So whatever happened to objective morality?
Petibacsi
Beside that we have had this discussion for months now, we still don't have a
working definition of objective morality, what both sides would accept.
Without it, the mudwrestling is pretty much worthless.
I think I gave 2 definitions what I meant by objective morality.One was an
oxymoron, the other was clearly non-existing.
So I would like to ask the "obj. mor. exist" side to give a _simple and
plain_
definition for the subject, and also a short essey where they explain why they
think it exist.
After that the "there is no obj. mor." side can start to attack those
arguments.
I think that's how the whole discussion should go.But I can be wrong,
although that hasn't happened so far. :)
Peti, who thinks that the whole idea of obj. morality is an oxymoron
S.J. Goveia
I just read a couple of the emails in here and the prevailing thought (as
it should be in an atheist newsgroup), is that everything can be explained
away to science.
I was just wondering what people's opinions are on the little spiritual
things. I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
when watching a spectacular sunrise or listening to some classical peice
of music. Don't you think (or want to think) that there is something more
to this than just a bunch of chemical reactions? I don't care how many
years of University you have or how many science text books you've
written, you still have 'feelings'. Any thoughts on that?
One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that there is
one), what happens when we die? I know that you have all probably thought
about this for countless hours, so I was just wondering what you thought
happened when you die. Ok, that's all.
Ansell
Petibacsi <peti...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199804210053...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> Beside that we have had this discussion for months now, we still don't
have a
> working definition of objective morality, what both sides would accept.
I wonder if a different viewpoint would act as a cicuit-breaker here.
It seems to me that one possible reason for the stand-off - which repeats
itself in a number of philosophical ngs - is that entirely inappropriate
terms are being used. Consider the meaning of the word `objective': capable
of ostensive definition - or anything that at least two people can point at
and agree on a representative sound. From this a logical use can be
derived: if it can be given ostensive definitition, then it can be used as
an `objective referent' to qualify a proposition with a truth value of true
or false.
The only aspect of morality that could be used as an objective referent
and thus justify the term `objective morality', is what's generally agreed
to be moral behaviour and as it's precisely this behaviour that we're
trying to explain, then we seem to have ended in an unproductive circle.
`God' will not do here because of the problems with ostensive definition.
The question then arises: if it's inappropriate to use the concept of
objectivity, does this mean that morality is `subjective' ? And again the
answer has to be that while it's not incorrect to use the term in the
context of morality, after all there is as much subjectivity (moral
intention) in our moral lives as there is objectivity (moral behaviour),
but again the use is inappropriate as an explanation. It's as much the
subjectivity as it is the objectivity of our moral lives that we want to
explain.
When we ask the question `what is morality?', we're in effect asking how
morality is derived and this derivation must of necessity, if it's not to
fail through circularity, be from a concept different from morality itself,
yet be capable of subsuming morality through explanation. Hence the ancient
idea that `God dunnit', which has morphed itself into the more modern
generalised claim that there `must' be an objective basis for morality or
else it's a whimsical (subjective) free-for-all restricted only by the
force of legislation. The subjectivists appear to have bought this
alternative lock, stock n' barrel.
The obvious place to look for a broader explanation is where such
explanations are a speciality: biology - in this case zoology. And here we
have an ideal candidate:
gregariousness - which becomes immediately productive as it tells us that
morality must be seen as a survival mechanism and as such is subject to
evolutionary adaptation: morality changes. This is a handy start as it
accords with what history and anthropology tell us - ideas about what is
and what isn't moral change over time and across cultures.
The question of moral relativism now becomes the issue.
Regards,
Ansell.
Craig Haggart, Accelerator Ops
S.J. Goveia (gove...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA) wrote:
> I don't care how many years of University you have or how many
> science text books you've written, you still have 'feelings'.
> Any thoughts on that?
Feelings can be caused, changed, or eliminated altogether by
entirely physical processes (chemicals, electrical stimulation,
whatever). That's pretty solid evidence that your feelings are
themselves the result of physical processes in your brain.
> One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that
> there is one), what happens when we die?
The short answer is, "I don't know, and neither does anybody else
who is alive." The most rational answer is, "Given the evidence,
we probably just decompose, body AND mind, since there is no good
evidence to show that nonmaterial existence... well, exists!"
--
-Craig Haggart
hag...@slac.stanford.edu
Steven Carr
on 23 Apr 1998 14:20:04 -0700, "S.J. Goveia"
<gove...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> wrote :
>I just read a couple of the emails in here and the prevailing thought (as
>it should be in an atheist newsgroup), is that everything can be explained
>away to science.
>I was just wondering what people's opinions are on the little spiritual
>things. I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
>when watching a spectacular sunrise or listening to some classical peice
>of music. Don't you think (or want to think) that there is something more
>to this than just a bunch of chemical reactions?
Isn't that like saying that a Beethoven symphony consist of just a
bunch of dots on paper? Nobody says that those people who study the
dots on the paper ,and explain how the symbols are used to produce the
sounds , have no understanding of what music is like.
So why are you trying to imply that people who explain what chemical
reactions happen when we fall in love are trying to deny what falling
in love feels like?
Don't you believe God created the chemical reactions involving
adrenaline, oestrogen, testosterone etc? Then why do you feel uneasy
when these chemicals work according to spec?
Would it be better if they did not work as designed?
> I don't care how many
>years of University you have or how many science text books you've
>written, you still have 'feelings'. Any thoughts on that?
>One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that there is
>one), what happens when we die? I know that you have all probably thought
>about this for countless hours, so I was just wondering what you thought
>happened when you die. Ok, that's all.
Personally, I don't care what thoughts I have on what happens when I
die. I am more interested in facts than in my opinions. Do you have
any facts on what happens when we die?
Steven Carr ste...@bowness.demon.co.uk
Visit the UK's leading atheist Web page
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
John & Kinga Britschgi
S.J. Goveia wrote in message ...
>I was just wondering what people's opinions are on the little spiritual
>things. I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
>when watching a spectacular sunrise or listening to some classical peice
>of music. Don't you think (or want to think) that there is something more
>to this than just a bunch of chemical reactions?
Let's see,
1. I love my wife
2. I like poetry
3. I like to put on 'Brandeburg Concertos' and sit there with my eyes closed
4. My heart aches when I think of my friends and relations that have died
But the truth is, ultimately these are all chemical reactions. This doesn't
stop me from enjoying the good ones, and I put value on these feelings.
Would I like there to be more to it than that? Yes, but I'm not about to
give into wishful thinking. It's the same way when I think about religion.
There are passages from the Bible and the Koran I could quote you from
heart. I remember them because they are somehow beautiful and poetic and
express a longing for a world that makes sense. But in the end I know they
aren't true and I only take comfort in the sentiment. And it is the reason
I understand why religion is so attractive to so many people.
I don't know if this really answers your question.
Cgastbook
> that everything can be explained
>away to science.
>things. I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
>when watching a spectacular sunrise or listening to some classical peice
It may be unfair to charge any sensible atheist with saying that "everything
can be explained away to science (sic)" Most of us would argue that science is
the best of way of explaining a number of phenomenon, that it is a method
rather than a body of unquestionable, static doctrines which one should accept
on the authority of faith.
There are legitimate categories of experience that need to be understood in
a certain context. "Peak experiences," the way one reacts to a piece of music,
the "power of place" and other situations are non-scientific in that
appreciating them does not involve some kind of science. So what? Having an
emotive experience watching a natural event doesn't prove or even require the
existence of a deity or some other kind of supernatural explanation.
Conrad Goeringer
Mark Folsom
S.J. Goveia wrote in message ...
>away to science.
>I was just wondering what people's opinions are on the little spiritual
>things. I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
>when watching a spectacular sunrise or listening to some classical peice
I can revel in a sunrise or thrill to great music without swallowing a bunch
of BS. There is wonder in all of life if you can open up to it. That
doesn't mean that all mysteries have to remain mysteries---solving mysteries
seems to be a lot like peeling layers off an onion---there are always new
ones inside the old. If you look at history, it's obvious that religion
tried to explain most of the mysteries of life and failed dismally. Science
and technology have succeeded in vastly greater measure than any other human
enterprise and they are remade on a continuing basis to fit new knowledge as
it is discovered. The history of religion leans more toward killing those
who come up with new knowledge.
>Don't you think (or want to think) that there is something more
>to this than just a bunch of chemical reactions?
Your parenthetical phrase is the key to your whole thesis. There is much to
be wished for in the delusions of many of the world's religions: that's why
they sell so well. However, there is much to inspire awe and wonder and joy
in unlocking the puzzles of the *real* world---it's the hard stuff and it
pays big psychic rewards.
>I don't care how many
>years of University you have or how many science text books you've
>written, you still have 'feelings'. Any thoughts on that?
There is nothing in the attempt to apprehend the world rationally that
precludes the experience or expression of feelings. It does, however, tend
to counter our strong tendency to believe that which makes us most
comfortable.
>One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that there is
>one), what happens when we die? I know that you have all probably thought
>about this for countless hours, so I was just wondering what you thought
>happened when you die. Ok, that's all.
>
I think when you die, you just die. An eternal dreamless sleep. Infinite
oblivion both before and after a brief moment to dance in the sun and brood
in the rain and ponder the nature of existence. Makes life seem kind of
precious...
>
>
--
Mark Folsom, P.E.
Consulting Mechanical Engineer
http://www.redshift.com/~folsom
Coleman Smith
S.J. Goveia wrote:
>
> I just read a couple of the emails in here and the prevailing thought (as
> it should be in an atheist newsgroup), is that everything can be explained
> away to science.
> I was just wondering what people's opinions are on the little spiritual
> things. I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
> when watching a spectacular sunrise or listening to some classical peice
> of music.
Coleman :
There is no evidence that I know of that atheist should be less
appreciative
of aesthetics than theist. Is it reasonable to believe that a god who
wants
to kill generations of people for pissing on a prayer wall or sent
hordes of
people to eternal hell is likely to be the source of beauty and the
finer
things in life?
Don't you think (or want to think) that there is something more
> to this than just a bunch of chemical reactions?
Coleman :
Try down playing the power of chemical reactions the next time you
have
an orgasm.
There's more symmetry, beauty and sense in the periodic table than in
religion.
I don't care how many
> years of University you have or how many science text books you've
> written, you still have 'feelings'.
Coleman :
As far as can be determined all animals have evolved feelings.
Since we cannot communicate with the other species we do not know the
extent of their feeling.
There is no reason to believe that the feeling that we have did not
evolve
because of their survival value. The common appreciation of beutifial
objects
creates a sense of group identity etc.
Any thoughts on that?
> One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that there is
> one), what happens when we die? I know that you have all probably thought
> about this for countless hours, so I was just wondering what you thought
> happened when you die. Ok, that's all.
Coleman :
The worms crawl in,
The worms crawl out,
The worms play pieonocle on your snout.
The invention of the myth of immortality is a vain attempt to avoid
the
grave.
What the hell would a reasonable sane deity do with millions of souls
of
dead humans?
--
Coleman Smith
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"
[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]
The capital letters in my email address is a spam filter.
Jason Stokes
In article
<Pine.SOL.3.96.98042...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA>, S.J.
Goveia <gove...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> wrote:
>I just read a couple of the emails in here and the prevailing thought (as
>it should be in an atheist newsgroup), is that everything can be explained
>away to science.
Let's be clear about one thing. Atheism does not imply 'scientism',
although certain posters certainly tend to cling to such beliefs.
>I was just wondering what people's opinions are on the little spiritual
>things. I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
>when watching a spectacular sunrise or listening to some classical peice
>of music. Don't you think (or want to think) that there is something more
>to this than just a bunch of chemical reactions?
And atheism does not imply what Dawkins calls 'greedy reductionism'
either. No scientist does, in fact, which is why you don't see papers
with titles like 'Analysis of OECD economic indicators in terms of
meiotic cell division.' That's simply a silly charge.
>I don't care how many years of University you have or how many science
>text books you've written, you still have 'feelings'. Any thoughts on
>that? One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that
>there is one), what happens when we die?
Well, nobody knows for certain, but we have a good idea. Neuroscience
shows the material nature of our minds. If you destroy one part of the
brain, it stops functioning and this has mental effects. So, we should
expect that if all parts of the brain are destroyed, the entire mind
will be destroyed along with it. Hence, when we die our conscious
existence ends. It's not as attractive as life after death, but it is
the true situation.
--
Jason Stokes: jstok (at) bluedog.apana.org.au (I use a spam block in my
header. Use this address to mail me, replacing (at) with @)
James Martin
>I was just wondering what people's opinions are on the little spiritual
>things. I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
>when watching a spectacular sunrise or listening to some classical peice
>of music. Don't you think (or want to think) that there is something more
>to this than just a bunch of chemical reactions?
I do think it's more than just a bunch of chemical reactions. It's also a
bunch of cognitive reactions. Apreciating beauty doesn't make you a
theist, though. It makes you human. Humans, across most cultural
boundaries, tend to feel the need to create some sort of art.
>written, you still have 'feelings'. Any thoughts on that?
The desire to live one's life based a little more on logic than dogma
doesn't mean that one has not feelings, intuition, whathaveyou. In fact,
I'd argue that being caught up in dogma cuts one off from any true feeling
or intuition and replaces that with a set of feelings and intuitions which
only benefit whoever is wearing the big hat in the whatever organization
is in question.
>One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that there is
>one), what happens when we die? I know that you have all probably thought
When we die? We stop breathing and our bodies decompose. We feed
flowers. That's it (as far as anyone knows) and that's enough.
James Penrose
S.J. Goveia (gove...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA) wrote:
: I just read a couple of the emails in here and the prevailing thought (as
: it should be in an atheist newsgroup), is that everything can be explained
: away to science.
: things. I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
: when watching a spectacular sunrise or listening to some classical peice
: of music. Don't you think (or want to think) that there is something more
: years of University you have or how many science text books you've
: One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that there is
: one), what happens when we die? I know that you have all probably thought
: happened when you die. Ok, that's all.
Ok, if you take a tiny electric probe in one hand, and a skilled
neurosurgeon in the other (get a small one), and let the surgeon poke
just the right spot on your brain with just the right amount of
electricty, you will feel the exact same sensations of 'feelings' as if
you had actually seen that sunset or heard that music. If he or she
*really* gets it right, you will *see* that sunset or *hear* that music
so vividly you will be convinced everyone else around you is lying when
they say it didn't happem. (see any analogy to religious 'visions' here
btw?)
Thus, we have to rather directly conclude that *yes* feelings *are* just
chemical reactions. This is why tranquilizers and depressants (among
other things), work.
Now as *why* we generate these reactions to certain stimuli is still an
open question and worthy of exploration. But so far, chemical reactions
serve to explain everything we 'feel'.
Petibacsi
>S.J. Goveia
>I just read a couple of the emails in here
This is a newsgroup and not a mailinglist thus they are called posts. :)
> and the prevailing thought (as
>it should be in an atheist newsgroup), is that everything can be explained
>away to science.
Well, could be, but science still has a lot of unanswered questions.
But hopefully there will be a day....
>I was just wondering what people's opinions are on the little spiritual
>things.
Well, in the following you call feelings spiritual things, what I wouldn't
agree entirely.I would call spiritual things an event when you felt that a
relative of yours was in trouble (accident,died) 100s of miles away from you
and later it came out that your perception was correct.
> I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
>when watching a spectacular sunrise or listening to some classical peice
>of music.
Yes, what is the problem with that?
> Don't you think (or want to think) that there is something more
>to this than just a bunch of chemical reactions?
No there isn't and it doesn't disturb me. Even love can be described my
chemical equations now.
> I don't care how many
>years of University you have or how many science text books you've
>written, you still have 'feelings'. Any thoughts on that?
I don't see your problem here.Science doesn't have a probem with feelings.
>One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that there is
>one), what happens when we die?
Our bodies will rot away and our consciousness (what theists call spirit)
stop being existing/working.
> I know that you have all probably thought
>about this for countless hours,
Oh don't make unsupported assertions how I spend my time. :)
>so I was just wondering what you thought
>happened when you die. Ok, that's all.
Your body start to decompost (unless you are mumificied or put into alcohol)
and your consciousness stops working.
OK, that's all.
Peti
>
>
>
></PRE></HTML>
>S.J. Goveia
Petibacsi
I pretty much agree what Ansell wrote, so the new question is:
Trying to argue about objective morality is a wasting of time and a hopeless
procedure?
Peti
TAm...@csi.com
> I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
> ...
> written, you still have 'feelings'. Any thoughts on that?
Feelings and emotion don't have to be supernatural. Nothing happens when
a person dies, actually everthing STOPS happening from the point of view
of the dead person. What happens to the data in your computer's RAM
memory if you switch it off before saving it to disk? According to
supernaturalists, it must go somewhere since it had an existance in RAM
at one point in time. If it was eloquently and poignantly written and
has so much spiritual value it cannot just disappear when the power is
cut off to the computer. Actually if it is not saved to the hard drive
or other storage device it is gone forever regardless of its spiritual
value.
Ansell
--------
S.J. Goveia <gove...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.96.98042...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA>...
> I just read a couple of the emails in here and the prevailing thought (as
> it should be in an atheist newsgroup), is that everything can be
explained
> away to science.
I think you raise questions of
far more intrinsic interest to the atheist position than those interminable
exchanges on the existence of God or the relative merits of evolutionary
science and creationist...well, whatever it is - I've no interest in being
rude here.
However, what you can pack into one dense paragraph, is likely to take
quite a few more than that to unpack. I'll respond in the order that your
observations and questions appear.
> You write:
> I was just wondering what people's opinions are on the little spiritual
> things. I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
> when watching a spectacular sunrise or listening to some classical peice
> of music...
By and large the term `spiritual', little or otherwise, is not
particularly helpful in the context of atheism, because it has to be
redefined to remove the implications of the supernatural and the godly. To
be sure, the examples you give are neither supernatural nor godly except in
some metaphoric sense, but then this is undoubtedly because neither of them
are best described or explained in terms of the `spiritual'.
I am an atheist dedicated to finding as perfect a fit as I can between
the subjective reality that I create and the objective reality revealed to
me by science. What this means is that there is no such thing as `a
spectacular sunrise', but rather `a spectacular earthturn'. You've got just
about the apparent diameter of the sun to watch the Earth spinning on its
orbital journey, then you must look away. This experience requires a
gestalt switch and you only have to experience it once to realise that what
the religious folk think of as `mystical revelation' is in fact a misuse
of what can happen to a human being when the intellect is reconciled with
the emotions.
> You write:
> Don't you think (or want to think) that there is something more
> to this than just a bunch of chemical reactions?
The word `just' is revealing here. It appears time and again in this
context - just a bunch of atoms, just a small planet and so on. Yet what is
this `just' business? I'm not `just' anything, unless I'm `just'
everything. To use this word here is editorial and implying some assumed
and unstated standard of significance, when in fact the only known
standards of significance are being provided by the very chemical reactions
you tend to dismiss with the word `just'.
If I can assume that you've been socialised in a culture that has only
relatively recently separated the state from the Christian Church, then
you'll have been given a perspective that is ultimately derived from the
doctrine of original sin. The human being and all the works of human beings
were to be seen as pathetic and sinful when compared to the glory of God
and the echoes of this neurosis still lead us to look at the immensities of
space and think that there's some aspect of this bigness that entails human
insignificance. Through these chemical reactions the universe is thinking
about itself using these very words. Again, we are not `just' anything.
> Then you write:
> I don't care how many years of University you have or how many science
text
> books you've written, you still have 'feelings'. Any thoughts on that?
Oh for a happy balance between the ancient emotions and the emergent
intellect!
> Then you finish with The Big One:
> One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that there is
> one), what happens when we die? I know that you have all probably
thought
> about this for countless hours, so I was just wondering what you thought
> happened when you die. Ok, that's all.
SJ, if you spend countless hours thinking about death then you're either
being paid by someone to write a book about it, or I'm afraid you need help
for depression.
There is a third possibility of course and if this be the case, then please
don't take offense at the tongue in my cheek.
However, let me address the question more directly. The fact is that
unless those clever folk beavering away in labs all over the world to keep
me alive forever come up with a break-through in the next few decades, then
I must go through the process of dying and it's this that gives me pause,
not being dead at the end of it; it's all too often unpleasant. But I use
the idea of being dead while I'm healthy. I play tennis four times a week
and on my way to each of these sessions I imagine that I've been dead for a
hundred years and, as in a script for the Outer Limits, I find myself able
to play one more time. I wonder where this intense intimacy with being
alive will come from when the life-extension people finally come up with
the goods.
Regards,
Ansell.
p...@liv.ac.uk
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98042...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
"S.J. Goveia" <gove...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA> wrote:
>
> things. I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
> when watching a spectacular sunrise or listening to some classical peice
> to this than just a bunch of chemical reactions?
Depends what you mean by "more" - these messages are "more" than a bunch of
letters. I find god-based explanations of everything such a constraint on our
natural sense of wonder. Wanting to cage glory, wonder, beauty - into a
personal "God" or whatever - is a greed for an unreasonable "more" that is
"all mine".
> One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that there is
> one), what happens when we die?
Er...we die. You. Me. Individually. Cease to exist/are no more/pushing up
daisies. It's very common - lots of people have died - and one of the most
unambiguous natural phenomena. Like being born in reverse. Think about before
you were born, and you get the picture. It is entirely natural. "In my
beginning is my end".
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Infidel98
A fine book that explores the biological and sociological origins of morality
is Frans De Waal's _Good_Natured_. De Waal very nicely works out the touchy
problem of altruism in a Darwinian/Huxlean context. (Harvard University
Press, 1966)
>Petibacsi <peti...@aol.com> wrote in article
><199804210053...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>> Beside that we have had this discussion for months now, we still don't
>have a
>> working definition of objective morality, what both sides would accept.
Ansell
From: Ansell <Ans...@bigpond.com>
To: Petibacsi <peti...@aol.com>
Subject: Re: So whatever happened to objective morality?
Date: Friday, 24 April 1998 17:53
Petibacsi writes:
G'day to you Peti. The short answer to your question is - no, it is not
a waste of time as long as it's restricted to the examination of moral
behaviour. It's when the notion of `objective' is used as a euphemism for
`God dunnit' that the time-wasting and hopelessness begin.
Regards,
Ansell
Chloe Carter
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98042...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
gove...@muss.CIS.McMaster.CA writes:
> I was just wondering what people's opinions are on the little spiritual
> things. I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
> when watching a spectacular sunrise or listening to some classical peice
> of music. Don't you think (or want to think) that there is something more
> to this than just a bunch of chemical reactions?
We know now that so-called "religious experience" can be induced
by drugs, and that there are areas of the brain that are linked
with religious experience. So, whatever the subjective content
of these experiences may be, we must recognize that there isn't
anything 'supernatural' happening.
- Chloe
Rick Gaudreau
> Trying to argue about objective morality is a wasting of time and a
hopeless
> procedure?
RICK G
Why?
Rick Gaudreau
> > One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that there is
> > one), what happens when we die?
>
> Er...we die. You. Me. Individually. Cease to exist/are no more/pushing up
> daisies. It's very common - lots of people have died - and one of the
most
> unambiguous natural phenomena. Like being born in reverse. Think about
before
> you were born, and you get the picture. It is entirely natural. "In my
> beginning is my end".
RICK G
I'm new to this group, and I've also got some questions about stuff like
this, and morals. I recently deconverted from Evangelical Christianity, so
there are concepts that I haven't yet re-thought. One thing that I found
interesting about your answer, pmk, is that you asserted, seemingly with
much confidence, that when we die, we simply "push up daisies". May I
ask.... how do you know this? How do you know there isn't some kind of
continuation. I'm not arguing in favor of either, continuation versus
pushing daisies, I'm just asking.
Ernest Fairchild
Rick Gaudreau wrote in message <01bd73d8$0e8e9f40$7f2367d1@rickgaud>...
>I'm new to this group, and I've also got some questions about stuff like
>this, and morals. I recently deconverted from Evangelical Christianity, so
>there are concepts that I haven't yet re-thought. One thing that I found
>interesting about your answer, pmk, is that you asserted, seemingly with
>much confidence, that when we die, we simply "push up daisies". May I
>ask.... how do you know this? How do you know there isn't some kind of
>continuation. I'm not arguing in favor of either, continuation versus
>pushing daisies, I'm just asking.
No one REALLY knows what happens when you die, of course.
But, just like the God hypothesis, it is more logical to assume nothing
until something is proven. One could go on raving all day about heaven and
afterlife, and so on, and there is absolutely no proof one way or the other.
The default position, the only one that we can reasonably assume if we do
not accept God or gods, is that we simply cease to exist. Period.
Personally, I'm not sure. I'm a strong atheist, have no doubt, but I do
"have a problem" with the idea of non-existence. My mind rebels against it,
no matter how hard I try to integrate the concept (and that bit about "think
about before you were born" doesn't help, either). In fact, I take an
agnostic stance on the afterlife, despite my atheism about God.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my two cents on the issue.
Ernest Fairchild
(ath...@atheist.com)
p...@liv.ac.uk
> > One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that there is
> > one), what happens when we die?
>
> Er...we die. You. Me. Individually. Cease to exist/are no more/pushing up
> daisies. It's very common - lots of people have died - and one of the
most
> unambiguous natural phenomena. Like being born in reverse. Think about
before
> you were born, and you get the picture. It is entirely natural. "In my
> beginning is my end".
RICK G I'm new to this group, and I've also got some questions about stuff
like this, and morals. I recently deconverted from Evangelical Christianity,
so there are concepts that I haven't yet re-thought. One thing that I found
interesting about your answer, pmk, is that you asserted, seemingly with much
confidence, that when we die, we simply "push up daisies". May I ask.... how
do you know this? How do you know there isn't some kind of continuation. I'm
not arguing in favor of either, continuation versus pushing daisies, I'm just
asking. ===================================== Well, that’s what ‘die’ means:
all of our functions stop for good, and the body decays. I know this from the
deaths and funerals of others, and it is observable from experience that
people don’t pop back out of the grave after three days never mind after
billions of years. It is ineluctable. We may have problems realising this
will happen to oneself - it’s probably natural that our sense of
self-awareness ‘rages against the dying of the light’ (as a poet said). But
our sense of who we are is so bound up with our physical and neurological
being and experience that any flight of fantasy about ‘spiritual afterlives’
can bear no relation to the homunculus or whatever at the core of our
personal identity. It’s as meaningful to ask how I know I’m not you. If we’re
not ‘really’ dead, language starts to lose its meaning. Eternal beings do not
get born by definition. We were all born; and we will all die: we are
creatures of time, and these things are fundamental to the nature of our
existence. Time and ephemerality lend flavour to everything - i imagine
eternity would make things pretty stale! It's my experience that very few
religious people *really* in their heart of hearts believe they will continue
after death - there's just a vague suspension of disbelief that takes the
mind off it. Removing this illusion can be empowering, help us concentrate on
the here and now, and find a morality that is not about accumulating a
personal account in eternity.
The *prospect* of personal extinction possibly terrifies us more when we're
younger, (when maybe it doesn't seem 'natural'?) - perhaps (as the same poet
said) "wise men at the end know dark is right". I hope so, and in the
meantime try to get on with the only life i've ever had!
Peter
Petibacsi
RG asked why? about:
>> Trying to argue about objective morality is a wasting of time and a
>hopeless
>> procedure?
You probably missed the posts before this one.The point was that
so far we couldn't find a working definition for obj.mor. that can be accepted
by both sides. (thus they talk about the same thing)
Now arguing about a subject what by we mean different things,
that is wasting of our time, right?
Peti
Rick Gaudreau
RICK G
> >I'm new to this group, and I've also got some questions about stuff like
> >this, and morals. I recently deconverted from Evangelical Christianity,
so
> >there are concepts that I haven't yet re-thought. One thing that I found
> >interesting about your answer, pmk, is that you asserted, seemingly with
> >much confidence, that when we die, we simply "push up daisies". May I
> >ask.... how do you know this? How do you know there isn't some kind of
> >continuation. I'm not arguing in favor of either, continuation versus
> >pushing daisies, I'm just asking.
ERNEST
> No one REALLY knows what happens when you die, of course.
> But, just like the God hypothesis, it is more logical to assume nothing
> until something is proven. One could go on raving all day about heaven
and
> afterlife, and so on, and there is absolutely no proof one way or the
other.
> The default position, the only one that we can reasonably assume if we do
> not accept God or gods, is that we simply cease to exist. Period.
RICK G
I'm not much on all this "logic" stuff, but I believe you're applying
Occam's Razor, am I right?
ERNEST
> Personally, I'm not sure. I'm a strong atheist, have no doubt, but I do
> "have a problem" with the idea of non-existence. My mind rebels against
it,
> no matter how hard I try to integrate the concept (and that bit about
"think
> about before you were born" doesn't help, either). In fact, I take an
> agnostic stance on the afterlife, despite my atheism about God.
RICK G
I'm a weak atheist but I have the same problem you do: my mind just *will
not* go with the idea of non-existence, and so, like you, I'm an agnostic
concerning this matter. It just bugs the hell out of me that I'll have to
wait till I die to find out... or not, if I cease to exist. <smile>
ERNEST
> Anyway, just thought I'd throw in my two cents on the issue.
RICK G
Your $0.02 is much appreciated Ernest. I'm finding out that no matter what
people claim about the so-called after-life, whether life continues in some
form or whether we just push up daisies, in the final analysis: no one
really knows, as you stated above. I just wish I could put the damn
question to rest and have done with it. Thanks again and have a nice day,
eh!
JonC49
>It's my experience that very few religious people
>*really* in their heart of hearts believe they will continue
>after death - there's just a vague suspension of disbelief
>that takes the mind off it. Removing this illusion can be
>empowering, help us concentrate on the here and now,
>and find a morality that is not about accumulating a
>personal account in eternity.
What is the proof of your recent past existance? What is
your guarantee of the near future existance? When you
boil it down, both rest on rather flimsy grounds. For the past
are the physical mementoes that have been generated and
kept. Add to this, the memories recounted by the people
near you. And the IRS. ;-) For the future, pure probability.
The only solid (arguable by some) evidence of anything is
what we have this moment, instance, of our existance.
Personally, I qualify as a fatalist. What is, is. And I am the
first one to admit that I cannot truly explain how I came to be
a fatalist. It is the result of my life experience and search.
One answer in your query is that last phrase, about
accumulating that personal account. When you research as
to the purpose of doing that, you will find that it is a method
of control, the promise of future reward(s). Where it becomes
reward(s) in the afterlife is when the provider is questioned about
the lack of evidence of such rewards in this life. The human
mind is a strange convoluted system in that it can conjure
fantasies more real than the actual reality. I.e., have you ever
eaten that fantastically tasty ice-cream cone that you have
envisioned on that one hot summery day? The real thing
will never come to that level. We seem to be prone to desire
that perfection, even if our logic tells us that it does not exist.
So, we accept the idea of the payment in the afterlife.
>The *prospect* of personal extinction possibly terrifies us more
>when we're younger, (when maybe it doesn't seem 'natural'?)
You will have to be more specific. Most children and teenagers
believe themselves to be indestructable and forever.
> - perhaps (as the same poet said) "wise men at the end know
>dark is right". I hope so,
And as one, source forgetten by me, said, "Death is the sole
proof that one lived."
>and in the meantime try to get on with the only life i've ever had!
Welcome to one of the great realizations of an athiest.
Mark Barton
>> > One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that there is
>> > one), what happens when we die?
>>
>> Er...we die. You. Me. Individually. Cease to exist/are no more/pushing up
>> daisies. It's very common - lots of people have died - and one of the
>most
>> unambiguous natural phenomena. Like being born in reverse. Think about
>before
>> you were born, and you get the picture. It is entirely natural. "In my
>> beginning is my end".
>
>RICK G I'm new to this group, and I've also got some questions about stuff
>like this, and morals. I recently deconverted from Evangelical Christianity,
>so there are concepts that I haven't yet re-thought. One thing that I found
>interesting about your answer, pmk, is that you asserted, seemingly with much
>confidence, that when we die, we simply "push up daisies". May I ask.... how
>do you know this? How do you know there isn't some kind of continuation.
In one sense of course, you can't, but that's not a very interesting fact.
Consider the closely related problem of predicting the future. It's a
trivially obvious fact that you can't know the future based just on
knowledge of the past. You need the extra assumption that the future will
be like the past, but the future is within its rights to suddenly stop
being like the past at any time. Nonetheless, you can't not plan for the
future because it will be upon you soon enough, and assuming that it will
be recognisably like the past is the best that you can do. In principle it
could have been that consulting oracles was more reliable than induction,
but in practice it isn't. In the same way for the afterlife issue, you
have to come up with the best answer based on the facts available, and go
with it.
Now for there to be a continuation, there has to be something to continue.
The traditional answer to what continues is the soul. It's important to
realise that souls are not unfashionable in science because they are made
of spooky supernatural substance and/or inhabit other dimensions. Science
is happy for you to invoke as many strange new types of stuff and as many
new dimensions to put them on as you like, provided that at the end of the
day you actually explain something with them. Science is unhappy with
souls for two reasons: (i) they represent a desperate attempt to get
certain things out of the hands of philistine, butterfly-wing-tearing-off
scientists, (ii) the attempt doesn't work. For a soul to to what is
proposed for it to do, it must be tightly coupled to the "natural world".
It must take sense input from the natural world and return motor outputs.
Therefore any soul will be reasonably accessible to science.
There are two broad possibilities about how the mind is implemented: (i)
the mind is implemented largely by the brain, (ii) the mind is implemented
largely by the soul and the brain acts as an antenna. This is a perfectly
simple structural problem of the sort science tackles every day. It's
analogous to Martians trying to decide whether what fraction of the
Pathfinder robot's behaviour is controlled by an onboard computer and what
fraction by remote control from Earth. The method of attack is perfectly
standard too: break the system in various different ways and see what
happens. Now of course you can't go around breaking peoples' minds
deliberately, but nature breaks plenty through injury and disease and you
can study those. If the bulk of the mind is implemented by a soul which is
immune to injury and disease in the natural world then there are certain
sorts of mental impairment which simply cannot plausibly happen.
But what you discover is that the mind is not a monolithic stuctureless
whole but a well-integrated system of individual faculties which can be
disabled selectively in an amazingly fine-grained way. This doesn't prove
that there is no supernatural component to the mind, but it does prove
that there can't be _a_ singular soul. The mind has internal structure and
internal wiring, and much of this internal wiring passes through the
brain, not just the inputs and outputs. Therefore unless you can propose a
plausible scheme for this wiring to be replaced by something when the body
dies and the brain decays, the natural conclusion is that the mind as such
will cease to function and that any supernatural components will disperse
rather than continue.
Of course, some Christians grant the above argument, but simply propose
that God picks up the pieces and puts them back together in a spiritual
body or some such. However if you've already rejected the God concept,
then I'm afraid you've dashed that prospect. Sorry, but there it is.
Cheers(?),
Mark B.
--
Please remove the spam block (both bits) from my address to reply.
If you receive this by email, note that it was posted as well. Please
make your preferences about CCing known. My default is to CC when
answering a serious query or if I severely criticise a post.
AquaScorpio
Petibacsi wrote:
Well, since morality by its nature is subjective there is truly only one form of
objective morality. That is when debating the morality of a single person. This
is done most times pointing out the hypocrisies of that person but hey, that's why
I watch the 700 club.
It was not the lack of morals, it was the lack of what Xtains viewed as moral.
AquaScorpio
Rick Gaudreau wrote:
> > > One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that there is
> > > one), what happens when we die?
> >
> > Er...we die. You. Me. Individually. Cease to exist/are no more/pushing up
> > daisies. It's very common - lots of people have died - and one of the
> most
> > unambiguous natural phenomena. Like being born in reverse. Think about
> before
> > you were born, and you get the picture. It is entirely natural. "In my
> > beginning is my end".
>
> RICK G
> I'm new to this group, and I've also got some questions about stuff like
> this, and morals. I recently deconverted from Evangelical Christianity, so
> there are concepts that I haven't yet re-thought. One thing that I found
> interesting about your answer, pmk, is that you asserted, seemingly with
> much confidence, that when we die, we simply "push up daisies". May I
> ask.... how do you know this? How do you know there isn't some kind of
> continuation. I'm not arguing in favor of either, continuation versus
> pushing daisies, I'm just asking.
Personally, I disagree with the second guy so I'll answer the first and third
guy.
Now you could say we don't know what happens but that is too easy. Even the
second person agrees that when we die we proliferate the continuation of life
by pushing up daisies (if you consider that an existance). We know we leave a
legacy based on our acts which is why Shakespeare is sometimes called the
immortal bard (well, I added the immortal part but it makes sense). Ones
legacy also continues in our children (biblically hinted at as one of the human
ways of immortality). Ok, this is akin to a cell in your body dying while the
whole goes on but the impact is still there.
These are the obvious so lets get metaphysical. The electro-chemical process
in the brain is detectable. So what happens during a tramatic death when there
is a surge. Is it absorb by the local area (poltergeist effect), disbursed
throughout the universe (spiritual recycling I guess) or collected in a
singlularity that creates its own reality freed from the physical constraints
of the body (the idea everyone has there own heaven can follow this idea.) Now
these can be considered theories as soon as equipment designed to follow this
electro burst come to existance, till then it is nutball ideas.
Course if the soul is something we cannot conceive then everything is up in the
air.
Anyway you look at it, there is impact you have after your death so it is not
the end. Just remember that Your Life is only defined after Your Death. till
then you are still developing.
Just look at what Jesus supposedly did just in the last three years of his
life. His death defined it perfectly and the legacy is all too real.
You only have the right to express your informed opinion to me. I have email
filtering.
p...@liv.ac.uk
>It's my experience that very few religious people
>*really* in their heart of hearts believe they will continue
>after death - there's just a vague suspension of disbelief
>that takes the mind off it. <snip>
What is the proof of your recent past existance? === Lots, but mainly the
many witnesses! "The beauty of the way, and the goodness of the wayfarers".
What is your guarantee of the near future existance? == None whatsoever. No
user-manual, no guarantees. a fatalist. == I've always thought of that as a
religious mindset - Islam is particularly big on fatalism - i'm not dogmatic
about my personal existentialism, but at least politically i think things
don't have to be the way they are....
<> a method of control, the promise of future reward(s).
== Yes, the Koran's quite mercenary about what's in it for the faithful.
The human mind is a strange convoluted system in that it can conjure
fantasies more real than the actual reality.
== Indeed -vicarious living isn't confined to religion: advertising, famous
people, pornography... and i guess the tendency to appreciate things more
when they're memories.
>The *prospect* of personal extinction possibly terrifies us more
>when we're younger, (when maybe it doesn't seem 'natural'?)
You will have to be more specific. Most children and teenagers believe
themselves to be indestructable and forever. == I was thinking of 20-40
["young"?] approximately - though my 5 year old frequently tells me he
doesn't want to die, and is there a magic medicine he and i can take when
we're 100!
The "pushing-up-daisies" (Monty Python 'dead parrot' sketch!) reminds me now
of a more defiant (pantheistic?) line from 'Death shall have no dominion',
something about "heads of the characters hammer through daisies".
Yours,still pushing down daisies,
p...@liv.ac.uk
Coleman Smith wrote:
>
> On 29 Apr 1998 22:02:00 -0700, "Rick Gaudreau"
> <grg...@sprint.ca> typed:
> >"interesting about your answer, pmk, is that you asserted, seemingly with
> >"much confidence, that when we die, we simply "push up daisies". May I
> >"ask.... how do you know this? How do you know there isn't some kind of
> >"continuation. I'm not arguing in favor of either, continuation versus
> >"pushing daisies, I'm just asking.
>
> Coleman chimes in (uninvited as usual):
>
> The knowledge that this is true is based on the fact that
> there is no creditable contrary evidence. <snip>
hulahoo:
Let us be clear about one thing, an atheist has no more nor less
evidence against an the notion of an afterlife than does the theist.
<snip>
The whole "it's impossible to prove a negative" argument is
one of the stupider ones I've heard.
====================================================
Perhaps you could enlighten the stupid? I don't know of *any* physical
evidence that we survive death - the evidence against seems pretty strong to
me. As strong as the evidence against the Hindu belief that the world is
supported by a giant creature (tortoise?) etc; do we have the burden of
'disproving' *every* paranormal assertion or confabulation that anyone makes
- or just those put about so much for so long by powerful religions that they
pass themselves off as almost normal?
gracie & hula
I think you misunderstand me. I'm suggesting that the burden of proof
is always on the one making the knowledge claim. This burden applies to
atheists insofar as they claim there is not an afterlife. I don't think
this is that hard to understand. To say that there is no afterlife,
invites the question "how do you know?"
It is mistake, although a common one, for atheists to think that
skepticism is a one way street that only applies against mush-headed
Christians. Saying to a Christian that there is no evidence that we
survive death is all well and good. To say, on the other hand, that we
as atheists HAVE evidence that we DO NOT survive death - this is a
different kind of statement. It's a knowledge claim. And to the extent
that atheists claim that they have evidence that we don't live after
death, is the extent to which they bear the burden of proof.
Having said this, I should confess I think it's ludicrous for atheists
to claim that we can know whether there is life after death or not,
because such claims are entirely untestable! You're thinking like a
mush-headed Christian when you start down that road. Hell, we can't
prove there is no life after death. And it's a complete waste of time
to dispute Christians at this level.
As far as trying to disprove every paranormal assertion goes, I suppose
one could make the claim that it's the "Atheist's Burden" to attack all
superstitious hoo-ha, and strip away foggy Christian thinking wherever
one encounters it. I suppose one could claim it is the atheist's lot to
walk among the shadowy regions of religious tom-foolery, protected only
by a bodyguard of rationalism, in the hopes that one day God will indeed
be dead. That kind of Zarathustrian romance doesn't interest me much
anymore. I just want atheists to clean up their arguments a little.
That's what I'm looking for.
hulahoop
Charles Fiterman
We don't really need elaborate science to reject the soul,
an observant cave man can do it. As a scientific theory
the soul is at the level of the stork theory of human
reproduction. Creationism requires far more science
than the soul to answer and its interesting that the soul has
more believers.
About 500 B.C. Heraclitus said "A blow to the head will
confuse a man's thinking, blows to other parts of the body
do not have this affect. This cannot be the result of an
immaterial soul." Bad antenna don't explain this observation,
nothing explains this observation but the notion that we
think with something inside our heads. If the brain was
an antenna receiving signals from the soul our actions
would be confused not our thoughts.
About 100 years Greek physicians had narrowed it down
to the brain and Hippocrates said "All men should know
that from nothing but the brain come all joys and sorrows
ideas etc.etc.
This is a very interesting quote and the most interesting
part is the first four words "All men should know".
Hippocrates was a physician writing for other physicians
and when he said "all men should know" or "all older
men should know" he meant tell your patients. He
rarely advised that being of the old school where patients
were a step above pets. But "All men should know that
regular exercise is vital to health." meant tell your patients
to work out regularly.
There were, and are, confidence men about who used the
afterlife to extort cash and obedience and all men should
know that all we are completely tied up in brain function
and when we die nothing remains. If some confidence man
asks for cash or he'll send you to hell its a scam.
While we have lots of modern science to back up the
observation of Heraclitus I don't see how any of it
is necessary and prefer the original 500 B.C. form
which relies purely on common observation. If we
don't rely on observation we have trouble explaining
this to all men, and women too. Hippocrates thought
women were pets.
If the soul was not used by confidence men to extort cash
and obedience no one would believe in it for a second.
Stephen Douglas Guilliot
On 4 May 1998, gracie & hula wrote:
> I think you misunderstand me. I'm suggesting that the burden of proof
> is always on the one making the knowledge claim. This burden applies to
> atheists insofar as they claim there is not an afterlife. I don't think
> this is that hard to understand. To say that there is no afterlife,
> invites the question "how do you know?"
Assuming the negative until the positive has been shown is fundamental to
placing the burden of proof on the positive. The negative is not a
positive assertion in its own right. It is the non-acceptance of the
positive, just as I do not believe the Universe is surrounded by Grape
jelly until Coleman proves it is. Just as you do not believe in my IPU.
If the positive is just as valid as the negative by mere assertion, then
you must forever accept Coleman's Grape Jelly hypothesis and my IPU.
> It is mistake, although a common one, for atheists to think that
> skepticism is a one way street that only applies against mush-headed
> Christians. Saying to a Christian that there is no evidence that we
> survive death is all well and good. To say, on the other hand, that we
> as atheists HAVE evidence that we DO NOT survive death - this is a
> different kind of statement. It's a knowledge claim. And to the extent
> that atheists claim that they have evidence that we don't live after
> death, is the extent to which they bear the burden of proof.
Its a mistake to think there is no burden of proof on the positive, or
that the negative also has the burden. --- Steve
Eric Pepke
On 4 May 1998, gracie & hula wrote:
> Having said this, I should confess I think it's ludicrous for atheists
> to claim that we can know whether there is life after death or not,
> because such claims are entirely untestable!
Oh, I disagree with this. It is entirely demonstrable that there is
life after death. If you kill someone and put him and/or her in the
ground, then worms, bacteria, etc. will eat the flesh. The worms and
bacteria can be shown to be alive by any reasonable definition of the
word life, i.e., continued metabolic processes of organisms.
Likewise, it is fairly easy to show that the metabolic processes of
the organism that has been killed slow down and eventually stop.
The problem is when using the word "life" to mean something ill
defined like a soul or consciousness. That claim might conceivably be
testable, but only if someone were to define it sufficiently well, and
nobody has been able to do that yet.
So, I think it is safe to say that it is reasonable to place the
burden, not of proof, but at least of coming up with some sort of
coherent definition on the people who introduce a particular concept.
There's no point in trying to prove that souls exist for the same
reason that there's no point in trying to glibble that hrgshneenies
aren't frizinpated.
-Eric
gracie & hula
Stephen Douglas Guilliot wrote:
>
> On 4 May 1998, gracie & hula wrote:
You claim that "the negative is not a positive assertion in its own
right".
This is absolutely wrong. One does not have to assume a negative
position simply because we do not have any evidence either way! What
happened to "I don't know"? That is a position as well. A position
which is not a knowledge claim, and which does not bear any burden of
proof or disproof.
Let me make this as plain as possible. When it comes to the afterlife
(or any other issue we lack evidence about) you can argue three ways: 1)
it IS true 2) it ISN'T true 3) I don't or CAN'T know if it's true or
not.
Claims #1 and #2 are BOTH knowledge claims. Both are built upon some
form of evidence. Both carry a burden of proof. #3 may be a knowledge
claim as well, if one chooses the "can't know" side of it. "I don't
know" on the other hand is the ONLY one of these which is not a
knowledge claim. It's the only position which doesn't carry a burden of
proof.
You are mistaken when you suggest that when one lacks evidence one must
by default choose #2. On the contrary, to be substantiated in choosing
#2 one must be able to disprove #1.
If you can't provide proof OR disproof either of them then you end up at
#3
Now the real point is - you as an atheist can neither prove nor disprove
that there is an afterlife. And the reason for that is because there is
no creditable evidence. Without any evidence the BEST you can do is say
"I don't know" (assuming you want to stay within the boundaries of
rational argument).
However, I would argue that the only position that really holds water is
that we CAN'T know if there is an afterlife or not, and that it's a
complete waste of an atheists time to argue about the matter with
Christians. There is NO reason to think this issue will ever be
resolved, and EVERY reason to think that it will never be resolved - for
the simple reason that there is no evidence. You'll never be able to
disprove the argument that people have souls which live on after we
die. You'll never disprove it because it is entirely untestable. You
might dismiss it - which is what I recommend - but by dismissing it you
haven't disproved it. Consequently your claim that there is no
afterlife doesn't hold any water at all. Your claim is as untestable as
the mush-headed Christian's. Worse than that, holding to it when you
don't have any evidence is tantamount to an act of faith on your part.
This is a very common mistake among atheists. Don't you see it?
hulahoop
JonC49
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980505...@jabba.tlh.fdt.net>, Eric
Pepke <pe...@tlh.fdt.net> writes:
>There's no point in trying to prove that souls exist for the same
>reason that there's no point in trying to glibble that hrgshneenies
>aren't frizinpated.
>
>
Yes, they are. I have one right here. See?
The idea of the afterlife is actually based on the cycles viewed
by early man around him. If anything can be pointed to as
distinguishing man from most of the other animals is his
capacity to deduce linearity about him. Man understands that
you put a seed in the ground, it grows into a plant with additional
seeds, man takes a seed and plants it into the ground, knowing
that the first seed is no more a seed. But the seed was there, so
it had to go somewhere. The afterlife.
This is a simplistic sketch, but it is one that is the basis for
many transcendent philosophies. However, due to our curiosity,
we began to try to find out where that first seed went. Botany and
biology were born. However, many of us don't like our dream-
worlds taken away. So we hold onto tradition as hard as we can.
Ernest Fairchild
Bull. Disbelief in an afterlife is not a "knowledge claim," as you put it.
Saying that there IS something else after life is over _IS_ a claim,
however.
Most Atheists take the same stance about an afterlife that they do about
God: until it's proven that something is there, we will assume that there is
not.
That's all there is to it. Real simple. Even a xian could understand it
(then again . . . ).
_____________________
Ernest Fairchild
Atheist #SQR(-1)
(ath...@atheist.com)
gracie & hula wrote in message <354D115C...@earthlink.net>...
Stephen Douglas Guilliot
On 6 May 1998, gracie & hula wrote:
> You claim that "the negative is not a positive assertion in its own
> right".
> This is absolutely wrong. One does not have to assume a negative
> position simply because we do not have any evidence either way! What
> happened to "I don't know"? That is a position as well. A position
> which is not a knowledge claim, and which does not bear any burden of
> proof or disproof.
The point I want to make is displayed quite clearly in the last paragraph.
While it is nice to pass the buck and say everyone could be right, this a
weak line of reasoning. First, the negative is the non-acceptance of the
positive. I do not have to show any proof to the non-existence of grape
jelly in order to disbelieve it. It is a positive that has no supporting
information other than the assertion itself. This is reason enough to
discount the jelly as a fabrication. Why would anyone assert something
without a reason to do so?
> Now the real point is - you as an atheist can neither prove nor disprove
> that there is an afterlife. And the reason for that is because there is
> no creditable evidence. Without any evidence the BEST you can do is say
> "I don't know" (assuming you want to stay within the boundaries of
> rational argument).
No, without any credible evidence either way, I have the right to ask the
claimant why the assertion was made in the first place.
> However, I would argue that the only position that really holds water is
> that we CAN'T know if there is an afterlife or not, and that it's a
> complete waste of an atheists time to argue about the matter with
> Christians. There is NO reason to think this issue will ever be
> resolved, and EVERY reason to think that it will never be resolved - for
> the simple reason that there is no evidence. You'll never be able to
> disprove the argument that people have souls which live on after we
> die. You'll never disprove it because it is entirely untestable. You
> might dismiss it - which is what I recommend - but by dismissing it you
> haven't disproved it. Consequently your claim that there is no
> afterlife doesn't hold any water at all. Your claim is as untestable as
> the mush-headed Christian's. Worse than that, holding to it when you
> don't have any evidence is tantamount to an act of faith on your part.
>
> This is a very common mistake among atheists. Don't you see it?
I completely understand what you are saying. But your position does not
hold water, instead it is safe. With it, even spewing xians won't bother
you and may even feel reinforced. I am not presuming to have proof; I
don't have to. When someone makes a claim, it is their responsibility to
defend that position. Otherwise, their claim is suspect and unbelievable.
The only reason "I don't know" (in this situation) seems even remotely
sufficient is because it is a completely true statement for you; who is to
say you really don't know. The skeptic will call the bluff, however.
Again, the burden of proof is on the positive. --- Steve
JonC49
In article <354F88F6...@earthlink.net>, gracie & hula
<byr...@earthlink.net> writes:
>You are mistaken when you suggest that when one lacks
>evidence one must by default choose #2. On the contrary,
>to be substantiated in choosing #2 one must be able to
>disprove #1.
>
>If you can't provide proof OR disproof either of them then you
>end up at #3
The problem with this whole exercise is that it is just that- an
exercise. The three steps are designed for a formal debate.
What is omitted, a key factor at that, is real life. We do not
set up debate societies to determine what we should or
should not believe.
When we talk about proof of an afterlife or even some
deity, we are talking about tangible, reproduceable,
testable proof. It is sometimes refered to as "scientific
evidence".
What you are doing is the same that many
theists, and others, do with the word "theory". In general
practise, it is a supposition, a start. In scientific practise, it is
suggesting the connectivity between scientific evidence.
It is not at the beginning of the chain to obtain scientific
fact. It is already in process of determining that fact.
And in science, when there is no evidence, then there is
no existence. You do not have the luxury of the three options.
<snip>
>This is a very common mistake among atheists. Don't you see it?
It is not a mistake because you are trying to compare the
proverbial oranges with the proverbial kumkvats.
Coleman Smith
gracie & hula wrote:
>
> Stephen Douglas Guilliot wrote:
> >
> > >
snip
>
> Let me make this as plain as possible. When it comes to the afterlife
> (or any other issue we lack evidence about) you can argue three ways: 1)
> it IS true 2) it ISN'T true 3) I don't or CAN'T know if it's true or
> not.
>
>
Coleman staggers forward :
Three choices re after life
1. The evidence suggested suggests that is more likely to be
true than not.
2. The evidence suggests that is is likely to be false.
3. There is no creditable evidence.
In the event of #3. it's not worth discussing and the
atheist has no reason to respond.
--
Coleman Smith
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so"
[Adolph Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941]
The capital letters in my email address is a spam filter.
Eric Pepke
Look, this is all getting very silly. Someone says something like
"you can't prove a negative." Then someone else shows how easy it is
to make a positive into a negative, as if it proves something.
What are difficult to prove (asssuming "prove" is used in the
informal sense of supporting beyond perversity with evidence) are
DISTRIBUTED statements.
To see the difference, look at this.
NON-DISTRIBUTED POSITIVE: I have a 6-inch nose
NON-DISTRIBUTED NEGATIVE: I do not have a 6-inch nose
DISTRIBUTED POSITIVE: Everybody has a 6-inch nose
DISTRIBUTED NEGATIVE: Nobody has a 6-inch nose
The distributed statements are very difficult to prove but very easy
to disprove; just show a counterexample.
-Eric
Mark
Eric Pepke wrote:
> Oh, I disagree with this. It is entirely demonstrable that there is
> life after death. If you kill someone and put him and/or her in the
> ground, then worms, bacteria, etc. will eat the flesh. The worms and
> bacteria can be shown to be alive by any reasonable definition of the
> word life, i.e., continued metabolic processes of organisms.
MST3K recently quoted an old childhood song, which puts this much
more consisely, Eric: "whadda you know - worms really DO play
Pinochle on your snout!"
That's my take on the "afterlife", which is why I plan to be buried
with a tiny deck of cards...
Paul Pfalzner
gracie & hula (byr...@earthlink.net) write:
> This is absolutely wrong. One does not have to assume a negative
> position simply because we do not have any evidence either way! What
> happened to "I don't know"? That is a position as well. A position
> which is not a knowledge claim, and which does not bear any burden of
> proof or disproof.
>
> (or any other issue we lack evidence about) you can argue three ways: 1)
> it IS true 2) it ISN'T true 3) I don't or CAN'T know if it's true or
> not.
Hold on here - something is missing in your argument. It cannot be
that any assumption whatever can be put forward by anyone, and one
then has to assess it, either as being true, false or don't know.
This will not do.
For a proposition to be worth considering, some conditions apply:
1/ there must be at least some observable supporting evidence
2/ it must not be in gross violation of the broadly accepted natural
order of things
3/ it must be falsifiable, i.e. it must at least in principle be
possible to show that it is false or untenable
4/ it should have some unique explanatory features concerning some
till now unclear or unsolved question
5/ it should lead to new testable understanding of presently puzzling
observations.
The assumption of an afterlife, of gods, soul, spirits, heaven, hell,
angels, devils - these do not qualify, and one need not waste time
trying to refute them, just as zillions of other untestable and
unsupported claims. They can only be matters of faith, as long as
there is no good supporting evidence, and none of the above other points
are satisfied.
Paul Pfalzner
Eric Pepke
On 7 May 1998, JonC49 wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980505...@jabba.tlh.fdt.net>, Eric
> Pepke <pe...@tlh.fdt.net> writes:
>
> >There's no point in trying to prove that souls exist for the same
> >reason that there's no point in trying to glibble that hrgshneenies
> >aren't frizinpated.
>
> Yes, they are. I have one right here. See?
No.
> The idea of the afterlife is actually based on the cycles viewed
> by early man around him. If anything can be pointed to as
> distinguishing man from most of the other animals is his
> capacity to deduce linearity about him. Man understands that
> you put a seed in the ground, it grows into a plant with additional
> seeds, man takes a seed and plants it into the ground, knowing
> that the first seed is no more a seed. But the seed was there, so
> it had to go somewhere. The afterlife.
>
> This is a simplistic sketch, but it is one that is the basis for
> many transcendent philosophies. However, due to our curiosity,
> we began to try to find out where that first seed went. Botany and
> biology were born. However, many of us don't like our dream-
> worlds taken away. So we hold onto tradition as hard as we can.
I'd call this mythology. I don't have anything against mythology. I
like a lot of myths. The myth of the afterlife is not one I enjoy,
but there are many others. The myth of the electron, for example, is
one I enjoy a lot. And, unlike the myth of the afterlife, it provides
explanatory power and predictive power. I like this, too. Part of
the myth of the electron is that is has a rest mass of .511 MEV. And
when an atom of positronium decays, you get two photons with an energy
of .511 MEV. This kind of thing I think is quite cool.
But the afterlife is something that is very fuzzily analogous with
reality. Yeah, a seed, planted in the ground, makes a plant. But
what does that have to do with something as ill defined as a soul?
-Eric
p.s.
A thought, and a couple of questions:
In article <199805021742.KAA04940@ounce>,
mba...@icrr.no.u-tokyo.spam.ac.jp (Mark Barton) wrote:
> For a soul to to what is
> proposed for it to do, it must be tightly coupled to the "natural world".
> It must take sense input from the natural world and return motor outputs.
> Therefore any soul will be reasonably accessible to science.
>
> There are two broad possibilities about how the mind is implemented: (i)
> the mind is implemented largely by the brain, (ii) the mind is implemented
> largely by the soul and the brain acts as an antenna.
I'd add a third possibility: the brain is the physical representation of
the intangible mind in the physical universe. Akin to a physical computer
processor built according to its abstract paper blueprint.
> Now of course you can't go around breaking peoples' minds
> deliberately, but nature breaks plenty through injury and disease and you
> can study those. If the bulk of the mind is implemented by a soul which is
> immune to injury and disease in the natural world then there are certain
> sorts of mental impairment which simply cannot plausibly happen.
>
> But what you discover is that the mind is not a monolithic stuctureless
> whole but a well-integrated system of individual faculties which can be
> disabled selectively in an amazingly fine-grained way. This doesn't prove
> that there is no supernatural component to the mind, but it does prove
> that there can't be _a_ singular soul.
Imagine a computer processor prototype is built according to a blueprint.
The CPU hence becomes the physical representation of the abstract design.
Is it accurate to say that accidentally damaging the prototype (say a
sledgehammer would fall on it) somehow alters the blueprint, or will
result in future CPU's (based on same blueprint) likewise being damaged?
Does zapping the math coprocessor with a power surge, in turn making the
chip perform less efficiently, prove the CPU is not based on a blueprint
which is (the blueprint itself) immune to ravages from power surges (i.e.
a CPU design drawn on paper can be eaten by moths, yet remain unaffected
by a power surge)? Does the discovery that the CPU consists of various
integrated logic circuits in any way prove there can't be a single
blueprint according to which the CPU was built?
I am not trying to dispute you, nor prove anything, I'm merely curious.
Sincerely, Pat.
Charles Fiterman
Coleman Smith wrote:
> Coleman staggers forward :
>
> Three choices re after life
>
> 1. The evidence suggested suggests that is more likely to be
> true than not.
> 2. The evidence suggests that is is likely to be false.
> 3. There is no creditable evidence.
The evidence screams it is false and would do so for an observant
cave man. Og hit foot, Og not dizzy. Og hit elbow, Og not dizzy.
Og hit head, Og dizzy. Og think with stuff in head! Hit head hard,
no think. Og die, Og no think.
People believe in the afterlife for three reasons.
1. It is convenient to religious confidence men who use the
afterlife to extort cash and obedience.
2. It is taught by religions which are part of a cultural tradition.
3. People don't want to die.
When you consider these reasons the afterlife becomes suspicious
even without scientific evidence against it.
JonC49
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.98050...@jabba.tlh.fdt.net>, Eric
Pepke <pe...@tlh.fdt.net> writes:
>I'd call this mythology. I don't have anything against mythology. I
>like a lot of myths. The myth of the afterlife is not one I enjoy,
>but there are many others. The myth of the electron, for example, is
>one I enjoy a lot. And, unlike the myth of the afterlife, it provides
>explanatory power and predictive power. I like this, too.
Myth is the story-telling trying to define the undefinable. And, yes,
my sketch about the seed is how mythology works. The myth
persists even though the phenomenon observed counters the
myth.
However, the explanation of the electron is not myth. It is an
analysis of observed phenomenon.
You have to view as to how the explanations have been approached.
And more importantly to what degree the explanations are
flexible. The myth will brook very little change because it is
developed from the imagination alone. The analysis requires
updates by virtue of its action, that its basis is the observation.
We all are myth makers when we are growing up. Some of us
replace that myth with analysis, some stick to their myth despite
observations and some even become stand up comics.
JonC49
In article <355346D1...@geodesic.com>, Charles Fiterman
<c...@geodesic.com> writes:
>People believe in the afterlife for three reasons.
>
>1. It is convenient to religious confidence men who use the
> afterlife to extort cash and obedience.
>2. It is taught by religions which are part of a cultural tradition.
>3. People don't want to die.
>
>When you consider these reasons the afterlife becomes
>suspicious even without scientific evidence against it.
The most prevelant, and as such harder to fight, is tradition.
Tradition is the acceptance of a ritual without questioning
the origin. "Everybody does it" mentality, IOW. The hardest
groundless argument to counter is "that is how it is done."
It is a wall that allows no brooking by logic. In the same vein,
the redirection to some fictional deity as to why something
is done reinforces that wall.
"Conservative" - One who wants to do as little thinking as
possible, to conserve the brain cells.
mau...@mail.com
hulahoop wrote:
> Let me make this as plain as possible. When it comes to the afterlife
> (or any other issue we lack evidence about) you can argue three ways: 1)
> it IS true 2) it ISN'T true 3) I don't or CAN'T know if it's true or
> not.
I agree with you on the burden of proof stuff. However . . .
I think there is some evidence relevant to the question of an afterlife.
Very briefly, we have some clues about how consciousness works; it seems
to be closely related to the processing of information by the brain. The
brain, however, doesn't process information without oxygen flowing to it,
which doesn't happen once the heart stops beating. Neurons cease firing
when we're dead.
That is evidence (though not conclusive evidence) that consciousness
ceases at death.
I would add a few more choices to your three, such as: 4) based on what
we currently know, an afterlife seems rather improbable.
Maurile
Coleman Smith
Charles Fiterman wrote:
>
> Coleman Smith wrote:
>
> > Coleman staggers forward :
> >
> > Three choices re after life
>
snip
> The evidence screams it is false and would do so for an observant
> cave man. Og hit foot, Og not dizzy. Og hit elbow, Og not dizzy.
> Og hit head, Og dizzy. Og think with stuff in head! Hit head hard,
> no think. Og die, Og no think.
>
> People believe in the afterlife for three reasons.
>
> 1. It is convenient to religious confidence men who use the
> afterlife to extort cash and obedience.
> 2. It is taught by religions which are part of a cultural tradition.
> 3. People don't want to die.
>
> When you consider these reasons the afterlife becomes suspicious
> even without scientific evidence against it.
Coleman here :
I agree.
I have always thought it is fortunate that the big three
auto makers have not started using religious logic to sell
cars.
Buy a Ford and you will have paradise for ever with green
eyed virgins and cool running water.
Buy a Chevrolet and you will be condemned to a burning lake
of fire where you will drink molten metal
--
Coleman Smith
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The assertion that the universe is surrounded by grape jelly
makes more sense
than the assertion that we are the immortal pets of a deity.
Eric Pepke
On 9 May 1998, JonC49 wrote:
> Myth is the story-telling trying to define the undefinable.
See, this is where I disagree. Myth is story-telling trying to define
something.
> However, the explanation of the electron is not myth. It is an
> analysis of observed phenomenon.
I also disagree here. Models are a subclass of myth, as are theories.
That the explanation of the electron is an analysis of observed
phenomena does not detract from the fact that there is a myth of the
electron.
If the word "electron" were simply described by wave function, then
I wouldn't say this (although I might say that the wave function is a
kind of myth). However, the myth of the electron is that there
is this thing called an electron, which is a kind of particle (another
myth) that moves around and has certain properties, specified in part
by the wave function.
Even though I disagree with your restricted definition of myth, it
does apply here. We have a myth to explain something in physical
reality which has no name in and of itself. The electron certainly
isn't completely defined, and it is certainly possible that it is
undefinable. Ultimately, why are the observed phenomena there?
Nobody really knows. So, we invent a myth of an electron, a thing, to
be a place holder, something that is assumed to be there and move
around and cause the phenomena.
There are wheels within wheels. You can talk about string theory, but
that's also a myth. They certainly don't come off of balls of twine.
> We all are myth makers when we are growing up. Some of us
> replace that myth with analysis, some stick to their myth despite
> observations and some even become stand up comics.
Again, I disagree, except for the stand-up comics part. We create new
myths as we grow up. Perhaps the new myths are more and more based on
analysis and observation. I like those more, but they're still myths.
-Eric
gracie & hula
JonC49 wrote:
> When we talk about proof of an afterlife or even some
> deity, we are talking about tangible, reproduceable,
> testable proof. It is sometimes refered to as "scientific
> evidence".
>
> What you are doing is the same that many
> theists, and others, do with the word "theory". In general
> practise, it is a supposition, a start. In scientific practise, it is
> suggesting the connectivity between scientific evidence.
> It is not at the beginning of the chain to obtain scientific
> fact. It is already in process of determining that fact.
>
> And in science, when there is no evidence, then there is
> no existence. You do not have the luxury of the three options.
>
You speak as if science adheres to no basic foundational philosophic
assumptions at ALL. I think this is a rather serious misunderstanding
on your part.
Science like many other disciplines is founded on some very distinct
philosophic assumptions which it builds upon. For example, science is
grounded on the idea that the universe is orderly, where things happen
for a reason,.. cause and effect is arguably the most basic assumption
of science, but there are many others.
If you know much about the philosophy of science then you probably
understand this. On the other hand, I am frequently surprised by how
little some people in the sciences themselves seem aquainted with this
issue. It is something the average practitioner doesn't worry about
much, I gather.
Anyhow, my point being that science itself adheres to quite a number of
things which are ultimately untestable. Science can't for example test
whether the universe is actually orderly, or whether it simply appears
orderly to our instruments. Rather, science simply (and rightly) must
assume it is so.
You essentially say "no testable evidence, no existence" as far as
science is concerned, but this is hardly the case. I will grant that
science tries to keep it's philosophic assumptions to an absolute
minimum. I'd have to do a bit of research in order to discuss the
various philosophic foundations of science here in any detail. However,
"there is no afterlife" is not among of science's basic assumptions.
Nor is atheism, for that matter.
The three positions I layed out: it IS true, it ISN'T true, or I
don't/can't know
These also corrospond quite well (in this group anyhow) to theism,
atheism, and agnosticism. It is clear that people have all sorts of
reasons for believing what they do when it comes to these positions
However it is just as clear that science is NOT the acid test which
everyone seems to want to make it out to be. It is easily possible to
hold any one of these positions and still be "scientific" in ones
approach to testable things.
hulahoop
JonC49
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980511...@jabba.tlh.fdt.net>, Eric
Pepke <pe...@tlh.fdt.net> writes:
>> Myth is the story-telling trying to define the undefinable.
>
>See, this is where I disagree. Myth is story-telling trying to define
>something.
Unfortunately for you, we do have to go with the most accepted
connotation.
BTB:
"Theory" in general practise and "theory" is science are not the same
animals. The latter is also referred to as "theorem". The former
is equivalent to the term "surmise" while the latter is closer to "explain".
And as one having majored in science in college, I do cringe when
the definitions are used interchangeably. Again, they are not the
same and are not interchangeable.
JonC49
In article <35566CA0...@earthlink.net>, gracie & hula
<byr...@earthlink.net> writes:
>These also corrospond quite well (in this group anyhow) to theism,
>atheism, and agnosticism. It is clear that people have all sorts of
>reasons for believing what they do when it comes to these positions
>However it is just as clear that science is NOT the acid test which
>everyone seems to want to make it out to be. It is easily possible to
>hold any one of these positions and still be "scientific" in ones
>approach to testable things.
>
>hulahoop
The only place where your three options work is on a survey.
If you don't have any idea, that is fine. Do not presume that because
you, specifically, cannot come to terms that everyone else cannot.
This qualifies as egocentrism.
Science has never meant to be the "ACID" test. And playing with
two distinct meanings of the term "science" is also avoiding the
issues at discussion.
In science, the phrase "I don't know" is invalid when it comes to
making hypotheses. If a hypothesis is not proven, it is discarded.
A new hypothesis is engendered. The key point is that in science
(lab and everthing) is that there is an observation upon which the
hypothesis is placed. There is a field in science that can be called
"Creative Science", but here also the formulations are based on
observed and past scientific knowledge.
You are trying to get around this by pushing a debater's exercize.
It will not work. And you cannot get away with calling it "science".
When there is no basis for a hypothesis, there is nothing. To date,
there is nothing to place the hypothesis of an after-life other than
wishful thinking.
Mark Barton
In article <bjf-270856...@tmp52-122.ascend.planet.eon.net>,
b...@planet.eon.net (p.s.) wrote:
>A thought, and a couple of questions:
>
>In article <199805021742.KAA04940@ounce>,
>mba...@icrr.no.u-tokyo.spam.ac.jp (Mark Barton) wrote:
>
>> For a soul to to what is
>> proposed for it to do, it must be tightly coupled to the "natural world".
>> It must take sense input from the natural world and return motor outputs.
>> Therefore any soul will be reasonably accessible to science.
>>
>> There are two broad possibilities about how the mind is implemented: (i)
>> the mind is implemented largely by the brain, (ii) the mind is implemented
>> largely by the soul and the brain acts as an antenna.
>
>I'd add a third possibility: the brain is the physical representation of
>the intangible mind in the physical universe. Akin to a physical computer
>processor built according to its abstract paper blueprint.
This is not a genuine alternative. Rather it is an optional extra to (i).
Moreover, as far as the hardware aspect of the brain is concerned it seems
to be largely false - the brain is built from a template but the template
is entirely physical, consisting of DNA. For the sake of argument I'm
happy to grant that there might be additional, non-physical, templates,
but if you're serious about the paper blueprint metaphor, then there is no
interesting difference from (i).
>> Now of course you can't go around breaking peoples' minds
>> deliberately, but nature breaks plenty through injury and disease and you
>> can study those. If the bulk of the mind is implemented by a soul which is
>> immune to injury and disease in the natural world then there are certain
>> sorts of mental impairment which simply cannot plausibly happen.
>>
>> But what you discover is that the mind is not a monolithic stuctureless
>> whole but a well-integrated system of individual faculties which can be
>> disabled selectively in an amazingly fine-grained way. This doesn't prove
>> that there is no supernatural component to the mind, but it does prove
>> that there can't be _a_ singular soul.
>
>Imagine a computer processor prototype is built according to a blueprint.
>The CPU hence becomes the physical representation of the abstract design.
>Is it accurate to say that accidentally damaging the prototype (say a
>sledgehammer would fall on it) somehow alters the blueprint, or will
>result in future CPU's (based on same blueprint) likewise being damaged?
>Does zapping the math coprocessor with a power surge, in turn making the
>chip perform less efficiently, prove the CPU is not based on a blueprint
>which is (the blueprint itself) immune to ravages from power surges (i.e.
>a CPU design drawn on paper can be eaten by moths, yet remain unaffected
>by a power surge)? Does the discovery that the CPU consists of various
>integrated logic circuits in any way prove there can't be a single
>blueprint according to which the CPU was built?
The reason I say "if you're serious about the paper blueprint metaphor" is
because I don't think you've thought it through. It has implications that
you won't like at all. Suppose I were to say to you, "I'm going to take
your computer away and replace it with a new one built to the same
blueprint". Would you be happy? If you're like me you'd be screaming blue
murder. My computer is valuable to me because it is much more than a copy
of the blueprints from which it was made. Rather it has all the data and
software that I have loaded into it. In the same way, I am valuable to
myself not mostly because of my brain per se, but because of the person
that is loaded into that brain. My brain is indeed very valuable but only
because for practical reasons it's the brain that I'm stuck with and the
only one I will ever have. Let's suppose that you are somehow able to get
around this. You come to me and say "I'm going to take your brain and give
you a new one built to the same abstract template", then I would say in no
uncertain terms, "fuck off", because that abstract template isn't me. It
can't be me - you specified that the template was like a paper blueprint,
which I take to mean static, whereas I am a dynamic thing.
I suspect that you're muddling the vision that you actually described with
a different vision: that the brain and the supernatural mind are both
dynamic things working in lock step, like the redundant computers that are
used to give added reliability on space missions and the like. However
this is just a variant of (ii), and falls victim to the same argument: we
observe that we can produce amnesia, say, by injury to the physical brain
and therefore any supernatural component to the mind can't be providing
any backup worth having.
Cheers,
Mark B.
--
Please remove the spam block (both bits) from my address to reply.
If you receive this by email, note that it was posted as well. Please
make your preferences about CCing known. My default is to CC when
answering a serious query or if I severely criticise a post.
Paul Pfalzner
gracie & hula (byr...@earthlink.net) writes:
>
> You essentially say "no testable evidence, no existence" as far as
> science is concerned, but this is hardly the case. I will grant that
> science tries to keep it's philosophic assumptions to an absolute
> minimum. I'd have to do a bit of research in order to discuss the
> various philosophic foundations of science here in any detail. However,
> "there is no afterlife" is not among of science's basic assumptions.
> Nor is atheism, for that matter.
Science does assume, and test for, an orderly universe. And it does
involve the very basic assumption of atheism, i.e. no supernatural
interference in the order of the universe.
Science, and its offspring, technology, confirm in the strongest way
the validity of the scientific assumptions.
Theology is totally unable to lead to testable predictions. If we
only had theology, we would still be living in caves wearing hula skirts.
Paul Pfalzner
mau...@mail.com
byr...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Science like many other disciplines is founded on some very distinct
> philosophic assumptions which it builds upon. For example, science is
> grounded on the idea that the universe is orderly, where things happen
> for a reason,.. cause and effect is arguably the most basic assumption
> of science, but there are many others.
That may be less an assumption than an observation. It is a fact of
experience that nature appears to operate in an orderly manner. The
expectation that it will continue to do so is a matter of induction --
which is weaker than deduction, but at least lacks the arbitrariness
that "assumption" sometimes connotes.
gracie & hula
Ernest Fairchild wrote:
>
> Bull. Disbelief in an afterlife is not a "knowledge claim," as you put it.
> Saying that there IS something else after life is over _IS_ a claim,
> however.
>
> Most Atheists take the same stance about an afterlife that they do about
> God: until it's proven that something is there, we will assume that there is
> not.
>
> That's all there is to it. Real simple. Even a xian could understand it
> (then again . . . ).
>
Perhaps you can clarify the difference between someone who disbelieves
in the afterlife, and someone who is agnostic about the idea. I'm not
very sure how you make a distinction between the two. After all, if the
agnostic can say "I don't know if there is an afterlife, because I don't
see any evidence" and the atheist says "I disbelieve in the afterlife,
because I don't see any evidence", there would seem to be SOME
significant difference between the two statements. Since you claim that
no knowledge claims are involved at all, it seems to me you would have
to say that "I don't know" and "I disbelieve" are entirely synonymous.
Both the atheist and the agnostic have no evidence, but the come to
different conclusions. How do you account for this?
To my thinking, it is self-evident that "I don't know" is not a
knowledge claim. On the other hand, "I disbelieve" as well as "I
believe" seem to me to be entirely different than "I don't know". I
have accounted for this difference by pointing out that both are
knowledge claims. (Don't give me credit for coining the term
incidentally, it is a common enough term in certain area's of
philosophy). Nevertheless, I may be using the term wrongly, and perhaps
I am mistaken. You seem pretty certain that I'm wrong about it. I
don't think I am, but I'm willing to hear your thinking on it. You say
the matter is real simple,.. so perhaps you can go over it again with
me, and help me figure some things out.
Firstly, please tell me the distinction between "I believe", "I
disbelieve", and "I don't know". In particular, tell me whether the
last two are equivalent or not. If they are not, please tell me how
they differ. If they are equivalent, then please tell me how the
atheist can differ from the agnostic. These are the things I don't
understand about your position.
hulahoop
gracie & hula
Stephen Douglas Guilliot wrote:
> I completely understand what you are saying. But your position does not
> hold water, instead it is safe. With it, even spewing xians won't bother
> you and may even feel reinforced. I am not presuming to have proof; I
> don't have to. When someone makes a claim, it is their responsibility to
> defend that position. Otherwise, their claim is suspect and unbelievable.
> The only reason "I don't know" (in this situation) seems even remotely
> sufficient is because it is a completely true statement for you; who is to
> say you really don't know. The skeptic will call the bluff, however.
> Again, the burden of proof is on the positive. --- Steve
You perhaps can explain to me the difference between atheism and
agnosticism, between disbelief and not knowing. I'd be willing to buy
your argument, except that it CAN'T account for ANY difference between
the state of knowing something not to be true, and not knowing
anything. If you don't have ANY proof or ANY evidence either way (which
seems to be something we all agree we don't have regarding the
afterlife) then explain to me why you are atheist and not an agnostic.
The position I have stated is not safe or unsafe, it is simply and
clearly rational. I have stated quite clearly the difference between
knowledge claims, and having no knowledge whatsoever. I have stated the
distinct differences one can take towards the afterlife:
true/false/unknown. I have stated how these likewise correspond to
theism, atheism, and agnosticism. And finally I have stated that theism
and atheism are alike in that they are knowledge claims, whereas the "I
don't know" form of agnosticism is not.
I have not stated it before, but I will add at this point that, not only
are theism and atheism alike in that they are both knowledge claims, but
furthermore they are alike in that they both presume some type of
knowledge that is not entirely supportable by facts, evidence, or
proofs. Atheism has at it's very core a philosophic assumption that is
not supported empirical evidence. It is far more like theism in this
regard than agnosticism. The theist and the atheist may be polar
opposites to one another, but the agnostic is something else
altogether.
Steve seems to mistakenly think that skepticism leads one to
atheism, but true skepticism pulls apart atheism at it's roots. There
is virtually NOTHING the atheist can insist on that the skeptic cannot
pull apart. You suggest that confessing a lack of knowledge is a safe
position. It is hardly that, on the contrary, the atheist, like the
theist, is the one playing it safe. The atheist has his knowledge claim
(unsupported as it is) to protect him from the disagreeable state of not
knowing anything for certain.
YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ME ONE REASON HOW YOU KNOW THERE IS NO AFTERLIFE
STEVE, AND YOU HAVEN'T BECAUSE YOU CANNOT.
I ask you to tell me, WITHOUT referring to any quasi-scientificisms, or
"can't prove a negative" clichés, or rhetorical nonsense about Santa
Claus, space aliens, or grape jelly, HOW you know there is no
afterlife.
Because, if you don't KNOW there is no afterlife, then why the hell are
you an atheist and NOT an agnostic!? I imagine that you ought be as
happy with one title as the other, since there seems to be no difference
between the two in your world. Or is it just that the the atheist
simply as a matter of course says "no" to whatever might come out of a
theists mouth? Is that your moronic definition of atheism? Doesn't
really know anything for certain about metaphysics, but knows how to say
"no" to it?? Whereas the agnostic doesn't even bother with that much?
Give me something to go on Steve! Why on earth do you suggest that you
can simply negate a positive assertion when there is no evidence? On
what grounds do you negate it? This is akin to a blind person negating
your assertion that you can see, simply because you can't show him what
you see. This is a ludicrous position. The blind person may have no
way of determining that you can see, however would you say he is
justified in "disbelieving" your claim? On the contrary, you would say
that the blind person has NO grounds to negate your claim at all. And
while he might "disbelieve" your claim, it would be entirely prejudicial
on his part. If the blind person were to be entirely unprejudiced, he
would have to say that he could not tell whether your claim was true or
not.
In a court of law when the prosecution lacks sufficient evidence the
case is dismissed on lack of evidence. Because what can a jury say
about the truth or falsehood of a case if they have no evidence? It
would be absurd at this point for the defense to then stand up and make
the claim that just the opposite of the prosecutions case must be true
on the very grounds that the prosecution lacked evidence. This is NOT
what happens in a court of law. This IS, on the other hand, what happen
in your world Steve, when it comes to arguing about the afterlife.
Dismissing the theist's case on lack of sufficient evidence, seems to be
grounds to your cloudy thinking to claim that there IS no afterlife. It
utterly defies reason.
hulahoop
Bruce Campbell
Sorry for quoting yours Mark, my News server has expired the orginal...
Mark Folsom wrote:
> S.J. Goveia wrote in message ...
> >I just read a couple of the emails in here and the prevailing thought (as
> >it should be in an atheist newsgroup), is that everything can be explained
> >away to science.
> >I was just wondering what people's opinions are on the little spiritual
> >things. I'm talking about little things like the feeling one receives
> >when watching a spectacular sunrise or listening to some classical peice
> >of music.
Although science explains my body as a biological machine, my consciousness as a
result of the complexity of it can still appreciate such things. I don't think
the two are mutually exclusive.Science does not have all the answers yet.
However, it does provide tangible evidence for it's theories, not just
dependant of blind faith and the threat of punishment.
>
>
> I can revel in a sunrise or thrill to great music without swallowing a bunch
> of BS. There is wonder in all of life if you can open up to it. That
> doesn't mean that all mysteries have to remain mysteries---solving mysteries
> seems to be a lot like peeling layers off an onion---there are always new
> ones inside the old. If you look at history, it's obvious that religion
> tried to explain most of the mysteries of life and failed dismally. Science
> and technology have succeeded in vastly greater measure than any other human
> enterprise and they are remade on a continuing basis to fit new knowledge as
> it is discovered. The history of religion leans more toward killing those
> who come up with new knowledge.
>
> >Don't you think (or want to think) that there is something more
> >to this than just a bunch of chemical reactions?
>
> Your parenthetical phrase is the key to your whole thesis. There is much to
> be wished for in the delusions of many of the world's religions: that's why
> they sell so well. However, there is much to inspire awe and wonder and joy
> in unlocking the puzzles of the *real* world---it's the hard stuff and it
> pays big psychic rewards.
>
> >I don't care how many
> >years of University you have or how many science text books you've
> >written, you still have 'feelings'. Any thoughts on that?
>
> There is nothing in the attempt to apprehend the world rationally that
> precludes the experience or expression of feelings. It does, however, tend
> to counter our strong tendency to believe that which makes us most
> comfortable.
>
> >One other thing, if there is no god (and I'm not saying that there is
> >one), what happens when we die? I know that you have all probably thought
> >about this for countless hours, so I was just wondering what you thought
> >happened when you die. Ok, that's all.
> >
>
> I think when you die, you just die. An eternal dreamless sleep. Infinite
> oblivion both before and after a brief moment to dance in the sun and brood
> in the rain and ponder the nature of existence. Makes life seem kind of
> precious...
I find the christian idea of life with either God or the Devil for all eternity
very scary indeed. I can't say I know ANYBODY who hasn't broken one of the ten
commandments at least once. But either way, the idea of spending ETERNITY (a
very very long time indeed!) as anywhere frightening.On the other hand, I think
the true atheist view of once your dead, you simply cease to exist rather sad.
This may just show my inability to comprehend my own non-existence.
Quite a few people are convinced about near death experiences & "the light" on
the other side proving God, or life after death. I tend to admit that some
scientific answers like "The brain made up a little story to ease itself into
death" a load of old toss.
My father had a near-death experience a few years ago. Whilst having surgery, he
died for several minutes. The anthesitist (Is that how it's spelt?). had given
him too much anesthestic.
As far as my father's concerned, there isn't anthing there. He died, and nothing
happened. He hasn't changed his view on things (Actually, I'm pretty sure it
just confirmed what he always believed - he never spoke of religion either way)
But I find it infinitely sad that he fully believe when he dies, all that will
be left of him will be us, his children. Perhaps that's what consoles him.
Bruce Campbell
>
>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mark Folsom, P.E.
> Consulting Mechanical Engineer
> http://www.redshift.com/~folsom
gracie & hula
Paul Pfalzner wrote:
>
> gracie & hula (byr...@earthlink.net) write:
> > This is absolutely wrong. One does not have to assume a negative
> > position simply because we do not have any evidence either way! What
> > happened to "I don't know"? That is a position as well. A position
> > which is not a knowledge claim, and which does not bear any burden of
> > proof or disproof.
> >
> > (or any other issue we lack evidence about) you can argue three ways: 1)
> > it IS true 2) it ISN'T true 3) I don't or CAN'T know if it's true or
> > not.
>
> that any assumption whatever can be put forward by anyone, and one
> then has to assess it, either as being true, false or don't know.
> This will not do.
>
> For a proposition to be worth considering, some conditions apply:
>
> 1/ there must be at least some observable supporting evidence
>
> 2/ it must not be in gross violation of the broadly accepted natural
> order of things
>
> 3/ it must be falsifiable, i.e. it must at least in principle be
> possible to show that it is false or untenable
>
> 4/ it should have some unique explanatory features concerning some
> till now unclear or unsolved question
>
> 5/ it should lead to new testable understanding of presently puzzling
> observations.
>
> The assumption of an afterlife, of gods, soul, spirits, heaven, hell,
> angels, devils - these do not qualify, and one need not waste time
> trying to refute them, just as zillions of other untestable and
> unsupported claims. They can only be matters of faith, as long as
> there is no good supporting evidence, and none of the above other points
> are satisfied.
>
> Paul Pfalzner
I will not dispute your standards for whether a proposition is worth
considering, because while they sound like good standards, they do not
apply to our problem, which was NOT "how do I determine if a proposition
is worth considering?" We assume that the proposition is ALREADY being
considered. In any event, I have previously made the case that the
afterlife should never be argued about between atheists and theists on
the very grounds that it lacks evidence, is not testable or falsifiable,
and is therefore irresolvable. You and I agree that the "zillions of
other untestable claims" are matters of faith, or fable, or myth, and
are a complete waste of time. My contention is with the atheists in
this newsgroup who hold that they can know a thing or two about the
afterlife (such as that it doesn't exist). Yet when I ask HOW they
know, they tell me that theists "lack evidence". I would like to
suggest that the ONLY thing these atheists know is that theists aren't
very good at substantiating their claims. What they seem to keep
wanting to do is go on and tell me about all the metaphysical things in
the world that they "disbelieve in", as if it's something to be proud
about. Apparently taking a position on subjects about which no evidence
exists is good for the self-esteem. This is the only conclusion I can
come to, seeing that so many are so resistant to allowing that they
don't know anything about something which is unknowable.
I guess ya learn something new every day.
hulahoop
p.s.
I should clarify the blueprint analogy: by "blueprint" I was not referring
merely to the genetic component, rather even the whole character which
defines who a person is. For example, hypothetically speaking, suppose God
designs a unique mind, and then builds it in the physical reality by
subjecting the person to various experiences in life, such that upon
maturity, the essence of who a person has become matches the blueprint.
Of course the analogy has limitations, because a blueprint is indeed
static, not dynamic. Unless there is feedback. In any case, there are
limitations to the analogy.
Maybe there's a more appropriate concept which could provide a closer
approximation to what I meant without resorting to the limited "blueprint"
bit, I just haven't come up with it. It's true I haven't really thought
the idea through. It's an old idea I've been tinkering with on and off for
the past couple of years, but I still haven't quite hit the nail on its
head so to speak.
There are two reasons why I seriously considered this "blueprint" analogy:
1) as a Christian I believe in a soul, but 2) all empirical evidence
points to the fact the hardwiring in our brain (the sum of experiences and
genetics) determines who we are. Therefore, from my point of view, how can
we be who we are thanks to our brains, yet have a completely dissimilar
soul? Unless the soul is LIKE a blueprint, to the extent that the mature
physical brain (which implements the mind) is the physical representation
of the intangible soul. Of course, blueprint isn't alive, but like I said,
the analogy applies only to the extent that the physical "I" (the mind) is
patterned after the spiritual version (the soul). Does the soul hover
above one's physical body, is it residing inside, does it affect the
physical mind? Don't know, I merely suspect the physical is patterned
after the spiritual, which is to say, the soul is sort of like a living
blueprint.
David R Adams
gracie & hula wrote:
> Anyhow, my point being that science itself adheres to quite a number of
> things which are ultimately untestable. Science can't for example test
> whether the universe is actually orderly, or whether it simply appears
> orderly to our instruments. Rather, science simply (and rightly) must
> assume it is so.
and on the belief in the afterlife/god
> The three positions I layed out: it IS true, it ISN'T true, or I
> don't/can't know
I want to take issue with what you mean by true. To do this I'll have
to back up and discuss conceptions of truth. I'll define two versions
of truth, absolute and pragmatic. Absolute truth is what people often
mean by true, meaning that if they say that something is true that
believe that it faithfully represents the world the way it actually is.
A pragmatic version of truth does not require that a statement fit the
actuality of the world, merely that it is a useful way to describe the
world, and that it is testably better than other descriptions. (These
definitions are for the purposes of discussion about something I think
people already have heard of, if not, they are not sufficient).
Probably most scientists and atheists are not very careful about saying
which version of truth they are using, but the foundations of science
(and atheism I believe) rest much more easily on the second definition
of truth than on the first. Why is this? Because the first version of
truth sounds great until you try to use it, at which point you find that
nothing can be proven. Since you can't test something in all
situations, you are always left with the possibility that you are
wrong. Note its pretty hard to disprove anything as well- if something
fails a test you just add or modify auxiliary assumptions in order to
maintain the main hypothesis (thus the difficulty in arguing with
theists). The only acceptable conclusion is agnosticism, which you have
to accept for all statements about the world including scientific ones,
none of which can be proven or disproven by this standard.
How about the pragmatic version of truth? This allows for us to make
truth claims about science, with the full knowledge that our versions of
truth are just that, versions, which may be replaced by a better
version. Most scientists are relying on this view of truth in their
work. Note that this view of truth says that if the universe appears
orderly, then it is true that it is orderly. So, it is not the case
that this is an untested assumption under this view of truth.
Atheism is perfectly defensible under this version of the truth, and not
in the same situation in terms of proof as theism. Since theism does
not offer a better explanation of the world than alternative
explanations, and in many cases is less informative (theism didn't teach
us how to build computers), the explanations of the world that theism
offers are false until evidence can be found that backs them up.
Furthermore, the claims of theism have no greater status than any other
unfounded claims, such as a belief in undetectable faeries or purple
jello surrounding the universe. This is the argument that I have seen
atheists in this thread pushing, and it is perfectly reasonable given
the pragmatic view of truth.
David Adams
David R Adams
Shaad M. Ahmad
byr...@earthlink.net wrote in article
<35566CA0...@earthlink.net>:
>You speak as if science adheres to no basic foundational philosophic
>assumptions at ALL. I think this is a rather serious misunderstanding
>on your part.
>Science like many other disciplines is founded on some very distinct
>philosophic assumptions which it builds upon. For example, science is
>grounded on the idea that the universe is orderly, where things happen
>for a reason,.. cause and effect is arguably the most basic assumption
>of science, but there are many others.
>If you know much about the philosophy of science then you probably
>understand this. On the other hand, I am frequently surprised by how
>little some people in the sciences themselves seem aquainted with this
>issue. It is something the average practitioner doesn't worry about
>much, I gather.
>Anyhow, my point being that science itself adheres to quite a number of
>things which are ultimately untestable. Science can't for example test
>whether the universe is actually orderly, or whether it simply appears
>orderly to our instruments. Rather, science simply (and rightly) must
>assume it is so.
>You essentially say "no testable evidence, no existence" as far as
>science is concerned, but this is hardly the case. I will grant that
>science tries to keep it's philosophic assumptions to an absolute
>minimum. I'd have to do a bit of research in order to discuss the
>various philosophic foundations of science here in any detail. However,
>"there is no afterlife" is not among of science's basic assumptions.
>Nor is atheism, for that matter.
>The three positions I layed out: it IS true, it ISN'T true, or I
>don't/can't know
>These also corrospond quite well (in this group anyhow) to theism,
>atheism, and agnosticism. It is clear that people have all sorts of
>reasons for believing what they do when it comes to these positions
>However it is just as clear that science is NOT the acid test which
>everyone seems to want to make it out to be. It is easily possible to
>hold any one of these positions and still be "scientific" in ones
>approach to testable things.
You will generally find most scientists, regardless of their
degree of familiarity with formal philosophies of science, to hold
a Popperian view where science is concerned (Logical Positivism
having met its untimely demise in philosophical circles).
This essentially involves only one criterion -- falsifiability.
That is, in order for a statement to be considered a scientific
statement, it must be possible to test it to see if it is false.
The other so called "foundations" of science that you postulate
-- an orderly universe, cause and effect -- follow from this. They
remain scientific statements, provisional because they are and
remain falsifiable. And I believe no scientist would continue to
use them if tomorrow you were able to prove them false.
But you have not, nor has anyone else. So we continue to use
them to build provisional and falsifiable models of reality. That
is science.
Regards.
sh...@leland.stanford.edu - Shaad -
http://cmgm.stanford.edu/~ahmad/
the deviant biologist
"When you have shot and killed a man, you have in some measure clarified
your attitude towards him. You have given a definite answer to a definite
problem. For better or for worse you have acted decisively. In a way, the
next move is up to him."
-- R. A. Lafferty
Ernest Fairchild
First off, in my original reply I said "most Atheists," not necessarily
myself. Concerning the afterlife, I am, believe it or not, an "agnostic," as
you put it, despite being an Atheist about gods.
To me, the difference is like this:
A man comes to me and tells me that there are giant Jelly Bean men on his
front lawn. Obviously curious, I go to take a look. I see no giant Jelly
Bean men. Now I have three options at this point:
1) I can believe him despite lack of evidence, and assume that for some
reason, he can see the giant Jelly Bean men and I cannot;
2) I can say "I don't know whether the giant Jelly Bean men are real or
not"; or
3) I can choose to disbelieve any claims about giant Jelly Bean men.
To my eyes, only position 1 involves any sort of "knowledge claim," as I
understand the concept. Disbelieving in something merely says "there is
insufficient evidence." Waffling (position 2) merely says "I'm wimping out
on this question, despite insufficient evidence."
As far as gods go, I take position 3. I have made suitable (to me) inquiries
into the realities of such deities and have determined that they are, in
toto, false.
As far as the afterlife goes, I take position 2. Most Atheists would choose
position 3 about this, as well.
Largely, for me, the difference is that I can conceive of ways that "I"
could live on after death (such as reincarnation) that do not involve god(s)
at all. Also, I think I'm a little "freaked" by the idea of nonexistence,
and can't really get the idea through the bundle of neurons that I call a
brain.
Does this help at all, or is it as clear as mud?
Ernest Fairchild
Atheist #SQR(-1)
(ath...@atheist.com)
gracie & hula wrote in message <3557CD3E...@earthlink.net>...
>Ernest Fairchild wrote:
>>
>> Bull. Disbelief in an afterlife is not a "knowledge claim," as you put
it.
>> Saying that there IS something else after life is over _IS_ a claim,
>> however.
>>
>> Most Atheists take the same stance about an afterlife that they do about
>> God: until it's proven that something is there, we will assume that there
is
>> not.
>
<SNIP>
Eric Pepke
On 12 May 1998, Bruce Campbell wrote:
> On the other hand, I think
> the true atheist view of once your dead, you simply cease to exist rather sad.
> This may just show my inability to comprehend my own non-existence.
So, does the existence of a region of spacetime before you were born
make you sad, too?
I think they're sort of similar.
-Eric
Paul Pfalzner
>>
>> Hold on here - something is missing in your argument. It cannot be
>> that any assumption whatever can be put forward by anyone, and one
>> then has to assess it, either as being true, false or don't know.
>> This will not do.
>>
>> For a proposition to be worth considering, some conditions apply:
>>
>> 1/ there must be at least some observable supporting evidence
>>
>> 2/ it must not be in gross violation of the broadly accepted natural
>> order of things
>>
>> 3/ it must be falsifiable, i.e. it must at least in principle be
>> possible to show that it is false or untenable
>>
>> 4/ it should have some unique explanatory features concerning some
>> till now unclear or unsolved question
>>
>> 5/ it should lead to new testable understanding of presently puzzling
>> observations.
>>
>> The assumption of an afterlife, of gods, soul, spirits, heaven, hell,
>> angels, devils - these do not qualify, and one need not waste time
>> trying to refute them, just as zillions of other untestable and
>> unsupported claims. They can only be matters of faith, as long as
>> there is no good supporting evidence, and none of the above other points
>> are satisfied.
>>
> considering, because while they sound like good standards, they do not
> apply to our problem, which was NOT "how do I determine if a proposition
> is worth considering?" We assume that the proposition is ALREADY being
> considered. In any event, I have previously made the case that the
Why assume this - most of us atheists have no interests in
considering vapid assumptions that lack all evidence, such as afterlife.
> afterlife should never be argued about between atheists and theists on
> the very grounds that it lacks evidence, is not testable or falsifiable,
> and is therefore irresolvable. You and I agree that the "zillions of
> other untestable claims" are matters of faith, or fable, or myth, and
> are a complete waste of time. My contention is with the atheists in
> this newsgroup who hold that they can know a thing or two about the
> afterlife (such as that it doesn't exist).
It is not what atheists know, but the absence of any knowledge on the
part of the proponents of an afterlife that is noted by atheists.
When we see that theists and other myth makers make strange claims
but provide no testable evidence, we know that they do not know.
That suffices to tell us to ignore the proposition.
> Apparently taking a position on subjects about which no evidence
> exists is good for the self-esteem. This is the only conclusion I can
> come to, seeing that so many are so resistant to allowing that they
> don't know anything about something which is unknowable.
>
Can anyone claim that what is unknowable in principle can ever be
said to exist?
And thousands of years of talk about the afterlife have never led to
any good evidence of such a phantasm. It is time to drop this idea
which is clearly based on wishful thinking but has a total lack of
credible substance.
Give us a description of the afterlife, so we can see what you are
talking about.
Of course, you say you are not interested so much in the specifics as
in the philosophic basis for rejecting fanciful claims. One good
basis is that unnecessary hypotheses are to be cut out since they
clutter up the world with untestable ghosts, adding nothing to
knowledge and understanding, but causing confusion and leading to
unfounded hopes, fears, and often dangerous delusions.
> I guess ya learn something new
every day.
I hope so.
>
Paul P.
Paul Pfalzner
JonC49 (jon...@aol.com) writes:
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980511...@jabba.tlh.fdt.net>, Eric
> Pepke <pe...@tlh.fdt.net> writes:
>
>>> Myth is the story-telling trying to define the undefinable.
>>
>>See, this is where I disagree. Myth is story-telling trying to define
>>something.
>
> Unfortunately for you, we do have to go with the most accepted
> connotation.
What is this "connotation" here? Myths almost always involve the
attempt to explain in some way a puzzling event or appearance or
whatever. Myth defines nothing. Often a myth is a fairly simple
story trying to account for some mystery.
And myths thus satisfy the human craving to understand - even though
the explanation is usually quite fanciful and not open to being
confirmed. But it satisfy the human reluctance to admit that we do
not know the answer - though later we often do find a more reliable
answer through science.
Paul P.
Oli
>don't/can't know
You missed: the question is nonsensical.
To illustrate: Is there a God?
There is no way to prove or disprove any answer to the question since it
cannot be tested empirically and is not based on formal precepts (unlike
(e.g.) symbolic logic). On this basis (according to the logical
positivists) the question is nonsensical.
>These also corrospond quite well (in this group anyhow) to theism,
>atheism, and agnosticism. It is clear that people have all sorts of
>reasons for believing what they do when it comes to these positions
>However it is just as clear that science is NOT the acid test which
>everyone seems to want to make it out to be. It is easily possible to
>hold any one of these positions and still be "scientific" in ones
>approach to testable things.
I think most of the people here probably find the lack of consistency
irritating more than anything else. For what it's worth I haven't heard
a counterargument worth the name to the position that the question of
God's existence is meaningless (my answer to the question) and that any
assertion or denial is a mere emotive noise.
--
Oli
John & Kinga Britschgi
Ernest Fairchild wrote in message <6jcean$j...@news.asu.edu>...
<SNIP>
>A man comes to me and tells me that there are giant Jelly Bean men on his
>front lawn.
<SNIP>
>1) I can believe him despite lack of evidence, and assume that for some
>reason, he can see the giant Jelly Bean men and I cannot;
>
>2) I can say "I don't know whether the giant Jelly Bean men are real or
>not"; or
>
>3) I can choose to disbelieve any claims about giant Jelly Bean men.
>
>To my eyes, only position 1 involves any sort of "knowledge claim," as I
>understand the concept. Disbelieving in something merely says "there is
>insufficient evidence." Waffling (position 2) merely says "I'm wimping out
>on this question, despite insufficient evidence."
There is a crucial error in your assessment of position #2: Your giant Jelly
Bean men are extremely unlikely to exist. Position #2 has to be considered
in light of what you know is true in your own experience and/or its
consistency with known physical and biological laws.
In this case of giant Jelly Bean men position #2 is untenable because there
are no tribes of giant Marshmallow Women known to exist, thus making Jelly
Bean men unprecendented. Secondly, confectionary creatures would have to
survive by some hitherto unknown biological processes (actually I don't know
much 'bout biology, correct me if I'm wrong here) and are therefore
extremely unlikely.
>As far as gods go, I take position 3. I have made suitable (to me)
inquiries
>into the realities of such deities and have determined that they are, in
>toto, false.
>
>As far as the afterlife goes, I take position 2. Most Atheists would choose
>position 3 about this, as well.
>
>Largely, for me, the difference is that I can conceive of ways that "I"
>could live on after death (such as reincarnation) that do not involve
god(s)
>at all.
As regards to the position you take above on life after death, I have also
found this untenable. The hypothesis that you might survive through
reincarnation accepts a belief in an immortal soul - something that has
never been reliably observed or measured.
Brenda Nelson
On 13 May 1998, Paul Pfalzner wrote:
:JonC49 (jon...@aol.com) writes:
:> In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980511...@jabba.tlh.fdt.net>, Eric
:> Pepke <pe...@tlh.fdt.net> writes:
:>
:>>> Myth is the story-telling trying to define the undefinable.
:>>
:>>See, this is where I disagree. Myth is story-telling trying to define
:>>something.
:>
:> Unfortunately for you, we do have to go with the most accepted
:> connotation.
:
:What is this "connotation" here? Myths almost always involve the
:attempt to explain in some way a puzzling event or appearance or
:whatever. Myth defines nothing. Often a myth is a fairly simple
:story trying to account for some mystery.
With great respect, Paul, I have to disagree with you here. Myths *do*
in fact serve a purpose - they do not merely try to explain something
puzzling. Myths (as the late great Joe Campbell was wont to point out)
serve man by being "roadmaps," speaking to the individual human of the
Human Journey. If properly understood - aye, there's the rub! - myths
help us to understand our lives, their phases, and ultimately our place
in time and space. By resonanting with the commonality of life, human
and non-, they enable our better understanding and acceptance of our
life circumstance.
The problem is that so many people insist on concretizing the myth -
taking the "just so" story and insisting that it's not only true (which
it is, on a metaphorical level), but *factual* (which it is not). Thus
the fight over the "existence" of gods. (I put "existence" in quotes
because, earnest atheist that I am, I realize that gods *do* exist - as
myths and metaphors. Fortunately or un- , they are not *real*.)
:And myths thus satisfy the human craving to understand - even though
:the explanation is usually quite fanciful and not open to being
:confirmed. But it satisfy the human reluctance to admit that we do
:not know the answer - though later we often do find a more reliable
:answer through science.
Unfortunately, this is the so many people now view myth, and it's a darn
shame. I say again: the purpose of myth is not to explain physical
phenomena, but to communicate the commonalities of human existance in a
meaningful way.
Brenda
Number 34 on The A.A. List, and proud of it!
"To sum up: 1. The cosmos is a gigantic fly-wheel making 10,000
revolutions a minute. 2. Man is a sick fly taking a dizzy ride on it. 3.
Religion is the theory that the wheel was designed and set spinning to
give him the ride." H. L. Mencken
***********************************************************************
*I just *work* for the University of Arizona. My opinions are my own.*
***********************************************************************
JonC49
In article <6jdeqp$d...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
(Paul Pfalzner) writes:
>What is this "connotation" here? Myths almost always involve the
>attempt to explain in some way a puzzling event or appearance or
>whatever.
Apparently we must not be using the same language or accepted
dictionaries.
>Myth defines nothing. Often a myth is a fairly simple
>story trying to account for some mystery.
I am sorry, I am at a loss to what words to use. Even your
particular definitions agree with my contention.
Mark Hartswood
Not really. Before you are born you have nothing to lose, after you are born
you have everything to lose.
Cheers,
Mark.
--
Ernest Fairchild
John & Kinga Britschgi wrote in message
<6jesum$ld4$1...@news.cyberhighway.net>...
>
>Ernest Fairchild wrote in message <6jcean$j...@news.asu.edu>...
><SNIP>
>>A man comes to me and tells me that there are giant Jelly Bean men on his
>>front lawn.
>
><SNIP>
>>2) I can say "I don't know whether the giant Jelly Bean men are real or
>>not"; or
>>
>In this case of giant Jelly Bean men position #2 is untenable because there
>are no tribes of giant Marshmallow Women known to exist
I know, but _UMMM_, wouldn't they be good to eat? (sigh...)
>>Largely, for me, the difference is that I can conceive of ways that "I"
>>could live on after death (such as reincarnation) that do not involve
>god(s) at all.
>
>As regards to the position you take above on life after death, I have also
>found this untenable. The hypothesis that you might survive through
>reincarnation accepts a belief in an immortal soul - something that has
>never been reliably observed or measured.
>
Yes, I know. I wasn't saying I _did_ believe in reincarnation, per se. But
as I said in a <snip>ped portion of my original post, I think agnosticism is
"wimping out" on a question (because you won't take a stand), and so I take
a firm stance of wimping out on the afterlife.
I am a Strong Atheist, and it has been pointed out to me time and time again
that even an inkling that I might continue after my physical demise
conflicts with this philosophy, but I really can't seem to shake it.
Basically, analogies about pre-birth conditions, et al., not withstanding, I
still cannot wrap my mind around the "concept" of being "non-existent."
There was a thread either on alt.atheism or alt.life.afterlife (can't
remember which) that concerned "What does it feel like to be dead?" Although
many different interpretations were given, I seem to remember only one, or
perhaps two, say something in the vein of "It doesn't feel like _anything_,
you twit, because you're _dead_."
The only thing I'm saying is that I'm withholding judgment on the issue
until I'm dead. It's not like it will matter until then. If it's like
unplugging a computer, then fine, I won't have anything to experience. If
there's something else, then fine, I'll accept that, too.
_____________________
Eric Pepke
On 12 May 1998, JonC49 wrote:
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.980511...@jabba.tlh.fdt.net>, Eric
> Pepke <pe...@tlh.fdt.net> writes:
>
> >> Myth is the story-telling trying to define the undefinable.
> >
> >See, this is where I disagree. Myth is story-telling trying to define
> >something.
>
> Unfortunately for you, we do have to go with the most accepted
> connotation.
Unfortunately for all anthropologists, I guess.
I'm using the connotation that is most accepted in anthropology,
ethnology, and mythology. You must be using some other
connotation--maybe the lay meaning of "false statement." You seem to
be insisting that the lay usage of "myth" is the correct one, but
that's only based on your own culture, which happens to involve
ignorance of anthropology (apparently).
> BTB:
> "Theory" in general practise and "theory" is science are not the same
> animals. The latter is also referred to as "theorem". The former
> is equivalent to the term "surmise" while the latter is closer to "explain".
Yes, of course they're different. But "theory" is not the same as
"theorem." The former is a model or system of models used to generate
hypotheses which are tested empirically. The latter is a conclusion
derived from axioms.
It's interesting that you, having been trained in some form of
science, are into the scientific meaning of the word "theory," while,
apparently untrained in anthropology, reject the scientific meaning of
the word "myth."
Fortunately, not all hard scientists are as preternaturally obtuse as
yourself. Even Carl Sagan and Richard Feynmann would have understood
how I am using the word "myth."
-Eric
Eric Pepke
On 15 May 1998, Mark Hartswood wrote:
> (I wrote)
> > So, does the existence of a region of spacetime before you were born
> > make you sad, too?
> >
> > I think they're sort of similar.
>
> Not really. Before you are born you have nothing to lose, after you are born
> you have everything to lose.
And, after you're dead you have nothing to lose. So, the same thing
applies as before you were born.
What if you weren't ever born in the first place. Is that also sad?
Besides, except for a statistical measurement which results in a
measure of entropy, there doesn't appear to be anything about the laws
of physics, at the fundamental level, by which you can tell the future
from the past.
-Eric
Paul Pfalzner
JonC49 (jon...@aol.com) writes:
> In article <6jdeqp$d...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, ai...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA
> (Paul Pfalzner) writes:
>
>>What is this "connotation" here? Myths almost always involve the
>>attempt to explain in some way a puzzling event or appearance or
>>whatever.
>
> Apparently we must not be using the same language or accepted
> dictionaries.
How horrid! So throw out your dictionary. I am arguing against your
notion (hardly a connotation) that myths "define" something.
Where do you get that? What does the myth of the tower of Babel
"define"? Or the myth of Prometheus?
>
>>Myth defines nothing. Often a myth is a fairly simple
>>story trying to account for some mystery.
>
> I am sorry, I am at a loss to what words to use. Even your
> particular definitions agree with my contention.
>
>
Empty words, my friend. Just demonstrate how your view of myths works.
Tell me about your "contention". By the way, are you enaored of
defining? You speak of my definitions? I defined nothing, I described
what myths are and do.
Paul Pfalzner
Bill
I appreciate the distinction between both kinds of truth. I learned
something in your post.
Don't you think that aetheism is kind of absolute claim? It is, after
all, a claim to understand something that fundamentally falls beyond the
realm of testable truth. If pragmatic truth can be used to prove
absolutes, at least temporarily, then I would have to suggest that there
is no category of absolute truth, because absolutes can never be known
certainly but only temporarily, which means they're pragmatic.
Given the nature/quality of pragmatic truth, it's temporary qualities,
isn't it dishonest to conclude an understanding of human ontology or
lack thereof, and base it on this kind of truth. Wouldn't the only
honest conclusion of pragmatic truth be that this kind of absolute is
unknowable?
If the universe began with a big bang and there is some reasonable math
to conclude that this is possible, it is not a reasonable jump to
conclude that the detonation had or did not have a divine spark. This is
a case where pragmatic truth extends it's conclusions to the absolute.
Whadda you think?
Bill
Shaad M. Ahmad
Bill <bi...@badbreath.com> wrote in article
<355D13...@badbreath.com>:
>Don't you think that aetheism is kind of absolute claim? It is, after
>all, a claim to understand something that fundamentally falls beyond the
>realm of testable truth. If pragmatic truth can be used to prove
>absolutes, at least temporarily, then I would have to suggest that there
>is no category of absolute truth, because absolutes can never be known
>certainly but only temporarily, which means they're pragmatic.
I would tend to use the term provisional rather than temporary,
since temporary suggests lasting only for a limited time, and it
seems quite unlikely that our notions of say genes and DNA are going
to last only for a limited time.
But you might want to elaborate on what it is you mean by
absolute truth, before we begin discussing whether we are capable
of ever "knowing" it.
>Given the nature/quality of pragmatic truth, it's temporary qualities,
>isn't it dishonest to conclude an understanding of human ontology or
>lack thereof, and base it on this kind of truth. Wouldn't the only
>honest conclusion of pragmatic truth be that this kind of absolute is
>unknowable?
Only if it is dishonest to not believe in pixies, djinns, fairies,
leprechauns, etc. Or if it is dishonest for you to disbelieve my
assertion that there's an intangible monkey sitting on your shoulder
that only I can see. You see, I can make any number of lurid and, to
use your term, "unknowable" assertions like this; but would you waste
your time believing them?
If not, why then should we extend special treatment to the
notion of a deity?
Regards.
sh...@leland.stanford.edu - Shaad -
http://cmgm.stanford.edu/~ahmad/
the deviant biologist
"Intellectual food is like any other; it is pleasanter and more beneficial
to take it with a spoon than with a shovel."
-- Mark Twain
David R Adams
Bill wrote:
>
> I appreciate the distinction between both kinds of truth. I learned
> something in your post.
>
> all, a claim to understand something that fundamentally falls beyond the
> realm of testable truth. If pragmatic truth can be used to prove
> absolutes, at least temporarily, then I would have to suggest that there
> is no category of absolute truth, because absolutes can never be known
> certainly but only temporarily, which means they're pragmatic.
>
pragmatist considers within the bounds, meaning there could possibly be
evidence which supports a belief in god. So by atheism I mean the claim
that the there is no evidence which supports the existence of god, and
in the absence of such evidence we should give this belief zero
credence. If by theism you mean a belief in a god that is truly
unknowable (one that can or will never leave any evidence), then the
pragmatist view would be that such a belief is not even definable. This
is because in order to assess pragmatic truth we must have a way to
assess the evidence. Therefore, such beliefs fall outside the
pragmatist system and the truth of them can't be discussed.
> Given the nature/quality of pragmatic truth, it's temporary qualities,
> isn't it dishonest to conclude an understanding of human ontology or
> lack thereof, and base it on this kind of truth. Wouldn't the only
> honest conclusion of pragmatic truth be that this kind of absolute is
> unknowable?
>
The claim is that any sort of absolute truth is unknowable. So the use
of the absolute standard of truth leads to an extreme version of
agnosticism, which denies that we can know anything. Pragmatism is an
effort to salvage ourselves from that rather hopeless conclusion, in
which we do not claim to find absolutes and limit ourselves to assigning
truths to the knowable.
> If the universe began with a big bang and there is some reasonable math
> to conclude that this is possible, it is not a reasonable jump to
> conclude that the detonation had or did not have a divine spark. This is
> a case where pragmatic truth extends it's conclusions to the absolute.
>
If we can define what is meant by divine spark in a way that makes
predictions about the evidence, then we can test this idea like any
other. If we can't, then it is undefinable, and not something that can
be discussed.
David Adams
Mark Gilbert
Bill thoughtfully wrote:
> Don't you think that aetheism is kind of absolute claim? It is, after
> all, a claim to understand something that fundamentally falls beyond the
> realm of testable truth. If pragmatic truth can be used to prove
> absolutes, at least temporarily, then I would have to suggest that there
> is no category of absolute truth, because absolutes can never be known
> certainly but only temporarily, which means they're pragmatic.
Cool, you have stated the atheist position (at least mine) very well - there
is no category of absolute truth. My atheism, rather than being an absolute
claim, is really a rejection of the idea of absolute claims. When someone
asks me if God exists, I say that the concept of an absolute, transcendent
reality is meaningless. In practice, this comes to mean, "no, He doesn't
exist."
Some theists have accepted the argument that absolutes are meaningless and
have then argued that God is not an absolute, only exceptionally powerful
and so on. Similarly, some have argued that he is not immaterial, i.e. that
he does not transcend physical reality. For example, Thomas Jefferson said,
"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the
human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or
that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I
believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and
Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism,
this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But a heresy it certainly
is. Jesus told us indeed that 'God is a spirit,' but he has not defined
what a spirit is, nor said that it is not matter. And the antient fathers
generally, if not universally, held it to be matter: light and thin indeed,
an etherial gas; but still matter." [letter to John Adams, August 15, 1820]
This sort of material, non-transcendent God is vulnerable to arguments of
the evidential sort (there is no clear evidence for Him, we can't see Him,
etc.) and has fallen out of favor.
Since, as you point out, we can't come to know absolute truths though the
operation of temporary evidence, it is frequently said that absolute truths
are revealed truths - we learn them directly, and not through the collection
of evidence. Revelation, however, seems to strike people in a personal sort
of way, ranging from Oral Roberts' 90 foot tall vision of Jesus to the
complicated exegesis of the Jesus Seminar. So, ironically, "absolute"
truths end up being more relative than pragmatic truths, which we all reach
by observing the same material universe.
> Given the nature/quality of pragmatic truth, it's temporary qualities,
> isn't it dishonest to conclude an understanding of human ontology or
> lack thereof, and base it on this kind of truth. Wouldn't the only
> honest conclusion of pragmatic truth be that this kind of absolute is
> unknowable?
Agnostics, of course, stop right here, and you have understood their
position as well. They accept that absolute truths are real, but believe
that we have not or can not figure them out. Or, some argue, much as I
have, that absolute truths don't exist but then equivocate in order to avoid
offending theists. (If folks want to argue about my descriptions of
agnostics, let's start a new thread, okay?)
Cheers,
Mark Gilbert
Eric Pepke
On 15 May 1998, Ernest Fairchild wrote:
> There was a thread either on alt.atheism or alt.life.afterlife (can't
> remember which) that concerned "What does it feel like to be dead?" Although
> many different interpretations were given, I seem to remember only one, or
> perhaps two, say something in the vein of "It doesn't feel like _anything_,
> you twit, because you're _dead_."
I've never been dead, but I have been unconscious, and, except for the
occasional dream, I can't remember much of anything going on. By my
reckoning, I've done this somewhat more than 13,000 times. It doesn't
seem to me that it would be particularly easy to die without becoming
unconscious. Probably, unconsciousness would come first. So, it
seems highly likely that I'll be unconscious when I'm dead. If I'm
unconscious, it doesn't seem to me like there's anything to worry
about.
> The only thing I'm saying is that I'm withholding judgment on the issue
> until I'm dead. It's not like it will matter until then. If it's like
> unplugging a computer, then fine, I won't have anything to experience. If
> there's something else, then fine, I'll accept that, too.
Seems like an OK attitude to me. If I find out that I'm not really
dead after I'm dead, I'd be pretty surprised, though.
This reincarnation stuff doesn't really impress me, though. Let's say
you're reincarnated as a cockroach. Well, I've never seen a cockroach
write free verse poetry, Don Marquis notwithstanding. If I had past
lives, I certainly don't remember them. I'd like to, because it would
make life a lot more fun. I wouldn't be so pissed off at the
emotional unpleasantness of my childhood and adolescence, for example,
because I'd have other ones. (On the other hand, maybe they were all
rotten.) Yet I seem to be stuck with this one and all the bovine
fecal matter that it entails. So, what's the point?
-Eric
Eric Pepke
On 15 May 1998, Brenda Nelson wrote:
> Unfortunately, this is the so many people now view myth, and it's a darn
> shame. I say again: the purpose of myth is not to explain physical
> phenomena, but to communicate the commonalities of human existance in a
> meaningful way.
Certs is a breath mint. No, it's a candy mint. No, it's a breath
mint.
Myths do both. They explain physical reality, sometimes poorly,
sometimes well. They communicate experience, sometimes poorly,
somtimes well.
Zeus and his lightning bolts forged by Vulcan is one kind of myth. It
happens to be pretty useless as a predictive explanation, but it's
emotionally rich in some senses. Distribution of electrical charge is
another kind of myth. It's somewhat better as a predictive
explanation. Some people think it's dryer, but I like it.
As Carl Sagan well put it, the big bang is a modern creation myth. It
has the advantage of probably being accurate, and I find it a lot more
exciting than Genesis.
-Eric
Richard "Dick" Hudson
Mark wrote,
<snip>
>Not really. Before you are born you have nothing to lose, after you are
born
>you have everything to lose.
>
>Cheers,
>Mark.
This seems to me to imply a sort of consciousness which follows the
elimination of consciousness. My lack of consciousness prior to my birth
appears no different to me than a lack of the same after I die. As a Taoist
I disdain the idea of the continuity of the ego, either in a Christian
afterlife or a reincarnation. I take the Taoist-Zen approach to striving to
overcome the ego. For me this necessitates the elimination of an egoistic
afterlife. I find the idea of absolute death as a conclusion to this
existence quite comforting as opposed to a hell or even a heaven (the day to
day business of which sounds like hell to me).
Regards,
R. Hudson
Richard "Dick" Hudson
Paul Pfalzner wrote,
<snip>
>And thousands of years of talk about the afterlife have never led to
>any good evidence of such a phantasm. It is time to drop this idea
>which is clearly based on wishful thinking but has a total lack of
>credible substance.
>
>Give us a description of the afterlife, so we can see what you are
>talking about.
>
>Paul P.
>
<snip>
Do you think that those who propose an afterlife of endless existence have
ever really considered how a finite being would fit into such a world? I've
tried to think about it and the idea fills me with dread.
Regards,
R. Hudson
Paul Pfalzner
Bill (bi...@badbreath.com) writes:
> I appreciate the distinction between both kinds of truth. I learned
> something in your post.
>
> all, a claim to understand something that fundamentally falls beyond the
> realm of testable truth.
Hardly so. Atheism recognizes that theists make untestable claims.
Hence an atheist sees that such a claim is worthless and is quite
content to ignore theist untestable claims.
Or, in other words, atheists - if you wish to put it in positive
terms = know that someone does not know. And consequently, the
unsupported claim of the theist fails to get off the ground - it
remains a nullity.
If pragmatic truth can be used to prove
> absolutes, at least temporarily, then I would have to suggest that there
> is no category of absolute truth, because absolutes can never be known
> certainly but only temporarily, which means they're pragmatic.
Right
>
> Given the nature/quality of pragmatic truth, it's temporary qualities,
> isn't it dishonest to conclude an understanding of human ontology or
> lack thereof, and base it on this kind of truth. Wouldn't the only
> honest conclusion of pragmatic truth be that this kind of absolute is
> unknowable?
>
> If the universe began with a big bang and there is some reasonable math
> to conclude that this is possible, it is not a reasonable jump to
> conclude that the detonation had or did not have a divine spark. This is
> a case where pragmatic truth extends it's conclusions to the absolute.
The divine spart adds nothing to understanding and is empty. Hence,
again it simply is a nullity, an unnecessary hypothesis.
> Whadda you think?
I told ya.
Paul P.
gracie & hula
JonC49 wrote:
>
> The only place where your three options work is on a survey.
>
> If you don't have any idea, that is fine. Do not presume that because
> you, specifically, cannot come to terms that everyone else cannot.
> This qualifies as egocentrism.
I'm trying to make a philosophic argument about the soundness or
unsoundness of making knowledge claims about untestable things such as
the afterlife. What I am NOT doing is merely stating my own opinions
about the afterlife. How you came to that conclusion is hard to fathom,
but it would certainly be helpful if you tried to follow the argument
more closely.
>
> Science has never meant to be the "ACID" test. And playing with
> two distinct meanings of the term "science" is also avoiding the
> issues at discussion.
I'm quite glad you agree that science is not an acid test for this
problem. Perhaps you're willing to try persuade some of the OTHER
people posting to this thread of the same thing. Then we'd be getting
somewhere..
I must confess I have no idea what "two distinct meanings" of science
you think I'm playing with, nor how I am avoiding issues. Perhaps you
could you be more specific.
> In science, the phrase "I don't know" is invalid when it comes to
> making hypotheses. If a hypothesis is not proven, it is discarded.
> A new hypothesis is engendered. The key point is that in science
> (lab and everthing) is that there is an observation upon which the
> hypothesis is placed. There is a field in science that can be called
> "Creative Science", but here also the formulations are based on
> observed and past scientific knowledge.
>
> You are trying to get around this by pushing a debater's exercize.
> It will not work. And you cannot get away with calling it "science".
> When there is no basis for a hypothesis, there is nothing. To date,
> there is nothing to place the hypothesis of an after-life other than
> wishful thinking.
Where you got the idea that I'm making a scientific hypothesis about the
afterlife is baffling. I'm discussing philosophy - epistemology and
metaphysics to be specific. I'm NOT trying to bluff ANYBODY into
thinking this is science. Quite to the contrary, I'm extremely tired of
everyone who continues to argue that science applies to this issue in
some way. Science has NOTHING to say about the afterlife, theism,
atheism, or agnosticism, and the extent to which people keep saying it
does, is the extent to which they are misusing the term "science".
Perhaps you don't read much philosophy, Jon. And perhaps you don't care
for it much even if you do read it. That's all well and good - however,
the crux of my arguments are philosophical. I am not interested in
rhetorical debate, and I'm not interested in trying to fudge, trick,
badger, or bamboozle others in to agreeing with me. I'm interested in
the philosophical soundness of my own arguments and of the arguments of
those I respond to. If I'm wrong in my claims, then I stand to learn
something. That's about all there is to it.
I gather that you don't agree with anything I've stated so far, or at
least I haven't heard about it if you do. Well thought out arguments
which run countrary to my own are something I generally find helpful.
However, I have to say your counter arguments have little usefullness,
seeing that they seem to be built upon an extremely poor grasp of what I
have said throughout this thread.
hulahoop
gracie & hula
mau...@mail.com wrote:
>
> byr...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > Science like many other disciplines is founded on some very distinct
> > philosophic assumptions which it builds upon. For example, science is
> > grounded on the idea that the universe is orderly, where things happen
> > for a reason,.. cause and effect is arguably the most basic assumption
> > of science, but there are many others.
>
> experience that nature appears to operate in an orderly manner. The
> expectation that it will continue to do so is a matter of induction --
> which is weaker than deduction, but at least lacks the arbitrariness
> that "assumption" sometimes connotes.
>
> Maurile
I agree that orderliness is certainly in large part an observation, and
in many ways a testable one as well, but not entirely so. Perhaps it is
not worth quibbling about this, but I would just like to point out that
there is nothing arbitrary, unsound, or shameful about philosophic
"assumptions". They are entirely necessary for science to do what it
does. Furthermore, virtually all (if not all) disciplines are grounded
upon some form of basic assumptions.
How these assumptions get made, and how they change over time is a
subject I find particularly interesting. It was the focus of my
graduate school work, in fact. Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions" is a classic on the topic of the assumptions of
science. You are perhaps already familiar with it. If not, it's worth
looking at.
hulahoop
gracie & hula
Paul Pfalzner wrote:
>
> Science does assume, and test for, an orderly universe. And it does
> involve the very basic assumption of atheism, i.e. no supernatural
> interference in the order of the universe.
>
> Science, and its offspring, technology, confirm in the strongest way
> the validity of the scientific assumptions.
>
> Theology is totally unable to lead to testable predictions. If we
> only had theology, we would still be living in caves wearing hula skirts.
A philosophic assumption is just that - philosophical. Science
has no means by which to test it's basic philosophic assumptions, as
scientific authority does not extend into the realm of philosophy.
Philosophy has it's own means of testing assumptions.
Having said this however, I agree that there are many pragmatic reasons
why science makes the assumptions that it does. Nevertheless, just
because they are "pragmatic" doesn't mean they are not philosophic
assumptions all the same.
Contrary to your suggestion, belief in an orderly universe doesn't
preclude theism. Since (for arguments sake) God could still effect the
order of the universe - he would merely does so in an orderly causal
fashion. What's more, one could argue that that God's existence is not
contingent on the fact that he MUST interfere in the order of the
universe at all. God might simply sit back and watch.
There ARE theists who make such arguments. I don't find them
particularly compelling, however that is neither here nor there. The
point is that such arguments do not conflict with scientific assumptions
about the universe. As for your point about theology being unable to
lead to testable predictions, I agree. However, it doesn't seem clear
to me that making testable predictions was ever one of theology's goals.
So, to that extent it hardly seems like a critique.
hulahoop
Mark Barton
>Ernest Fairchild wrote:
>>
>> Bull. Disbelief in an afterlife is not a "knowledge claim," as you put it.
>> Saying that there IS something else after life is over _IS_ a claim,
>> however.
>>
>> Most Atheists take the same stance about an afterlife that they do about
>> God: until it's proven that something is there, we will assume that there is
>> not.
[snip]
>To my thinking, it is self-evident that "I don't know" is not a
>knowledge claim. On the other hand, "I disbelieve" as well as "I
>believe" seem to me to be entirely different than "I don't know". I
>have accounted for this difference by pointing out that both are
>knowledge claims. (Don't give me credit for coining the term
>incidentally, it is a common enough term in certain area's of
>philosophy). Nevertheless, I may be using the term wrongly, and perhaps
>I am mistaken. You seem pretty certain that I'm wrong about it. I
>don't think I am, but I'm willing to hear your thinking on it. You say
>the matter is real simple,.. so perhaps you can go over it again with
>me, and help me figure some things out.
>
>Firstly, please tell me the distinction between "I believe", "I
>disbelieve", and "I don't know". In particular, tell me whether the
>last two are equivalent or not. If they are not, please tell me how
>they differ. If they are equivalent, then please tell me how the
>atheist can differ from the agnostic. These are the things I don't
>understand about your position.
As an atheist, I wouldn't particularly defend Ernest's presentation. There
are at least four different positions here and (like most theists) he's
failing to make an important distinction.
First note that there are two different flavours of atheism: strong and
weak. The strong position can be summarised
(i) "I believe there is no God."
The weak position is
(ii) "I do not believe there is a God."
If by "I disbelieve in God" you mean (i) then you are quite right that it
is a knowledge claim and needs to be justified by evidence. However (ii)
is not. In fact the position of the majority of "atheists" is probably
(ii), at least with respect to a generic anthropomorphic universe-creating
God. (Some atheists are weak about Gods in general but strong about
specific Gods such as Jahweh.)
Now this sounds like double talk to a lot of theists because they are not
very practiced in trying out an argument in many different contexts to
check it for flaws. Indeed it _is_ doubletalk in the case where something
has strong evidence in favour of it. Consider:
(iii) "I believe the sun will not rise tomorrow."
and
(iv) "I do not believe the sun will rise tomorrow."
Since we have strong inductive evidence that the sun will rise, (iii) is
totally unreasonable. Theoretically (iv) is reasonable and one might
advocate it to make a philosophic point. However as a practical matter it
is nearly as unreasonable as (iii) unless there is strong countering
evidence, e.g., that the earth will be hit by a comet tonight.
However now consider
(v) "I believe I will not win the lottery."
(vi) "I do not believe I will win the lottery."
If you have no knowledge about the lottery other than that you have a
ticket and the lottery has not been drawn yet, then (v) is somewhat
unreasonable. It is logically possible that you could win, and there is no
way of disproving this. Yet (vi) is not the slightest bit unreasonable -
on the contrary it is a very sensible attitude. It is related to
agnosticism and in a sense includes it (cf, "I do not know whether I will
win the lottery.) but goes beyond it. Nobody actually wallows in
indecision about lotteries - sensible people proceed as if they are not
going to win, because planning for a lottery win costs precious time for
negligible average payoff.
Now theists show every sign of being convinced by the arguments they use,
and also every sign of being unable to imagine that someone might fail to
be impressed, at least to some extent. God, to theists, is like the sun
rising tomorrow. Therefore, to theists, weak atheism sounds like evasive
doubletalk, and it is never included in classifications drawn up by
theists. However to anyone who has gotten into the habit of looking for
circular and question-begging arguments, traditional theistic arguments
look really, really threadbare. The only argument that I find so much as
suggestive is the argument for design ("minds are known to create complex
systems, so a big mind in the sky creating the universe is a possibility
to be checked out"). However it appears that as a matter of historical
fact, most of the organised complexity in the universe was created by
evolution, and all known minds are more complex than the systems they
design and consume vastly more order in running costs than what they
output. Therefore, for me, "God" is nothing more than a single random
lottery ticket in the infinite lottery of idle speculations about ultimate
origins, and my attitude to it is the very sensible (vi). That is, I
neither a strong atheist nor an agnostic but a weak atheist and I will
vigorously protest being left out of classifications.
Cheers,
Mark B.
--
Please remove the spam block (both bits) from my address to reply.
If you receive this by email, note that it was posted as well. Please
make your preferences about CCing known. My default is to CC when
answering a serious query or if I severely criticise a post.
Paul Pfalzner
> unsoundness of making knowledge claims about untestable things such as
> the afterlife.
Making knowledge claims about untestable things is a fraud.
Such claims can only be faith claims.
So you need not bother to go on and on with your postings.
Paul P.
JonC49
In article <355E7FDD...@earthlink.net>, gracie & hula
<byr...@earthlink.net> writes:
> What I am NOT doing is merely stating my own opinions
>about the afterlife. How you came to that conclusion is hard
>to fathom, but it would certainly be helpful if you tried to follow
>the argument more closely.
>
>
The argument is totally about esoterics and atmospherics.
And you do presume too much from your lofty seat. You
have no idea of my scholastic background. But it really does
not make any difference. My point is that your argument will
remain meaningless as long as you insist that the rest of us
accept your particular notion that, philosophically, there is an
afterlife.
That is fine for theses and dissertations. It is useless to the
question of whether there is an actuality that can be termed
"the afterlife". You want to argue "what ifs". We rather state
our opinions. At the very least, they are more real than any
scenarios you might want to paint.
I will distill your presentation down to this question: "Do you
honestly know that there is an afterlife?" If you do, then please
provide us with your definition. I am willing to bet that it has
less to do with what it is than it does with what philosophy says
it might be.
There are times when "philosophy" overflows with too much
verbiage to be useful. There are actually two kinds of
philosophies. One that deals with life and the other one
goes for the best grade.
I shall not stoop to ask you to try to "to follow the argument
more closely." I have not signed up for your classes just like
you haven't signed up for any of mine. ;-)
For your sensibility, I will withdraw my meager attempts at
participating in such meaningful exchange of ideas. And I
shall not view your post as a posturing because you really
do not know me. (How's that for a "knowledge" claim?)
Mark Gilbert
> Paul Pfalzner wrote:
> >
> > Science does assume, and test for, an orderly universe. And it does
> > involve the very basic assumption of atheism, i.e. no supernatural
> > interference in the order of the universe.
Everyone in this "just anotheR thought" thread seems to agree that science
makes assumptions, but I don't get it.
Thousands of times, scientists have seen masses attract each other with a force
proportional to the product of their masses and inverserly proportional to the
square of the distance between them, and so they say, "Gee, that will probably
happen again the next time I observe two masses." What have they assumed?
As for the assumption that there is no supernatural interference in the order
of the universe, they only thing they need assume is that things that can't
impinge on their instruments will not impinge on their instruments, which is
not an assumption at all.
Mark Gilbert
Mark Gilbert
David R Adams wrote:
> . . . So by atheism I mean the claim
> that the there is no evidence which supports the existence of god, and
> in the absence of such evidence we should give this belief zero
> credence.
You make it sound so tidy and simple. In fact, there is evidence that God
exists: prayers do come true sometimes, and there are a great many
testimonials available, many of them from bright and otherwise sensible
people. (And don't go pooh-poohing testimonials - we all accept this sort of
evidence in many situations.)
Of course, the evidence isn't very good. But, more importantly, we have
overwhelming evidence for the naturalistic worldview, and God just doesn't fit
into that worldview.
Mark Gilbert
Bill
David R Adams wrote:
> I'm assuming we are talking about about the truth of something which the
> pragmatist considers within the bounds, meaning there could possibly be
> evidence which supports a belief in god. So by atheism I mean the claim
> that the there is no evidence which supports the existence of god, and
> in the absence of such evidence we should give this belief zero
> credence.
I think this is a biased approach to the argument, sort of an "innocent
until proven guilty" kind of idea. The essence of the idea seems to be
this: if we cannot prove god exists or a supernatural exists, then we
can safely assume that one does not exist. There is also, in the same
sense of what you're talking about no evidence to support the idea that
one does not exist. The idea that there is no god is not the default
setting of the universe. So we cannot assume with any certainty that
when we do not see evidence to support a god that one does not exist.
The evidence does not "say" anything in this regard at all, does it? It
simply suggests that a big bang may have kicked off the universe. It
says there is some probability that the ability to form the universe was
probably contained within the universe itself. Where is god or no god in
these ideas? Either idea is an add-on, I think.
> If by theism you mean a belief in a god that is truly
> unknowable (one that can or will never leave any evidence), then the
> pragmatist view would be that such a belief is not even definable. This
> is because in order to assess pragmatic truth we must have a way to
> assess the evidence. Therefore, such beliefs fall outside the
> pragmatist system and the truth of them can't be discussed.
Do you believe that atheism is something that is supported by the
pragmatist system? I say atheism is still an assertion about the
existence of an eternal being who/that exists outside of the human
experience. It is still a "theistic" assertion -- it makes an assertion
about god\s. And it is an absolute claim, not a pragmatic one. Atheism
does not say "we can't find any evidence for god at this time." This to
my mind would be an honest and fair claim. Atheism states "there is no
god." If we cannot know that a god exists then we certainly cannot
conclude with any certainty that the opposite is true. Both are
assertions of ontological proportions and are absolute claims. [They are
absolute claims in the sense that they state a final, and certain
conclusion, one that is universally, for all times people, and places,
true.] How can any pragmatic system support any kind of this truth?
> The claim is that any sort of absolute truth is unknowable. So the use
> of the absolute standard of truth leads to an extreme version of
> agnosticism, which denies that we can know anything. Pragmatism is an
> effort to salvage ourselves from that rather hopeless conclusion, in
> which we do not claim to find absolutes and limit ourselves to assigning
> truths to the knowable.
I agree that this is what pragmatism represents, but then pragmatism
itself becomes a belief system, don't you think? And, you're beginning
to make pragmatism sound a little religious. Do we need to be saved from
our conclusion? Do we have to do it ourselves?
> If we can define what is meant by divine spark in a way that makes
> predictions about the evidence, then we can test this idea like any
> other. If we can't, then it is undefinable, and not something that can
> be discussed.
Wouldn't you agree that not all truth -- pragmatic or otherwise -- is
testable? Do you have a pet? I used to have a pet cat. What about my pet
can I test? Will the tests ultimately help me understand what that cat
is to me? If I can't use tests to help me determine what a cat is to me
or anyone else, then what is the likelyhood that a little bit of math is
going to be able to explain the relationship of an electron to its
nucleus?
What can pragmatic truth assert for certain?
Bill
Bill
Shaad M. Ahmad wrote:
> I would tend to use the term provisional rather than temporary,
> since temporary suggests lasting only for a limited time, and it
> seems quite unlikely that our notions of say genes and DNA are going
> to last only for a limited time.
Spoken like a true scientist: "it seems quite unlikely." That's about as
conclusive as anyone should ever get. Can we use the same terms to
assert atheism? I could go along with something like this: "It seems
quite unlikely that god/s exist."
>
> But you might want to elaborate on what it is you mean by
> absolute truth, before we begin discussing whether we are capable
> of ever "knowing" it.
Absolute claims in the sense that they state a final, and certain
conclusion, one that is universally, for all times and places, true.
>
> Only if it is dishonest to not believe in pixies, djinns, fairies,
> leprechauns, etc. Or if it is dishonest for you to disbelieve my
> assertion that there's an intangible monkey sitting on your shoulder
> that only I can see. You see, I can make any number of lurid and, to
> use your term, "unknowable" assertions like this; but would you waste
> your time believing them?
I'm fairly sure that you couldn't prove or disprove the existence of
anything you've mentioned. I don't even think I could with argument and
tests scientifically prove that there is not an intangible monkey
sitting on my shoulder (which one by the way?) Your assertion that there
is a monkey on my shoulder or the assertion that a big explosion began
our world are equivalent claims to me. Why? because I don't have the
knowledge or expertise to check the math that supports the big explosion
theory. I don't know enough about the stars to know what's happening in
space. So, I end up having to trust someone who says he/she knows what
the hell is happening. In fact, the people who ask me to trust them and
live my life as if their assertions are true I know even less than I
know you. They want me to trust that they didn't make some mathmatic
mistake somewhere. The issue of whether the big bang occured or not,
then, becomes an issue of trust (faith, if you prefer). I cannot know
the way the scientist knows -- he/she knows because they can work things
out in a lab and witness the conclusion. I am not part of that club and
so all my knowledge of what goes on in that world comes to me through
word-of-mouth (usually second hand, second hand reports), in which case
I must trust the person who told it to me, or I must trust the media's
portrayal of it. People I have no personal knowledge of want me forsake
any personal beliefs I might have formed and go with their set of ideas
for me. I don't trust bankers for my money, and I don't trust scientists
for my thoughts.
In some respects, I'm more likely to be able to investigate and
prove/disprove your claim than I can ever discover about the claims some
people make about the universe. CAn you honestly tell me that you know
the math and science that has lead to the idea that there is no god? Or
do you, like most of the rest of the world, rely on someone else's
reports that the world is the way it is? Have you read a couple of books
by Carl Sagan, David Suzuki, or a text book that summarizes feats of
science and generalize its meaning for the general public? I assume you
probably reached your conclusion based on others'reports of what they
think they see in the world. That's how I reach most of my conclusions.
To actually experience something first hand, and, therefore, to know it
firsthand, is too much damn work.
> If not, why then should we extend special treatment to the
> notion of a deity?
Ultimately, I think what you're saying, and I agree with you, is that
anyone can make claims about anything. But here's my problem: how do I
know your claims are less valid that Stephen H's? If I count the number
of book publications and TV appearances Stephen H has, then, he seems
much more credible than you do. If I am honest about what I know about
Stephen H, apart from the media, I know nothing of him and, his
credibility, therefore, to me is heresay. On the other hand, I know a
little more about you. I've actually participated in a conversation with
you.
I suspect you of giving me your own report of hand-me-down science. What
do you actually know you know?
Bill
David Starner
Mark Gilbert wrote:
> Thousands of times, scientists have seen masses attract each other with a force
> proportional to the product of their masses and inverserly proportional to the
> square of the distance between them, and so they say, "Gee, that will probably
> happen again the next time I observe two masses." What have they assumed?
The consistency of the universe.
>
> As for the assumption that there is no supernatural interference in the order
> of the universe, they only thing they need assume is that things that can't
> impinge on their instruments will not impinge on their instruments, which is
> not an assumption at all.
instruments,
it would start to be natural. I've always believed that if magic was
discovered to be true, within 50-60 years it would be just another
branch of science and engineering.
--
David Starner - dstar...@aasaa.ofe.org
& is a twist!