| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/03/2011 12:19:31 PM · #1051 |
| No, because none are based on claims whose essence falls outside the natural universe. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 12:24:50 PM · #1052 |
Originally posted by Louis:
No, because none are based on claims whose essence falls outside the natural universe. |
That is a completely axiomatic answer based on your worldview. But you lose the point of the exercise which is making a decision based on something we have very little (ie. no) evidence about and that there are different reasonable ways to approach it.
Do you believe in a multiverse? Is it unreasonable to believe in one? Is it unreasonable not to believe in one? Is it unreasonable to have no opinion and want no opinion?
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 12:28:10. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 12:34:11 PM · #1053 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Switch the question to something a little less charged.
Is there life elsewhere in the universe?
I know people who say there is bound to be life on other planets, though we have no evidence of it. Their argument is philosophical ("We have life here. The universe is big. There is bound to be life elsewhere.") I know people who say there is no life elsewhere and point to the fact we have no evidence of it. Once evidence arises, they will change their mind. There may be a third group which says, "I do not know." and honestly means it. They don't have a hunch, they don't want to have a hunch.
Are any of these positions unreasonable? |
None of those positions are necessarily unreasonable as statements of probability, i.e., "best guess" under current evidence and understanding. When someone says "there is bound to be life on other planets," they are making a statement about probabilities. The same is true for the reverse. I have to argue with you though that this necessarily makes it a philosophical argument. Again, you take a look at the evidence we do have, evaluate the probabilities based upon that evidence, and then call your shot - but you should be able to defend your call by reference to the evidence.
The problem is not staking out a position based upon available evidence, it is the dogmatic holding of that position when the level of evidence necessitates some level of uncertainty, or continuing to dogmatically hold the position when new, better and/or conflicting or contradictory evidence arises.
This doesn't mean there will always be consensus, or that it will be clear which evaluation of probabilities is more correct than the other. Especially where the evidence is light, there may be various valid interpretations of the existing evidence that lead to differing conclusions regarding the relevant probabilities. But this inherent messiness to the process in areas where the evidence is light or contradictory is a reason to go looking for more evidence, not for abandoning the process.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2011 12:41:29 PM · #1054 |
If it makes you feel better SP, I believe in God enough to act upon that belief, but I do not dogmatically KNOW God exists. You being a lawyer, you should understand this position. There is enough evidence to convict, but not enough evidence to remove all doubt.
I also bristle somewhat at people who do not allow any doubt as to God's existence. Or those who do not allow any possibility at all for his being. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 12:54:56 PM · #1055 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also bristle somewhat at people who do not allow any doubt as to God's existence. Or those who do not allow any possibility at all for his being. |
Not even your hated Richard Dawkins goes there. He allows for the potential existence of god on the order of the smallest magnitude of probability, simply because he rightly acknowledges that nobody can know anything with a certainty that is at 100%. No normal human being admits of knowledge of something at 100%.
But Dawkins and others also rightly consider the god uncertainty to be as relevant as the uncertainty concerning the existence of dragons, or dopplegangers, or whatever other supernatural thing there is on offer. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 12:57:30 PM · #1056 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But you lose the point of the exercise which is making a decision based on something we have very little (ie. no) evidence about and that there are different reasonable ways to approach it. |
When you are talking about something that is physically possible versus something that is physically impossible, the exercise is moot. There is no comparison to be made. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 12:57:34 PM · #1057 |
Louis, what was your answer on the multiverse thing? I suspect you are in a conundrum with how to answer it. On the one hand, it's supernatural and so I implied it was unreasonable to believe in it. On the other hand, lots of my atheist buddies believe in it (and maybe I do as well). How do I nuance my answer to allow us to keep this belief and yet make sure it's obvious speculation is God is unreasonable...
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 14:43:33. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 12:59:25 PM · #1058 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, let me ask you, when one person says "my faith says X, not Y" and the other says "my lack of faith says Y, not X" are they of equal weight? If your generalization can accept that scenario, then I guess, but otherwise it seems like we are painting with far too broad a brush.
Often I see people outside a faith structure come from the attitude that it really doesn't matter because it's all poppycock anyway. You believe this. He believes that. Who cares? But this fails to consider that one of the opinions may represent the truth. In my own case, I can have such a theoretical conversation and understand that in a world of relative truth X has no leverage over Y and vice versa. But, if you get down to a practical conversation I will tell you that actually X represents the truth and Y does not. Sometimes the reasoning will be a rational argument, other times it will be an axiomatic statement of faith. |
You see, this is the problem - you seem to think that we believe that "X has no leverage over Y and vice versa" because "truth" is relative. But one need not embrace relative truth to discount the distinction between two faith-based truth claims. Either may be true or neither, but if there is no way to objectively evaluate the truth of either claim, then there can be, by necessity, no distinction between them.
Let's accept for the moment that faith claim X is true and faith-claim Y is false. This can be hard to do in the abstract - but how, as a person of faith, do persuade others that X is true and Y is false? Your own preference may be for X, but how do you persuade an uninterested 3rd party of the truth of X? I submit that, if there truly is no evidence-based distinction between X and Y, then there is no way to make a distinction or to persuade an uninterested 3rd party. You can state a preference, but then so can those who favor the opposite.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How do you consider your own beliefs? Surely you hold to precepts which do not have empiric evidence to back them up because they are philosophical in nature. Do you view them as merely your own relative construction of the truth which is no more right or wrong than a differing opinion, or would you defend them when confronted with an antithetical view? |
I don't doubt that everyone has unexamined beliefs, and when it truly does just amount to a difference of opinion or taste, then holding such unexamined beliefs is harmless. However, as a scientific thinker, if I am ever challenged on a truth statement and find that I can offer nothing in support of the statement outside of my own preference, then I should be open to reconsidering my position. Further, if the weight of the evidence is against my position, I should abandon it and accept the contrary position.
We're only human and human nature is to defend our positions, even if the evidence is against us, so keeping an open mind and being willing to adjust can be difficult. It should, however, be the ideal.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2011 01:17:18 PM · #1059 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Let's accept for the moment that faith claim X is true and faith-claim Y is false. This can be hard to do in the abstract - but how, as a person of faith, do persuade others that X is true and Y is false? Your own preference may be for X, but how do you persuade an uninterested 3rd party of the truth of X? I submit that, if there truly is no evidence-based distinction between X and Y, then there is no way to make a distinction or to persuade an uninterested 3rd party. You can state a preference, but then so can those who favor the opposite. |
Well, I think you are describing some of the frustrations that scientific people have with philosophical discourse. In philosphy half of the battle is agreeing upon the starting terms and definitions. Actually sometimes thats 90% of the battle. In philosophy this is allowed and understood. Science is a special place where most of the terms and definitions are similarly held between conversants (though this is not always the case).
So, when considering your X and Y claims one would find out what Mr. Y (the one who claims Y) accepts as his basic terms, definitions and axioms. If the difference between X and Y can be understood as a difference of the basic assumptions, then one can try to convince Mr. Y that he would be better served with different basic assumptions. If successful, often switching from Y to X is self-evident.
I think I sorta butchered that, but I hope I got my point across. Like I said, philosophy can drive the analytical, scientific type crazy because they don't like the idea of unsupported axioms (although they don't realize they themselves have their own). |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 02:44:04 PM · #1060 |
Louis, what was your answer on the multiverse thing? I suspect you are in a conundrum with how to answer it. You may be thinking to yourself that on the one hand, it's supernatural and so I implied it was unreasonable to believe in it. On the other hand, lots of my atheist buddies believe in it (and maybe I do as well). How do I nuance my answer to allow us to keep this belief and yet make sure it's obvious speculation on God is unreasonable...
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 14:44:49. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 02:57:02 PM · #1061 |
| No, I'm not in a conundrum, I'm uninterested in it. Besides, I've answered already. I would again caution you to stop setting up straw men, then arguing with them in the open forum. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 03:06:31 PM · #1062 |
Originally posted by Louis:
No, I'm not in a conundrum, I'm uninterested in it. Besides, I've answered already. I would again caution you to stop setting up straw men, then arguing with them in the open forum. |
Total dodge.
Just to be clear, I'm not asking about your own opinion, I'm asking whether you think any of the positions of for, against, or agnostic are unreasonable to hold. Similar to life on other planets.
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 15:12:51. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 04:40:43 PM · #1063 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just to be clear, I'm not asking about your own opinion, I'm asking whether you think any of the positions of for, against, or agnostic are unreasonable to hold. Similar to life on other planets. |
I am sympathetic to Louis' "not interested" position on the multiverse question, but I'll bite, if you don't mind me butting in.
It's not that I'm not interested in the multiverse question -- I think it's fascinating -- rather I understand that I am completely unequipped to be able to offer any sort of credible statement for or against on the subject.
I don't come anywhere close to understanding the math and I don't have the necessary grounding in physics to even have an informed opinion. I will admit that the "multiverse" idea seems completely ridiculous to me on first blush, but I'm sure that lots of lay people thought the same thing about relativity when it came along.
I have a hard time understanding how the hypothesis can be tested, and there are lots of scientists who have the same concern, but I also know that there are people who do understand the math and physics do think that tests can be developed. So, for now, I am content to not know and to let those that are equipped with the necessary knowledge and initiative to get on with the work of figuring it out.
I will say I think the only reasonable position on this topic for a lay person like myself -- and everyone else on this forum (I don't think we have any theoretical physicists posting in rant, but who knows) -- is to be agnostic: there is no scientific consensus and none of us are in a position to be able to independently evaluate the available evidence.
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 16:43:46.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2011 04:46:46 PM · #1064 |
As it happens, I've had this in my Amazon.ca shopping cart since the end of January.
It ain't a dodge. What's the point of answering the same question twice? |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 05:20:41 PM · #1065 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just to be clear, I'm not asking about your own opinion, I'm asking whether you think any of the positions of for, against, or agnostic are unreasonable to hold. Similar to life on other planets. |
I am sympathetic to Louis' "not interested" position on the multiverse question, but I'll bite, if you don't mind me butting in.
It's not that I'm not interested in the multiverse question -- I think it's fascinating -- rather I understand that I am completely unequipped to be able to offer any sort of credible statement for or against on the subject.
I don't come anywhere close to understanding the math and I don't have the necessary grounding in physics to even have an informed opinion. I will admit that the "multiverse" idea seems completely ridiculous to me on first blush, but I'm sure that lots of lay people thought the same thing about relativity when it came along.
I have a hard time understanding how the hypothesis can be tested, and there are lots of scientists who have the same concern, but I also know that there are people who do understand the math and physics do think that tests can be developed. So, for now, I am content to not know and to let those that are equipped with the necessary knowledge and initiative to get on with the work of figuring it out.
I will say I think the only reasonable position on this topic for a lay person like myself -- and everyone else on this forum (I don't think we have any theoretical physicists posting in rant, but who knows) -- is to be agnostic: there is no scientific consensus and none of us are in a position to be able to independently evaluate the available evidence. |
I agree the mathematics behind such an idea are beyond all of us here. But such an idea can express itself in a much more graspable way. Why do we find ourselves in a universe that can support life? If I accept what physicists say, there are tightly constrained values for some fundamental variables so that our universe could support matter (let alone life). Stray from them a bit and we wind up as a universe of electrons or black holes or something else homogenous that could not support the complexity required for life. Yet here we are. So the philosophical question gets asked, "Did we get lucky?" Most thinkers do not accept this as an answer so we find two main camps. The lottery was rigged (all the "God" type answers) or the lottery was played many, many times and we naturally inhabit one of the winning versions (ie. the multiverse).
You guys have heard all this before. Such questions about our own existence will eventually stumble across something like the Multiverse and we probably need to formulate an opinion about it. The problem I see is that all the arguments that get raised about the uselessness of postulating the existence of God (note that's different than: Does God exist?) are exactly the same for a multiverse. Yet, I find many people willing to buy into one and not the other simply because it fits their worldview.
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 17:22:22. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 05:22:55 PM · #1066 |
Originally posted by Louis:
As it happens, I've had this in my Amazon.ca shopping cart since the end of January.
It ain't a dodge. What's the point of answering the same question twice? |
maybe the point is I don't remember the first time you answered it? You can just link me if you want. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 05:48:00 PM · #1067 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just to be clear, I'm not asking about your own opinion, I'm asking whether you think any of the positions of for, against, or agnostic are unreasonable to hold. Similar to life on other planets. |
I am sympathetic to Louis' "not interested" position on the multiverse question, but I'll bite, if you don't mind me butting in.
It's not that I'm not interested in the multiverse question -- I think it's fascinating -- rather I understand that I am completely unequipped to be able to offer any sort of credible statement for or against on the subject.
I don't come anywhere close to understanding the math and I don't have the necessary grounding in physics to even have an informed opinion. I will admit that the "multiverse" idea seems completely ridiculous to me on first blush, but I'm sure that lots of lay people thought the same thing about relativity when it came along.
I have a hard time understanding how the hypothesis can be tested, and there are lots of scientists who have the same concern, but I also know that there are people who do understand the math and physics do think that tests can be developed. So, for now, I am content to not know and to let those that are equipped with the necessary knowledge and initiative to get on with the work of figuring it out.
I will say I think the only reasonable position on this topic for a lay person like myself -- and everyone else on this forum (I don't think we have any theoretical physicists posting in rant, but who knows) -- is to be agnostic: there is no scientific consensus and none of us are in a position to be able to independently evaluate the available evidence. |
I agree the mathematics behind such an idea are beyond all of us here. But such an idea can express itself in a much more graspable way. Why do we find ourselves in a universe that can support life? If I accept what physicists say, there are tightly constrained values for some fundamental variables so that our universe could support matter (let alone life). Stray from them a bit and we wind up as a universe of electrons or black holes or something else homogenous that could not support the complexity required for life. Yet here we are. So the philosophical question gets asked, "Did we get lucky?" Most thinkers do not accept this as an answer so we find two main camps. The lottery was rigged (all the "God" type answers) or the lottery was played many, many times and we naturally inhabit one of the winning versions (ie. the multiverse).
You guys have heard all this before. Such questions about our own existence will eventually stumble across something like the Multiverse and we probably need to formulate an opinion about it. The problem I see is that all the arguments that get raised about the uselessness of postulating the existence of God (note that's different than: Does God exist?) are exactly the same for a multiverse. Yet, I find many people willing to buy into one and not the other simply because it fits their worldview. |
My problem is that not a single person positing any kind of 'interest' or thought process into a multi-verse is going around telling anyone else that because of a 'probable' existence of such, other people have to live a certain way, accept that certain hypothesis in order to be 'saved', or any other kind of control and power issue that comes with some all-powerful entity existing. I'm not above not knowing whether or not any 'god' or 'gods' exist, but whether they do or not is irrelevant to my daily living. As is any possible existence of any 'multi-verse'. However, a multi-verse would be a fascinating thing to study/contemplate/live around/travel to etc. It would just be, like a subway station, something that is there. A 'god' is a concept that is purely rooted in human ego and fear. If one existed in the sense that most world religions claim it to, it takes too much blind acceptance and false, unreasonable explanation to make exist. Such things as "what created the creator' become far too important a question, but one that is absolutely ignored by believers. It turns into something that is more than just 'something that is there', and for my money, anything like that is just a product of human ego, fear, and hyper-imagination. If there's one common truth, it's that humanity is a scared little child of a species and will do anything to comfort themselves with the thought of an all-knowing Daddy to help them in the night. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 06:02:40 PM · #1068 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Such things as "what created the creator' become far too important a question, but one that is absolutely ignored by believers. |
Certainly you are smart enough to understand that the question, "What is the uncaused cause of things?" is a question that all worldviews need to contend with. God believers are not uniquely subject to cracking that nut. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 06:06:14 PM · #1069 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Such things as "what created the creator' become far too important a question, but one that is absolutely ignored by believers. |
Certainly you are smart enough to understand that the question, "What is the uncaused cause of things?" is a question that all worldviews need to contend with. God believers are not uniquely subject to cracking that nut. |
No, but they are uniquely in a position of needing to in order to justify their erroneous history of trying to control humanity with the idea of a god.
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 18:06:46. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 06:11:03 PM · #1070 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Such things as "what created the creator' become far too important a question, but one that is absolutely ignored by believers. |
Certainly you are smart enough to understand that the question, "What is the uncaused cause of things?" is a question that all worldviews need to contend with. God believers are not uniquely subject to cracking that nut. |
No, but they are uniquely in a position of needing to in order to justify their erroneous history of trying to control humanity with the idea of a god. |
Tell me how you really feel Ed... ;) |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 07:45:03 PM · #1071 |
I already have everything planned out if god ever makes an appearance.
Obviously my atheist/antitheist stance will need to change. I'm thinking a period of Maltheism, followed by a healthy dose of Misotheism.
That should be enough to keep me well clear of eternal suffering in heaven.
See? Us atheists have religious choices too.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2011 07:57:30 PM · #1072 |
Originally posted by JH:
...followed by a healthy dose of Misotheism... |
Be careful. Wasn't that how they all got in trouble in Clash of the Titans? Don't be bringing the giant scorpions down upon us!
Man, that was a bad movie... |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 10:25:04 PM · #1073 |
Originally posted by JH:
I'm thinking (of)a healthy dose of Misotheism.
That should be enough to keep me well clear of eternal suffering in heaven. |
You're gonna worship soup?
R. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 10:46:05 PM · #1074 |
.
Message edited by author 2011-02-04 05:50:17. |
|
|
|
02/04/2011 05:55:13 AM · #1075 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, let me ask you, when one person says "my faith says X, not Y" and the other says "my lack of faith says Y, not X" are they of equal weight? If your generalization can accept that scenario, then I guess, but otherwise it seems like we are painting with far too broad a brush. |
Non-religious people don't have the same canon of arbitrary "truths" to fall back on, but place greater reliance on reasoning**. However there are some examples:
(a) Superstition - in an argument whether a black cat crossing your path is lucky or unlucky, I'd say that each position objectively carries equal weight.
(b) Kharma - not the rational and scientific understanding that people who believe themselves lucky or kharmic can create more opportunities for themselves, but the idea that the universe and the laws of physics do in fact react differently to lucky or kharmic people. An argument over the degree of kharma gained or lost by stealing from one person to feed another has no objectively weightier position.
(c) Alternative medicine (maybe close to your heart) - again, not the (powerful) placebo effect or the accidental selection of active ingredients, but the belief that the essence of the shape and power of the rhino horn will overcome impotency. An argument between two Chinese chemists over whether ground rhino horn or tiger penis is better for impotency would carry similarly equal weight.
(d) Religion - does God require unquestioning belief in Jesus as saviour or good deeds? Is eating beef a sin or not? Must adulterers be stoned or forgiven?
None of these positions is objectively persuasive - they might all be coherent statements within the contexts of their particular belief systems but there is no greater objective weight to any such position.
To answer your question, I think that a non-believer in superstition, kharma, alternative medicine, or religion, has the weight of statistical correlation behind them, and in the absence of evidence their assessment of the probabilities (i.e. low to zero) is more realistic. Their opinion should probably treated in higher regard.
For example, as a doctor, I presume that you would expect your non-believer opinion on the effectiveness of rhino horn against impotency (for which there is no objective evidence) should be given greater weight than that of a chinese chemist? Equally, you would not teach the "equally weighted debate" on rhino horn vs viagra?
** it is a different argument, but I think that religious people do in fact also rely on rational thought in most respects, and adjust their interpretation of religious instruction to reflect their rational thinking. People are mostly the same - they just justify their thinking processes in different ways.
|
|
