|
 Now playing on dirty.radio: Loading...
|
|
|
|
#1
08-18-2009, 04:51 AM
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Re: WMD? Nope. Oil? Nope. Try Gog and Magog...
Quote:
Quote:
 I take it as read that the truth value never reaches 1, and that what we call certainty is an abstract idea(l), like the perfect circle. (No doubt believers would jump in at this point and attribute this level of certainty and perfection to 'God' in some aesthetically-pleasing but highly nebulous way!) But the point is, even with the restrictions on attaining absolute knowledge (and the semantic restrictions used to convey it), if religious people could even get to the stage of saying something like "maybe Jesus was born to a virgin" it would be an improvement. Even moreso, "Jesus probably wasn't born to a virgin", or "Jesus almost certainly wasn't born to a virgin", all of which are more intellectually honest than "Jesus was" or "Jesus almost certainly was". With that in mind, I don't feel that the statements at the two extremes ("Jesus was born to a virgin" / "Jesus was not born to a virgin") should be viewed as equally wrong. I think a quest for honesty spurs us to recognise that while both statements of certainty are ultimately illusory, we can still attribute a much greater likelihood to the latter than the former.Probably a good point at which to quote Robert Anton Wilson: Quote:
 )In that sense of course it comes down to believing something too willingly and uncritically - the Bible, the Qu'ran, an authority figure, etc. So this is an issue of credulity as well as intellectual honesty. But then religions cater for emotional and social needs so profound that their intellectual shortcomings almost become besides the point - it becomes easy to believe an obvious untruth, and once you've invested so much personal identity into it, difficult to unbelieve it. Wilson's central tenet, about us being "agnostic about everything", ties in with your point about knowledge being illusory ("because knowledge is no more than just asserted, static belief") which is true but I find myself still coming back to the methodical difference in how we set about forming those beliefs, and the belief that not all beliefs are equal (he says, disappearing up his own backside!) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
On the matter of agnosticism though, Dawkins has repeatedly acknowledged he is 'technically' an agnostic on the question of God's existence, but that he's agnostic about it in the same way as he's agnostic about fairies at the bottom of his garden, and to all intents and purposes it makes sense to round up both hypotheses to "I don't believe". I think he is largely right in what he says about the redundancy of agnosticism, HOWEVER my only two caveats to that being (1) that he needs to define what he means by 'God' (are we talking the falsifiable hypotheses of an intervening God?) and (2) that we need a shared understanding of the words 'atheism' and 'agnosticism' if we're going to choose one over the other. On the last point, I'm inclined to take the position of George H Smith who insisted it's not only sufficient but necessary to define an atheist as "a person who does not believe in the existence of God" rather than as one who believes God does not exist. (Smith: "Since an atheist need make no claims about God, it is up to the believer to prove her case"). In other words, the 'a' points to being without something, in this case, without theism, without belief in God, similar to how the prefix is used in other 'lacking' words (apolitical/asexual) Unfortunately, I think the more people like Dawkins (who I still admire a great deal) cultivate a group identity of atheism, the more he risks atheism being unthinkingly dismissed as 'just another kind of religion' or more confusingly, 'faith position' - with the positive belief that 'God does not exist'. Which of course is one of the two definitions that appear in most dictionaries, but is essentially a biased definition because it implies a universe with a god-shaped hole in it. Kind of like, Atheism [noun] = a belief that God (who exists) doesn't exist. It's always interesting to me that self-described atheists, in my experience, almost always choose the looser definition to describe themselves (lacking belief in God) whereas theists and agnostics more often choose to define atheism as a positive belief (certainty that God does not exist). I sometimes wonder if we could agree on the semantics, we might come closer to agreeing on the philosophy. Quote:
|
|
#2
08-18-2009, 07:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WMD? Nope. Oil? Nope. Try Gog and Magog...
Quote:
(will respond in more detail in a bit...)
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain |
|
#4
08-18-2009, 03:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: WMD? Nope. Oil? Nope. Try Gog and Magog...
Quote:
I argued against such convictions and blind acceptance of scientific "knowledge", but I can give more. Kuhn talks about the process by which we throw away old scientific paradigms for new ones. To paraphrase crudely, in the beginning there is paradigm A and general hostility and shock towards anything that refutes A. Then there's a small bridge of time where paradigm B supercedes A. And finally a long period of general hostility and shock towards anything that refutes B. What does this describe besides the process of fixating one's *beliefs* as if they were thumb tacks going from one position on the bulletin board to the next? People hate not "knowing", the lack of believing is painful, which is why the bridge between A and B is so comparatively short. But that's ok because the scientific method is user friendly. It says: start believing something, and I'll show you how much you can believe it. Quote:
Quote:
Semantics: There was a time when agnostic meant exactly what Wilson's quote is describing. But since the atheist uprising, its been modified to stress the disbelief in God and diminish the other half, belief in uncertainty. Dawkins: I wholeheartedly agree with all of your good points on him and the "atheist crusade" All can add is this. In the God Delusion he talks about the same probability system we've been discussing. If I remember right he uses a number system of 1 to 7 where 7 is absolute certainty. He says that the possibility that God does not exist is like a 6.999. I respect him for saying this instead something more obtuse. My problem is that he and more so Hitchens and Harris act like the majority of the evil of the world stems from religion. Part of this, I'm sure, is just to provide a champion to the beleaguered atheist cause, which is understandible. But my point is that its no gaurantee the world would be any better without the major world religions. I think that's wishful thinking. But sometimes they get freaking misty eyed. Like unicorns and rainbows are going to come or something. An example of this is Hitchens arguing Saddam is a religous person and does all of his evil deeds from that motivation. I mean Saddam was about as religious as marilyn manson, lets be honest. That fucker was just evil. The point is that while a system based on truth has clear humanist advantages over a system based on lies, its not clear that faiths of god has the monopoly on lies. I mean from an atheist's point of view, religion is man made which is even more evidence that the evil is actually in man, not religion. Religion doesn't kill people, People kill people Quote:
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain |
|
#6
08-20-2009, 05:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WMD? Nope. Oil? Nope. Try Gog and Magog...
Lots of directions have opened up in your last post - the question of knowledge, the question of God's existence, the problems of religion, the modern atheist resurgence - but I'm going to have to be disciplined and ration my time on this one!
Quote:
If when you say 'knowledge is illusory' you mean in the philosophical sense - that the very notion of certainty is fundamentally an illusion - then I'm not sure how the scientific method ever really concerns itself with this. Scientific discovery works the same way irrespective of this underlying question, and has no critical bearing on outcomes beyond perhaps that raised by certain interpretations of quantum theory, which is more about the limitations of experimental objectivity rather than the limitations of knowledge. If you mean knowledge is illusory in the empirical sense - that scientific knowledge is only ever as good as we have been able to make it to date - well sure. To a large degree, that is the scientific method and is how knowledge develops. I think most people with some intellectual honesty who value the scientific method would accept that any clinging they do to 'knowledge' is temporary and only until something comes along to falsify or refine it. Which is a point you've made later on in the post, so I assume we're in total agreement on this. If you mean scientists sometimes have a tendency to be dogmatic and closed-minded - yes, they're human. Of course that's a problem of dogmatism and human frailty rather than a flaw in the scientific method. I'm tempted to condense that down to a question of good scientists versus bad scientists. If you mean they express themselves too rigidly or with too much certainty about something that, while it may appear to be correct today, may well be proven wrong tomorrow - I generally sense this is just a rounding up exercise in convenience, and is made with the unspoken caveat of "this is the best we have - currently everything overwhelmingly points to this..." A little humility never goes amiss of course, but at some point and with some 'beliefs' that have been supported by so much evidence, communication would become awfully tedious if we prefaced everything as being uncertain or had to assemble a percentage level of probability. It would be unworkable as a consistent whole system. This goes back to the point you made earlier about applying analog language. Either way though, I'd say it doesn't necessarily mean scientists aren't ultimately aware of the 'illusory' sense of knowledge. So when you say "knowledge is illusory within the scientific method", well if this is a limitation, it seems to me either a generally acknowledged one (at least if you pushed scientists hard enough!), or a somewhat irrelevant one, if we're taking the more existentialist angle. Talking of good and bad scientists, and I think this is relevant - let me quote one of the good ones. This is Feynman addressing the question of why, in a science lecture, students may not understand the speaker... "Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen any more. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that physicists have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as she is - absurd."As to the assertion that there is no God, this is surely just an overconfident rounding up of the statement 'there is no evidence for God's existence'. I see this 'overconfidence' as more a reflection of the human ego than of the scientific method. Whether or not it's in the realm of the scientific method at all depends of course on how we're defining God. Quote:
Fixating beliefs - truly blind acceptance of scientific "knowledge" - is, I'd say, far from common. It seems to me that, certainly since the time of Newton and Galileo, and even moreso recently - there have been far more open minds on the big issues than closed ones, even though those closed ones have been on quite significant matters. And most closed minds are not permanently closed to the degree that every challenge should be taken as a test of faith and character. I've been reading a lot about string/M-theory lately, currently widely viewed (though not by all) as our best candidate for unifying matter and the four forces. [Apologies if you're familiar with this and I'm coming across as patronising.] Some of its leading proponents (not 'believers') have been working painstakingly on this for 25 years or more, yet when faced with the possibility that as a model of reality it may all turn out to be completely and utterly wrong, they are remarkably candid in acknowledging this. The thing about string theory at this point in time is still the lack of experimental data. It's essentially mathematics drawing on existing 'knowledge' of physical phenomena (theories that agree with experiment). Now that we're reaching the stage where some of these (relatively) new theories can themselves be put to the test, the conversation is not about string theory "being proven right", but rather string theory "being given a boost". When string theorists talk about a positive result, they talk about it representing "the best evidence to date in support of" string theory. Even though they define themselves - "string theorists" - by their theory. Now that's an admirably open-mind if ever I saw one! Do these scientists secretly hope that they've been on the right path for all these years? Of course. But these and other theoretical physicists display an honesty that, to me, bears the hallmarks of a thorough appreciation for the scientific method, for doubt, and for the warning signs of clinging too hard to a single rigid view of the world. Certainly the history of science is littered with examples of major breakthroughs suggesting that - on the big things at least - science progresses in fits and starts rather than smoothly. I think it was the aforementioned Feynman who once made the point that on the really earth-shattering discoveries, paradigm B is sometimes only widely accepted once the scientists proposing paradigm A have died out, such is that unique combination of ego and influence (a combination I'd note is much akin to religion). But generally, scientists are constantly checking to see if there is something the matter with a theory. And on the shock and sometimes hostility to altering paradigm A - be it the position of the earth in the universe or the nature of light or whatever - we merely come back to the fallibility of mankind, and the consolation that, eventually, paradigms more closely resembling reality are accepted, even if a step or two back is necessary to get there. As you've said, so I'm thinking we're still, for the most part, in agreement. Science might progress in fits and starts, it might appear biased even with the concept of falsifiability, but the idea of fixed dogma is ultimately the antithesis of the scientific method, even if not all scientists are successful in avoiding it. The late Fred Hoyle's refusal to accept the Big Bang/inflationary model of the universe for instance struck me as being rooted more in stubbornness and ego than anything else, given the astonishing evidence that exists to support the theory, and the lack of evidence to support a steady-state universe. |
|
#7
08-20-2009, 05:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WMD? Nope. Oil? Nope. Try Gog and Magog...
[continued]
Some might try to argue that religion has similarly evolved and developed, for instance moving to the point where most Christians no longer believe that Adam and Eve is anything but allegorical. I'd argue that in this example and others, religion didn't change of its own accord, but simply suffered so many blows from outside - from science - that it was unable to credibly continue with these beliefs and maintain its dignity. How much of the Bible (old AND new testaments) have been quietly dropped from literal belief over the years, because they became too ludicrous to accept in a modern age with greater knowledge of the natural phenomena of the world? (That's to say nothing of our modern sensibilities about equal rights, opposing barbarity, and so on). And each time, they just move the goalposts, God retreats a little further into the background, and they carry on as if nothing had happened. Don't get me wrong here, I'm happy about it, and I think it's the only way religions will peacefully disappear. I think it's a credit to people of Christian cultures that it's (generally) further ahead than Islam in this respect - though obviously there are also historical/political roots as to why Judeo-Christian countries are "further along". But religions certainly won't be stamped out by force. I guess the point I'm fast deviating from here is one that was once made by Carl Sagan, that the very idea of someone saying "You know that's actually a good argument, I hadn't thought of that, my position is clearly mistaken" - something that happens all the time in science - is not a natural part of religion where dogma is meant to be so true as to be everlasting, and any challenge a "test of faith". Quote:
Hitchens and Harris definitely so, Harris more than Hitchens in my view. Which is a shame because he (Harris) has made some excellent points on other matters - on the current 'atheist movement' (his belief that there essentially shouldn't be one) and on the uncomfortable truth about so-called 'moderate believers'. But we've all heard the exaggerated complaints haven't we - that religion is the cause of all suffering in the world. And we've all heard the non-sequitur of a response - that science is dangerous as well. I think by overplaying the role of religion in various world conflicts, he diminishes the importance of other crucial background causes. But then I sometimes get the distinct impression that Harris, more than any of the other contemporary prominent atheist writers, is 'on a journey'. Quote:
You will I'm sure be familiar with the Weinberg quote about religion (With or without it, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.) Several people have since pointed out the missing part of the last sentence: "...and for evil people to do good things..." A moral act may be a little more moral when it arises free of the promise of divine reward or punishment, but if it would be accompanied with such a drop in the 'good deeds' of world religions, for want of a better phrase, is that a net loss for morality, or a net gain with the absence of the major source of dogma? I think the world would certainly be better if people had more courage, more honesty, more clear-thinking and a greater appreciation of the truth - all things which it might be said are sorely lacking in religion. But I've not reflected on it enough to form a more solid conclusion. I have to say I'm less interested in the case for or against religion as a source of good or evil than I am in the psychological and epistemological side to the argument, which endlessly fascinates (and dismays) me. Much more I'd like to address from your post but time really is against me. |
|
#8
08-20-2009, 08:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WMD? Nope. Oil? Nope. Try Gog and Magog...
Quote:
Really? There's more?!? 
__________________
8=====)~~(=====8 
|
|
#9
08-20-2009, 12:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WMD? Nope. Oil? Nope. Try Gog and Magog...
Quote:
as is the case for me. I'm off to edinbourgh and won't be able to do much for a few days. But I'm very much looking forward to delving into how you just handed me my ass.
__________________
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain |
|
#10
08-20-2009, 01:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WMD? Nope. Oil? Nope. Try Gog and Magog...
Quote:
No, I think we're more at elaboration stage than argument. Have fun in Edinbourgh (Edinburgh Scotland?) |
| Post Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
