Creationists
19 Jun 2011, 8:36 pm
AngelRho wrote:
Sand wrote:
I have known and liked and delighted in the talents of gay people all my life but I am totally heterosexual and no encouragement by a columnist or anybody else could influence in the slightest way my fascination with women in all their aspects nor could I contemplate having a sexual relationship with a man with anything but disdain. This is not subject to persuasion and I sincerely doubt it is in anybody else.
Agreed, as am I. But it's less about persuading you on your own leanings but rather your acceptance of that of others. And by that, I'm not just referring to homosexuality but all currently controversial topics. You may prefer one "persuasion" for yourself personally which is not likely to change, but if you can be convinced to at least support the cause, then the side that has garnered your support has won. The FCKH8 video doesn't just represent gays--it represents straights who stand behind, er, BESIDE gays against hatred. The message is "straights are doing it, too." Without winning over straight comrades, pushing the agenda is much more difficult in that they have more opponents among straights than advocates. Similar for the pro-choice debate. If you can convince more people the issue is really about reproductive freedom and the rights of oppressed women, you're more likely to get help from people who might otherwise be opposed to abortion (as a personal decision) but willing to stand up for something they may see as fundamentally right (equality for everyone, hence "pro-choice").
Without the manipulation of language, this is a difficult task. In the words of Principal McGee, "If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter."
Whatever my inclinations towards athletics I was never tempted to become a jock strap.
I really have no feeling about what other people do to enjoy their sexual impulses as long as they do not injure anybody in the process. Men can, in my opinion, have sex with each other, with women, with horses or bears or ostriches and I couldn't care less as long as the ostriches had a good time too. The preoccupation of the USA with one of their political representatives exhibiting his sexual gifts openly I find more farcical than anything else. That the public seems less incensed over the military throwing over 6 billion dollars to the wind or the financial sector screwing the world to the tune of trillions of dollars and causing tremendous misery in the process gives me only a large feeling of contempt for the whole system. The sex business is downright silly.
20 Jun 2011, 12:25 pm
AngelRho wrote:
Proving the existence of logic without using logic: Using something to prove itself is circular reasoning--sort of like saying "The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true." Never mind that, as far as I'm aware, that's not actually IN the Bible, you can't merely just "take someone's word" for something; otherwise, how do you know it's the truth? So I'm not saying circular reasoning is ALWAYS acceptable. I'm saying in the case of logic, what choice do you really have?
"You did not say prove the existence of logic without using any [thought] process." Logic requires thought process, though. And thus the whole point. Any kind of thought process is based on some kind of basic formal logic, regardless of how that formal logic is defined. It need not be "classic" logic, and as you know, that process is relative from person to person and from experience to experience. It doesn't matter HOW you define it, it still IS. Logic doesn't exist once you take away all consciousness. No thought process, no logic. And without logic, you cannot ascertain that there even IS such a thing as "thought process" or "awareness." So for our purpose here, "thought process"="logic" in that logic IS a kind of thought process (I'm sure there are others and that not all thought processes are logic). I guess hypothetically you could say you could arrive at logic through illogical thought processes, but is the choice of a particular path to determining whether logic exists a choice made from logic? Again, circular reasoning and no good.
[\quote]
Nonsense word salad.
Your failure is to distinguish between an idea, or fictional object like Harry Porter and reality like atoms. There is no problem with making unprovable assumptions about fictional objects because we are only interested in the fiction. So either you just admit your god is nothing but a fictional character like Harry Porter and keep it to your fantasy or give us some real evidence.
"You did not say prove the existence of logic without using any [thought] process." Logic requires thought process, though. And thus the whole point. Any kind of thought process is based on some kind of basic formal logic, regardless of how that formal logic is defined. It need not be "classic" logic, and as you know, that process is relative from person to person and from experience to experience. It doesn't matter HOW you define it, it still IS. Logic doesn't exist once you take away all consciousness. No thought process, no logic. And without logic, you cannot ascertain that there even IS such a thing as "thought process" or "awareness." So for our purpose here, "thought process"="logic" in that logic IS a kind of thought process (I'm sure there are others and that not all thought processes are logic). I guess hypothetically you could say you could arrive at logic through illogical thought processes, but is the choice of a particular path to determining whether logic exists a choice made from logic? Again, circular reasoning and no good.
[\quote]
Nonsense word salad.
Quote:
The solution I came up with is this: No solution=no problem. We do know, for instance, that logic is just really being consistent. It's OK to make that assumption without proof.
Where you and I will most likely disagree is whether that works for the existence of God. I mentioned the ontological argument as a quick example of a logical proof (a priori, "God is that above which nothing greater can be conceived"). For the ontological argument to even work, one must assume from the get-go that God is even possible. "Classic" proofs and evidentiary claims fail because while they do show God to exist, they can't show God to exist without first assuming that there is even a God at all to prove! Refutations of the argument depend not merely on pointing out logical flaws of the arguments, but rather on the truth of the claims themselves. They are logically sound, but are they true? All you have to do is assume that God does NOT exist and they all fall apart.
But...assuming what you want to prove is, what?
So if you're allowed to make unprovable assumptions, then it's safe to assume that God DOES exist. Much more makes sense, whether you're a Christian or not, by starting with that basic presupposition. Even assuming God won't destroy all of science--after all, up until Galileo and for a long time afterward, the Jesuits were champions of scientific thought even before it had a name, and they didn't see any conflict with assuming a Creator. Many highly respected scientists of the present day are Christian or some other deity-dependent faith and it doesn't get in the way of their work. If nothing else, presupposing God to exist is more open minded and thorough in one's own personal mental discipline.
Where you and I will most likely disagree is whether that works for the existence of God. I mentioned the ontological argument as a quick example of a logical proof (a priori, "God is that above which nothing greater can be conceived"). For the ontological argument to even work, one must assume from the get-go that God is even possible. "Classic" proofs and evidentiary claims fail because while they do show God to exist, they can't show God to exist without first assuming that there is even a God at all to prove! Refutations of the argument depend not merely on pointing out logical flaws of the arguments, but rather on the truth of the claims themselves. They are logically sound, but are they true? All you have to do is assume that God does NOT exist and they all fall apart.
But...assuming what you want to prove is, what?
So if you're allowed to make unprovable assumptions, then it's safe to assume that God DOES exist. Much more makes sense, whether you're a Christian or not, by starting with that basic presupposition. Even assuming God won't destroy all of science--after all, up until Galileo and for a long time afterward, the Jesuits were champions of scientific thought even before it had a name, and they didn't see any conflict with assuming a Creator. Many highly respected scientists of the present day are Christian or some other deity-dependent faith and it doesn't get in the way of their work. If nothing else, presupposing God to exist is more open minded and thorough in one's own personal mental discipline.
Your failure is to distinguish between an idea, or fictional object like Harry Porter and reality like atoms. There is no problem with making unprovable assumptions about fictional objects because we are only interested in the fiction. So either you just admit your god is nothing but a fictional character like Harry Porter and keep it to your fantasy or give us some real evidence.
Quote:
The real question, then, is not WHETHER God exists but rather WHO God is. Yahweh makes more sense than the God of other faiths.
Indeed. Prove that god is not just some nonsense gibberish. Otherwise saying god exists or not is just nonsense gibberish.
20 Jun 2011, 2:05 pm
@01001011
I can see you mind working over this issue and it is commendable that you have thought about the idea of a grounding beliefs. However, it seems that you are presently squirming against the idea that an idea can be a 'basic belief'. Your epistemological quandary is not a new one, people have been struggling with it for centuries. One of the reasons the logical positivists held out for so long was the sure fire certainty that if it was overturned then the gates would be open to religious philosophy. The problem being, their arguments were not sound and their logic was circular. In the end the ground was given; so that now, it is really only in popular culture and on the internet that logical positivism survives. Despite its death, it is still pervasive. Sand in particular seems immune from its defeat. If you are looking for arguments against us believers, then you will have to move on from logical positivism into some sort of foundationalism. I personally subscribe to 'Reformed Epistemology' (I recommend that you read a book on the subject by Plantinga like, 'Warrant: The Current Debate' 'Warranted Christian Belief 'or 'Knowledge of God Great Debates in Philosophy' the latter contains a debate between Planting and Tooley, there is just too much misrepresentation of Plantinga's work so books are far better than blogs), though I do have a good deal of sympathy for, the highly similar, 'Fallible Foundationalism' of Prof. Keith Lehrer.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
20 Jun 2011, 3:07 pm
91 wrote:
@01001011
I can see you mind working over this issue and it is commendable that you have thought about the idea of a grounding beliefs. However, it seems that you are presently squirming against the idea that an idea can be a 'basic belief'. Your epistemological quandary is not a new one, people have been struggling with it for centuries. One of the reasons the logical positivists held out for so long was the sure fire certainty that if it was overturned then the gates would be open to religious philosophy. The problem being, their arguments were not sound and their logic was circular. In the end the ground was given; so that now, it is really only in popular culture and on the internet that logical positivism survives. Despite its death, it is still pervasive. Sand in particular seems immune from its defeat. If you are looking for arguments against us believers, then you will have to move on from logical positivism into some sort of foundationalism. I personally subscribe to 'Reformed Epistemology' (I recommend that you read a book on the subject by Plantinga like, 'Warrant: The Current Debate' 'Warranted Christian Belief 'or 'Knowledge of God Great Debates in Philosophy' the latter contains a debate between Planting and Tooley, there is just too much misrepresentation of Plantinga's work so books are far better than blogs), though I do have a good deal of sympathy for, the highly similar, 'Fallible Foundationalism' of Prof. Keith Lehrer.
I can see you mind working over this issue and it is commendable that you have thought about the idea of a grounding beliefs. However, it seems that you are presently squirming against the idea that an idea can be a 'basic belief'. Your epistemological quandary is not a new one, people have been struggling with it for centuries. One of the reasons the logical positivists held out for so long was the sure fire certainty that if it was overturned then the gates would be open to religious philosophy. The problem being, their arguments were not sound and their logic was circular. In the end the ground was given; so that now, it is really only in popular culture and on the internet that logical positivism survives. Despite its death, it is still pervasive. Sand in particular seems immune from its defeat. If you are looking for arguments against us believers, then you will have to move on from logical positivism into some sort of foundationalism. I personally subscribe to 'Reformed Epistemology' (I recommend that you read a book on the subject by Plantinga like, 'Warrant: The Current Debate' 'Warranted Christian Belief 'or 'Knowledge of God Great Debates in Philosophy' the latter contains a debate between Planting and Tooley, there is just too much misrepresentation of Plantinga's work so books are far better than blogs), though I do have a good deal of sympathy for, the highly similar, 'Fallible Foundationalism' of Prof. Keith Lehrer.
Have you read any of Karl Popper. Logical Positivism may have betten the dust, but falsificationism is a alive and well. Among physicists, Karl Popper is just about the only philosopher whose ideas are entertained without contempt.
ruveyn
20 Jun 2011, 3:07 pm
Wow - turn your eyes away for an hour and who knows what comes:
AngelRho -
The Whorf Hypothesis whether strong or weak version is a different thing. Language structure may or may not affect perceptions in a meaningful way - I would not want to delve into that further without severe provoication.
But what I am undertsanding you to be talking about is that which is primal for every powertalker on the planet, not least my sister and Herself's brother. You support peace, don't you? Of course you do! So you agree we have to ban the bomb, don't you? OR So you agree we have to drop the bomb on the warmongering enemy, don't you? We are not killing Grandma, we are helping her to die with dignity.
Euphemism. Nice sounding word for nice sounding words for things that [to put it bluntly] stink.
Constantly needing renewing, because no matter what you call the loo neither its smell or that of the rose is changed.
20 Jun 2011, 3:25 pm
01001011:
Pick any of the following [or suggest another topic, I don't mind]:
1. The Big Bang
2. The value of consensus in science
3. Homo sapiens as a single species
4. Languages all serve the same purposes and so must be of equal complexity
5. "Free Will" is the determinate outcome of biochemical processes
6. Belief in a creator is detrimental to science
7. A tree falling with no one to hear makes a noise
8. A human being is neither more nore less valuable than a coeacanth
9. Birds are dinosaurs
10. The speed of light is constant
Then take the proposition and prove it is not "gibberish and word salad" [which if you mean that as I interpret it is an insult to many salads] TO SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT SHARE YOUR DEFINITIONS AND PREMISES.
21 Jun 2011, 8:50 am
ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:
It's an observed fact that Chinese which depends upon intonation very closely to carry correct language has an extremely strong effect on perception. Absolute pitch discrimination is far more common amongst Chinese speakers than those who speak English because of the requirements of the language.
Chinese youngsters learn to beef up their pitch discrimination wetware at an early age. We who use less intoned western languages do no exercise pitch discrimination as much.
If English were as pitch dependent as Chinese you would see a lot more perfect pitch or very good relative pitch in the English speaking countries.
As the old saying goes: use it or lose it.
ruveyn
I once was privileged to visit the home of one of my informants for a certain quite complicated tone language [not the Chinese style of tone language, a modification of the terraced level type, if you care]. My friend had a very young son. I was told - and got to hear - how after he was put to bed he would spend a time before falling asleep doing, essentially, tonal drills.
The young are pretty flexible linguistical;ly speaking.
21 Jun 2011, 9:50 am
ruveyn wrote:
Have you read any of Karl Popper. Logical Positivism may have betten the dust, but falsificationism is a alive and well. Among physicists, Karl Popper is just about the only philosopher whose ideas are entertained without contempt.
ruveyn
ruveyn
I read Karl Popper's attack on Logical Positivism, I found it very interesting. I find falsifiability to be a good standard for 'defeaters' in relation to epistemology. Raw skepticism does not really solve the problem of justifying basic beliefs. So it creates a good standard for half of the problem. I personally think that any good epistemology must deal with both issues. One without the other is not very useful. Without defeaters Santa is a justified belief, without a foundation, everything is relative (including logic, so its kind of self-refuting).
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
22 Jun 2011, 11:27 am
91 wrote:
If you are looking for arguments against us believers, then you will have to move on from logical positivism into some sort of foundationalism. I personally subscribe to 'Reformed Epistemology'...
I don't think I am a logical positivist. I am more an instrumentalist. I think the reason we are interested in empirical statements is because they help us to understand the reality around us. Therefore the merit of a theory is judged by how well its predictions agree with the observation of the reality. (Believing) a theory is true means, BY DEFINITION, (believing) it works. In order to talk about such agreement, the predictions must be concrete enough to be falsifiable. It follows that theories that does not yield falsifiable prediction cannot be considered to be having any content for belief. Combining this view with Popper's falsificationism, one simply have little choice but to (at least de-facto) believe the 'only' satisfactory and not falsified theory.
22 Jun 2011, 11:51 am
01001011 wrote:
91 wrote:
If you are looking for arguments against us believers, then you will have to move on from logical positivism into some sort of foundationalism. I personally subscribe to 'Reformed Epistemology'...
I don't think I am a logical positivist. I am more an instrumentalist. I think the reason we are interested in empirical statements is because they help us to understand the reality around us. Therefore the merit of a theory is judged by how well its predictions agree with the observation of the reality. (Believing) a theory is true means, BY DEFINITION, (believing) it works. In order to talk about such agreement, the predictions must be concrete enough to be falsifiable. It follows that theories that does not yield falsifiable prediction cannot be considered to be having any content for belief. Combining this view with Popper's falsificationism, one simply have little choice but to (at least de-facto) believe the 'only' satisfactory and not falsified theory.
Instrumentalism is essentially too relative and, in many forms, suffers from some of the same failings as logical positivism. For starters it is not able to function as a foundation, as it does not apply truth values, even to its own formula. Secondly, it does not function as a full epistemology, it is restricted to its evaluation of the scientific methods. If it is pushed beyond this, then it fails, as it functions only with formula. As an epidemiological tool, it fails, mostly due to the fact that the reasons people believe things does not necessarily equate to their goals. For example, it fails to distinguish between what the evidence leads to and what a person is warranted to believe. In fact, the two can clash over obvious fundamentals (for example of such a failure, Plantinga's man with no alibi or evidence who knows he did not commit a crime, if he is of sound mind, he is not required to believe himself guilty, regardless of exterior evidence). As a final failure, Instrumentalism does not confer truth values. If there is not truth to what it explores, what is the value in what it reveals, in what real sense is the result different from a false conclusion and why choose one over the other if both have the same essential value?
I personally take Karl Popper's view that it is too restrictive and too relative. Also, you conclusion misunderstands the present philosophical consensus. Modern religious epistemology, does allow for falsification of belief.
Essentially, I think you are starting from the wrong point. I will use the example of Bertrand Russell who concluded that since God did not exist, morality was relative. I personally approach the question with that assumption, but with another. I assume the Holocaust is objectively wrong, and find God to be the best explanation of why it is wrong. You are assuming that God does not exist and are writing an epistemology from there and as a result have endorsed a position that denies any truth values at all. So in order to assert a truth, you have given up it's value. AG, due to his beliefs had to give up on free will, Nietchke also found it necessary to endorse nihilism, Ruveyn has decided there is no mind and Master Pendant is as intolerant as any Christian I have ever met. High price to pay for atheism. I am a Christian, I think the universe is billions of years old (around 13.5approx) and the Earth is 4.5bn approx. I think evolution exists and that the universe requires a first cause. I think some things that we do to one another, are really wrong and that people choose to do them and I think in our minds we all know it and that I am required to love Master Pendant anyway.... Instrumentalism tells you there is no truth, I believe that it sets you free.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
23 Jun 2011, 9:46 am
91 wrote:
As a final failure, Instrumentalism does not confer truth values. If there is not truth to what it explores, what is the value in what it reveals, in what real sense is the result different from a false conclusion and why choose one over the other if both have the same essential value?
What do you mean by 'truth value'? You seem to fixate on giving a sentence the word 'truth' and act as if that would make the sentence different.
What about:
Falsifiable theories that has not been falsified and corroborated = tentative truth
Falsifiable theories that has not been falsified but not corroborated, AND their logical consequence = various levels of agnostic depending of evidence
Falsifiable theories that has been falsified = false
Non - falsifiable theory = epidemiologically meaningless WOO.
So your claim is FALSE.
Quote:
You are assuming that God does not exist and are writing an epistemology from there and as a result have endorsed a position that denies any truth values at all. So in order to assert a truth, you have given up it's value.
See above. It is simply wrong to say that my non-believe in 'god' is any starting point. We atheists are not like you.
Quote:
I personally take Karl Popper's view that it is too restrictive and too relative.
What is the problem of being 'restrictive'? After all, we want to avoid believing things that are actually 'false'. It is because this view rejects your favorite fairy tale?
Quote:
For example, it fails to distinguish between what the evidence leads to and what a person is warranted to believe. In fact, the two can clash over obvious fundamentals (for example of such a failure, Plantinga's man with no alibi or evidence who knows he did not commit a crime, if he is of sound mind, he is not required to believe himself guilty, regardless of exterior evidence).
I assume the Holocaust is objectively wrong, and find God to be the best explanation of why it is wrong. AG, due to his beliefs had to give up on free will, Nietchke also found it necessary to endorse nihilism, Ruveyn has decided there is no mind and Master Pendant is as intolerant as any Christian I have ever met. High price to pay for atheism.
I assume the Holocaust is objectively wrong, and find God to be the best explanation of why it is wrong. AG, due to his beliefs had to give up on free will, Nietchke also found it necessary to endorse nihilism, Ruveyn has decided there is no mind and Master Pendant is as intolerant as any Christian I have ever met. High price to pay for atheism.
A dead giveaway for your worldview and so called Reformed epidemiology. Basically you just want to have 'warrants' for what your limited intuition assumes. You don't care about how these beliefs are related to reality. I don't see what is the point of such 'epidemiology' other than a word game.
23 Jun 2011, 10:16 am
'Falsifiable theories that has not been falsified and corroborated = tentative truth'
Instrumentalism does not make that leap. Rather the process produces a result, a result that is in it's essential component no different from a false result. When Karl Popper says your being too restrictive, your ought to listen.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
23 Jun 2011, 10:32 am
I fall in the middle of a ring of several stools here.
On the one hand, I find a big problem with my sister's When Does Time Come Full Circle project - when will "I" again "type" these precise "words" - simply because no matter how elegant the math there is no way to confirm or deny it from inside the system, and no possibility of USING the outcome. It is less useful that knowing that a library on the 14th moon of the Jovian planet circling Gamma Draconis used to contain a dictionary of Etruscan but is now destroyed.
On the other hand, I postulate a TRUTH which is not tentative, though we can only approximate it with generations of tentative truths, and the man with no alibi [and no certificate that he is not delusional] has to be taken into account.
AND that utility is no more a prerequisite than verification / falsification.
24 Jun 2011, 9:49 am
91 wrote:
'Falsifiable theories that has not been falsified and corroborated = tentative truth'
Instrumentalism does not make that leap. Rather the process produces a result, a result that is in it's essential component no different from a false result.
Instrumentalism does not make that leap. Rather the process produces a result, a result that is in it's essential component no different from a false result.
Whatever you like to call it. But what do you mean by 'it's essential component no different from a false result.'?
What is more ironic is that it is the reformed epistemology you subscribe that deny the relevancy of any truth. Instead, Plantinga talks about warranted belief. Mind you, even voodooism may be considered warranted belief. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosop ... mology.pdf
Quote:
When Karl Popper says your being too restrictive, your ought to listen.
I don't think this is Popper's criticism. Source?
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
24 Jun 2011, 10:44 am
01001011 wrote:
91 wrote:
'Falsifiable theories that has not been falsified and corroborated = tentative truth'
Instrumentalism does not make that leap. Rather the process produces a result, a result that is in it's essential component no different from a false result.
Instrumentalism does not make that leap. Rather the process produces a result, a result that is in it's essential component no different from a false result.
Whatever you like to call it. But what do you mean by 'it's essential component no different from a false result.'?
What is more ironic is that it is the reformed epistemology you subscribe that deny the relevancy of any truth. Instead, Plantinga talks about warranted belief. Mind you, even voodooism may be considered warranted belief. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philosop ... mology.pdf
Quote:
When Karl Popper says your being too restrictive, your ought to listen.
I don't think this is Popper's criticism. Source?
Interesting that you brought up voodooism. But I think the point you're making is that every religion out there has some degree of warranted belief. Humanity as a whole infers at least from nature if nowhere else a sense of right and wrong. For example, if someone physically hurts you, you can reasonable assume that doing the same to someone else would have the same effect and you'd know from your experience that you would not want to do that to someone. Other things that might not be so obvious might be attributable to a common or shared tradition, from whence you might conclude that all morality is God-given. So there really isn't that much significance in pointing out that all or most religions are at least warranted.
I think, however, a closer look beyond the surface might reveal some religions are more or less warranted than others. You might then conclude from there that a single religion is more warranted than any other, hence why you'd want to adhere to it over other religions.
