|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ground Rules | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
This thought came upon me when examining theistic claims. For instance we cannot *prove* that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist somewhere because we lack complete knowledge of everything. However, I find it unsatisfying to say that we conclude that the FSM is nonexistent in a practical sense because the same could be said for other things that do not particularly influence our daily lives. For instance, I don’t see anything in my daily life that hinges on my belief or disbelief of a hydrogen atom. I could very well choose to disbelieve its existence for practicality and get by fairly well.
Does this mean that we cannot deny the existence of the FSM? Well, no. In fact I support the 100% decision that it does not exist. My response to the argument that we possess subjectively sufficient information but not objectively complete information and should therefore only conclude that it probably does not exist is thus: To modify our conclusion in such a manner is necessitated by the assumption that we cannot be incorrect, an assumption that I find arrogant and more importantly highly inaccurate. We can, and for proper conclusions should, make absolute statements about things in the appropriate circumstances. For instance, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We don’t say probably because the concept that we could be in error is already part of the scientific system in which the statement is set. I argue that all human discussion, even in philosophy, should and for the most part does contain this understanding. Because of this I suggest the argument against absolute statements about gods is invalid because it attempts to damage an argument through selectively restating ground rules. Now to the question: Do you think that there are situations in which this ground rule should not apply, making its inclusion in the statement necessary? Is the possibility of error justification for any belief?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
What are the "ground rules?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
"Humans are fallible."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Phage0070,
For instance we cannot *prove* that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist somewhere because we lack complete knowledge of everything. However, I find it unsatisfying to say that we conclude that the FSM is nonexistent in a practical sense because the same could be said for other things that do not particularly influence our daily lives. In other words, you recognize that agnostic is the logical conclusion, but that it is not subjectively satisfactory - people like answers, not indecision.
Does this mean that we cannot deny the existence of the FSM? Well, no. In fact I support the 100% decision that it does not exist. My response to the argument that we possess subjectively sufficient information but not objectively complete information and should therefore only conclude that it probably does not exist is thus: To modify our conclusion in such a manner is necessitated by the assumption that we cannot be incorrect, an assumption that I find arrogant and more importantly highly inaccurate. One thing we can do, is adopt a "working hypothesis" that {X} does not exist, and operate on the basis that this is true until contrary evidence becomes available. Another thing that is involved is the relative importance of {X} in our world view. If it is unimportant to our view of things, then there is no practical purpose served in spending time on further investigation.
We can, and for proper conclusions should, make absolute statements about things in the appropriate circumstances. For instance, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We don’t say probably because the concept that we could be in error is already part of the scientific system in which the statement is set. I argue that all human discussion, even in philosophy, should and for the most part does contain this understanding. All knowledge is inherently tentative.
Because of this I suggest the argument against absolute statements about gods is invalid because it attempts to damage an argument through selectively restating ground rules. ... Is the possibility of error justification for any belief? So in essence you are asking that if {A} is believed, it must be tentatively believed, and is this sufficient cause to believe in {A}? Is the possibility of error justification to not believe? It seems to me that we are back at the start, where agnostic is the logical conclusion, but that it is not subjectively satisfactory - people like answers, not indecision. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
RAZD writes:
Actually I go a step further; agnostic is *not* the logical conclusion because uncertainty is already an inherent quality of the system. People can make absolute conclusions even without considering themselves to be infallible, so a Gnostic viewpoint is redundant.
In other words, you recognize that agnostic is the logical conclusion, but that it is not subjectively satisfactory - people like answers, not indecision. RAZD writes:
Actually I was asking that if {A} is believed by someone who does not believe themselves to be infallible, is this sufficient cause to consider belief in {B} (which is mutually exclusive to {A}) a valid viewpoint? So in essence you are asking that if {A} is believed, it must be tentatively believed, and is this sufficient cause to believe in {A}? In any case the overall point is that fallibility is, or should be, already part of our thought processes. This means that our ability to make absolute conclusions is not compromised because of the possibility of being wrong. For instance, a Gnostic might conclude that because we lack complete information we cannot make a decision regarding the existence or non-existence of gods. However, the Gnostic will necessarily admit that they are fallible and thus it is possible that their logical process to reach Gnosticism was flawed, and thus they cannot be sure that they cannot make such a decision. The entire thought process leads to a non-functional loop because uncertainty is already a part of the thought process and does *not* prevent conclusions being made, and so applying it in specific circumstances is special pleading.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
In other words, you recognize that agnostic is the logical conclusion, but that it is not subjectively satisfactory - people like answers, not indecision. True, but why make up an answer before actually knowing one? Everything else you've stated I agree with. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Smilie didn't work, dammit! "The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
InGodITrust Member (Idle past 1669 days) Posts: 53 From: Reno, Nevada, USA Joined: |
Let me post a couple thoughts that I hope are relevant to this thread.
1)I don't think anyone will convince anyone else that the Lord exists with arguments and logic. I think prayer might be the best way to come to the Lord: either praying oneself or by others praying for him. 2)I went to Natural Bridges National Monument on vacation one year, and watched a film about the formations at the visitors center. The film stated matter-of-factly how old the formations were and how they were produced. There was a sign posted at an overlook with similar info. It is a nice visitors center an the park service has done a good job, but the information in the film and on the sign conflicts with the Bible. Now the 1st Amendment is interpreted to bar religion being preached by the government in schools and public buildings---and rightly so I guess. But why doesn't it prevent atheism from being preached? Why is atheism the official government position? All the sign and film would have had to add was something like "scientists conclude the age of the formation to be"; or "geologists date the formation"; and it would be better. Instead the we are taught matter-of-factly that " the age is".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
It is a nice visitors center an the park service has done a good job, but the information in the film and on the sign conflicts with the Bible. So? It probably conflicts with all manner of superstition, myth and fairy tale. (Do you want to require government avoid conflict with all religious beliefs and myths? Or just yours?)
Now the 1st Amendment is interpreted to bar religion being preached by the government in schools and public buildings---and rightly so I guess. But why doesn't it prevent atheism from being preached? Why is atheism the official government position? All the sign and film would have had to add was something like "scientists conclude the age of the formation to be"; or "geologists date the formation"; and it would be better. Instead the we are taught matter-of-factly that " the age is".
1) Atheism is not a religion, in spite of the attempts of creationists to make it the equivalent to one. Nor is atheism the necessary opposite of fundamentalism. Many religions accept the findings of science, including Catholics--the world's single largest denomination. 2) Atheism is not an official government position. Scientific findings, following the scientific method and supported by empirical evidence, is the default position. That's what you get anywhere in the world when you ignore myth, superstition and the rest. If you want to believe in a young earth you're free to do so, but unless you can provide empirical evidence such that a young earth becomes the dominant scientific finding, you are not free to require government agencies to avoid contradicting your beliefs. And you shouldn't even been thinking of such a thing! Fundamentalism should have absolutely no role in governance--you'd think mankind would have learned that lesson by now, but I guess not. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 151 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
IGIT writes: But why doesn't it prevent atheism from being preached? What mental gymnastics did you have to go through to conclude that anything that differs from one particular interpretation of one particular doctrinaire document of one particular religion must be supporting atheism? Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists, and the adherents of a great many of the worlds other 6000 religions currently being practiced would have no problem with these age attributions, and that includes a great many people who consider themselves to be christians. In another sense though you are quite right if we take "atheism" for its literal meaning: without theism. Then the constitutional prohibition against government establishment of a religion does imply that all government sponsored pronouncement must be "atheistic". "Atheism", taken literally, is not the same as anti-theism! In fact, it is your position that is anti-theistic, proscribing the doctrines of 5,9999.500 other religions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4189 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
But why doesn't it prevent atheism from being preached? Where is Atheism preached? From your post it appears you are claiming that Science=Atheism, which is absurd. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Phage0070 writes:
quote: ...
quote: So are you saying we can make absolute statements about gods? There are many people who claim, "You can't prove a negative." But, in fact, you can. In fact, that's one of the big things in science: Proving that something isn't true. It's one of the big ways in which science progresses: When we know that certain things aren't true, it guides us toward more accurate things. In fact, science never gets to prove positives. It can only prove negatives. Now, the ability to prove negatives requires that well-defined objects behave in well-defined ways. Is god such a beast? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
1)I don't think anyone will convince anyone else that the Lord exists with arguments and logic. I think prayer might be the best way to come to the Lord: either praying oneself or by others praying for him. How many unanswered prayers are necessary before a prayer actually works and the people don't loose heart? Even Christians would admit that their prayers are often not answered. At some point you are going to come to the conclusion that your dialogue with God is actually a monologue with yourself.
the information in the film and on the sign conflicts with the Bible. That's not surprising. What does the Bible really say about the formation of the Earth? An off-hand blurb, maybe? The Bible isn't equipped nor was it intended to answer scientific questions.
Now the 1st Amendment is interpreted to bar religion being preached by the government in schools and public buildings---and rightly so I guess. But why doesn't it prevent atheism from being preached? Why is atheism the official government position? Atheism is not the official government position. The official government position is no position on religion. Atheism is not a default religion in religion's absence. The gov't takes an agnostic position on such matters, and thank God they do! That's a wonderful thing, even for Christians like yourself. Because when the Pilgrims fled England their families for several generations were forced to agree and practice the Church of England's or the Roman Catholic Church's brand of religion. Dogma replaced doctrine and a few people realized that. When Martin Luther posted his famous dictum on the church doors it sparked a revolution that carried on to America. It was only because of the oppression of religion over there that gave you the freedom of religion here.
All the sign and film would have had to add was something like "scientists conclude the age of the formation to be"; or "geologists date the formation"; and it would be better. Instead the we are taught matter-of-factly that " the age is". So what should it say? "This here canyon is 7,500 years old (plus or minus a few years) because Moses said so?" Are they supposed to be sensitive to everyone's religious views while denying what they know empirically? Sounds to me like the only thing that would satisfy you is if thought exactly as you do. What a dull and dreary world. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given. "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
quote: This is one of those lovely little myths about America: That the Pilgrims came here to escape persecution and valued religious freedom. In reality, the reason the Pilgrims came here is because they were much more insistent upon religious purity than the British and Dutch societies they came from. They came to the colonies because they would be free to establish what was essentially a theocracy. The Quakers were essentially run out of Massachusetts under threat of death. Even Virginia enacted capital punishment upon Quakers. The protections we have for religious freedom came from the fallout of the tremendous intolerance that was the hallmark of the original colonies. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
They came to the colonies because they would be free to establish what was essentially a theocracy. The first Colonials established the colonies so they can run a theocracy? Please verify this. Prior to their landing on Plymouth Rock, there had already been a Puritan revolution in England where in fact they were persecuted by the Church of England. Quakers assemblies were abolished and punishable by torture and/or imprisonment.
The Quakers were essentially run out of Massachusetts under threat of death. Even Virginia enacted capital punishment upon Quakers. If they did it was most likely either British citizens loyal to the king or Colonists who held Anglican religious views.
The protections we have for religious freedom came from the fallout of the tremendous intolerance that was the hallmark of the original colonies. The religious freedoms come from the fallout of the tremendous intolerance that was the hallmark of England. If that followed overseas to some degree, so be it. The point is still the same. "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024