also talk to David Fergusson, one of Britain's leading theologians, who takes on the New Atheist movement in his new book, Faith and Its Critics: A Conversation (Oxford University Press, 2009). Professor Fergusson's book is a version of his Gifford Lectures, delivered last year. We also explore the political and religious ideas at play in District 9, the science fiction film currently being screened in the UK, that explores xenophobia in post-apartheid South Africa with Adrian Guelke and Fionola Meredith. Listen to the podcast here.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~34~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Ah, the Impostle Saul Paulus. The great curtain that prevents us seeing what Jesus the Nazarene was really like. Or, perhaps if he had not existed, we'd never even have heard of JtN... Interesting discussion on the fake letters. I think it demonstrates just how shaky the New Testament is.
Complain about this comment
BTW, William, re David Fergusson: you got the Pixies in there! Good man!
Complain about this comment
And at the risk of pre-jacking this thread, did anyone else get the impression that Fergusson is not exactly mounting much of a challenge if he wants Dawkins to head off and read Aquinas? Maybe he'd be better getting *Christians* to read Aquinas, and then follow that up with The God Delusion. Wholesome, healthy combination.
-H
Complain about this comment
Funny, I heard the word "subjective", or if you like, "within the tradition" or "doesn't make any difference", or "tone" (of writing), or "adapted"... or "disputed", but fake? Maybe the pixie waved her magic wand and bleeped it out. :-)
Complain about this comment
On Dawkins, what he said was that he wasn't engaging substantially enough; I would have thought that with you being a scientist you'd have been a tad more accurate in your reporting. :-)
But there I go *interpreting* again; I just can't seem to shake the idea that words mean something. :-)
Complain about this comment
On the Fergusson book: I've read just about all the Christian responses published to new atheism and Fergusson's book is one of the most thoughtful (and compact) of the responses to date. It's also the most theologically engaged of the responses.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the recommendation, Will - it certainly can't be any worse than Lennox's effort; the only problem is that before you get anywhere close to "theologically engaged" (never mind married ;-), you need to demonstrate that there is a theo that there's any blinkin' point in having a logy about in the first place. I was impressed that Fergusson dismisses the fine tuning, design and first cause arguments. This suggests that he has perhaps given the issue some intelligent thought, unlike Craig, Plantinga, Lennox or McGrath. He'll still be doing pretty well if he comes up with anything other than a sermon to the choir.
Complain about this comment
H
That sort of goes round in a circle -
you say you can't believe in something as silly as God.
I say that God isn't a silly idea - consult the "Summa" and that will give you a taster.
You say "I don't need to read about a silly idea to know its silly". QED.
Also let's look at "demonstrate". If you mean demonstrate so that there can be no rational disagreement on the matter, then nope, can't do it. But then is there uniform agreement on the units of selection in Natural Selection. That doesn't mean that Dawkins is wrong.
(On that point, I'm pretty sure that McGrath didn't really research "The Selfish Gene". I don't think he know what Dawkins means by "Gene" in this context.)
There was rational disagreement on Freud, Depth Psychology, Marxism, etc. That doesn't mean that it was a waste of time reading Freudian therapists and biographies or Marxist historians when considering Marxism or Freudianism. As a matter of fact it was essential that such writers explore and apply their ideas.
At the end of the day there are very different yet very rational interpretations of texts (and blogs). The lack of consensus doesn't make the disagreements meaningless. You just have to make a judgment.
GV
Complain about this comment
"I was impressed that Fergusson dismisses the fine tuning, design and first cause arguments..."
I have to say H, I haven't seen any devastating replies or objections to these arguments on the blog (the latter two have been discussed many times.)
McGrath doesn't really discuss these arguments in any depth, and doesn't seem to think that they're very important. I don't know Lennox's work. Plantinga only believes that FineTuning supports Theism (it's evidence that Theism can explain). It isn't a demonstrative proof. I don't know that he's discussed the other arguments in any depth sice "God and Other Minds". Will can keep us right on that one.
GV
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham,
I think this is a very very different issue. The question IS whether or not a god actually exists in the first place; if we can establish that, we can go off and speculate about its nature, its agenda, its views of human reproductive behaviour etc etc, what it does on Sundays and all that. But we're not at that point (yet!), and on that I think the New Atheists are entirely correct.
So I have no objection to reading the Summa (or the Summat) per se, but I would rather like Fergusson and co to point out what exactly we *do* with this; as usual it seems like the theologians are simply begging the question. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but theological writings are like recipe books for pan-fried unicorn in a raspberry jus, served on a bed of sliced artichoke.
First catch your unicorn; there's not a lot of point in drooling over the recipe until that little item is attended to.
Maybe I've got Aquinas all wrong; if you can explain how he sources his ingredients, I would be grateful.
-H
Complain about this comment
Pre-mod is sooo cool. Now how long do I have to wait to see what H has said?
Complain about this comment
Doo ta-ta da
---Your post is important to us..please keep checking back whilst we try not to get sued---
dee-ta-ta da doo dum de whop
Complain about this comment
Over half an hour later...
La ta tee da ti dumm...we do value your post, but we don't like legal action ---- Do wop shee whad i wop
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham, is there any evidence that theism *can't* explain? It's an ad hoc claptil of a notion; ANYTHING is compatible with theism. It explains everything, and therefore explains nothing.
-H
Complain about this comment
I would respond on this thread, but with 5 comments awaiting moderation, I've no idea where the discussion is at. So I won't.
Premoderation = discussion stopper.
Complain about this comment
Helio
I know I've asked this before, but no matter (with the way moderation is going today it'll be All Hallows' Eve before this comment is posted) so... what would establish God's existence for you? Ball park ideas will do.
Complain about this comment
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
Helio, you could try this, post a comment, head off to the Middle East on your bike and see if you can be back before it appears.
Complain about this comment
A quote from Paul's friend, Peter. "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years..."
Complain about this comment
Helio #14
Once upon a time, when unicorns roamed the earth and wolves dressed up as Grandmas, one would write a comment, post it and leave their computer (PC, mac or Linux) satisfied. There they are, one would think, my little thoughts, lighting up pixels all over the globe.
And then, "Night, the mother of fear and mystery," came upon us. "By ten o'clock the police organization, and by midday even the railway organizations, (and blogs all over the world) were losing coherency, losing shape and efficiency..."
Perhaps that's something theism can't explain.
:-)
Complain about this comment
Peter, that being the case, who has more power: God or Mod? ;-)
Complain about this comment
What would convince me of the existence of God? Good question. I can just about accept the existence of evil, but a harder problem for the theist is the existence of premoderation. How is that consistent with a loving god, or are you girls just going to blame poor old Adam again? Eh? Eh?!
Complain about this comment
Hi Helio,
One of the girls here ;-)
That's an interesting little old post right there in #21. You can just about accept the existence of evil; you mean the idea of evil and the existence of a loving God, like you can sort of hold those in tension or are you saying something else, like, perhaps, you find the idea of evil in the context of God unpalatable?
Helio, remember, there isn't a God, so there's not, to be sure; so what's there to accept?
But if you have another, sorry, an answer to the (good) question, this blonde would just love to hear it, flutter, flutter, eyelash, kiss.
P(enelope)
Complain about this comment
Helio,
I think Dawkins said something along the lines of evolution rendering God having nothing to do - it gives God his redundancy notice - having no achievements to attract our praise or worship.
For some people it might not be evolution, but other worldviews, possessions etc that do the same job: making God redundant (or replacing one 'god' with another).
Apart from the obvious, ie how can you give a non-existent thing its P45?, what I don't get (#1,7,14,21 & plenty other W&T posts) is your obsession with something that doesn't exist... it can't be good for you.
Why waste your time and energy? I don't waste my precious time and energy on blogs relating to the existence of Elvis, Lady Di & Michael Jackson living it up on some secret island off Hawaii.
Why do you care so much?
Why not take Ariane Sherine's advice? - ie 'there's probably no God... now stop worrying & enjoy your life'.
There's bound to be better ways to enjoy your life than debating with theists, Christians and creationists!
Complain about this comment
On arguments for God's existence: I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss Plantinga's contribution to this debate. He does regard many of the available natural theological arguments as supportive, if falling short of a full proof, and he he has attempted a repair job on the ontological argument. If atheists want to do business with philosophical theology, I think they have to do business with Plantinga. They also need to seriously consider the many books of Richard Swinburne. I agree that McGrarth and Lennox are, for the most part, reporting rejoinders rather than originating them; but, again, their contributions are important in the debate. Lennox is closer to the intelligent design end of the spectrum, which may be why some have dismissed his other contributions to the general debate about the rationality of religious believe.
Rationality is an important concept -- albeit a curious one. Many religious thinkers have demonstrated, I think persuasively, that one can hold religious beliefs quite rationally, just as one can hold atheistic beliefs quite rationally. It doesn't follow that every religious believer is *rationally* transacts epistemological, business, any more than it follows that every atheist disbelieves rationally. The key thing here is that "rationality" describes an approach to believing, a *way* of holding a belief. One can rationally hold false beliefs, and one can irrationally hold true beliefs.
Complain about this comment
H
I think that there are two arguments from Science to support atheism.
You can take Science as confirming "atomism" - that all the large to middle size bodies in the universe are ultimately composed of "particles". The properties of these bodies (and their subsystems) can be completely explained by the fundamental particles and their interaction. This leaves God redundant. Or so the argument goes.
Of course we can ask "why should there be a universe that behaves in a law like manner? Why should there be a universe that contains particles that can form structured bodies and ordered systems? Why should there be a universe at all, for that matter?"
If God sets up and maintains the universe and its order, then he's acting in a direct, very powerful way. It's also detectable - we can make a well supported inference to a Designer. Maybe a designer would not value a universe in which he had to continually intervene. And Necessary Existence isn't a cop out if you're looking for an ultimate cause. It's a coherent concept and it's the only alternative to "stuff happens". So God may not be redundant at this level at all.
I think that this first argument can be restated in terms of likelihoods. As you've mentioned, if Science need not make mention of God, then that *obviously* supports Atheism over Theism. God *need* not leave gaps - I don't know of any argument that says that he ought to be directly intervening all the time, to create life or correct orbits. But it is equally true that there's no strong argument to say that he *ought not* intervene in the "course of nature".
So on materialistic Atheism there *can't* be gaps. On Theism there *could* be gaps. So gaps are more likely on Theism. So a lack of gaps would confirm Atheism to some extent. This argument is advanced by Paul Draper.
A key question is - how do we identify a gap? How do we know it won't be filled one day by a different kind of Science? PK would take one chance in a billion as evidence that Science would reduce consciousness to facts about Biology or Physics. That seems pretty unfalsifiable to me.
So I think the "lack of gaps" only provides weak evidence for atheism at the moment. (That may change over time, or it may not. Who knows?) And it will always need to be balanced against other considerations.
The second argument is more powerful, and is considered by Jerome Gellman. If common Religious Experiences could be shown to be the result of a (roughly speaking) "malfunctioning" nervous system, then you would have evidence that Religion is a "mistake".
On falsifying God - Theologians can have different conceptions of "God", and some of these are notoriously void of content. Theologians tend to be more interested in these than analytic philsophers. Of course you can just believe in a "vague" conception of the Divine - Eagleton's God, Wittgenstein's God. The "Ground of all Being", who "Is, but does not Exist" - all that waffle. Lots of unneccesary capital letters. I don't even know what half that junk means. You can't say anything for or against that conception of the divine. It just seems to be a matter of taste. And it isn't to my taste.
However evil and suffering certainly do count against a Theistic God - a God who is maximally powerful, knowledgeable, and good: a God worthy of worship. It's fairly easy to deduce a contradiction between the proposition that there is a PPKG God (Personal, Powerful, Knowledgeable, Good) and the fact that there is suffering. So the Theist has some work to do.
The difficulty with dropping "good" from your definition of God (or re-defining good to mean "amoral", a common Theistic cheat) is that you end up worshipping raw power. That's basically the conception of God that Hitchen's is objecting to, because it is the conception of God that Orwell objected to.
I'm as falsifiable as the next guy. And if I'm falsifiable, chances are I'm also open to confirmation.
Graham
Complain about this comment
Hello Graham,
"PK would take one chance in a billion as evidence that Science would reduce consciousness to facts about Biology or Physics."
Could you point out where I said that please? I feel you're misrepresenting me. On the lengthy god ans science thread we discussed this for a long time, but I don't recall ever putting a number on it.
I did say something like one in a billion chance was better than your case for theism explaining consciousness, as the best you could come up with in the end was the god of the gaps argument, which has zero validity.
Complain about this comment
Very sorry if I misrepresented you. The quote was -
"My position has been a rather careful one. The idea is simple. Some simple elements of our consciousness are at present rather well explained purely from physics. Where at some point that wasn't yet the case. Other parts of our consciousness are only partly explained from physics, or not at all yet. But the pattern of how we went from understanding nothing to understanding part of it bodes well for the future. If we optimistically extrapolate the picture, we might imagine a point where we understand all of it. Fully accepting that that optimistic extrapolation introduces great uncertainty for the idea. But as I've fully accepted that, many times restated that I do, I don't make any overly ambitious claims. I haven't even quantified my estimate of the likelyhood that it will work, if it's 90%, 10%, 1% or a billionth of a billionth of a billoionth. So I don't have very much territory to defend.
Bernard had problems with the phrase
"Some simple elements of our consciousness are at present rather well explained purely from physics."
You pointed out that you had rephrased and clarified
"Let me hereby correct. "It would be better to replace the first two occurrences of "of our consciousness" with "the workings of our minds", to avoid any mix-up between consciousness and what you like to see as very very separate phenomenon of conscious experience.
So when I then say "a point where we understand all of it" I mean where we understand all aspects of the mind. Ones I had mentioned, like sensory perception, arousal and storage of memories in adhesive molecules, your favourite of personal experience, and any others not yet mentioned."
So let's look at the result...
The idea is simple. Some simple elements of THE WORKINGS OF OUR MIND are at present rather well explained purely from physics. Where at some point that wasn't yet the case. Other parts of THE WORKINGS OF OUR MIND are only partly explained from physics, or not at all yet. But the pattern of how we went from understanding nothing to understanding part of it bodes well for the future. If we optimistically extrapolate the picture, we might imagine a point WHERE WE UNDERSTAND ALL ASPECTS OF THE MIND.ONES I HAD MENTIONED LIKE SENSORY PERCEPTION AROUSAL AND STORAGE OF MEMORIES IN ADHESIVE MOLECULES YOUR FAVOURITE OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND MANY OTHERS NOT YET MENTIONED... Fully accepting that that optimistic extrapolation introduces great uncertainty for the idea. But as I've fully accepted that, many times restated that I do, I don't make any overly ambitious claims. I haven't even quantified my estimate of the likelyhood that it will work, if it's 90%, 10%, 1% or a billionth of a billionth of a billoionth. So I don't have very much territory to defend."
GV
Complain about this comment
PK, if I remember right, the absolute best that you could come up with was a "science of the gaps" argument, which also has serious validity.
It is simply not good enough to say "science has no answer as yet, but I am sure it will".
Complain about this comment
Hello Bernard,
There you go like Graham. Is this misrepresentation day on W&T or something?
"PK, if I remember right,"
I don't think you remember right. Even after Graham has just quoted my position as not putting any percentage on it. I stated that I consider past progress in understanding the mind as reason for optimism about how much more we might learn.
"It is simply not good enough to say "science has no answer as yet, but I am sure it will"."
Where did I say I'm sure science would uncover all the secrets of the mind?
Complain about this comment
Graham, would it not have been easier than lengthy post 27 to just state that your presentation of my position was simply incorrect? What's the point of the many words you use?
Complain about this comment
Bernard/PK
"It is simply not good enough to say "science has no answer as yet, but I am sure it will"."
Apparently it's completely different to say that it *possibly* will, or *I'm optimistic* it will.
But if you want to start that "debate" again you're on your own.(:
It was fun as it encouraged me to read over old journal articles and notes, but all I learned was that you can't falsify a long list of ad hominems.
Complain about this comment
PK
The quotes show I didn't misrepresent you. No offence, but I don't have time to deal with your issues, whatever they are. If you think I'm misrepresenting you on purpose talk to a moderator.
GV
Complain about this comment
Graham,
I leave the moderation bits out of it, including in a case like this when what you're saying is clearly not correct. Leave the complaint button to the WWers and OTs of this world.
Complain about this comment
That seems fair.
Complain about this comment
PK;
"I don't think you remember right. Even after Graham has just quoted my position as not putting any percentage on it"
Who said anything about a percentage? In the context, your point was clearly that whatever we say about the ability of a God hypothesis to explain consciousness, your view was that science was more likely to explain it, even if it couldn't at present. You were "optimistic" that this would happen.
If that is not some kind of instance of a "gaps" argument, I'm not sure what is.
Complain about this comment
May I just say yet again that this pre-mod nonsense is killing any kind of discussion on this forum. We're now 40 minutes later, and I still can't see post #34, never mind #35
Complain about this comment
Well, if I read him wrong I read him wrong folks. Looks to me like anywhere between 90% to a billionth of a billionth of a percentile is enough of a chance to close a gap. But there you are.
I've apologised if I got him wrong, and explained how I arrived at my conclusion. After that, I think I'm within my rights to say " Now I couldn't care less."
Complain about this comment
Can science or theology get to grips with the mysteries of pre-moderation, that's what I'd like to know.
Complain about this comment
For pities sake, Bernard posted an hour ago! How do you refer the moderator?
Complain about this comment
Pre-moderation kills another discussion. Anybody listening at BBC Online? I hope Will is suitably miffed about it.
Complain about this comment
I do not take a rational approach to God so this debate is merely academic for me but it is interesting nonetheless. I was particularly interested when Will spoke about rational belief.
Belief in its broadest sense, to me, means taking a step beyond knowledge; it is a step which we all must take at some stage in order to function as thinking animals. What is interesting is what makes that step rational.
It seems pretty clear there is no nice knock-down argument for the existence of God, nothing that would convince anything other than a willing buyer. There are arguments which may make us think, which certainly open up the possibility of God, but they fall far short of proof. What then could be a appropriate basis for taking the step of belief? The only remotely rational underpinning of which I can think would be a probability calculation but how do we calculate the probability of God? That would interest me.
Some forms of probability calculations permit the introduction of expert input - what really interests me is what would constitute an expert on God. Is a theologian, for example, an expert on theology or an expert on God?
Complain about this comment
There wasn't an issue for over a year and a half.
Complain about this comment
Bernard,
While I don't go along with what you wrote in post 35, I do agree with what you said in post 36 and what John said in post 40. Pre-mod is killing the blog. It is too lousy to last, I suspect. So either it will be lifted, modified or people will go elsewhere. Let's carry on things if pre-mod is lifted or modified to make it more workable.
(51 min since Parrhasios posted 41, an it hasn't shown up yet)
Complain about this comment
This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.
Complain about this comment
Where's my comment?All new members are pre-moderated initially, which means that there will be a short delay between when you post your comment and when it appears while one of our moderators checks it.
Complain about this comment
OK chappies (not girls this time, unless Princess and co are still with us ;-), this premod thing does tend to inflate threads and make the argument difficult to maintain.
Firstly, on Will's points re Swinburne and Plantinga, I'm afraid I don't see how either of these chaps advance the debate. We've discussed Plantinga's "repair job" on the Ontological argument before, and even Graham agrees with me that it is just another way of rephrasing a fallacy. It is a mere question-begging argument. Swinburne is perhaps a little more erudite, but still begs the question embarrassingly. One of his arguments is that consciousness cannot come from non-consciousness. Except of course it does this all the time - embryos are not conscious, and by the end of human development, they *are*, so the dualistic hypothesis which he champions has an enormous hill to climb, both from the point of view of general development, AND from neuroscience. I agree that Swinburne is perhaps the more *intelligent* of the two, but he does not appear to grasp the issues particularly well. He's also a spectacularly boring speaker, but since it is the ideas that count, I can't hold that against him.
Graham, your post deserves a fuller response - I hope you don't mind if I do a bit of quotie-wotie...
I think that there are two arguments from Science to support atheism.
You can take Science as confirming "atomism" - that all the large to middle size bodies in the universe are ultimately composed of "particles".
I would express this as: systems are composed of subsystems.
Of course we can ask "why should there be a universe that behaves in a law like manner?
Indeed. That is perhaps THE question. I maintain that theism does not explain that; or, rather, it only does so at the expense of begging the question: "why should there be a god that decides to create a universe that behaves in a law-like manner?"
There are of course arguments that universes in general have no "choice" but to behave in a law-like manner, because that is what they ARE - they are mathematical abstractions, that are "real" from the viewpoint of their subsystems. I've been recommending that folks read Max Tegmarks "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" - no-one seems to take me up on this... :-(
But in general, your attempt to fill one gap by positing a god simply creates an even bigger gap.
And Necessary Existence isn't a cop out if you're looking for an ultimate cause. It's a coherent concept and it's the only alternative to "stuff happens".
Well, as I have pointed out, "necessary existence" is not an explanation. If anything, it is a conceptual artefact arising from a misplaced apprehension of the nature of existence itself.
As you've mentioned, if Science need not make mention of God, then that *obviously* supports Atheism over Theism.
Agreed.
So on materialistic Atheism there *can't* be gaps. On Theism there *could* be gaps. So gaps are more likely on Theism. So a lack of gaps would confirm Atheism to some extent. This argument is advanced by Paul Draper.
Ouch - and you were doing SO well! Can you see the fallacy there? Gaps are gaps *in our knowledge*, not necessarily gaps in *principle* as to the explicability of certain phenomena. The problem for the theists is that the history of scientific gap-fills is pretty darned spectacular, and I don't need to run down a list of such gaps - it's pretty obvious. Indeed, the fact that many gaps have been closed indicates that *in principle* there is no reason to assume that any particular gap contains a god-only explanation. So that's pretty lame, Graham! But even then, that only gets you as far as deism - not theism.
A key question is - how do we identify a gap? How do we know it won't be filled one day by a different kind of Science?
Well, probably not a different kind of science - same kind of science, new understanding. That's the way it works.
PK would take one chance in a billion as evidence that Science would reduce consciousness to facts about Biology or Physics. That seems pretty unfalsifiable to me.
Oh, it's a lot better than that. We already know that consciousness is an emergent phenomenal property of a system that we know consists of multiple interacting subsystems. The "gap" is more in deciding exactly what we are talking about.
If common Religious Experiences could be shown to be the result of a (roughly speaking) "malfunctioning" nervous system, then you would have evidence that Religion is a "mistake".
Who says it's a malfunction? It's representing a psychological state for sure, but why a "malfunction"? That assumes a "normal" state. Human brains and psyches are crafted by evolution, environment and experience. Religious experience could well be a universal (I know I've had 'em). But the key realisation is that these tell us about our brains - not about "reality".
On falsifying God - Theologians can have different conceptions of "God", and some of these are notoriously void of content.
No kidding.
Of course you can just believe in a "vague" conception of the Divine - Eagleton's God, Wittgenstein's God. The "Ground of all Being", who "Is, but does not Exist" - all that waffle. Lots of unneccesary capital letters. I don't even know what half that junk means. You can't say anything for or against that conception of the divine. It just seems to be a matter of taste. And it isn't to my taste.
We are more alike than you think :-)
The difficulty with dropping "good" from your definition of God (or re-defining good to mean "amoral", a common Theistic cheat) is that you end up worshipping raw power.
Exactly. It's also the CS Lewis cheat (or one of them) - who are we to know the final motives of god? God knows what's best, so a little earthquake here or genocide there or epidemic here - all part of the Master Plan. That is, as you correctly observe, nonsense. It does absolutely mean that the label "good" cannot meaningfully be applied to the god.
I'm as falsifiable as the next guy. And if I'm falsifiable, chances are I'm also open to confirmation.
I guess so - me too. I can't prove atheism, but I can show that theism is unnecessary (or, at worst, the case has not been made). That's why I approach things atheistically, with the principles of Freethought.
Will interestingly comments on Plantinga thus:
He does regard many of the available natural theological arguments as supportive, if falling short of a full proof
This is one of the stickers. The arguments from NT *are* supposed to be philosophically valid. So if they fall short of a full proof, where precisely are the problems? Are they invalid, or are the premises faulty? I would suggest that it is a combination of both. You can have a perfectly valid argument (from a philosophical standpoint) that is nevertheless poppycock if the premises are flawed, and therein lies the difficulty. He's a cherrypicker. Bottom line - we're probably only left with Swinburne.
Complain about this comment
One hour thirty minutes later --- what could Parrhasios have said?
The pre-moderator is awaiting comments.
Complain about this comment
I make it 10:49AM, and I still can't see what Parrhasios wrote at 9.12AM. This is ludicrous.
And could somebody please explain why "old-hands" are being treated as new members?
GV
Complain about this comment
Ha! this almost seems malicious now, doesn't it!
Now one hour forty minutes waiting on post 41.
Complain about this comment
Yes, can somebody explain why Parrhasios' comment is still awaiting moderation nearly two hours later?
Anybody?
Complain about this comment
2 hours and 7 minutes now for post 41 to appear. And counting.
Complain about this comment
I give up. See you when the BBC sorts itself out!
Complain about this comment
Just thought I'd point out for the first time ever, I actually agree with Parrhasios on something!
If this ghastly premod constipation ever gets shifting again...
Complain about this comment
Look, people will just go elsewhere - but no-one wants to. We like it here.
Complain about this comment
12.23, and a comment posted at 10.43 has not yet been moderated!
Complain about this comment
Just joining the queue.
Complain about this comment
2 hours to pre-mod Bernie.
Complain about this comment
H
"Gaps are gaps *in our knowledge*, not necessarily gaps in *principle* as to the explicability of certain phenomena."
Oh, certainly, I agree. It was Draper's argument, not mine. However the more gaps we close in our knowledge, the better his evidence gets that there are no gaps in principle. So I don't think he's barking up the wrong tree. It seems to be the best way of stating the "redundancy of God" argument. But that argument only seems to provide weak support for atheism.
GV
Complain about this comment
I'm tempted to say that on consciousness you're moving from correlation to necessary and sufficient for causation. But that would be to assume that people can have a discussion around here.
And *that's* begging the question.
GV
Complain about this comment
You can have an argument with premises that are true, and that is perfectly valid. However we may not be able to justify the premises to everyone's satisfaction. That does not make it irrational to accept the premises. It just means people disagree over their truth value.
So I would accept the premise that everything that exists has an explanation for it's existence. I can ofer arguments for that premise. But if someone just can't see it, I can't make them give up their disbelief in the premise on pain of irrationality.
GV
Complain about this comment
Has everyone gone?
Okay, maybe one way to handle the pre-mod’s reign of tediousness is to start several threads of discussion each. Not netiquette I know, but it will maybe keep us talking until we can have a proper conversation.
This thread mentioned “District 9” and Paul. I’m making a tenuous link here, but there is a story about another film “Paranormal Activity” that I’ve been following with interest for some time. It directly ties in to my Media and Religion classes, and I’d appreciate insights and comment.
“Paranormal Activity” was screened two years ago at the “Screamfest” in LA. It was shot by first time director, Oren Peli, for a budget of $11 000 dollars. Horror movie critics present, most of whom had experienced the “Blair Witch” hype, were, well, horrified. In the best possible sense - this is a horror movie festival. Movie critics who reported for websites and magazines with titles like “Bloody-Disgusting”, “Fangoria”, “Shock-till-you Drop” and “Fear.net” were praising the films claustrophobic and disturbing atmosphere. The film left an imprint on the psyche of many reviewers and left more than one with sleepless nights. One claimed that he was afraid to enter his house afterwards as “there might be something I can't see waiting for me.”
This is high praise from fans of gore, body horror and the aesthetics of torture. But “Paranormal Activity” (apparently) avoids all these for suspense and intimate fear. Variety and LA Weekly posted favourable reviews before the movie was snapped up for a six-figure fee by Dreamworks.
There are several aspects to this story that may interest W&T bloggers.
(i) Creativity trumps the Studios: Director Oren Peli studied animation and graphics but never film. So he shot his ghost story from the first-person subjective point-of-view. This is the same approach taken by “The Blair Witch Project” and “Cloverfield”. The pre-release buzz is that “Activity” trumps both.“Paranormal Activity” purports to be the digital footage taken by young couple experiencing a haunting. Dreamworks intended to re-shoot the entire film. But following a split from Paramount that project was put on hold. After a two year wait, fan’s of the original film put significant pressure on Dreamworks to release “Activity” unaltered. The studio decided that with a few minor edits (and possibly some work on the sound) they had a viable product for mass release. Viewers will now see “Paranormal Activity” as the director intended.
(ii) Who said Ghosts were dead? Contrast “Activity” with the Spanish horror film “Rec” which was remade in the US as “Quarantine”. “Rec” purports to be footage of a reporters encounter with demonic forces. Substantial changes were made to the plot for the US remake – specifically all mention of the supernatural was removed. Whereas the protagonists in “Rec” were trapped in an apartment block with supernaturally possessed malefactors, the reporter in “Quarantine” is trapped with victims of a rabies-type virus.
“Paranormal Activity” is unabashedly supernatural. This is a film about a demonic haunting, pure and simple. The few snippets of the story revealed on trailers are reminiscent of an MR James ghost story. An arrogant overeducated youth plays with the demonic. An invisible figure moves doors, leaves trails, and can be seen moving under bed covers (this could have been taken directly from “Oh, Whistle and I’ll Come to You”).
Hollywood has tended to rely on ironic parody (“Scream”) or body horror (“Hostel”) to deliver shocks rather than chills. The supernatural is required for the latter. A sociopath in a hockey mask doesn’t quite unsettle as effectively as the unseen. Remakes of Japanese horror (“The Ring”, “The Grudge”,“Dark Water”) have been profitable, but disappointing. Americans don’t share Japanese superstitions. Perhaps it would take an Israeli émigré working outside the studio system to produce an American Ghost story. The result has been compared to “The Exorcist.”
(iii) That leaves me with egg on my face. I’ve been telling my classes for several years that this sort of film just wouldn’t work anymore. “The Exorcist” panicked my parent’s generation. If any of my GCSE students have bothered to watch it (I haven’t and won’t, but that’s a different story) they have found it dull, or mildly amusing. Regurgitating film critic and philosopher Thomas Hibbs, I’ve explained that we live in an age of “cheerful nihilism”. People don’t believe in evil anymore (so the argument goes) and this allows them to laugh at the monstrous. “Exorcist” makes a head spin. “Kill Bill” fries a head for the laughs. “The Exorcist” lost its ability to shock as audiences developed stronger stomachs. It lost its ability to unsettle as audiences lost their belief in absolute Good and absolute Evil.
Or so I thought. “Paranormal Activity” delivers the goods, can only deliver the goods if audiences can conceive of a malevolent, supernatural entity hunting and destroying a young loving couple. That’s as close to an absolute evil as it gets. It’s true that audiences have to suspend disbelief, but there are set limits. As a simple example, we won’t admit storylines with too many coincidences. If “Activity” pulls in a large audience share here and across the Atlantic then maybe we’re not as nihilistic as I thought.
(iv) At the very least, if we are nihilistic, we may not be as cheerful about it as I thought. MR James said that the purpose of a good ghost story was to “chill the blood, pleasurably”. And “Activity” is said to meet that criteria. Audiences enjoy the chill. Is there something reassuring in the thought that there are undiscovered forces that cannot be trapped, contained and studied by technology? That’s a simple premise in many good ghost tales from “Frankenstein” onwards. We need villains we can almost believe in if we are to enjoy a tale. It would be revealing if slashers aren’t enough. If we want something more wild and mysterious.
This isn’t an argument about the reality of the supernatural, and it’s not an argument about nihilism’s relationship with atheism (they aren’t necessarily connected). I’m just curious about cinema audiences, given their youth. What are they after? What do they want to believe in? I’d appreciate insights etc. [I want to use this piece with an Eng Lit student reading “Frankenstein”]
I also thought that the tale of creativity trumping the studios was nice.
There’s also a discussion around Christian views of this sort of film. Will there be a picket? Should there be? I won’t watch “The Exorcist” as it contains blasphemy. But would it be consistent for a Christian to *enjoy* a film about the demonic? That’s going to come up in class discussion, and I’ve never really thought about it in any depth as I don’t like horror movies as a genre.
And I also thought that it would give the moderator an excuse to take forever to moderate a post.
Complain about this comment
Will
ref post 24
I am eternally curious that you have such a high regard for plantinga considering how he sliced and diced Judge Jone's ruling on Dover vs Kitzmiller.
ie Plantinga weighed in to the debate big time to defend the intelligent design position....
is he a fundamentalist or a respected philsopher Will....?
give us a clue??
OT
Complain about this comment
Helio
Could you please hurry up and answer the blonde's question, my heels are killing me and my mascara's beginning to run.
Although to be honest, with all this moderation, I've nearly forgotten what the question was myself.
Complain about this comment
Parrhisos
#41
There are indeed times when one must step beyond one's own knowledge and there is, I think, a way to understand that step as rational.
Obviously this is only an illustration, but, suppose a friend and I become lost one evening out a sea in a small boat. Suppose the weather conditions deteriorate, fog suddenly envelops us, the temperature drops and we are unable to find our way to shore. Very soon we have no idea where we are and we are in danger.
What are we to do?
We might, for example, discuss our circumstances, shout to one another to keep our spirits up, and then, for no reason other than whim and without any knowledge, decide to set off in a particular direction, supposing that to do something is better than nothing; it's worth taking the risk, nothing ventured, nothing gained, we might say to ourselves, and so, we might set out into the mist and darkness. This would be one kind of step beyond knowledge, belief, or a kind of faith.
However, should it happen, that after some time deliberating, and drifting, we heard a voice which said, "Hello, you cannot see me, but I know exactly where you are from your voices. I live in this area I have done so all my life. I sail these waters everyday, and know them intimately. I can assure you, you are no more than one mile from shore, and safety. Set the course I give you, we shall keep speaking with one another, and I shall lead you home."
In these circumstances we might ask some questions to confirm his identity, the veracity of his claims, a family name perhaps, or something of his navigational skills, and then, in this desperate situation, we might move beyond our own knowledge and act on his.
This too is belief, or faith, but faith of a different kind.
As Francis Schaeffer, whose example I have modified, said, of the Christian God, He is there and He is not silent.
Complain about this comment
Have the natives revolted, or are they voting with their feet?
Complain about this comment
Right - I have totally lost the thread here with this premod thing. Little brain can't cope. Thanks to OT for reminding us about Plantinga's hilarious facepalm over the Kitzmiller ruling. I think the term "epic fail" comes to mind - as it did with his review of "The God Delusion". This is part of the reason why I disagree with Will that we need to "do business" with Plantinga. He's a twit. So we're just left with Swinburne (and he's a twit too!).
Anyway, Graham, the key point is this (and again, Mr Plantinga doesn't seem to get this) - you can't add up the conclusions of a lot of duff arguments and suggest that the overall weight of these duff arguments supports their general conclusion. Yeah, we can play with the logic all we like, but at the end of the day, I want to know whether the conclusion is reliable or not - regardless of the supposed tightness of the logic. Essentially, you still need to fire up your proton accelerator and bounce a few hadrons off your hypothetical deity if you really want to say it exists.
Flick the switch!
-H
Complain about this comment
"Essentially, you still need to fire up your proton accelerator and bounce a few hadrons off your hypothetical deity if you really want to say it exists."
The Blonde wishes to know if she should understand this to be her answer.
And she's wondering if your proton accelerator is reliable or if, perhaps, you're using a nut to crack a hammer.
Anyway I'm off to touch up my roots, "Watson! The peroxide!"
Flick the hair!
Complain about this comment
Peter, wee pet, I prefer brunettes, but I can't remember what the blonde's question was...
Graham, we're not lost in the fog. We can see for miles around. We're quite happy, and entirely at ease with where we are. Your funny voices are all in your head :-)
Complain about this comment
H, my man!
The blonde is bleach, outta a tin, peroxide, remember? Nothing natural about it! But at least I got my roots sorted. (think about it!)
As for the question, it was one of those you make a habit of forgetting :-) but here we go again anyway, "what would establish God's existence for you? Ball park ideas will do." ref. post #16 and a couple of yours before it.
And, it was me who told the fog story, not Graham... now what was that about not being lost? But yes, funny voices are all in the head, I've said that before, and dealt with it on the 'Darwin on Newsnight' thread.
I'm thinking of auburn for the weekend, whatta ya say?
Complain about this comment
I thought "The Fog" was a reference to the John Carpenter Film. And I so wanted to talk about horror films and the media...
Okay, let's try this approach. Different eras have different nightmares. So giants ants and radioactive dinosaurs could sacre audiences in the 1950s, but not the 1980s. Serial killers take over in the 1980s, but have to be played for ironic effect in the 1990s. And so forth.
Now "Paranormal Activity" is being aimed at exactly the same target audience that PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris aim at. They're in their 20s and 30s, educated and internet savvy.
Furthermore, "Activity" plays on an interesting set of fears. The hero/victim is cynical. He acts as if there is no mystery that cannot be "googled", and no threat that cannot be captured by streaming media. It's this set of attitudes that puts him in danger, and creates the tension.
To create suspense, the audience must know better than the protangonists. We have to sense the threat that the characters cannot. Now there's an interesting premise for Paramount (not Dreamworks)to sell a movie on. The audience will believe in the supernatural. They will believe enough to be terrified.(Unlike "Blair Witch" this film momentarily reveals the demonic threat onscreen - there is no "out" for the audience.)
So why is it that fear of the supernatural is resurfacing in the cinema, exactly when there is significant pressure to abandon belief in the supernatural?
It's interesting that there is no Priest to confront the demonic - apparently just a comically ineffective psychic. Is this what audiences fear - that they'll discover the reality of the supernatural just when they've banished every means of dealing with it? If comparisons to "The Exorcist" are deserved - and there's every indication that they are - then this film will be discussed by the religious media for quite some time. It might be nice for W&T to get ahead of the curve.
GV
Complain about this comment
OT -- planting is a serious philosopher, who carries enormous respect professionally. He is widely recognised as one of contemporary philosophy's leading philosophical logicians. Some of his colleagues in logic simply bracket off hid contributions on the Intelligent design question as quirky. He has also made major contributions to epistemology. People can disagree with him, but it would be a mistake to dismiss him. His work on the ontological argument has a limited apologetic effect, which I know Plantinga accepts; instead of a sound, valid and persuasive argument (the three elements necessary for a 'proof'), he has prsented a version of the ontological argument that appears formally valid to some, but which lacks either or both of the other elements. The key thing here is that Plantinga was attempting to point out that versions of this classic argument exist which are not flawed *in the same way* as the most widely recognised form of the argument.
His comments on ID are part of a separate challenge he has mounted against the presumption of metaphysical naturalism in science.
Plantinga is an unusually wide-ranging philosopher, given the specialisation that's common today -- from logic and metaphysics to epistemology, and philosophy of religion. Nicholas Wolterstorff is smilarly wide-ranging. Whole books, monographs and major essays still explore plantinga's work on the rationality of religious brlief, and he has much to teach us, even if we resist his final conclusions. I'd caution against hubristic dismissals of major philosophical figures, such as Al Plantinga. I realise that blogging encourages offhandedness, but there's room for complexity in our conversation too.
Complain about this comment
On the substantial points -
(i) You're just begging the question when you mention particle accelerators. God can't be physical by definition. If you insist he must be directly confirmable by scientific experiment, then *no* amount of evidence will convince you he exists.
(ii) "you can't add up the conclusions of a lot of duff arguments and suggest that the overall weight of these duff arguments supports their general conclusion."
That misses my point. The premises of an argument might be controversial, yet there might be very good reason for believing in them. So - "there are no non-physical realities" or "there are moral truths". Both controversial, but a lot of argument to back up both. Here's another - "Freedom is more important than duty" / "Duty is more important than freedom". You can have a justifed belief in either, but that belief is going to be controversial.
All I'm saying here is that two rational individuals can disagree about the truth of a premise, and both remain rational. We all bring background assumptions and different sets of beliefs to an argument. So we evaluate different premises differently.
(iii) Plantinga's main contribution to Philosophy of Religion has not been the Ontological Argument, or even his critique of Naturalism. Plantinga was one of the first philosophers to point out the consequences of the death of "Classical Foundationalism"(CF) for Philosophy of Religion.
CF holds that you don't know something until you have deduced it from premises that are absolutely certain. Plantinga critique is mainstream - CF is incoherent. (a) You can't deduce CF from premises that are absolutely certain. (b) It's too stringent - surely I know that the external world is real before I've proof? So many beliefs are excluded that knowledge can't get of the ground. Plantinga didn't kill CF (but he did shoot it's deputy in self defence).
So it goes beliefs like "only believe on the basis of the evidence"(on what evidence did you base that belief?) & "only believe what Science confirms" (how could science test that?). The typical PZ Myers response is "Science works". Well, whoop ti doo. That's exactly what the anti-realist is basing his argument on too. Science is pragmatically useful, but you've no *evidence* to move beyond that conclusion. You've just leapt from "useful" to "true" without any premises. They're aren't any premises available that don't beg a parcel full of questions.
Now I tend to think that I'm justified to believe things like "the external world exists", "my senses are reliable", "my concepts are adequate to examine the external world". If those beliefs are true, I have knowledge. If they're not true they're **still justified beliefs**. The lack of conclusive evidence, or substantial argument for their truth doesn't bother me.
Now apply this to Theistic arguments - to expect every rational person to be convinced of an argument's merit is too stringent. At the end of the day you can't refute a Cartesian Skeptic or a solipsist. You can give reasons and arguments, but you're not going to prove them wrong. But so long as I've reasons and arguments, I'm content.
(iv) And this is Plantinga's biggie. You don't even need reasons to reject skepticism. The reality of the external world, and the prima facie reliablity of our faculties are "Properly Basic" beliefs. You can hold them without argument, until someone supplies a good reason to reject them. *Then* you need to have an answer.
(V) He then went on to argue that belief in God is Properly Basic. (I think he made Properly Basic belief in God too easy, but he moved on to examine epistemology before he tidied up). I think you need to draw parallels with other beliefs that we can accept on face value.
Moral beliefs are a good parallel: I'm going to retain a belief that "it is objectively true that it is evil to torture the innocent for fun" until someone gives me a very good defeater. It'll have to be better tham "moral truths aren't verifiable by the scientifc method". I already believed that.
I may not be able to argue down the moral skeptic - but so what? People disagree all the time. Why should I have to persuade you before I've permission to believe something?
GV
Complain about this comment
But I'd much rather talk about societies fears. And the media. Where's John Wright? He should have something to say about the internet marketing for this movie.
I mean, here I am advertising it, and I probably won't watch it!
GV
Complain about this comment
Oh, on ID
P's article on Stanford Encylcopedia of Philosophy, and his recent lectures on Science and Religion, don't claim that evolution and theism are opposed, and seem much more conciliatory than his earlier articles in Christian Scholars Review.
He does have a Rawlsian Argument for not teaching evolution in schools - but I genuinely get the impression that this is mischievous. Some of Pennocks work on education and ID is just lazy. Plantinga seems to be having some fun with another philosopher's premises.
GV
Complain about this comment
Hi Will
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on Plantinga and Dover.
However your response does strike me as rather compartmentalised, uncessarily verbose and (consciously?) blinkered.
As you said on the some creationists have been doctroered thread... ultimately an argument does not stand or fall on its popularity but on its quality as an argument.
Likewise, surely Plantinga's views on anything stand on the quality of the argument - not on how "respected" he is nor how "quirky" he is in some areas. Well thats the theory anyway, isnt it?
In other words, it looks like we are having a bit of a plantinga personality cult here, but not really taking him seriously in all he has to say.
I had come to virtually the same conclusions as Plantinga about Dover before I read his views and at bottom there is not a single person on this blog who has ever stood longer than 3 seconds against them.
Only one person has seriously tried, and failed very quickly. no names.
Nobody else has the guts to even acknwledge that Plantinga's gauntlet still lies at our feet.
In large part it is this. How can a scientist - or judge - determine that "supernatural" causes can be excluded from science when science cannot even define the term without putting shutters down on many potential discoveries of the future?
That is NOT to suggest tha astrology and tarot come into the physics lab on Monday. It IS to suggest we need to have a serious conversation about this though. After all the giants of the scientific revolution built modern science on foundations and assumptions diametrically opposed to those held by most today. CS Lewis concurs.
Super-natural is anything beyond the current understanding of the natural world. That could rule out Hawkings next big discovery about the cosmos (before he hastily retracts it and offers us something else without apology or explanation. again).
You would caution against hubrisitc dismissals of majory philsophical figures Will?
You have totally missed my irony.
It is W&T and SS that likes to discredit people with the "fundamentalist" label. (What does it mean anyway? Anyone who disagrees with the BBC?)
I like and respect Plantinga.
My point in labelling him as a "fundamentalist" was to emphasise that essentially with regards to intelligent design as far as most people reading this blog are concerned, and as did Judge Jones concluded, ID is just creationism dressed up for a (scientific) dinner party. Both have special creation without darwinism.
That means that as far as human origins and the existence of God are concerned, there is less difference between Ken Ham and Plantinga that between Helio's chimps and us "typing chimps" as Helio would put it.... at the DNA level anyway.
In other words W&T and SS, please dont label everyone who disagrees with you on sexuality and evolution as a fundamentalist and still propose to worship at the throne of Plantinga.
Otherwise we may have to conclude the disparity is just a subtle ad hominem argument to uphold the personality cult and discredit those who hold different views on other matters by closing down the debate using covert tactics.
Complexity is a challenge to everyone's worldview when we are faced with contradictions that dont easily compute Will, mine included.
Thanks again for your thoughts and time....
sincerely
OT
PS I have found your blog an enjoyable mind-gym in stretching me to deal with such issues Will. many thanks.
Complain about this comment
Cripes - it seems OT and I have both managed to cause a kerfuffle by planting a plant in plantinga. How to repair the damage? Well, one idea might be for us just to accept that he's a clever chappie; he made an idiot out of himself with his NYT book review of TGD; he made an idiot out of himself with his point-missing critique of the Kitzmiller judgement; he believes some *really* weird things, but maybe he's not all bad, and occasionally comes out with important things, like showing that a duff argument can be formally valid and still duff, if based on duff premises. That's fine. Meanwhile, let's get on with sorting out the important stuff. ;-)
Now, Graham, you need to do some work here:
Science is pragmatically useful, but you've no *evidence* to move beyond that conclusion. You've just leapt from "useful" to "true" without any premises.
Er, hang on a moment - who says we need to move beyond that conclusion? Why is that not good enough? Indeed, that is the whole point - we find out what works; we test it until it breaks, and find out what works better. This causes me no sweat whatsoever. When something (e.g. evolution) works very very VERY well, we call it a "fact"; we accept that it is probably "true", where "probably" refers to a very very VERY high degree of confidence. But there is ALWAYS the possibility that some new finding could overturn things, in principle. That's the way science works. However, that possibility is, in many cases, so small that it is not worth bothering about. We CAN very frequently say that some things are FALSE, because they *don't* work. Surely you should be getting this now? Having said that, Plantinga never did, and he's now an officially accredited Clever Chappie, so our hopes might be forlorn.
They're aren't any premises available that don't beg a parcel full of questions.
Which is why scientists don't worry too much about these things. Perhaps that's the reason why we have actually made progress...
Now I tend to think that I'm justified to believe things like "the external world exists"
Well, it depends what "existence" means. Hence my reference to Tegmark.
"my senses are reliable"
And it depends what is sensation and what is interpretation. How reliable your senses are wrt what they report. I think we've moved beyond that.
"my concepts are adequate to examine the external world"
Not if they are internalised. You need to build better models.
If those beliefs are true, I have knowledge. If they're not true they're **still justified beliefs**. The lack of conclusive evidence, or substantial argument for their truth doesn't bother me.
It doesn't really matter - they are *unnecessary* for the task at hand. They work very nicely day-to-day, but fail miserably at the quantum level, for instance. You need another paradigm!
The reality of the external world, and the prima facie reliablity of our faculties are "Properly Basic" beliefs. You can hold them without argument, until someone supplies a good reason to reject them. *Then* you need to have an answer.
Who says it is about rejecting? It is about determining their limits; what situations render them unfit for purpose. If we are trying to figure out what existence IS, then they cease working; we need to adopt another approach. You can't just default to what feels right.
(V) [Plantinga] then went on to argue that belief in God is Properly Basic.
Which is simply stupid. Can you briefly summarise why on earth he should think this?
I'm going to retain a belief that "it is objectively true that it is evil to torture the innocent for fun" until someone gives me a very good defeater.
That's fine. No-one is going to make the counter-argument. However, it is worth pointing out that you BELIEVE that it is the Wrong Thing To Do for other reasons than it having an attribute of "evil" - we're back to what I think I might call the Attributionalist Fallacy now. It is Wrong, not because it is Evil; we call it Evil, because it violates certain principles that we hold for several reasons. The "Evil" is not an *inherent* attribute.
Anyway, that's enough for now - I think Will is cross with me for dissing The Plant - I could get barred :-)
Complain about this comment
You see Helio, it's all very well things being useful and perhaps not worrying if they are true if we're talking about a bridge or something, basically I just want to get across in one piece, I have no particular gripe with that (although I would want to say that God sustains the bridge as much as anything else, but that's me, so ho hum!) but, you see, you finished with some thought's about Graham's comment about torturing the innocent, and really, that's where you are in a tangle, cause you're labeling because of your principles, don't you just mean more labels? The point is simple, on these terms you have no basis for telling me or anyone else what labels to write or how to define them, and if I'm stronger than you, there is no restraint. Brutal, but true.
And BTW, how to repair the damage? Yes, call him an idiot, that should do the job!
Complain about this comment
Helio, don't worry, I'm not at all cross with you. I just don't think Plantinga merits the kind of verbal abuse you are hurling in his direction. This is no doubt coloured by the fact that I once wrote a PhD dissertation on Plantinga's epistemology, but that should not be taken to mean -- as OT seems to think -- that I am part of some kind of Plantingian cult. In fact, my work on Plantinga's philosophy challenges his account of properly basic beliefs, and his understanding of rationality. I hardly think that producing an attempted refutation of some of his central ideas establishes me as a Plantingian ditto-head.
I am simply making an appeal for both seriousness and civility in this discussion, and both are sorely lacking. Some of today's new atheists are fond of the verbal sledgehammer, but not all of us are impressed by that approach to rhetoric.
The issues of basicality, rationality, and natural theology are live debates within contemporary philosophy. Throwing around words like "twit" and "stupid" in response to Plantinga's contributions does a deservice to his very significant contributions. Disagree with him by all means -- I have done so myself -- but do so after reading his substantial work. The same holds for evidentialists like Swinburne.
I don't even know where to start in responding to OT, who begins by thanking me for taking the time to respond to him, then insults my 200-word contribution as 'verbose'. He criticises me for using the term 'fundamentalist', even though I did not use that term of Plantinga -- nor would I. In fact, it's a term I try to use very sparingly as a matter of general policy.
He also thinks I judge Plantinga's ideas by assessing his reputation amongst contemporary philosophers. I've never said such a thing, and if I did I would be rightly criticised. I merely tried to persuade others on the blog that Plantinga is a serious thinker whose ideas are worth considering, and that he is regarded very highly by the philosophical community. As with all thinkers, Plantinga can be right on some matters and dead wrong on others. He has written a great deal; I would advise those who are serious about assessing his contribution to turn to the primary sources rather than rely on second-hand reports.
Helio, you refer to Plantinga's NYT review of TGD. Perhaps you mean the Christianity Today review (or the NYT review of Dennett's big book). In any case, I don't think Plantinga 'made an idiot out of himself' by writing an extended review of Dawkins's book which also sought to challenged the logical coherence of naturalism. It's one thing to be wrong; it's quite another thing to be idiotic. Some of the world's leading philosophers write papers that fail to persuade, but they fail for sophisticated reasons. Plantinga's work on the incoherence of naturalism may fall within that category. I don't see how insulted him adds anything to a critique of his project.
Complain about this comment
To attribute stupidity to able an man such as Plantinga is just a simple ad hominem argument - why do this?
I think the perversity of the *unbeliever* who struggle furiously - are unable to extricate themselves from the fear of God no matter what philosophy they invent.
This truth touches the very marrow of the conscience in all men.
Obviously enough, the dispute here is ultimately ontological, or theological, or metaphysical; here we see the ontological and ultimately religious roots of epistemological discussions of rationality. What you take to be rational, at least in the sense in question, depends upon your metaphysical and religious stance. It depends upon your philosophical anthropology. Your view as to what sort of creature a human being is will determine, in whole or in part, your views as to what is rational or irrational for human beings to believe; this view will determine what you take to be natural, or normal, or healthy, with respect to belief. So the dispute as to who is rational and who is irrational here can't be settled just by attending to epistemological considerations; it is fundamentally not an epistemological dispute, but an ontological or theological dispute. How can we tell what it is healthy for human beings to believe unless we know or have some idea about what sort of creature a human being is?
Jas -
Complain about this comment
Helio - I've always been one for the ol' reciprocal thing so it behoves me to acknowledge that I am in substantial agreement with much of your post # 76. It must be because I now know so much more about you and about science. ;-)
Peter - I liked your analogy with the boat. You might not be surprised that I would modify it slightly: had someone heard my cries and launched their own boat in the storm to come out and find me, then I would suggest we both stand a chance of encountering God.
Graham - post # 70. You suggest an interesting topic, one worth its own thread. Our fears are intimately bound up with our desires: we fear what we truly want. A repressed age simultaneously feared and craved the amorality of the vampire. Our materialist culture fears and yet desires the existence of the other. It is notable that that other need no longer be clearly defined it merely has to exist.
I would suggest that to understand the needs of a society a good place to start is with an exploration of its primal fears, to understand the aspirations of an individual discover his deepest dreads.
Complain about this comment
OK OK OK folks, I will be nice about Alvin, as long as people are nice about Dawkins, and cease their own ad hominem attacks. Dawkins may be passionate about his topics, but he is very rarely *wrong*, and rubbing people up the wrong way is a very well tried and tested method in getting them to pull the fluff out from between their ears.
Will, you are quite correct - Plantinga's wrong-headed (is that any better) review of TGD was in "Christianity Today", not the NYTRoB - wherever the heck I got that idea! However, I think I am going to stand by my position that Plantinga has missed the point and disappeared up some murky orifice; perhaps my terminology was a little harsh for the pet, but there is really only so much slack you can cut someone who continually misses the basics.
As I mentioned somewhere before, the thing about science and a rational approach to knowledge is NOT a reliance on our cognitive faculties; we can lift it out of our brains and treat it as a model that either works or doesn't work. One very important thing that natural selection CAN plausibly endow us, its creations, with is the ability to distinguish when something works vs the converse. In the final analysis, that's what science is all about. We don't have to hold the whole corpus in our heads at once (who can?), but we can treat it as a series of describable black boxes for further analysis (as I've gone over before).
So Plantinga, in his attempts to undermine a rational approach (or crazily interpose a theistic sine qua non as the basis for rationality) is clearly *wrong* (or at least has not made anything approaching a cogent case); whether he is wrong because natural selection has not shaped his cognitive capacities appropriately, or because he has led himself up fallacy creek, is not really the concern. An intelligent person can make a stupid argument. I'm a behaviourist, remember, not an attributionalist ;-)
Graham, maybe you can point us to some references where Plantinga says something sensible??
-H
Complain about this comment
Just an aside, before we get *too* cosy... lest anyone think that Al is the simpering widdle victim of unwarranted insults, let's remember this:
Now despite the fact that this book [The God Delusion] is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.
Coupled with the remainder of his article (this is from the rv of TGD), describing Plantinga as an idiot is perhaps going too kindly on him. We should probably add "pompous" and "arrogant".
But like I said, we're going to be nice to little Alvin now, and allow him to play in the sandpit. It *is* a blog, and part of the duty of a blog commenter (such as me, Graham, The Peters, etc) is to inject a bit of frisson, non? We'll not *hurt* him, though.
Complain about this comment
BTW, Penelope, what would convince me there was a "god" (or at least some cosmic power to be reckoned with) would be some evidence of an arrangement of, say, nearby stars that was only explicable by them having been specifically placed in that position. For example, if it were to turn out that the stars in Orion were all of exactly the same type and the same distance from Earth, in a plane (or on a projected spherical surface, centred on Earth), I would have serious problems figuring out how that could be the result of anything other than intelligence. Or a pattern on the cosmic microwave background saying, in English: "Hi Guys!! - G-D". That would help.
Let me turn it around. What would convince YOU that the gods *didn't* exist?
Complain about this comment
Helenopolitan
So you're saying a dot to dot Jesus would do the trick, is that it?
And what would convince me there was no God, well I suppose the bones of Jesus would be a start. You don't know of any lying round Dungannon, do you?
And here, you want the message in English... but what about the Italians?
And would it have to be G-D, or would God do, I mean what are we playing at here, hangman?
But maybe you're not being serious.
:-)
Complain about this comment
Helio
It occurs to me that there was, perhaps, a bit too much frisson in my post 84, apologies. I'm not sure I follow why, for example, a particular arrangement of stars would be convincing.
Complain about this comment
Hi Petra,
Nah - I take it in the spirit it's intended; we're having fun here - I don't think blogs should be taken too seriously. The reason I'd be impressed by the stars is that there is no reason for the stars to adopt such a pattern; everything else in the universe would be perfectly OK and normal; this would stand out as a stunning anomaly, and one that would require a pretty powerful being to carry it out; whether or not it actually WAS a "god" is irrelevant - it would be as good as, from our point of view.
But we don't see that. Anywhere. Instead, we see a natural, evolving universe. We also see ourselves as complex neurobiological critters, eminently capable of making up gods at the drop of a hat. We have thousands of them. If there are n gods, and there can be at best only One True God, then the number of false gods is either n or n-1. Which means that for any arbitrary god, its probability of being a duff one is either 1 or 1-1/n. So if a god wants me to believe in it, it has some work to do to. YHWH fails.
Complain about this comment
Heloise, hi.
I have to say, you do have me intrigued on this one, and to be honest there's a few cynical comments I feel I could throw your way, not that cynicism's like me, no, not at all, and I suppose I could throw some theology at you too, but I'm happy to stick with interested in this case.
Before I ask you a question tho' your, 'YHWH fails', comment interests me too. Contrary to what some might think I've never been particularly interested trying to 'convert' anyone on this blog, I don't take the view that I can, actually; alot of my interest in being here relates to me testing my own thinking and faith, but I do get the impression at times that you keep going out of you way to insist that you're not a Christian, it's a bit like anti-evangelism. "Tonight friends, I urge you not to put your trust in Jesus! And if these are the thoughts on your heart, then maybe during the singing of our last hymn, you would just, quietly, right where you are... open your eyes.... and put your hand down." :-)
Maybe I'm wrong.
And so to my first question.
If you were to discover such a configuration of stars, or whatever, how would you respond?
Complain about this comment
By looking at other stars, and trying to figure out how it happened, of course. And seeing if there was any evidence for a civilisation that could have manufactured it, or whether it is simply due to a chance configuration.
So, suppose I come up with an ossuary from Capernaum, containing the bones of a crucified man, with "Jesus the Nazarene, son of Joseph" inscribed on it - what would YOUR approach be?
In fact, the gospels effectively give us such a picture, but I'll leave you to figure it out.
Complain about this comment
Helio
"By looking at other stars, and trying to figure out how it happened, of course."
Well I have to say I'm glad to hear that! I rather thought for a moment you were going to argue that the natural world might point beyond itself (blimey!), or worse still, for a god of the spherical gap approach.
It is odd though that on the one hand you are saying, "this would stand out as a stunning anomaly, and one that would require a pretty powerful being to carry it out" and on the other, that maybe "it is simply due to a chance configuration." It's as if you are saying that something spectacularly supernatural, something beyond your ability to comprehend or explain is what is required of 'god'. That's how it sounds anyway.
Personally I find the idea that you and I can communicate, or describe, or label such occurrences to be even more stunning. You and I, little Heliopolitan and little Peter, capable of language; that mesmerizes me. Indeed what often staggers me about the Christian story is the utter ordinariness of it all. God and nappies, and we couldn't have that, could we? God telling human beings that they were so staggeringly valuable, so breathtaking, so jaw-droppingly impressive that he would identify with them, call them to explore and investigate and celebrate the world in which they live. Of course none of this is proof of anything. (and apologies for the theology!)
As for the ossuary.... they've found that already, haven't they ;-)
Complain about this comment
OK Peter - God and nappies; that's great. God is in my keyboard! Hallelujah - how ordinary. Here I am, tapping away on a keyboard, and inside it is the creator of the universe! Glory! I know the Muslims think he's under the Return key, but actually I know he's under the space bar, because after all, he is a space pixie. That is the miraculous thing about my faith - my god is such a... er... pointless brainwarp. How can you atheists criticise such a god who deigns to come down and sit in my keyboard? Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!
Can you at least see why your "answer" is a non-answer? Yes, I KNOW you have loads of excuses for why your supposedly omnipotent god leaves absolutely no traces in the physical universe. Yes, I KNOW that the themes of dozens of the world's previous religions have had to do with gods coming down to the level of the common punter, instead of reigning on high, and I KNOW you guys all think that that demonstrates how marvellous it all is, but *please* try to think like an atheist - at least for a couple of minutes - and you might catch a chink of why that response induces a facepalm. Or even try it for a week - become an atheist for just a few days. Suspend your belief. Look at things from our viewpoint.
-H
Complain about this comment
Helio
"Suspend your belief. Look at things from our viewpoint."
Oh I did that already, but 'just is' sounds too much like the mirror image of 'I Am'.
Complain about this comment
And I'm sorry you find common punters so vacuous.
Complain about this comment
Peter, I am simply pointing out that the theme of the god who is so mighty yet comes down to the level of the "common punter" is so common as to virtually be a universal in world religion. The vulnerable saviour. He who dies that we might live - it's ubiquitous, and pre-dates Christianity by millennia.
Don't you feel even a *teensy* bit embarrassed by trying to defend such a derivative and absurd theology? Don't you at least understand why anyone looking in on Christianity can see that your explanations are merely ad hoc excuses to justify what you want to believe, rather than an honest attempt to find out what is actually going on?
Complain about this comment
H
"I'm a behaviourist, remember, not an attributionalist"
You really need to clarify this statement - I think you mean something like extreme nominalism.
GV
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham, I mean we give names to things. Call it nominalism if you wish, but it's not that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck etc that it IS a duck, it is that we CALL it a duck. Like the Spanish estar vs ser. Everything's really estar - there's no ser (not even a SuperSer heating up your draughty church hall).
Complain about this comment
Ref post 91 and post 95
I have to say, if there was any doubt before it before, I definitely find 'I Am' more appealing to 'just isn't'.
So there you aren't now.
Complain about this comment
And just for the record, the confusion of words in post 96, isn't a mistake, it just looks like one.
Complain about this comment
It *behaves* as a mistake! :-)
Peter, as we seem to have agreed, you can't derive your "I Am" from anything that we can genuinely say "is". All you seem to be left with is your position, which you support by rationalisations and hand-waving. There is no connection between the "I Am" thingy and where "We Are".
In many ways this is why I describe myself as an atheist rather than an agnostic. It is not that I KNOW there is no god; all that I *do* know is that the arguments in favour of that god are duff (vide supra), and asserting the existence of such a pixie really doesn't answer any interesting questions. In many ways, god is just *boring*.
Now I know OT will immediately start hopping up & down and ask why I come on this blog to discuss this issue with you, my good pals. The reason is simple. God doesn't exist, but you and I exist, and it intrigues me how an intelligent person like Peter Morrow (or me, prior to 1993) can a/ accept the nonsense of the apologists, and b/ accept that "belief" is an appropriate response to the unknown.
*You* are worth it :-) Not to say that OT isn't, but there's nowhere to go there. You at least have a mind that is open to the possibility (which I attach a very high probability to) that the object of your veneration isn't real. And once you realise that, it's like a Necker cube - everything starts popping into place.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
I think evidence based apologetics is impossible with Helio -presuppostional apologetics is a more biblical based system.
Although you do put forth some strong philosophical arguments it will never satisfy the skeptic - this is exactly what the word of God says and how true it is.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the *wise* and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.
He catches the wise in their own craftiness,
and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end
For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,”
knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires
Jas
Complain about this comment
"as we seem to have agreed"
Helio, I know you think it looks like agreement and sounds like agreement but it isn't; one might even call it disagreement, but don't worry that's only a different label and doesn't have any substance, so we can still be friends and continue calling a duck by it's alternative name, Mr. Wiggly Worm.
But let me ignore some of your other comments and cut to the chase.
Post 98, "but you and I exist"... and you're intrigued. I'm not that intriguing, believe me. (on second thoughts, no, don't believe me... you should believe in...!)
Anyway...
Here is your dilemma, you look like you exist, I look like I exist, and sometimes we even cycle or swim like we exist but I want you to tell me how you know this.
And one more thing, you said, "you can't derive your 'I Am' from anything that we can genuinely say 'is' ”. Yes, that's right, for all the 'is' is derived from the "I Am".
Now what was that about agreement?
:-)
Complain about this comment
Pete, you've now Officially Lost Me. Actually, AuntieJason pretty much has it summed up. In order to accept religion, you need to suspend critical thinking, and just believe a load of old gloop For The Bible Tells Me So. Or the Koran. Or the Lord of the Rings (or is that flies, Polly? ;-). Call me a hard-hearted old Pharaoh, but that is one lobotomy too far for me.
As for existence, I know you exist because I can (at least in principle) fire protons at you. If I can't fire protons at the Amazing Inflatable Space Pixie, what does it *mean* to say that it "exists"?
Complain about this comment
And how exactly do you know that those protons exist, or that it's really Peter that you're firing them at.
This pre-mod lark is really putting me off replying here, but, Helio, you really have offered no explanation of why you think that anything exists.
Talking about firing protons merely begs the question.
Anyway, I'll probably not bother with any more replying, because there's not much point.
Complain about this comment
Which bit lost you? (genuine question)
And I know you are just going to hate this, but how do you know protons exist?
Do the 4 ikkle words "at least in principle" not bother you?
H, you don't know I exist. You haven't fired protons at me and you only 'know' me because of my communication with you, and you accept that in good faith. Oh, and you forgot about knowing about your own existence.
Yes I know what Aunt Jason is getting at, but I'm not convinced that quoting the bible at people who think it is a fake is all that helpful either, which is why I try (perhaps unsuccessfully) to explain my thinking. As you said once Helio, there's others who read this blog too, and they deserve better than 'gloop' or 'lobotomy' or 'brainwarp' or 'twit' or 'Space Pixie', because there is better.
That's another reason I'm here. I wouldn't dream of trying to convert you! :-)
Complain about this comment
i suspect you know about the existence of protons because of observation...not observation of protons, though, obviously. I don't think you can see those with your eyes.
Complain about this comment
Helio
"AuntieJason pretty much has it summed up. In order to accept religion, you need to suspend critical thinking, and just believe a load of old gloop For The Bible Tells Me So. Or the Koran. Or the Lord of the Rings"
Helio I am not against reason - I think it is reasonalble to believe there is a God - just like you believe it's reasonable to believe I am typing these words.
Peter is doing a good service here and I commend him for it.
God certainly draws people to himself by different methods and some have used evidence based apologetics to do it.
For me though I would rather quote what I *believe* to be God's words rather than my own words - although I do believe we should use reason to a point.
Critical thinking is a good servant but a harsh master - it's good to a point, but at some stage it must give way to belief and trust in God.
If Helio rejects God's words he will not listen to or accept any other argument - It boils to belief - Helio refuses to do so becasue he demands that God meet him on his own terms.
Although I would like to offer you the Gospel Helio - I,m sure you will admit you sin - telling lies cursing stealing ect - at least once in your life - and i,m sure you know the Bible teaches that Christ died for sinners - and I,m also sure you know you must believe Jesus Christ in order to have your sins forgiven and avoid eternal damnation.
So my question is do you reject the Gospel and Jesus Christ and his offer on his terms not yours?
Jas
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Add slow page processing scripts and general bloat to the pre-mod woes - accidentally hit "post" before getting a chance to type anything in the box!
i suspect you know about the existence of protons because of observation...not observation of protons, though, obviously. I don't think you can see those with your eyes.
Sigh - haven't you chaps ever done *any* science? We operate on models. We make a hypothesis; we test the hypothesis against the data; we reject rubbish hypotheses. And, as it happpens, our hypotheses about the nature of matter are very very very well supported (although of course incomplete) to the exent where we CAN say, YES, protons "exist" with a reasonable definition of the word exist. And I have multiple consilient lines of evidence that lead me to regard the hypothesis that Peter exists (in the sense that I can fire protons at him) as a pretty good one. We have a massive interlocking structure of "knowledge" (i.e. science) that has been fashioned by human brains and human hands, but "exists" (not in the proton sense ;-) outside those brains.
We've been over this before. "I know I exist" is a reasonable starting point. I can then look further up and further down in the organisational hierarchy, and see where we get. To suggest (!!) that you escape the need for rigour by postulating a "necessary being", whom you call "god", and whom you identify with YHWH, is ludicrous. Yes, properly ludicrous.
Jason, Critical Thinking is a redeemer. That is one reason why I do indeed reject YHWH and Yeshua in this role. They are historical oddities.
Jesus did not die for my sins; I don't need anyone to do that for me. I am quite prepared as an adult to take responsibility for my own actions, thank you, and to make recompense to the *people* I may have wronged. What your space pixie thinks of me is neither here nor there; it is not in a position to make any judgement - even if it did "exist".
Complain about this comment
"We operate on models. We make a hypothesis;[/quote]
Indeed. that's a good start
"we test the hypothesis against the data;"
What data? How do you know that the data of the senses correlates to anything external? How do you test that hypothesis?
"And, as it happpens, our hypotheses about the nature of matter are very very very well supported (although of course incomplete) to the exent where we CAN say, YES, protons "exist""
I agree with this
"with a reasonable definition of the word exist"
I don't agree with this. All you have is a circular definition of the word "exists" - our hypotheses about protons are very well supported by rational inference, so therefore protons exist. Therefore to exist is to be well supported by rational inference. But on what basis is the rational inference made? Surely on an already implict definition of "exists".
In other words, what makes you think that "to be a hypothesis well supported by the interpretation of sense data" is anything like "existing"? I can only suggest that you already have an inbuilt orientation to treat such as existing.
"And I have multiple consilient lines of evidence that lead me to regard the hypothesis that Peter exists (in the sense that I can fire protons at him) as a pretty good one."
But you haven't got a clear definition of "exists". What you have is a hypothesis based on the firing of protons, which already presupposes the conceptual interpration of protons, and which is then itself somehow verified by those very conceptual interpretations.
All you have are models based on models. Now, I actually think there's merit in hypothesisng that reality itself is constitued entirely of such models. but if that's the case you have to argue for some internal drive to build models - some creative spark resulting in reality - otherwise what you're suggesting is that models are built on models are built on models are built on models for no apparent reason other than that that's what we do.
But to posit a nothing constructing models from nothing and constructing more models on top of those models until somehow we arrive at something seems to me analogous to the faith that everything just came for nothing, or to the principle that everything STILL is NOTHING.
Funny how everything can be reduced to the same issue really, isn't it.
We have a massive interlocking structure of "knowledge" (i.e. science) that has been fashioned by human brains and human hands, but "exists" (not in the proton sense ;-) outside those brains.
We've been over this before. "I know I exist" is a reasonable starting point. I can then look further up and further down in the organisational hierarchy, and see where we get. To suggest (!!) that you escape the need for rigour by postulating a "necessary being", whom you call "god", and whom you identify with YHWH, is ludicrous. Yes, properly ludicrous.
Jason, Critical Thinking is a redeemer. That is one reason why I do indeed reject YHWH and Yeshua in this role. They are historical oddities.
Jesus did not die for my sins; I don't need anyone to do that for me. I am quite prepared as an adult to take responsibility for my own actions, thank you, and to make recompense to the *people* I may have wronged. What your space pixie thinks of me is neither here nor there; it is not in a position to make any judgement - even if it did "exist".
Complain about this comment
I believe I may have mistakenly copied a large part of Helio's post there. hope you can all tell where mine ends!
Complain about this comment
Helio:
"Jesus did not die for my sins; I don't need anyone to do that for me. I am quite prepared as an adult to take responsibility for my own actions, thank you, and to make recompense to the *people* I may have wronged.
Really (H)- you can right every wrong and set straight every sin you have committed on *people* - you sound nearly Messiah like.
Jas
Complain about this comment
Bernie
Are you submitting to the IPS autumn conference? I was thinking of giving it a go. Worth a shot?
GV
Complain about this comment
Bernie, don't worry - I think folks can tell.
This has become a bit silly, and I think if I were on the IPS Committee, I would reject your abstract ;-) You clearly haven't been paying attention to what I have been saying regarding what it means to say something exists, or what is meant by a model, or what testing a model means. The whole point about science is that we do NOT just rationally conceive these things; we use our reason to construct objective testable EXTERNAL models; the process of testing is NOT dependent on our mental state - all we need our minds for is to construct the models; the data will either support that or not.
It is difficult, it requires rigour, it requires imagination and creativity. But the world behaves as it behaves.
Jason, if you chop my arm off, god can't forgive you. Only *I* can. Your god is unnecessary and impotent to forgive some sins.
Complain about this comment
Helio
First up, I'm still not sure which bit you're lost on.
Beyond that, 'you exist' is your starting point. OK, 'God exists' is mine.
Refute me. (and try not to use the word 'twit')
:-)
And here's where I'm lost, "all we need our minds for is to construct the models; the data will either support that or not."
Do we not need our minds to see/observe/notice/recognise/spitball/assume/interpret the data? And do we not need data in the first place to see the need for creating a model? And what is data? And what are minds? And how do we... I think you can see where I might go with this...
Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
Jason, if you chop my arm off, god can't forgive you. Only *I* can. Your god is unnecessary and impotent to forgive some sins.
sounds like I heard that somewhere before - you can be your own god.
IIIIIIIIII MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME it's all about you (H).
It is God that owns your arm !!!!
If I chopped off your arm - would those who love you, not also need to forgive me?
You just can't pay the debt Helio - it's to much - and it just keeps mounting up everyday.
Taking responsibility for your sin and trying to sort it all out yourself is a great quest - but you will never win that fight - no matter how much you try,
Jas
Jas
Complain about this comment
Peter, when you read a post like Auntie's, only the T word will do, don't you think? Auntie, it is MY arm, not god's arm. Only I am in a position to forgive you for de-arming me, and for some dreamt up little pixie to presume to be able to do so on my behalf is the height of nonsense. No pixie owns my arm - just me.
Peter, if you take "god exists" as your starting point, then there is no point in discussing this - you do not have an open mind. Funny enough, I can agree that your existence (in the same sense as my existence) is a valid starting point. We need to hunt down this hidey-god together, eh?
As for models and data, you're still not getting it. I am assuming (maybe this is a big assumption, but humour me) that there is a "reality" at our level - call it our universe. I am not precluding the possibility that there are other universes completely unconnected with ours, with their own "laws" and behaviours (indeed, I think it highly probable). That universe runs in a certain fashion, and certain things happen. Unfortunately for Bernie and Co, the human brain is NOT able to appreciate it by reason alone (even proper reason, if Bernie would like to give it a whirl). We need experiment, and we need to be able to see whether the universe behaves in a similar manner to the models we construct. These are NOT simple mental concepts - they are rigorous logical and mathematical constructs that we can compare against what the universe really does.
Are you with me still?
Complain about this comment
Should I join this thread? - I find I disagree with just about everyone...
Complain about this comment
Helio
"Are you with me still?"
Yes and no. It's late, tomorrow dude!
Have to say tho', I just loved, "then there is no point in discussing this - you do not have an open mind."
That was 'twit', but just with a lot more letters!
Oh and where did I loose you?
:-)
Complain about this comment
Helio:
After reading all your posts I have come to the conclusion that *pixie* is your favourite word - although twit is a close second.
You really can't help sinning Helio it's just part of your character - one day you will KNOW what I am telling you is the truth.
Jas
Complain about this comment
Helio,
I certainly understand what you are saying, but you appear to be a little confused.
As Peter rightly points out, surely we need minds to interpret the data; to decide whether it fits the model; to decide what data would fit the model, and why.
Data on its own is nothing.
you say "the process of testing is not dependent on our mental state" - but of course the process of formulating a test, of deciding what would be an adequate test, and what would be an adequate result, is.
Again, data alone can support or deny NOTHING. What counts is whether the data "fits" the model. And the only thing that determines whether the data "fits" the model is the way in which the model has been constructed.
I'm almost a Kantian at some levels, you know.
However, you give away your confusion quite plainly in the next post:
"I am assuming (maybe this is a big assumption, but humour me) that there is a "reality" at our level "
That is a big assumption, and why should I humour you. I assume that "there is", and that "there is" is an outpouring of "I am" - maybe this is a big assumption, but humour me.
Complain about this comment
H
I’ll try to be brief.
You seem to believe that only empirical methods can reliably tell us what is real, and that this follows from the success of science.
It doesn’t follow at all. Science may be sufficient to find the true answers to certain question concerning what exists. It does not follow that it is necessary to find the true answer to every question concerning what exists.
“Science is successful” or “I find convincing results in the lab” aren’t compelling arguments either. They don’t rule out that we can find the truth about what exists using other methods, or experience, or intuition.
Science leaves out moral values, aesthetic values and the felt qualities of conscious experiences. So you end up denying that these are real because you are labouring under an Observer Selection Effect. It’s like fishing with a net with 10 inch holes to prove that there are no fishes smaller than 10 inches in a lake.
GV
Complain about this comment
H
A bit more technical...
In any case you agree that Scientists just make huge assumptions about reality. Your allusion to many worlds should help me make the point. I think.
Take Tegmark’s infinite universe. Every thing that is logically possible, and can be described in the language of the sciences, happens in such a universe. Infinitely many regions behave chaotically. Infinitely many regions have laws unlike our own. (We’ll allow one infinity (the number of primes) to be smaller than another (the number of even numbers)).
Here’s the crunch. There will be infinitely many regions that *appear* comprehensible to observers, but in fact they are not comprehensible. They even appear tractable to scientific methods. But in fact all the observers have discovered are patterns of behaviour that enable them to make predictions. Their theories are not true. They do not correspond to the facts about their universe. They just predict what they will observe on instruments etc.
It gets worse. There will be infinitely many regions in which sense data enables the observers to survive. But the propositions that the observers believe based on the sense data are not true. They merely allow the observers to survive.
It gets worse. There are infinitely many more ways to be chaotic than law like. So there are more regions in which the observers have reliably true sense perceptions, and reliably true theories. Then at an unexpected moment that region falls apart into chaos. Or maybe certain “laws” break down. Or there is just the occasional exception to many laws. That’s just a way of restating the problem of induction.
There’s simply no way of telling which region we inhabit in Tegmark’s universe. And there’s no way of verifying that we don’t live in a Tegmarkian universe. There's no way of knowing what proability we should assign to our beliefs about the external world.
So science simply can’t justify its truth claims through its own success. It’s based on certain assumptions that are not trivial. (In fact many are not obvious, which is why it took the experimental method so long to arrive). Now I agree that these are justified assumptions. But what they show is that if you wait for evidence for every belief that you have about reality, you’ll end up believing nothing. Or kidding yourself that you have evidence for everything that you believe about the physical universe.
You asked if Plantinga says anything interesting or sensible. I'll put together a series of quotes at some stage. But for the moment---
The philosopher David Lewis advanced ideas similar to Tegmark’s. From his treatment of Lewis, it’s safe to say that Plantinga would insist that we do not reject Tegmarks’s ideas because they are counterintuitive or strange. He would also agree that they solve many problems in logic and science.
He would also insist that we consider the consequences of that theory very carefully.
GV
Complain about this comment
Bernie,
What counts is whether the data "fits" the model. And the only thing that determines whether the data "fits" the model is the way in which the model has been constructed.
Nope. Try again. A model can be perfectly consistent, but the data will not fit. A model is independent of the processes that construct it - indeed, a model is properly considered as a mathematical entity - a system. You feed in the input, and you get the output. If the output does not match the data from the real world, the model has failed. Successful models move on to further testing - you widen the range of inputs, and see whether the outputs match. All your "mind" has to do is compare the two sets of outputs.
Graham, science does not give the *answers" to these other things, but it certainly informs the debate. A dismissal of science is always a mistake, and questions of aesthetics, justice, morality etc are just as tractable (or intractable) in a naturalistic system as in one populated by Jason's arm-severing-forgiving pixies. Here, old Occam's razor applies, and we rince the pixies down the sink.
Complain about this comment
Helio;
You still don't get it, do you?
" A model can be perfectly consistent, but the data will not fit."
But what accounts for whether something "fits" or not? What do we mean by "fits" for any particular model?
"If the output does not match the data from the real world, the model has failed"
How do we know whether the "output" "matches" the "data" from the real world?
I take it that the "output" of a system consists of more than sense data...in what we do we decide what will count as a "match"?
You really are looking at science on quite a facile level, Helio.
Complain about this comment
H
My goodness, I'm not dismissing science at all. But the qualitative feel of conscious experience and the 'oughtness' or binding character of morality are left out on scientific accounts.
Which are the important bits, to my mind.
GV
Complain about this comment
The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful, and has nobody to thank.
Dante Gabriel Rossetti
Absent an absolute moral authority independent of fallible humans, the only meaning “wrong” could have (pertaining to conduct) would be “in opposition to X,” or “falling short of X’s standards,” which are only persuasive to those who have already accepted X.
Calvin Freiburger
The real attitude of sin in the heart towards God is that of being without God; it is pride, the worship of myself, that is the great atheistic fact in human life.
Oswald Chambers
Jas
Complain about this comment
Parrhasios
I think you should join in, and disagree with everyone.
GV
Complain about this comment
Helio
I had a lengthy reply written, but I'm not posting it, at least not yet. Maybe if I knew you better I would.
But on the issue of existence let me just say this, I'm a doubter (more than you'll ever know), doubting the existence and the character of God is easy, doubting the church is easy, but there are other things to doubt, there are other things I have doubted and loosing faith in God is, in comparison, a teddy bear's picnic.
Complain about this comment
Bernie, you're quite the comedian! Let me make it explicit. The output y from the equation y=x+2 for input x is 6. Sensation has nothing to do with it.
If *you* are accusing *me* of looking at science at a facile level, I expect we will have Will along in a moment accusing you of hubris! Have you ever *really* thought about any of this, or are you just repeating stuff you've read in Bunty?
AuntieJason, you should be an atheist. Because if Christianity is true, you're in Big Big Trouble. It can't get any worse, and at least you would be able to have some fun.
Complain about this comment
AuntieJason, you should be an atheist. Because if Christianity is true, you're in Big Big Trouble. It can't get any worse, and at least you would be able to have some fun.
To late Helio - already been an atheist and had lots of *fun* - if you call sex drugs rock and roll raves fighting ect fun.
Although I seem to remember throwing up alot - and being depressed after partying.
As a christian I am a lot happier and content with my life than I used to be as an atheist.
I would agree though Christianty as it is presented by most churches is quite bad.
Not sure how I am in Big Big trouble - I take your statement to mean fundamentalist Christianty is being silenced and eradicated by the world and the powers that be.
Can't say I really worry about that as the Bible predicts it and confirms the truth of the Bible.
Jas
Complain about this comment
Helio;
I'm not sure you've said anything new there. I mention sensation because that is the only source I can think of for your "data".
Of course, that data doesn't ever include your equation. It could be argued that it contains nothing of such quantitative nature, and consists only of qualia. Yet it was lay that lay the fundamental importance on "data"....now apparently it doesn't seem to matter.
I'm sorry if I seem somewhat hubristic to you. I don't feel that way. Like Peter, I have doubted at quite a fundamental level.
Have you?
Complain about this comment
Bernie,
As I have pointed out, doubt is a virtue; systematic doubt is fundamental to progress; "faith" is its antithesis, and is a peculiarly narcissistic vice. I've also pointed out that data is data. The output of a system is its output; sure, we can look and see that the output is there, and use our senses to work out what it is "like", but when we are comparing the output of the real-world "test system" to that from our models, "sensation" doesn't come into it.
I don't think you're being hubristic, but I don't think you quite grasp the principles of science here, nor the nature and purpose of scientific models, which is perhaps why you are straying into error. Don't panic - plenty of others (including our dear pal Al) have trodden that path. Try to step back a bit.
Jason, I wonder what your view is of my atheistic lifestyle. I somehow think you are confusing being an atheist with being a teenager. My point is that the bible would suggest that you are going to be classified as a goat, assuming Jesus wasn't lying.
-H
Complain about this comment
Helio, still saying nothing, really.
"I've also pointed out that data is data"
Yes, very good. What do you mean by data? Sensation?
"we can look and see that the output is there, and use our senses to work out what it is "like""
Yes.
"but when we are comparing the output of the real-world "test system" to that from our models, "sensation" doesn't come into it."
Can't you see the contradiction? We need our senses to work out what the output is "like", but somehow we can "compare" it without reference to the senses! even though the senses tell us what it is "like"!
how do we "compare" something without first knowing what it is "like"?
Helio, if you spent more time actually thinking about the fundamental assumptions that you bring to your view of the world rather than making proclaimations about "faith" and "hubris", perhaps you'd be in a better position.
I'll give you a clue, the flippant admission you earlier made of a basic assumption that you make - that is quite an assumption. Why not think about your grounds for making it?
Complain about this comment
Bernie, again, it would appear to be you who is being flippant, and that you have not really thought about this. Instead, your approach just seems to be to get ever sillier.
Let's say 2+2=4 - we'll agree that 4 is the output of our little test system. OK, we use our "sensation" to recognise that our calculator has output "4", rather than "11", but that output remains objective, verifiable, and is not ITSELF subject to sensory perception in order to be valid.
If you were to say that the output was "5" (and leaving aside notational thingummies), you would be wrong, regardless of what your senses told you.
Making any progress yet??
Complain about this comment
And I'll give YOU a clue - we are perfectly justified in making certain "assumptions" (even about the existence of space pixies); what we then do is test them to see whether they work; we challenge them, and if they *don't* work (e.g. space pixies again), we ditch them.
The point (good grief - do I have to go over this *again*?!) is that our core assumptions are subject to review. You do NOT have to build them all up from some sort of basic fundament - if you do that, without testing, you are compounding the probability of making an error. Or several. As you have done.
In science we test systems to see if they work, and then try to unpack the black boxes below. What you seem to be suggesting is that we need to know all about all the black boxes all the way down (turtles, dear boy) in ADVANCE of doing anything. Perhaps that is why you haven't made much progress. There is a better way of doing things; you need to get out of your armchair and get your hands dirty, my boy.
Complain about this comment
Helio, I'm sorry, what does your mathematical construction have to with reality?
That there are four things and not 5 is perceived. That two of those things plus another two equals four is a mathematical construct systematising the objects of that perception. Both methods of knowing work together to constitute known reality, with the addition of a further reflective level.
Now, what are you claiming "reality" is? The concept that two plus two equals four?
How can you be sure this conceptual framework extends to anything other than your conception of it?
Complain about this comment
I haven't seen your second post yet, byt the way. Maybe it'll give another example of "reality".
Complain about this comment
Helio
Yes, I agree 2+2=4.
2+2 equalling 4 is true for you and it is true for me.
But how do *you* know that?
How do *I* know that? (or verify that?)
How do we agree on what 4 is? Or what 2 is? Or what equals is? Or what plus is?
How do you or I know anything about anything? (It doesn't have to be sums)
Do you ever doubt that 2+2=4? If not why not?
Complain about this comment
Moderation be cursed!!!
Helio's post 134 isn't there.
Oh yes it is!
Oh no it's not!
Oh yes it blinking was *after* I'd written 137.
H.
"... our core assumptions are subject to review" #134
" "I know I exist" is a reasonable starting point."#107
That, and a core assumption, I'd say. Ever subject it to review?
Never mind anything else.
:-)
Complain about this comment
Jason, I wonder what your view is of my atheistic lifestyle. I somehow think you are confusing being an atheist with being a teenager. My point is that the bible would suggest that you are going to be classified as a goat, assuming Jesus wasn't lying.
-H
Please clarify - *atheistic lifestyle* Helio - not sure what you mean by that.
As for me being confused - are you saying Adults don't do what I stated? - By the way I was well past my teens.
You will have to teach me how the Bible states I am a goat - just speak your mind H, and stop asking loaded questions.
Jas
Complain about this comment
Boys, this is core. What I am saying ("assuming", if you like - prove me wrong if you have the guts) is that certain things are objectively "true", and some of those we can be pretty darned sure of. And this independent of sensation. 2+2=4 - it just IS true, at some funky deep mathematical level. TBH I couldn't be bothered working the epistemology of that - I think you can try too hard. Roger Penrose has a brief go in "The Road to Reality" (good book), but in the end kinda comes back to it "just is" - and that is hard to argue with. Indeed, I would say that mathematics IS the fundament of reality, but never mind. We are getting side-tracked, and Bernie is getting ever more confuddled in his armchair.
Back to the point - "Saint" Paul. The latest Reasonable Doubts podcast #53 has a very interesting interview with Robert Price, and I would strongly recommend that everyone listen to it carefully (google it). Just listen, and think.
Personally I think he goes too far - I find it hard to accept that Paul was such a fiction. But listen to it anyway.
Complain about this comment
Helio
It 'just is' because He is 'I Am'. Reality is reasonable because it exists in Being. Logic is logical because it springs from Mind. Maths is the expression of God in the Universe. Information at the genetic level is the answer to SETI. It's not out there but in there! Space pixies? No, he's beyond that. Beyond your or my testing. But then, I think (from what you've said) you know that from your formative years. Unlike you, I grew up in unbelief, in an unbelieving environment, thinking that materialism (which I though was science) had all the answers. I dreamed of becoming a doctor and a specialist but it never happened. But I encountered Jesus and my mind was changed. Being a fundy is a faith position and not without some unanswered problems. But you too have come to a faith position, albeit choosing to be wilfully ignorant or as one of your comments states you are Pharaoh to YHWH. Funny thing is, Pharaoh was putty in YHWH's hand.
Complain about this comment
Helio
"in the end kinda comes back to it "just is" - and that is hard to argue with."
Maybe I should read the book, but I'm afraid you and I have had that discussion already, already - post 91 and 96.
We're both agreed that there are certain things which are objectively true, that they can be described, tested, observed... *known* and communicated, and that these things work. Great, but you still have a dilemma; within that framework, *you* the knower and the communicator (the 'sayer' and 'assumer') are an assumption, you have nowhere else to go on that point, you've made it yourself, yet I'm a 'twit' for assuming God :-)
Here's an interesting thing though. Odd, isn't it, that the rational observing and knowing and communicating of objective truth was predicted by dumb ancient 'goatherds' and their 'story' of a rational, knowing, and *communicating* (saying or speaking if you like) God who guarantees the 'facts'.
So stick with 'just is' if you like... I'm sticking with 'I Am' for it is, simply, more complete.
To use your words, "prove me wrong if you have the guts"!
And just one more thing...
You said in #131 "systematic doubt is fundamental to progress;" and then these words, "faith" is its antithesis, and is a peculiarly narcissistic vice."
No it isn't. My faith emerges *from* my systematic doubt and is the antithesis of narcissism.
So why not try some *real* doubt, and maybe a touch of epistemology!
Complain about this comment
FP, can god change the value of Pi? If not, I don't know why we are even bothering discussing such an impotent nonentity.
Complain about this comment
Heliopolitan
I find that I must glance at you over the rim of my glasses.
Can God change the value of pi? Tut, tut.
Whatever would make you think Pi is independent of God.
God establishes and defines Pi and through it tells us something about himself.
:-)
Complain about this comment
helio
If God established the value of Pi why would he change it? The one thing (among others) is that the Bible does state that God is consistent not capricious. That impotent nonentity loves you and that makes the discussion worth bothering, like it or not.
Complain about this comment
OK then, so god cannot set the value of Pi. Or e. Or anything. Even in principle. Yes? And we're back to bunnies and wuv.
Now, have any of you boys done your homework on "Saint" "Paul" yet? Listened to the Reasonable Doubts podcast? Will - maybe you should get Robert Price on SunSeq at some point. He seems to think that Marcion engineered the whole scam. A bit too strong for my liking, I think, but intriguing all the same.
Complain about this comment
"so god cannot set the value of Pi."
Who said that, who said that! :-)
What was said is that God *did* set the value of Pi. Now please polly be a dear and keep up! I mean you're back to wanting Heliopolitan written in the stars in the sky. Maybe God might even turn them a neat shade of maroon on your birthday!!
Now, the Reasonable Doubts programme thingy. OK I'll listen again, but I sure hope it's not as boring as the last one. Much toooooooo long an intro. Anyway it sounds like atheist church to me. And you didn't actually do that good a job of promoting it in the first place:-)
Complain about this comment
Peter, OK, explain to me how god sets the value of Pi. Could it have been other than it actually is? And if so, in *principle* can god change Pi? What about 2+2=4 - can god change that?
What I am getting at here is that there seems to be a fundamental level *below* any god that the god itself has no control over; there are mathematical (and maybe even physical) parameters that restrict this goddy thing you throw hymns at.
So what, precisely, is the relationship with mathematics and god?
[And the podcast - you need to stick at it and actually listen to it, rather than put your fingers in your ears. I know you won't like what you hear, but Robert Price is certainly top value.]
Complain about this comment
H
Hang on? God's useless if he can't change the value of Pi? Why, exactly?
GV
Complain about this comment
And are you suggesting that mathematical truths exist independently of the physical world? In some Platonic realm?
I mean that's fine, and difficult to argue against, but I'm surprised if you believe that sort of thing.
GV
Complain about this comment
Ha ha, it's actually quite comical. After all that, everything "just is", and "just IS true, at some funky deep mathematical level. TBH I couldn't be bothered working the epistemology of that".
And I'm supposed to be the irrational one!
It would make ye wonder what all this arguing could possibly be about.
Maybe God "just IS, at some funky deep mathematical level". Some people even bother to work out the epistemology!
Complain about this comment
Bernie, they don't. You don't. You just assert it and flap your wee arms. It's endearing, but doesn't exactly get us anywhere. Gods are an epistemological mess - a cop-out. They don't *explain* anything. Indeed, it's the ultimate "god of the gaps".
Why should god be able to change Pi? You chappies are asserting (with no evidence of course) that "god" should be what we call the fundamental basis of reality. If it's so fundamental, it should be able to change mathematical truths. But it can't. God is limited by maths. And yes, the Tegmark view (which I share) is a little "Platonic" in its overtones. I find it unavoidable. God remains superfluous, and existence is explained. Job done. Read the paper, chaps.
Complain about this comment
"...and existence is explained."
Yes, in the following terms.
"The MUH brings this human demotion to its logical extreme."
Lovely. Maybe it's the new Humanism.
Back later.
Complain about this comment
Peter, that is incorrect.
Complain about this comment
Then I'm more than happy to be corrected on my understanding of the conclusion of Tegmark's MUH paper.
Complain about this comment
Helio - I'm interested in your concept of independent scientific models. Mankind has always constructed such models and I find them truly fascinating.
Maybe you would care to comment on some reflections of Heisenberg I quote below and outline for the scientifically challenged whether you think they have any implications for a view of science which appears to anchor its credibility on its ability to construct wholly independent models.
We can no longer speak of the behaviour of the particle independently of the process of observation. As a final consequence, the natural laws formulated mathematically in quantum theory no longer deal with the elementary particles themselves but with our knowledge of them.
When we speak of the picture of nature in the exact science of our age, we do not mean a picture of nature so much as a picture of our relationships with nature.
The scientific method of analysing, explaining and classifying has become conscious of its limitations, which arise out of the fact that by its intervention science alters and refashions the object of investigation. In other words, method and object can no longer be separated.
Complain about this comment
H
I forgot about Tegmark. That helps you avoid Platonism.
Okay then, you can use Tegmark to illustrate God and maths. Instead of contruing his universe realistically, just take it as a list of possible universes that God could actualise.
*There are lot's of possible universes.
*Many possible universes operate according to different mathematical systems than our own.
*God was free to choose which universe he actualised.
Wouldn't that make Theism simpler than Tegmark's universe? And wouldn't it avoid a lot of the absurdities, epistemological problems and existential problems that Tegmark's model creates?
(eg. in infinitely many regions of the universe I'm torturing my son. In infinitely many regions he's torturing me.)
Just a thought. Still, Tegmark seems to be the best answer to the teleological and cosmological arguments.
GV
Complain about this comment
Still God's power is always constrained by what's logically possible. Which means that he's only left with an infinitely large number of possibilities to play with.
And a God who could just go changing the value of pi and would create a universe where that is even possible...that would be a crazy god. Can't see who that helps.
GV
Complain about this comment
Still no advance on "just is" and "I can't be bothered working out the epistemology" then?
I don't know if God can change the value of Pi or not. Presumably, if He could, and wanted to, He already has. In which case, to me, it's probably always been the same. That probably doesn't help much, but I'm not too sure of the relevance of the question.
Perhaps we should go back to that epistemology and work out the ontology of mathematics first.
Maybe Pi doesn't actually exist.
In fact, what was it to exist again? But of course, we weren't asking that question, were we?
Complain about this comment
Peter, my point is that you have lifted that quote out of its context. Perhaps folks would like to go back and read the paper, and they can see the context in which it was made?
Bernie, it's not even a question of not working out epistemologies and ontologies. I have already made this perfectly clear - if you are proposing some sort of god thing, you are begging the question by building your epistemology on that. What we do in science is we start from where we are, and work outwards. In archaeology, you don't generally start at the bedrock and work your way up - you work down. This is why you keep making errors.
Graham, a universe does not need to be "actualised" - that is a pointless notion. If you are a self-aware subsystem in a mathematical universe, you are just as aware, whether your universe is "hosted" or not. You don't need a god.
As for Pi, are we now agreed that god can't change Pi? Actually it can't even really know Pi, since knowledge of the complete value of Pi would be an actual infinite, and the Christian Theist William Lane Craig claims (I think correctly) that an actual infinite cannot exist. Bam! There goes god. Logically disprovable. Omniscience is impossible. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
Helio, if you had an inkling you mi9ght know of some of the many "God proposals" based almost entirely on a "epistemology" - i.e., based on where we are.
I put it to you that you don't know where you are, and thus have no position from which to start from.
You assume that things exist, for example, and can't give an account of why you assume this.
You simply say "just is". If that is "starting where we are, and working outwards", I'm not sure how far outwards you can get. Aren't you stuck in an assumption?
You are unwarranted in claiming that epistemology is built on God.
Actually, my own theist position was built on an examination of the inbuilt rationality and ultimate outward-looking inherent nature of human knowing. From that I found it rationally possible to make a tentative proposal of a rational creator.
So I'm not proposing some sort of God thing and building an epistemology on it...that WOULD be silly.
In fact I'm doing almost the complete opposite.
Complain about this comment
Helio
Two things.
(1) Perhaps if you are not willing to correct me you will explain the context.
(2) I take it we're all thinking of circles.
Complain about this comment
The best explanation is never the only explanation. That's why it's called the "best". Logically, no, you don't need God to explain anything. The universe could have popped into existence three minutes ago with the appearance of age.
I'm just saying that Theism seems to be a simpler hypothesis that *everything* happens somewhere sooner or later.
GV
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS