Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 166 of 577 (556297)
04-18-2010 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by sac51495
04-18-2010 8:59 PM


Re: Your God doesn't sound very attractive
sac51495 writes:
If there is no god, then that is all there is to it, and there is no good reason to do benevolent things.
Agreed.
But you would be perfectly justified in doing nothing...from your point of view, you will be neither condemned or rewarded for anything you do, so you would be justified in living 100%, completely for yourself and your pleasure.
Yes, agreed again. Perfectly justified.
I do not require that a true, lasting reward be bestowed on me for me to do any "good" things. The question is, do you?
No, I do not.
If you don't require this, then what reason do you have for being "nice"?
My reason for being nice, is "just to be nice".
Once again, the point is not that you shouldn't be nice, but that one who holds your views would be justified in not being nice.
I agree one would be justified. In exactly the same way I am justified in doing nice things "just to be nice".
So, if you can do nice things "just to be nice". And I can do nice things "just to be nice"... why do we require your God again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by sac51495, posted 04-18-2010 8:59 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by sac51495, posted 04-19-2010 8:54 PM Stile has replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 167 of 577 (556298)
04-18-2010 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Dr Adequate
04-13-2010 11:08 AM


Re: Epistemolgy 101
Dr. Adequate,
If I did not iterate this clearly enough, I will do it again: I said nothing about the validity or invalidity of the scientific method, but merely questioned your claims that it is valid. In your universe, what says we should rely on the scientific method, and why should we trust the scientific method?
And let me just throw in one major problem with the scientific method: it is subject to the fallacious opinions of mortal man. This is undeniable. The scientific method is not 100% objective, but rather, it is quite subjective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-13-2010 11:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Woodsy, posted 04-19-2010 9:17 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 171 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2010 2:48 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 179 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2010 1:36 AM sac51495 has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 168 of 577 (556337)
04-19-2010 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by sac51495
04-18-2010 9:18 PM


Re: Epistemolgy 101
quote:
If I did not iterate this clearly enough, I will do it again: I said nothing about the validity or invalidity of the scientific method, but merely questioned your claims that it is valid. In your universe, what says we should rely on the scientific method, and why should we trust the scientific method?
And let me just throw in one major problem with the scientific method: it is subject to the fallacious opinions of mortal man. This is undeniable. The scientific method is not 100% objective, but rather, it is quite subjective.
You have neglected a couple of things.
In science, opinions must be checked against reality. In religion, there is no such requirement. Remember, the metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Science is a collective, public endeavour. Individual quirks are, ideally and usually, exposed and discarded if they lead to error.
These are very good reasons to trust the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by sac51495, posted 04-18-2010 9:18 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by sac51495, posted 04-19-2010 9:16 PM Woodsy has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 169 of 577 (556377)
04-19-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by sac51495
04-18-2010 4:42 PM


Re: I
sac51495 writes:
So to sum it up in short form,
1. - Jews live by the Law, and are thus punished by the Law.
2. - Gentiles live without the Law, and are thus punished without the Law.
The covenants I spoke of are basically as follows: God's covenant with the Israelites - which was one in which God laid out his ordinances - and God's covenant with the Church - which is one in which salvation by faith is the focus.
I wonder then why Paul keeps using the law as an authority for moral conduct in his writings to gentile churches. If they don't have to follow that law, why mention it? Then of course we have Jesus himself saying he has not come to do away with the law.
Wouldn't you agree that there are extreme philosophical implications if there is no god?
Extreme? No. There are undoubtedly some philosophical consequences.
There are plenty of implications if there is a god, so likewise, there are plenty of implications if there is no god. In your universe, there is no god...correct?
Wrong. I do not say there is no god, I say that I do not take him into account when making decisions, because there is no evidence for him. Just like I don' t take Santa clause's wihes into account when I make decisions.
espite what a particular human may believe, there either is a god, or there isn't...right?
Correct.
You only say that you do not hold the belief that there is a god. You do not interpret your universe based on the belief that there is a god.
Of course, neither do I "interpret" the universe based on the belief that there are unicorns.
So you and me are interpreting the universe in entirely different ways.
Quite. I want evidence for everything, you apparently just assume something to be true, and then fit everything else into that.
I interpret based on the Bible, while you interpret it based on the belief that...I would say, but no one besides RAZD has told me what belief(s) dictate how they interpret the universe (please tell me what your belief(s) are).
What do you mean by "beliefs" here? I don't "interpret" the universe according to any belief. I hear a claim, and see if that claim has any evidence to back it up. If no evidence is forthcoming, I choose to not belief the claim. If evidence is forthcoming, and it's particularly strong evidence, I choose to "belief" the claim. If the evidence isn't very strong, or there is contradictory evidence, I might adopt a position of "I don't know".
But the point being this: whatever it is you interpret the universe by, it isn't the Bible.
Nope. Nor is it by the Quran, Bagavad Gita, Book of the Dead or any other piece without evidence.
So you and me have different starting points, resulting in different conclusions.
Indeed, I let the evidence dictate my conclusion, you apparently jus assume something to be correct from the start, and everything else is twisted into that assumption.
To sum it up, you don't interpret the universe based on a god, which by definition says that you interpret the universe with NO god.
You could say that, yes. Neither do I interpret it with Allah, or Shiva, o
or Zeus or Osiris.
Do you see the implications here?
Yes. Evidence first, conclusions after. Instead of the other way around.
If there is no god, then there is no afterlife (this is for the simple reason that without a supernatural god, how can something supernatural like this happen?).
Is god the only supernatural entity that can provide an afterlife? How do you know? But I'll grant you for the sake of discussion, that there is no afterlife.
This means that there is no true, lasting reward for anything we do.
So?
So why should we do anything, if it has no merit?
Who says it has no merit? Doing stuff can have plenty of merit. I can help towards building a better society, a better life for all humans. A glorious future for mankind. Is that not merit?
The implications would continue to pile up.
What implications?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by sac51495, posted 04-18-2010 4:42 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by sac51495, posted 04-19-2010 6:59 PM Huntard has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 170 of 577 (556387)
04-19-2010 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by RAZD
04-18-2010 7:30 PM


Re: Seeking Clarification
Yes I didn't think that a "frank and unambiguous clarification" would be forthcoming. One lives in hope.
No it is not a presupposition
No doubt in much the same way that your subjective evidence arguments have "NOTHING" to do with your deistic arguments. Message 402. Despite the fact that you had to later admit that in fact they do.
Curiously it has nothing to do with this thread topic that I can see.
There is no underlying philosophy behind atheism in general. As has been stated and explained many times here. But most atheists here would probably be united in opposing the assumption that there exists a non-empirical but potentially objective realm of reality. There lies a commonality even if not a philosophy as such.
RAZD writes:
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
RAZD writes:
What is the objective reality of a god that is undetectable? Further, if one believes that god is unknowable, how could one expect to have any way of determining whether or not the terms "objective reality" applied or not. Message 368
RAZD writes:
An obvious corollary is that there are many elements of reality that we are unable to sense, being limited as we are to 5 senses. Message 393
Your carefully worded and characteristically unedifying posts on this subject not withstanding of course.
Then you only look foolish on one thread.
Pfffft. I can look as foolish as I choose in as many threads as I choose. As can you.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2010 7:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by nwr, posted 04-19-2010 3:20 PM Straggler has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 171 of 577 (556390)
04-19-2010 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by sac51495
04-18-2010 9:18 PM


Re: Epistemolgy 101
And let me just throw in one major problem with the scientific method: it is subject to the fallacious opinions of mortal man. This is undeniable. The scientific method is not 100% objective, but rather, it is quite subjective.
I assume you arrived at that conclusion by using your senses to gain information about science, then using a certain of reasoning, logic etc to advance towards arriving at said conclusion.
So you used a method which you suggest has a major problem of subjectivity involved to arrive at a subjective conclusion about the failings of the method you used to reach the conclusion.
The problem is: All epistemological methods suffer from the 'problem of subjectivity'. It seems foolish to criticise one on that basis. Especially when you are using it to criticise it!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by sac51495, posted 04-18-2010 9:18 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by sac51495, posted 04-19-2010 9:10 PM Modulous has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 172 of 577 (556397)
04-19-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Straggler
04-19-2010 2:35 PM


Re: Seeking Clarification
Straggler writes:
But most atheists here would probably be united in opposing the assumption that there exists a non-empirical but potentially objective realm of reality.
I expect that those who are platonist mathematicians might disagree with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2010 2:35 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Straggler, posted 04-20-2010 1:15 PM nwr has replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 173 of 577 (556420)
04-19-2010 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Huntard
04-19-2010 1:18 PM


Re: I
C neutral. I still am.
You also said:
I do not take him into account when making decisions
You say you are neutral, and yet you refuse to take him into account when making decisions. This is extremely biased. It wouldn't necessarily bother me if you were biased and would admit it, but what does bother me is that you claim to be neutral, and yet you do not take God into account when making decisions. This is absolutely not neutral.
And just to prevent an objection, I am not neutral either. I certainly do have my bias's. My claim is that neutrality is impossible. As I have said before, there are only two choices when making decisions: either you take a god into account, or you don't take a god into account. You have chosen the latter, which is the negative side of the question. Refusing to take a god into account is not neutral, because how could you go further in the negative direction? Not taking a god into account is the furthest you can go in the negative direction, while taking a god into account is the furthest in the positive direction. There is no middle ground here.
If you ever make a decision or conclusion about anything, you will always either take a god into account, or you won't. To use your example, you either take Santa Claus into account, or you don't.
To prevent an objection, if someone claims to have never thought about Santa Claus, they are indeed biased against Santa Claus, because although they don't necessarily notice that they aren't taking Santa Claus into account, they still aren't taking him into account, which is the same thing that the person who has thought about Santa Claus and has decided to not believe in Santa Claus would do. So the person who hasn't though about Santa Claus is just as far in the negative direction as someone who has thought about Santa Claus and decided not to take him into account.
Conclusion - to not take a god into account is as far in the negative direction as is possible.
I wonder then why Paul keeps using the law as an authority for moral conduct in his writings to gentile churches. If they don't have to follow that law, why mention it?
Romans 3:31 - "Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law."
Did I say we make void the Law? Indeed not, because this would contradict the statements of Jesus himself. What did I say? I merely said we do not live under the Law, in that we are not punished in the way that the Law dictates. Indeed, we still follow the dos and don't s of the Law, just not the specific punishments for them, because we do not live by the Law. Just as Paul said, we do not make void the Law, but rather establish it in our lives, because the Law is the commandments of God himself, so why shouldn't we want to follow them?
I want evidence for everything, you apparently just assume something to be true, and then fit everything else into that.
Yet again you have a presupposition; that evidence must be gathered for everything in order for it to be verified. As I have said before, I do not discount evidence, but I merely point out your inconsistency of saying that you are neutral, and yet you have a biased presupposition: that evidence determines truth. You will then continue to respond "so you're one of those fool Christians that denounces evidence". I do not discount evidence, but I discount your biased presupposition, not because I am opposed to bias, but because or your claim that you are neutral, and yet you have biased presuppositions.
Nope. Nor is it by the Quran, Bagavad Gita, Book of the Dead or any other piece without evidence.
I see. But from your previous statements, it would seem that you do have a sort of "book" by which you interpret the universe: the "Holy Book of Empirical Data".
Yes. Evidence first, conclusions after.
Ah, but this is impossible. Conclusions - however simple they may be - invariably precede evidence, in realms of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics etc. Take, for example, something incredibly simple: a young child may jump in the water off of the diving board, and trust their parent or whoever it may be that they will float back to the top and be okay. They have no real "evidence" for this, so they must first jump in. At this point, once they have jumped in the water, they now have proof that there is nothing to be scared of, and they will proceed to jump into the water without being the least bit scared. This may not be the best example, merely because it is not as fundamental as other assumptions we have made, but it displays the concept of "assumption before concrete evidence". The only point of this example being this: you have made conclusions before you have really good evidence to prove those conclusions, all though you may claim the contrary.
Is god the only supernatural entity that can provide an afterlife?
Note that I did not capitalize "god" in my statement. There is a difference between "God" and "a god".
Doing stuff can have plenty of merit. I can help towards building a better society, a better life for all humans. A glorious future for mankind. Is that not merit?
But is there any hope whatsoever that this "merit" will last? You can do things to make society better if you wish, but you would be justified in hurting society as much as you wanted to. If there can be no hope that anything will last indefinitely, then why do anything? The point is this: why do you punish those who hurt society, if your worldview justifies the actions of the same?
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Huntard, posted 04-19-2010 1:18 PM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Huntard, posted 04-20-2010 4:02 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 192 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2010 10:00 PM sac51495 has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 174 of 577 (556431)
04-19-2010 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Stile
04-18-2010 9:05 PM


Re: Your God doesn't sound very attractive
Stile,
I agree one would be justified. In exactly the same way I am justified in doing nice things "just to be nice".
So suppose living 100% completely for yourself and your own pleasure involved hurting others? Would you then be justified in committing crimes? If so, is justice really establishing justice when those who are being punished by authority of justice are justified in doing the very things they are being judged for doing?
I have a good reason for being "nice", and a good reason for judging those who do wrong. I won't go into detail to explain my reason, seeing as how I have explained it earlier.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Stile, posted 04-18-2010 9:05 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Stile, posted 04-20-2010 7:57 AM sac51495 has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 175 of 577 (556434)
04-19-2010 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Modulous
04-19-2010 2:48 PM


Re: Epistemolgy 101
I assume you arrived at that conclusion by using your senses to gain information about science, then using a certain of reasoning, logic etc to advance towards arriving at said conclusion.
Indeed, I am reasoning with you using logic. I have not said that no one can use logic, but I have merely pointed out the impossibility of an atheist using logic, which they must of course use if I am to be able to communicate with them.
To answer the rest of the question, it must be pointed out that there is a difference between the scientific method and logic. The scientific method is a method formed by man by which theories can be tested in order to determine whether or not they be true. The problem with the scientific method is that the biases of a man can change what that man will decide about a given theory. If scientists are biased towards a particular theory, they may be more likely to accept that theory as scientific law than they would another theory. In other words, although the rules of the scientific method may not necessarily be broken (in this particular case), the theory determined by the scientists to be correct may not necessarily be the correct one, because they were biased, whereas logic, if used in a perfectly sound and inerrant way, will come to the correct conclusions, but only if there are absolutely no contradictions within the person's logic.
If you didn't get this, let me outline it more clearly.
1. - When talking about the scientific method, an incorrect conclusion can be made even if the rules of the scientific method were not specifically broken.
2. - With logic, if the rules are followed perfectly (which isn't necessarily easy, and this is where the subjectivity lies), a logically sound conclusion can be made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Modulous, posted 04-19-2010 2:48 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2010 2:03 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 182 by PaulK, posted 04-20-2010 2:12 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 188 by Modulous, posted 04-20-2010 6:08 PM sac51495 has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 176 of 577 (556436)
04-19-2010 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Woodsy
04-19-2010 9:17 AM


Re: Epistemolgy 101
Remember, the meta-physicist has no laboratory.
And what is it that says that a laboratory will invariably come to correct conclusions?
In science, opinions must be checked against reality.
But how is this reality determined? Science?...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Woodsy, posted 04-19-2010 9:17 AM Woodsy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by DC85, posted 04-19-2010 10:14 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 178 by Coyote, posted 04-19-2010 10:29 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-20-2010 1:56 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 190 by dwise1, posted 04-20-2010 7:00 PM sac51495 has not replied

DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 177 of 577 (556440)
04-19-2010 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by sac51495
04-19-2010 9:16 PM


Re: Epistemolgy 101
why does a creator define your truths? Your questions do not make sense until you answer this... Please explain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by sac51495, posted 04-19-2010 9:16 PM sac51495 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2010 9:31 PM DC85 has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 178 of 577 (556442)
04-19-2010 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by sac51495
04-19-2010 9:16 PM


Re: Epistemolgy 101
But how is this reality determined? Science?...
Since science deals with what can be observed, or measured in some way, I would say yes!
What would you propose to be "reality" that can't be observed or measured?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by sac51495, posted 04-19-2010 9:16 PM sac51495 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 179 of 577 (556476)
04-20-2010 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by sac51495
04-18-2010 9:18 PM


Re: Epistemolgy 101
If I did not iterate this clearly enough, I will do it again: I said nothing about the validity or invalidity of the scientific method, but merely questioned your claims that it is valid.
A distinction without a difference.
In your universe, what says we should rely on the scientific method, and why should we trust the scientific method?
Well, apart from anything else, in my universe you say so --- except when it conflicts with your beliefs. As I explained at length.
Why should we trust it? That you must answer for yourself. Why is it that when crossing the road you rely on experience and observation rather than bibliomancy and a Magic 8 Ball? When you can understand why you trust the scientific method in matters even of life or death, then you will understand why other people feel the same.
And let me just throw in one major problem with the scientific method: it is subject to the fallacious opinions of mortal man.
Sure, like absolutely everything else we do. But it's still the best thing we've got. As to whether it's a major problem, that's more than we can know, since we don't know how much better we'd have done if we were immortal Martians instead.
The scientific method is not 100% objective ...
Well, say rather that the people who apply it aren't. Fortunately part of the scientific method involves reducing the influence of one's prejudices on one's results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by sac51495, posted 04-18-2010 9:18 PM sac51495 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 180 of 577 (556480)
04-20-2010 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by sac51495
04-19-2010 9:16 PM


Re: Epistemolgy 101
And what is it that says that a laboratory will invariably come to correct conclusions?
Why, nothing guarantees it. Even when you perform such a straightforward observation as (for example) counting your legs, it is always conceivable that you are hallucinating and delusional.
Still, have you got a better idea for finding out how many legs you have?
But how is this reality determined? Science?
"Determined" is the wrong word, and confuses a very simple issue --- scientists test their beliefs about reality by looking at reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by sac51495, posted 04-19-2010 9:16 PM sac51495 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024