Sorry -- LJ Cuts are not working for me. GR!!!!
First of all, I'm sorry I skipped a day on this. Oh well -- I'm sure the suspense was killing all of you. Are these valid or invalid, but again -- more importantly -- are Column A and Column B the same for each part? Does the definition in Column C change whether Column A is the same as Column B?
(For this exercise, ignore natural phenomena and cultural/biblical studies as "evidence"-- these are debatable. At this time, there is no way to prove or disprove that a supernatural being exists.)
I have been staring at the screen trying to figure out a way to post this editorial. The way I frame it will undoubtedly offend someone, so -- I'm sorry. That is not my intention. My intention is to figure out an intellectual problem. In my opinion, the intellectual problem we are faced with is valid whether the subject is God, Aliens, Dogs, etc...
FYI -- For the purpose of this post let me put out the definitions I will be using in the paragraphs to follow. (As there are many interpretations of each!)
Agnostic: Unknowable (In this case, One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.)
Thiest: one who believes that there is a (or many) deity
Athiest: one who believes that there is no deity
Agnostic Theist: believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have definitive knowledge of this.
Agnostic Atheist: does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist
Evangelical: marked by militant or crusading zeal
The background of this comes fromy frustration with Evangelical Athiests and Evangelical Theists. I have absolutely no problem with any personal choice regarding this matter. I do have a problem when either side attacks the other or me. I proclaim to be agnostic and ONLY agnostic. I don't feel like I can have a belief or disbelief in something for which there is no DEFINITIVE evidence for or against. Each side attacks me for a multitude of reasons. The only thing I really say to either group is that if they look hard and long, they will find that the logic is the same for both sides. Both sides are passionately vying for a position in which there is no evidence. Of course, that sends people off the boat. All of the people that I have been debating are intelligent and rational people for the most part. However, I still couldn't figure out a way to articulate this in a manner that didn't outrage them (or in turn me.) I won't even get into how long it took to get them to understand that they were probably agnostic athiests and agnostic theists...(Ok I just typed out like 2 pages and decided I should quit while I am ahead. LOL)
Finally, I (actually it might have been we, i can't remember it was all a blur) decided to put it in the form above and try to approach from logical standpoint. Both sides agree that symbolically and logically the arguments are the same. Ironically, though, they both claim that thier side is more valid for reasons they can't explain...but it just FEELS that way. Again, reiterating the point I had been trying to make all along.
Anyway, we decided to branch out the debate and posit it to my nerds friends and to several philosophy professors.
In short, let's change![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2)
johnny101 's example:
I hold a belief that God Exists. I have no proof that says that is a true statement. I have no proof that says that's a false statement.
I hold a belief that God Does Not Exist. I have no proof that says that is a true statement. I have no proof that says that's a false statement.
To me, technically speaking, they are the same and one holds up as well as the other.
So -- Take that and run with it or burn me at the stake. Either way, should be interesting!!!
First of all, I'm sorry I skipped a day on this. Oh well -- I'm sure the suspense was killing all of you. Are these valid or invalid, but again -- more importantly -- are Column A and Column B the same for each part? Does the definition in Column C change whether Column A is the same as Column B?
(For this exercise, ignore natural phenomena and cultural/biblical studies as "evidence"-- these are debatable. At this time, there is no way to prove or disprove that a supernatural being exists.)
| A | B | C | |
| Part 1 | i. If A, Then B ii. Not A iii. Then, B. [(a->b) & (-a)] = (b) | i. If C, Then D ii. Not C iii. Then, D. [(c->d) & (-c)] = (d) | A = Evidence exists that proves there is a god B = Belief in God (Theism) C = Evidence that proves there is no god D= Belief there is no God (Atheism) |
| Part 2 | i. If Not A, Then D ii. Not A iii. Then, D. [(-a->d) & (-a)] = (d) | i. If Not C, Then B ii. Not C iii. Then, B. [(-c->b) & (-c)] = (b) | A = Evidence exists that proves there is a god B = Belief in God (Theism) C = Evidence that proves there is no god D= Belief there is no God (Atheism) |
| Part 3 | i. If Not A and Not C, Then D ii. Not A and Not C iii. Then, D [(-a + -c->d) & (-a + -c)] = (d) | i. If Not A and Not C, Then B ii. Not A and Not C iii. Then, B [(-a + -c->d) & (-a + -c)] = (b) | A = Evidence exists that proves there is a god B = Belief in God (Theism) C = Evidence that proves there is no god D= Belief there is no God (Atheism) |
| Part 4 | i. If Not A and Not C, Then Not D ii. Not A and Not C iii. Then, Not D [(-a + -c->-d) & (-a + -c)] = (-d) | i. If Not A and Not C, Then Not D ii. Not A and Not C iii. Then, Not B [(-a + -c->d) & (-a + -c)] = (-b) | A = Evidence exists that proves there is a god B = Belief in God (Theism) C = Evidence that proves there is no god D= Belief there is no God (Atheism) |
| Part 5 | i. If Not A and Not C, Then D ii. Not A and Not C iii. Then, Not D [(-a + -c->-d) & (-a + -c)] = (-d) | i. If Not A and Not C, Then B ii. Not A and Not C iii. Then, Not B [(-a + -c->d) & (-a + -c)] = (-b) | A = Evidence exists that proves there is a god B = No Belief in God C = Evidence that proves there is no god D= No Belief there is no God |
I have been staring at the screen trying to figure out a way to post this editorial. The way I frame it will undoubtedly offend someone, so -- I'm sorry. That is not my intention. My intention is to figure out an intellectual problem. In my opinion, the intellectual problem we are faced with is valid whether the subject is God, Aliens, Dogs, etc...
FYI -- For the purpose of this post let me put out the definitions I will be using in the paragraphs to follow. (As there are many interpretations of each!)
Agnostic: Unknowable (In this case, One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.)
Thiest: one who believes that there is a (or many) deity
Athiest: one who believes that there is no deity
Agnostic Theist: believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have definitive knowledge of this.
Agnostic Atheist: does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist
Evangelical: marked by militant or crusading zeal
The background of this comes fromy frustration with Evangelical Athiests and Evangelical Theists. I have absolutely no problem with any personal choice regarding this matter. I do have a problem when either side attacks the other or me. I proclaim to be agnostic and ONLY agnostic. I don't feel like I can have a belief or disbelief in something for which there is no DEFINITIVE evidence for or against. Each side attacks me for a multitude of reasons. The only thing I really say to either group is that if they look hard and long, they will find that the logic is the same for both sides. Both sides are passionately vying for a position in which there is no evidence. Of course, that sends people off the boat. All of the people that I have been debating are intelligent and rational people for the most part. However, I still couldn't figure out a way to articulate this in a manner that didn't outrage them (or in turn me.) I won't even get into how long it took to get them to understand that they were probably agnostic athiests and agnostic theists...(Ok I just typed out like 2 pages and decided I should quit while I am ahead. LOL)
Finally, I (actually it might have been we, i can't remember it was all a blur) decided to put it in the form above and try to approach from logical standpoint. Both sides agree that symbolically and logically the arguments are the same. Ironically, though, they both claim that thier side is more valid for reasons they can't explain...but it just FEELS that way. Again, reiterating the point I had been trying to make all along.
Anyway, we decided to branch out the debate and posit it to my nerds friends and to several philosophy professors.
In short, let's change
johnny101 's example: I hold a belief that God Exists. I have no proof that says that is a true statement. I have no proof that says that's a false statement.
I hold a belief that God Does Not Exist. I have no proof that says that is a true statement. I have no proof that says that's a false statement.
To me, technically speaking, they are the same and one holds up as well as the other.
So -- Take that and run with it or burn me at the stake. Either way, should be interesting!!!
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2)
brain_brigade- The Brain Brigade
Comments
1) I've seen no evidence to convince me a deity/deities exist.
2) I've seen no evidence to convince me a deity/deities do NOT exist.
3) If a deity does exist, I've seen no evidence that such a deity desires, requires, or merits "worship".
4) I reserve the right to change my mind if presented with evidence that points to a different conclusion.
On your frustration with evangelical theists and atheists, you won't be able to make any headway with "persons of faith", whether that person has faith that there IS a god, or has faith that there is not.
The very definition of "faith" is the holding a belief in something despite either: a) A lack of data to support a logical, reason-based conclusion on that thing, or b) Data and logic that support a different conclusion.
In short, a "person of faith" will reply to your logical argument with a version of precisely what you described earlier: "Your logic appears sound, but I don't care. I believe what I believe because it feels right to me."
At that point, you may as well stop trying to win your argument with logic, 'cause you will only waste your time and annoy the pig (as the saying goes.) :-)
However, the debate(argument) started because people are telling me that: a lack of evidence FOR God = logic to believe god doesn't exist. In other words, that translates to me as they believe that lack of evidence for is equal to evidence against. They say this has nothing to do with faith, but that it stands to reason that is there is no evidence for something you should believe against it.
They say they hold NO BELIEF -- I say they hold a belief. It's just belief in no god rather than belief in god. To hold either belief one must have faith -- they say no, it's reason.
Having said that, I'd always heard, and accepted as reasonable, that it's impossible to prove that something does *not* exist. I don't know for sure if that is currently accepted as fact within the ranks of professional logicians. However, if that *is* the case, I think it's an arguable point that a logician must therefore begin from an *assumption* of non-existance, and move in the direction of proving existance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_f
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27
And here's the concept I was taking about - namely that it's impossible to disprove the existance of a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiabi
Specifically, here's the part from the Falsibility article about proving/disproving existance of something:
"Claims about verifiability and falsifiability have been used to criticize various controversial views. Examining these examples shows the usefulness of falsifiability by showing us where to look when attempting to criticise a theory.
Non-falsifiable theories can usually be reduced to a simple uncircumscribed existential statement, such as 'there exists a green swan'. It is entirely possible to verify whether or not this statement is true, simply by producing the green swan. But since this statement does not specify when or where the green swan exists; it is simply not possible to show that the swan does not exist, and so it is impossible to falsify the statement.
That such theories are unfalsifiable says nothing about either their validity or truth. But it does assist us in determining to what extent such statements might be evaluated. If evidence cannot be presented to support a case, and yet the case cannot be shown to be indeed false, not much credence can be given to such a statement."
In other words if I sit down to dinner with you and tell you that you're delusional for believing in a god that doesn't exist, it falls on my shoulders to prove that. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of
I am neither making a claim that god doesn't exist or does exist, I am simply making the claim that people on both sides of the spectrum essentially argue bases on feelings rahter than logic and my proof for that claim is that no evidence exists to support either side...does that make sense?
My brain is spinning in circles from all the concurrent conversations I have going on about this. :)
I have much respect for your reasoning, as in essence this was the approach that led me to agnosticism some years ago. Despite that, I believe there is a logical flaw contained within your argument as it has been presented. I do not intend to address the sets of logical formulas, but rather a part of the following text.
You have (accurately) shown that the essential logical defense for either a theist or atheist position is analogous, but I would suggest that you have failed to show that this logical argument is equally valid regardless of the subject matter. The argument DOES change depending on whether the subject is "god" or "dog," because logically speaking, the epistemological nature of those two subjects are distinct. More to the point, their respective relationships to the underlying structure of logical reasoning is distinct.
Gods, unlike dogs, are often presented as being illogical (in the sense of defying our perceptions of logic), pre-logical (in the sense of existing before logic existed), or even responsible for the creation of the underlying rules of the universe as we perceive them (i.e. logic). If this is the case, then each logical argument regarding gods (whether theistic or atheistic) contains tacit assumptions about the validity of applying logic to the question of the existence of gods; tacit assumptions that may not be valid assumptions.
To put it another way, all logical statements regarding this subject are invalid IF there is a possibility that the subject can alter the underlying rules of the universe, including the laws of cause-and-effect, the existence of the empirical world, and logic itself.
Such exercises would require an additional caveat explaining the tacit logical assumption that gods are either a. unable to change the rules, b. unwilling to change the rules or c. nonexistent and thus irrelevant to the rules of logic. Alternately, one could assume that logic applies to all things and is immutable, but that presupposes that the belief in truly omnipotent gods is false; which invalidates the logical exercise intended to investigate their existence.
I would suggest any of those assumptions require logical justification themselves, and that justification would be equally subject to the problems.
All that being said, I would personally rather ignore god and rely on logic. Logic has been getting me much further.
I think you've taken this to a much deeper than expected, and that's definitely an interesting arena. Give me a moment to ponder that...
In the meantime:
I agree with your statements on relative relationships between the subject the validity of this logical method. Surely, if one were to try to prove that a dog does not exist, one only has to present a dog to break the other's argument.
P.S. It would take a lot more than that to offend me.
I'm finally getting better, but it sucked because I had a huge project I had to do for work and it KILLED me to look at the computer screen. It was nearly impossible to troubleshoot while squinting in agonizing pain. ugh.
Anyway, how do you prove the dog doesn't exist? You can't say that not being able to see it is proof, because you could be hiding it to prove your point.
In the example of the dog, any dog produced would negate the claim dogs do not exist.
In other words, it is currently possible to prove that human life does not exist on pluto because conditions on pluto can't support human life.
I could say something like, within the confines of this office, dogs do no exist. While the statement is true, it doesn't mean that dogs do not exist at all. I can break this statement by simply bringing a dog into the office.
Well, this is right on point in the sense that we have hard evidence that dogs exist. However, at one point that didn't exist so the logic would be valid at that point...like Johnny previously said about the world being flat. Knowledge is always changing!
Anyway, I think this is the cruz of my argument. Both theists and atheists base thier beliefs (which are feelings, this making them opinions) on said tacit assumtions. This means that both arguments are being fought at the same level, right?
HAHA! Logic is what got me in this mess! You would believe the year long debacle that led to this point. This has even made it to reddit for debate becuase my nemesis wanted some hardline atheists to weigh in....it's been interesting.
If you're trying to say that theists and atheists are both really just agnostics with different opinions - ... logically, it may be the truth; but you will never change someone's opinion with that statement.
...and yes, I think both sides are making tacit assumptions, although I'm not sure they are the same ones- to be probably overly simplistic, I think most theists are forced, on some level, to assume that "god trumps logic," while most atheists are forced to assume that "logic applies to god."
Being an atheist, although certainly not evangelical, I can quite comfortably tell you that I do not hold to my belief based on any feeling whatsoever. I can also attest to the fact that no rational being can lay claim to his beliefs based on one thing alone. Creationists really being the only possible exclusion there, as a great many of them believe in their god and religion based entirely on the fact that they were told to.
I am not an atheist simply because I don't believe god exists. The evidence against creationism begins with our own physical/earthly history. If referencing any religious manual, the conflict is obvious and comes fairly quickly. Just by simply looking at the facts laid before me, the tangible evidence, I can comfortably believe that known religions and their gods are figments of imaginations long passed.
I could stop there and do as many do with hope for such things, be agnostic.
But here, we are presented with stories that many believe we should pick from. One says the earth and universe was created by some magical being somewhere up in the sky. The other says the earth and universe was created by gasses and explosions up in the sky. Immediately my rational mind is going to lean toward the explosions, because I'm not one to believe in fairies or unicorns. Is there another option outside of the two? Yes there is and it's called Scientology. But point being, I tend to lean toward the science end because the figures, the logic, and hordes and hordes of other written material/studies/facts on geology, anthropology, biology, oceanography, etc etc, make more sense when combined with existing scientific theory, than any single creationist hypothesis.
Thinking scientifically means that you question assumptions and that you ask epistemological questions and you try to rationally justify the acceptance of ideas, and that's the antithesis of religious thinking. If you apply scientific reasoning to even a moderate version of religion, it crumbles.
To further solidify my belief, I accept the fact that I am (we are) biological organisms - Just Like Everything Else on This Planet. Eh - so we can stand up, we can think rationally - we can lots of thing that separate us from other organisms, the least of which is think about what we are in comparison to those things. I don't see humans as anything totally special. We fulfill the cycle of life and death, just as every thing else on this planet. We breed, we eat, we shit, we survive and die. The end.
I have no need or desire or arrogance about me that says we should somehow be special from the bear, the fish, the gekko... and should be taken to some special place after we die.. that we should be able to pray to some big something and get our little wishes fulfilled.
With all of that said, I can absolutely guarantee you that feeling has nothing to do with my choice in this matter - quite the contrary, actually. I feel nothing about any of this, and have no desire to feel anything about any of this. I don't know how one would get emotional over biological facts.
However, to further the information sharing we have started...Why can't biological organisms coexist with a supernatural being? Hypothetically, say this wierd deity exists. He is bored with the current universe...snaps his fingers and creates the first atom as we know it and that cascades eons later into what we have today. I'm not saying this is my belief, but why isn't that possible?
In my opinion there are an infinite number of possibilities in this realm that defy all of the current religious sects, denominations, etc...
Why isn't this possible?
Why isn't Santa, the easter bunny, unicorns, fire breathing dragons, fairies, trolls and leprechauns possible? All of them except maybe the fire breathing dragons serve a purpose of "good", so shouldn't they be possible as well?
The point is, show me any possibility of a supernatural being in this sense, and I would be more than happy to consider it. Just because someone said, and even wrote down that there are unicorns, does not make that true. It doesn't even make it kind of true. It's just something somebody pulled out of their ass. This idea of a being that can snap his fingers and create things, seems equally fairy-tale-like.
There is no more proof, or hint of possible proof of unicorns existing than there is a creator god. To me anyway, that's a huge reason why it's not possible for the biological and supernatural to coexist.
I agree that there are an infinite number of possibilities as to how got here. How many of those possibilities are actually plausible, is another thing entirely. All I know is that I cannot bring myself to look into the imaginations of others for answers to any of my questions. I need much, much more than that.
at the end of science, there is nothing; a completely unknown existence. so, while science can explain everything up until the beginning of our known universe, it fails to hold when we ask "the big bang came out of what?". this is the 'no infinite regress' marker that we, as humans, can not (note, not do not, can not) understand. And it's here, that 'scientific' theists claim their god exists. he's been removed from the immediate and placed further in the back row than ever. but he's still there. :/
the truth is, we will never know the origins, but since we can't accept that fact, we have to come up with something... the answer. *THE* answer, to everything (and it's not 42). it's "God".
Regardless of how far back anyone can explain, I don't understand why, at the end of human science, there must be a supernatural/fairy tale creature. As far as I can tell, it just means we haven't gotten there yet. And when one considers what infants we humans are in the grand scheme of not only the earth, but the universe as well, I'd have to suggest that it's only reasonable to allow more time to get it all figured out - as opposed to jumping right into a flying spaghetti monster hypothesis, or whatever else is the easiest to explain it all away.
If our race survives long enough, I believe we will know the origins of the universe, and perhaps everything else we've ever had questions to as well. That is a mighty big "if."
In considering what Square One was, the beginning to all things, I keep a very open mind - to science.
I can expound if wanted, but I think it stands on its own.
Edited at 2009-01-16 05:05 pm (UTC)
FTW!
Your comment that "religious thinking" is the antithesis of "scientific thinking" or "rationality" is insulting to Godel, Leibnitz, al-Razi, Spinoza, St. Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Einstein, al-Farabi, Sir Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, al-Ghazali, among others. Many of these great thinkers considered the application of logical and scientific approaches to be essential to a deep faith in god. I would suggest that this opposition between religious and scientific thinking is the product of our present times, our contemporary culture, and not some essential or structural opposition.
I am not religious, but I think your characterization of religion is unfair. Furthermore, purely in the sense of the scientific method, does a scientist offer "proof" any more than religion? Most versions of the scientific method recommend the revelation of supporting evidence for progressively improved approximations of empirical reality... Not "proof." In this sense, gods are an untestable hypothesis, not a disproven theory.
Also, that video was pretty good!
I don't have a lot of time, but I wanted to respond. I'll have to apologize for the format though.
In regard to your question of whether I've observed, witnessed or measured... No. There are much more qualified people to do that sort of thing. I tend to look at as many angles as I possible can given a particular topic, and given that it's such a fantastically huge subject, continue to leave an open mind - to scientific possibilities.
I treat the Bible the same as I would any other history book.
My faith lies in the rational, intelligent human, scientist or otherwise. I've not implied that just because one is religious immediately they are stupid.
When I said religious thinking is the antithesis to scientific thinking, I was referring to (although I may have failed to specify) matters of how the world/universe began. The two collide as far as I can tell.
Perhaps my characterization of religion is unfair. I don't think it matters. I possess a lifetime of experience and religious research that has formed my existing opinions. Perhaps one day I'll be a little more kind when pagans are accepted by the religious, or when the religious starts to actually follow their own religion, or when they stop acting like brainless mutants or....
As for the next bit... It seems you answered your own question? Creationism is strictly a hypothesis, and quite unlikely to ever be a theory.
Scientific methods have the ability to take a hypothesis and move it into a workable theory. Are we still talking about the start of the universe or something else?
Whatever the case, I stand as an outsider and observe, read, watch, read some more, and some more, and even more, of all the new little things that science produces in the way of first cause ideas. It would be detrimental to become dogmatic about any of it. And I do not. I can't say *this* is what I believe in - there is no "this." But I can lean toward this direction of science because it at least deals with only plausible ideas. Imaginary creatures not allowed.
All that being said, my comments to you were primarily directed at your logic, not your beliefs. The point of my comment about the scientific method is that it CANNOT address the existence of gods, because they are untestable. If they are untestable, the logical conclusion is agnosticism ("no knowledge"), not atheism ("no god"). Making the leap to atheism means that you assume a lack of evidence indicates a lack of existence; reasonable, even practical, but probably not in line with strictly scientific or logical thinking.
To refer back to an earlier comment of yours, I am not an agnostic because I have a hope that gods exist. I am an agnostic because I don't believe in KNOWLEDGE. Pragmatic scientific approaches to empirical reality are more fun than being a nihilist, so... here I am.
(Also, why do you say "when pagans are accepted by the religious?" Aren't pagans religious?)