Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Logic Is An Act Of Love


Llwellyn

Recommended Posts

Logic is a human activity that is regulated by values.  It includes an assessment of what is proper to count as evidence, and what explanations should be adopted and acted upon.  Inquiry is shot through with our values;  the "oughts" of inquiry come from within human inquiry.  In science and ethics alike (if you would care to use two words for the same mass), we transform a doubtful or problematic situation into one in which confusion and uncertainty are sufficiently resolved for our purposes.  We do so because we have human reasons to do so.  Life answers to life.

 

Science has no content apart from norms of rationality.  If we regard a fact as true, it is because we think that it is "good" and "right" to believe that it is true, for the reasons we have.  You could say that every experience contains aspects of the three things:  naked quality, brute interaction, and norm-laden interpretation.  But as far as we know (because we have never had an experience that didn't involve us), the normative and the factual are mixed into the situation itself.  The human and the environment is one integrated whole, according to Darwin.

 

There is no Fact / Value dichotomy, because we have never regarded something as a fact that we didn't will to acknowledge.  "To postulate a proposition is no more than to hope it is true."  C.S. Peirce.  We ought to think the true, we ought to shun the false, imperatively.  There are no value-free facts known to a human.  The purpose of thinking is to render things intelligible, and we think when we have concrete reasons to think.  Our concrete reasons to think are the love that we have for ourselves and for one another.  No doubt some of our science is driven by our animal hatred, too.

 

The only question is whether our values are going to be narrow or broad.  Are our judgments of salvation going to include just us, or everybody?  Are we going to think about the short term, or the long term?  When we draw conclusions, do we consider only the immediate consequences, or the distant consequences?  Christianity is short-sighted thinking where the aim is immediate gratification for the individual.  Private revelation of divine truth offers this.  Atheism focuses on what is good in the long run and on the whole.  What do you think?  Could Christianity simply be valid science driven by natural human hatred?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human hatred of reality. Yes.

 

I think you're probably partially right, and I don't think that we atheists give due recognition to this difference in values as a source for our difference in perception.  We have different beliefs about what we see with our eyes because when we cry, they laugh, and vice-versa.  "Friendship with the world is hatred toward God."  James 4:4.  Different people have different values, perhaps absolutely different, with the result that we live in different worlds.  "Faith is assurance about what we do not see."  Hebrews 11:1.  Reminds me of the song "I Started a Joke" by Bee Gee:

 
I started a joke which started the whole world crying
But I didn't see that the joke was on me oh no
I started to cry which started the whole world laughing
Oh If I'd only seen that the joke was on me
 
I looked at the skies running my hands over my eyes
And I fell out of bed hurting my head from things that I said
'Till I finally died which started the whole world living
Oh if I'd only seen that the joke was on me
 
I looked at the skies running my hands over my eyes
And I fell out of bed hurting my head from things that I said
'Till I finally died which started the whole world living
Oh if I'd only seen that the joke was on me
Oh no that the joke was on me
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 Atheism focuses on what is good in the long run and on the whole.  What do you think? 
 
 

 

I thought atheism was simply a lack of belief in God. Are you saying it's a world view/philosophy of life?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 Atheism focuses on what is good in the long run and on the whole.  What do you think? 
 
 

 

I thought atheism was simply a lack of belief in God. Are you saying it's a world view/philosophy of life?

 

 

Maybe I should have more precisely said that "Atheism focuses on what is good to do about the God hypothesis in the long run and on the whole."  I agree with you that it is important to careful limit the definition of atheism to simply be something that adult humans do about the idea of God.  Nevertheless, what a human does about the God hypothesis -- like every human action -- is an expression of human judgment.  Atheism is an answer that we have constructed by applying human intelligence:  "No!"  We decide that the hypothesis fails our measure of warrant.  We choose not to change that measure to accommodate the God Virus.  Atheism is what we have done because it seemed right to us in the long run and on the whole.  Humanism is a worldview which applies those same broad values to all action, and not just to the narrow question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 Atheism focuses on what is good in the long run and on the whole.  What do you think? 
 
 

 

I thought atheism was simply a lack of belief in God. Are you saying it's a world view/philosophy of life?

 

 

Maybe I should have more precisely said that "Atheism focuses on what is good to do about the God hypothesis in the long run and on the whole."  I agree with you that it is important to careful limit the definition of atheism to simply be something that adult humans do about the idea of God.  Nevertheless, what a human does about the God hypothesis -- like every human action -- is an expression of human judgment.  Atheism is an answer that we have constructed by applying human intelligence:  "No!"  We decide that the hypothesis fails our measure of warrant.  We choose not to change that measure to accommodate the God Virus.  Atheism is what we have done because it seemed right to us in the long run and on the whole.  Humanism is a worldview which applies those same broad values to all action, and not just to the narrow question.

 

 

I think some people use 'atheism' to mean a worldview that promotes logic, critical thinking , reason and science (i.e humanism) but then later claim it's merely a lack of belief in god. 

 

It's a fun concept for me to consider an atheist who believes in witchcraft, the paranormal, or other non-material possibilities. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I suppose there are many reasons a person might not accept the claim that any gods exist. In practice, it seems the overwhelming majority of atheists (I know of no exceptions) came to their conclusion through observation, reason, logic and a built in need for evidence in order to believe an extraordinary claim. Of course this line of thinking will almost always also exclude belief in any supernatural claim, not just gods. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose there are many reasons a person might not accept the claim that any gods exist. In practice, it seems the overwhelming majority of atheists (I know of no exceptions) came to their conclusion through observation, reason, logic and a built in need for evidence in order to believe an extraordinary claim. Of course this line of thinking will almost always also exclude belief in any supernatural claim, not just gods. 

 

Yup, most atheists, not all, that I know are just as you've described. Their emphasis on the various points, logic, reason, observation, evidence, may differ but they're all there and few would believe in anything supernatural, no ghosts, gods, spirits, powers of any kind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 observation, reason, logic and a built in need for evidence in order to believe an extraordinary claim.

 

I would point out, however that persuasion is a matter of values.  A proof is whatever a person chooses to accept as a proof and thereby employs to stabilize a belief.  You have Christianity's moldy wonders and stale miracles;  you've heard the arguments, including the "Transcendental Argument."  Your unbelief is due, not to a lack of evidence, but to a heart that applies science to set a different measure of warrant.  Scientific method has its shape entirely within human purposes.  This is a point that Christians often make, and it is a true one -- the seat of atheism is in the moral nature.  We disbelieve in Yahweh because we employ logic -- which is an extension of our values.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 observation, reason, logic and a built in need for evidence in order to believe an extraordinary claim.

 

 A proof is whatever a person chooses to accept as a proof and thereby employs to stabilize a belief.

 

I agree. This 'choosing to accept' can be employed by anyone of any faith or non-faith.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 observation, reason, logic and a built in need for evidence in order to believe an extraordinary claim.

 

I would point out, however that persuasion is a matter of values.  A proof is whatever a person chooses to accept as a proof and thereby employs to stabilize a belief.  You have Christianity's moldy wonders and stale miracles;  you've heard the arguments, including the "Transcendental Argument."  Your unbelief is due, not to a lack of evidence, but to a heart that applies science to set a different measure of warrant.  Scientific method has its shape entirely within human purposes.  This is a point that Christians often make, and it is a true one -- the seat of atheism is in the moral nature.  We disbelieve in Yahweh because we employ logic -- which is an extension of our values.

 

 

Llwellyn,

 

Sorry if I'm not reading this right, but haven't you just handed Christians like End3 the perfect gift by saying that a proof is subject to personal choice and is used to stabilize a pre-existing belief?

He maintains that 'everything is subjective', so he must therefore accept the existence of God on faith, because all evidence is subjective.  You appear to be supporting this by legitimizing his use of personal choice to stabilize his pre-existing Christian beliefs.  Are you therefore arguing/implying/suggesting that a person's beliefs, choices and values take precedence over all other things?  

 

I'd argue that personal choices, beliefs and values play second fiddle to the actual physical reality upon which the data and the evidence and therefore the 'proof' rests.

Refusal to accept the testimony of our senses, in the form of the evidence, is tantamount to a denial of reality.  I can exercise my personal choice and refuse to believe that the sign says 'Don't Walk', but if I get killed by my choice, then reality proves itself superior to my decision - because it kills me!  The person who's choices best fit the true nature of reality is the person who will survive longest and best.  Which is another way of saying that the fittest choices survive.  So our values and choices must always conform to the dictates of reality in order for us to stay alive and have values and choices to exercise.  You'd agree?

 

So could you please clarify your position on what you mean by the word 'proof' in the context of your argument?

It's my understanding that the only branch of the sciences that deals with proofs is math.  All the others strive to only to explain to to a best fit of the available data.  But are you using it in some philosophical or metaphysical way here?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These questions of truth, logic and proof are always tricky. Language is often a significant roadblock to our understanding. My perspective is expressed, roughly, below. I apologize if my meaning is not clear.

 

As I expressed in the previous thread, I consider a statement to be true if it is provable in a certain logical system. If this is the case, then it is true in that system, and possibly only in that system (it may also be provable in some other systems, but it does not have to be). This is a view on which much of mathematics relies heavily. The systems used in mathematics are formal systems, but I think the principle extends to informal systems as well. If this is accepted, it has the interesting effect of doing away with the notion of "absolute" truth, since no statement is true in every possible logical system.

 

When we set up a logical system, we begin by assuming certain things (ie, establishing axioms). We then list our accepted rules of inference and deduction. Once this is done, other statements may be proven in that system. The thing to remember, though, is that the axioms and rules that we choose are, ultimately, arbitrary. It is very important to note that there is no one true system of logic. We can't prove that any one system of logic is truer than another, because to do so would require the use of a system of logic, the "truth" of which would also need to be proven. The mind boggles.

 

What this means to me is that we need to be pragmatic. Some systems are more useful than others, so we use them more. This is the principle on which science is based. We go with whatever seems to work best. When it doesn't work, we look for a better explanation. This may not be the best approach in an ultimate sense, but it seems to be the best that we have. So we carry on.

 

Where does this leave us with respect to Christianity? Well, Christianity claims to be true. Most Christians will admit that it is not provable. Hence, by my way of thinking, it can only be true if it is taken as axiomatic (ie, if we assume that it is true). Whether they recognize it or not, this is what Christians are doing when they appeal to faith. What End3 (and others) are doing when they claim that "everything is subjective" is essentially trying to legitimize their baseless assumption. We all need assumptions, the argument goes, so what makes your assumption better than mine?

 

I think that there are several answers to questions such as these. The first is to point out the large number of contradictions to which the assumption of Christianity leads. If a system contains axioms which lead to contradictory statements, then it very quickly follows that all statements in that system are true. Such a system is completely useless. No serious person tries to reason in this way. The second is to point out that in powerful systems of logic, axioms are only included if they serve some function. In other words, axioms are included only if they are useful. Christianity does not really do any useful work. It helps us to explain precisely nothing. Furthermore, axioms should generally be as basic as possible. Christianity cannot be simply stated. It is not a properly basic assumption because it is not well-defined. This is not to say that one cannot construct a system which includes Christianity as an axiom; such a system will just not be very useful.

 

So in answer to the question posed in the OP (and further, to add my opinion to BAA's query regarding subjectivity) I think that if Christianity could be plainly stated then its assumption as axiomatic would be as valid as any other assumption. But it would not be as useful as any other assumption, and it would further have the effect of rendering all of our reasoning which is based on it extremely weak. Given this, I can't see why anyone would continue to insist on including it. At best it is superfluous; at worst, it renders us nonsensical.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

personal choices, beliefs and values play second fiddle to the actual physical reality upon which the data and the evidence and therefore the 'proof' rests

 

It may seem easy to dismiss the rendition of truth as "merely subjective," as what like-minded people happen to agree to on a given day. This is a misunderstanding.  What I am saying is that there is no realm of extra-human verification and validation, whether that realm be theological, philosophical or empirical.  There is no assurance, whether religious or scientific, that exceeds the natural competence and limitations of human being.

 
I definitely would not support a preposterous doctrine that we just make it all up as we go along.  My mind doesn't create another mind by dreaming it up or by finding "meaning" in the idea of God.  Neither is the world composed only of minds.  Common sense tells us that there is recalcitrant experience -- as you say, the car accident.  Reality is distinct from what you or I or any number of persons may think about it.  Whether or not a God exists is not determined by consulting any number of opinions.  The best definition of truth from the logical standpoint which is known to me is that of C.S. Peirce:  "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real."
 
What we call reality is not independent of thought in general.  It is only human purposes that drive experience. What we know to be the nonhuman world is "fleshed out" and "unpacked" by what we are and what we choose to be.  If there are facts, and yet those facts cannot be operative in relation to any human purpose, the existence and nature of those facts will be real to us only as we are non-humans.  All truth is human truth driven from behind by values.  Knowledge does not mirror nature but rather is a human construction to cope with nature, of which we are a part.  When trees fall in the woods, they do make vibrations which would be heard as sound -- we know this because we have found it agreeable to reason.
 
Unlike disillusioned, I do not accept the possibility of nonconverging ways of understanding.  Although humans tend to have different values, those values are not sheerly different, because we are all the same kind of biological life form.  We are all enlivened by and adapted to the same milieu.  We share common ancestors -- likely millions of them.  We all talk to one another.  We find that there is not an untranslatable human language.  This means that humanists will always be able to argue with Christians, and we always may be persuaded.  The way to persuade them is to broaden their values -- to show them that although we may believe any hypothesis that tempts our will, nevertheless giving in to temptations results in too much harm to ourselves and others.
 
You asked me to describe how a thing is proven.  When a fact is recognized as true -- e.g. evolution -- the explanation of why we know it to be true is its proof.  I know that certain scientists have been trying to wean themselves off of the words "prove" and "proof."  I don't think that we should give up that high ground, and I think that it can be defended and scientists can retain that old-fashioned way of speaking.  We can reinforce, criticize, and revise where appropriate, until we have a belief that really stands up to evidence and arguments.  It's worth repeating that no proven fact should be allowed to block the way of inquiry, but it doesn't mean that there is no reason to act on established knowledge.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Llwellyn, but there is much that I can't agree with in your reply.

 

 

personal choices, beliefs and values play second fiddle to the actual physical reality upon which the data and the evidence and therefore the 'proof' rests

 

It may seem easy to dismiss the rendition of truth as "merely subjective," as what like-minded people happen to agree to on a given day. This is a misunderstanding.  What I am saying is that there is no realm of extra-human verification and validation, whether that realm be theological, philosophical or empirical.  

 

Yes, there is.  

There is a means of empirical extra-human validation of human beliefs and values.  I gave you a worked example with the, 'Don't Walk!' sign.   I can believe that it's safe to walk, in denial of what my senses are telling me, but the empirical extra-human validation of the reality of the scenario is given to me by the truck that kills me.  There are extra-human agencies and forces in reality that will validate the truth of our beliefs.  The history of the human race is the story of us adapting (via evolution) to avoid whatever these forces can do to us.  We must first conform to their dictates before anything else.

 

Ok, you and I may well be using the word, validate in different ways here, but I contend that there's a hierarchy involved in this issue.

Conformity to and acknowledgement of reality first - then discussion and debate and choice over what reality might actually be.

 

There is no assurance, whether religious or scientific, that exceeds the natural competence and limitations of human being.

 

Yes there is.  See above.  Or try drinking Jim Jones' special brand of Kool-Aid, while holding to the belief that it will do you no harm.   You can only hold to a certain belief if you alive.

 
I definitely would not support a preposterous doctrine that we just make it all up as we go along.  My mind doesn't create another mind by dreaming it up or by finding "meaning" in the idea of God.  Neither is the world composed only of minds.  Common sense tells us that there is recalcitrant experience -- as you say, the car accident.  Reality is distinct from what you or I or any number of persons may think about it.  
 
So how can you say that reality is distinct from our thoughts (and beliefs and values) yet still say that there exists no empirical extra-human means of validating or thoughts, beliefs and values?  
 
It is reality itself that does the validating.
 
If you acknowledge the validity of my example of the car accident, isn't this a tacit admission on your part of the hierarchy I referred to?  
 
That opinion, choice and belief about reality can only exist once the necessary steps have been taken to conform to reality itself? 
 
Whether or not a God exists is not determined by consulting any number of opinions.  The best definition of truth from the logical standpoint which is known to me is that of C.S. Peirce:  "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real."
 
I'd contend that reality itself is totally indifferent to whatever opinions or beliefs we have about it.  Our opinions about it change nothing.  Our first order of business is stay alive so that we can have the time to hold opinions about it.
 
What we call reality is not independent of thought in general.  
 
But whatever reality actually is - it is independent of thought.  First and foremost we must acknowledge that, before going on to discuss and debate what we believe reality actually is.
 
Please note that I'd rather not dive down the rabbit hole of quantum physics, here.  
I readily acknowledge the role the observer seems to play in changing the observed behavior of photons in quantum experiments.  However, the act of observing a photon and the act of holding a belief about how that photon will behave are not the same thing.  There are several schools of thought in quantum physics, each holding to different beliefs as to the interpretation of what is observed.  Yet it has not been demonstrated that these diverse beliefs affect the photon in different ways.  If thought and belief did affect reality in the way I believe you're suggesting L, then differing beliefs about reality should likewise affect it differently.
 
However, the flow seems to be in one direction only.  
Nothing that we believe about reality seems to affect it in any way.  It falls to us to use reason to establish an accurate belief system about reality - with reality itself holding all the cards.  Opinion and belief about reality does not equal negotiation or compromise with it.  Reality does not negotiate, bargain, compromise or enter into any kind of dialog with us.  Surely it's better to say that all truth comes from our understanding of reality, not that all truth comes from us?  The relationship (us with reality) is totally asymmetric.
 
It is only human purposes that drive experience. What we know to be the nonhuman world is "fleshed out" and "unpacked" by what we are and what we choose to be.  
 
Yes, human purposes drive human experience.  But whatever these purposes and experiences are, they must first conform to the dictates of reality. 
 
Once we conform and acknowledge that we have conformed, then we are free to choose.  That is the hierarchy that should be acknowledged, imho.
 
If there are facts, and yet those facts cannot be operative in relation to any human purpose, the existence and nature of those facts will be real to us only as we are non-humans.  All truth is human truth driven from behind by values.
 
Not so.
All human truth exists only because we have found ways of avoiding the many ways false notions about reality could kill us.  Having found ways to stay alive we shouldn't therefore think that we have the luxury to believe that all truth is determined by us.  It isn't.  
 
 Knowledge does not mirror nature but rather is a human construction to cope with nature, of which we are a part.  
 
If human knowledge does not conform to the dictates of reality, then that knowledge will get us killed.
 
When trees fall in the woods, they do make vibrations which would be heard as sound -- we know this because we have found it agreeable to reason.
 
But if we believe that a falling tree will do us no harm if it lands on us, then our beliefs are at odds with reality.  Reason must serve survival first, otherwise we wouldn't be alive to argue like this.  This should be acknowledged!
 
Unlike disillusioned, I do not accept the possibility of nonconverging ways of understanding.  Although humans tend to have different values, those values are not sheerly different, because we are all the same kind of biological life form.  We are all enlivened by and adapted to the same milieu.  We share common ancestors -- likely millions of them.  We all talk to one another.  We find that there is not an untranslatable human language.  This means that humanists will always be able to argue with Christians, and we always may be persuaded.  The way to persuade them is to broaden their values -- to show them that although we may believe any hypothesis that tempts our will, nevertheless giving in to temptations results in too much harm to ourselves and others.
 
You asked me to describe how a thing is proven.  When a fact is recognized as true -- e.g. evolution -- the explanation of why we know it to be true is its proof.  I know that certain scientists have been trying to wean themselves off of the words "prove" and "proof."  I don't think that we should give up that high ground, and I think that it can be defended and scientists can retain that old-fashioned way of speaking.  We can reinforce, criticize, and revise where appropriate, until we have a belief that really stands up to evidence and arguments.  It's worth repeating that no proven fact should be allowed to block the way of inquiry, but it doesn't mean that there is no reason to act on established knowledge.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike disillusioned, I do not accept the possibility of nonconverging ways of understanding.  Although humans tend to have different values, those values are not sheerly different, because we are all the same kind of biological life form.  We are all enlivened by and adapted to the same milieu.  We share common ancestors -- likely millions of them.  We all talk to one another.  We find that there is not an untranslatable human language.  This means that humanists will always be able to argue with Christians, and we always may be persuaded.  The way to persuade them is to broaden their values -- to show them that although we may believe any hypothesis that tempts our will, nevertheless giving in to temptations results in too much harm to ourselves and others.

 

Llwellyn, I'm considering your OP in light of this response, and I'm now concerned that I may have misunderstood your initial question. It now seems to me as if you are asking whether Christianity could be a valid conclusion of some process of honest inquiry. I don't think this is the case precisely because no Christian has ever been able to argue their way to Christianity without appealing to faith. In other words, they always admit that they need to assume that Christianity is true. Hence it really is their assumption, not their conclusion. So if you were asking whether Christianity can be a valid conclusion, then my answer is "no", and I would add that even Christians agree with me on this point, whether they recognize it or not.

 

I think your points about values are well-made. The last sentence of the above is particularly strong. We may take whatever we like on faith. We may assume anything at all. But some assumptions will render our subsequent reason useless, and may even cause us actual harm. This is not so far from my view on this issue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

These questions of truth, logic and proof are always tricky. Language is often a significant roadblock to our understanding. My perspective is expressed, roughly, below. I apologize if my meaning is not clear.

 

As I expressed in the previous thread, I consider a statement to be true if it is provable in a certain logical system. If this is the case, then it is true in that system, and possibly only in that system (it may also be provable in some other systems, but it does not have to be). This is a view on which much of mathematics relies heavily. The systems used in mathematics are formal systems, but I think the principle extends to informal systems as well. If this is accepted, it has the interesting effect of doing away with the notion of "absolute" truth, since no statement is true in every possible logical system.

 

When we set up a logical system, we begin by assuming certain things (ie, establishing axioms). We then list our accepted rules of inference and deduction. Once this is done, other statements may be proven in that system. The thing to remember, though, is that the axioms and rules that we choose are, ultimately, arbitrary. It is very important to note that there is no one true system of logic. We can't prove that any one system of logic is truer than another, because to do so would require the use of a system of logic, the "truth" of which would also need to be proven. The mind boggles.

 

What this means to me is that we need to be pragmatic. Some systems are more useful than others, so we use them more. This is the principle on which science is based. We go with whatever seems to work best. When it doesn't work, we look for a better explanation. This may not be the best approach in an ultimate sense, but it seems to be the best that we have. So we carry on.

 

Where does this leave us with respect to Christianity? Well, Christianity claims to be true. Most Christians will admit that it is not provable. Hence, by my way of thinking, it can only be true if it is taken as axiomatic (ie, if we assume that it is true). Whether they recognize it or not, this is what Christians are doing when they appeal to faith. What End3 (and others) are doing when they claim that "everything is subjective" is essentially trying to legitimize their baseless assumption. We all need assumptions, the argument goes, so what makes your assumption better than mine?

 

I think that there are several answers to questions such as these. The first is to point out the large number of contradictions to which the assumption of Christianity leads. If a system contains axioms which lead to contradictory statements, then it very quickly follows that all statements in that system are true. Such a system is completely useless. No serious person tries to reason in this way. The second is to point out that in powerful systems of logic, axioms are only included if they serve some function. In other words, axioms are included only if they are useful. Christianity does not really do any useful work. It helps us to explain precisely nothing. Furthermore, axioms should generally be as basic as possible. Christianity cannot be simply stated. It is not a properly basic assumption because it is not well-defined. This is not to say that one cannot construct a system which includes Christianity as an axiom; such a system will just not be very useful.

 

So in answer to the question posed in the OP (and further, to add my opinion to BAA's query regarding subjectivity) I think that if Christianity could be plainly stated then its assumption as axiomatic would be as valid as any other assumption. But it would not be as useful as any other assumption, and it would further have the effect of rendering all of our reasoning which is based on it extremely weak. Given this, I can't see why anyone would continue to insist on including it. At best it is superfluous; at worst, it renders us nonsensical.

 

Many thanks for this, D.

 

Your final paragraph is significant to me.

 

If Christianity could satisfy the criteria of doing useful work, explaining things, being well defined and being plainly stated, then it would be as valid as any other axiomatic assumption used to describe reality.  

If ...it could do these things.

 

But even then, it would still not be as useful as any other assumption.  

Because there are other assumptions that have a better historical record of being useful, explaining things, being well defined and being plainly stated.

 

Therefore, since Christianity doesn't satisfy the above criteria, the sensible, rational and reasonable conclusion is to drop Christianity in favor of another assumption.

One that can do useful work, can explain things, is well defined, which can be plainly stated and that has a better historical record of being useful than Christianity.  

I find this elegantly pragmatic, D.  Perhaps it can be briefly stated like this?  

 

"Go with what is proven by experience to have worked and is working - not with what you believe by faith has worked and will work."

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA:

 

"But whatever reality actually is - it is independent of thought.  First and foremost we must acknowledge that, before going on to discuss and debate what we believe reality actually is."

 

.......

 

Reality is independent of thought, certainly yes. Though, if I'm deep in thought about something else my experience of my surroundings suffers. Maybe I'm ignoring sensory input...or a more fun idea, maybe I'm not exerting enough effort in generating this universe so it seems a bit dulled. smile.png

 

Whether reality exists independently of my awareness is debatable. It appears impossible to demonstrate reality without my presence in it. So I have to take someone's word for it. Or maybe I won't. Why do we consider this state "reality" ? Because it is a recurring sensory experience? Dreams recur but we dont assign them any importance. And they are pretty similar to this waking state. 

 

Stuff happens in the waking state. Why is any of it important? In a few decades I might find myself in another life asking the same question. :) 

 

Why do I need to avoid stepping out in traffic? Why do I need to be the fittest and survive? Other than it's in my DNA to do so. Fun questions. 

 

[i'm emotionally fine, btw. Just challenging assumptions]
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

"Go with what is proven by experience to have worked and is working - not with what you believe by faith has worked and will work."

 

 

 

Yes indeed. This is more or less the tl;dr of my post above.

 

Of course the Christians will likely say that this is closed-minded, but it actually isn't at all. I'm very happy to try out new and interesting assumptions and see where they lead. But if, after a while, I find that they lead to contradictions or don't do any useful work, then I'm going to move on to something else. And if I'm asked to assume something which can't even be plainly stated then I'm likely to just shake my head and walk away.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is reality itself that does the validating.... whatever these purposes and experiences are, they must first conform to the dictates of reality. If human knowledge does not conform to the dictates of reality, then that knowledge will get us killed.

 

I find it remarkable that the words of your argument somewhat parallel what the religious prophet tells us:  "Humble yourself before the fire or die!"  I don't say this to unfairly impugn what are very cogent observations, but simply to consider whether the religious impulse has its genealogy in this transaction between the human and the nonhuman.  By all means should you believe that a speeding truck would crush your bones.  But you should not believe it because it is abstractly true...  Instead, believe it because it is concretely true.  It is true for tangible and specific reasons;  that is to say, reasons that are connected to you.  

 

A fatal hazard has significance to a human, because of what we are and what we have chosen to be.  Without that, it is no fatal hazard.  What we are is something that we are responsible for.  What is deep down inside us is what we and our ancestors have put there ourselves.  We are humanly constructed all the way down.  That is why the hierarchy begins with human values -- because any other facts that we acknowledge are contingent facts, that is to say facts that are contingent on that conscious, burning, wilful life.  Our own life.  If there was an answer to "Question One" of the Humanist Catechism, it would be:  "I am my own, and belong with body and soul, both in life and in death to myself.  I do not belong to God or Reality."  

 
Human belief comes first, before justification.  Nothing can count as a reason for holding a belief except another belief.  All that counts as evidence or justification for a belief comes from the same totality of human belief to which it belongs.  Justification depends on awareness which is just another belief.  The object of the awareness can stand in a causal relation to a belief but cannot ground, justify or be a reason for it.  We communicate with ourselves and with each other.  The nonhuman world does not communicate with us;  there is no voice coming out of the burning bush (or the speeding truck).
 

 how can you say that reality is distinct from our thoughts (and beliefs and values) yet still say that there exists no empirical extra-human means of validating or thoughts, beliefs and values?  

 
It's the difference between the opinions of a limited set of humans and an unlimited set of humans.  What we call reality is distinct from what any one or more of us thinks, but it is not distinct from what all of us would think at the end of inquiry.  The belief which would have the most massive destiny, standing as it does in a transactional relationship with the nonhuman world, is what humans would call the true one.  The object represented in this opinion is the real.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... I can see that we stand poles apart on this, Llwellyn.

 

I'm sorry, but I simply do not view human beliefs, values and perception or human beings themselves as being anything relevant or significant in the cosmic scheme of things.  We are insignificant, not significant.  We are not relevant, we are irrelevant.  What we think, believe and perceive means nothing to anyone or anything but us.  The universe is totally indifferent to us, has been so for 13.7 billion years and will continue to be so, many billions or even trillions of years into the future.  Likewise, if all life on Earth were to be snuffed out tomorrow, the rest of the cosmos would continue without us as if nothing had happened.  Also, there's good evidence that life on this planet has escaped this fate by the skin of it's teeth several times, during the 4.5 billion years of it's existence.

 

So far I've confined myself to the small matters of inconsequential events within the miniscule region we call the observable universe. (91 billion light years across) However, it's an integral part of Inflationary theory (the leading explanation of the universe's origin) that space itself continues far, far beyond the limits of what we can see and is very likely infinite - continuing endlessly in every direction.  Should current experiments succeed in detecting B-mode polarization signals in the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, this will be the 'smoking gun' that will confirm Inflation and force us to face up to the infinite nature of reality.  We will need to be honest to the evidence and be honest to ourselves and realize that we live in an infinite universe.

 

I'll write those words again, for effect.  An infinite universe.

 

It's my experience that most people do not realize the full consequences of this statement and just what it means for such cherished human notions as identity, meaning and purpose.   Now, you are clearly a highly intelligent person Llwellyn and I respect that.  However, I feel that to make my point with sufficient impact, I still need to describe just what it means for us to be living in an infinite universe.

 

In an infinite universe, every event that happens, does so an infinite number of times.

In an infinite universe, every place that exists is duplicated endlessly across the cosmos.  No event or place or person or thought is unique.  Nothing is unique.  Everything is infinitely multiplied.  There are infinite number of Llwellyns who are identical to you, thinking identical thoughts to you, believing identical beliefs to you, feeling identical emotions to you and who are just as much you as you are.  You are endlessly copied, duplicated and iterated across infinity.  There's no thought you can think, nothing you can feel and nothing you can believe which your doppelgangers aren't thinking, feeling and believing right now. 

 

This consequence of infinity destroys the uniqueness of human identity.

In an infinite universe, what it means to be human and what it means to be ourselves is...irrelevant.  One way for human identity, thought and belief to retain their meaning for us, is for us to turn our backs on infinity and believe that we are unique, that we do have meaning and that we are significant and relevant.  To believe that our perceptions of reality are in some way important, relevant or significant.  To believe that our beliefs and values mean something.  But in the grand scheme of everything, a realistic appraisal of our true relationship with reality is that we are... nothing.

 

So, perhaps you can now see why we stand poles apart, Llwellyn?

You stress our importance, but the wide-screen, deep-time view of reality is one in which we have no importance at all.  I therefore consider a position that attributes central importance to the human condition as one that I cannot agree with.   Many years ago I used to occupy such a position, but did so for religious reasons.  (Or should I say, religious un-reason?)  I believed that human beings were why God created everything.  I believed that all meaning and purpose in reality was to be found in what it meant to be human.   And I see a kind of parallel in your stated position.  For you, all meaning and all purpose begins with us and is driven by our values and our beliefs.

.

.

.

Forgive me if I'm misreading your words or misrepresenting you in any way, Llwellyn.

However, I cannot help but draw the following conclusion about your stated position.

You seem to have arrived at just a humanocentric belief about reality as the Bible-believing Christian I used to be.

Ok, your chosen path there seems to have been via philosophy, reason and logic, not faith and scripture.  

But the destination (humans are of central importance to reality) seems to be the same.

.

.

.

Once again, sorry if I'm not reading you right.

But I hope you now have a better idea of why I disagree with your views.  Please also understand that there is no malice or ill-intent in what I write.  We're clearly both mature adults who can have a full and frank exchange of views and thoughts without any unnecessary friction, right?  So either way, if we just agree to disagree or if you want to continue this dialog, I'm happy.  And I hope you are too.

 

Respectfully yours,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human belief comes first, before justification.  Nothing can count as a reason for holding a belief except another belief.  All that counts as evidence or justification for a belief comes from the same totality of human belief to which it belongs.  Justification depends on awareness which is just another belief.  The object of the awareness can stand in a causal relation to a belief but cannot ground, justify or be a reason for it.  We communicate with ourselves and with each other.  The nonhuman world does not communicate with us;  there is no voice coming out of the burning bush (or the speeding truck).

This is very well stated. It's not every day that I read something this profound. Well stated indeed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably missing a great deal in this thread!

.

.

.

Justification depends on awareness?

 

Shouldn't this read, 'justification depends on self-awareness'...?

 

I ask, because animals would seem to be aware, yet also would seem to hold nothing comparable to a human system of belief.  

 

Catfish and buzzards and raccoon are aware, but do they really have beliefs, as we humans have beliefs?

 

Do they really require 'evidence' or 'justification' to act and react to what they are aware of?

.

.

.

???

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA -- Thank you so much for honoring me with your thoughts on this thread.  There's no way in heck that I would get testy about someone disagreeing with me!  Disagreement is the place where we can test and compare our observations to develop a better one.  The key is honesty and good faith reporting rather than the post-modernist or Christian  "credo quia absurdum."  Good-faith inquirers have an obligation to report true and illuminating answers to the questions that concern them.  Lying is treason.  Don't pretend to be persuaded if you are not persuaded -- I would say the same to a Christian.  It seems there is dishonesty when a Christian would say  "I believe;  take away my unbelief."  Mark 9:24.

 

I'm pretty much resigned to the thought that I'm wrong.  Disillusioned talks about one test of falsity is that we can know that something is false when it leads to contradictions.  I actually think that truth will also lead to contradictions.  Every truth will result in contradictions -- because neither the human nor the universe is rational.  Logic is a regulative leap into an irrational universe.  As Charles Peirce said -- "One bold saltus landed me in a garden of fruitful and beautiful suggestions."  The best kinds of truth are relative equilibria that butcher the fewest number of other truths.  Since contradiction there must be, the victory to be scientifically acknowledged as "proven" is that of the more inclusive side--of the side which establishes a truth while butchering the fewest number of other truths.  Am I wrong?  Yes I am.  You talk about an infinite universe -- this is the consequence of an infinite universe.

 

I think that the greatest weakness in my point of view is that it invites the thought that somehow what we believe has an effect on the causal stimulus of that belief.  I agree with you that it doesn't.  I can't bend a spoon with my mind.  But nevertheless my knowledge is a two-way causal relationship.  The way in which it is real to me is determined by the way that I am real.  The way in which the spoon is real is that it is hard and does not bend.  Maybe this proves that the spoon is unbendable -- or maybe it proves that I am unbendable?  Neither you nor I have ever had an observation that was not a human observation.  Maybe there are two causes to every human observation?  --Take away either and what we have heretofore called the real goes away.  And if an alien awareness later kindles in this universe or at some completely different intersection, the real as we've known it will never be recovered.

 

I actually like the idea of the infinite universe of absolute chance.  In another thread, I used John Dewey's phrase "the universe with the lid off."  I don't think the world is the way that we see it.  I agree with you that human meaning is a very small thing in this environment.  Should I think this is a meaningless universe?  How can I when I don't?  Let us not pretend to doubt what we do not doubt.  My epistemological view is a kind of naive realism -- everything is exactly how we know it to be.  Including the speeding truck, and the world of value.  I'm pretty sure that you can find some direct contradictions in this paragraph.  That's when I quote Walt Whitman:   "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself.  I am large, I contain multitudes."

 

ac215568d7a772e31d9c2612e6443c9c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Llwellyn,

 

Please maintain a holding pattern and I will reply fully when time presents itself.  

 

That's looking like sometime tomorrow, by the way things are panning out here.

 

Btw, your kind comments are appreciated.  smile.png

 

Bye!

 

BAA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh shuggles!

 

All kinds of **** happening today, L!  

 

I've something in my mind, but need to phrase it carefully - so drafting and redrafting of what I've got in mind is quite likely.  That takes time and times a commodity I'm really short on today!  

 

Sorry, but I'll get back to you asap.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.