Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Things Science Cannot Prove


sethhersch

Recommended Posts

There are many atheists who have come out and claimed the omnipotence of science [Peter Atkins, for example]. My goal was just to refute only that claim, and hopefully to argue for the conclusion that belief in GOD is not irrational...that's all.

I just don't know of a better word for belief in an unseen, unheard entity whom one communicates telepathically with to influence the future.

If one told you of such a spirit without the context of "god" involved you would consider them slightly off kilter.

That's how I think of xians.

--edit--

p.s. I onced was one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • sethhersch

    32

  • Shyone

    19

  • Ouroboros

    16

  • chefranden

    7

 

I could not disagree more. There is no such thing as a provisional necessary truth. Necessary truths are true in all possible worlds, and they don't wait to see if humans will check them. They are also true without the approval of humans. Everything that we know is true about the universe was true before we knew it. There are countless other truths to which we have yet to connect. I cannot imagine how someone could believe that a necessary truth like 2+2=4 or there are no square circles could be provisional. Necessary truths don't act the way that scientific theories do. Scientific theories are coherent in architecture, whereas necessary truths require no other truths for their justification. They're just true in virtue of their correspondence with way things are.

I think we might disagree about what constitutes some necessary truths. I prefer to call them axioms or self-evident or universally recognized truths. God is not universally recognized. God is not self evident (c.f. Thomas Aquinas).

 

A good apologist can make a square circle. (Circle)2 = Square Circle.

2 dogs + 2 dogs = 4 dogs, but 2 dogs + 2 cats = 4 dog/cats?

 

Like another recent visitor to this board, you want to assume God exists and is the "foundation" for whatever you want to claim (universal truths, morality, matter, whatever). The fact is that even god can't make a triangle with more or less than three sides, god can't really make a square circle, god can't violate the rules of logic. He would be (if he existed) subject to them, not the cause of them.

 

 

Secondly, you admitted that we humans share so many of our moral judgments that it is easy for us to come to communal consensus. Not only is this not true, but it also forces you to answer this question: what is the best explanation for our shared moral judgments? Don't say evolution and society...that's circular. That cannot be both the cause and result of our shared moral judgments. What is it that makes us agree?

 

You have not understood what is meant by morality. Morality is consensus. Period. There are reasons for considering something moral or immoral, but ultimately consensus defines morality.

 

To the ancient Israelites, kidnapping virgins is moral. No longer. They executed prisoners. This is no longer moral. They kept slaves. This is no longer moral. WE do not accept the morality of these things as a matter of consensus. Even though God Himself said they were moral, they are most emphatically not.

 

General principles make some things universally immoral, but there are clearly areas where morality may be different from one society to another or from one time to another. Morality may be situational. Wrong to kill except for 1) self defense, 2) war, 3) execution (currently undergoing revision), 4) defense of others, etc. If you choose the word murder, which is by definition illegal killing, then the argument is circular - that which is illegal is illegal. And this, in turn, is decided by societal consensus.

 

Even the most fantastically penetrating scientific experiments cannot prove that I am not merely being deceived by an evil genius and that my sensory inputs are being manipulated.

 

Solipsism accomplishes nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Some ideas are admittedly tired: virgin births and the like. However, the idea of a messiah resurrecting and ascending to heaven was a first, and it is this that seems most central to Christianity.

Surely, SURELY, you jest!

 

If you studied ancient texts, you would know that resurrections is as common as gods. Cyclical resurrection, single resurrection, bringing the dead back to life.

 

Inanna is rescued by the intervention of Enki. He creates two sexless creatures that empathize with Ereshkigal's suffering, and thereby gain a gift - Inanna's corpse. They restore her to life with the Bread of Life and the Water of Life.

 

P.S. If you want resurrected man/gods that attained immortality, eternal life, etc. there's bunches.

 

And you know it. Or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think we might disagree about what constitutes some necessary truths. I prefer to call them axioms or self-evident or universally recognized truths. God is not universally recognized. God is not self evident (c.f. Thomas Aquinas).

 

But this is precisely the point. Some necessary truths haven't been discovered by a single human, much less have they any sort of universal recognition. This has NOTHING to do with the truth value associated with them. A thing has either got to be true or not, and it makes not one bit of difference to a true thing whether or not we agree.

 

 

The fact is that even god can't make a triangle with more or less than three sides, god can't really make a square circle, god can't violate the rules of logic. He would be (if he existed) subject to them, not the cause of them.

 

There is actually huge dissent about this among philosophers or religion, but I actually agree that GOD cannot violate necessary logical truths. This doesn't preclude him from being their causal agent. Omnipotence doesn't mean that there aren't things that GOD cannot do.

 

 

 

You have not understood what is meant by morality. Morality is consensus. Period. There are reasons for considering something moral or immoral, but ultimately consensus defines morality.

 

To the ancient Israelites, kidnapping virgins is moral. No longer. They executed prisoners. This is no longer moral. They kept slaves. This is no longer moral. WE do not accept the morality of these things as a matter of consensus. Even though God Himself said they were moral, they are most emphatically not.

 

General principles make some things universally immoral, but there are clearly areas where morality may be different from one society to another or from one time to another. Morality may be situational. Wrong to kill except for 1) self defense, 2) war, 3) execution (currently undergoing revision), 4) defense of others, etc. If you choose the word murder, which is by definition illegal killing, then the argument is circular - that which is illegal is illegal. And this, in turn, is decided by societal consensus.

 

Alright, you can't just restipulate a definition for a term and then accuse me of misunderstanding. If you want to talk about morality in terms of consensus, that's fine, but it's a definite shift in context. We WERE talking about objective moral values, which have absolutely nothing to do with humans at all. I also love your archaic examples, because they give me even more support: it's not the case that any of those things that are wrong were ever right just because of social norms. Hence, they must be objective moral values. At least some of them have always been wrong. There isn't some sliding scale that allows for things to become more permissible over time...that's absurd. A morally-significant action has got to be right or wrong, not both, and not change face over time.

 

 

 

Solipsism accomplishes nothing.

 

I agree completely. Solipsism accomplishes nothing. So we had better get busy building a strong foundational epistemic architecture, on pain of losing absolutely every piece of knowledge we think we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Alright, you can't just restipulate a definition for a term and then accuse me of misunderstanding. If you want to talk about morality in terms of consensus, that's fine, but it's a definite shift in context. We WERE talking about objective moral values, which have absolutely nothing to do with humans at all. I also love your archaic examples, because they give me even more support: it's not the case that any of those things that are wrong were ever right just because of social norms. Hence, they must be objective moral values. At least some of them have always been wrong. There isn't some sliding scale that allows for things to become more permissible over time...that's absurd. A morally-significant action has got to be right or wrong, not both, and not change face over time.

 

You can speak of "absolute" or "objective" moral values, but they do not exist. Name one, explain why it is absolute or objective.

 

If you say killing your neighbor, you know that "it depends." And to the extent that we can define Murder, it is by human law that it is murder - written by humans, and common to all cultures for the preservation of order, life and society.

 

The very point of my "archaic" examples was to show that morality has changed. Social norms in ancient Israel were different from now. I like to call it progress, but even that is subect to interpretation. Rape and child abuse were certainly not punished as they are today, and in fact were praised in the "good old days."

 

Ethics is not a subject of the Bible - the word is not even in the bible - but rather the subject of human interaction.

 

The existence of moral consistency does not argue for gods, but against them. God is not necessary for anything, and even if you argue that "laws" were created eons ago by some alien being that is no longer evident, that doesn't imply that there is still a need for said alien. Imagine god vanishes - still there is matter, orbits, morals, logic and mathematics.

 

God doesn't push the planets around the sun. The idea is outdated and irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is simply not true. Most Christian Theology teaches that Jesus' healing was retroactive. Many believe that the souls before Jesus were saved in advance of Jesus' coming. Some others still claim that it is the return of Jesus that will save souls. It is patently false, however, to claim that their salvation was forever denied.

 

You misunderstood what I said. I never implied that salvation was 'forever denied'. Only that at the time, the innocent did not go to heaven, there was no paradise waiting for them. That did not occur, if it ever did occur, until much later.

 

That leaves little justification or comfort in the idea even as presented, and invalidates the premise that they were sent into paradise as a valid excuse. Not that it was to begin with.

 

There is no justification in the slaughter of innocents. Even with the idea of paradise waiting for them. It's a poor rationalization to begin with.

 

Let God sort them out is not a moral or ethical statement. There's no justification for wrongdoing in using the phrase. It's simply another way of stating the ends justify the means.

 

It's a clear cut callous and immoral excuse for bad behavior.

 

It's actually not just one argument, but the arguments he made were valid. I think you mean they were unsound, which most philosophers agree with.

 

I can't see how it's valid. His arguments presuppose a conclusion that must be valid without bothering to provide any evidence that the presupposition is valid.

 

In order to be valid, God must exist, and must be the only God. Pascal's arguments completely disregard the possibility that he is in error, and that there might be other, or a different God than the one he argues for. He does mention that he might be wrong, but does not really consider the implications if he is. They are in fact, merely brushed aside, and no thought is given to what might happen if one ends up judged by another God at all.

 

I find his arguments to be both invalid and unsound.

 

I agree...belief in GOD should be put to the same standard to which other beliefs are put. You don't doubt that your sensory apparatuses are functioning properly I take it. And yet you haven't a single good reason in the world why you should doubt e.g. Cartesian problems. It seems to me that you are the one with the double standard. You have complacently trusted your senses for years -- not such a bad thing. I have trusted mine, too. But there are no arguments that properly refute Cartesian problems, in my view. You simply have to take it as foundational that your senses are functioning properly, just as it is foundational that 2+2=4 or that there are no square circles.

 

You picked a philosopher I've read a bit of.

 

I don't agree with Descartes. I find his arguments lacking, I'm afraid I'm with Bernard Williams in regard to him and his philosophy.

 

I don't believe he gives a foundation for his arguments for God.

 

I completely agree with Williams here:

 

"The trouble with Descartes's system is not that it is circular; nor that there is an illegitimate relation between the proofs of God and the clear and distinct perceptions. The trouble is that the proofs of God are invalid and do not convince even when they are supposedly being intuited."

 

Or as Andrea Christofidou put it...

 

"Descartes' works are read as the most challenging and informative misleading example of what is to be rejected. He is typically presented as one who simply had a weakness for skepticism, or perhaps for mathematical certainty or whatever misconception particularly impresses the teacher as providing the source of skepticism: a student will reasonably conclude, not only that Descartes is a fool, but more damagingly, that a subject which thinks it important that one should now read his works. cannot be a very serious subject."

 

In my view, there are plenty of arguments that properly refute Cartesian problems. I don't find his philosophy very compelling. Interesting yes, but convincing? Not in the slightest.

 

I find Descartes to be similar to Durant. Very interesting and intelligent fellows, but their arguments for God are lacking in substance. To often they rely on a presupposition in the position that there is a God to begin with to bolster their arguments. Offering no real evidence or incentive to think that the presupposition they start with is valid to begin with.

 

They skip a step in the rationality of their arguments. Starting with the assumption that God is real, with no foundation or support that it is true.

 

I prefer Durant to Descartes though. Probably just on the basis that I like his prose and writing style better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm understanding the opening post correctly, isn't this the whole "atheists have just as much faith as theists" argument but dressed up with a lot of fancy scientific and philosophical terms to make it appear like a more sophisticated argument? Even if we presume some things cannot be proven by science and that they take a degree of faith to believe in, there's a huge difference between Faith with a capital F and faith with a lower case f. Faith with a lower case f should be more accurately described as trust. These are things like "I have faith my spouse isn't cheating on me" or "I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow." In the broadest sense of the word faith, you might be able to argue that it is a kind of faith, but it's the kind of trust where there might be a chance the opposite is true but the evidence is so overwhelming it seems so unlikely to happen that there's no reason to doubt it. On the other hand, Faith with a capital F is the kind of blind faith you have in when you have no evidence at all. Like faith that aliens abducted your next door neighbor or faith in tarot card readings. Even if you presume that it's possible for a god to exist, just because it's possible doesn't mean it's likelihood of existence is on par with its unlikelihood. To put it in another way, there might be a 1% possibility that the Earth is flat and the moon landing was a hoax and we've all been duped by NASA, but the likelihood of it being true is so implausible, no would say they have faith we landed on the moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I could not disagree more. There is no such thing as a provisional necessary truth.

 

It is our perception and understanding of truth that is provisional. Newtonian physics for example, it was a provisional truth because, for a time, it worked in all the scenarios it was applied to. It sufficiently explained all phenomena that people investigated. Thats not the case now. It is now insufficient to explain the behaviors of subatomic particles and very massive or fast moving objects. The provisioanl truth of Newtonian physics was amended to include quantum mechanics and relativity which are also provisional. Eventually those will be amended. But for all intents and purposes, in its time, Newtonian physics was functionally absolute, yet still provisional.

 

 

Necessary truths are true in all possible worlds, and they don't wait to see if humans will check them. They are also true without the approval of humans. Everything that we know is true about the universe was true before we knew it. There are countless other truths to which we have yet to connect.

 

You are confusing "The way the world is" with "what we think it is". The two can never be equal. All the truths we supposedly have are just "what we think it is". They seek, but will never meet "the way the world is". Searching for truth is like calculating pi. It has a neccessary value, but we can never find an absolute value. Any number you assign to it is provisional until you calculate the next digit.

 

I cannot imagine how someone could believe that a necessary truth like 2+2=4 or there are no square circles could be provisional.

 

Actually 2+2=11 in base-3 math and 2+2=10 in base-4 math.

 

In non-euclidean geometry you can have a square circle. Draw a sqaure on the surface of a sphere. Now increase the lengths of all its sides. You get something like this.

 

Uniform_tiling_432-t0.png

 

If you continue to increase the size of the square eventually it becomes the circumference of the sphere.

 

 

Necessary truths don't act the way that scientific theories do. Scientific theories are coherent in architecture, whereas necessary truths require no other truths for their justification. They're just true in virtue of their correspondence with way things are.

 

But our understanding of truth IS a theory.

 

Secondly, you admitted that we humans share so many of our moral judgments that it is easy for us to come to communal consensus. Not only is this not true, but it also forces you to answer this question: what is the best explanation for our shared moral judgments? Don't say evolution and society...that's circular. That cannot be both the cause and result of our shared moral judgments. What is it that makes us agree?

 

The things that guide our moral decisions are indestinguishable from the things that make us human. Had humans evolved from a species that did not mate for life then we might look down on monogamy or have no concept of it all together. Promiscuous behavior might be looked upon favorably, or even admirably. The seventh commandment might read "Thou shall not commit monogomy". But then we wouldn't "Be human" in the sense that we are today. Our society would be completely different but no more or less valid.

 

Finally, I never disagreed that science addresses shortcomings in our senses. If I want a pair of glasses, I don't go to a philosopher of mind. What I am saying is that the Cartesian problems have not been addressed. Even the most fantastically penetrating scientific experiments cannot prove that I am not merely being deceived by an evil genius and that my sensory inputs are being manipulated. I have to take it as foundational that I am actually typing right now. Science is, unfortunately, powerless to show otherwise. In fact, without my presumption that my sensory faculties are not being comprehensively manipulated, I couldn't even read and enjoy such scientific literature. Again, the problem is circularity. You cannot demonstrate that the Cartesian problem is dissolved by scientific means, because any such means require that you first reject the Cartesian problem to begin with! It's simply something you have to take as foundational.

 

Religion can not prove you are not being deceived either. I didn't see anyone in "The Matrix" pick up a bible to realize "There is no spoon". :HaHa: How would you know that God is not a hoax perpetrated by that evil genius? If he can control all your sensory inputs then he can make you here a "voice from the heavens" or "see Jesus on toast." Religion could just as easily pull you deeper into the deception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not suggesting that belief in the Christian GOD is essential to objective morality -- I am saying that GOD's very existence is. It's quite a different argument.

 

Which god? What does god even mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abraham and Isaac explained by Mitchell and Webb:

 

 

Oh! *wipes away tears* Oh my....

 

-Phanta

 

"Giant see-through George Lucas..."

 

Brilliant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Love Dog

I am a philosopher first and foremost, but I am also a theist. Of all of the challenges that I hear, probably the most common is some version or another of the evidentialist objection: "where's the evidence for your god?" By evidence, people usually mean to denote something like the kind of evidence we look for to prove or disprove a scientific hypothesis -- the kind of evidence that is empirical and ordinary in relevant ways. But there are plenty of things that we believe, that we are rational to believe, but for which we lack any sort of evidence in this sense.

 

Here are some examples:

 

1. Logical principles -- i.e. the law of non-contradiction

2. Mathematical axioms

3. Ethical principles -- i.e. [prima facie] stealing is wrong, keep your promises, etc.

4. The reliability of our senses -- how can we trust that we are interpreting ordinary empirical evidence accurately and without adulteration?

 

 

These are all things to which I subscribe. To be sure, there is some dissent about the law of non-contradiction, but for the most part, these are all things to which most people subscribe and they are rational to do so. Furthermore, none of these things is provable in the scientific sense. This gets us so far: some true propositions don't require science for their justification.

 

This is actually significant ground to gain when writers like Dawkins are slamming all that is overtly non-scientific.

 

 

 

Any atheists or agnostics agree thus far? Any disagree?

 

I disagree entirely with your propositions.

 

I see nothing logical in the belief in invisible deities.

 

I see nothing mathematical in the belief in invisible deities.

 

I see nothing ethical in the belief in invisible deities. Ethics are not religion or belief-based. I see nothing ethical about stoning adulterers to death or executing anyone who works on the Sabbath or crucifying someone who fancies his neighbors wife, ox or ass. Most ethics are set by societial law, environment-based education and taught by our parents or arrived at by our own sense of the Golen Rule.

 

Our senses have developed over many millions of years of selection and evolution. I would trust my senses before I would trust someone who preaches pie in the sky. There is nothing more adulterated than the bible, something which many millions of people base their lives on and an item for which there is very little evidence of its accuracy and writings that are so obviously the writings of sub-intelligent beings seeking power and glory and wealth over mere mortals.

 

Science doesn't have to prove the non-existence of a god/gods/heaven/hell/purgatory/limbo/angels.demons/the devil, Santa Claus/Easter Bunny/Tooth Fairy/goblins/elves/gnomes/fairies...

 

Any person with a reasonable sense of intelligence and the ability to research and question can soon wok out that they are all just the inventions of humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest xandrani

You seem to be saying that you don't need evidence to believe in something... well how about this:

 

If I tell you that there are magical pixies that make things fall to earth (i.e. gravity doesn't really exist but the pixies move objects at the correct speed and force to make it seem that gravity exists). Coincidentally these pixies are invisible and not detectable by science. But I have 'faith' that they exist.

 

Would you think I was crazy?

 

As the existence of God is just as crazy as the magical pixies according to your argument of 'not needing evidence'. So is it ok to believe absolutely anything? You just happen to believe in your particular God as that happens to be the myth available to you at this time in history. But do you believe in Thor etc? Probably not! But why not, as Thor is just as feasible/infeasible as your presumably 'modern' God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be saying that you don't need evidence to believe in something... well how about this:

 

If I tell you that there are magical pixies that make things fall to earth (i.e. gravity doesn't really exist but the pixies move objects at the correct speed and force to make it seem that gravity exists). Coincidentally these pixies are invisible and not detectable by science. But I have 'faith' that they exist.

 

Would you think I was crazy?

Now wait a minute. Are you saying that these pixies don't really exist?

 

But there's proof! Just drop something and see the pixies in action!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Shy the Wise here, pixies do exist. Don't take my pixies away! Keep pixies in Christmas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's actually not just one argument, but the arguments he made were valid. I think you mean they were unsound, which most philosophers agree with.

 

I can't see how it's valid. His arguments presuppose a conclusion that must be valid without bothering to provide any evidence that the presupposition is valid.

 

In order to be valid, God must exist, and must be the only God. Pascal's arguments completely disregard the possibility that he is in error, and that there might be other, or a different God than the one he argues for. He does mention that he might be wrong, but does not really consider the implications if he is. They are in fact, merely brushed aside, and no thought is given to what might happen if one ends up judged by another God at all.

 

I find his arguments to be both invalid and unsound.

 

 

I think you're confused about validity. Conclusions cannot be valid -- validity is a feat reserved for arguments. An argument is valid iff, given true premises, its conclusion could not be false. In other words, the truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

 

Here's the core of Pascal's case in premise-conclusion format:

 

1. For any person S, and alternatives a and b available to S, if the expected utility of a exceeds that of b, S should choose a.

2. Believing in GOD carries more expected utility than not believing does.

3. Hence, one should believe in GOD.

 

 

The argument is clearly valid. You might think it is unsound, which is different. Most philosophers think that the first premise is false. This would make the argument unsound, but this is importantly different from invalidity. The argument as stated is absolutely valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm understanding the opening post correctly, isn't this the whole "atheists have just as much faith as theists" argument but dressed up with a lot of fancy scientific and philosophical terms to make it appear like a more sophisticated argument? Even if we presume some things cannot be proven by science and that they take a degree of faith to believe in, there's a huge difference between Faith with a capital F and faith with a lower case f. Faith with a lower case f should be more accurately described as trust. These are things like "I have faith my spouse isn't cheating on me" or "I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow." In the broadest sense of the word faith, you might be able to argue that it is a kind of faith, but it's the kind of trust where there might be a chance the opposite is true but the evidence is so overwhelming it seems so unlikely to happen that there's no reason to doubt it. On the other hand, Faith with a capital F is the kind of blind faith you have in when you have no evidence at all. Like faith that aliens abducted your next door neighbor or faith in tarot card readings. Even if you presume that it's possible for a god to exist, just because it's possible doesn't mean it's likelihood of existence is on par with its unlikelihood. To put it in another way, there might be a 1% possibility that the Earth is flat and the moon landing was a hoax and we've all been duped by NASA, but the likelihood of it being true is so implausible, no would say they have faith we landed on the moon.

 

 

Oh, my no...not at all. This isn't an argument to the conclusion that atheism is as faulty as theism. Neither is it an argument for theism at all. There is also no scientific nomenclature at all in my first post. It was meant to be philosophical, but that doesn't mean that it is ivory tower or "dressed up."

 

You have an interesting rebuttal here, but it refutes an argument that was never made. I was making a very stripped-down, very narrow argument about the limitations of science. There's no reason to read into this beyond what I said. I never suggested that this is a good reason to doubt solid scientific conclusions, or to put belief in GOD into the same ontological category as i.e. belief in some derivative of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

 

I made an argument for a very specific conclusion. There's no reason to try to forecast my next moves, or anything like that. I can't count on one hand the number of times people on this thread have refuted claims I never made. This is getting borderline silly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is our perception and understanding of truth that is provisional. Newtonian physics for example, it was a provisional truth because, for a time, it worked in all the scenarios it was applied to. It sufficiently explained all phenomena that people investigated. Thats not the case now. It is now insufficient to explain the behaviors of subatomic particles and very massive or fast moving objects. The provisioanl truth of Newtonian physics was amended to include quantum mechanics and relativity which are also provisional. Eventually those will be amended. But for all intents and purposes, in its time, Newtonian physics was functionally absolute, yet still provisional.

 

Newtonian mechanics are not true, nor were they ever. They have incredible utility in that they help us to understand and predict motion, but to say that they were provisional true is silly. How could something go from true to false over time? It was true or it was false. We thought it was true. We were mistaken. It's that simple. I don't believe that functionality has any say in whether a thing is true at all, much less absolutely true. I agree with your characterization of how science works, but I don't agree that these are examples that elucidate how and why we should think that truth values shift over time.

 

 

 

 

Religion can not prove you are not being deceived either. I didn't see anyone in "The Matrix" pick up a bible to realize "There is no spoon". :HaHa: How would you know that God is not a hoax perpetrated by that evil genius? If he can control all your sensory inputs then he can make you here a "voice from the heavens" or "see Jesus on toast." Religion could just as easily pull you deeper into the deception.

 

Quite right. Religion is not what gets me out of this Cartesian pickle. The only thing that gets me out is to take it as foundational that e.g. my faculties are reliable, that I am not being deceived, that I am accurately interpreting the external world, etc. Religion has no place in this portion.

 

As for the argument you embedded into the last sentence: I don't think that religion would exacerbate or make any more or less dangerous these Cartesian considerations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You have an interesting rebuttal here, but it refutes an argument that was never made. I was making a very stripped-down, very narrow argument about the limitations of science. There's no reason to read into this beyond what I said. I never suggested that this is a good reason to doubt solid scientific conclusions, or to put belief in GOD into the same ontological category as i.e. belief in some derivative of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

 

Sorry for misunderstanding you in my earlier post, but are you advocating a NOMA Christianity?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Newtonian mechanics are not true, nor were they ever. They have incredible utility in that they help us to understand and predict motion, but to say that they were provisional true is silly. How could something go from true to false over time? It was true or it was false. We thought it was true. We were mistaken. It's that simple. I don't believe that functionality has any say in whether a thing is true at all, much less absolutely true. I agree with your characterization of how science works, but I don't agree that these are examples that elucidate how and why we should think that truth values shift over time.

 

 

I think that we are not using the same definition of 'provisional truth'. In the context I am using, provisional truth means,"The best truth we have for the moment". I'm using it to draw a distinction between, "What is true' and 'What we perceive is true'. At any given moment truths that appear to be absolute, may after futher investigation, prove to be inaccurate. But they were close enough that, at the time, all available evidence pointed to that being the absolute truth. Ultimatly, no truths that we have, nor could ever have, are absolute, because for it to be an absolute truth, you would have to know everything. You would have to know that there is no senario in which that particular truth was untrue, and thus be absolute. Alas, we can never know everything, so all the truths we think we have are provisional, even if they haven't been replaced by a 'better truth' just yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seth ole chum, you're making this much harder than it really is.

Truth is, I don't believe in any gods, and don't give a flying fuck if you do or not.

Simple as that.Wendyshrug.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you're confused about validity. Conclusions cannot be valid -- validity is a feat reserved for arguments. An argument is valid iff, given true premises, its conclusion could not be false. In other words, the truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

 

Here's the core of Pascal's case in premise-conclusion format:

 

1. For any person S, and alternatives a and b available to S, if the expected utility of a exceeds that of b, S should choose a.

2. Believing in GOD carries more expected utility than not believing does.

3. Hence, one should believe in GOD.

 

 

The argument is clearly valid. You might think it is unsound, which is different. Most philosophers think that the first premise is false. This would make the argument unsound, but this is importantly different from invalidity. The argument as stated is absolutely valid.

Pascal's wager is a load of logical fallacies. The false dichotomies and groundless assumptions make in an argument not worth considering. One cannot even choose to believe if one wanted to.

 

Pick a belief for which there is no evidence and try to believe in it. Perhaps you can, but I doubt that you can or would.

 

It is an argument that is intended solely to provide support for those who already believe. On examination, it fails to do that.

 

The argument is distinctly anti-reason: "The wager builds on the theme of other Pensées where Pascal systematically dismantles the notion that we can trust reason, especially in the areas of religion." "If reason can be trusted on the question of God's existence, then the wager simply does not apply."

 

Faith or works?

 

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

 

From the extremely narrow mind-set of the Christian, Pascal's Wager may seem to make sense, but for anyone who has examined other faiths or other possibilities, it is nothing but slight-of-hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention Pascal was a Calvinist and didn't think belief was a choice anyway, so it's likely he was joking when he made Pascal's Wager. Besides, if Pascal's Wager was a reliable reason to believe, since Pascal was a Catholic, wouldn't that mean Catholicism is the one true religion and you should convert to Catholicism if you're not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

You have an interesting rebuttal here, but it refutes an argument that was never made. I was making a very stripped-down, very narrow argument about the limitations of science. There's no reason to read into this beyond what I said. I never suggested that this is a good reason to doubt solid scientific conclusions, or to put belief in GOD into the same ontological category as i.e. belief in some derivative of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

 

Sorry for misunderstanding you in my earlier post, but are you advocating a NOMA Christianity?

 

 

NOMA, that's "non-overlapping magisteria," right? Could you explain that school of thought? I admit I don't have a grasp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Newtonian mechanics are not true, nor were they ever. They have incredible utility in that they help us to understand and predict motion, but to say that they were provisional true is silly. How could something go from true to false over time? It was true or it was false. We thought it was true. We were mistaken. It's that simple. I don't believe that functionality has any say in whether a thing is true at all, much less absolutely true. I agree with your characterization of how science works, but I don't agree that these are examples that elucidate how and why we should think that truth values shift over time.

 

 

I think that we are not using the same definition of 'provisional truth'. In the context I am using, provisional truth means,"The best truth we have for the moment". I'm using it to draw a distinction between, "What is true' and 'What we perceive is true'. At any given moment truths that appear to be absolute, may after futher investigation, prove to be inaccurate. But they were close enough that, at the time, all available evidence pointed to that being the absolute truth. Ultimatly, no truths that we have, nor could ever have, are absolute, because for it to be an absolute truth, you would have to know everything. You would have to know that there is no senario in which that particular truth was untrue, and thus be absolute. Alas, we can never know everything, so all the truths we think we have are provisional, even if they haven't been replaced by a 'better truth' just yet.

 

 

I think I understand now. You have a great argument here, but I still want to resist the use of the term "provisional truth." In analytic philosophy, we usually think that propositions [scientific hypotheses are always propositional] are either true or false, and necessarily not both. There is a modal distinction between necessary and contingent truths, but this is not the same as provisional vs absolute, which I'm still not sure is a distinction that has any connection with truth.

 

Nonetheless, I understand your argument:

 

1. If we have access to absolute truths, then we know everything.

2. But we can't know everything.

3. So we don't have access to absolute truths.

 

It's valid [MT]. I reject premise one. I think that there are things that we can immediately know [foundational things] that don't require that we know everything in order to know that they are true. We are rational, in other words, to hold that no new piece of information could come along that would upset these kinds of knowledge. I mentioned the law of non-contradiction -- I think that this is an example of something we can be comfortable asserting. No scientific or phenomenalogical evidence could possibly overturn this kind of thing. You might disagree, though.

 

This is pretty fascinating. Is it possible that some new piece of evidence could make us doubt something as fundamental as the law of non-contradiction? I don't think so, but the argument definitely has some pull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think you're confused about validity. Conclusions cannot be valid -- validity is a feat reserved for arguments. An argument is valid iff, given true premises, its conclusion could not be false. In other words, the truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of the conclusion.

 

Here's the core of Pascal's case in premise-conclusion format:

 

1. For any person S, and alternatives a and b available to S, if the expected utility of a exceeds that of b, S should choose a.

2. Believing in GOD carries more expected utility than not believing does.

3. Hence, one should believe in GOD.

 

 

The argument is clearly valid. You might think it is unsound, which is different. Most philosophers think that the first premise is false. This would make the argument unsound, but this is importantly different from invalidity. The argument as stated is absolutely valid.

Pascal's wager is a load of logical fallacies. The false dichotomies and groundless assumptions make in an argument not worth considering. One cannot even choose to believe if one wanted to.

 

Pick a belief for which there is no evidence and try to believe in it. Perhaps you can, but I doubt that you can or would.

 

It is an argument that is intended solely to provide support for those who already believe. On examination, it fails to do that.

 

The argument is distinctly anti-reason: "The wager builds on the theme of other Pensées where Pascal systematically dismantles the notion that we can trust reason, especially in the areas of religion." "If reason can be trusted on the question of God's existence, then the wager simply does not apply."

 

Faith or works?

 

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

 

From the extremely narrow mind-set of the Christian, Pascal's Wager may seem to make sense, but for anyone who has examined other faiths or other possibilities, it is nothing but slight-of-hand.

 

You didn't listen. I don't think that the argument is sound...I don't believe it gets off the ground and I made that painfully clear, if you had bothered to read the whole post before assuming that I was simply ignorant and in desperate need of your two-cents.

 

Let me say it again: "Most philosophers think that the first premise is false." If a premise is false in a deductive argument, it's a nail in the coffin. I can't believe that I was so flagrantly misunderstood here. How could you read what I wrote and interpret it as a defense of Pascal's argument?

 

Further, I never said a word about "logical fallacies." People jump on this fallacy bandwagon far too often, I think. First we look for validity and soundness, then we scope out whether it breaks any obvious rules like circularity or vacuity. If we have sufficiently given consideration to these, then we can see if there are any fallacies. There's no reason to leap to claims of logical fallacies when most philosophers [myself included] reject the argument as unsound.

 

 

You are one of the sharpest on this whole forum, so far as I've seen...how did you miss my point by so much?

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.