I started on this forum as a Christian, moving slowly to being an Agnostic. I have started to read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and so far I have had a hard time putting it down. I will let you know if it pushes my over to Atheism or not in the end. Have any of you read it? What are you thoughts on it?
I have read it and I enjoyed it. It was one of the first books I picked up when I was getting serious about dropping my religiosity. It's been a few years, but when he talked about weak vs. strong atheism and the 7 point scale he used, it seemed to express very plainly the struggle I was having in defining my own position. Using the definition of weak atheism as stopping just shy of knowing that no gods exist, I was able to come to terms with what I had been thinking. Not saying it would make someone an atheist if they already weren't leaning that way (a logical argument is probably not going to sway someone from a religious position), but it certainly can give budding atheists the foothold they might need to further solidify their position.
My Dad kept bugging me to give it a glance so I did, and it was a very refreshing piece to read, especially considering all the questions I had about things at that time of my life. It directly attacks religionism in general and challenges the reader to think for themselves without any pre-programmed thoughts they might have had before reading the book.
I remember when it was in it's younger days, and the absolute uproar that religionists had about the idea that such a book was even allowed to exist, be published, and be read by consumers. Thankfully, people are more open nowadays to the idea of Atheist literature, and that's a good sign.
You will be seduced by the dark side. :twisted:
I read it and can't believe anyone else that does doesn't realize the truth of what he says. But when has the truth or facts stopped anyone from being a believer in magic and superstitious nonsense, that's the point of faith, it needs no evidence. Solitary
Quote from: "Satt"I started on this forum as a Christian, moving slowly to being an Agnostic. I have started to read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and so far I have had a hard time putting it down. I will let you know if it pushes my over to Atheism or not in the end. Have any of you read it? What are you thoughts on it?
Yes I have read it, awesome book. I too could not put it down.
Well lets see if we can help push you to take that final step.
Hawkins has said that "A god is not required". I agree. "all this" to me is not the result of a thinking being, but a manifestation of conditions, like cold air and moisture can lead to snow. Just like conditions can potentially lead to hurricanes during certain times of the year. You don't need Posiden as a cause for hurricanes. You don't need Thor as a cause for lightening.
In the God Delusion, if you have not gotten to it yet, Dawkins describes god belief like "a moth mistaking the light bulb for moonlight". It is basically our senses and perceptions having a very real ability to fool us.
Now more new agers have suggested that the universe is a living thing itself. BULLSHIT, for the reasons I stated above. And even one "scientist" I saw on Cobert, stupidly suggested that "all this" was a "giant simulation".
Well the problem with a God or even a "giant simulation" is the problem with "infinite regress". If what is created needs a complex creator(god or program), then that god/program, would need an even more complex creator, and that creator would need an even more complex creator, and that creator would need an even more complex creator,,,,,,,,,,, and so on and so on. Complexity is an outcome in reality, not a starting point.
Ok, but also look at it this way. Which is more likely if you were to make bets? 1. A God/any god/super natural being. is real? Or humans make them up?
None of our currently popular superstitions were around 4 billion years ago much less 13 billion years ago. Nor will our currently popular superstitions be around when our species goes extinct much less after the planet dies and our sun dies. The universe will continue on with absolutely no record of our existence.
Another book you need to read if you have not is "The New Atheism" by Victor Stenger.
:-k A sobering thought! "Drink and be merry for tomorrow we die." :shock: 8-[ Solitary
Quote from: "Brian37"Another book you need to read if you have not is "The New Atheism" by Victor Stenger.
Thanks for the recommendation!
All you need to do to become an atheist is to honestly ask one question: What's a god?
It's a good book, but Hitchens' "God is Not Great" is better. I'd recommend reading it when you finish this one.
Quote from: "Valigarmander"It's a good book, but Hitchens' "God is Not Great" is better. I'd recommend reading it when you finish this one.
God is Not Great was ok, but I preferred The God Delusion. If you want the most bang for your buck I say Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation packs more into less, but perhaps only if have a christian upbringing/background
Quote from: "Valigarmander"It's a good book, but Hitchens' "God is Not Great" is better. I'd recommend reading it when you finish this one.
I liked God is Not Great better, also. It had more food for thought (for me personally). I didn't get much new out of The God Delusion. I pretty much just agreed with most of the conclusions, which I had pondered long ago. Sometimes Dawkins would lose me. He would make a point, and then dissect it to such an extent that I would lose interest and skip ahead.
I have never read any books by "atheists", I figured if it was important to know I would have already known it......
:-k
Quote from: "Satt"I started on this forum as a Christian, moving slowly to being an Agnostic. I have started to read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and so far I have had a hard time putting it down. I will let you know if it pushes my over to Atheism or not
Agnosticism is not making statements for which you have no evidence. Atheism is not believing in any gods. So the question comes up - do you believe in God or not?
You can't both not believe and not not believe - that's logically nonsense. If you have any belief in any god at all you're still a theist. If you have none you're an atheist.
If you claim that god does or doesn't exist, something no one can know, you're gnostic. If you don't you're agnostic.
There are 4 possibilities:
1 - Gnostic theist ("God exists")
2 - Agnostic theist ("I believe in God but I have no evidence that he's real")
3 - Gnostic atheist ("there is no god")
4 - Agnostic atheist ("I don't believe in any gods and I haven't seen any evidence that any exist")
Agnostic isn't a midpoint between theist and atheist.
As for your question, Dawkins is good, Hitchens is good, Hawking is good, a physics book is good. Which will give YOU more depends on where you're starting from.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Satt"I started on this forum as a Christian, moving slowly to being an Agnostic. I have started to read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and so far I have had a hard time putting it down. I will let you know if it pushes my over to Atheism or not
Agnosticism is not making statements for which you have no evidence. Atheism is not believing in any gods. So the question comes up - do you believe in God or not?
You can't both not believe and not not believe - that's logically nonsense. If you have any belief in any god at all you're still a theist. If you have none you're an atheist.
If you claim that god does or doesn't exist, something no one can know, you're gnostic. If you don't you're agnostic.
There are 4 possibilities:
1 - Gnostic theist ("God exists")
2 - Agnostic theist ("I believe in God but I have no evidence that he's real")
3 - Gnostic atheist ("there is no god")
4 - Agnostic atheist ("I don't believe in any gods and I haven't seen any evidence that any exist")
Agnostic isn't a midpoint between theist and atheist.
As for your question, Dawkins is good, Hitchens is good, Hawking is good, a physics book is good. Which will give YOU more depends on where you're starting from.
While reading The God Delusion, I ran across Richard Dawkin's list of beliefs...
1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
Richard Dawkins said he is a "6". I used to be a "1", now I see myself at this point around a "4.5". :-k
Never read Dawkins' The God Delusion. I've really only read Hitchens', but only slightly enjoyed it. Though I've heard some good things about Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation, and even better things (intellectually) about Dennett's Breaking the Spell.
That said, as I mentioned above I personally haven't much enjoyed "New Atheist" books like I have debates/discussions featuring intelligent atheists.
It was also my first "atheist" book, and I recall that overall, I liked it and agreed with most of it. Some years later, the only specific thing I remember is the scale. I think it was the first time I realized that belief was not all black and white, yes or no.
At the time I read it, I was a 4 or 5. Now I am a 6.9. I think being fully certain on something about which there can be no certainty is not a logical position, so I cannot imagine being a 7.
As long as we are recommending things to you, I recommend watching Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God". It is humurous, but insightful. It is aimed at intillect and emotion, and it was the first piece of media that made me realize I had started to lose my belief, too. The full version is on Youtube. I would google and link it for you, but I am on my portable, and it is just a pain on this thing. :lol:
Quote from: "the_antithesis"All you need to do to become an atheist is to honestly ask one question: What's a god?
Made up crap humans invent to ignore their finite existence.
I thought
The God Delusion was excellent.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Quote from: "Valigarmander"It's a good book, but Hitchens' "God is Not Great" is better. I'd recommend reading it when you finish this one.
God is Not Great was ok, but I preferred The God Delusion. If you want the most bang for your buck I say Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation packs more into less, but perhaps only if have a christian upbringing/background
Agreed. I enjoyed both, but I'd say Harris edges it by packing a lot more into a lot less. I think I read
Letter to a Christian Nation in a day. That's no slight on Hitch, though...
Follow it with "God is not Great" and "The End of Faith"
I prefer the God delusion over God is not great . I'm a fan of Christopher Hitchens by the way . God isn't great is a fine book .
Quote from: "Satt"I started on this forum as a Christian, moving slowly to being an Agnostic. I have started to read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and so far I have had a hard time putting it down. I will let you know if it pushes my over to Atheism or not in the end. Have any of you read it? What are you thoughts on it?
Dawkins is an excellent biologist, but his forays into philosophy of religion and theology are a dismal failure and should be an embarrassment to his fellow atheists. He had better leave those fields to the experts and focus on evolutionary theory.
Quote from: "Krampus"Quote from: "Satt"I started on this forum as a Christian, moving slowly to being an Agnostic. I have started to read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins and so far I have had a hard time putting it down. I will let you know if it pushes my over to Atheism or not in the end. Have any of you read it? What are you thoughts on it?
Dawkins is an excellent biologist, but his forays into philosophy of religion and theology are a dismal failure and should be an embarrassment to his fellow atheists. He had better leave those fields to the experts and focus on evolutionary theory.
Dr. Dawkins does perfectly fine talking about those fields, as far as I can see. All he really says is that they're complete and utter bullshit, which is true.
I never had any issues with Dawkins' forays into religion and philosophy either. What's so bad about them?
Quote from: "Plu"I never had any issues with Dawkins' forays into religion and philosophy either. What's so bad about them?
But I mean, he does not master the subtleties of theistic arguments in the analytic tradition, and does not deal very effectively with the intelligent design objections except with the absurd retort "who designed the designer?", and he hardly knows anything about liberal theology (he thinks that liberals are wrong on the score that they foster blind faith, which then gives rise to fundamentalism. But of course, liberal theologians are aware of their limits and their uncertainties, which makes them humble, while fundamentalists have absolute certainties and don't tolerate other worldviews. That's the real difference between them.). His summary of Atheism in history is laughable. His knowledge of the Bible is incredibly shallow, unfair and biased. One of the main problems of his case is selective reporting. He almost exclusively presents one side of the coin, and gives the evidence supporting his views, without much mentioning contrary evidence or qualifying his grand claims. Come on, Dawkins, stick to evolutionary biology and let philosophers and theologians argue in peace.
Quote from: "Krampus"But I mean, he does not master the subtleties of theistic arguments in the analytic tradition,
The only analytic tradition worth mastering is literary analysis.
Quote from: "Krampus"and does not deal very effectively with the intelligent design objections except with the absurd retort "who designed the designer?"
It's not absurd to point out big, gaping holes in the other side's logic.
Quote from: "Krampus"and he hardly knows anything about liberal theology (he thinks that liberals are wrong on the score that they foster blind faith, which then gives rise to fundamentalism. But of course, liberal theologians are aware of their limits and their uncertainties, which makes them humble, while fundamentalists have absolute certainties and don't tolerate other worldviews. That's the real difference between them.).
Translation: The difference between a liberal and fundamentalist theologian is that the liberal at least knows he's full of shit.
Quote from: "Krampus"His summary of Atheism in history is laughable.
And demonstrable.
Quote from: "Krampus"His knowledge of the Bible is incredibly shallow, unfair and biased.
Translation: He understands the Bible better than the theists preaching it.
Quote from: "Krampus"One of the main problems of his case is selective reporting. He almost exclusively presents one side of the coin, and gives the evidence supporting his views, without much mentioning contrary evidence or qualifying his grand claims.
There is no evidence supporting the other side of the argument. No, seriously, there is nothing for him to present, or he would present it.
Quote from: "Krampus"Dawkins is an excellent biologist, but his forays into philosophy of religion and theology are a dismal failure and should be an embarrassment to his fellow atheists. He had better leave those fields to the experts and focus on evolutionary theory.
I see where you are coming from, but I disagree.
The God Delusion is very much an entry-level text with regard to atheism and the critique of religion. As such, I think it is extremely valuable in that it gives the layman a gradient up which to move towards more in-depth texts, and a taste of the arguments to come. You wouldn't expect someone with no previous experience to immediately understand the ins and outs of midrash exegesis or wade right into Kierkegaard would you?
If you come from background of philosophy or theological education then yes, TGD will probably disappoint, but I know a great many people that have found it illuminating and wanted to investigate the topic further. For that reason alone, I think it is valuable.
Quote from: "Youssuf Ramadan"Quote from: "Krampus"Dawkins is an excellent biologist, but his forays into philosophy of religion and theology are a dismal failure and should be an embarrassment to his fellow atheists. He had better leave those fields to the experts and focus on evolutionary theory.
I see where you are coming from, but I disagree. The God Delusion is very much an entry-level text with regard to atheism and the critique of religion. As such, I think it is extremely valuable in that it gives the layman a gradient up which to move towards more in-depth texts, and a taste of the arguments to come. You wouldn't expect someone with no previous experience to immediately understand the ins and outs of midrash exegesis or wade right into Kierkegaard would you?
If you come from background of philosophy or theological education then yes, TGD will probably disappoint, but I know a great many people that have found it illuminating and wanted to investigate the topic further. For that reason alone, I think it is valuable.
Sure, it's great to write popular books and to explain tough issues in words laypeople can understand. So I don't expect Dawkins to write in the style of a philosophy paper.
The problem is that even as an introduction, TGD fails. To write a popular book, you need to at least master the topic the book is about. When Dawkins wrote The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker, we felt he mastered the field. This is not so in TGD, in which he wields empty rhetoric, gross oversimplifications, cheap arguments and biased accounts.
There are great defenses of atheism out there, some for a popular readership, some for scholars, but TGD is not one of them.
Quote from: "Krampus"When Dawkins wrote The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker, we felt he mastered the field. This is not so in TGD, in which he wields empty rhetoric, gross oversimplifications, cheap arguments and biased accounts.
Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Quote from: "Krampus"The problem is that even as an introduction, TGD fails. To write a popular book, you need to at least master the topic the book is about. When Dawkins wrote The Selfish Gene or The Blind Watchmaker, we felt he mastered the field. This is not so in TGD, in which he wields empty rhetoric, gross oversimplifications, cheap arguments and biased accounts.
I can see how someone who doesn't understand how vacuous religion actually is could think that cogent arguments against it are "empty rhetoric, gross oversimplifications, cheap arguments and biased accounts" when they're actually cogent arguments against religion.
QuoteThere are great defenses of atheism out there
How theistic of you. Atheism doesn't need "defense", it's the default position. The theistic assertion needs defense - and there is none, nor has any ever been presented (and I'm going back to the neolithic, at least).
It appears that you see yourself as a very well educated person addressing a forum full of the uninformed. If that's the case, be prepared to bear the brunt of a lot of facts that you may find very uncomfortable. I'm not the only one posting here who knows a little something about religion.
I'm guessing the real problem is that you think that writing a book to point out the problems in religion should be a complicated, philosophical work, when in reality all you need to point out the problems in religion is a very small amount of common sense.
Just an update...I stopped reading The God Delusion about 3/4 of the way through and read the book God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens. I like it a lot better so far. For some reason, Hitchens connects with me better than Dawkins. I am definately more solidly an Agnostic now.
"The God Delusion" and "The Greatest Show On Earth" were the two books that really pushed me into atheism. TGD is very... common sensical I find, but if that's something you weren't introduced to then it has its uses.
I don't quite understand why everyone here appears to defend Dawkins. It is perfectly fine to be a nontheist and to disagree with Dawkins and to find him shallow and biased when he deals with philosophy and theology.
There are good arguments for atheism out there, but The God Delusion does not come close to making them.
I...guess...
QuoteI don't quite understand why everyone here appears to defend Dawkins. It is perfectly fine to be a nontheist and to disagree with Dawkins and to find him shallow and biased when he deals with philosophy and theology.
I'm guessing... because we don't consider him to be shallow and biased.
Quote from: "Krampus"I don't quite understand why everyone here appears to defend Dawkins. It is perfectly fine to be a nontheist and to disagree with Dawkins and to find him shallow and biased when he deals with philosophy and theology.
Because he's not that shallow or biased at all. If something is ridiculous, you don't need to delve that deeply in your explanation of why it's ridiculous. This is why I generally do not get in-depth in my explanations of why, for example, the Bible is bullshit. I
could go in-depth, but it is not required because I can give a far simpler explanation.
Quote from: "Krampus"There are good arguments for atheism out there, but The God Delusion does not come close to making them.
You don't have to argue for atheism, because atheism is not a position. It is a term we use for a lack of a position, which is only necessary because we live in a world where people have adopted this bewildering presumption that theism should be an assumption rather than a provable position.
Quote from: "Krampus"There are good arguments for atheism out there, but The God Delusion does not come close to making them.
Again, atheism doesn't need an argument, it's the default position.
Theism is what needs an argument, and so far no one has come up with one, except "I need to believe" (in one form of statement or another). And that's nice - for the person making that argument, but not a reason anyone else should become a theist.
Only theists see a need for an argument for atheism. Atheists just don't see any argument for theism. (Or any need for it.)
Finished reading the God Delusion...
I thought it was meh. I mean, there are a number of serious arguments for God's existence and a number of counter-arguments from our side. I didn't find (nor expect) Dawkins to be particularly insightful (outside his areas of expertise) and that seems to be the case.
Overall, I think I'd have to more or less side with Krampus on this.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Krampus"There are good arguments for atheism out there, but The God Delusion does not come close to making them.
Again, atheism doesn't need an argument, it's the default position.
Theism is what needs an argument, and so far no one has come up with one, except "I need to believe" (in one form of statement or another). And that's nice - for the person making that argument, but not a reason anyone else should become a theist.
Only theists see a need for an argument for atheism. Atheists just don't see any argument for theism. (Or any need for it.)
Ok, I have to take issue with the statement that atheism is the "default" position. I have two reasons.
A) almost all cultures throughout history have developed a creation myth. It is the nature of humans to sit and contemplate the origin of life. Most may not be much good at noodling it out, but you got to admit we've sure come up with a shit load of wild and crazy ideas. Some of the native groups up here had a cool story about the great raven who got the ball rolling. I think they should have stuck with that instead of letting those pesky catholics convert them. But I digress. If atheism was our default position we wouldn't be so easily swayed by the village priest.
B) I don't know how many times I've talked to a Christian and been told "see that tree, if there's no God..." you know how that goes. Point is, we might say that atheism feels like the default position, but the theists are just as firm about believing that there's is the default position.
So, I'm sorry, but I think we need to explain ourselves with logic and even more importantly with some very good facts.
Quote from: "Eric1958"Ok, I have to take issue with the statement that atheism is the "default" position.
As far as I'm concerned, when a baby is born it is not religious. Religiosity comes through being told what to believe by others, or maybe by a need in later life. So theoretically, the child is born atheist. I was born with no belief in unicorns, therefore my default setting was a-unicorn-ist.
It also depends what someone understands by the term 'atheist'. For me an atheist is someone who holds no belief in god. For others, an atheist is a slavering and vociferous anti-god mouthpiece . Sometimes language can get in the way of the argument.
At the very least, one could say agnosticism is the default position. Maybe that works better?
I'm a six, and will be a seven when I can prove there isn't a god or anything else that doesn't make any logical sense without any empirical evidence. :-k If God came back and stopped all the pain and suffering in the world, I'd be a one that worshipped Him. :-D If He just came back I'd be a one, but sure as hell wouldn't worship Him like He was some celebrity that deserved respect. [-X :evil: :twisted: Solitary
Quote from: "Eric1958"Ok, I have to take issue with the statement that atheism is the "default" position.
Not accepting an assertion that seems, at best, foolish on its face and for which no evidence has been provided (that's what the "God exists" argument is) is the default position. I have two reasons.
QuoteA) almost all cultures throughout history have developed a creation myth. It is the nature of humans to sit and contemplate the origin of life. Most may not be much good at noodling it out, but you got to admit we've sure come up with a shit load of wild and crazy ideas. Some of the native groups up here had a cool story about the great raven who got the ball rolling. I think they should have stuck with that instead of letting those pesky catholics convert them. But I digress. If atheism was our default position we wouldn't be so easily swayed by the village priest.
I didn't say that human beings default to not believing in God, I said that atheism is the default position. The two are somewhat related, but they're nowhere near being the same.
QuoteB) I don't know how many times I've talked to a Christian and been told "see that tree, if there's no God..." you know how that goes. Point is, we might say that atheism feels like the default position, but the theists are just as firm about believing that there's is the default position.
We may feel like we defaulted to atheism, and they may feel like they defaulted to theism, but that has nothing to do with the default position, which is a logic thing.
QuoteSo, I'm sorry, but I think we need to explain ourselves with logic and even more importantly with some very good facts.
"Need to" implies a goal. I don't have the goal of deconverting theists, so I don't need to explain myself. Derisive laughter at people who are willfully ignorant suffices for me. I do all this (posting on fora, studying religion, archaeology, etc.) for my own edification and enjoyment, not for any other reason.
Now if you have a need to deconvert Christians, then you need to explain yourself. But atheism, as an entity, doesn't.
Quote from: "Youssuf Ramadan"At the very least, one could say agnosticism is the default position. Maybe that works better?
The default position when it comes to making statements for which we have no evidence, but that still doesn't address the default position vis-a-vis belief in a god.
Krampus: "I don't quite understand why everyone here appears to defend Dawkins. It is perfectly fine to be a nontheist and to disagree with Dawkins and to find him shallow and biased when he deals with philosophy and theology.
There are good arguments for atheism out there, but The God Delusion does not come close to making them."
Dawkins' book could have made a "good argument[] for atheism" with just one sentence; "There is no good evidence for the existence of any gods." That's it. That's all he needed to write.
For you to claim that The God Delusion "does not come close to making them ["good arguments for atheism"]" is absurd. Making a good argument for atheism is as easy as making a good argument for "a-unicorn-ism"--lack of evidence. Period.
:Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." It wasn't even that long ago that science didn't have any evidence of quarks. My problem with God is that religious organization don't even try to find evidence for God because they have faith without evidence. You would think they would have tried to find real reliable evidence for God after 2,000+ years when He is suppose to be involved in their lives so much, but they haven't.
No logical evidence that can't be explained away without God by scientific facts and sound logic, and no empirical evidence that can't be explained without God. "The tide goes in, the tide goes out." Won't cut it! Either God effects their lives, or He doesn't, and if He doesn't then He is worthless and the same as if He didn't exist, and the world would be no different than it is or has been. 8-) Solitary
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
A popular saying, especially among Christian apologists. But philosophically indefensible. The only evidence of absence we have for unicorns is absence of evidence. That is good enough for you, I presume, to be an "a-unicorn-ist," is it not?
In the same way, the complete absence of evidence for any gods, along with the fact that life appears exactly as one would expect it to appear if it had evolved by natural, non-intelligent means, is absolutely adequate to make any rational person who is intellectually honest with themselves an atheist.
Dawkins' arguments were more than adequate to justify his position as an atheist. That fact that he didn't use philosophical language that is obscure to the general public doesn't make his arguments any less definitive.
Peter Singer is an accomplished philosopher who writes for the general public, and I don't think his arguments would be made any stronger by using a bunch of pretentious scholarly language. I doubt there is any philosophical argument that can't be adequately communicated using normal, everyday English.
That's my take, anyway.
Quote from: "BugRib""Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
A popular saying, especially among Christian apologists. But philosophically indefensible. The only evidence of absence we have for unicorns is absence of evidence. That is good enough for you, I presume, to be an "a-unicorn-ist," is it not?
In the same way, the complete absence of evidence for any gods, along with the fact that life appears exactly as one would expect it to appear if it had evolved by natural, non-intelligent means, is absolutely adequate to make any rational person who is intellectually honest with themselves an atheist.
Dawkins' arguments were more than adequate to justify his position as an atheist. That fact that he didn't use philosophical language that is obscure to the general public doesn't make his arguments any less definitive.
Peter Singer is an accomplished philosopher who writes for the general public, and I don't think his arguments would be made any stronger by using a bunch of pretentious scholarly language. I doubt there is any philosophical argument that can't be adequately communicated using normal, everyday English.
That's my take, anyway.
There have been many things that were assumed or believed to exist without evidence that were showed later to exist with evidence. Just because something doesn't have evidence doesn't prove it might not some day. You can reasonably assume God doesn't exist, but you cannot prove He doesn't, you can show his attributes are not true because they are contradictory, but again, you can't prove a god can't exist. And yes an invisible pink unicorn does exist and comes out during gay parades. :roll: Solitary
Are you blind?
(//http://i.imgur.com/RxHoXIP.jpg)
Quote from: "BugRib""Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
A popular saying, especially among Christian apologists. But philosophically indefensible.
It's not indefensible, it's just not a good argument. As Solitary correctly pointed out, there are plenty of things in science for which we had no evidence until relatively recently. Absence of evidence in those cases was not evidence of absence, and the same applies to deities. The difference is that theists think it's a good enough argument to justify believing in their chosen deity.
> "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
> A popular saying, especially among Christian apologists. But philosophically indefensible. The only evidence of absence we have for unicorns is absence of evidence. That is good enough for you, I presume, to be an "a-unicorn-ist," is it not?
> In the same way, the complete absence of evidence for any gods, along with the fact that life appears exactly as one would expect it to appear if it had evolved by natural, non-intelligent means, is absolutely adequate to make any rational person who is intellectually honest with themselves an atheist.
And the more evidence there should be for a particular entity, the less scouring of the universe for evidence is required before dismissing that entity as unlikely. We can be pretty sure the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist because the ecology in the loch is pretty well cataloged and measured, and if there were a family of giant animals living there, the equations wouldn't balance. In other words, if the monster did exist, there should be a space for it in the ecology. Lack of this evidence, which should exist, constitutes evidence of lack.
Likewise, with all the claims made for God, there should be an incredible amount of evidence for this creature, but there is none. That's evidence against.
Frank
Quote from: "Solitary"Quote from: "BugRib""Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
A popular saying, especially among Christian apologists. But philosophically indefensible. The only evidence of absence we have for unicorns is absence of evidence. That is good enough for you, I presume, to be an "a-unicorn-ist," is it not?
In the same way, the complete absence of evidence for any gods, along with the fact that life appears exactly as one would expect it to appear if it had evolved by natural, non-intelligent means, is absolutely adequate to make any rational person who is intellectually honest with themselves an atheist.
Dawkins' arguments were more than adequate to justify his position as an atheist. That fact that he didn't use philosophical language that is obscure to the general public doesn't make his arguments any less definitive.
Peter Singer is an accomplished philosopher who writes for the general public, and I don't think his arguments would be made any stronger by using a bunch of pretentious scholarly language. I doubt there is any philosophical argument that can't be adequately communicated using normal, everyday English.
That's my take, anyway.
There have been many things that were assumed or believed to exist without evidence that were showed later to exist with evidence. Just because something doesn't have evidence doesn't prove it might not some day. You can reasonably assume God doesn't exist, but you cannot prove He doesn't, you can show his attributes are not true because they are contradictory, but again, you can't prove a god can't exist. And yes an invisible pink unicorn does exist and comes out during gay parades. :roll: Solitary
Are you blind?
[ Image (//http://i.imgur.com/RxHoXIP.jpg) ]
You win... :wink:
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "BugRib""Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
A popular saying, especially among Christian apologists. But philosophically indefensible.
It's not indefensible, it's just not a good argument. As Solitary correctly pointed out, there are plenty of things in science for which we had no evidence until relatively recently. Absence of evidence in those cases was not evidence of absence, and the same applies to deities. The difference is that theists think it's a good enough argument to justify believing in their chosen deity.
I just meant it's indefensible as an absolute. There are cases where absence of evidence clearly is evidence of absence (pink unicorns, omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent deities, etc.), and there are cases where absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (diamonds on Mars).
Another saying that's often bandied about in arguments about the supernatural is "You can't prove a negative." Sure you can. I can prove that there are no NBA players in my house.
In the case of gods, however, I suppose one can't prove that some supreme being did not create the universe. But I think it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the no omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent being (i.e. Yahweh/Jehovah/God/Allah) created and has absolute power over the universe. It's almost certainly a logical impossibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence)
All you have to do to become a atheist is think about the ridiculousness of prayer to a sky being that lives in your mind, your soul, your heart, your sky, your home...and...etc etc. Sometimes I pray....to help me sleep, and to just express gratitude for life. Not that I really think someone else a million miles away in my next lifetime....but NOT my reincarnated body, just my perfect sky body.....is listening. Devastated really that I can't believe in Heaven anymore, I love my family, and wish I could live with them forever in a sky box mansion.
The God Delusion is ok, but nothing fantastic, IMO.
Quote from: "BugRib"But I think it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt the no omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent being (i.e. Yahweh/Jehovah/God/Allah) created and has absolute power over the universe. It's almost certainly a logical impossibility.
It's proved beyond a reasonable doubt
to rational people, but theists, and fundies in particular, "know" beyond any doubt, so any "proof" to the contrary
must be faulty, whether they can determine exactly what the fault is or not. IOW, they have "proof" beyond reasonable doubt - for them - that your "reasonable proof" isn't reasonable or proof.
Quote from: "Sal1981"The God Delusion is ok, but nothing fantastic, IMO.
To be fair, it doesn't really seem intended for folks who are already atheists.
Quote from: "BugRib""Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
A popular saying, especially among Christian apologists. But philosophically indefensible. The only evidence of absence we have for unicorns is absence of evidence. That is good enough for you, I presume, to be an "a-unicorn-ist," is it not?.
But unicorns are real.
[spoil:3016qiaw](//http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tT1lUXe9PD4/TpPPRL4ARiI/AAAAAAAAAhw/3hLrM8kwaM8/s1600/indian_rhinoceros+the+most+amazing+endagered+animal+in+asia.jpg)[/spoil:3016qiaw]
Quote from: "BugRib"Dawkins' book could have made a "good argument[] for atheism" with just one sentence; "There is no good evidence for the existence of any gods." That's it. That's all he needed to write.
To be a book presenting a good case for atheism, TGD would have had to have had in-depth and valid refutations of the main arguments for God's existence, not an unfounded platitude that it would have been had it really only have been what you suggest it should have been.
QuoteFor you to claim that The God Delusion "does not come close to making them ["good arguments for atheism"]" is absurd. Making a good argument for atheism is as easy as making a good argument for "a-unicorn-ism"--lack of evidence. Period.
The problem is that there aren't legions of folk defending unicornism - both in and out of academia - like there is for the God of Christianity and Islam. The God Delusion didn't make a great case for atheism and it isn't absurd to say that. Good arguments 'for' atheism would by necessity taking theistic arguments to task or crafting arguments showing some internal contradiction with a theistic religion, their apologetics or the concept of their god.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "BugRib"Dawkins' book could have made a "good argument[] for atheism" with just one sentence; "There is no good evidence for the existence of any gods." That's it. That's all he needed to write.
To be a book presenting a good case for atheism, TGD would have had to have had in-depth and valid refutations of the main arguments for God's existence, not an unfounded platitude that it would have been had it really only have been what you suggest it should have been.
Pointing out that there is an absolute lack of any credible evidence for an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent creator is hardly "an unfounded platitude." If I explained my "a-unicorn-ism" by pointing out that there is a total lack of evidence, would I be perpetuating "an unfounded platitude"? Or course not. I would be offering an absolutely adequate explanation of why I don't believe in unicorns. Such an argument for atheism is equally adequate.
Of course, I realize that one sentence does not a successful book make. But, though such a book would probably not sell many (or any) copies, that doesn't change the fact that that one sentence provides a more than adequate justification for atheism.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"The problem is that there aren't legions of folk defending unicornism - both in and out of academia - like there is for the God of Christianity and Islam. The God Delusion didn't make a great case for atheism and it isn't absurd to say that. Good arguments 'for' atheism would by necessity taking theistic arguments to task or crafting arguments showing some internal contradiction with a theistic religion, their apologetics or the concept of their god.
First off, the number of people arguing for the existence of a sky daddy has no relevance to whether "lack of evidence" is an adequate reason to be an atheist. Also, I read
The God Delusion twice, and I'm pretty sure it took on every major philosophical and "scientific" argument for God's existence (half of which are so pathetic they don't even deserve a rebuttal--Ontological Argument anyone? Intelligent Design--the proverbial "God of the Gaps" argument? Do these childish arguments really even deserve rebuttals by grown-ups?).
It's just that I have lately noticed the emergence of this pretentious internet
meme (regards to Dr. Dawkins) that "Dawkins should stay away from philosophy and stick to science," and it's really starting to get tiresome. There's no area of human inquiry that requires more mastery of logic and reason than science (i.e. natural
philosophy). Guess what? Scientists
are philosophers, and most of them are just as good, if not better, at using the tools of reason, rationality, and logic than the average philosopher--IMHO.
If somebody doesn't like
The God Delusion because it's boring, or it doesn't have enough big words, or because it contains nothing they don't already know, that's fine. But to say that it fails to make the case for atheism because "Dawkins is a poor philosopher" just makes my eyes roll.
Quote from: "BugRib"[
Pointing out that there is an absolute lack of any credible evidence for an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent creator is hardly "an unfounded platitude." If I explained my "a-unicorn-ism" by pointing out that there is a total lack of evidence, would I be perpetuating "an unfounded platitude"? Or course not. I would be offering an absolutely adequate explanation of why I don't believe in unicorns. Such an argument for atheism is equally adequate.
The problem is that you cannot simply say "there is no credible evidence for X" without actually seeing if there is any proposed evidence. If there is, you would then hammer away at
why the evidence is bad, not brush it off. Hence the unicorn comparison is nonsense since I doubt you've seen numerous people mounting evidence for the existence of unicorns.
QuoteOf course, I realize that one sentence does not a successful book make. But, though such a book would probably not sell many (or any) copies, that doesn't change the fact that that one sentence provides a more than adequate justification for atheism
Except that if you don't go into exactly why whatever supposed evidence there is flawed, then that's just an assertion versus actual arguments, flawed or not.
QuoteFirst off, the number of people arguing for the existence of a sky daddy has no relevance to whether "lack of evidence" is an adequate reason to be an atheist.
You actually missed the point, which was that because the unicorn proposition doesn't have multitudes of people defending and constructing arguments for it like God does, you actually have to show why the arguments for God's existence are wrong, rather than just saying that an adequate defense for atheism is just to assert.
QuoteAlso, I read The God Delusion twice, and I'm pretty sure it took on every major philosophical and "scientific" argument for God's existence (half of which are so pathetic they don't even deserve a rebuttal--Ontological Argument anyone? Intelligent Design--the proverbial "God of the Gaps" argument? Do these childish arguments really even deserve rebuttals by grown-ups?).
If you read, you'll notice I said "in-depth and valid". For example, Dawkins doesn't spend much going against the Cosmological argument other than to say that he doesn't think such grand conclusions about reality can be found through a mere argument.
Also, if I remember correctly Dawkins only went after Anselm's Ontological argument, not Plantinga's more modern one. And the arguments are serious and well-made. Clearly I think they're wrong, but I wouldn't just laugh them off as childish.
QuoteIt's just that I have lately noticed the emergence of this pretentious internet meme (regards to Dr. Dawkins) that "Dawkins should stay away from philosophy and stick to science," and it's really starting to get tiresome.
Lately? People have been saying that for years because it's true.
QuoteThere's no area of human inquiry that requires more mastery of logic and reason than science (i.e. natural philosophy).
Uh, no. Philosophy, by necessity of the training involved, familiarizes you with logic and reasoning far more than other disciplines. Heck, it alone defined errors in reasoning and constructs logical frameworks.
QuoteGuess what? Scientists are philosophers, and most of them are just as good, if not better, at using the tools of reason, rationality, and logic than the average philosopher--IMHO.
And I can confidently say that your opinion is incorrect. Scientists aren't philosophers, they're scientists. They don't do philosophy, rather they employ and (usually) employ the philosophical position of methodological naturalism. Scientists tend to rely on observation and experimentation, not just logic (which is no dig against scientists) because there is nothing about the way things behave at base that is intrinsically logical. And there are many questions and inquiries that are by necessity beyond its scope to answer, from ethics and mathematical ontology to epistemology and truth. Again, read my response to the previous quote.
QuoteBut to say that it fails to make the case for atheism because "Dawkins is a poor philosopher" just makes my eyes roll.
Well, no. The problem is that if you're going to say that someone is going to make a great case for their position when much of the subject matter falls outside of their specialized purview and knowledge base, I'm going to be suspicious. Dawkins isn't a physicist or a philosopher, so when he speaks on those topics in a book to make a case for atheism, it isn't surprising that he was so-so and wrong several times, since he steps out of his depth when entering into philosophy etc. It has nothing to do with lacking "big words".
QuoteThe problem is that you cannot simply say "there is no credible evidence for X" without actually seeing if there is any proposed evidence. If there is, you would then hammer away at why the evidence is bad, not brush it off. Hence the unicorn comparison is nonsense since I doubt you've seen numerous people mounting evidence for the existence of unicorns.
If you are correct then why are there so many people that believe in the Bible that talks about unicorns as history? What makes you think that atheists haven't looked for evidence of God? To say we would then hammer away at why the evidence is bad like it is wrong to do that is stupid.
QuoteExcept that if you don't go into exactly why whatever supposed evidence there is flawed, then that's just an assertion versus actual arguments, flawed or not.
Where is this evidence there is a God that isn't flawed?
QuoteYou actually missed the point, which was that because the unicorn proposition doesn't have multitudes of people defending and constructing arguments for it like God does, you actually have to show why the arguments for God's existence are wrong, rather than just saying that an adequate defense for atheism is just to assert.
The Bible is evidence that there were unicorns and God, talking snakes, talking donkeys, and you say the evidence is to be believed? The arguments for God have been shown to be logical fallacies because they assume a God exist as the premise that not everyone agrees upon. A logical argument can only be sound if the premises are agreed upon.
QuoteLately? People have been saying that for years because it's true.
:rollin: Do you even realize how stupid it is to say that? Those are all opinions not facts. It's also a logical fallacy called Popularity, like saying God must be real because most people agree He is.
QuoteUh, no. Philosophy, by necessity of the training involved, familiarizes you with logic and reasoning far more than other disciplines. Heck, it alone defined errors in reasoning and constructs logical frameworks.
Scientist by necessity of what they need to know about logic and sound reasoning in their profession, as well as scientific evidence is what enables them to construct logical frameworks or science wouldn't be so successful, unlike Philosophy that relies on conjecture without reliable evidence.
QuoteAnd I can confidently say that your opinion is incorrect. Scientists aren't philosophers, they're scientists. They don't do philosophy, rather they employ and (usually) employ the philosophical position of methodological naturalism. Scientists tend to rely on observation and experimentation, not just logic (which is no dig against scientists) because there is nothing about the way things behave at base that is intrinsically logical. And there are many questions and inquiries that are by necessity beyond its scope to answer, from ethics and mathematical ontology to epistemology and truth. Again, read my response to the previous quote.
You are correct, and philosophers aren't scientist that study the world we live in not hypothetical conundrums. And saying science can't study ethics, mathematical ontology to epistemology and truth is absurd because they have and done very well.
QuoteWell, no. The problem is that if you're going to say that someone is going to make a great case for their position when much of the subject matter falls outside of their specialized purview and knowledge base, I'm going to be suspicious. Dawkins isn't a physicist or a philosopher, so when he speaks on those topics in a book to make a case for atheism, it isn't surprising that he was so-so and wrong several times, since he steps out of his depth when entering into philosophy etc. It has nothing to do with lacking "big words".
Please show where he is wrong! One can be an idiot philosopher or a genius biologist. And where exactly are philosophers not out of their element when they are not physicists?
Why are there so many unanswered problems and paradoxes in philosophy and not in science or mathematics that have gotten rid of most of the contradictions and paradoxes ? Because philosophy relies on words that have more than one meaning. Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"If you are correct then why are there so many people that believe in the Bible that talks about unicorns as history? What makes you think that atheists haven't looked for evidence of God? To say we would then hammer away at why the evidence is bad like it is wrong to do that is stupid.
Most people who read the Bible and are monotheists do NOT believe in unicorns.
You realuze that I AM an atheist, right? If you actually follow the conversation, you'll see I was responding to his claim the Dawkins coukd have just written something like "There is no evidence for the existence of God."
Pay attention.
QuoteWhere is this evidence there is a God that isn't flawed?
Again, actually read. I said that if there is actual support for a position, to have grounds against it,
beyond mere assertion, you actually have to demonstrate why it's wrong.
QuoteThe Bible is evidence that there were unicorns and God, talking snakes, talking donkeys, and you say the evidence is to be believed? The arguments for God have been shown to be logical fallacies because they assume a God exist as the premise that not everyone agrees upon. A logical argument can only be sound if the premises are agreed upon.
Well, first off not everyone believes everything that the Bible says at face value, which is good. Second:y, not all pro-God arguments assume God exists. In fact, I'd say most of the prominent ones (Kalam, fine-tuning, etc.) do not.
Quote :rollin: Do you even realize how stupid it is to say that? Those are all opinions not facts. It's also a logical fallacy called Popularity, like saying God must be real because most people agree He is.
Actually, the fact that people have been saying this about Dawkins for several years is true. I didn't say it was true because a lot of people say it is, but that a lot of people have said it because it is true.
QuoteScientist by necessity of what they need to know about logic and sound reasoning in their profession, as well as scientific evidence is what enables them to construct logical frameworks or science wouldn't be so successful, unlike Philosophy that relies on conjecture without reliable evidence.
Scientists don't create logical frameworks nor does the evidence they uncover allow them to do so (that doesn't even make sense), that's what philosophers do.
I do think it's funny that you don't think philosophy progresses or is successful, or has any basis in evidence. :rollin: Philosophy uses evidence (by which I assume you mean empirical evidence) where applicable. I'd like to see you try to use empirical evidence in a discussion on the ontology of math.
I had a sinking feeling this was going to get turned into a science vs. philosophy thing, and voila it has.
QuoteYou are correct, and philosophers aren't scientist that study the world we live in not hypothetical conundrums. And saying science can't study ethics, mathematical ontology to epistemology and truth is absurd because they have and done very well.
Just fractal wrongness here. Philosophy does "study" the reality, all aspects of it. But not all of reality is amenable to science. You say that science has studied AND had success in the areas I mentioned (ethics, mathematical ontology, truth and epistemology) - I pray tell, where, on ANY of those topics? I know you're bullshitting, because it hasn't. This, again, is not a knock against science, but what you're doing is clear 'scientism', i.e making your love for science blind you to areas that it cannot be of [much] use, certainly not solving it, as they are often conceptual issues.
QuotePlease show where he is wrong! One can be an idiot philosopher or a genius biologist. And where exactly are philosophers not out of their element when they are not physicists?
Why are there so many unanswered problems and paradoxes in philosophy and not in science or mathematics that have gotten rid of most of the contradictions and paradoxes ? Because philosophy relies on words that have more than one meaning. Solitary
I think Joe will get a laugh out of this one, what with you thinking that science has gotten rid of 'most of its paradoxes and contradictions'. :rollin: I mean hell, all I have to do really is gesture to wave-particle duality, quantum gravity, Big Bang, consciousness etc. to show your bullshit.
Science doesn't tend to fret about the conundrums in philosophy not because scientists think thet can solve them all, but (probably) because they feel their own time is better spent assuming a particular position and going on from there. Why would a scientist spend too much time worrying about the problems with the
Correspondence Theory of Truth when there are people who are likely more capable (because of their education)?
Quote from: "BugRib"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "BugRib"Dawkins' book could have made a "good argument[] for atheism" with just one sentence; "There is no good evidence for the existence of any gods." That's it. That's all he needed to write.
To be a book presenting a good case for atheism, TGD would have had to have had in-depth and valid refutations of the main arguments for God's existence, not an unfounded platitude that it would have been had it really only have been what you suggest it should have been.
Pointing out that there is an absolute lack of any credible evidence for an omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent creator is hardly "an unfounded platitude." If I explained my "a-unicorn-ism" by pointing out that there is a total lack of evidence, would I be perpetuating "an unfounded platitude"? Or course not. I would be offering an absolutely adequate explanation of why I don't believe in unicorns. Such an argument for atheism is equally adequate.
Adequate for atheists, or for people who were born Christian but don't go much further into it.
But for people who are more certain that God exists than they are that Lincoln is really in Nebraska, it's not even a platitude. They believe, as much as you believe that the sun is hotter than dry ice, that if the Bible says that God exists, he does. Writing a book that says "the entire basis of your life is total nonsense" isn't going to convince them.
QuoteIf somebody doesn't like The God Delusion because it's boring, or it doesn't have enough big words, or because it contains nothing they don't already know, that's fine. But to say that it fails to make the case for atheism because "Dawkins is a poor philosopher" just makes my eyes roll.
No argument there. Because the only "case for atheism" one can make is only sufficient for those who are already convinced. You can't write a book that will make Christians convert, but you may be able to make some of them think, just a little. And that takes more than "there's never been any objective evidence of any god".
Quote from: "Solitary"unlike Philosophy that relies on conjecture without reliable evidence. [/color]
The philosophy classes taught in colleges these days teach students to walk through a logical thought process and back up assertions with proper evidence and sources. In ethics, for example, competing theories on morality are used to teach this because it is challenging to back up a pure moral argument; students eventually learn to bring in cases to demonstrate a particular moral theory in action, and make their case as to why they agree or disagree with the moral theory. They are taught to stop looking at it in terms of right and wrong and instead to look at it in terms of what will realistically bring the greatest benefit and the fewest malefactors to a society. (Generally defined in terms of physical and mental health.) It uses the scientific philosophy even if it is not science itself. Any modern philosophy class worth its salt operates on scientific philosophy, and certainly does not rely on "conjecture without reliable evidence." Just thought I'd clear that up for you. :-D
On that note, I thought Dawkins' takes on philosophy were just fine. While it's necessary to say more than, "there is no evidence for the existence of God," you don't need to get into very advanced philosophy to tear apart theistic arguments.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "Solitary"If you are correct then why are there so many people that believe in the Bible that talks about unicorns as history? What makes you think that atheists haven't looked for evidence of God? To say we would then hammer away at why the evidence is bad like it is wrong to do that is stupid.
Most people who read the Bible and are monotheists do NOT believe in unicorns.
You realuze that I AM an atheist, right? If you actually follow the conversation, you'll see I was responding to his claim the Dawkins coukd have just written something like "There is no evidence for the existence of God."
Pay attention.
QuoteWhere is this evidence there is a God that isn't flawed?
Again, actually read. I said that if there is actual support for a position, to have grounds against it, beyond mere assertion, you actually have to demonstrate why it's wrong.
QuoteThe Bible is evidence that there were unicorns and God, talking snakes, talking donkeys, and you say the evidence is to be believed? The arguments for God have been shown to be logical fallacies because they assume a God exist as the premise that not everyone agrees upon. A logical argument can only be sound if the premises are agreed upon.
Well, first off not everyone believes everything that the Bible says at face value, which is good. Second:y, not all pro-God arguments assume God exists. In fact, I'd say most of the prominent ones (Kalam, fine-tuning, etc.) do not.
Quote :rollin: Do you even realize how stupid it is to say that? Those are all opinions not facts. It's also a logical fallacy called Popularity, like saying God must be real because most people agree He is.
Actually, the fact that people have been saying this about Dawkins for several years is true. I didn't say it was true because a lot of people say it is, but that a lot of people have said it because it is true.
QuoteScientist by necessity of what they need to know about logic and sound reasoning in their profession, as well as scientific evidence is what enables them to construct logical frameworks or science wouldn't be so successful, unlike Philosophy that relies on conjecture without reliable evidence.
Scientists don't create logical frameworks nor does the evidence they uncover allow them to do so (that doesn't even make sense), that's what philosophers do.
I do think it's funny that you don't think philosophy progresses or is successful, or has any basis in evidence. :rollin: Philosophy uses evidence (by which I assume you mean empirical evidence) where applicable. I'd like to see you try to use empirical evidence in a discussion on the ontology of math.
I had a sinking feeling this was going to get turned into a science vs. philosophy thing, and voila it has.
QuoteYou are correct, and philosophers aren't scientist that study the world we live in not hypothetical conundrums. And saying science can't study ethics, mathematical ontology to epistemology and truth is absurd because they have and done very well.
Just fractal wrongness here. Philosophy does "study" the reality, all aspects of it. But not all of reality is amenable to science. You say that science has studied AND had success in the areas I mentioned (ethics, mathematical ontology, truth and epistemology) - I pray tell, where, on ANY of those topics? I know you're bullshitting, because it hasn't. This, again, is not a knock against science, but what you're doing is clear 'scientism', i.e making your love for science blind you to areas that it cannot be of [much] use, certainly not solving it, as they are often conceptual issues.
QuotePlease show where he is wrong! One can be an idiot philosopher or a genius biologist. And where exactly are philosophers not out of their element when they are not physicists?
Why are there so many unanswered problems and paradoxes in philosophy and not in science or mathematics that have gotten rid of most of the contradictions and paradoxes ? Because philosophy relies on words that have more than one meaning. Solitary
I think Joe will get a laugh out of this one, what with you thinking that science has gotten rid of 'most of its paradoxes and contradictions'. :rollin: I mean hell, all I have to do really is gesture to wave-particle duality, quantum gravity, Big Bang, consciousness etc. to show your bullshit.
Science doesn't tend to fret about the conundrums in philosophy not because scientists think thet can solve them all, but (probably) because they feel their own time is better spent assuming a particular position and going on from there. Why would a scientist spend too much time worrying about the problems with the Correspondence Theory of Truth when there are people who are likely more capable (because of their education)?
"I mean hell, all I have to do really is gesture to wave-particle duality, quantum gravity, Big Bang, consciousness etc. to show your bullshit."
Really! You obviously don't understand quantum mechanics or mathematics actually works do you? And I did say most, not all! There is a three body problem for example in math but the process is almost without paradoxes accept for the set problem. As far as consciousness, how is that a paradox or contradiction? The Big Bang problem has been solved with quantum mechanics. And the wave particle duality is not a paradox and is easily understood if one realizes a particle is real, and a wave is shown by a bunch of particle, and there no contradiction in the logic used for the calculations.
You are correct that quantum gravity hasn't been solved, so how is that a paradox or contradiction? And why are you so sure Joe would disagree. He disagreed with me once here and you laughed your silly ass off until he agreed with me after I showed an electron and photon are particles and not waves until you have a group of them. Even if Joe was the very top expert in the field you're still appealing to authority that is not always logical because there are authorities that don't agree with each other. You need to educate yourself on math, science, modern cosmology, and formal logic before you start saying stupid shit. [-X Solitary
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"The philosophy classes taught in colleges these days teach students to walk through a logical thought process and back up assertions with proper evidence and sources.
This is called "The Scientific Method." And it is good that this is what they are teaching in advanced philosophy classes because it is the only kind of "philosophical" method of thought that has any relevance in determining actual truth claims in the real world (such as whether there is a super-being running the universe). Peter Singer, for example, is notable for applying what can only be called "The Scientific Method" to ethics, and this is what makes him perhaps the most respected and influential living ethicist. (He's also notable for avoiding pretentious philosophical jargon.)
And this is why I say scientists
are philosophers. They take the methods of logic and rationality worked out by philosophers (and other scientists) and apply them to the outside world. They are
natural philosophers, and their job is to determine how things work in the real world and to figure out what's true and what's false. This is exactly what Dawkins does in The God Delusion, and he does it more than adequately.
While the more esoteric branches of philosophy are important (and at times incredibly, mind-blowingly interesting), they are not better-equipped than scientists to determine truth claims about the real world (e.g. Is God real?). What I want these Dawkins naysayers to do is point out specifically where he is actually "wrong," and where his arguments actually fail. And if they can't do so without resorting to postmodernist-style philosophical jargon--that is, if they can't do so within the confines of plain old English--then I think they are pretentious and full of it.
For instance, why is it silly for Dawkins to point out that the Cosmological Argument fails because it quite obviously fails to explain where the "Creator" came from? This is logic at its most basic. Why is it silly to ask proponents of the Cosmological Argument why the Creator doesn't need a creator, as somebody here asserted?
(BTW, I don't recall Dawkins ever claiming the mantle of philosopher. And if he is practicing philosophy in his book, it is only that school of philosophy known as "The Scientific Method"--something that he is more than capable of employing.)
Quote from: "BugRib"This is called "The Scientific Method."
I know. That was the point of the post. Solitary seemed to think modern philosophy used something other than that.
Quote from: "BugRib"This is called "The Scientific Method." And it is good that this is what they are teaching in advanced philosophy classes because it is the only kind of "philosophical" method of thought that has any relevance in determining actual truth claims in the real world (such as whether there is a super-being running the universe). Peter Singer, for example, is notable for applying what can only be called "The Scientific Method" to ethics, and this is what makes him perhaps the most respected and influential living ethicist. (He's also notable for avoiding pretentious philosophical jargon.)
Sure, the generalized (and thus not really "the") scientific method is chiefly reliant on empiricism. However, your claim that it is the only relevant method of determning truth claims in reality is hilariously false, self-defeating and amounts to logical positivism for goodness sake. If 'the' scientific method is the only way of judging truth claims of reality, then the claim itself is false, seeing as it is neither an application of 'the' scientific method nor self-attesting, and is therefore contradictory.
Further, it essentially voids mathematics (since it doesn't use the scientific method) and would also mean that areas where science is of little to no use , like epistemology or truth theories, are in fact open to science even though they aren't seeing as they're chiefly conceptual and yet clearly involve truth claims about reality and - more fundamentally - about the very nature of what it even
means to be a "truth claim".
QuoteAnd this is why I say scientists are philosophers. They take the methods of logic and rationality worked out by philosophers (and other scientists) and apply them to the outside world. They are natural philosophers, and their job is to determine how things work in the real world and to figure out what's true and what's false. This is exactly what Dawkins does in The God Delusion, and he does it more than adequately.
Scientists determine what works, that is not an application of logic. Otherwise how things behave would be logically necessitated; but they aren't, as I can deny that without contradiction. And again, scientists aren't really modern philosophers in anything more than the somewhat trivial sense under which I can claim to be a philosopher of a sort as well.
QuoteWhile the more esoteric branches of philosophy are important (and at times incredibly, mind-blowingly interesting), they are not better-equipped than scientists to determine truth claims about the real world (e.g. Is God real?).
It is in fact the case that where the questions about reality are not amenable to science (as I said earlier: mathematics' ontological status, epistemology, ethics, etc.) philosophers are much more well equipped at tackling the questions in a way that scientists just aren't due to it being out of their depth because of differing education. And the same goes for philosophers in some cases. This isn't so much about being 'better' as it is about being honest where something works.
QuoteWhat I want these Dawkins naysayers to do is point out specifically where he is actually "wrong," and where his arguments actually fail. And if they can't do so without resorting to postmodernist-style philosophical jargon--that is, if they can't do so within the confines of plain old English--then I think they are pretentious and full of it.
I've already done this. His treatment of the Ontological argument is hollow and does little more than call it something along the lines of pretentious. His treatment of the Cosmological argument is similar, wherein his real criticism mostly amounts to saying that he fails to see how a mere argument could establish something so radical about reality. Not all of his treatment of the Cosmological argument is bad, it's just so-so.
QuoteFor instance, why is it silly for Dawkins to point out that the Cosmological Argument fails because it quite obviously fails to explain where the "Creator" came from? This is logic at its most basic. Why is it silly to ask proponents of the Cosmological Argument why the Creator doesn't need a creator, as somebody here asserted?
That would be me and I'll tell you why: Dawkins' objection - and the usual atheist objection - to the Cosmological argument is self-defeating and voids science. The Cosmological argument itself doesn't
intend to say "where" the Creator came from, because that's supposed to be antithetical to its nature. It just
is, much like reality itself.
Further, the Cosmological argument is positing God as the best explanation/solution to given problems. If you require that the best explanation itself be explained, you inescapably start an infinite regression of explanation-explaining that cannot be solved; there is no recourse but to nix that. That's why Dawkins' particular objection (the usual atheist objection to the CA) fails.
GurrenLagenn, you say my claim about "the scientific method" being the only way we can know actual truths about reality is laughable. You then cover your ass by claiming that mathematics is not based on the scientific method.
I fear that few philosophers of science will agree with you that math is not science (unless they are strict Popperians--and even Popper ultimately concluded that the vast majority of--if not all--mathematical theorems were "proven" scientifically). All of math rests on the fact that we can prove simple equations experimentally. From there, it's all inference, induction, and deduction--all methods of science by the reckoning of probably everyone on earth with an advanced degree in philosophy.
And even if I can't convince you that math is a science, I doubt you can come up with a mathematical theorem that was discovered and "proven" purely ontologically. If you do, you will have made history.
And as for your claim that the efficacy of the "the scientific method" can only be proved ontologically, well you're in the company of lots of wonderful Christian apologists who want to claim that science ultimately rests on the same kind of faith as religious belief. Have fun with them.
Anyway, don't forget to get back to me with a truth about reality that was discovered and proven purely ontologically.
Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"Quote from: "BugRib"This is called "The Scientific Method."
I know. That was the point of the post. Solitary seemed to think modern philosophy used something other than that.
Sorry Hijiri. I didn't mean to come across as condescending to you. Point taken.
I found this quote for you GurrenLagann:
>>>Many philosophers believe that mathematics is not experimentally falsifiable, and thus not science according to the definition of Karl Popper. However, in the 1930s important work in mathematical logic showed that mathematics cannot be reduced to logic, and Karl Popper concluded the "most mathematical theories are, like those of physics and biology, hypothetico-deductive: pure mathematics therefore turns out to be much closer to the natural sciences whose hypotheses are conjectures, than it seemed even recently."<<<
http://mathandtext.blogspot.nl/ (http://mathandtext.blogspot.nl/)
Quote from: "BugRib"GurrenLagenn, you say my claim about "the scientific method" being the only way we can know actual truths about reality is laughable. You then cover your ass by claiming that mathematics is not based on the scientific method.
I fear that few philosophers of science will agree with you that math is not science (unless they are strict Popperians--and even Popper ultimately concluded that the vast majority of--if not all--mathematical theorems were "proven" scientifically). All of math rests on the fact that we can prove simple equations experimentally. From there, it's all inference, induction, and deduction--all methods of science by the reckoning of probably everyone on earth with an advanced degree in philosophy.
And even if I can't convince you that math is a science, I doubt you can come up with a mathematical theorem that was discovered and "proven" purely ontologically. If you do, you will have made history.
Math isn't science because science studies the natural universe and math is a creation of man to aid in the understanding of the natural universe, a small but crucial difference. Science gives math context and math gives science validity through quantitative experimentation. They go hand in hand but are not one in the same.
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Math does not do this.
Formal science isn't science.
Quote from: "Icarus"Quote from: "BugRib"GurrenLagenn, you say my claim about "the scientific method" being the only way we can know actual truths about reality is laughable. You then cover your ass by claiming that mathematics is not based on the scientific method.
I fear that few philosophers of science will agree with you that math is not science (unless they are strict Popperians--and even Popper ultimately concluded that the vast majority of--if not all--mathematical theorems were "proven" scientifically). All of math rests on the fact that we can prove simple equations experimentally. From there, it's all inference, induction, and deduction--all methods of science by the reckoning of probably everyone on earth with an advanced degree in philosophy.
And even if I can't convince you that math is a science, I doubt you can come up with a mathematical theorem that was discovered and "proven" purely ontologically. If you do, you will have made history.
Math isn't science because science studies the natural universe and math is a creation of man to aid in the understanding of the natural universe, a small but crucial difference. Science gives math context and math gives science validity through quantitative experimentation. They go hand in hand but are not one in the same.
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Math does not do this.
A purely semantic disagreement.
What's important in this debate is that mathematical theorems cannot be discovered or proven purely ontologically. That, in fact, mathematicians use the same methods to discover and prove theorems as scientists do--namely inference, induction, and deduction, all ultimately resting on the ability to experimentally prove the simpler equations on which the complex theorems are ultimately built.
Quote from: "BugRib"A purely semantic disagreement.
What's important in this debate is that mathematical theorems cannot be discovered or proven purely ontologically. That, in fact, mathematicians use the same methods to discover and prove theorems as scientists do--namely inference, induction, and deduction, all ultimately resting on the ability to experimentally prove the simpler equations on which the complex theorems are ultimately built.
I thought that was the argument because the fact that mathematicians use the same method as scientists is obvious. Same thought process with difference conceptualizations. It's a lot easier for scientists to show their results in research papers, I've never read a published mathematical paper nor do I wish to.
Hello, Icarus.
To claim that mathematics is not a branch of science, one has to be something of a strict Popperian. The problem with being a strict Popperian is that it becomes very difficult to, for instance, say that evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory.
Definitions aside, this all goes back to the claim that Dawkins poorly or even erroneously responds to things like the Cosmological or Ontological Argument for the existence of a supreme being, because he's not a good "philosopher"--which according to GurranLagann, apparently, means that he's not qualified to deal with arguments from "pure reason." The fact is, the Cosmological argument is easy to shoot down with elementary school logic. To claim that an accomplished scientist and critical thinker like Dawkins is not qualified to deal with such a weak argument doesn't make sense to me.
As for the various formulations of the Ontological Argument, they simply don't add up to what they claim they add up to, and I don't know of any philosophers--other than full-on Christian apologists--who takes any such arguments seriously. In fact, I don't think most Christian apologists even take them seriously anymore. And it's not just that they're not quite convinced by them, it's that they flat out don't take them seriously.
The Ontological Argument in its various forms is simply not worth responding to on serious philosophical grounds. However, it obviously is worth responding to for, shall we say, political reasons--kind of like Intelligent Design "Theory."
Ontological Argument That I'm Perfect.
1) I know I'm perfect.
2) It's impossible to know something if it's not true, otherwise one could not be said to know it.
3) Therefore, it logically follows that I am, in fact, perfect.
Can anyone spot the fallacy? Is it worth it to even bother?
I read the book (actually, I listened to the audio version), and found it very well researched and informative. I was very happy to see it (and Hitchens' book too) selling so well. Good to get the atheist perspective in the mainstream world amid all the religiobot noise out there.
I've hard some theists say that Dawkins' arguments don't stand up to the arguments of "modern, cutting-edge theology". I asked one person in particular about what these were. Turns out the "modern theology" is merely very loose, liberal interpretations of what these theologians say is a flawed, human-written, non-divinely-inspired Bible, rather than Biblical literalism. Sounds like a cop-out to me.
Quote from: "BugRib"Hello, Icarus.
To claim that mathematics is not a branch of science, one has to be something of a strict Popperian. The problem with being a strict Popperian is that it becomes very difficult to, for instance, say that evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory.
Definitions aside, this all goes back to the claim that Dawkins poorly or even erroneously responds to things like the Cosmological or Ontological Argument for the existence of a supreme being, because he's not a good "philosopher"--which according to GurranLagann, apparently, means that he's not qualified to deal with arguments from "pure reason." The fact is, the Cosmological argument is easy to shoot down with elementary school logic. To claim that an accomplished scientist and critical thinker like Dawkins is not qualified to deal with such a weak argument doesn't make sense to me.
As for the various formulations of the Ontological Argument, they simply don't add up to what they claim they add up to, and I don't know of any philosophers--other than full-on Christian apologists--who takes any such arguments seriously. In fact, I don't think most Christian apologists even take them seriously anymore. And it's not just that they're not quite convinced by them, it's that they flat out don't take them seriously.
The Ontological Argument in its various forms is simply not worth responding to on serious philosophical grounds. However, it obviously is worth responding to for, shall we say, political reasons--kind of like Intelligent Design "Theory."
Ontological Argument That I'm Perfect.
1) I know I'm perfect.
2) It's impossible to know something if it's not true, otherwise one could not be said to know it.
3) Therefore, it logically follows that I am, in fact, perfect.
Can anyone spot the fallacy? Is it worth it to even bother?
I'm not claiming math isn't a branch of science, I'm saying that it isn't a branch of science.
(//http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/The_Scientific_Universe.png)
That chart shows logic (philosophy) and math as a formal science. If you look at any university website you'll see that every real science is classified as a B.Sc, bachelors of science. Philosophy is counted as a bachelor of arts and math has it's own bachelor of math. Now why would universities, the hub of human knowledge and learning classify what you consider to be science as non-sciences? That's because formal sciences aren't sciences. The chart showing the social sciences as science should also be a dead giveaway.
Both pigeons and grasshoppers have a proventriculus; while both sections of the animals have the same name, those sections are neither homologous or analogous. People just like having fun coming up with names to fuck with other people. Like calling a non-science science.
I'm not sure if the second half of your post is directed at me or GurranLagann. Anyone is qualified to debate logical arguments because logic is intuitive for many people. When I was still a student I got an A+ in a critical thinking (philosophy arts elective) course by just showing up to both midterms and the final exam and putting the obvious answer down.
Quote from: "BugRib"GurrenLagenn, you say my claim about "the scientific method" being the only way we can know actual truths about reality is laughable. You then cover your ass by claiming that mathematics is not based on the scientific method.
I fear that few philosophers of science will agree with you that math is not science (unless they are strict Popperians--and even Popper ultimately concluded that the vast majority of--if not all--mathematical theorems were "proven" scientifically). All of math rests on the fact that we can prove simple equations experimentally. From there, it's all inference, induction, and deduction--all methods of science by the reckoning of probably everyone on earth with an advanced degree in philosophy.
Even assuming that everything you said were true, isn't it telling that you ignored my other examples (epistemology, theories of truth and mathematical ontology)? Because I didn't just "cover my ass" by gesturing towards mathematics, I brought up areas where empiricism (and thus science) is practically useless due to the nature of the subject, which was the entire reason for my response, i.e the blatant scientism on display here from several users.
Also, it isn't agreed upon whether or not science makes use of deductive or abductive reasoning, or to what extent if it even does. Though strangely I don't recall even bringing anything up about that.
QuoteAnd even if I can't convince you that math is a science, I doubt you can come up with a mathematical theorem that was discovered and "proven" purely ontologically. If you do, you will have made history.
I didn't make such a claim.
QuoteAnd as for your claim that the efficacy of the "the scientific method" can only be proved ontologically, well you're in the company of lots of wonderful Christian apologists who want to claim that science ultimately rests on the same kind of faith as religious belief. Have fun with them.
I made no such claim. What I did say is that "the" scientific method (there rally isn't "the" scientific method, but I digress) isn't some universally applicable method that can solve everything like several of you either implied or stated, and I gave several disciplines where that is the case (i.e epistemology, truth theories, mathematical ontology, etc.).
QuoteAnyway, don't forget to get back to me with a truth about reality that was discovered and proven purely ontologically.
I'm quite certain this is just a straw-man you've built. Try actually reading my post next time.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"i.e the blatant scientism on display here from several users.
Why is this a bad thing? I didn't know what it was until I looked it up and it sounds reasonable.
Science is fundamentally about finding the rules that physical events follow. Mathematics is fundamentally about assuming rules (axioms) and determining what notions are consistent with those rules. They both involve the use of logical inferences but each uses logical inference making for fundamentally different purposes. Science starts with observation of physical events and uses logical inference making to ferret out patterns in those events. Mathematics starts with axioms and uses inference making to determine whether or not a notion is consistent with those axioms.
Quote from: "BugRib"Definitions aside, this all goes back to the claim that Dawkins poorly or even erroneously responds to things like the Cosmological or Ontological Argument for the existence of a supreme being, because he's not a good "philosopher"--which according to GurranLagann, apparently, means that he's not qualified to deal with arguments from "pure reason." The fact is, the Cosmological argument is easy to shoot down with elementary school logic. To claim that an accomplished scientist and critical thinker like Dawkins is not qualified to deal with such a weak argument doesn't make sense to me.
Okay, hold on there. First off all, I didn't merely claim that Dawkins' critique was erroneous, I demonstrated that by pointing out the fact that Dawkins' objection would void science because his objection would require that all explanation be explained in the terms of that which they seek to explain. Infinite regress be thy name.
I did
not say that because Dawkins isn't a philosopher, he is not qualified to speak on such matters, or that he did so poorly all around. What I actually said was is that since the subject matter involved both philosophy and physics (i.e not Dawkins' fields of familiarity) it isn't surprising that a number of atheists (like myself) and theists found it so-so or paltry.
QuoteAs for the various formulations of the Ontological Argument, they simply don't add up to what they claim they add up to, and I don't know of any philosophers--other than full-on Christian apologists--who takes any such arguments seriously. In fact, I don't think most Christian apologists even take them seriously anymore. And it's not just that they're not quite convinced by them, it's that they flat out don't take them seriously.
I'd somewhat agree with you here. The real problem is that it tends to be somewhat hard to see where they go wrong, especially if you just blindly accept the initial premise.
QuoteOntological Argument That I'm Perfect.
1) I know I'm perfect.
2) It's impossible to know something if it's not true, otherwise one could not be said to know it.
3) Therefore, it logically follows that I am, in fact, perfect.
Can anyone spot the fallacy? Is it worth it to even bother?
Not really, but P2 seems shaky. I mean I know that 2+2=5 is false do I not? ;)
Quote from: "Icarus"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"i.e the blatant scientism on display here from several users.
Why is this a bad thing? I didn't know what it was until I looked it up and it sounds reasonable.
I don't like the word because I think some theists throw it around ridiculously, but there is a definition of it that is applicable at times. It's something like "the belief that the only meaningful questions are those answerable by science" or "all questions are within the scope of science to answer". Something like that, the exact definition of what I consider to be the negatively connotated usage escapes me. It would basically amount to the long-since discredited "logical positivism" (though I've heard something about an attempted comeback of it).
I read it when I was 18. Don't care for the New Atheists.
QuoteI mean I know that 2+2=5 is false do I not?
If you do, then you know incorrectly.
Only in Hindu-Arabic mathematics is that an inherently true statement. Of course, that is what the world more-or-less agreed to use, so you would meet very few people (I am assuming?) that would actually disagree with you... but... still... its not an inherently true statement in certain other mathematics (most of which probably died out because of their inefficient math skills). Computer's might have an issue with it, thankfully no one asks their opinions. They are jerks anyways.
Right then, I just thought I would throw that pointless point of the day out there.
QuoteOnly in Hindu-Arabic mathematics is that a true statement.
That's not right. "2+2=5 is false" is true in Hindu-Arabic mathematics, but not
only there. It's true in an infinite number of systems. And you could also come up with an infinite number of systems where it's false. It's also a meaningless string of symbols in an infinite number of systems.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteOnly in Hindu-Arabic mathematics is that a true statement.
That's not right. "2+2=5 is false" is true in Hindu-Arabic mathematics, but not only there. It's true in an infinite number of systems. And you could also come up with an infinite number of systems where it's false. It's also a meaningless string of symbols in an infinite number of systems.
True, I should specify in USED systems. Binary, for example, or the Mayan mathematics (Babylon it MIGHT be true? But we don't use that anymore anyways...) it wouldn't be.
But yeah, to say you KNOW it is false or true... doesn't actually make sense since it is both and neither. But really it doesn't matter either way; this is not a legitimate criticism of that statement but just a... random thought of the day.
QuoteTrue, I should specify in USED systems. Binary, for example, or the Mayan mathematics (Babylon it MIGHT be true? But we don't use that anymore anyways...) it wouldn't be.
It's also true in Octal and Hexadecimal, both of which are in use. In binary it's not so much false as just non-sensical because it contains symbols that mean nothing in that system. :P
Anyway. Just random semantics.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteTrue, I should specify in USED systems. Binary, for example, or the Mayan mathematics (Babylon it MIGHT be true? But we don't use that anymore anyways...) it wouldn't be.
It's also true in Octal and Hexadecimal, both of which are in use. In binary it's not so much false as just non-sensical because it contains symbols that mean nothing in that system. :P
Anyway. Just random semantics.
Yup.
Well, I don't think that's quite right. You're forgetting that words merely refer to a particular concept, as do numbers. That would make 2+2=5 known to be false by all who knew the concepts involved prior to even seeing the equation. :)
Hello, GurrenLarann. First off, if I've mischaracterized your argument, I apologize. I admit that I've certainly made some assumptions based on what I thought you were saying. My bad.
Here's where our dispute started in earnest:
Quote from: "BugRib"Quote from: "Hijiri Byakuren"The philosophy classes taught in colleges these days teach students to walk through a logical thought process and back up assertions with proper evidence and sources.
This is called "The Scientific Method." And it is good that this is what they are teaching in advanced philosophy classes because it is the only kind of "philosophical" method of thought that has any relevance in determining actual truth claims in the real world (such as whether there is a super-being running the universe).
You responded by calling this assertion "laughable." Let's look at precisely what my assertion was using actual quotes so as to avoid any chance of me mischaracterizing your argument:
"[W]alk[ing] through a logical thought process and back[ing] up assertions with proper evidence and sources" is "called 'The Scientific Method.'...
t is the only kind of 'philosophical' method of thought that has any relevance in determining actual truth claims in the real world."
Again, you called this statement "laughable," implying that there are other philosophical methods for "determining actual truth claims in the real world." My assumption was that you were referring to some kind of esoteric, purely ontological methods of reasoning. Apparently I was mistaken.
So, what are these other "philosophical methods of thought" you speak of that are capable of "determining actual truth claims in the real world"? And what bits of knowledge about the real world have they ever uncovered?
edit: changed "are" to "our".
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Even assuming that everything you said were true, isn't it telling that you ignored my other examples (epistemology, theories of truth and mathematical ontology)? Because I didn't just "cover my ass" by gesturing towards mathematics, I brought up areas where empiricism (and thus science) is practically useless due to the nature of the subject, which was the entire reason for my response, i.e the blatant scientism on display here from several users.
you either implied or stated, and I gave several disciplines where that is the case (i.e epistemology, truth theories, mathematical ontology, etc.).
Here, I must again disagree with you. I don't know what "mathematical ontology" is, but empiricism in all branches of mathematics is not "practically useless." I would argue, as I have previously, that all of math is ultimately founded upon the fact that basic equations can be proven empirically, as in experimentally, as in physically. All of the more esoteric branches of mathematics would be meaningless without this empirical foundation.
Granted, there is no practical way to run a physical experiment that proves most mathematical assertions aside from the basic ones. But those esoteric mathematical theorems that are accepted as fact have been
empirically proven beyond a reasonable doubt through induction and/or deduction. If you think these methods are not scientific, then you may have a hard time making a self-consistent argument that Evolution by Natural Selection (as an explanation for the diversity of life on earth) is a scientific theory--which would put you in the extreme, strict Popperian minority.
I'll try to address more of your points when I get a chance. Thanks for an interesting discussion.
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Okay, hold on there. First off all, I didn't merely claim that Dawkins' critique was erroneous, I demonstrated that by pointing out the fact that Dawkins' objection would void science because his objection would require that all explanation be explained in the terms of that which they seek to explain. Infinite regress be thy name.
This sounds suspiciously like you're saying that the methods of science cannot be proven to work using the "methods of science" because that would be a tautology--and that that therefore proves that there must be other methods of finding factual truths besides the methods of science. I don't know where to begin debunking this claim except to say, as I did previously, that this is a favorite of Christian apologists.
Christian apologist: "How do we know logic works? We can't use logic to prove the efficacy of logic because that would be a tautology. Therefore, it must be taken on faith--just like religious belief."
Well, no. We know logic works because it ultimately leads to things like airplanes and electric razors, and such. But isn't that a logical deduction? Well yes, but the word "logic" encompasses more than one kind of thinking, so there's no tautology, and definitely no "faith" involved. Logic is big tent.
That's the best I can do for the moment. (I believe Sam Harris does a pretty good job succinctly addressing this issue in his book
The Moral Landscape, but the page number escapes me.)
Quote from: "BugRib"Here, I must again disagree with you. I don't know what "mathematical ontology" is, but empiricism in all branches of mathematics is not "practically useless." I would argue, as I have previously, that all of math is ultimately founded upon the fact that basic equations can be proven empirically, as in experimentally, as in physically. All of the more esoteric branches of mathematics would be meaningless without this empirical foundation.
Mathematical ontology is basically referring to the question of the ontological status of mathematics. It could be simplfied as a debate between Platonism (numbers/mathematical concepts actually exist in some realm of abstract mathematical objects) and nominalism (mathematics is a mental abstraction of sets), with fictionalism (mathematics is just useful, but in no sense can be said to be "true") trailing behind those 2. It doesn't have to do with running equations. :)
QuoteI'll try to address more of your points when I get a chance. Thanks for an interesting discussion.
No problem. :) Same to you.
Quote from: "BugRib"This sounds suspiciously like you're saying that the methods of science cannot be proven to work using the "methods of science" because that would be a tautology--and that that therefore proves that there must be other methods of finding factual truths besides the methods of science. I don't know where to begin debunking this claim except to say, as I did previously, that this is a favorite of Christian apologists.
Well, close. It's not that it's a tautology, but that it's entirely contradictory. If, as you said, the only 'useful philosophical method of determining truths about reality', then that statement itself is false by it's own claim: it's a (purported) truth about reality that was not arrived at via the methods of science. But worse, it's just logical positivism, which was abandoned in the 50s because of its untenability.
QuoteChristian apologist: "How do we know logic works? We can't use logic to prove the efficacy of logic because that would be a tautology. Therefore, it must be taken on faith--just like religious belief."
That sounds like a pressupositional argument. It's an annoying apologetic that misses the fact that the classical "laws" of logic are self-attesting, i.e cannot be wrong in any circumstance. They're really the onlt sort of thing that can do that.
QuoteWell, no. We know logic works because it ultimately leads to things like airplanes and electric razors, and such. But isn't that a logical deduction? Well yes, but the word "logic" encompasses more than one kind of thinking, so there's no tautology, and definitely no "faith" involved. Logic is big tent.
Hm, no. We don't know that logic works because of airplanes etc. Logic is just human-made systems of of deriving truths from axioms. There is nothing about the way reality behaves that is actually "logical", i.e there is no contradiction in saying that reality could have been such that it behaved differently, unlike with logic.
QuoteThat's the best I can do for the moment. (I believe Sam Harris does a pretty good job succinctly addressing this issue in his book The Moral Landscape, but the page number escapes me.)
Hm, I think Harris made some mistakes in that book though I liked parts of it.
Get your torches ready! Here is my opinion about whether mathematics is a science or not:
Mathematics is most definitely not a science. In science, it is assume that
there are a set of fundamental rules, the laws of nature,
and the task is to figure out what the rules are by observing the
results that occur when the rules are followed. Basically, it's an
attempt to reverse-engineer the machinery of the universe.
In math, it's the other way around. You get to choose the rules, and
the task is to discover the results of choosing any particular set of
rules. There is a superficial similarity, which leads some people to confuse
the two pursuits. In science, the way you test a theory is to codify
it as a set of rules, and then explore the consequences of those rules
- in effect, to predict what would happen if those rules were true.
You do the same thing in math, and in fact, the way it's done in math
serves as a model for the way it's done in science. But here is the big difference:
In science, as soon as your predictions conflict with experimental data, you're done.
You know that your rules are wrong, and you need to start putting together a
new set.
In math, this kind of conflict can't arise, because there is no
necessary connection between any mathematical theory and the world.
The way you test a set of rules in math is see whether the results
they produce are interesting enough to induce mathematicians to keep
playing with them.
We might summarize the situation this way: Science is the pursuit of
the correct description of our particular world; whereas math is
the pursuit of interesting descriptions of possible worlds. Whereas
scientific theories are right or wrong, mathematical theories are
merely interesting or uninteresting. 8-[ Solitary
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "BugRib"This sounds suspiciously like you're saying that the methods of science cannot be proven to work using the "methods of science" because that would be a tautology--and that that therefore proves that there must be other methods of finding factual truths besides the methods of science. I don't know where to begin debunking this claim except to say, as I did previously, that this is a favorite of Christian apologists.
Well, close. It's not that it's a tautology, but that it's entirely contradictory. If, as you said, the only 'useful philosophical method of determining truths about reality', then that statement itself is false by it's own claim: it's a (purported) truth about reality that was not arrived at via the methods of science. But worse, it's just logical positivism, which was abandoned in the 50s because of its untenability.
I don't think it's contradictory at all. And it certainly sounds like what you're saying is basically the same as the Christian apologist example I gave. That saying the methods of science (empiricism) are the only way we can know any facts about the universe is self-contradictory because--why, exactly?
Are you saying that it's because the above claim cannot be proven using the very methods it touts? That's simply not true. You can indeed prove that "the methods of science" are the only way to know any facts about the universe using those very "the methods of science" without engaging in any tautology or contradictions. I've tried to explain why this is so in previous posts, but apparently I failed.
So, again: What facts have we learned about the universe using something other than "the methods of science" (empiricism)?
Quote from: "Solitary"Basically, it's an attempt to reverse-engineer the machinery of the universe.
I like that. May I appropriate it if the opportunity arises?
Quote from: "Solitary"Get your torches ready! Here is my opinion about whether mathematics is a science or not:
Mathematics is most definitely not a science. In science, it is assume that
there are a set of fundamental rules, the laws of nature,
and the task is to figure out what the rules are by observing the
results that occur when the rules are followed. Basically, it's an
attempt to reverse-engineer the machinery of the universe.
Other than "when the rules are followed". That concept always gets my hackles up. Physical laws aren't something that have to be "followed" or "obeyed", they're ALWAYS followed. (When we observe a rule being "violated", we know it's time to restate the rule.)