posted
So, it appears that a large contingent here supports Solipsism as a philosophical basis.
In other words--we cannot know anything except what we personally experience. And even then, we have to acknowledge that the information we receive could be tainted.
quote:Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that 'I am the only mind which exists'...And as a theory, if indeed it can be termed such, it is clearly very far removed from common sense
The site then goes on to explain it in greater detail, and to discuss its importance as a point of view worth considering in the discussion of philosophy, but--in the end--it is an impractical and contradictory theory.
I reject solipsism. If we are to have any meaningful discussions, I would recommend that we all reject solipsism, and start to agree on what we all commonly accept as "real."
[dig]If the only way "the other side" can justify religion and the existence of God to itself is to deny the meaningfulness--even the existence-- of "the real world" through a direct appeal to solipsistic theories, then they must not have much of a leg to stand on.[/dig]
To quote Bill Clinton: "What do you mean by 'is'?"
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I am really only a little bit familiar with the details of being a "practicing Ben No'ach" -- for lack of a better term. There are many many web sites; I just chose a few that looked reasonable. So I really don't know if that website (or its writers' beliefs) is representative. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ssywak, I also reject solipsism--in practice. That is, solipsism (and related somewhat to it, idealism) is not a useful concept in everyday life. Assuming that other people are automatons, or illusions with no existence except in my sensorium, will get me nowhere; I will learn nothing and probably cause myself a good deal of unpleasantness. Saying that what I sense is an illusion does not allow me some other means of perception--it just disallows the one I have. I had not taken a good look at rejecting solipsism on any other basis, but your link is interesting and I will give it a closer look when I have more time.
But it is not solipsism, or even idealism, that I am talking about or that I think the others here are talking about, but empiricism. What we are saying is that because each of us lives distinct lives with distinct (but related) experiences, it is inappropriate to make a judgement about what one person can perceive based on what other people perceive. Just because I have never seen something--or even if I have never seen any evidence of something--does not mean it does not exist. For millennia, no European had ever seen a platypus, and when the first specimens were brought to Europe several prominent biologists dismissed them as hoaxes. They would not allow themselves to believe in a creature that did not match their acquired concepts of what living beings were in existence. Obviously, their experience was too limited.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You cannot prove one theory by disproving another, which is why the Creationists will always lose. If you disprove a competetive theory by lack of evidence you have not proved your contrast.
Lack of opposing evidence is not positive evidence.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And creationists aren't even particularly close to disproving evolution (one might suggest they better get started soon).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe anyone is supporting solipsism here.
I am just arguing for a form of weak skepticism - the notion that we do not know and cannot prove a lot of the things we believe, such as laws of the universe, etc.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:ssywak said: [dig]If the only way "the other side" can justify religion and the existence of God to itself is to deny the meaningfulness--even the existence-- of "the real world" through a direct appeal to solipsistic theories, then they must not have much of a leg to stand on.[/dig]
Once again you miss the point of what we’re saying. No one has denied the meaningfulness or existence of the “real world.”
What we have done is insist that you justify your position that the real world consists solely of that which can be observed, or particular events that are observed must be repeatable to be true. This is the underlying assumption behind all your arguments.
Again, note that the original statement being refuted was “only atheism is logically consistent.” Yet not once have you or Robespierre explained this supposed logical consistency.
And Ryan, no one here is trying to say, “You haven’t proven atheism, therefore God exists.” We are trying to say, “Atheism relies at its core upon just as many unprovable assumptions Theism.” Also note that evolutions disproves nothing about whether the world was created by an intelligent Creator.
I note that you have continually misstated our position in this argument, equating it with positions we have not taken. First you insist we are saying that the physical laws of the world are unstable. Next you twist our arguments to try to make them support Solipsism.
Are you unable to address us head on? Again, please simply show that atheism does not rest on assumptions that cannot be proven objectively and we’ll all declare you the winner.
posted
Both atheism and theism at their cores rely on exactly the same number of unprovable assumptions: ONE. (God exists, or God doesn't exist)
The difference is that simple theism rarely stands by itself. So while you only need exactly one assumption to be a theist, it's a pretty rare theist that doesn't carry around a bunch of related assumptions as well. That's why there are so many religions.
For some reason, atheism is frequently associated with "evolution." Since most people who believe in evolution are theists (including Darwin and the Pope) this seems strange to me.
It also seems strange that the "Big Bang" is less controversial in religious terms than evolution is, since there are several alternative scientific theories to the big bang, but no scientific alternatives to evolution.
Which, I guess, is the real reason atheism is associated with evolution. Since atheists operate under the assumption that there is no god, belief in evolution is the only available position.
That is to say that even though more theists believe in evolution than there are atheists, the correlation between atheism and belief in evolution is 100%.
Still seems like a weird thing to pick a fight over though.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
two comments on evolution i want to reply too,
Dagonee: "The odds of the universe developing in such a way as to produce human intelligence are staggeringly small. Yet despite this small probability you choose to believe that this event occurred by chance, not by someone’s design."
and
fugu: "And creationists aren't even particularly close to disproving evolution"
firstly, i'd like to point out that evolution isn't really something which is up for debate, that would be like trying to say that sublimation was all a hoax or that digestion was a figment of the dang liberal's imaginations. macro-evolution and the origin of life is really a completely different subject than evolution itself.
which brings me to dagonee's quote. if the odds of me hitting a baseball are a million to one and i swing a million times it's pretty likely that i'll hit the ball at least once. carl sagan has an interesting section in Cosmos about the probability (as best as the science at the time could tell) of there being a planet in our solar system with intelligent life capable of radio communication. i think he estimated that there could be like 10 planets meeting his criteria. and that's just in our solar system... and of course if a sentient species were to evolve naturally it would look at itself in the mirror and say "where am i from, who made me, why am i here". or more importantly "what are the chances of me being on this planet in this solar system in this galaxy".
here's a better question which i feel the creationists have completely failed to even acknowledge: if God created a universe in which it was POSSIBLE (even if highly unlikely) for life to develop without direct intervention, why would he then break the rules of the universe he had created to do something manually which could have happened anyway? is he just lazy? even better, how is it that we can understand that when anything we create is created a process is involved (dinner doesn't just appear on the table, we have to make it and put it there), yet for some reason when god created man it was done completely devoid of process; god decided it would be nice to have a universe and pop!
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, I am rather amused now because I know several atheists who do not believe in evolution. They "believe" various things among them, with some of the highlights being: "I really don't care" and "the universe just popped out of the sea of probability one day".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kerinin, I should emphasize that my post was rather tongue in cheek, as I have made the same point about provability and evolution before.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Sorry--empiricism. Please change my references to solipsism to empiricism.
And I believe that the European scientists were wise to originally reject the platypus as a hoax. How long did it take them, BTW, before they accepted it? (I think, from a quick search, that it was about 40 years--yikes!) The Piltdown Man wasn't rejected as a hoax, though, even though it was. Should we also accept the Paluxy man and the dinosaur tracks? What about the unicorn skeletons? Or the Ark I read about in the Weekly World News, up on Mount Ararat?
I would love too, except your side has stated that there is no objective truth. How can I prove anything objectively?
You have stated that there is no objective proof that the laws of the universe will not change from day to day. The logical outcome from that concept is that, since the laws of the universe may constantly change (and, of course, there is nothing to oppose the concept that they may change without our being aware of such a change), then all knowledge is without value.
Or, am I not even allowed to use logic, since Godel (and Hofstader) showed us that there isn't even a way to objectively proove that logic can provide us with objective information?
What am I to do, then, in your universe? I cannot use any data, since it is suspect, I cannot use information I have read, because it is also suspect, and if for a moment I accept any daya whatsoever, I cannot extrapolate from it because even logic is suspect...
All snarking aside--you do appear to be making an argument for ignorance.
And, in that case, you win. I cannot afford to spend any more time debating whether we can really know if anything is real, or if the laws of the universe are subject to random change. What's the point? It's an impractical and useless debate.
And again, I re-state: why go to such great lengths to discredit knowledge (if the universe is, through your defence of empiricism, inherently unpredictable, and hence unknowable--what value is any knowledge?), unless that goal is somehow important to you.
Or are you just going the debate team route, and defending a concept which you do not believe in?
So...
Do you believe in this empricism, or don't you?
If you do, then by your own points, knowledge has no value. Further discussion is meaningless; let's stop.
If you don't, then drop the argument, and let's get on with it.
Monty Python:
quote:For example, given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if she buys kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love her any more." This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap", and it gets me very *irritated* because it is not logical.
Treso
quote:I am just arguing for a form of weak skepticism - the notion that we do not know and cannot prove a lot of the things we believe, such as laws of the universe, etc.
I love your sense of humor. You are kidding, right?
posted
Are you kidding about thinking I'm kidding, or what? You must have gotten my point by now.
quote:And, in that case, you win. I cannot afford to spend any more time debating whether we can really know if anything is real, or if the laws of the universe are subject to random change. What's the point? It's an impractical and useless debate.
Well, for one thing it's dangerous to think you know things you don't. There used to be some folks who thought they knew the planets revolved around the earth - so much so that when it turned out they were wrong they refused to believe it, and instead attacked those who discovered their error.
In addition, presumably knowing the limitations of our knowledge will help us understand how to produce knowledge, or at least useful beliefs.
But, in the context of this thread, the point is that attacking religion because nobody can prove God's existence is a mistake. After all, there are all these thousands of things we trust in every day that we can't prove or know. If even atheists and agnostics take beliefs on faith every day in a fundamental way, one could hardly make the claim that basing beliefs on faith is a mistake.
quote:ssywak said: I would love too, except your side has stated that there is no objective truth. How can I prove anything objectively?
No one has said there is no such thing as objective truth. We have said that not all things that are true are subject to objective proof. Do you really not understand the difference? If not, say so now and we can all save a lot of time ignoring each other, because you are incapable of grasping clearly stated points.
Let’s rehash this whole discussion:
Robespierre: Atheism is the only logically consistent way out of the dilemma of a purely good God requiring obedience v. an evil Satan “freeing” humanity.
Dagonee: Presents sample syllogism that logically consistent does not equal true (unrefuted to this point), explains why the good/evil seeming paradox is not logically inconsistent (unrefuted to this point), and states this is not an attempt to prove God exists.
Robespierre: Asks if Dagonee is bothered by lack of objective proof of God’s existence.
rivka: There is plenty of subjective evidence; objective evidence is irrelevant.
ssywak: Misstates a lot of Judeo-Christian beliefs about the nature of eternity. Misstates concept of subjective evidence as “majority opinion determines scientific rules.”
Dagonee: Points out the difference between objective proof and objective truth. Mentions the lack of objective proof with regards to the constancy of physical laws.
Dagonee: Asks Robespierre why personal testimony does not constitute evidence.
ssywak: Takes Dagonee’s example of lack of objective proof of constancy of physical laws to mean Dagonee believes physical laws are not constant.
Dagonee: Informs ssywak that Dagonee does not believe that physical laws lack constancy, because Dagonee can accept truths that are not objectively provable. The requirement of objectively provable truth is imposed by ssywak, who does not have any for one of his core beliefs. Also points out that subjectivity is a matter of interpretation caused by imperfect understanding and does not change the underlying truth.
ssywak:Added to an earlier post at a later time. Insists that Dagonee’s argument amounts to a discrediting of “objective knowledge” as valueless. Points out many wonderful things science has done.
Dagonee: Points out that he is not saying objective knowledge is valueless, but that both objective and subjective knowledge (i.e., knowledge not subject to object proof) has value. Points out that the subjective knowledge of what is good is necessary to recognize science’s accomplishments.
ssywak: Asks for a clarification of Dagonee’s beliefs, still insisting that Dagonee thinks physical laws can change arbitrarily and extending the phenomenon to moral laws.
Dagonee: Points out that neither rivka nor Dagonee have stated that objective proof is irrelevant in all situations; the statement of relevance applied solely to the discussion about the existence of God. States again that he does not believe that physical are changeable, and that morality is not changeable either because it exists outside space-time. Points out again that the unchangeability of physical laws was given as an example of a truth accepted by ssywak/Robespierre yet not objectively provable.
Robespierre and Dagonee have a side discussion about the value of science’s adaptability and measurability. Dagonee admits he can’t objectively prove God exists but points out that he was not attempting to do so, but rather to show that atheism is not logically consistent. Also includes an interesting sidebar on whether morality can exist absent God.
ssywak: Lists the probability of the sun coming up and physical laws not changing, claiming they’re based on direct evidence. Does not supply any of the evidence.
ssywak: Again restates his opponents’ arguments to be that all knowledge is unreliable, and that such unreliability mandates a belief in God.
Dagonee: Points out again that no one has said they believe the physical laws of the world change day by day. Points out again that the constancy of physical laws is not objectively provable, which means that according to ssywak’s philosophy it is not true. Points out that we are comfortable with the idea of objectively unprovable truths. Asks again for the argument supporting the original claim of the discussion that Atheism is logically consistent.
ssywak: States that the people on the other side of the argument from him must believe in Solipsism.
Dagonee: Points out that no one has denied the meaningfulness or existence of the “real world.” Again asks for justification of ssywak’s position that the real world consists solely of that which can be observed, or that particular events that are observed must be repeatable to be true.
ssywak: States that his opponents’ have stated that there is no objective truth, that the universe is inherently unpredictable, that the logic is invalid.
Dagonee: Makes one last desperate attempt in this post to get ssywak to understand that:
NO ONE HAS SAID THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH! NO ONE HAS SAID THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH! NO ONE HAS SAID THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH!
quote:ssywak said: And, in that case, you win. I cannot afford to spend any more time debating whether we can really know if anything is real, or if the laws of the universe are subject to random change. What's the point? It's an impractical and useless debate.
And again, I re-state: why go to such great lengths to discredit knowledge (if the universe is, through your defence of empiricism, inherently unpredictable, and hence unknowable--what value is any knowledge?), unless that goal is somehow important to you.
Or are you just going the debate team route, and defending a concept which you do not believe in?
I have never been “debating whether we can really know if anything is real, or if the laws of the universe are subject to random change.” I have repeatedly and pointedly told you this is not my belief.
What you have done is create a straw man argument to attack. In case you missed it before, NO ONE HAS SAID THAT THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE TRUTH! We have not discredited knowledge. We have said that knowledge is not limited to those few things that can be measured and repeated in labs. You’re the one who is limiting knowledge by excluding a vast set of subject matters from it.
You are also setting arbitrary limits on what sorts of knowledge require objective proof to be true. Existence of God must be objectively provable to be true; constancy of physical laws does not have to be objectively provable. Or its it that the consequences of inconstant physical laws are so intolerable that it’s safe to assume it’s true?
Our whole point has been that something can be true and not be objectively provable. This seems to place a greater value on knowledge and truth than you do.
posted
Robespierre reads Dagonee's distillation of the conversation and chuckles.
Science holds a monopoly on useful views of the universe. Religious theory will never allow us to advance technology or even understand our world in any meaningful way.
Religious theory is fundamentally un-testable. I then question its origins, how did man come to posses religious "knowledge"? The popular answer seems to be through revelation by God. One would then suppose that perhaps some of this knowledge would contain specific answers to questions about the natural world, future events, etc, at least some way which we could judge these texts to have come from a God.
There has not been a single case of such knowledge coming from religious texts. They all seem to mirror the current technological state of whatever civilization they were revealed to. More importantly, even the philosophical concepts expressed in these revelations are rarely out of step with the civilization of the receiver. There is no objective reason to believe that said religious documents are anything but creations of man.
I would say that with religious texts in doubt, there remains no reason trust in religion's answers to questions about the universe but personal whim.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Robespierre said: Robespierre reads Dagonee's distillation of the conversation and chuckles.
I was summarizing the portion of the conversation that dealt with ssywak’s continual misstatement of the Theist position. You have not done that very much, which is why I glossed over your portions of the argument. It was concentrated on making one very particular point – you can probably figure out what it is from the previous post.
quote:Robespierre said: Science holds a monopoly on useful views of the universe. Religious theory will never allow us to advance technology or even understand our world in any meaningful way.
Doesn’t this view beg the question of what constitutes a “useful” view of the universe? Science can allow us to accomplish things. Who defines if these things are “useful?” Science?
quote:Robespierre said: One would then suppose that perhaps some of this knowledge would contain specific answers to questions about the natural world, future events, etc, at least some way which we could judge these texts to have come from a God.
Why would one suppose this? Since humanity has been gifted with the ability to examine the natural world scientifically, why would revelation be necessary to obtain information about the natural world? Revelation has been limited to those portions of knowledge which are not subject to objective proof, because those portions that are subject to objective proof do not require revelation.
The point remains, Your original statement that “only Atheism is logically consistent” contains two propositions:
1.) Atheism is logically consistent. 2.) Theism is not logically consistent.
You have made continual attack on Theism’s logical consistency and accuracy. You have never attempted to demonstrate the first proposition.
quote:One would then suppose that perhaps some of this knowledge would contain specific answers to questions about the natural world, future events, etc, at least some way which we could judge these texts to have come from a God.
There has not been a single case of such knowledge coming from religious texts.
What about all the supposed miracles, and all the successful predictions recorded in the Bible? All of those are cases that fit that bill.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Predictions made after the fact, are not predictions, but postdictions. Nostradamus made many predictions, none of which were specific enough to be considered right or wrong. To say "A great man will be struck down" is not a prediction of JFK's assassination. People dig through previous predictions and find ones that somewhat fit current events in a roundabout sort of way. The bible makes no observable predictions. If it did, there would be an objective way of evaluating it.
Given your previous definition of miracles, there’s no point in us discussing this topic. Tresopax and I and billions of other people believe that at some point God intervened in the world, altering the normal laws of nature to accomplish some desired affect. There are numerous written accounts of these events which you disbelieve. We have no other evidence to offer you, so this portion of the conversation can go nowhere.
quote: Science can allow us to accomplish things. Who defines if these things are “useful?” Science?
Useful things which science alone can do, include but are not limited to the following:
-curing disease -acurately describing the motion of the planets -describe the nature of matter WRT atoms and quantum theory and all uses derives therefrom -explain how diseases become immune to treatments over time -correctly predict time dialation when travelling at high speeds -calculate the circumfrence of the earth -computers and all related technologies
I guess the simple way to do this would be to compare a society with little or no science, say New Guinea Aboriginal tribesmen, with a western technical society like the US. Lifespan, quality of life, relative safety, protection from the elements, etc etc all come with this package called science.
What useful things can religion provide us with today? A description of the cosmos that makes no testable predictions and suggests nothing about our place in it? Doesn't sound very useful to me. I understand your point about usefulness being relative, but would remind you that we would not be having this conversation were it not for computer science.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Robespierre said: Useful things which science alone can do, include but are not limited to the following:
-curing disease -acurately describing the motion of the planets -describe the nature of matter WRT atoms and quantum theory and all uses derives therefrom -explain how diseases become immune to treatments over time -correctly predict time dialation when travelling at high speeds -calculate the circumfrence of the earth -computers and all related technologies
I guess the simple way to do this would be to compare a society with little or no science, say New Guinea Aboriginal tribesmen, with a western technical society like the US. Lifespan, quality of life, relative safety, protection from the elements, etc etc all come with this package called science.
But this presupposes that the purpose of human existence is to live longer and more comfortably. How do you know this in an objectively provable way?
I agree these are good things (although too much emphasis is placed on comfort), but there is more to life than this.
quote:Robespierre said: What useful things can religion provide us with today? A description of the cosmos that makes no testable predictions and suggests nothing about our place in it? Doesn't sound very useful to me.
It’s certainly not useful in a materialist sense. But knowledge of the purpose of existence and the way we should live our lives is hardly “useless.”
quote:Robespierre said: I understand your point about usefulness being relative, but would remind you that we would not be having this conversation were it not for computer science.
I wish people would quit saying that because some people think there is knowledge beyond science, we are questioning science’s usefulness. You keep throwing these things up as smokescreens. No one has said science is bad. No one has said improving the standard of living is bad. We are saying that useful knowledge does not end with out ability to manipulate matter and energy.
I still await any analysis or support of your original contention that atheism is more logically consistent than theism.
quote: But this presupposes that the purpose of human existence is to live longer and more comfortably. How do you know this in an objectively provable way?
Presupposing what now? I make no claims about the purpose of human existence. You are the one who claims to know this.
I am of the opinion that there is NO PURPOSE to human existence other than one we make up for ourselves.
quote: But knowledge of the purpose of existence and the way we should live our lives is hardly “useless.”
Well, now you beg the question, what uses DOES this knowledge of yours give you? Does it allow you to survive better than those who don't understand? Does it give you any special powers? Anything at all that can be observed while you are here on earth?
quote: We are saying that useful knowledge does not end with out ability to manipulate matter and energy.
I would ask you for an example of this knowledge and a reasoning of WHY it useful.
quote:Robespierre said: Presupposing what now? I make no claims about the purpose of human existence. You are the one who claims to know this.
You listed certain things as being useful. Usefulness involves some underlying purpose. A hammer is useful for pounding in nails. But pounding nails in and of itself isn’t useful; it is useful because doing so can attach one piece of wood to another, which is useful because it allows us to build shelter, which is useful because it allows us to live longer.
But why is living longer a useful purpose? I know why I think it is; I don’t know why you think it is, since any statement of purpose will ultimately go back to a proposition not subject to objective proof.
quote:Robespierre said: I am of the opinion that there is NO PURPOSE to human existence other than one we make up for ourselves.
And this right here is the heart of the logical inconsistency of your position. This is a proposition that is not subject to objective proof. How, then, can you be of this opinion, since all truths require objective proof in your philosophical framework.
quote:Robespierre said: Well, now you beg the question, what uses DOES this knowledge of yours give you? Does it allow you to survive better than those who don't understand? Does it give you any special powers? Anything at all that can be observed while you are here on earth?
I would ask you for an example of this knowledge and a reasoning of WHY it useful.
Is usefulness limited to survival and power? I would contend that religion leads to better living conditions on earth, but you’ll talk about the crusades and the inquisition and Galileo, and I’ll bring up Hitler and Stalin, and no one will be happy at all. So let’s leave that aside and suppose that religion does not lead to any benefits that can be observed while here on earth.
Assume for a minute Christianity is true (let’s use the minimal portions of the doctrine held in common by almost all Christians). If so, then there is an eternal life after this one. The manner of this eternal life is determined by choices made in this current life concerning the acceptance of Grace. If all this is true, then this knowledge is the most important knowledge you could possess, since choices made for less than a hundred or so years will have eternal effects.
I still await any analysis or support of your original contention that atheism is more logically consistent than theism.
posted
BTW, I do understand the difference between OBJECTIVE TRUTH and OBJECTIVE PROOFS. I also understand the concept of SUBJECTIVE TRUTH and SUBJECTIVE PROOFS.
The OBJECTIVE TRUTH is what Scully is constantly refering to as the thing that is "Out There." As a science/engineering-based person, my assumption is that, one way or another, the objective truth can be discerned either by direct observation, or indirectly through objective proofs.
The objective truth cannot be determined through subjective means.
Subjective truth is an oxymoron, then, as is the phrase "subjective proof." One person can convince themselves of anything. One person's feelings about a subject will not make it true (or reveal it to be true). And, as I mentioned earlier, which you then discredited, whether it's one or a thousand with this same subjective thought--it gets you no closer to the objective truth. Subjective truth is what? The feeling, or belief, that a thing exists? The thing may or may not actually (objectively) exist. What a person (or group of people) feel about it will not bring it any closer to objective existence.
As an atheist, I have amassed sufficient objective information to form a rational basis for my belief in the non-existence of God (or Satan, for that matter). It would be foolish to say that I know the non-existence of God to be an objective truth, but it is truth enough.
If we are to allow every item that has "subjective truth" the possibility of objective truth, then where are we to stop? I recall my previous list: Unicorns, Zeus, Aliens with violent anal probing tools, Hollow Earth, etc. What criteria shall I use to reject those beliefs, and accept one particular* God?
*I don't mean "God as a particle." We all know that God is both a particle and a wave...
(Edited because I accidentally hit the ENTER key after the first sentence)
Please feel free to tell me the other ones I forgot to include:
1) The universe exists. How it got here, I don't know. Smarter people than I are working on it, but until I know how it got here, I don't know how it got here.
2) The universe will continue to exist, following the same laws or constraints that it now follows, for a substantial period of time. At least until al the stars die out, and there's no one around to worry (or do anything) about it any more.
quote:ssywak said: The OBJECTIVE TRUTH is what Scully is constantly refering to as the thing that is "Out There." As a science/engineering-based person, my assumption is that, one way or another, the objective truth can be discerned either by direct observation, or indirectly through objective proofs.
Fine, but this assumption is very likely not subject to objective proof or direct observation. If it’s not subject to objective proof, then it’s not true according to its own mandates. So why does this assumption get special treatment over all other possible objective truths not subject to objective proof?
quote:ssywak said: The objective truth cannot be determined through subjective means.
We just flat out disagree here – the problem may be at its core the definition of subjective being used. I consider subjective to be an individual’s understanding of the truth – whether physical, moral, or otherwise. This does not mean an individual’s subjective interpretation cannot be wrong (or, if you will, farther from the truth). This is easily seen in physical phenomena: The earth doesn’t really revolve around the sun – it follows the geodesic “straight line” caused by the Sun’s distortion of gravity. But saying it revolves around the sun is a useful shortcut, and many people’s understanding of the matter does not progress beyond that point. They are not “wrong” so much as their understanding is incomplete.
Some subjective interpretations of the truth are flat out wrong. “The earth is the center of the universe” could be considered true in the sense that all other motion could be described mathematically in such terms. But besides making the math impossible to calculate, it also represents an unnecessarily complex description of the motion, which can be much more simply described as a succession of smaller bodies orbiting larger bodies.
“Gravity is repulsive, not attractive,” on the other hand, would probably be considered flat out wrong. Not even the tortured mathematical calculations can make this statement true in any sense.
I agree objective truth cannot be discovered perfectly through subjective means, but I also don’t think it can be discovered perfectly by objective means. We’ve seen continuing reevaluation of fundamental scientific theories for thousands of years now. I think this is a good thing, but I don’t think the process will ever stop. Something as radical as relativity and quantum mechanics is waiting for us to discover it.
quote:ssywak said: Subjective truth is an oxymoron, then, as is the phrase "subjective proof." One person can convince themselves of anything. One person's feelings about a subject will not make it true (or reveal it to be true). And, as I mentioned earlier, which you then discredited, whether it's one or a thousand with this same subjective thought--it gets you no closer to the objective truth. Subjective truth is what? The feeling, or belief, that a thing exists? The thing may or may not actually (objectively) exist. What a person (or group of people) feel about it will not bring it any closer to objective existence.
But I don’t think subjective truth exists except in the very limited sense of an individual’s imperfect interpretation of the objective truth. In essence, I would do away with the term subjective belief. People have beliefs that certain things exist. Those beliefs may be absolutely right, absolutely wrong, or an imperfect interpretation of the actual thing, with some interpretations being less perfect than others.
I think there is an objective truth about God. I don’t claim to know it perfectly – I would be surprised if there is any religion on earth that does not contain some accurate reflection of the objective truth. Obviously, I believe that my understanding is close enough to the truth that I base my life on it. Each person must select the individual interpretation they actually believe – hopefully after thoughtful contemplation. But the fact we can’t know them perfectly does not change the fact that there is an objective set of truths about God and the nature of existence.
quote:ssywak said: As an atheist, I have amassed sufficient objective information to form a rational basis for my belief in the non-existence of God (or Satan, for that matter). It would be foolish to say that I know the non-existence of God to be an objective truth, but it is truth enough.
So are you saying that the existence of God is not subject to objective proof? I just want to be clear what you mean here.
quote:ssywak said: If we are to allow every item that has "subjective truth" the possibility of objective truth, then where are we to stop? I recall my previous list: Unicorns, Zeus, Aliens with violent anal probing tools, Hollow Earth, etc. What criteria shall I use to reject those beliefs, and accept one particular* God?
Again, see my notes about “subjective truth” above. Hollow earth and aliens are ultimately objectively provable – each person sets their own standard of proof whereby they decide if they will act as if a particular belief is true or false.
Some things have nearly universal agreement on accepting them as true – it’s best to act as if physical laws won’t change, because experience teaches us they won’t. Besides, what could we possibly do about it in advance? Some things, such as the existence of aliens (in the purely physical, natural world sense as beings from another planet), could be objectively provable, leaving someone free to evaluate the objective and subjective evidence for and against them. Subjectively we have the testimony of some people in favor. Objectively we have the size of the universe (which would suggest it’s at least possible) and the light speed limitation (which suggests it’s unlikely they could get here even if they existed).
Zeus and unicorns could either be totally made up, could have existed at one time without leaving a physical trace, or could be subjective interpretations of some objective truth we understand imperfectly.
Things that aren’t objectively provable require drawing inferences from things that are, reliance on testimony of those who have experience them directly, and whatever promptings the inner heart may provide. This is why individual interpretations will vary. However, as stated above, this does not mean that these subjects do not have objective truths – it means we don’t know the objective truth fully.
There are several quantities in quantum physics, such as the charge and mass of an electron, that can be determined experimentally but cannot be predicted by the theory. (Or, any predictions of these values would rely on using values for other physical phenomena that cannot be predicted, such as the mass of a proton.) Other values, however, can be predicted by a theory and confirmed experimentally. I would suggest that scientists are much more comfortable with the second type of value, even though the first has just as much objective proof.
quote:ssywak said: *I don't mean "God as a particle." We all know that God is both a particle and a wave...
I agree with rivka.
quote:ssywak said: 1) The universe exists. How it got here, I don't know. Smarter people than I are working on it, but until I know how it got here, I don't know how it got here.
2) The universe will continue to exist, following the same laws or constraints that it now follows, for a substantial period of time. At least until al the stars die out, and there's no one around to worry (or do anything) about it any more.
Your turn to list your assumptions.
1.) The universe exists. It is a self-contained unit comprised of space-time, matter, and energy. Scientists are discovering more about it every day. Whichever of the current theories regarding the origins of the universe (or more likely, new theories) is found to be correct will be limited in its applicability to events which occur in this universe. Call this the “natural world.”
2.) The natural world exists (alongside, within, some other location word which does not translate well outside space-time) a “supernatural world.” Here supernatural is almost literally correct – the supernatural world somehow contains the natural and is hence in some way “above” it.
3.) The universe came into being through the will of a Creator who did so with certain underlying purposes. The physical mechanism used to achieve these various ends, including the big bang, evolution, or anything else do not eliminate the Creator’s intent nor the fact that he is the ultimate cause.
4.) Man is a creature with both animal and spiritual aspects, distinguished from pure animals in this respect. The spiritual aspect was granted by the Creator at some point in the history of the natural world.
4.) The abilities of ideation and subcreation are in some sense supernatural, not determined exclusively, but possibly limited by, the physical laws of this universe. This is the basis for the existence of free will.
6.) Physical laws are “constant” in some sense. For example, the speed of light is considered constant based on current measurements. However, “Variable Speed of Light” theories do exist that posit that the speed of light changed at some point in the universe. If this is found to be true, there will be some law which embraces both of these findings that will be “constant.”
7.) There is a set of knowledge that applies specifically to the natural world. Given perfect information and understanding of the laws governing the natural world and its current state, it would be possible to predict the future states of the world with a precision limited by three things: a.) Inherent limits of the physical world (the uncertainty principle). b.) Physical action instigated by the ideation or subcreation of human beings. Animals may possess some level of free will, or their behaviors may be wholly deterministic (this is unknown to me). These physical actions are constrained but not determined by the physical laws. c.) The purposeful intervention of supernatural entities from outside the natural world (miracles). At the point where the miracle ends, physical laws could predict the subsequent states of the universe subject to the same limitations.
I’ve never done this exercise before, so I’m reserving the right to revise as the implications of this list sink in (or as you point out inconsistencies within it).
quote:ssywak said: Or its it that the consequences of a universe without God is so intolerable that it’s safe to assume it’s true?
Absolutely. I can say yes to this without weakening the consistency of my argument (although leaving myself open to psychological attacks on religious beliefs). But it’s pointless to say a physical phenomenon happens the way it does because otherwise its effect on humanity would be too devastating, unless there is a reason to think the universe takes humanity into account.
So I can posit that one of the reasons God may physical laws consistent is to make the universe more suitable for humans; you have no such underlying proposition on which to rest the constancy of physical laws.
quote:The objective truth cannot be determined through subjective means.
Keep in mind that ALL scientific discoveries are made through subjective means, as well as all information we know about the natural world around us. After all, the only access we have to these worlds are through our senses - sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell. These senses are subjective, as they are available only to ourselves and can easily mislead us. Thus, if objective truth cannot be determined through subjective means, we cannot determine ANY objective truths about the natural world.
quote:If we are to allow every item that has "subjective truth" the possibility of objective truth, then where are we to stop? I recall my previous list: Unicorns, Zeus, Aliens with violent anal probing tools, Hollow Earth, etc.
Why aren't these things possible? I don't believe in them, sure, but they're still possible. What's the problem with admitting they are possible?
quote:Your turn to list your assumptions.
I would tend to agree with your assumptions. The point is, though, that they are just assumptions - not proven fact.
Are we going to have to get into "levels of subjectivity"?
Or are you going to claim that there is no such thing as objective knowledge, since all we can ever know is either a subjective experience, or mental (perhaps logical--if logical counts for anything) manipulations of subjective experiences.
And Dagonee said that none of you guys were Solipsists! Ha!
Treso, Dagonee? Which will it be? Will we allow ourselves to objectively know anything, or it is all one big solipsistic nightmare?
Listen (or should that be "Read"?)--I'm well aware of the limitations to our knowledge, to our sense organs, to our ability to logic things out, and all of that. But sooner or later we have to agree that something exists (specifically: the Universe, and All of Us), and since (or that) we exist, that our senses are reliable enough to give us a facet of the true, objective world.
Because it's either that, or one of us is just a brain in a vat, and the others are figments of that person's (obviously limited) imagination.
I'm soooo tired of this stuff!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you’re so tired of this stuff, why do you continually misstate my position.
Repeat to yourself slowly: Dagonee and Tresopax do not believe “there is no such thing as objective knowledge.” We’re the ones saying it is possible to discover objective knowledge through subjective means. We’re the ones saying something does not require objective proof to be true.
Of course “we ... agree that something exists (specifically: the Universe, and All of Us), and since (or that) we exist, that our senses are reliable enough to give us a facet of the true, objective world.” We just happen to hold that in addition to the knowledge you describe here, there are facets of the world that are objective and true that will never be objectively provable within the natural world. You’re the one artificially limiting the scope of knowledge, not us.
You’ve create a false dichotomy between two propositions, attempting to force us to choose between 1.) Either things that are true must be objectively provable or 2.) There is no objectively provable knowledge at all. We choose neither.
posted
Might I suggest, having been in a thread with Tresopax and Ssywak before, that it’s probably a bad idea to conflate Dagonee’s and Tresopax’s positions?
quote:Are we going to have to get into "levels of subjectivity"?
Or are you going to claim that there is no such thing as objective knowledge, since all we can ever know is either a subjective experience, or mental (perhaps logical--if logical counts for anything) manipulations of subjective experiences.
I'd prefer to avoid both these options by simply dropping your assumption that we can't learn about objective truth through subjective means.
quote:Which will it be? Will we allow ourselves to objectively know anything, or it is all one big solipsistic nightmare?
Neither. Instead we BELIEVE a lot of objective truths about the external natural world, even if we don't KNOW them. Or, in other words, just because you don't know the external world exists, doesn't mean you have to believe it does not exist.
posted
A question for ssywak and Robespierre, if I may.
Do you believe that dark matter exists? If so, why -- it's never been observed, and current theory maintains that it may not be possible to observe it? If not, how do you explain the fact that the universe's expansion is accelerating?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I didn't say that you (or Treso) believe that ther is no such thing as objective truth. I said that Treso's last position was that there is no such thing as objective knowledge.
I thought that we had all agreed on the definitions of objective truth vs. objective proof. Objective knowledge is not objective truth. Objective knowledge is nowledge gained through objective means (or, is it knowledge of objective truths, gained through whatever means? Hmm...)
On a more interesting note:
Rivka, as I've stated before, I think this whole "Dark Matter/Dark Energy" thing is a load of crap. I think that the astrophysicists' reliance on it merely reveals the level of their lack of knowledge of higher-order physical laws, certainly on a large (galactic) scale.
It's a fudge factor--a huge one, at that. They're not making up for the last 2 or 3% of "required mass" for the universe--they're making up for about 90% of the "missing mass."
I've either got to learn a heck of a lot more about current theories in astrophysics before I'll accept it, or they've got to sharpen their pencils a hell of a lot better.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought that we had all agreed on the definitions of objective truth vs. objective proof. Objective knowledge is not objective truth. Objective knowledge is nowledge gained through objective means (or, is it knowledge of objective truths, gained through whatever means? Hmm...)
I was using the parenthetical definition. It explains the confusion at least. I'm too tired to think of the implications now, so I'll consider it tomorrow. I've largely been using knowledge to be a synonym of truth throughout this debate.
Although I still disagree with you pretty much down the line on this, at least I understand why we've been talking past each other for 3 pages .
posted
Dark matter sounds a lot more mysterious than it is. There's evidence that stars of a certain size will continue fusing until most of the matter is iron, then cool into a solid mass. Such a star would be considered "dark matter."
When I first heard the term, I thought it referred to some new phase of undetectable matter, raising the specter of phlostigen and "ether."
The fact that 90% of it is missing makes me wonder what the hell we're missing in our theories, because to stop the expansion to the levels we've calculated, the matter must be relatively evenly spread out throughout the cosmos. Which means we should be able to detect some of it somehow.
quote: Do you believe that dark matter exists? If so, why -- it's never been observed, and current theory maintains that it may not be possible to observe it? If not, how do you explain the fact that the universe's expansion is accelerating?
I don't have any data on the question of dark matter. Something that has been predicted my mathematical models is FAR from proven or observed. I hold such ideas as dark matter and string theory as interesting but meaningless until someone determines a way to test or observe them in same way. The basic difference between these ideas and the idea of god being that there is never a way to observe god. The possibility of observing string theory or dark matter is still up in the air. If it turns out that one or the other is un-observable in any way, that theory would cease to be a theory, and become a philosophy.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So neither of you believe that dark matter exists. Fine. I have serious doubts as to its making up 90% of the universe myself. The fact that the cosmologists can't even decide if the most likely candidates are (from here)
quote: . . . undetected brown dwarf stars, white dwarf stars, black holes, or neutrinos with mass (neutrino, fundamental nuclear particle that is electrically neutral and of much smaller mass, if any at all, than an electron), or indeed exotic subatomic particles, such as WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles) or MACHOs (MAssive Compact Halo Objects).
But then how do you explain the fact that the universe's rate of expansion has been observed to be accelerating? The reason why dark matter has received so much consideration is because of the absence of any other serious contenders to explain this very odd phenomenon.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Robespierre said: If it turns out that one or the other is un-observable in any way, that theory would cease to be a theory, and become a philosophy.
What a cold, cramped, little world you live in, where nothing exists except what you can see using your eyes or their proxies.
quote: What a cold, cramped, little world you live in,
Welcome to the pale blue dot, buddy.
Seriously though, the supposedly warm, comforting, large world in which you live, is a figment of the imagination, it does nothing to change the cold cramped smallness of the real world.
quote: But then how do you explain the fact that the universe's rate of expansion has been observed to be accelerating?
Is science on trial here? I don't think science needs to explain that to be right about everything else. Science doesn't claim to be all-knowing.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rob, calm down. They're questioning dark matter, not science. Though science can be worth questioning, you know. As you said, science doesn't claim to be able to answer all questions--though I have known a few people who claim it can.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously though, the supposedly warm, comforting, large world in which you live, is a figment of the imagination, it does nothing to change the cold cramped smallness of the real world.
Fine, we entirely disagree. But at least admit you have no more proof that it is a figment than I do that it is not.
posted
Science is not on trial. I happen to think the scientific method is a very useful tool.
But that's all it is -- a tool. Not the only tool, not even the best tool in all cases. A tool that cannot possibly answer all the mysteries of the universe. Not even, it seems, the entirely physical ones.
You may think the world view of others is figmentary. But even were that so (and I whole-heartedly believe that it is not), I prefer it to the narrow view you espouse.
You prefer your view -- that is your right, and I do not debate it. I do wonder why you seem so invested in declaring other views wrong.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Not the only tool, not even the best tool in all cases.
I am willing to accept this, but what examples would you suggest for demonstrating a situation where science is not the best tool?
quote: You may think the world view of others is figmentary. But even were that so (and I whole-heartedly believe that it is not), I prefer it to the narrow view you espouse.
What is narrow about my view? I won't harangue you any more about the scientific method, because I know you understand it. So tell me how a view that updates itself with the latest and most acurate of human knowledge is narrow.
I would suggest that your view is narrow. You have already decided the truths of the universe without so much as a shred of evidence. The religious outlook strives to fit new data into old assumptions, rather than reform a possibly flawed outlook.
quote: I do wonder why you seem so invested in declaring other views wrong.
Isn't that what this board is about? Discussing issues which people deem important enough to talk about? I am not merely here to declare you wrong, I am here to represent my side of the debate.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*laughs* I have hardly "decided the truths of the universe" -- I learn new things, and re-examine things I thought I knew, all the time. And it's not "without a shred of evidence." It merely happens to be evidence that you find wanting.
And since I think we're going in pointless circles, I will leave it at that, Horatio. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
