General Discussions

The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Thursday, December 17, 2015 06:12
VIEWED: 49488
PAGE 25 of 32

LEADB

Sunday, May 27, 2007 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I think my interest in Malachite's proposal stems less from its utility in the discussion at hand and more from my interest in the topic as such. I think it warrants an entry into our string of Important Conversations.

Then I'd suggest a fresh thread.
1) This one is getting awful long.
2) I'm not 100% clear those wishing to discuss the current topic are done; and it will help keep folks from being confused if they come in based of this thread's introduction.
3) By clearly introducing the topic to be discussed, it will help keep a clearly focussed discussion; and trust me, you are going to need something to keep a discussion like this on track ;-)

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

ETHAN

Sunday, May 27, 2007 6:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

Well, Ethan, you've missed my basic point. You seem to be taking me to be suggesting that religion can answer the same questions as science tries to answer, and if I were trying to claim such a thing, you'd be right to take me to task. Fortunately for me, that's not at all what I am saying.

My post was in response to the belief that theism is an inherently illogical set of beliefs because its foundation is, ultimately, something that is impossible to prove. This, the thinking goes, is irrational. Often, the folks who make these sorts of arguments use scientific knowledge in contrast to religious knowledge, and claim that as opposed to religion, the data of the sciences can be proven; hence, they are rational, and I am not.

In the first place, this sort of attitude is a result of a philosophical movement known as logical positivism. The basic belief of logical positivism is that nothing counts as knowledge unless it can be empirically verified. The fatal flaw of logical positivism is, of course, that the proposition, "nothing counts as knowledge unless it can be empirically verified" cannot be empirically verified! So for the most part, philosophers have abandoned logical positivism. Unfortunately, the demand for scientific verification remains in popular thought. But that demand suffers the same problem as the foundation of logical positivism.

In the second, my defense against the claim that religion is irrational because unprovable foundations consists in pointing to what I believe to be unprovable foundational beliefs of a purely scientific worldview. The two examples I used were dogmatic naturalism and material reductionism. But a further example might be useful: the Uniformity Principle (UP). According to the UP, natural laws will continue in the future to operate in the same way as they have been observed to operate in the past. Now this seems obvious. Why would anyone need to formalize something everyone already knows? The answer is that the UP is an attempt to overcome the problem of induction. The problem is this: in virtue of what are we justified in making predictions about the future based on our experiences of the past? David Hume first posed the problem in his groundbreaking Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding--he concluded that any attempt to prove the legitimacy of future expectations from past experience would be circular. That is, any argument attempting to justify the inductive method would commit the logical fallacy of begging the question, because it would have to assume the very thing it was trying to prove. For instance, saying something like, "I know induction is reliable because it's always worked in the past" assumes that past experience will continue to be reliable in the future, and the conclusion has been assumed, the question begged, and the argument fails. Now, I don't disagree that the UP is incredibly useful (in fact probably essential to getting along in life). But nevertheless, it cannot be proven. And that, Ethan, is my point.

Your fundamental mistake in responding to my post is that you assumed that I was equating religion and science in terms of their ability to describe the world and make predictions about it. But that's not my project. Religion and science treat on very different issues. To paraphrase Galileo, "The bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how heaven goes." So you've committed the straw man fallacy: you've erected a false version of my argument, then patted yourself on the back for defeating my "argument." My real assertion is this: any worldview, whether theistic or not, relies on certain foundational beliefs that are beyond proof. That is what I'm arguing. If you'd read my post thoroughly, I suspect you'd have realized that.

By the way, you may want to look up the definition of the fallacy of equivocation: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html If you're going to accuse someone of equivocating you may as well use the term correctly.

___________________

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CAUSAL

Sunday, May 27, 2007 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ethan:
The Uniform Priniciple is very like a foundational arguement that has little to no application to science. Scientific predictions, most often in the fields of physics and astronomy...although sometimes in biochemistry...are created without any previous or neccessarily similar-type observations. The very definition of prediction. Rather predicitons extrapolate from current observations. Theories on why something we see is happening, lead to suggestions and implications for new observations never seen or linked before. The Uniform Principle, by your definition, is not useful when formulating heretofore unseen activity.

But isn't it the case that scientists wouldn't be able to make accurate predictions about what will happen unless they assume that in the future (or the far distant past) the laws of nature will remain the same as they are now? I mean, if that's not the case, then we couldn't make predictions about how long it will take a penny to drop from the top of a bridge, or how loud the speaker in a car will be. "Extrapolation" seems to depend exactly on the uniformity of nature. Because if nature were variable, there'd be no way to make such extrapolations. Take astrophysics for instance. If we want to launch a rover to Mars and have it touch down in a particular place, we'll have to make all sorts of calculations about when, where, and how to launch the rover. But if we can't assume that gravititational attraction (for instance) will remain constant, then all bets are off. Of course, there's no way to prove that gravitational attraction will remain constant--we just assume that it will. And although you're right that predictions are qualitatively different than launching a Mars rover, it seems that the predictive activity of the sciences is strictly bounded within certain norms; namely, natural laws.

Interesting coversation, anyway. You could be right, btw--we might have talked straight past each other back there. Wouldn't be the first time I've done that!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

LEADB

Sunday, May 27, 2007 9:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by ethan:
The Uniform Priniciple is very like a foundational arguement that has little to no application to science. Scientific predictions, most often in the fields of physics and astronomy...although sometimes in biochemistry...are created without any previous or neccessarily similar-type observations. The very definition of prediction. Rather predicitons extrapolate from current observations. Theories on why something we see is happening, lead to suggestions and implications for new observations never seen or linked before. The Uniform Principle, by your definition, is not useful when formulating heretofore unseen activity.

But isn't it the case that scientists wouldn't be able to make accurate predictions about what will happen unless they assume that in the future (or the far distant past) the laws of nature will remain the same as they are now? I mean, if that's not the case, then we couldn't make predictions about how long it will take a penny to drop from the top of a bridge, or how loud the speaker in a car will be. "Extrapolation" seems to depend exactly on the uniformity of nature. Because if nature were variable, there'd be no way to make such extrapolations. Take astrophysics for instance. If we want to launch a rover to Mars and have it touch down in a particular place, we'll have to make all sorts of calculations about when, where, and how to launch the rover. But if we can't assume that gravititational attraction (for instance) will remain constant, then all bets are off. Of course, there's no way to prove that gravitational attraction will remain constant--we just assume that it will. And although you're right that predictions are qualitatively different than launching a Mars rover, it seems that the predictive activity of the sciences is strictly bounded within certain norms; namely, natural laws.

Interesting coversation, anyway. You could be right, btw--we might have talked straight past each other back there. Wouldn't be the first time I've done that!

"But isn't it the case that scientists wouldn't be able to make accurate predictions about what will happen unless they assume that in the future (or the far distant past) the laws of nature will remain the same as they are now?"
No; and yes. It used to be thought that the speed of light was a constant; instead, we learn it is a function of the medium in which it travels. Time was thought to flow smoothly and uniformly; however, we have found that time is affected by gravitation. I believe the most potent counter arguement to your general approach is that if science properly understood nature, and the laws of nature change over time, then science properly predicts how long it will take a penny to fall to drop from the top of a bridge at a particular point in time. Of course, one assumes some constants like "the earth still has an atmosphere of approximately the same nature, etc." e=mc**2, right? Maybe. It's an approximation, nothing more. It is useful under most circumstances.

Regarding the distant past, most discussion around the big bang do discuss some deviations from conventional physics; and thus imply that the laws of physics do change under extreme circumstances. For example, time is believe to change its flow as one approaches the speed of light. The laws of physics around black holes is expected to change, in some ways, which scientists think they have some grasp on.

So, let's take the ideal gas law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law pV = nRT. It is useful to make predictions; however, any good scientist will tell you that it is an approximation. And that particularly "R" is of interest because we really don't understand it.
R is the gas constant [8.314472 m3·Pa·K-1·mol-1] { the 3, -1 and -1 are all powers, blasted 'simple text' ;-) }
Why is R 8.31... rather than 8.32... no idea; it is. It is called an "experimentally determined value" Let's say we woke up tomorrow and found that if we

LEADB

Sunday, May 27, 2007 9:25 PM

Ah, found it. Sorry, first time I googled "Uniform Principle" My bad, mis-remembered it when I typed it in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_uniformity

Oh I see your point. Sorta. Its an assumption. We need to verify it. If you would be so kind as to fund a probe to a far distant galaxy so we can measure the constants of nature in a different local, we will be much beholding to you.

LEADB

Monday, May 28, 2007 12:29 AM

Apparently, there's some assessment regarding at least one of the constants for change over time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Is_the_fine_struc
ture_constant_really_constant.3F
Is the fine structure constant really constant?

If it is found to be changing over time, if a formulatic expression of the change over time can be determined, it can be included into the scientific model to reflect change over time and thus improve future predictions. Of course if one is working in a small enough reference that the variation would not affect it, it can be left out of a particular model as it will not significantly affect the outcome.

Sorry, I really haven't followed the latest on physics, and having graduated from college 20 years ago is starting to tell.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, May 28, 2007 3:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
No offence, but I seriously doubt that. I'm sure you knew how they work in principle, but there's no way you could've constructed one yourself given enough material. Nations that have the bomb spent years and millions of dollars until they finally got it right, and nations that don't have it spend years and millions of dollars on trying to develop it. If any kid from high school could build one, every nation and terrorist organisation on the planet would have had a nuclear arsenal ages ago. So that seems like a laughable comment to make.

No offense taken. Most people have a hard time believing a nuclear device could be so simple, but it’s not the actual exploding part of the technology that causes years and millions of dollars of research. In any event...

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
But I digress, I realise that that wasn't your point. I have to be honest, I'm not sure anymore if this knowledge/free will thing is supposed to be an analogy or if you're seriously saying that knowledge is the root of all evil. If the former I'll just get to the underlined part of the following:

I’m not saying that knowledge is the root of all evil. I’m saying that schools are the root of all evil because they provide students the foundation upon which can be built the means to perform great evil. And this is an analogy to the extent that you’re claiming that god is the root of all evil because god has provided his people with the foundation (free will) to perform great evil. But with the knowledge that we teach our students, so can great good be done. Just as, with the free will provided by god, so can great good be done. It comes down to choice, exactly as you stated:

Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
i) Evil would flourish because the students would choose to use their education to do evil. It comes back to free will.

So if you’re not prepared to blame the schools, why are you prepared to blame god?

And to clarify an earlier analogy that I made concerning the “evil” of the animal kingdom. Lions act on instinct, not free will. When a lion kills or drives off the Alpha of a pride, it instinctively kills all the cubs in that pride, so that it can populate the pride with its own offspring. This is driven by instinctive behavior, but you don’t consider this evil, purely because it is instinctive. But the same behavior from humans would be evil, purely because of free will? So what gives? What does it mean for god to eliminate the ability to do evil?

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, May 28, 2007 3:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If you live a life without regret, and somehow it's in conflict with God's law, you go to hell. Without the factor of hell, you have just lived a life without regret. Seems freerer to me.

How? They are equally free. In both cases, you live a life without regret.

It seems to me that your issue with religion is that you don’t want to be reminded that there are consequences to your actions, but there are, and if you ignore those consequences, you may live a much shorter then expected. Religion is simply a metaphor for reality.

ETHAN

Monday, May 28, 2007 5:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:

Does this add anything to the discussion?

Wow. I should think so.

AGENTROUKA

Monday, May 28, 2007 9:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
How? They are equally free. In both cases, you live a life without regret.

But in one case you face an additional punishment that lasts all eternity. How is there not a difference?

Quote:

It seems to me that your issue with religion is that you don’t want to be reminded that there are consequences to your actions, but there are, and if you ignore those consequences, you may live a much shorter then expected. Religion is simply a metaphor for reality.

It's not the consequences to actions I have a problem with. It's the externally imposed after-life judgment according to just one POV, who I have no reason to consider actually benevolent.

I have no problem with religion as a metaphor. It's the literal interpretation and personification of God as a sentient, judging entity that I have a problem with.

God = one path to heaven. Rest = hell.

I simply don't think that there is only one correct path to lead a life without huge conflict with society. I think you can live well and truly happily without honoring your parents, or without any kind of holiday. Or with lots and lots of Gods. Or, say, cussing out God's name when you feel unhappy with the fact that he made you without legs or some such.

The rules we create withion our society leave us greater freedom, generally, and if they don't, we have the theoretical choice to leave that society. You can't just opt out of hell.

It's the demand for worship and obedience, while giving the bogus choice of free will. It causes me to reject theistic religion.