The God Delusion

[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?

[Atheon]

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.

[Icarus]

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.



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.

[GurrenLagann]

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.

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.

I didn't make such a claim.

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.

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.).

Anyway, 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.

[Icarus]

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.

[entropy]

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.

[GurrenLagann]

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.

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.

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.

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?

Not really, but P2 seems shaky. I mean I know that 2+2=5 is false do I not? ;)

[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).

[Notthesun]

I read it when I was 18. Don't care for the New Atheists.

[Shiranu]

I 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.

[Plu]

Only 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.

[Shiranu]

Only 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.

[Plu]

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.

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.

[Shiranu]

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.

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.

[GurrenLagann]

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. :)