Does it take faith to be an atheist?
russell
fully and completley an atheist. He feels sure that there
is no GOD. I have told him that this strong a belief, in or
against god, requires faith. Am I right in this assertaion?
RW
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Carol Ann
Of course it does, it requires a profound belief in the ability of
matter to organize itself in an intelligent manner to create life
spontaneously, to evolve beyond the mere bacteria, to cohere into
celestials forms, and to create itself, whether from a big bang or a
steady state universe. It boggles the mind, and requires a leap of
faith that many scientists can't do!
>
--
Best regards,
Carol Ann
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
bo...@pacbell.net
as to is there a God? My upbringing part of me would readily agree, Yes. But Now that I am grown and have more knowledge I ask or question the facts and
regarding the truth.
Regards,
Belinda
Dr. Necrophage
russell <rew77N...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
> I am currentlly in a debate with someone who says that he is
> fully and completley an atheist. He feels sure that there
> is no GOD. I have told him that this strong a belief, in or
> against god, requires faith. Am I right in this assertaion?
>
> RW
Hello.
It occurs to me that you possibly mean the 'debate' we are engaged in.
I am pretty doubtful that this is the case since your above straw man
hardly even resembles me or represents any statements I have
actually made.
Those interested in what might really be going on can check the 'to the
atheists' post in alt.philosophy and see the 'debate' for themselves and
make their own judgements.
As to the question of this post it depends entirely on how broadly you
have decided to define the word 'faith' and just what *exactly* you mean
by 'god,' and 'belief.'
--
Dr. Necrophage
'Everything the State says is a Lie and everything it has it
has stolen' - Nietzsche
russell
opinion. It seems to me that you have ruled out all
possibillity of a god, which goes beyond scepticism, and
direct into a matter of faith. Just as one can not prove
that there is a god, you can not prove that there is not
one.
Dr. Necrophage
<rew77N...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
> Dear sir, I feel we may have here a slight difference in
> opinion. It seems to me that you have ruled out all
> possibillity of a god, which goes beyond scepticism, and
> direct into a matter of faith. Just as one can not prove
> that there is a god, you can not prove that there is not
> one.
My point is that unless unequivical evidence *for* a 'god' thingy can
be produced I will not 'believe' in one. It matters not if a 'god'
thingy 'really' exist or not; unless unequivical evidence is produced
that supports the proposition that a 'god' thingy exists there is no
reason to suppose that one does.
Dr. Necrophage
'The Old Ones were, the Old Ones are, the Old Ones shall be!'
- Abd Alhazrad
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
russell
> My point is that unless unequivical evidence *for* a
> 'god' thingy can
> be produced I will not 'believe' in one. It matters
> not if a 'god'
> thingy 'really' exist or not; unless unequivical
> evidence is produced
> that supports the proposition that a 'god' thingy
> exists there is no
> reason to suppose that one does.
> Dr. Necrophage
takes faith. If as you say u"nless unequivical evidence
*for* a 'god' thingy can be produced I will not 'believe' in
to believe in this "god thingy". But by the same token can
I not say that without "UNEQUIVICAL" proof that god does not
exsist, to believe that he does not, beyond the shadow of a
doubt too takes a great deal of faith.
RW
Dr. Necrophage
> > My point is that unless unequivical evidence *for* a
> > 'god' thingy can be produced I will not 'believe' in one. It
> > matters not if a 'god' thingy 'really' exist or not; unless
> > unequivical evidence is produced that supports the proposition that
> > a 'god' thingy exists there is no reason to suppose that one does.
> > Dr. Necrophage
russell <rew77N...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
> I do understand your point, my only arguement is that this
> takes faith. If as you say "unless unequivical evidence
> *for* a 'god' thingy can be produced I will not 'believe' in
> one." Than you would obviouslly assume that it takes faith
> to believe in this "god thingy". But by the same token can
> I not say that without "UNEQUIVICAL" proof that god does not
> exsist, to believe that he does not, beyond the shadow of a
> doubt too takes a great deal of faith.
> RW
If you were to look carefully at my whole statement I do *not* say what
you seem to think I do. I specifically say that it does not matter if
'god' thingies are real or not, untill positive evidence *for* them is
provided I will not believe in them. Under what definition of 'faith'
does that fit?
russell
Roger Johansson
>Dear sir, I feel we may have here a slight difference in
>opinion. It seems to me that you have ruled out all
>possibillity of a god, which goes beyond scepticism, and
>direct into a matter of faith. Just as one can not prove
>that there is a god, you can not prove that there is not
>one.
That difference might be resolved if you examined the concept of
"proof". There are idealistic proofs, like how we can prove that 1+1=2
in a certain mathematical context. There are empiristic proofs, like
we can prove that there is a sun which the earth revolves around.
Maybe you are not aware what kind of proof your opponents are using.
Roger
Linda Houle
russell <rew77N...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:02ef1022...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com...
> I am currentlly in a debate with someone who says that he is
> fully and completley an atheist. He feels sure that there
> is no GOD. I have told him that this strong a belief, in or
> against god, requires faith. Am I right in this assertaion?
>
> RW
>
Your assertion is absolutely correct. Atheism, in fact takes more faith
than beleiving in God. This is because beleiving in God is the acceptable
thing to do: it's safe and there's no need to figure things out when
everythings explained with religion.
To be an athiest, is to erase what you've been told, and basically build
another beleif that you actually do beleive in.
It takes courage to be an athiest.
russell
priori knoeledge, for every proof that 1+1=2 there is an equal proof
that it is something else.
RW
russell
modern man is always ready to call a christian a foolish (wo)man of
faith, but has no real proof in their own beliefs. I myself am
somewhat of an atheist, and am most certainlly not religious in a
traditional way, yet totally ruling out the possibility that there is a
god is a huge leap...is it not?
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
Dr. Necrophage <dr_necroph...@disinfo.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:1415c574...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com...
> russell <rew77N...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
> > I do understand your point, my only arguement is that this
> > takes faith. If as you say "unless unequivical evidence
> > *for* a 'god' thingy can be produced I will not 'believe' in
> > one." Than you would obviouslly assume that it takes faith
> > to believe in this "god thingy". But by the same token can
> > I not say that without "UNEQUIVICAL" proof that god does not
> > exsist, to believe that he does not, beyond the shadow of a
> > doubt too takes a great deal of faith.
> > RW
>
> If you were to look carefully at my whole statement I do *not* say what
> you seem to think I do. I specifically say that it does not matter if
> 'god' thingies are real or not, untill positive evidence *for* them is
> provided I will not believe in them. Under what definition of 'faith'
> does that fit?
>
> Dr. Necrophage
you are charging yourself with "non thinking".....you are saying you do not
consider any possibility until it pops up and declares its "realness" in a way
that will satisfy you....where is the philosophy of this sort of thinking or
"non-thinking"? your opposition may well say "not until some positive evidence
is provided that "they" indeed do *not* exist i will continue to believe in
it"...... what is the difference and what objection would you have?.....you
would have only one "card" to play and that would be: in your opinion; only
that which is *positively known* can be considered real.....but then you have
opened a whole can of scientific worms that are not considered *positively*
known but are considered "real" for the moment until proven
differently.......much that is known about "black holes", what it contains, in
what form, depth, etc is often intelligent speculation with some of our great
minds speaking of time travel, opening into other dimensions and so
on.......and no one blinks an eye........
g.
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
russell <rew77N...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:02ef1022...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com...
> I am currentlly in a debate with someone who says that he is
> fully and completley an atheist. He feels sure that there
> is no GOD. I have told him that this strong a belief, in or
> against god, requires faith. Am I right in this assertaion?
>
> RW
it requires faith to believe in one's beliefs as oppose to anothers beliefs
especially so when it comes to religion......there are no facts supporting a
god and no facts supporting a non-god......and that is a supportable
fact......based on lack of facts...if this can be understood......agnosticism
is the only way to go........
g.
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
<bo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:38199536...@pacbell.net...
> I am not an atheist. I am an sceptic. To believe that there is Gad is what
you have been wrought into to believe. But did you or have you question your
self
> as to is there a God? My upbringing part of me would readily agree, Yes. But
Now that I am grown and have more knowledge I ask or question the facts and
> regarding the truth.
>
> Regards,
> Belinda
you are aware that bertand russell observed that skepticism as a philosophy is
not merely doubt, but what may be called dogmatic doubt....the man of science
says "i think it is this, the intellectual curious will say "i don't know, but
hope to find out..the septic will say "nobody knows, nobody ever can know"
if you ask questions with no agenda on your mind other than to seek "truth" you
would be an agnostic.....who suspends judgment when evidence is lacking and is
critical- minded rather than negative-minded.....the only way to go...
g.
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
russell <re...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1c31fd54...@usw-ex0106-041.remarq.com...
> Thank you linda, that is how i had expected it. It seems to me that
> modern man is always ready to call a christian a foolish (wo)man of
> faith, but has no real proof in their own beliefs. I myself am
> somewhat of an atheist, and am most certainlly not religious in a
> traditional way, yet totally ruling out the possibility that there is a
> god is a huge leap...is it not?
that would make you an agnostic....
Rusty Wiley
<rew77N...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
>I do understand your point, my only arguement is that this
>takes faith. If as you say u"nless unequivical evidence
>*for* a 'god' thingy can be produced I will not 'believe' in
>one." Than you would obviouslly assume that it takes faith
>to believe in this "god thingy". But by the same token can
>I not say that without "UNEQUIVICAL" proof that god does not
>exsist, to believe that he does not, beyond the shadow of a
>doubt too takes a great deal of faith.
I think that the good Dr. has room for his point of view. There is the
possible view that one would choose to believe in a god thingy. There
is the possible view that one would choose to not believe in a god
thingy. I believe that leaving it at this sets up a false dichotomy.
It is possible that one not choose to hold a belief. One could find
having a belief position unnecessary.
If one is permitted to entertain this middle position then it is not
necessary that one fall into agnosticism. One could fall to atheism on
the same basis. To fall to agnosticism from that standpoint one would
have to choose to examine for a possible god thingy. One does not,
necessarily, have to make the effort to test for a possible god thingy.
We can rationalize anything and it is not unreasonable for any one of us
to say that we would await the presentation of cause or evidence form
another before we would choose to do the research.
If one says that it is not necessary to entertain a belief in god
thingies and that it is not necessary to test for possible god thingies,
then is there faith involved in the stating that this one chooses to
refrain from entertaining a belief in god thingies? I would say that
you *may* have an argument for laziness in that you could claim that
such a one does not see the real necessity, but I am not confident that
you have a claim that such a one is making any leap of faith.
Rusty
kojak
Linda Houle wrote in message
>
> russell <rew77N...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:02ef1022...@usw-ex0108-062.remarq.com...
> > I am currentlly in a debate with someone who says that he is
> > fully and completley an atheist. He feels sure that there
> > is no GOD. I have told him that this strong a belief, in or
> > against god, requires faith. Am I right in this assertaion?
> >
> > RW
> >
>
> than beleiving in God. This is because beleiving in God is the acceptable
> thing to do: it's safe and there's no need to figure things out when
> everythings explained with religion.
> To be an athiest, is to erase what you've been told, and basically build
> another beleif that you actually do beleive in.
> It takes courage to be an athiest.
Careful Linda. You've given an incorrect interpretation of atheism. The lack
of belief, disbelief or not believing does not imply that an alternative
belief system must replace it. Atheism is NOT 'a belief that God does not
exist' that would be a contradiction to an atheist. It takes no faith to
disbelieve in God. Atheists in general are interested in truth (reason) and
are the ones who ask sceptical questions. They are given 'answers' by those
who don't really have any answers and this gives rise to much resentment and
bitterness.
Using such interpretations are a weapon against atheism which only becomes
yet another theism.
Linda Houle
genein <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7vf264$a0v$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
nd...@my-deja.com
russell <rew77N...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
> 1+1=2 is not a mathematical certainty, it is only achieved through a
> priori knoeledge, for every proof that 1+1=2 there is an equal proof
> that it is something else.
>
the accepted meanings of the symbols "1", "2", "+", and "=", forthwith.
My eyes are glued to the screen.
russell
in god persay, but if someone does I greatly anticipate
their arguements, as I conceede that it is impossible to
actually KNOW for certain, while still human.
RW
russell
> without altering
> the accepted meanings of the symbols "1", "2", "+",
> and "=", forthwith.
Ok, here we go. Any prrof that you have that 1+1=2 is
based on 1x+1x=2x with x being a great number of things,
fingers, peices of chalk, computer microprocessors, but by
the same rational I can say that x=drop of water. and that
if I were to put one drop of water and one drop of water
together I would have 1 drop of water so in that case
1dow+1dow=1dow, as the question 1+1 makes no room for
size...unless specifically asked. I can also say 1rabit
and 1 rabit kept together in a cage, if the circumstances
are right would equal maybe 8 rabitts....so 1x+1X=8X. I
understand that this is semantic bullnonsence, but the fact
remains the same, if the only proof of 1+1=2 that you have
is to take one of one thing and one of another and make
two, I can show you up...........by making 1+1 equal all
sorts of numbers depending on how creative I feel. The
fact does remain though that it is blatently obvious that
1+1 does in fact + 2, so how do we know this.....this is
called "a priori" knowledge, an equation such as 1+1 could
never be known posteriorlly(is that the right usage of that
word?)
Dr. Necrophage
> > russell <rew77N...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > I do understand your point, my only arguement is that this
> > > *for* a 'god' thingy can be produced I will not 'believe' in
> > > one." Than you would obviouslly assume that it takes faith
> > > to believe in this "god thingy". But by the same token can
> > > I not say that without "UNEQUIVICAL" proof that god does not
> > > doubt too takes a great deal of faith.
> > > RW
Dr. Necrophage wrote:
> > If you were to look carefully at my whole statement I do *not* say
> > what you seem to think I do. I specifically say that it does not
> > matter if 'god' thingies are real or not, untill positive evidence
> > *for* them is provided I will not believe in them. Under what
> > definition of 'faith' does that fit?
"genein" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> you are charging yourself with "non thinking".....you are saying you
> do not consider any possibility until it pops up and declares its
> "realness" in a way that will satisfy you....
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that I will not believe
in the existence of 'god' thingies, 'Grey Aliens,' the 'Loch Ness
Monster,' 'Santa Claus,' 'psychic powers,' etc. untill I am provided
with unequivical evidence that they do, in fact, exist. I couldn't care
less whether they 'really' exist or not, without unequivical evidence
*for* them I will not believe.
"genein" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> where is the philosophy of this sort of thinking or "non-thinking"?
> your opposition may well say "not until some positive evidence is
> provided that "they" indeed do *not* exist i will continue to believe
> in it"......
So what? People choose to believe in all kinds of crazy things. That
people choose to believe in a thing is not proof of that thing's real
factual existance. Of what use is it to say you will believe in things
untill they are proven *not* to exist? If you accept that principle,
then I have a really nice bridge you might like buy.
"genein" <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> what is the difference and what objection would you have?.....you
> would have only one "card" to play and that would be: in your opinion;
> only that which is *positively known* can be considered real.....but
> then you have opened a whole can of scientific worms that are not
> considered *positively* known but are considered "real" for the moment
> until proven differently.......much that is known about "black holes",
> what it contains, in what form, depth, etc is often intelligent
> speculation with some of our great minds speaking of time travel,
> opening into other dimensions and so on.......and no one blinks an
> eye........
I'll play that card. Scientists can speculate about whatever they wish.
Until they come up with *evidence* that supports their speculations
there is no reason to accept them as 'real.' Speculation can lead to
many usefull and interesting things, but untill it produces results that
can be examined or used it remains merely speculation.
--
Dr. Necrophage
'Everything the State says is a Lie and everything
it has it has stolen' - Nietzsche
Roger Johansson
>'Everything the State says is a Lie and everything
> it has it has stolen' - Nietzsche
Could you please tell me where in his writings Nietzsche has written
those words?
I have read a lot of Nietzsche, but I cannot remember him saying
something like that.
Roger
Dr. Necrophage
Well, the above quote (which is paraphrased a tad) is to be found in
'Thus Spoke Zarathustra,' part 1, the chapter titled 'On the New Idol'
it is on pg 161 of Penguin publishing's 'The portable Neitzche'
(translated by Walter Kaufman):
'But the State tells lies in all the tongues of good and evil; whatever
is says it lies --- and whatever is has it has stolen.'
I found it in the form I have used it on web site I like. I think they
may have gotten it from a different translation, but I didn't think the
differences were enough to change the overall gist of what Nietzsche
meant.
--
Dr. Necrophage
'Everything the State says is a Lie and everything it has it has
stolen' - Nietzsche
or
'But the State tells lies in all the tongues of good and evil; whatever
is says it lies --- and whatever is has it has stolen.' - Nietzsche
Roger Johansson
>Well, the above quote (which is paraphrased a tad) is to be found in
>'Thus Spoke Zarathustra,' part 1, the chapter titled 'On the New Idol'
>it is on pg 161 of Penguin publishing's 'The portable Neitzche'
>(translated by Walter Kaufman):
>I found it in the form I have used it on web site I like. I think they
>may have gotten it from a different translation, but I didn't think the
>differences were enough to change the overall gist of what Nietzsche
>meant.
Your quote, a "tad paraphrased" gives the impression that Nietzsche
supports free enterprise, libertarianism, capitalism, and is against
the federal state. This is a quite common message today on the
internet and in our society. So it is not so strange that people try
to find support for this ideology in famous writers works.
But Nietzsche had no such intentions with his writings, this quote is
based on false assumptions, paraphrased to fit into the paradigm of
today, the post-cold-war capitalism.
In the same chapter he says; Those useless people who make a lot of
money, and they only get poorer that way. They want power, and the
crowbar of power, money. These impotents.
He was not for the capitalists, he hated them and despised their sick
love of money and power.
When he talks about what the state steals, he is not talking about a
federal state, and he is not talking about material stealing of goods
or money, he is talking about totally different things and values.
In the same chapter he writes:
"The state steals the invention from the inventor, the wisdom from the
wise. What the state has stolen it calls knowledge.."
The "state" in american language has come to mean the federal state in
Washington. But this is a misconception of the original meaning of the
word state, as it has been used throughout history and in the rest of
the world.
The state is the organisation of the society, that is, all forms of
cooperation and organisation of our society and our world.
To use american examples the state is how neighbors cooperate to
organise their kids birthday parties, how you decide to play baseball
on an open field on sunday, how you organise your schools, how you
organise your work at every workplace, how you buy your car, how you
pay your rent to your landlord, how you buy or build your house, how
you organise the building of roads and bridges, how old women stand
behind their curtains and gossip about what happens in the
neighborhood, how men go to the bar and discuss what to do about those
lazy kids who hang out on the corner, how private security companies
and the police keep the neighborhood decent, how the health care is
organised, etcetera
All that together is the state. That is the organisation of our
society.
Nietzsche is only interested in some parts of that society, the
spiritual side.
He talks about a repressive society which strangles the intelligent
and gifted people, to the advantage and comfort of the big stupid
masses.
To take a few carefully selected words from him, misinterpret them
grossly, and paraphrase the result into a support for capitalism is to
bend his intentions far beyond any reasonable interpretation.
This is intellectual dishonesty and lack of education coupled with
linguistic confusion, combined to give a totally false impression.
If you read a little of Nietzsches own writings you would know that he
in no way stood for the message this mis-quote seems to convey.
He stood for the freedom of the individual, freedom from the power of
money, freedom from rumoring old women, freedom from all kinds of
authorities based on stupidity and bigotry.
Roger
Adrian Planinc
<gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>you are aware that bertand russell observed that skepticism as a philosophy is
>not merely doubt, but what may be called dogmatic doubt....the man of science
>says "i think it is this, the intellectual curious will say "i don't know, but
>hope to find out..the septic will say "nobody knows, nobody ever can know"
This is why Objectivism rejects Skepticism is the same light
as it rejects Mysticism. In both cases, the status of the
Human as a Rational Being is violated. In one case out of a
belief that reason cannot identify truth, and in the other
case that truth can be found in faith and intuition and that
groups create their own realities, supposedly independent of
concrete existence and evidence.
Adrian
Adrian Planinc
<gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>it requires faith to believe in one's beliefs as oppose to anothers beliefs
>especially so when it comes to religion......there are no facts supporting a
>god and no facts supporting a non-god......and that is a supportable
>fact......based on lack of facts...if this can be understood......agnosticism
>is the only way to go........
Agreed.
On the other hand, quite often in these arguments, we are
dealing with the agendas of *particular* religions. You
don't have to get far into a thread about the existence of
God before you find something about Christians justifying
the possibility that the story of Jonah and the Whale is
"literally" a true account or atheists saying that its
nonsense how the Red Sea supposedly parted.
Certain things can be proven to a point at which it would
seem somewhat insane to hold opposing views. For instance,
to harp on about how the Universe was created 6,000 years
ago seems quite off centre given all the evidence that shows
that it would only be possible if reality as we know it was
distorted to begin with. And that begs the questions of
personal reality, do I see blue as green but call it blue as
everyone sees each colour in their own way but attaches the
same semantic label to it as they've been taught.
Basically, one comes to a point where to claim something as
an absolute they are making a claim that it is a construct
of distortion, tracks covered by a Creator leaving behind
traces of existence which can only be perceived by people
with the Sixth Sense.
Ultimately, to be an atheist requires faith only in as much
as one is opposing a pre-set belief and THEN claiming that
they believe theirs to be true. As a starting point with no
rigid dogma, atheism requires zero faith. It simply gathers
evidence for its position as it is discovered. But hey,
perhaps I am edging towards some twilight zone between
atheism and agnosticism here....yeah...I think I am....:)
Adrian
russell
of my reading I have come across a great deal of contempt
for a great number of things, this just isnt his style....
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
Adrian Planinc <eplan...@cc.curtin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:381c2399...@news.wantree.com.au...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:01:18 -0400, "genein"
> <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >it requires faith to believe in one's beliefs as oppose to anothers beliefs
> >especially so when it comes to religion......there are no facts supporting a
> >god and no facts supporting a non-god......and that is a supportable
> >fact......based on lack of facts...if this can be
understood......agnosticism
> >is the only way to go........
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> On the other hand, quite often in these arguments, we are
> dealing with the agendas of *particular* religions. You
> don't have to get far into a thread about the existence of
> God before you find something about Christians justifying
> the possibility that the story of Jonah and the Whale is
> "literally" a true account or atheists saying that its
> nonsense how the Red Sea supposedly parted.
there are many possibilities but possibilities lack the solidy of
facts....there was an article i believe last year reporting a live (don't
recall what) found in the belly of a whale..it could not have been human or it
most certainly would have gotten my attention....but one swallow does not a
summer make....
>
> Certain things can be proven to a point at which it would
> seem somewhat insane to hold opposing views. For instance,
> to harp on about how the Universe was created 6,000 years
> ago seems quite off centre given all the evidence that shows
> that it would only be possible if reality as we know it was
> distorted to begin with. And that begs the questions of
> personal reality, do I see blue as green but call it blue as
> everyone sees each colour in their own way but attaches the
> same semantic label to it as they've been taught.
i will have to go with science on that one.....as for the colors we see, i
believe (unless proven otherwise) that all people see basically the same color,
blue as blue etc....artists choose their colors and one can see when painting a
blue sky, they will reach for a blue...and one may argue until "blue" in the
face but artists the world over when painting in the traditional style will do
the same, we are not taught color, it is inherent....the real question would be
what is the *true* color of anything we may percieve..does it have color? (tree
in the forest)
>
> Basically, one comes to a point where to claim something as
> an absolute they are making a claim that it is a construct
> of distortion, tracks covered by a Creator leaving behind
> traces of existence which can only be perceived by people
> with the Sixth Sense.
perhaps they do go a tad far.....my agnostic thinking tells me, these people
may be on to something and when i say "these people" i speak of those who do
seem to have a certain extra "kick" than the average but may put a wrong spin
on what it is they are "feeling"....a sixth "something" does seem to exist as
to what it is exactly is difficult to discern but should not be discounted
entirely...history (not religion) has spoken of these people if you recall
grigori rasputin a russian monk who many considered at that time to be a
miraculous healer (witnessed by the czar, doctors, and a number of the educated
nobility and of course the russian peasants) they were not fools and so some
credibility must be extended to them...i read the accounts (biography of
rasputin) and it was more than interesting.
> Ultimately, to be an atheist requires faith only in as much
> as one is opposing a pre-set belief and THEN claiming that
> they believe theirs to be true. As a starting point with no
> rigid dogma, atheism requires zero faith. It simply gathers
> evidence for its position as it is discovered. But hey,
> perhaps I am edging towards some twilight zone between
> atheism and agnosticism here....yeah...I think I am....:)
quite so.....but imo faith in various disguises is part of man's makeup and
life.....faith in a god is only one...i have argued many times that faith is
active every waking second of our lives..since we simply never know for certain
when getting up in the morning that we will lay down in the same bed....most
likely yes...but not always and so a certain amount of faith does enter our
lives......one point i have always wish to make clear in this atheist/theist
tug of war (the extreme versions)....both are in similar circumstances,both
very faith driven...afterall one must have faith in one's ability to percieve
"truth" in order to make a statement...however it is my observation that most
atheists and most religious folk live out their interrelated lives without
clashing...they are our lawyers, doctors, teachers, next door neighbor or
fellow student....who do not hold the view that he who believes is a fool or he
who does not is condemmed to hell. churches in the 90's do not preach fire and
brimstone especially so in that very fast growing segment of our
populations.....the well educated and upscale communities.
but this is the newsgroups where the extremes are the norm.....
pardon the extended response...
g.
> Adrian
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
Adrian Planinc <eplan...@cc.curtin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:381c20ff...@news.wantree.com.au...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 1999 10:24:00 -0400, "genein"
> <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >you are aware that bertand russell observed that skepticism as a philosophy
is
> >not merely doubt, but what may be called dogmatic doubt....the man of
science
> >says "i think it is this, the intellectual curious will say "i don't know,
but
> >hope to find out..the skeptic will say "nobody knows, nobody ever can know"
>
>
> This is why Objectivism rejects Skepticism is the same light
> as it rejects Mysticism. In both cases, the status of the
> Human as a Rational Being is violated. In one case out of a
> belief that reason cannot identify truth, and in the other
> case that truth can be found in faith and intuition and that
> groups create their own realities, supposedly independent of
> concrete existence and evidence.
on target....
g.
> Adrian
Rusty Wiley
<rew77N...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
>the same rational I can say that x=drop of water. and that
>if I were to put one drop of water and one drop of water
>together I would have 1 drop of water so in that case
>1dow+1dow=1dow, as the question 1+1 makes no room for
>size...unless specifically asked. I can also say 1rabit
>and 1 rabit kept together in a cage, if the circumstances
>are right would equal maybe 8 rabitts....so 1x+1X=8X.
Notwithstanding whether or not there is an objective mathematics, there
is a mathematics the we use and find useful. That is that I want to
make it very clear that I am not arguing whether mathematics exists
independent of us or whether we created it. What we know and use as
mathematics is for the purposes of communication. The mathematics that
we use has no practical value unless we are to communicate something
with it.
With this in mind mathematics is nothing other than a language. First
of all I will agree with those who say that 1+1=2 is certainly and
absolutely true. I consider that it is true, not because we know it a
priori, but because it is, in fact, a tautological statement in the
language that we call mathematics, subset arithmetic.
When you talk of rabbits and drops of water and summing them to the
conclusions that you do, you have, in effect, stepped outside the
language the we know as mathematics. It may be that there is a language
wherein 1DOW + 1DOW = 1DOW, but we cannot say that simply because the
words used in one language are also used in another language that they
have the same meaning in both languages.
Rusty
Linda Houle
>
>
> --
> alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
> Linda Houle <lho...@sprint.ca> wrote in message
> news:SmES3.8972$1v5....@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
>
> > > alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
> > > russell <re...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1c31fd54...@usw-ex0106-041.remarq.com...
> > > > Thank you linda, that is how i had expected it. It seems to me that
> > > > modern man is always ready to call a christian a foolish (wo)man of
> > > > faith, but has no real proof in their own beliefs. I myself am
> > > > somewhat of an atheist, and am most certainlly not religious in a
> > > > traditional way, yet totally ruling out the possibility that there
is a
> > > > god is a huge leap...is it not?
> > >
> > > that would make you an agnostic....
> > >
> > > What is an agnostic?
>
> [aside] does she toy with me?
>
> g.
>
>
> I'm 100% serious.
russell
mathematics 1+1=2...,it is practicall, and also as far as I
am concerned it is a fact, one that is very important to us
as a civilazation...one so basic, and that so much is based
on. My origional assertation though was not to say that
1+1=1 or that 1+1=8 it was only to say that there is no
mathematical proof, such as we have for the base angles of
an issosoles triangle, that 1+1=2, it is a simple matter of
us, humans , just knowing it...and in that respect can never
be posterior knowledge.
If you look back, the arguement I was making was with a
woman who claimed that we have "Posterior knowledge such as
1+1=2" I was not denying that 1+1=2 I was only pointing out
that it was not posterior knowledge.
RW
Roger Johansson
each view gets represented as good as possible. After that each of
the readers can make their own judgement based on the best arguments
each side can present for their views.
In this argument here I think the view of the sceptics has been
under-represented, so I would like to strengthen and clarify their
view.
><gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>you are aware that bertand russell observed that skepticism as a philosophy is
>>not merely doubt, but what may be called dogmatic doubt....the man of science
>>says "i think it is this, the intellectual curious will say "i don't know, but
>>hope to find out..the septic will say "nobody knows, nobody ever can know"
First of all we have to contemplate what "to know" means. A religious
person, or somebody involved in logic or math, might say that it means
to know absolutely, the truth is 100% and final.
A sceptic, that is, a modern scientist, never finds anything
absolutely true, he is aware of the possibilities of distortion in
both our measuring instruments and the limitations of our minds, both
collectively and individually.
So a sceptic does not acknowledge any absolute truths.
His truths are just good models. Models we can reach high levels of
consensus about.
(Adrian Planinc) wrote:
>This is why Objectivism rejects Skepticism is the same light
>as it rejects Mysticism. In both cases, the status of the
>Human as a Rational Being is violated.
I would love to hear a more detailed explanation of this objectivist
view.
I cannot see how a sceptic view can violate "the status of the
Human as a Rational Being"?
Maybe you, or anybody, can represent the objectivists and explain it
to us sceptics?
>In one case out of a
>belief that reason cannot identify truth,
The sceptic view is that reason alone cannot create and test models
and prove them without data from the reality.
In the sceptics world there are no absolute truths coming
trancedentally into our minds directly from God, the logic, or
whatever source.
>and that
>groups create their own realities, supposedly independent of
>concrete existence and evidence.
That groups of scientists create their own realities, (based on
consensus over their best models, based on concrete existence and
evidence as far as empiric science can discern them at this point in
time,) is a fact. That is how the scientific view of this world is
created, and re-created as soon as it needs to be adjusted further.
When you say "concrete existence and evidence" it sounds like you mean
that there is some absolutely true "concrete existence and evidence"
which can not be questioned?
Roger
The Philosopher's Stone
>i will have to go with science on that one.....as for the colors we see, i
>believe (unless proven otherwise) that all people see basically the same color,
Well there ARE neurophysiological arguments one can level against that
kind of idea without retreating too far into scepticism but that's
another point entirely.
>quite so.....but imo faith in various disguises is part of man's makeup and
>life.....faith in a god is only one...i have argued many times that faith is
>active every waking second of our lives..since we simply never know for certain
>when getting up in the morning that we will lay down in the same bed....
Which is, of course, a very simplistic reading of naive Humeanism
coupled with your own brand of Quinean anti-realism :-) Given the nature
of induction it is obvious that we can't make predictions which are 100%
certain and that we can doubt what we are perceiving but here you are
watering down the definition of faith to the point where it is
synonimous with belief. There is such a thing as empirical warrant.
Given what we know about the universe, have been shown to be true beyond
reasonable doubt we can infer that the sun will come up tomorrow and act
upon that belief without it being faith.
There is no rational empirical warrant for inferring that god exists,
therefore if you believe in god you are doing so for very different
reasons than if you you are believing in the sun coming up tomorrow.
What you're doing is retreating into scepticism and saying that given
that we can't know anything then believing in god is just as rational as
anything else. Well over and beyond the question of radical scepticism
it strikes me as a very hollow victory for the theist.
>afterall one must have faith in one's ability to percieve
>"truth" in order to make a statement...
This proves my point. A posteriori knowledge is impossible therefore
the claim to know that god exists is just as valid as any other
knowledge claim.
>churches in the 90's do not preach fire and
>brimstone especially so in that very fast growing segment of our
>populations.....the well educated and upscale communities.
>but this is the newsgroups where the extremes are the norm.....
I think that you['ll find that the majority of them do despite most
people not really believing in it. Which is because theism is largely
dying off, it's loosing its details and becoming a kind of background
noise of spirituality. You don't really think about it or question it.
Jonathan McCalmont ~ Thoth(at)jmccalmont(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk
>Quixotic deviant, Unreconstructed Scientific Realist, Atheist <
>> Left-Wing Nut Case and Despoiler of All Things Post-Modern <<
Roger Johansson
>mathematics 1+1=2...,it is practicall, and also as far as I
1+1=2 is a model of an operation we often use. It is part of the usual
mathematical model we all learn in school, before some of us go on to
university math and realise that this is not the only mathematical
model possible.
1+1=1 as in your raindrop mathematics is an equally valid model of an
operation which we also use sometimes. It is equivalent with the sand
heap mathematics I presented earlier.
As long as the operation of addition is clearly defined and
practically useful it is a useful mathematical model, and the
expression 1+1=2 (or 1) is a valid expression in the language of that
kind of mathematics.
No mathematical models are in themselves "true", these models can be
used for practical purposes. In some cases one model is more useful,
in other cases another model is more useful.
The only "truth" in this is what mathematical experts can prove to be
true within a model, they can prove logically a certain formula to be
consistent with the model which is the context of that formula.
For example 1+1=2 can be proven to be true within the mathematical
model which is called a group, which is the most commonly used
mathematical model.
But this is a theoretical proof, without any connection to empiric
reality, it is just a mind game.
I think it is unfortunate that the word proof has been used in
theoretical sciences, it sounds like the word proof used in empiric
sciences and can often be confused with that word.
In empiric science models are created based on empiric data, and these
models are tested against the empiric reality, and can thus be proven
correct, to a certain degree of confidence. Which makes it possible to
reach consensus among many scientists that it is a good model.
This is how the scientific view of the world is built up.
This kind of proof has very little to do with the theoretical proofs
of the formal sciences, math and logic, where proof means to show that
the thesis is consistent with the rest of the formal model used as
context.
Every time you hear somebody say he can "prove it" you should ask, him
or yourself, if this is an empiric proof of an empiric model, or a
theoretical proof of a theoretical model.
Empirical models are of course also theoretical, but they are based on
real data, and checked against real data, that is why I call them
empirical models, as opposed to theoretical models like "truth" "God"
"omnipotence", etcetera, which are products of mindgames and very
seldom tested against real data by those who use them.
Roger
The Philosopher's Stone
> My origional assertation though was not to say that
>1+1=1 or that 1+1=8 it was only to say that there is no
>mathematical proof, such as we have for the base angles of
>an issosoles triangle, that 1+1=2, it is a simple matter of
>us, humans , just knowing it...and in that respect can never
>be posterior knowledge.
I think that what you're saying is partially correct, 1+1=2 is an
analytical truth. It is true by virtue of the meaning of "1", "2" and
what the symbols "+" and "=" means that the above proposition is true.
Asking for a mathematical proof of that is a bit like asking for a
mathematical proof that water is H2O, you're being too demanding. In
many ways this means that 1+1=2 is one of the most secure truths
available to us, far more so than the more complicated inductive a
posteriori knowledge.
Obelix
tendency of the human mind to generalize, to simplify, to make
conceptualization easy. It is an abstract rule, independent of any
physical manifestation. One what plus one what equals two whats??
1 male + 1 female can = 1 couple, 2 people, 2 people + x number of
kids, 1 couple + x number of kids.
Or, mathematically speaking, 1+1=1, 1+1=2, 1+1=2+x, 1+1=1+x, etc.
1 apple + 1 orange = the beginning of a fruit salad (1+1=1)
1 electron + 1 positron can never equal two of anything when put
together.
Etc., etc.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, just blowing on the flames. :o)
Ob.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
The Philosopher's Stone
>No mathematical models are in themselves "true", these models can be
>used for practical purposes. In some cases one model is more useful,
>in other cases another model is more useful.
I think that you're partially right here. Mathematics is not
ultimately concerned with truth in any interesting way, they're far more
concerned with things such as validity. After all, modern mathematics is
simply the complex study of axiomatic systems and there is no
mathematical requirement that there be one mathematical system over any
other.
HOWEVER, the world seems to operate in ways which do pre-suppose one
dominant mathematical system. It is embedded in our language and our
cultures to such an extent that, apart from minor cultural differences,
it seems to be engrained in us at some innate level. It is also true
that certain mathematical models are more efficient at modelling the
results of experiments and coming up with an equation than others, as
far as mathematical natural sciences go it is quite clear that there is
a right and wrong set of axioms.
>Every time you hear somebody say he can "prove it" you should ask, him
>or yourself, if this is an empiric proof of an empiric model, or a
>theoretical proof of a theoretical model.
I wholeheartedly agree with this :-) It should go in the FAQ. This is
how you can have valid proofs for the existence of god which don't
actually convince anyone except people who take it as axiomatic that god
exists. When an existential claim is made then the only proof which
matters is empirical proof, otherwise what you have is warrant. That way
physics can tell us about black holes and other things we haven't
encountered enough to study, mathematics has reasoned on from what we do
know to be true to what we are warranted in supposing.
>as opposed to theoretical models like "truth" "God"
>"omnipotence", etcetera, which are products of mindgames and very
>seldom tested against real data by those who use them.
An excellent point, it is also the difference between realism and
anti-realism. Anti-realists, of course, do not see such a clear cut
distinction as ultimately all belief systems are language games.
Adrian Planinc
<umw...@tninet.se.noospamm> wrote:
>When you say "concrete existence and evidence" it sounds like you mean
>that there is some absolutely true "concrete existence and evidence"
>which can not be questioned?
No.
I merely mean that there are certain established truths such
as the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Now, strictly speaking....I know that this is merely a
99.999999% probability and not some sort of Natural Absolute
etc etc etc.
But the fact remains that certain fundamentals, once
established by rational science and philosophy, no longer
get questioned too much, even though they may get finetuned
in various ways.
In saying that Objectivism rejects Skepticism, all I mean is
that it rejects the sense that there are things which
rational beings such as Humans will *never know* due to
their complexity. Things will be discovered and finetuned to
a point where it is quite fair and commonsense to call them
"established truths", if not absolutes, if that word doesn't
sound too religious!!
Point being, a *strict* belief that we can never establish
any truths about our world is really tantamount to a
dogmatic disbelief in the rational abilities of our species
to make sense of a world which follows very predictable
rules.
Consequently, while Skepticism remains a tool which
philosophers use to question and finetune established
beliefs, as a *final* statement of belief it is essentially
not more than a recursive spiral into another Dark Age in
which we do not trust ourselves to ever establish any useful
fundamentals which will help advance our understanding of
the Universe.
So yes, while strictly speaking, everything should at all
times remain open to questioning, on the other hand, we have
to accept that things do get established to the point where
further questioning is nothing more than skeptical
overkill!!
Adrian
russell
> I think that what you're saying is partially
> correct, 1+1=2 is an
> analytical truth. It is true by virtue of the meaning
> of "1", "2" and
> what the symbols "+" and "=" means that the above
> proposition is true.
> Asking for a mathematical proof of that is a bit
> like asking for a
> mathematical proof that water is H2O, you're being too
> demanding.
Maybe we should be a little more demanding in the truths
that we see fit not to question. As for H2O, that can be
proved in a lab as everytime you take 2 atoms of hydrogen
and 1 of oxogen you will get water......
In
> many ways this means that 1+1=2 is one of the most
> secure truths
> available to us, far more so than the more complicated
> inductive a
> posteriori knowledge.
>
I hate to tell you this, but your most secure truth must
also be questioned, and when questioned, although it stands
up to rationality, will never stand up to the rigors of
scientidic experimentation.
Rusty Wiley
<umw...@tninet.se.noospamm> wrote:
>When you say "concrete existence and evidence" it sounds like you mean
>that there is some absolutely true "concrete existence and evidence"
>which can not be questioned?
Is it not true, Roger, that the skeptic must at some point in time
rationalize the there must be something out there about which he is
being skeptical? Models are fine but we have to assume that they are a
model of something. It is not that the *something* of which they are
models is moving when we improve the model, but that the model building
is getting better. It seems to me that the alternative is to fall into
solipsism.
Rusty
Obelix
> Maybe we should be a little more demanding in the truths
> that we see fit not to question. As for H2O, that can be
> proved in a lab as everytime you take 2 atoms of hydrogen
> and 1 of oxogen you will get water......
I hate to tell you this, but your most secure truth must also be
questioned :o) 1) Have you ever seen an atom before? 2) Has anyone ever
taken two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen and placed them together
such that (voila!) one molecule of water appears? 3) How does hydrogen
peroxide fit into all of this? 4) Why is a mouse when it spins? 5)
don't believe something just because a guy in a white lab coat told you
it was so.
> I hate to tell you this, but your most secure truth must
> also be questioned, and when questioned, although it stands
> up to rationality, will never stand up to the rigors of
> scientidic experimentation.
I would hardly call scientific experimentation a rigorous procedure.
Coming from a family of engineers, I know that science is as much
grasping at straws as religion, philosophy, or politics.
kojak
Obelix wrote in message:
> I hate to tell you this, but your most secure truth must also be
> questioned :o) 1) Have you ever seen an atom before? 2) Has anyone ever
> taken two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen and placed them together
> such that (voila!) one molecule of water appears? 3) How does hydrogen
> peroxide fit into all of this? 4) Why is a mouse when it spins? 5)
> don't believe something just because a guy in a white lab coat told you
> it was so.
1) Yes, billions and billions and billions all the time.
2) Yes, It was a very very big explosion.
3) Hydrogen peroxide differ from other molecules because they are dumb
blonde molecules.
4) Why is a spin when it mouses (or in other words, mistakes are more
profound than the truth).
5) Don't believe something just because God told you it was so.
Is philosophy just word games?
--
~kojak
"The menu is not the meal" - Alan Watts
Roger Johansson
>>When you say "concrete existence and evidence" it sounds like you mean
>>that there is some absolutely true "concrete existence and evidence"
>>which can not be questioned?
>Is it not true, Roger, that the skeptic must at some point in time
>rationalize the there must be something out there about which he is
>being skeptical?
That is strictly speaking not necessary for the scientific view of the
world, but most scientists use a model called reality to stand for
that real world which seems to be there. To most scientists this is
not even a conscious decision, but experts on the theoretical basis
for science are aware of this. Otherwise we would assume something
which we cannot prove inconclusively.
>Models are fine but we have to assume that they are a
>model of something.
Strictly speaking this is not necessary for modern science, our models
have been shown to work wether the "reality" can be proven to exist or
not.
Even if we all were dreaming all this, we could use the model method
of handling the world we think we are living in.
It is a general method which does not need any assumption about the
world we can percieve.
>It is not that the *something* of which they are
>models is moving when we improve the model, but that the model building
>is getting better.
That is a theory I think most sceptic scientists would agree on.
But strictly speaking it is still a model.
Scientists are a little funny in that they love to use as few
assumptions as possible.
We do not have to assume anything, our models work anyway.
The reality is like God, which also is an assumption we do not need,
as some famous scientist told Napoleon already 250 years ago, in a
famous public discussion.
(I forgot the name of the scientist, can't keep everything in my
little head ;-)
Roger
Roger Johansson
>>No mathematical models are in themselves "true", these models can be
>>used for practical purposes. In some cases one model is more useful,
>>in other cases another model is more useful.
> HOWEVER, the world seems to operate in ways which do pre-suppose one
>dominant mathematical system.
You mean how even small kids have mathematical concepts even before
they have started school?
This heap of sand added to that heap of sand becomes my heap, no it is
my heap, no it is my heap, buaaa mammy, she took my heap..
>It is embedded in our language and our
>cultures to such an extent that, apart from minor cultural differences,
>it seems to be engrained in us at some innate level.
Maybe it is more about what models are favored in schools, and a lack
of education of teachers, which makes them teach math like it was
about truths and like there was only one kind of math.
As so often before we find that the problem is one of
oversimplification and lack of insight.
Roger
Roger Johansson
>>When you say "concrete existence and evidence" it sounds like you mean
>>that there is some absolutely true "concrete existence and evidence"
>>which can not be questioned?
>No.
>I merely mean that there are certain established truths such
>as the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
>Now, strictly speaking....I know that this is merely a
>99.999999% probability and not some sort of Natural Absolute
>etc etc etc.
>But the fact remains that certain fundamentals, once
>established by rational science and philosophy, no longer
>get questioned too much, even though they may get finetuned
>in various ways.
Okey, so far I am with you.
>In saying that Objectivism rejects Skepticism, all I mean is
>that it rejects the sense that there are things which
>rational beings such as Humans will *never know* due to
>their complexity.
This is NOT a thesis of scepticism. Maybe you have heard some
misconstrued version of the fact that we can never be absolutely sure
about anything, as you agreed upon above?
>Things will be discovered and finetuned to
>a point where it is quite fair and commonsense to call them
>"established truths", if not absolutes, if that word doesn't
>sound too religious!!
As long as we don't call them absolute truths this is no problem for
scepticism. Modern science, based on scepticism, have established a
large number of established empirical truths which are very seldom
questioned.
>Point being, a *strict* belief that we can never establish
>any truths about our world is really tantamount to a
>dogmatic disbelief in the rational abilities of our species
>to make sense of a world which follows very predictable
>rules.
"we can never establish any truths" is not equivalent to "never
establish any absolute truths".
As I said before, we can establish empiric "truths" with a very high
level of certainty.
>Consequently, while Skepticism remains a tool which
>philosophers use to question and finetune established
>beliefs, as a *final* statement of belief it is essentially
>not more than a recursive spiral into another Dark Age in
>which we do not trust ourselves to ever establish any useful
>fundamentals which will help advance our understanding of
>the Universe.
Scepticism is not only a tool for checking up on established "truths",
it is the basis for all modern science and the modern view of the
world.
>So yes, while strictly speaking, everything should at all
>times remain open to questioning, on the other hand, we have
>to accept that things do get established to the point where
>further questioning is nothing more than skeptical
>overkill!!
This is the view of scepticism.
Where did objectivism go?
I can't see any arguments for it in your article.
I only see a misconception about what scepticism stands for.
When that is cleared up we are both on the side of scepticism and
modern science.
Roger
Dr. Necrophage
> Dr. Necrophage <dr_nec...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >Well, the above quote (which is paraphrased a tad) is to be found
> in
> >'Thus Spoke Zarathustra,' part 1, the chapter titled 'On the New
> Idol'
> >it is on pg 161 of Penguin publishing's 'The portable Neitzche'
> >(translated by Walter Kaufman):
> >I found it in the form I have used it on web site I like. I think
> they
> >may have gotten it from a different translation, but I didn't
> think the
> >differences were enough to change the overall gist of what
> Nietzsche
> >meant.
Roger Johansson <umw...@tninet.se.noospamm> wrote:
> Your quote, a "tad paraphrased" gives the impression that Nietzsche
> supports free enterprise, libertarianism, capitalism, and is
> against the federal state. This is a quite common message today on the
> internet and in our society. So it is not so strange that people
> try to find support for this ideology in famous writers works.
> But Nietzsche had no such intentions with his writings, this quote
> is based on false assumptions, paraphrased to fit into the paradigm of
> today, the post-cold-war capitalism.
Are you suggesting he was a 'socialist' or at all enamoured of what we
currently understand to be 'democracy?' Can you provide evidence for
this?
Roger Johansson <umw...@tninet.se.noospamm> wrote:
> In the same chapter he says; Those useless people who make a lot of
> money, and they only get poorer that way. They want power, and the
> crowbar of power, money. These impotents. He was not for the >
capitalists, he hated them and despised their sick love of money and >
power.
'Behold the superfluous! They gather riches and become poorer with
them. They want power and first the lever of power, much money---the
impotent paupers!' Z pt 1 'On the New Idol.'
It seems to me that he is not speaking about 'capitalists' per se but
of the desire of the 'masses' to gain what they percieve to be 'power,'
but what is in fact emptiness and their own destruction.
He goes on to say:
'Watch them clamber, these swift monkeys! They clamber over one
another and thus drag one another into the mud and the depth. They all
want to get to the throne: that is their madness--as if happiness sat
on the throne. Often mud sits on the throne--and often also the throne
on mud. Mad they all appear to me, clamboring monkeys and overardent.
Foul smells their idol, the cold monster: foul they smell to me
altogether, these idolators.' Z pt 1, On the New Idol pg 162
This is an attack on the political state('the cold monster' or 'idol')
and yes an attack on role of money in that process. It is not an
attack on 'capitalism' or on 'money' per se, but on the 'superfluous'
(the 'masses'and 'politicians') who have been lead to believe that it
is money and power alone that will bring them happiness. They are
wrong and their quest for 'power' only serves to turn them into
'clambering monkeys.'
Roger Johansson <umw...@tninet.se.noospamm> wrote:
> When he talks about what the state steals, he is not talking about a
> federal state,
'State is the name of the coldest of cold monsters. Coldly it tells
lies too; and this lie crawls out of its mouth: "I, the state, am the
people." That is a lie! It was creators who created peoples and hung a
faith and a love over them: thus they served life.
'It is annihilators who set traps for the many ans call them "state":
they hang a sword and a hundred appetites over them.' Z pt 1 On the New
Idol, pg161
Just what do you suggest he *is* talking about if not the 'state?'
Roger Johansson <umw...@tninet.se.noospamm> wrote:
> and he is not talking about material stealing of goods or money, he
is > talking about totally different things and values. In the same >
chapter he writes:
> "The state steals the invention from the inventor, the wisdom from
> the wise. What the state has stolen it calls knowledge.."
Our translations of this passage are a bit different:
'Behold the superfluous! They steal the works of the inventers and the
treasures of the sages for themselves; "education" they call their
theft--and everything turns to sickness and misforture for them.' Z pt
1 On the New Idol pg 162.
I agree that it is about much more then mere money.
Roger Johansson <umw...@tninet.se.noospamm> wrote:
> The "state" in american language has come to mean the federal
> state in Washington. But this is a misconception of the original >
meaning of the word state, as it has been used throughout history and >
in the rest of the world. The state is the organisation of the >
society, that is, all forms of cooperation and organisation of our >
society and our world.
It is precicely this misconception that Nietzsche attacks on the outset
of his chapter as I have quoted above, I will repeat it:
'State is the name of the coldest of cold monsters. Coldly it tells
lies too; and this lie crawls out of its mouth: "I, the state, am the
people." That is a lie!' (ibid)
Roger Johansson <umw...@tninet.se.noospamm> wrote:
> To use american examples the state is how neighbors cooperate to
> organise their kids birthday parties, how you decide to play
> baseball on an open field on sunday, how you organise your schools, >
how you organise your work at every workplace, how you buy your car, >
how you pay your rent to your landlord, how you buy or build your >
house, how you organise the building of roads and bridges, how old >
women stand behind their curtains and gossip about what happens in the
> neighborhood, how men go to the bar and discuss what to do about
> those lazy kids who hang out on the corner, how private security
> companies and the police keep the neighborhood decent, how the health
> care is organised, etcetera
All of this is incorrect, Nietzsche says so right at the outset of the
chapter.
Roger Johansson <umw...@tninet.se.noospamm> wrote:
> All that together is the state. That is the organisation of our
> society.
> Nietzsche is only interested in some parts of that society, the
> spiritual side.
> He talks about a repressive society which strangles the intelligent
> and gifted people, to the advantage and comfort of the big stupid
> masses. To take a few carefully selected words from him, misinterpret
> them grossly, and paraphrase the result into a support for capitalism
> is to bend his intentions far beyond any reasonable interpretation.
> This is intellectual dishonesty and lack of education coupled with
> linguistic confusion, combined to give a totally false impression.
> If you read a little of Nietzsches own writings you would know
> that he in no way stood for the message this mis-quote seems to >
convey.
> He stood for the freedom of the individual, freedom from the power
> of money, freedom from rumoring old women, freedom from all kinds of
> authorities based on stupidity and bigotry.
> Roger
Well,I have read quite a bit of what he wrote and I think we have a
basic dissagrement on a few points of interpretation. How 'capitalism'
is to be interpreted in terms of his philosophy appears to be one of
them. If you can provide qoutations of his that directly attack
'capitalism,' then I will examine them and do further study.
I think for *any* 'group' to lay claim to Nietzsche is in bad taste,
but you seem to suggest he was a socialist and that is simply ludicrous
( see Beyond Good and Evil sections 202 and 203).
I chose the quote because of its attack on the idol of the state, not
for any defence of 'capitalism.' Perhaps it was wrong to leave the
quote as I found it even though I knew it was inexact, but I certainly
do not feel that it at all altered the gist of what he meant in the
statement.
Irreguardless of what *Nietzshe* may or may not have thought of
'capitalism,' I feel that if freedom is interfered with from *any*
source it is to be resisted.
In my opinion completely free and unfettered market economics and the
abolition of those gangs that call themselves 'government' and 'state'
would be beneficial to the human species, but as 'the superfluous' are
unlikely to wake up any time soon and become 'ubermench' I am not going
to hold my breath waiting for it to happen and it is not my job to
interfere with their choice to remain enslaved.
Dr. Necrophage
'The Old Ones were, the Old Ones are, the Old Ones shall be!'
- Abd Alhazrad
The Philosopher's Stone
>You mean how even small kids have mathematical concepts even before
>they have started school?
There was a good deal of evidence published a while back about the
innateness of basic arithmetic. Due no doubt to the fact that 1 buffalo
and another buffalo make 2 buffalo. I'm not talking about the complex
axiomatic systems being innate, only elementary reasoning. This is
because it is clearly the case that certain mathematical systems are
better suited to modelling reality than others. That does not, however,
make them more true in a mathematical sense.
>Maybe it is more about what models are favored in schools, and a lack
>of education of teachers, which makes them teach math like it was
>about truths and like there was only one kind of math.
Well maths is about truths but mathematical truths and it can be
applied to real world things to generate physical truths.
>As so often before we find that the problem is one of
>oversimplification and lack of insight.
I think that you're actually over-complicating things by ascribing
monolithic, complexe, philosophically axiomatised systems to what are,
in reality, very simple reasoning processes.
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
> > > > that would make you an agnostic....
> > > >
> > > > What is an agnostic?
> >
> > hmmmmmmmmmmm..
> > [aside] does she toy with me?
> >
> > g.
> >
> >
> > I'm 100% serious.
"agnostic one who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God
but does not deny the possibility that God exists".
(american heritage)
comments?
g.
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
The Philosopher's Stone <Th...@LAAAAAaaaaaaaarge.Mice.com> wrote in message
news:wjiSRYAi...@jmccalmont.demon.co.uk...
> genein <gen...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
> >i will have to go with science on that one.....as for the colors we see, i
> >believe (unless proven otherwise) that all people see basically the same
color,
>
> Well there ARE neurophysiological arguments one can level against that
> kind of idea without retreating too far into scepticism but that's
> another point entirely.
don't be shy....go ahead, you have my interest and attention...
>
> >quite so.....but imo faith in various disguises is part of man's makeup and
> >life.....faith in a god is only one...i have argued many times that faith is
> >active every waking second of our lives..since we simply never know for
certain
> >when getting up in the morning that we will lay down in the same bed....
>
> Which is, of course, a very simplistic reading of naive Humeanism
> coupled with your own brand of Quinean anti-realism :-)
you prefer the more complex?...my brand of "quinean anti-realism"?, and what
might that be? :-)
Given the nature
> of induction it is obvious that we can't make predictions which are 100%
> certain and that we can doubt what we are perceiving but here you are
> watering down the definition of faith to the point where it is
> synonimous with belief.
explain please...a watered down faith?.....where?.. "nature of "induction"?
something is amiss here.....
There is such a thing as empirical warrant.
> Given what we know about the universe, have been shown to be true beyond
> reasonable doubt we can infer that the sun will come up tomorrow and act
> upon that belief without it being faith.
something like: a confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a
person, an idea, or a thing? would that be it?
> There is no rational empirical warrant for inferring that god exists,
> therefore if you believe in god you are doing so for very different
> reasons than if you you are believing in the sun coming up tomorrow.
> What you're doing is retreating into scepticism and saying that given
> that we can't know anything then believing in god is just as rational as
> anything else. Well over and beyond the question of radical scepticism
> it strikes me as a very hollow victory for the theist.
the theist? believing in god? where are you coming from? retreating into
skepticism? i just completed a post denouncing skepticism and here i am accused
of skepticism.....surly madness lurks in alt.philosphy....by some anyway.
> >afterall one must have faith in one's ability to percieve
> >"truth" in order to make a statement...
>
> This proves my point. A posteriori knowledge is impossible therefore
> the claim to know that god exists is just as valid as any other
> knowledge claim.
don't know what a posteriori knowledge may be other than posterior which is the
rear end of a given animal....enlighten me....i am not making fun but really
your wording is rather odd.....
> >churches in the 90's do not preach fire and
> >brimstone especially so in that very fast growing segment of our
> >populations.....the well educated and upscale communities.
> >but this is the newsgroups where the extremes are the norm.....
>
> I think that you['ll find that the majority of them do despite most
> people not really believing in it. Which is because theism is largely
> dying off, it's loosing its details and becoming a kind of background
> noise of spirituality. You don't really think about it or question it.
they do not preach fire and brimstone.....period. i don't say this
casually..and that was the point....and this has to be one of the more
bewildering posts that i have read in a long time..
g.
The Philosopher's Stone
>Maybe we should be a little more demanding in the truths
>that we see fit not to question.
Well you can be too demanding and asking for empirical proof for
fundamental mathematical truths is being over-demanding, especially
seeing as you can't get it.
> As for H2O, that can be
>proved in a lab as everytime you take 2 atoms of hydrogen
>and 1 of oxogen you will get water......
Yes, but how do you know that it's water? You're begging the question
that putting H2O together begets water, and that's because that's what
H2O means; water.
>I hate to tell you this, but your most secure truth must
>also be questioned, and when questioned, although it stands
>up to rationality, will never stand up to the rigors of
>scientidic experimentation.
How do you propose to prove that 1 + 1 is not equal to 2? it is
impossible. There need to be a priori truths in order for science to
function. Even Quine admitted this.
Rusty Wiley
<umw...@tninet.se.noospamm> wrote:
> Rusty Wiley wrote:
Sorry Roger! From your first post I assumed that you were professing
radical skepticism.
>That is strictly speaking not necessary for the scientific view of the
>world, but most scientists use a model called reality to stand for
>that real world which seems to be there. To most scientists this is
>not even a conscious decision, but experts on the theoretical basis
>for science are aware of this. Otherwise we would assume something
>which we cannot prove inconclusively.
You might have to explain that "model called reality" in a little more
detail.
>>Models are fine but we have to assume that they are a
>>model of something.
>
>Strictly speaking this is not necessary for modern science, our models
>have been shown to work wether the "reality" can be proven to exist or
>not.
I am not attempting to convince you that we should prove anything. We
are going to infer lots of things. I suggest that if we are to have a
basis for our inferences, that is if we want to avoid radical
skepticism, then we have to assume that our models are models of
something. Even modern science has to assume water to say that H2O is a
good model. If you are saying that all that they get for their trouble
of assuming water is a model, then that model must be a model of
something.
>Even if we all were dreaming all this, we could use the model method
>of handling the world we think we are living in.
>It is a general method which does not need any assumption about the
>world we can percieve.
You are going to have to explain how one would develop the idea or
concept "model" without thinking that there is something that needed to
be modeled.
>>It is not that the *something* of which they are
>>models is moving when we improve the model, but that the model building
>>is getting better.
>
>That is a theory I think most sceptic scientists would agree on.
>But strictly speaking it is still a model.
>
>Scientists are a little funny in that they love to use as few
>assumptions as possible.
>
>We do not have to assume anything, our models work anyway.
I think that the biggest fear that I would have in talking about models
in this way would be if someone thought that, perhaps, we may be talking
about models of models. We do need it to be the case that our model is
a model of something or we are fabricating the reality of the solipsist.
Even if reality, as we know it, is a model, we have to assume that it is
a model of something that is real.
Rusty
Adrian Planinc
<umw...@tninet.se.noospamm> wrote:
>Where did objectivism go?
>I can't see any arguments for it in your article.
>I only see a misconception about what scepticism stands for.
>When that is cleared up we are both on the side of scepticism and
>modern science.
This is an excerpt out of Ayn Rand's description of
Objectivism "while standing on one foot":
***********
Epistemology
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of
reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that
identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s
senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.”
Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith
or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects
skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is
impossible).
****************
This is essentially what I was referring to. The strictest
sense of dogmatic skepticism as would be defined by its
earliest Hellenic founders.
Otherwise we are fully in agreement.....:)
Adrian
Torkel Franzen
> For example 1+1=2 can be proven to be true within the mathematical
> model which is called a group, which is the most commonly used
> mathematical model.
I'm afraid makes no apparent sense. Just what group are you talking
about.
> But this is a theoretical proof, without any connection to empiric
> reality, it is just a mind game.
What is a "mind game"?
> I think it is unfortunate that the word proof has been used in
> theoretical sciences, it sounds like the word proof used in empiric
> sciences and can often be confused with that word.
What on earth is a "proof in empirical sciences"? And what is a
"theoretical science"?
Adrian Planinc
<gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>they do not preach fire and brimstone.....period. i don't say this
>casually..and that was the point....and this has to be one of the more
>bewildering posts that i have read in a long time..
Yes. I agree that much. In fact, there are plenty of clerics
out there now who have been quite openly embracing the idea
that Scripture is written in symbolic language (as it
OBVIOUSLY is) and not to be taken as a technical manual to
be read literally but rather as a work of ancient wisdom and
poetry in which the idea of absolute meaning sort of melts
away into a loose freedom to accept its musings in one's own
way. Of course, these are the liberals, mainly to be found
in churches outside the Catholic Church and outside
conservative American churches. Much of this activity
happens in Europe, UK, Australia and New Zealand.
Personally, I think the church in these parts of the world
is becoming integrated into a form of neo-secular philosophy
in which faith-based absolutes are starting to disappear.
Thats to say, while before one would have to personally
accept Christ in order to go to heaven, today many more
Christians then ever before are quite happy with people
being "Christians by default", not directly worshipping as
Christians, but living what would be considered a decent
life according to Christ's teachings, even though in
practice they may be Atheists or whatever!
Its difficult to say what this means. But I would think it
just symbolises the openness and
reform....heheee.....Glasnost/Perestroika which happens in
social attitudes when they are suddenly exposed to a world
audience through the Internet and such. It just becomes more
difficult to maintain closed superstitions out of context
and remain relevent in a world where ideas are traded openly
from one side of the world to the other in a fraction of a
second!
This may mean the end of closed religious systems, and
maintenence of small extremist groups which resist change.
But overall, I think it will lead to a more open global
society, in which it is quite likely that opinions will be
watered down compared to those of the pre-Internet era.
Adrian
The Philosopher's Stone
>don't be shy....go ahead, you have my interest and attention...
Well given that there is a degree of difference between individuals
due to genetic differences (that same difference that makes us all look
different) we can argue that these differences also apply to
neurophysical characteristics, therefore just as we have different
faces, we also experience colour in different ways. Like I said it's AN
arguement.
>you prefer the more complex?...my brand of "quinean anti-realism"?, and what
>might that be? :-)
The idea that belief in god is central to your belief system and
therefore is no more open to question than any other basic belief such
as "Other people exist" or "The material world exists".
>explain please...a watered down faith?.....where?.. "nature of "induction"?
>something is amiss here.....
What you're doing is making knowledge impossible therefore any belief
we have must be faith. Which is waterring down the definition of faith
till it is synonimous with belief.
>something like: a confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a
>person, an idea, or a thing? would that be it?
A "confident" belief? but surely that's a psychological element rather
than a rational one. A justified belief is more consistent with
knowledge than a confident belief, that's just basic epistemology.
>the theist? believing in god? where are you coming from? retreating into
>skepticism?
Can you speak english at all?
> i just completed a post denouncing skepticism and here i am accused
>of skepticism.....surly madness lurks in alt.philosphy....by some anyway.
When it tastes like it, smells like it, you call it what it is.
>don't know what a posteriori knowledge may be other than posterior which is the
>rear end of a given animal....enlighten me....i am not making fun but really
>your wording is rather odd.....
Have you ever actually studied philosophy? I find it very hard indeed
to believe that you've never come across the term a posteriori knowledge
(compare it to a priori, it's more or less analogous to exclusively
empirical knowledge).
>they do not preach fire and brimstone.....period.
The Catholic church does, most american churches seem to. On the total
number of churches I think most christian churches do buy into hell.
Roger Johansson
> There was a good deal of evidence published a while back about the
>innateness of basic arithmetic. Due no doubt to the fact that 1 buffalo
>and another buffalo make 2 buffalo.
Do you mean that two buffaloes somehow creates two more buffaloes?
If I understand you right here you are saying that buffalo A together
with buffalo B is working together to create buffaloes C and D?
Are buffaloes A and B a male and a female buffalo?
Then I can understand what you are talking about.
If you ask children about simple mathematical concepts you will most
likely get the answers the questioneer is expecting.
If the questioneer is only aware of common arithmetics, she will find
that children have a natural talent for common arithmetics.
If the questioneer is thinking about sand heap maths, or raindrop
maths she will find that children have a natural talent for that kind
of math.
I wont trust any "scientific exploration into childrens natural
talents for math" any further than I can throw the people who
interviewed or tested the children.
>I'm not talking about the complex
>axiomatic systems being innate, only elementary reasoning.
You wont find any more elementary reasoning than mine ;-)
Take this heap and add it to that heap, and look what a nice, bigger,
heap you got.
Take that buffalo and add it to the other buffalo and they might make
more buffaloes?
Who is elementary now?
Can you explain your kind of "addition" in an elementary way?
>>Maybe it is more about what models are favored in schools, and a lack
>>of education of teachers, which makes them teach math like it was
>>about truths and like there was only one kind of math.
> Well maths is about truths but mathematical truths and it can be
>applied to real world things to generate physical truths.
Why call those things "truth" if there are several different "truths"?
Couldn't that terminology create some confusion?
>>As so often before we find that the problem is one of
>>oversimplification and lack of insight.
> I think that you're actually over-complicating things by ascribing
>monolithic, complexe, philosophically axiomatised systems to what are,
>in reality, very simple reasoning processes.
Who did you say is over-complicating?
Who just said: "ascribing monolithic, complexe, philosophically
axiomatised systems"? Sounds complicated to me ;-)
Please explain what you said about those four buffaloes again?
What did you really want to say?
I am just trying to make you understand that what seems natural and
elementary to you might not be easy and elementary to somebody who has
not gone to the same kind of schools as you have.
And what you find strange and overcomplicated might seem very easy and
natural to somebody without your upbringing and training.
Roger
Roger Johansson
>Sorry Roger! From your first post I assumed that you were professing
>radical skepticism.
I am not even sure there is such a thing as "radical skepticism", I
think this concept is based on misconceptions and inability to grasp
the sceptic scientific view.
>>That is strictly speaking not necessary for the scientific view of the
>>world, but most scientists use a model called reality to stand for
>>that real world which seems to be there. To most scientists this is
>>not even a conscious decision, but experts on the theoretical basis
>>for science are aware of this. Otherwise we would assume something
>>which we cannot prove inconclusively.
>You might have to explain that "model called reality" in a little more
>detail.
The assumption that we live in a physical world, with some properties
we can find out about, is a thought model in our brains.
That model is the basis for all other models we make of empiric data
we can gather with our senses.
As scientists we cannot assume that we have found the absolute truth
in any of our models, so why should we assume we can find absolute
truth about the sum of all our models, the reality?
Instead we let that model also be subject to further development as we
find/create new knowledge.
>>>Models are fine but we have to assume that they are a
>>>model of something.
Yes, but strictly speaking we must be aware that this reality is also
a neurological model in our heads. It is not necessary for our science
to work that we assume that there is an absolute reality behind this
model we call reality.
What we can reach consensus about is the idea of a reality, the model
most of us have in our heads.
We can not reach consensus about an absolute reality, because we only
know the models in our heads.
We think this model is a very close approximation of an absolute
reality, and with our science we try to make this model as good as
possible, but we should be aware that the absolute reality is an
assumption.
>>Strictly speaking this is not necessary for modern science, our models
>>have been shown to work wether the "reality" can be proven to exist or
>>not.
>I am not attempting to convince you that we should prove anything. We
>are going to infer lots of things. I suggest that if we are to have a
>basis for our inferences, that is if we want to avoid radical
>skepticism, then we have to assume that our models are models of
>something.
It is not necessary to assume an absolute reality, we only have to
make our part models fit to the reality model in our heads.
>Even modern science has to assume water to say that H2O is a
>good model.
Both water and H2O are ideas we can communicate and reach consensus
about. The idea of H2O is closely connected to the idea of water.
And both are closely connected to the idea of a reality.
We as humans can only communicate our ideas between each other, and
reach consensus over some ideas which are clearly defined, because our
empiric experiences are similar enough to allow this consensus.
This is how we have built up the body of knowledge called science.
This is also how we have built up the concept of the daily world we
think we are living in.
Nor everybody agree on everything in these bodies of knowledge.
> If you are saying that all that they get for their trouble
>of assuming water is a model, then that model must be a model of
>something.
We can make the assumption that there is a real substance which
corresponds to our ideas about water.
But we cannot communicate this real water, we can only communicate our
ideas about water.
What we can agree upon are our ideas about water, not water itself,
because we are human beings, we see the world through our senses, and
we know only our minds, not the world.
Experts on perception tells us that we never experience the whole
environment we see around us. We have a made up a model of our world
in our heads and we update this model with our fragmentaric sensorical
input step by step.
When I sit in my living room, I feel like I am experiencing the whole
room with my eyes, but that is an illusion, I experience my memories
of that picture, and my eyes only see small parts of that picture in
every moment.
This has been very important knowledge in witness psychology, where
people think they have seen things they only imagined or remembered,
but they are themselves very sure that they actually saw it.
>>Even if we all were dreaming all this, we could use the model method
>>of handling the world we think we are living in.
>>It is a general method which does not need any assumption about the
>>world we can percieve.
>You are going to have to explain how one would develop the idea or
>concept "model" without thinking that there is something that needed to
>be modeled.
The models are built up of our ideas, our memories of our perception.
There is no absolute need for a real reality to build models in our
minds out of the experiences stored there.
>I think that the biggest fear that I would have in talking about models
>in this way would be if someone thought that, perhaps, we may be talking
>about models of models. We do need it to be the case that our model is
>a model of something or we are fabricating the reality of the solipsist.
Actually, we are creating models of models. The human brain stores
patterns of our perception. These patterns are models of our
experiences, memories.
Then we think about those models and try to simplify and generalize
our memories, and this creates more general models in our brains,
which we can test against our old and new experienced patterns.
>Even if reality, as we know it, is a model, we have to assume that it is
>a model of something that is real.
By all means, do that if it makes you happy ;-)
But scientifically and biologically you are just creating a new model
in your head.
Every assumption you can make is a model in your head.
No matter how many layers of assumptions you make you are not going to
find any reality, just assumptions.
As a human biological intelligence you are forever locked up inside
your own brain and all you know about are ideas.
You can assume that there is an objective reality outside your brain,
but you will never be absolutely sure about that.
I don't think there is any contradiction between scepticism and
objectivism if we fully understand both views.
Of course we have overwhelming empiric proofs of an objective reality,
so we can safely assume that it exists.
There is no reason to put these two views against each other, both are
part of our knowledge, and together they make us wiser.
Contradictions between them are based on misconceptions.
Maybe people are too eager to fight and too restless to learn and
share knowledge peacefully. We should complete each others views and
explain misconceptions instead of banging each others heads with
oversimplified views which seem to contradict each other.
Roger
Roger Johansson
>This is an excerpt out of Ayn Rand's description of
>Objectivism "while standing on one foot":
>Epistemology
>Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of
>reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that
>identifies and integrates the material provided by man's
>senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge.
>Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith
>or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects
>skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is
>impossible).
Thanks, I never read Ayn Rand myself, she is a lot more famous in USA
than in the rest of the world.
To me it is clear that her objectivism is based on a misconception of
scepticism.
Scepticism does not claim that "certainty or knowledge is impossible",
just that absolute certainty is not possible.
All modern scientific knowledge is based on scepticism.
Scepticism got its name from the opposition against religious beliefs
it was sceptical against, but in itself it is just plain reason and
empiricism.
Scepticism and Darwinism are no -isms any more, they are the basis for
all modern thinking and science.
The only people who call any of them -isms are people who are victims
of a misconception or religious people who think they can dismiss
rational thinking as isms.
Roger
Roger Johansson
> I'm afraid makes no apparent sense. Just what group are you talking
> about.
If you had studied math at university level you would know the
difference between group and ring for example.
As you have not done that let's just say that group is the normal math
we all learn in school.
> > But this is a theoretical proof, without any connection to empiric
> > reality, it is just a mind game.
> What is a "mind game"?
The opposite of empiric science. Debating with imagined theoretical
concepts like God or omnipotence, are mind games.
> > I think it is unfortunate that the word proof has been used in
> > theoretical sciences, it sounds like the word proof used in empiric
> > sciences and can often be confused with that word.
> What on earth is a "proof in empirical sciences"?
Comparing theoretical results with empiric data and finding that they
are essentially the same.
For example: When people first came to the sea they soon realised a
rythmic fluctuation of the sea level.
They started building a model in their minds of this pattern of ebb
and flow, and timed it with the movement of the moon and the sun.
Soon they had a theory with which they could predict ebb and flow, and
this theory could be proven by empiric observations.
And what is a "theoretical science"?
The formal sciences, math and logic. They are mind games which give us
many theoretical models which can be used in many empirical sciences.
Roger
Torkel Franzen
>As you have not done that let's just say that group is the normal math
>we all learn in school.
I'm afraid you're still not making any obvious sense. Just what
group do you associate the equation 1+1=2 with? And what on earth do
you mean by saying that "group is the normal math we all learn in
school"?
>The opposite of empiric science. Debating with imagined theoretical
>concepts like God or omnipotence, are mind games.
This is not very illuminating. "Theoretical concepts" are used in
every branch of science, and indeed in ordinary discourse. What would
make such a concept "imagined"?
>Comparing theoretical results with empiric data and finding that they
>are essentially the same.
If I understand you correctly, by "proof" you seem to mean
"empirical testing of theories". It's true that many people, on Usenet
and elsewhere, speak of "scientific proof" in this sense, but this
is a rather unfortunate terminology.
The Philosopher's Stone
>Scepticism does not claim that "certainty or knowledge is impossible",
>just that absolute certainty is not possible.
>All modern scientific knowledge is based on scepticism.
oh so certainty is possible but absolute certainty isn't? what's the
difference. Scepticism relies upon the principle of closure, giuven that
you've been wrong in the past about what you've perceived how can you be
sure that you're not wrong now. That's scepticism and it claims that
knowledge is impossible.
>
>Scepticism got its name from the opposition against religious beliefs
No it didn't. Scepticism was around before Plato.
>it was sceptical against, but in itself it is just plain reason and
>empiricism.
That's not scepticism that's realist empiricism which demands that we
be sceptical and test beliefs thoroughly before accepting them. You're
confusing terminology *AGAIN*.
>The only people who call any of them -isms are people who are victims
>of a misconception or religious people who think they can dismiss
>rational thinking as isms.
That's not true either.
The Philosopher's Stone
>Do you mean that two buffaloes somehow creates two more buffaloes?
Oh don't be obtuse, of course I not saying that. what I'm saying is
that buffalo A and buffalo B together make 2 buffaloes (namely buffaloes
A and B).
>If you ask children about simple mathematical concepts you will most
>likely get the answers the questioneer is expecting.
So you're saying that al mathematical questioning is inherrently
biased and leading? For starters, if this were true than the anti-
innatists would come down on the innatists like a ton of bricks and its
doubtful the innatists would get published. for someone so religiously
fervent about science you seem to have a disconcerting lack of
confidence in its methods.
>If the questioneer is thinking about sand heap maths, or raindrop
>maths she will find that children have a natural talent for that kind
>of math.
Yes but the child will gladly say that there is twice as much sand as
therewas before the 2 piles were combined.
>I wont trust any "scientific exploration into childrens natural
>talents for math" any further than I can throw the people who
>interviewed or tested the children.
So all devellopmental psychology in this field are false, therefore
your own beliefs on this matter are equally false. Ooooh Roger harpoons
himself again.
>Take this heap and add it to that heap, and look what a nice, bigger,
>heap you got.
Yes but the concept of addition is clearly there, you say so yourself
"bigger heap". That is a mathematical concept. The only way you would be
correct is if the chil denied that the new heap was bigger than either
of the two previous heaps.
>Can you explain your kind of "addition" in an elementary way?
Take one thing, combine it with another thing and you get more. Voila,
addition.
>Why call those things "truth" if there are several different "truths"?
>Couldn't that terminology create some confusion?
I'm being charitable :-) I quite agree that the findings of work done
of 30 dimensional geommetry aren't true in any meaningful useful way but
maths uses a rather lax and lazy definition of the term and I'm allowing
them to use it given that there are firewalls regarding what that notion
of truth applies to.
>Who did you say is over-complicating?
You are.
>Who just said: "ascribing monolithic, complexe, philosophically
>axiomatised systems"? Sounds complicated to me ;-)
it's a complex piece of jargon but the processes are remarkably simple
and elegant :-)
>Please explain what you said about those four buffaloes again?
>What did you really want to say?
I'm saying that there is an ebolutionary advantage to be had from
basic mathematical reasoning skills which can explain that one
mathematical model (arithmetic) is MORE natural than others and comes
more easily to us; because it's the best at modelling the universe we
live in and experience in the day to day.
unga = 1
bunga= 2
The idea that unga and unga buffalo are the same as bunga buffalo is a
remarkably simple and useful one as far as hunting and foraging skills
are concerned (these need not be linguistic, just mental constructs),
especially when dealing with social animals. If 5 chimps need 5 bananas
and 1 chimp dies then there's an advantage in being able to work out
that only 4 bananas are now needed.
This is basically an analogue to the argument for the devellopment of
language, basic reasoning skills are necessary for survival and it's
likely that over time animals with better reasoning skills will have
been better adapted to survive, producing us evebntually, an animals
with LOADS of skills at reasoning in the abstract. If there is an
evolutionary advantage in basic mathematical reasoning then that sugests
both that there is one basic set of rules which are best used to model
reality and that numbers can be innate concepts (which was a peripheral
point).
Rusty Wiley
wrote:
>> > > > What is an agnostic?
>> >
>> > hmmmmmmmmmmm..
>> > [aside] does she toy with me?
>> > I'm 100% serious.
>
>"agnostic one who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God
>but does not deny the possibility that God exists".
>(american heritage)
Just butting in for a moment, Gene, because that dictionary definition
may be a bit narrow.
Agnostic: One who holds to the theory of agnosticism
Agnosticism: The doctrine of nescience. The philosophical theory that
man cannot know first truths, ultimate causes, or anything beyond
material phenomenon.
I know that most often in this group agnosticism means to have the
opinion on the existence of god that you describe, but it does not have
to be restricted to that. Although some dictionaries suggest that it
could be used synonymously for skepticism, I like to think that
agnosticism is where the radical skeptic gets off the ride.
Rusty
russell
is impossible. There need to be a priori truths in order
for science to function.
It might be possible that it is my fault, I have not yet got
the hang of when to put in the question to which I am
responding. I was, in my assertation, only suggesting that
1+1=2 was in fact a priori knowledge, which I grant as being
true and practical. I was responding to someone who claimed
that it was posterior kowledge........
RW
Rusty Wiley
<roge...@swipnet.se> wrote:
>(Rusty Wiley) wrote:
>As scientists we cannot assume that we have found the absolute truth
>in any of our models, so why should we assume we can find absolute
>truth about the sum of all our models, the reality?
I think that we have agreed before that the tautological statement has
to be an absolute truth by definition. Other than that we do not have
to worry about absolutes. I am content with finding something useful.
If we are careful to restrict ourselves, when we talk about reality to
making tautological statements then we will be repeating absolute truths
about that reality.
>Instead we let that model also be subject to further development as we
>find/create new knowledge.
From this I assume that we can have knowledge.
>Yes, but strictly speaking we must be aware that this reality is also
>a neurological model in our heads. It is not necessary for our science
>to work that we assume that there is an absolute reality behind this
>model we call reality.
What are we going to assume otherwise - that our science is all made up
from nowhere and nothing?
>What we can reach consensus about is the idea of a reality, the model
>most of us have in our heads.
>We can not reach consensus about an absolute reality, because we only
>know the models in our heads.
>We think this model is a very close approximation of an absolute
>reality, and with our science we try to make this model as good as
>possible, but we should be aware that the absolute reality is an
>assumption.
I think that you are saying that we cannot ever hope to prove an
absolute reality and I would agree with you. The fact is that if we can
reach consensus on anything, being that we are all different in some
way, can we say that there is nothing and we are coming to these similar
conclusions about this nothing? I suppose that we could if we were
products of the solipsist.
>Both water and H2O are ideas we can communicate and reach consensus
>about. The idea of H2O is closely connected to the idea of water.
>And both are closely connected to the idea of a reality.
This seems to border on solipsism. If we know that all that we can have
are ideas, then why are we assuming a "we"? Why am I not assuming an
"I" and looking at all of those others as being a part of the idea that
I can hold?
>We as humans can only communicate our ideas between each other, and
>reach consensus over some ideas which are clearly defined, because our
>empiric experiences are similar enough to allow this consensus.
>This is how we have built up the body of knowledge called science.
>This is also how we have built up the concept of the daily world we
>think we are living in.
>Nor everybody agree on everything in these bodies of knowledge.
How can we have any experiences that we might call empirical? I could
understand if you wanted to say that we cannot say for certain anything
about what is 'out there' but I do not know how you can say that we can
build models without there being something 'out there'. Are "we"
particular in our design or creation to be able to be the observer of
what is 'out there'? Are we a part of what is 'out there'?
>>You are going to have to explain how one would develop the idea or
>>concept "model" without thinking that there is something that needed to
>>be modeled.
>
>The models are built up of our ideas, our memories of our perception.
>There is no absolute need for a real reality to build models in our
>minds out of the experiences stored there.
Where did we come up with our ideas and memories? Were they magically
implanted in us?
>>I think that the biggest fear that I would have in talking about models
>>in this way would be if someone thought that, perhaps, we may be talking
>>about models of models. We do need it to be the case that our model is
>>a model of something or we are fabricating the reality of the solipsist.
>
>Actually, we are creating models of models. The human brain stores
>patterns of our perception. These patterns are models of our
>experiences, memories.
>Then we think about those models and try to simplify and generalize
>our memories, and this creates more general models in our brains,
>which we can test against our old and new experienced patterns.
Does this idea of models of models not have, ultimately, to reduce to
the absurd? This is what I would call radical skepticism. Having
models of models I do not see how you are going to claim knowledge.
>But scientifically and biologically you are just creating a new model
>in your head.
Basically I agree, but I have to think that I have reasonable cause to
build the model that I have to work with. I should add that I do not
want to leave you with the impression that I think that there is a
*thing* in my head. The model that is in your head is a description or
definition of something that is not in your head.
>Every assumption you can make is a model in your head.
>No matter how many layers of assumptions you make you are not going to
>find any reality, just assumptions.
I have no problem with that. We are going to infer something. I simply
do not understand the recursive inference of models of models of models.
>As a human biological intelligence you are forever locked up inside
>your own brain and all you know about are ideas.
>You can assume that there is an objective reality outside your brain,
>but you will never be absolutely sure about that.
I do not need to be absolutely sure about any of the details or
particulars of the reality, but I do need to be free to assume that I am
incapable of inference and of building a model without there was
something there for me to base my model upon. I can see where I could
assume that I am all that exists and could therefore create all of what
I see as reality. I could assume that I am god and that I could build
all of these models of reality from nothing. Or I could assume that
there is something real on or from which I could build these models. Is
there another way to get the model that I have missed?
>I don't think there is any contradiction between scepticism and
>objectivism if we fully understand both views.
I believe that when the skeptic finally realizes that there must be
something about which he can be skeptical then he becomes an agnostic.
The agnostic can see the possibility of objective reality.
>Of course we have overwhelming empiric proofs of an objective reality,
>so we can safely assume that it exists.
If all that we have are models of models then I do not see how you get
to this. I don't know that we can justify our beliefs from evidence
found in a prior model.
Rusty
Obelix
> How do you propose to prove that 1 + 1 is not equal to 2? it
> is impossible.
How is it impossible? That is just an assumption on your part, caused
by overacceptance of traditional mathematical constructs.
> There need to be a priori truths in order for science to function.
*confused look*
How so?
Please offer up some sort of support for these generalizing statements
:o)
Ob.
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
The Philosopher's Stone <Th...@LAAAAAaaaaaaaarge.Mice.com> wrote in message
news:gTmWdFAw...@jmccalmont.demon.co.uk...
> genein <gen...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
> >don't be shy....go ahead, you have my interest and attention...
>
> Well given that there is a degree of difference between individuals
> due to genetic differences (that same difference that makes us all look
> different) we can argue that these differences also apply to
> neurophysical characteristics, therefore just as we have different
> faces, we also experience colour in different ways. Like I said it's AN
> arguement.
i guess what i tend to do is observe and my observations especially of
children;...all will turn to a blue on their palette or crayon when drawing a
sky let us say....i would love an example of experiencing color in different
ways....unless you are speaking of *application* of color....in art school we
were taught when drawing the human form to begin with an egg shape which is
basic for heads no matter what gender or race....how different are we would be
an interesting topic..not much imo.....we all have far more in common than
differences and that would include color, except of course for a genetic defect
in some...there are many attributes that are universal in man...
> >you prefer the more complex?...my brand of "quinean anti-realism"?, and what
> >might that be? :-)
>
> The idea that belief in god is central to your belief system and
> therefore is no more open to question than any other basic belief such
> as "Other people exist" or "The material world exists".
how did this apply to me?
> >explain please...a watered down faith?.....where?.. "nature of "induction"?
> >something is amiss here.....
>
> What you're doing is making knowledge impossible therefore any belief
> we have must be faith. Which is waterring down the definition of faith
> till it is synonimous with belief.
you have much explaining to do.....quite possible you may have put a slant of
your own making on what i have said (unintentionally of course) you are quite
wrong and your post when read by me seems as if you were addressing someone
else......
>
> >something like: a confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness
of a
> >person, an idea, or a thing? would that be it?
>
> A "confident" belief? but surely that's a psychological element rather
> than a rational one.
when did you become confident that you could ride a bike without breaking your
neck in the trying? was it psychological or did it come from simply riding your
bike without falling for a period of time.....then one must factor in that
there are events that are beyond our control, you may hit a pot hole and go
flying into an oncoming car....but since this kind of event does not happen
often to bike riders (but certainly does happen) you have faith that this most
likely will not happen to you...there is a subtlety here that must be
appreciated...
A justified belief is more consistent with
> knowledge than a confident belief, that's just basic epistemology.
what is your def. of "a justified belief" would it be facts? i am now beginning
to believe that you are playing the sax while i the base drum....
> >the theist? believing in god? where are you coming from? retreating into
> >skepticism?
>
> Can you speak english at all?
very well....and then some.....i invited you to explain your last accusation
and i am still waiting....i will ignore the tenor of that question for now....
>
> > i just completed a post denouncing skepticism and here i am accused
> >of skepticism.....surly madness lurks in alt.philosphy....by some anyway.
>
> When it tastes like it, smells like it, you call it what it is.
there are some who call a wolverine a wolf...confuse a deer with an elk...a
tortoise for a turtle.....but you get the idea..an unexamined observation may
cause havoc when seeking knowledge..you have asked precious few questions but
have come to "conclusions" in quick time.... should this be possible?
>
> >don't know what a posteriori knowledge may be other than posterior which is
the
> >rear end of a given animal....enlighten me....i am not making fun but really
> >your wording is rather odd.....
>
> Have you ever actually studied philosophy?
yes... but philosophy does not reside in classrooms rather in our ability to
observe and make sense out the world we live in....if you look about this and
other philosophy newsgroups it doesn't take long to discover that not a few,
still post as if they were in a classroom and not in the real world....and take
offense rather quickly when their shiny new words do not get the importance
they feel it deserves.....i have been there and know.....as an artist i began
in the classroom drawing the basic shapes and color of things but then one
breaks away from such props.......in real life it gets in the way and one
cannot see or taste properly life in the raw.....
I find it very hard indeed
> to believe that you've never come across the term a posteriori knowledge
> (compare it to a priori, it's more or less analogous to exclusively
> empirical knowledge).
it means precisely what i said it does in my last post drop the "i" and it
tells the story
posterior....prior, no mystery here.....personally i think you are misusing the
word in the sense it hinders rather than aids...and does not apply to my last
post.....when one makes an observation it behooves one to explain.
> >they do not preach fire and brimstone.....period.
>
> The Catholic church does, most american churches seem to. On the total
> number of churches I think most christian churches do buy into hell.
does this come from consistent observation or hearsay?
i ask questions and from time to time do take the time out and go to the source
rather than rely on what someone tells me or overheard....
a favor:
please keep your response rational, logical but above all well mannered and i
will respond....i will in turn do the same.....if at any time it appears i am
not, ask first before you turn the cannons loose........
g.
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
Adrian Planinc <eplan...@cc.curtin.edu.au> wrote in message
news:381d3e71...@news.wantree.com.au...
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 18:28:03 -0500, "genein"
> <gen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >they do not preach fire and brimstone.....period. i don't say this
> >casually..and that was the point....and this has to be one of the more
> >bewildering posts that i have read in a long time..
>
>
> Yes. I agree that much. In fact, there are plenty of clerics
> out there now who have been quite openly embracing the idea
> that Scripture is written in symbolic language (as it
> OBVIOUSLY is) and not to be taken as a technical manual to
> be read literally but rather as a work of ancient wisdom and
> poetry in which the idea of absolute meaning sort of melts
> away into a loose freedom to accept its musings in one's own
> way. Of course, these are the liberals, mainly to be found
> in churches outside the Catholic Church and outside
> conservative American churches. Much of this activity
> happens in Europe, UK, Australia and New Zealand.
>
> Personally, I think the church in these parts of the world
> is becoming integrated into a form of neo-secular philosophy
> in which faith-based absolutes are starting to disappear.
yes and many have not caught on to this major "sea change" preferring to view
the present by way of the past...
> Thats to say, while before one would have to personally
> accept Christ in order to go to heaven, today many more
> Christians then ever before are quite happy with people
> being "Christians by default", not directly worshipping as
> Christians, but living what would be considered a decent
> life according to Christ's teachings, even though in
> practice they may be Atheists or whatever!
what more can be said......there are "atheists" in the church my wife goes
to...i attend from time to time (enjoy the music) although not a believer but
find the people exceptionally intelligent, most certainly christian in spirit
(there are always exceptions) but as you say attempting to live a decent
life.....and these very same people are maligned by those who do not take the
time out to understand where christianity is going and is at this moment.....
and what i have described is in no way an exception to the rule.....
> This may mean the end of closed religious systems, and
> maintenence of small extremist groups which resist change.
> But overall, I think it will lead to a more open global
> society, in which it is quite likely that opinions will be
> watered down compared to those of the pre-Internet era.
difficult for me to extrapolate at this time that which is, into that which
will be...so i will chug along the same track in my belief that people
(including myself) will continue to "grow"....i would hazard one guess........i
think among the better educated and intelligent christian there will be a
closer relationship with science......which in no way excludes a god....[i feel
the presence of the "closeminded" circling overhead"]
g.
> Adrian
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
Rusty Wiley <rusty...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:381d83d...@news1.sympatico.ca...
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:27:08 -0500, "genein" <gen...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> > > > What is an agnostic?
> >> >
> >> > hmmmmmmmmmmm..
> >> > [aside] does she toy with me?
> >> > I'm 100% serious.
> >
> >"agnostic one who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of
God
> >but does not deny the possibility that God exists".
> >(american heritage)
>
> Just butting in for a moment, Gene, because that dictionary definition
> may be a bit narrow.
as most are....but a good beginning...
>
> Agnostic: One who holds to the theory of agnosticism
>
> Agnosticism: The doctrine of nescience. The philosophical theory that
> man cannot know first truths, ultimate causes, or anything beyond
> material phenomenon.
i think that is probably the way most agnostics go....but not all, some stop at
the gates of "i don't know and most likely it will never be known" and never
pass beyond...but you are correct...
> I know that most often in this group agnosticism means to have the
> opinion on the existence of god that you describe,
(just to play it safe) what opinion on the existence of god do i hold?
but it does not have
> to be restricted to that. Although some dictionaries suggest that it
> could be used synonymously for skepticism,
i have never come across any dictionary that suggested this.....perhaps you
have but they would be wrong...skepticism is in a class by itself....by your
very def. it can be seen this is not possible.....of course it is always
possible to "stretch" a word to fit a given situation but this is not conducive
to a good discussion..if a "spade" is dealt perhaps we should not remark that
its simialr to a "club"...slows the game...i like your def. below, simple and
to the point......
"> Agnosticism: The doctrine of nescience. The philosophical theory that
> man cannot know first truths, ultimate causes, or anything beyond
> material phenomenon"
I like to think that
> agnosticism is where the radical skeptic gets off the ride.
i guess i prefer to think that it is the only openminded road that is
available, sans skepticism, sans atheism, sans all things that impede the
ability to think....
but rusty thank you for your imput which are always welcomed and generally to
the point.
g.
>
> Rusty
>
Rusty Wiley
wrote:
>
>> I know that most often in this group agnosticism means to have the
>> opinion on the existence of god that you describe,
>
>(just to play it safe) what opinion on the existence of god do i hold?
Sorry Gene:
It was not very clear. I meant the opinion on the existence of god that
you *described* with the posting of your definition.....had nothing to
do with you personally.
Rusty
kojak
in binary :)
--
~kojak
"The menu is not the meal" - Alan Watts
Obelix <obelix3...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0a0133f8...@usw-ex0102-016.remarq.com...
The Philosopher's Stone
>i guess what i tend to do is observe and my observations especially of
>children;...all will turn to a blue on their palette or crayon when drawing a
>sky let us say.
Sure, but who's to say that they don't systematicvally experience blue
as what we call green? :-) the scepticism isn't at the level of thinking
people are colour blind but that they experience all the colours in
consistently different ways. Therefore, the sky will be green to them
and they will choose the green paint, which they have been taught is the
blue one, as "the sky is blue" is true for them as they consistently
perceive green as blue they cannot be aware that they are in error, and
indeed there are no grounds for saying that they are in error.
>...i would love an example of experiencing color in different
>ways
Just that, the phenomenological aspect of colour.
>how did this apply to me?
I've heard you toe the Quinean - Plantigan line in the past. If this
isn't you then I wholeheatedly apologise but I definitely recall someone
of your name being a Quinean who agreed with Plantinga and said that
belief in god was a basic belief.
>you have much explaining to do.....quite possible you may have put a slant of
>your own making on what i have said (unintentionally of course) you are quite
>wrong and your post when read by me seems as if you were addressing someone
>else......
When you say that faith is required for everyday life you are clearly
watering down the definition. I may be mistaken about the quinean line
but in the post I responded to you definitely watered down faith to the
point where everything was accepted on the basis of faith.
There's a strong intuition that Faith in god and faith in say the
number 11 bus being on time are very different epistemological states.
One transcends reason, the other is based in reason. You've run the two
together.
>when did you become confident that you could ride a bike without breaking your
>neck in the trying?
So you're saying that faith is belief.
>what is your def. of "a justified belief" would it be facts? i am now beginning
>to believe that you are playing the sax while i the base drum....
a justified belief is one which is warranted by application of the
scientific method and by logical coherence to the other things we know.
>you have asked precious few questions but
>have come to "conclusions" in quick time.... should this be possible?
I have based myself upon what you have written. If I am wrong, please
point out where.
>yes... but philosophy does not reside in classrooms rather in our ability to
>observe and make sense out the world we live in
Where philosophy is done is irrelevent, what is important is the truth
of the matter. If that means that we can't discuss philosophy down the
pub, so what? The idea that academic philosophy is somehow endemically
impractical strikes me as silly and even if it were true we are
discussing truth not practicality.
>personally i think you are misusing the
>word in the sense it hinders rather than aids...and does not apply to my last
>post.....when one makes an observation it behooves one to explain.
Anyone who has studied philosophy from Kant onwards knows the basic
dichotomy of knowledge between the a priori knowledge (knowable before
experience) and the a posteriori knowledge (knowable only after
experience). These are COMPLETELY uncontroversial terms and I find it
shocking that you haven't come across them. This is the equivalent of
sitting in a maths class and wondering what the "8" symbol refers to. It
is basic philosophical terminology. I'm not saying you're stupid just
that your teachers in philosophy did you a grave dis-service.
>does this come from consistent observation or hearsay?
>i ask questions and from time to time do take the time out and go to the source
>rather than rely on what someone tells me or overheard....
The idea that the catholic church does not have a concept of hell is
strikingly absurd. Admittedly the view dominant in america that failure
to be saved begets an infinite amount of time in hell is not dominant in
the christian world and is certainly not the canonical position of the
catholic church, universalists and people who argue that there is no
hell other than not being are very much in a minority. I was talking
about this with a bloke who studies half the time in the theology
department and half the time with us and he said that the dominant
conception of hell is that of a temporal amount of punishment followed
by non-being.
Roger Johansson
>>Scepticism does not claim that "certainty or knowledge is impossible",
>>just that absolute certainty is not possible.
>>All modern scientific knowledge is based on scepticism.
> oh so certainty is possible but absolute certainty isn't? what's the
>difference.
The difference between absolute certainty and our usual empirical
certainty is the difference between 100% and a number between 0 and
100%.
A religious person can be 100% sure that God exists, a mathematician
can can be absolutely sure that 1+1=2.
They both engage in mindgames which need no confirmation or checking
up in the real world. They can talk about absolute truths.
Everything which has to do with reality is subject to mistakes,
distortion, measurement errors, etcetera, so the empiric sciences are
all about probabilities.
>>Scepticism got its name from the opposition against religious beliefs
> No it didn't. Scepticism was around before Plato.
Religion and irrational beliefs were around 10000 years before Plato.
By the way, I don't care what historical background the term had 2000
years ago. It has been used for the last 200 years, and is used today,
to characterize the scientific view of not accepting irrational
beliefs but instead to think critically and demand physical proofs,
reason and empiricism.
Scepticism that is realist empiricism which demands that we
be sceptical and test beliefs thoroughly before accepting them.
Scepticism is like Darwinism, they are "-isms" which have become so
accepted that they can hardly be called -isms anymore.
The only people who call any of them -isms are people who are victims
of a misconception or religious people who think they can dismiss
rational thinking as isms.
Roger
Roger Johansson
Your defence has become so thin in this discussion that I feel no need
to push you further into the corner. My arguments in the last msg were
so strong that your replies below are more a confirmation of my views
than any valid counterarguments. For now I will leave it as it is, may
the readers judge for themselves.
]>>Do you mean that two buffaloes somehow creates two more buffaloes?
]>
]> Oh don't be obtuse, of course I not saying that. what I'm saying
is
]>that buffalo A and buffalo B together make 2 buffaloes (namely
buffaloes
]>A and B).
]>
]>
]>>If you ask children about simple mathematical concepts you will
most
]>>likely get the answers the questioneer is expecting.
]>
]> So you're saying that al mathematical questioning is inherrently
]>
]>
]>Jonathan McCalmont ~ Thoth(at)jmccalmont(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk
]>>Quixotic deviant, Unreconstructed Scientific Realist, Atheist <
]>>> Left-Wing Nut Case and Despoiler of All Things Post-Modern <<
Roger
Nelson Thompson
> I am currentlly in a debate with someone who says that he is
> fully and completley an atheist. He feels sure that there
> is no GOD. I have told him that this strong a belief, in or
> against god, requires faith. Am I right in this assertaion?
Allow me to answer you question, with some questions of my own,
if I may. I'm not being mean, I just think that the answer to
your question may come when you consider these questions of mine.
So, suppose I agree and say that it takes faith to be an atheist.
Then what will you make this mean? (No offense, but I expect that
you have an agenda in asking this question.) If not, okay.
If it takes faith to be an atheist, then what does it mean to have
NO faith? If I had no faith at all, would I still be an atheist?
What would be the difference between an atheist with faith that
there is no god, and an athiest with no faith at all? Or would
there BE a difference?
How about if I "believe" there is no god; would you equate this
to my "having faith" that there is no god? So what is the
difference between belief and faith?
Suppose we define belief as a stand arrived at after examination of
available evidence, and faith as a stand taken without benefit of
evidence. Could I then "believe" there is no god without "having
faith" that there is no god?
Nelson
Obelix
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
The Philosopher's Stone <Th...@LAAAAAaaaaaaaarge.Mice.com> wrote in message
news:gpv2DfAX...@jmccalmont.demon.co.uk...
> genein <gen...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
> >i guess what i tend to do is observe and my observations especially of
> >children;...all will turn to a blue on their palette or crayon when drawing
a
> >sky let us say.
>
> Sure, but who's to say that they don't systematicvally experience blue
> as what we call green? :-) the scepticism isn't at the level of thinking
> people are colour blind but that they experience all the colours in
> consistently different ways.
really...and what way would that be?
Therefore, the sky will be green to them
> and they will choose the green paint, which they have been taught is the
> blue one, as "the sky is blue" is true for them as they consistently
> perceive green as blue they cannot be aware that they are in error, and
> indeed there are no grounds for saying that they are in error.
you may have something going for you there but my mind balks at your
conclusions..what can i say....i could argue with this but doubt very much if
you would accept a logical response....
\> >...i would love an example of experiencing color in different
> >ways
>
> Just that, the phenomenological aspect of colour.
great word, how much did you pay for it?....so let me see how it stacks up with
the def....i am going to need some help here.......when is a color not a
color??
do you think you can "marry" the def. i gave with your statement on color....
def.
"the study of all possible appearances in human experience, during which
considerations of objective reality and of purely subjective response are left
out of account".
don't stay up too late...
> >how did this apply to me?
>
> I've heard you toe the Quinean - Plantigan line in the past. If this
> isn't you then I wholeheatedly apologise but I definitely recall someone
> of your name being a Quinean who agreed with Plantinga and said that
> belief in god was a basic belief.
i have no idea what it is you are referring to ...and an apology is not
required...mistakes happen
>
> >you have much explaining to do.....quite possible you may have put a slant
of
> >your own making on what i have said (unintentionally of course) you are
quite
> >wrong and your post when read by me seems as if you were addressing someone
> >else......
>
> When you say that faith is required for everyday life you are clearly
> watering down the definition. I may be mistaken about the quinean line
> but in the post I responded to you definitely watered down faith to the
> point where everything was accepted on the basis of faith.
and you may well be *clearly* mistaken here as well...since you fail to grasp
the similarity between "faith" and *FAITH*...do you also fail to see the
similarity between a lion and a tiger.....?....and more to the point...the
differences.?....what is a cat?
"any of various carnivorous mammals of the family Felidae, which includes the
lion, tiger, leopard, and lynx".....do you deny the lynx its place in the world
of cats?
as i have said faith can be:
a confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, an
idea, or a thing.
*or* it can be a theologocal virtue defined as a secure belief in god and a
trusting acceptance of god's will........
There's a strong intuition that Faith in god and faith in say the
> number 11 bus being on time are very different epistemological states.
what does intuition have to do with it?....but yes a faith in god is not quite
that of a bus being on time....however they share the same meaning in different
strengths, the above def. i gave you came from a standard
dictionary.......btw...epistemology is a branch of philosophy that seeks to
resolve basic questions such as: what is the nature of knowledge? is knowledge
possible? what are the limits? and does jonathan know what the hell is he is
talking about? ;-) (no offense).....the term itself epistemology is from the
greek signifying the study of knowledge.... you however are playing with
semantics when you hair split on the word "faith" please look it up in a
dictionary of your choice and see for yourself.....an ice berg is cold,....a
large lake in the summer can be cold but not to be compared to an
iceberg....our language is rich with shared words which depends on how it is
used and in what context....one can have faith in a parent to come through in a
pinch (based on past performace) and one can have faith in a god (based on a
handed down belief)
> One transcends reason, the other is based in reason. You've run the two
> together.
you are speaking of a belief in god which does not go beyond reason...it simply
lacks facts or logic, this does not mean it is beyond or transcends reason.
def.
transcends:
"to pass beyond the limits of: emotions that transcend understanding. 2. To be
greater than, as in intensity or power; surpass: love that transcends
infatuation"
and that brings us to that timely bus....."which is based in reason" what does
this have to do with it being on time *most of the time* but as we all know
there are times when due to weather, strikes or a variety of other problems it
may not be on time but the majority of the time it is on time......so we have
faith (the little one without the religious attachments) that we will arrive
home in a timely fashion based on the track record which tells us
this......will go into it more deeply "next time" if time permits that
is....anyway will read you next time if i have the time......
> >when did you become confident that you could ride a bike without breaking
your
> >neck in the trying?
>
> So you're saying that faith is belief.
no! when did you become confident that you could ride a bike when you believed
you could or when you stopped falling on your butt?
>
> >what is your def. of "a justified belief" would it be facts? i am now
beginning
> >to believe that you are playing the sax while i the base drum....
>
> a justified belief is one which is warranted by application of the
> scientific method and by logical coherence to the other things we know.
sounds good but means little, come out of the classroom and regroup your words
based on the real world.....
> >you have asked precious few questions but
> >have come to "conclusions" in quick time.... should this be possible?
>
> I have based myself upon what you have written. If I am wrong, please
> point out where.
where would i start...? again you never or rarely question and i have btw
"faithfully" pointed out where you were wrong....and you just as faithfully,
ignored it.....
> >yes... but philosophy does not reside in classrooms rather in our ability to
> >observe and make sense out the world we live in
>
> Where philosophy is done is irrelevent,
one does not "do" philosophy
what is important is the truth
> of the matter. If that means that we can't discuss philosophy down the
> pub, so what?
i *prefer* the pub to the classroom which stifles.....
The idea that academic philosophy is somehow endemically
> impractical strikes me as silly and even if it were true we are
> discussing truth not practicality.
"edemically" impractical??? now where did you get that idea from? philosophy is
life and life is everywhere, the problem with "classroom philosophy" is there
is far too much posturing, positioning and usage of coenzymatically words which
turn out to be rather flummery and élan vital in order to inculcate rather than
arrive at a possible cinéma vérité ....i left that behind many years ago, it
was fun a the time but rather a bore today....
> >personally i think you are misusing the
> >word in the sense it hinders rather than aids...and does not apply to my
last
> >post.....when one makes an observation it behooves one to explain.
>
> Anyone who has studied philosophy from Kant onwards knows the basic
> dichotomy of knowledge between the a priori knowledge (knowable before
> experience) and the a posteriori knowledge (knowable only after
> experience).
did i not write ?
"it means precisely what i said it does in my last post drop the "i" and it
tells the story posterior....prior, no mystery here.....
and have studied kant (one of my favorites if that has any meaning)
These are COMPLETELY uncontroversial terms and I find it
> shocking that you haven't come across them.
do you bother to read? look above, what do you see?..
This is the equivalent of
> sitting in a maths class and wondering what the "8" symbol refers to. It
> is basic philosophical terminology. I'm not saying you're stupid just
> that your teachers in philosophy did you a grave dis-service.
my philosophy teachers were of the best caliber....however they gave me a start
and nothing more....life is my teacher, coupled with all the greats who have
taught me far more and continue to do so.....
>
> >does this come from consistent observation or hearsay?
> >i ask questions and from time to time do take the time out and go to the
source
> >rather than rely on what someone tells me or overheard....
>
> The idea that the catholic church does not have a concept of hell is
> strikingly absurd.
did i say that or did you?
Admittedly the view dominant in america that failure
> to be saved begets an infinite amount of time in hell is not dominant in
> the christian world and is certainly not the canonical position of the
> catholic church, universalists and people who argue that there is no
> hell other than not being are very much in a minority. I was talking
> about this with a bloke who studies half the time in the theology
> department and half the time with us and he said that the dominant
> conception of hell is that of a temporal amount of punishment followed
> by non-being.
so you are a student......that explains much, if not all.....that classroom
"flavor" i spoke of was more than evident....but when one is of college age
(and i do remember those days) the excipient usage of logy was rather pro
tempore and in time one does learn the art of sfumato and life begins
afresh...... :-))) keep studying......
g.
> Jonathan McCalmont ~
Roger Johansson
>I think that we have agreed before that the tautological statement has
>to be an absolute truth by definition.
Okay, that is a mind game without empiric connection so you can call
it absolute truth, I just don't see any practical usefulness in that
operation.
>>Instead we let that model also be subject to further development as we
>>find/create new knowledge.
>From this I assume that we can have knowledge.
Of course, there are lots of empiric knowledge in the scientific
field.
>>Yes, but strictly speaking we must be aware that this reality is also
>>a neurological model in our heads. It is not necessary for our science
>>to work that we assume that there is an absolute reality behind this
>>model we call reality.
>What are we going to assume otherwise - that our science is all made up
>from nowhere and nothing?
Our common knowledge is made up from our individual brain patterns
through communication and consensus. It seems reasonable to assume a
common reality as a cause to the similarities in our brain patterns
which makes this possible.
So scientists very often assume a common reality, the only problem is
that we cannot communicate that reality, only the patterns in our
brains. So we agree upon these brain patterns, not reality.
This is why we agree upon models of the reality and not reality
itself.
>>What we can reach consensus about is the idea of a reality, the model
>>most of us have in our heads.
>>We can not reach consensus about an absolute reality, because we only
>>know the models in our heads.
>>We think this model is a very close approximation of an absolute
>>reality, and with our science we try to make this model as good as
>>possible, but we should be aware that the absolute reality is an
>>assumption.
>I think that you are saying that we cannot ever hope to prove an
>absolute reality and I would agree with you. The fact is that if we can
>reach consensus on anything, being that we are all different in some
>way, can we say that there is nothing and we are coming to these similar
>conclusions about this nothing?
It seems more reasonable to assume something instead of nothing.
>>Both water and H2O are ideas we can communicate and reach consensus
>>about. The idea of H2O is closely connected to the idea of water.
>>And both are closely connected to the idea of a reality.
> If we know that all that we can have
>are ideas, then why are we assuming a "we"? Why am I not assuming an
>"I" and looking at all of those others as being a part of the idea that
>I can hold?
We all start by assuming an I, but when we have started to communicate
and are trying to reach some level of consensus it is reasonable to
assume a we.
>>We as humans can only communicate our ideas between each other, and
>>reach consensus over some ideas which are clearly defined, because our
>>empiric experiences are similar enough to allow this consensus.
>>This is how we have built up the body of knowledge called science.
>>This is also how we have built up the concept of the daily world we
>>think we are living in.
>>Nor everybody agree on everything in these bodies of knowledge.
>How can we have any experiences that we might call empirical? I could
>understand if you wanted to say that we cannot say for certain anything
>about what is 'out there' but I do not know how you can say that we can
>build models without there being something 'out there'. Are "we"
>particular in our design or creation to be able to be the observer of
>what is 'out there'? Are we a part of what is 'out there'?
Of course we are part of the "out there", as we can see and talk to
other human beings the concept of "we" is a natural model in
everybodies brains.
I have personally tested this empirically many times, I talked to some
of the other two-legged creatures in my "reality" and they answered
me, so I am pretty sure there are others like me out there.
>>>You are going to have to explain how one would develop the idea or
>>>concept "model" without thinking that there is something that needed to
>>>be modeled.
>>The models are built up of our ideas, our memories of our perception.
>>There is no absolute need for a real reality to build models in our
>>minds out of the experiences stored there.
>Where did we come up with our ideas and memories? Were they magically
>implanted in us?
I think they are a result of experiences of a real world, I just
cannot prove it with absolute certainty.
So the reality is an empirical "truth", not an absolute truth.
>>Actually, we are creating models of models. The human brain stores
>>patterns of our perception. These patterns are models of our
>>experiences, memories.
>>Then we think about those models and try to simplify and generalize
>>our memories, and this creates more general models in our brains,
>>which we can test against our old and new experienced patterns.
>Does this idea of models of models not have, ultimately, to reduce to
>the absurd?
No, why would that be absurd? Is absurd a feeling?
(your reasons to feel a bit absurd seems to me to be some kind of a
philosophical hangover from a theoretical world of absolute knowledge
we all have in our heritage)
>This is what I would call radical skepticism. Having
>models of models I do not see how you are going to claim knowledge.
Knowledge IS a combination of models. That is all we have and can
communicate to each other, so it will have to do.
One of these models is called reality, and models your assumed
reality. Happier now? ;-)
(I am not making fun of anybody, just trying to explain in everyday
language the paradigm shift from the absolute truths of the old
religious world view, and the new empiric model view, which makes some
people feel a lack of meaning, a lack of anything fixed to hold on to)
>>But scientifically and biologically you are just creating a new model
>>in your head.
>Basically I agree, but I have to think that I have reasonable cause to
>build the model that I have to work with. I should add that I do not
>want to leave you with the impression that I think that there is a
>*thing* in my head. The model that is in your head is a description or
>definition of something that is not in your head.
There is no problem in modern science with assuming a reality which we
experience, and which leaves patterns in our brains, which we can
communicate to each other, and reach some consensus about.
It is only the absolutes in all this which has to go when we stopped
believing in them.
Science is not about believing, but about accepting reasonable models
which can be empirically proven with high certainty.
>>Every assumption you can make is a model in your head.
>>No matter how many layers of assumptions you make you are not going to
>>find any reality, just assumptions.
>I have no problem with that. We are going to infer something. I simply
>do not understand the recursive inference of models of models of models.
There are not too many layers to handle.
But each level incurs possibilities of distortions and mistakes we
have to be aware of.
I see the reality with my eyes, and build up a model of that reality
with my intellectual abilities in my brain. That process is subject to
mistakes and distortions.
I communicate this view to you with the help of language and technical
devices, and you interpret these messages with your senses and
intellectual capabilities. That process is also subject to mistakes
and distortions.
The models we can agree upon must therefor be approximations of the
reality, which we can make better and better, and we will probably
never achieve exactly 100% correspondence between our models and the
reality.
>>I don't think there is any contradiction between scepticism and
>>objectivism if we fully understand both views.
>I believe that when the skeptic finally realizes that there must be
>something about which he can be skeptical then he becomes an agnostic.
>The agnostic can see the possibility of objective reality.
The sceptic scientist realizes this just as much as you, but he also
knows that what he can communicate is not the reality, only his views
of reality. So he is not trying to reach consensus about reality in
itself, just the models of reality we can communicate.
This is not a difference in views really, it is more of a difference
in what we think we can communicate.
>>Of course we have overwhelming empiric proofs of an objective reality,
>>so we can safely assume that it exists.
>If all that we have are models of models then I do not see how you get
>to this. I don't know that we can justify our beliefs from evidence
>found in a prior model.
We have models of how biologic creatures can experience the world
around them, so it is an acceptable model to assume that we can build
up models of reality in our brains and communicate these to each
other.
I don't think there is a problem in this.
Roger
hcump...@my-deja.com
russell <rew77N...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
> I am currentlly in a debate with someone who says that he is
> fully and completley an atheist. He feels sure that there
> is no GOD. I have told him that this strong a belief, in or
> against god, requires faith. Am I right in this assertaion?
What do you think that "faith" means that you would make such a strange
assertion? Faith is only intelligible in the context of faith in
something; what do you think that the Atheist has faith in? Faith in
the proposition that there is no God? That would make all strongly held
beliefs acts of faith and so strip the word of any meaning. Or do you
mean that you don't believe that evidence and argument of the ordinary
kind can possibly establish this conclusion strongly and must be
supplemented but some peculiar other type of justification; if that is
the point at issue between you then labelling the opposing view "faith"
is unilluminating to say the least.
If someone thinks that there are very strong grounds for disbelief in a
deity than his firm disbelief is no more faith than by disbelief that I
have 2 heads.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Torkel Franzen
> By the way, I don't care what historical background the term
>[skepticism] had 2000
>years ago. It has been used for the last 200 years, and is used today,
>to characterize the scientific view of not accepting irrational
>beliefs but instead to think critically and demand physical proofs,
>reason and empiricism.
Nonsense. In associating the term "skepticism" with the bunch of
simple-minded slogans that you enumerate, you are probably influenced
by the recent usage found e.g. in "sci.skeptic".
Torkel Franzen
> Maybe it is more about what models are favored in schools, and a lack
> of education of teachers, which makes them teach math like it was
> about truths and like there was only one kind of math.
Well, it's hard to see just what you have in mind here since you
mysteriously claim that the basic mathematics we learn in school
is the mathematics of groups. Could you amplify?
b_ps...@my-deja.com
russell <rew77N...@mindspring.com.invalid> wrote:
> I am currentlly in a debate with someone who says that he is
> fully and completley an atheist. He feels sure that there
> is no GOD. I have told him that this strong a belief, in or
> against god, requires faith. Am I right in this assertaion?
Contrary to what other people have probably said, you hit it right on
the button.
Faith is merely believing strongly in something that can't be proven.
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
Rusty Wiley <rusty...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:381dc2e...@news1.sympatico.ca...
you were perfectly clear rusty.....but i am a most careful person (at times)
and so do prefer people to repeat what it is they "think" i said, at certain
junctions since many a time an entirely different animal is born from my
remarks, perhaps you too are the careful type and so may understand that i am
not being difficult just cautious....what god did i describe?...i believe we
were speaking of definitions of agnosticism in which you gave, i thought a
rather accurate one
the light version (mine):
> >"agnostic one who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of
>>God but does not deny the possibility that God exists".
> >(american heritage)
your in depth version:
> Agnosticism: The doctrine of nescience. The philosophical theory that
> man cannot know first truths, ultimate causes, or anything beyond
> material phenomenon.
they appear to compliment and reinforce one another....to me anyway.
(and i see you have kant on your bookshelf)
g.
Roger Johansson
>> I am currentlly in a debate with someone who says that he is
>> fully and completley an atheist. He feels sure that there
>> is no GOD. I have told him that this strong a belief, in or
>> against god, requires faith. Am I right in this assertaion?
>Contrary to what other people have probably said, you hit it right on
>the button.
>Faith is merely believing strongly in something that can't be proven.
I believe very strongly that the earth revolves around the sun and
that God does not exist. Both of these beliefs come from my scientific
knowledge. It has been empirically proven that the sun is a very big
and very hot sphere in the center of the planetary system, and
scientists have been looking for God for hundreds of years without
finding any evidence of his existence. Some early travellers to the
moon even reported that they could not find God there either.
So, based on all scientific evidenceI know of, the sun is in the
center of the planetary system, and God does not exist.
You can call that faith, or conviction on the basis of scientific
evidence, or whatever you want to call it, science gives us very
strong reasons not to belive in God in the common christian sense.
Science cannot prove anything in absolute sense, but some things are
so well proven in empiric sense that there can be no question about
it, and then we can call it the truth in the empiric scientific sense.
The truth is, God does not exist in the real physical world.
He does only exist as imagination, brain patterns, in the heads of
christians.
Roger
Obelix
> that God does not exist. Both of these beliefs come from my
> scientific knowledge. It has been empirically proven that the sun is a
> very big and very hot sphere in the center of the planetary system,
and
> scientists have been looking for God for hundreds of years without
> finding any evidence of his existence.
This, however, does not come close to meaning that God does not exist.
There are a vast number of things for which scientists have looked for
hundreds of years, and only recently found. Who is to say that God is
not one of them, and that proof is not just a few years away? Who
knows? Having empirical "proof" is no different from having theological
"proof" or logical "proof" or fictional "proof." In reality, it proves
nothing; It's just a set of evidence that supports your own view of the
world, and makes you feel happy because you don't have to think about a
subject anymore. People are for some reason afraid of being confused,
and so they seek "proofs" that their worldview is correct. Atheists
rationalize things with science. Christians rationalize thing with the
Bible. It's the same nonsense.
> Some early travellers to the moon even reported that they could not
> find God there either. So, based on all scientific evidenceI know of,
> the sun is in the center of the planetary system, and God does not
> exist.
Don't forget that you're subscribing to the same scientific system that
once believed that God did exist, and that the Earth was the center of
the universe. Things change. It's a mistake to put much faith in
science, because the things you go around using as evidence against
this or that today might tomorrow be disproved, and then you'd just
look silly.
> You can call that faith, or conviction on the basis of scientific
> evidence, or whatever you want to call it, science gives us very
> strong reasons not to belive in God in the common christian sense.
> Science cannot prove anything in absolute sense, but some things
> are so well proven in empiric sense that there can be no question
about
> it, and then we can call it the truth in the empiric scientific
> sense.
But if science cannot really prove anything, then why use it as
evidence to disprove something else? It doesn't make sense. Empirical
proof is as irrational a religion as any other.
> The truth is, God does not exist in the real physical world.
You have no valid reason to claim that as a truth. It's a belief. Based
on your religion (empiricism), you have faith that God does not exist.
That doesn't mean it's true -- it's just a vague belief like any other.
> He does only exist as imagination, brain patterns, in the heads of
> christians.
Just as His lack of existence exists only as imagination, brain
patterns, in your own head.....
Rusty Wiley
<umw...@tninet.se.noospamm> wrote:
>(Rusty Wiley) wrote:
>
>One of these models is called reality, and models your assumed
>reality. Happier now? ;-)
Definitely! Thanks Roger.
>(I am not making fun of anybody, just trying to explain in everyday
>language the paradigm shift from the absolute truths of the old
>religious world view, and the new empiric model view, which makes some
>people feel a lack of meaning, a lack of anything fixed to hold on to)
I did not think that you were, and I think that this goes back to
something that you said earlier. If we cannot share views in discussion
then none of us will grow.
Rusty
Roger Johansson
>> scientists have been looking for God for hundreds of years without
>> finding any evidence of his existence.
>This, however, does not come close to meaning that God does not exist.
To a scientist it does.
>There are a vast number of things for which scientists have looked for
>hundreds of years, and only recently found.
Those are often things which have been indicated by empirical
observations earlier. Like if we observe anomalies in the orbits of
the known planets we start looking for another planet which could be
the reason of these anomalies.
But nobody has found even empiric indications of the existence of a
God.
>knows? Having empirical "proof" is no different from having theological
>"proof" or logical "proof" or fictional "proof."
Yes there is. We have found through testing proofs of these different
varieties that empirical proofs are reliable, and the other proofs are
not. We have been able to reach widespread consensus on empirical
thruths, while the support for other types of proofs is steadily
declining in the world. As people get education and mental freedom
they trust science more and more, and religion is steadily losing
support.
Roger
Obelix
What a scientist believes is of no more importance than what anyone
else believes.
> Those are often things which have been indicated by empirical
> observations earlier. Like if we observe anomalies in the orbits of
> the known planets we start looking for another planet which could
> be the reason of these anomalies.
You are implying that there are no anomalies which contemporary science
has not yet explained. This is, however, false. Scientists are
currently working on discovering the causes for the many unexplained
phenomena in the universe, and the chances of that cause being God is
no less rediculous than ideas such as the virus, electricity,
computers, black holes, or any of the other "bizarre" things that
science has uncovered.
> But nobody has found even empiric indications of the existence of a
> God.
Yet. I'm not saying that God exists, necessarily, I'm just saying that
the claim that science has "proven" that he/she/it doesn't is false.
> Yes there is. We have found through testing proofs of these
> different varieties that empirical proofs are reliable, and the other
> proofs are not.
This is, again, false. Your empirical "proofs" are nothing more than
agreed-upon theories, and are reliable to those who believe in them;
There are theological proofs and philosophical proofs that are equally
"reliable" to those who believe in them. You have fallen into the trap
of believing anything someone who wears a lab coat and has a degree
must know everything.
> We have been able to reach widespread consensus on empirical
> thruths, while the support for other types of proofs is steadily
> declining in the world. As people get education and mental freedom
> they trust science more and more, and religion is steadily losing
> support.
Again, false. Religion is as widespread now as it ever has been, if not
more so. One could hardly say that there is "widespread consensus" that
science has proven the non-existence of God. Ask any Christian,
Muslim, Jew, or member of any other religion. Because many people
agree on something does not make it true: This applies equally well to
empiricism as it does to anything else.
Rusty Wiley
wrote:
>
>you were perfectly clear rusty.....but i am a most careful person (at times)
>and so do prefer people to repeat what it is they "think" i said, at certain
>junctions since many a time an entirely different animal is born from my
>remarks, perhaps you too are the careful type and so may understand that i am
>not being difficult just cautious....what god did i describe?...i believe we
>were speaking of definitions of agnosticism in which you gave, i thought a
>rather accurate one
>
Sorry Gene:
I was not really all that clear. You did not describe a god. You
described, by posting a definition, an *existence* which just happened
to be of a god. You described this existence as one of which there
could not be a proof. You described that existence as one of which an
agnostic would not deny the possibility.
I did not mean to imply that you described a god. We have conversed
before. To the best of my knowledge you do not go about describing a
god or gods. Your definition was probably fine for the people that were
interested in this particular thread. I am happy to hear that you like
the one that I posted. It seems to give agnosticism it's due.
Agnosticism, in my mind, should be about more than an opinion on a god
or gods. For the agnostic, at least this agnostic, questioning gods
leads to questioning first principles, ultimate causes, and the limits
of material phenomena which as you recognize in your post includes gods.
Rusty
kojak
Obelix wrote in message:
> Yet. I'm not saying that God exists, necessarily, I'm just saying that
> the claim that science has "proven" that he/she/it doesn't is false.
I don't use science in order to be an athiest. I just use my 'senses'.
David N. Harrison
> b_ps...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>> I am currentlly in a debate with someone who says that he is
>>> fully and completley an atheist. He feels sure that there
>>> is no GOD. I have told him that this strong a belief, in or
>>> against god, requires faith. Am I right in this assertaion?
>
>>Contrary to what other people have probably said, you hit it right on
>>the button.
>>Faith is merely believing strongly in something that can't be proven.
>
>I believe very strongly that the earth revolves around the sun and
>that God does not exist. Both of these beliefs come from my scientific
>knowledge. It has been empirically proven that the sun is a very big
>and very hot sphere in the center of the planetary system, and
>scientists have been looking for God for hundreds of years without
>finding any evidence of his existence. Some early travellers to the
>moon even reported that they could not find God there either.
>
>So, based on all scientific evidenceI know of, the sun is in the
>center of the planetary system, and God does not exist.
Humans are infants. We are so new to understanding the
universe, and how things work, and so new to technology,
that I don't see how you can feel so sure about that. Humans
have done quite a lot to be so new to technology. Since we
have managed to do as much as we have as such technological
infants, doesn't it seem that a being (or beings) who has had
incredibly much more time to develop and learn could do
far more than we are capable of understanding at this point
in human development? To me it is just as likely (or a bit more)
that God does exist, as that he does not.
>You can call that faith, or conviction on the basis of scientific
>evidence, or whatever you want to call it, science gives us very
>strong reasons not to belive in God in the common christian sense.
Why limit your concept of God to the Christian sense?
If there is a Creator, then all who worship him are worshipping
the same God, even though they call him by different names,
and think of him in different ways. If God does exist (and was
open minded enough to create such diversity in the universe),
don't you think he would accept all of his people? And that he
has approached the different groups, and caused their varying
beliefs, for reasons of his own?
>Science cannot prove anything in absolute sense, but some things are
>so well proven in empiric sense that there can be no question about
>it, and then we can call it the truth in the empiric scientific sense.
>
>The truth is, God does not exist in the real physical world.
>He does only exist as imagination, brain patterns, in the heads of
>christians.
>
>Roger
>
Roger Johansson
>Yet. I'm not saying that God exists, necessarily, I'm just saying that
>the claim that science has "proven" that he/she/it doesn't is false.
No, it is not. It is proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
When you look for something for 400 years, which is said to exist,
without finding a single piece of evidence, or even the slightest
empirical indication for it, then it doesn't exist.
>> Yes there is. We have found through testing proofs of these
>> different varieties that empirical proofs are reliable, and the other
>> proofs are not.
>This is, again, false. Your empirical "proofs" are nothing more than
>agreed-upon theories, and are reliable to those who believe in them;
They are even reliable to people who don't believe in them.
Do computers work for you? Obviously yes. But you don't believe in the
science and technology which made computers possible.
To science it doesn't matter if you believe or not, it works anyway.
>Muslim, Jew, or member of any other religion. Because many people
>agree on something does not make it true:
Yes, it does.
The definition of truth is what people have reached consensus about.
Many people agreeing on something does make it true.
Roger
genein
--
alt.philosophy/alt.philosophy.debate
Rusty Wiley <rusty...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:381f7bb8...@news1.sympatico.ca...
well now that we have updated our beliefs somewhat, i agree agnosticism is more
than entertaining the thought of a possible god....since by its very definition
(agnosticism) it states a god cannot be proved or disproved (Pardon the short
version) and so one has stepped beyond a god for the moment, of course "god"
may be kept on the back burner, since this possibility of an intelligent cause
cannot be entirely ruled out but it can be an impediment if it controls the
"field" so to speak.....especially in newsgroups where it is almost exclusively
christian..why not gravity as our god....? it certainly has us in its grip....
g.
russell
> I believe very strongly that the earth revolves around
> the sun and
> that God does not exist. Both of these beliefs come
> from my scientific
> knowledge. It has been empirically proven that the sun
> is a very big
> and very hot sphere in the center of the planetary
> system, and
> scientists have been looking for God for hundreds of
> years without
> finding any evidence of his existence.
Science has also not cured the common cold!
Some early
> travellers to the
> moon even reported that they could not find God there
> either.
This is a mockng tone, is it not? Granted there more than
likly is not god, but there is no reason to mock the idea.
> So, based on all scientific evidenceI know of, the sun
> is in the
> center of the planetary system, and God does not exist.
The sun is in the center of OUR planetary system not THE
planetary system. Which brings me to an importand point, if
the world and all of its comlexities are so mysterious, does
it not take courage and faith to clim to know some of its
secrets? Science once told us that the earth was flat, in
500 years people more than likely, as time has shown, will
look back on the 1999 ma and laugh at a great number of our
ridiculous ideas. about 20 years before Alexander Grahm
Bell worked out his first telephone system, a noted editor
in the Boston news paper wrote a whole dissertation on how
it is not for serious and intellectual man to think that
sound will ever travel through wires! Will one day people
be laughing at our insistance that there is no god?
> You can call that faith, or conviction on the basis of
> scientific
> evidence, or whatever you want to call it, science
> gives us very
> strong reasons not to belive in God in the common
> christian sense.
Yes it does. But as you study philosophy you find that
there are very good reasons for many contradicting opinions.
> Science cannot prove anything in absolute sense, but
> some things are
> so well proven in empiric sense that there can be no
> question about
> it, and then we can call it the truth in the empiric
> scientific sense.
Some people would trade the word "Science" in your statement
with "Religion" and the word "anything" with "god", it seems
that there is a conflicting opinion, whichmeans nothing is
setled.
> The truth is, God does not exist in the real physical
> world.
No one denys this.
> He does only exist as imagination, brain patterns, in
> the heads of
> christians.
Maybe that is god? Maybe those brain patterns which cant be
explained by science, and the origion of imagination, which
also can not be explained by science, is in fact GOD?
> Roger
RW
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
russell
<ko...@i.am> wrote:
> Obelix wrote in message:
> > Yet. I'm not saying that God exists, necessarily,
> I'm just saying that
> > the claim that science has "proven" that he/she/it
> doesn't is false.
> use my 'senses'.
What makes your senses more reliable than someone elses? Do
you have some 6th sense that can sniff out the existance, or
rather lack there of, of a super natural being? I bet they
could have used a sense like that a few thousand years ago.
If you had been around I guess we wouldent of needed the
last few thousand years of philosophical speculation, we all
would have just known.
> --
> ~kojak
> "The menu is not the meal" - Alan Watts
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
kojak
> > > Yet. I'm not saying that God exists, necessarily,
> > I'm just saying that
> > > the claim that science has "proven" that he/she/it
> > doesn't is false.
> > I don't use science in order to be an athiest. I just
> > use my 'senses'.
>
> What makes your senses more reliable than someone elses?
I made no such claim.
>Do
> you have some 6th sense that can sniff out the existance, or
> rather lack there of, of a super natural being?
What super natural being?
>I bet they
> could have used a sense like that a few thousand years ago.
Is it too difficult to trust your own senses now?
> If you had been around I guess we wouldent of needed the
> last few thousand years of philosophical speculation, we all
> would have just known.
Suppose you actually had a reasonable argument to counter my reasoning, what
would it be?