401. Comment #88705 by phasmagigas on November 18, 2007 at 3:41 pm

But some atheist philosophers are already realizing that scientific naturalism is simply not viable and trying to device naturalistic ontologies beyond the restrictions of scientific naturalism.

If they accept something 'beyond' the restrictions of SN does that suggest that they are about to beome theists? how do these atheists define that which is beyond scientific naturalism???

Other Comments by phasmagigas

402. Comment #88708 by Veronique on November 18, 2007 at 3:53 pm

The only way I can see (I can be corrected – preferably not by DG) that anyone involved in science can also entertain superstitious beliefs is for him/her to indulge in the mental gymnastics to build up a wall (not that one Hitchens, but closely aligned) that compartmentalises the irrationality of believing in gods, against the clear rationality of scientific questioning and testing.

Someone posted (not sure of the thread now) the following quote from Baron d'Holbach written in 1770:

If we go back to the beginning we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that fancy, enthusiasm, or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness worships them; that credulity preserves them; and that custom, respect and tyranny support them in order to make the blindness of men serve their own interests.

On the back cover blurb of Tamas Pataki's very interesting book Against Religion is this:

Drawing on developmental psychology and psychoanalysis, Tamas Pataki argues that many fundamentalist beliefs and attitudes - on sexual morality, the subordination of women, homosexuality, the intolerance of difference, and the belief in the inerrancy of their holy books - have little to do with doctrine, and much more to do with malign narcissistic traits expressing themselves in religious garb.

Against Religion is a highly original and controversial exploration of the deeper sources of religion which provides the psychological dimension missing from many contemporary critiques.

I think that people who actively opt to believe in gods and holy tenets are playing up human narcissism to its highest fault line. Physicists (even Nobel Prize winners!) are no more immune from this than anyone else. They are just more obdurate in maintaining their mental wall.

To understand that we are animals, that the earth and its crusty:-) contents are part of the whole deal of this planet, requires a letting go of that narcissism and the development of a certain humility that has nothing to do with the humble hubris exhibited by the likes of Alistair McGrath.

The need of desperate people to feel that they are somehow 'special' and require an un-evidenced deity to provide that 'special ness' when everyone around them sees them as 'ordinary' must be quite disquieting.

They have my sympathy; their beliefs do not.

Nobel prizes are not accurate gauges against which to measure whether or not someone has grown up. I presume steveroot that this follows on, partly, from your comment:-). Your tooth x-ray is sometimes unsettling. Sound teeth though:-).

Now to crunch some numbers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

403. Comment #88709 by Dr Benway on November 18, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Dianelos:

I am attacking scientific naturalism, not science.

But you use areas of scientific investigation to make your points. You feel that the several competing models of reality compatible with observations at the quantum level are evidence for the "failure of naturalism."

But science is all about building competing models of phenomena. This is old hat for scientists.

You may say, "Models of phenomena, yes; but I'm talking about models of reality.

The phenomenon/reality distinction is arbitrary. It's a function of context. You've reified it inappropriately.

Look, here's a glass of cool, refreshing water.

Wait! It may seem like water, but in reality it's a collection of H2O molecules.

But wait! It may seem like H2O, but it's really a mixture of atoms.

Wait! It may seem like atoms, but it's really a lot of quarks.

Wait!

Other Comments by Dr Benway

404. Comment #88710 by phasmagigas on November 18, 2007 at 4:00 pm

have little to do with doctrine, and much more to do with malign narcissistic traits expressing themselves in religious garb.

interesting, little more back slapping cavemen who gather on a sunday.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

405. Comment #88711 by Dr Benway on November 18, 2007 at 4:03 pm

...back slapping cavemen who gather on a sunday

More like looking in the mirror and saying, "I love you God!"

Other Comments by Dr Benway

406. Comment #88715 by Dr Benway on November 18, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Dianelos 88326: Right, and that was my point: Contrary to what many people think not all scientific propositions are falsifiable.

Wrong. All scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable. That's why we often translate a positive hypothesis into a null hypothesis.

"Black holes exist" has the null hypothesis "No black holes exist." We can falsify the null hypothesis, and so arrive at our conclusion by the back door.

Dianelos 88147: If ethics were not objective then it would not be possible anyway to *determine* what is right and what is wrong, precisely because there would be no grounds on which to make such a determination.

You keep getting stuck here. Maybe if we change the word "determine" to "select"?

Analogy: You and I will have lunch. What shall we eat? You mention you haven't had pasta in a while. I say I know a place with good fettucini. We are agreed, then.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

407. Comment #88722 by BMMcArdle on November 18, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Dianelos,
In post 383 you wrote:

The physical universe and all the things in it we observe around us are simply patterns present in our conscious experience; patterns caused by God's will.

Are you a pattern created by God's will for my conscious experience?

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

408. Comment #88723 by Dr Benway on November 18, 2007 at 5:01 pm

epeeist 88612: No proofs needed for logic or mathematics or ontology, as you said in post #88172. If there are no proofs for ontological claims and no evidence is required then I can make up anything I like.

Dianelos 88623: ...you take something I wrote that is perfectly true and twist it beyond recognition to claim that I meant something as absurd as that "no proofs are needed for mathematics". Of course mathematical proofs are needed, and we have confidence in them even though they are based on unproved premises.

Dianelos, if you say "sometimes we need proofs; sometimes we don't" you imply that the matter of "proof" is arbitrary. If you don't want to imply that, you must explain when a proof is required and when it isn't.

Dianelos: ...an atheist must first have the mental flexibility to temporarily drop their naturalistic intuitions.

Benway: Translation: I want to cheat our immigration laws. Please look the other way whilst Jesus sneaks in without a passport. But if the door's open to Jesus it's open to Osama.

Dianelos: I don't see how what you write here connects to what I wrote above.

In spite of having been both a theist and an atheist, I'm afraid I wouldn't recognize a "naturalistic intuition" if it jumped up and bit me in the ass.

What I have is a rule-based method of inquiry. This method has halted polio over most of the planet and so is worthy of our respect.

Dianelos: But I found your last sentence striking, for it's very true. If you open the doors to Jesus you open them to Osama also. If you close the doors to Osama you close them to Jesus too. So we all have a choice to make here.

The choice is easy now that I've got Bathwater No Mo!©

Bathwater No Mo! separates the proverbial baby from the dirty water.

With Bathwater No Mo! I can keep useful items like the golden rule whilst ditching unpleasantries like "kill the witches" and "be ye stupid as a sheep."

Sounds amazing? It is!

Send check or money order for $19.95 to Doc Benway's Emporium and ask for Bathwater No Mo! You'll be glad you did.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

409. Comment #88728 by Lauregon on November 18, 2007 at 5:28 pm

#366

And his science talk has been shown to be exactly that, the old military term BBB (bullshit baffles brains). As can be seen by the last series of posts DG doesn't really understand mathematics and logic, so like his words on science and naturalism, he just makes stuff up. - epeeist

As long as DG can keep the discussion on a science track, he can go on forbullshittingever, posing as the only person here who correctly understands the science at issue. He falters badly however, and frequently abandons the discussion when it deals with theism as it's practiced and has been formed. On that territory, he flails like a fish on sand, able merely to insist lamely that his idea of "God" is some-unnamed-how different and superior to others. Bah. No different than any other street-corner fundie with an ego-phone.



P.S. Your Chicken Little adaptation is charming.

Other Comments by Lauregon

410. Comment #88734 by Veronique on November 18, 2007 at 6:01 pm

361. Comment #88573 by epeeist

My apologies for neglecting to thank you for the delightful:-) Chicken-Licken tale. Lauregon's post reminded me:-).

This thread is picking up again, you clever lot of posters you:-)
V

Other Comments by Veronique

411. Comment #88768 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 12:48 am

Epeeist (post 314 or #88321):

Just as a matter of interest I came across this - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/earth/2007/11/14/scisurf114.xml

Yes, very interesting. On the other hand it sounds too good to be true. It would be nice though if it worked. And I wonder how it squares with Hawking's argument that there can't be any TOE.

It uses the E8 Lie group, works in 3 spacelike and one timelike dimension and predicts 20 undiscovered particles. Just waiting for DG to claim that it is yet another crisis in naturalism.

Why would I do that? That's just a very interesting scientific hypothesis about the mathematical order present in phenomenal reality. We already know that there is plenty of mathematical order present in phenomenal reality, and it would be amazing if it were confirmed that that mathematical order goes so deep. Ah, maybe you mean that it would be one more problem for scientific naturalism to explain how a mindless objective reality should produce a phenomenal reality that is so deeply mathematical, whereas a mathematician God can well account for it. If that's your meaning then you have a point.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

412. Comment #88770 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 12:57 am

Comment #88693 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Frankly it seems to me that it's you who is playing with words. I don't think that a worldview according to which a great number of gods exists, not to mention affirms the existence of "hungry ghosts" too, can reasonably be called atheistic. And I did not see any Buddhist monks at the AAI 07 conference :-)

My daughter saw quite a lot of Buddhist monks when she took a rest from her social anthropology course at Cambridge and went to work at Dharamsala.

Nobody mentioned gods while she was there.

Nope, sorry. You are again conflating scientific naturalism with science.

No, all he is talking about is methodological naturalism.

Other Comments by epeeist

413. Comment #88774 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 1:15 am

Comment #88702 by Dianelos Georgoudis

:-) Nice satire, Epeeist.

You thought it was satire?

I was trying to make a serious point in a way that was understandable.

Other Comments by epeeist

414. Comment #88777 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 1:44 am

Clodhopper (post 315 or #88323):

No one can say people here have not allowed DG a fair crack at the whip. He has had both courtesy and the courtiers response in equal measure. People have had the opportunity to look at some "sophisticated" theist agurments in detail and seen them refuted in equal detail....repeatedly.

Well, I can't say I have seen good counterarguments, even though I was looking for them. What I saw is plenty of red herrings (Buddhists are atheists), misrepresentations (you are saying no proofs are needed so any claim goes, you are saying that all peoples' beliefs are valid and therefore you believe in the Norse gods), question begging (if no physical reality exists then no objective reality exists; that we may live in the Matrix is just science fiction; God's mind must be complex because physical brains are complex, naturalism is the rational understanding of reality), a whole range of fallacies (the success of science evidences scientific naturalism; the theory of natural evolution implies that no designer exists; you are wrong because you are not convincing anyone here; - not to mention the naturalistic fallacy in various guises), much ignorance on a wide range of issues (mathematical theorems are true because they are proven mathematically; physical laws are getting less and less complex; evidentialism is a good idea; atheists are more ethical people), word games (atheism is a lack of belief and hence does not have to justify its position, atheism is a lack of belief so it can't motivate people do something wrong), and unfortunately plenty of ad-hominem.

In any case the new atheism phenomenon has certainly helped bring what you call "sophisticated" theism to the surface. Which does not only belie Dawkins's and many an atheist's belief that all theism is moronic, but will help all non-dogmatic people re-evaluate the whole question. Incidentally up until now new atheists have only debated with rather conservative Christians such as McGrath, D'Souza, and Lennox. It would be interesting to see them debating liberal Christians who are free to discuss God without being encumbered by Christianity's many dogmas. In any case, all freethinkers must be content that such an important subject matter is now being openly debated in the public arena.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

415. Comment #88779 by Diacanu on November 19, 2007 at 1:48 am

EDIT-
Nevermind, I'm staying out of it.

Other Comments by Diacanu

416. Comment #88780 by Timnea on November 19, 2007 at 1:49 am

Dianelos

mindless objective reality should produce a phenomenal reality that is so deeply mathematical, whereas a mathematician God can well account for it.

I guess it could just as easily be a mathematical giant snake of Australian dream time belief, the Mansi's earth mother or the Bakuba's mathematical vomiting white giant. What makes you think it was the christian god and not one of these others. They all have faithful believers and equal evidence to support there existence, none.

People inventing supernatural beings to explain things they don't understand is quite common.

Other Comments by Timnea

417. Comment #88785 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 2:02 am

Dianelos: I have to ask ... why are you here? You seem to want to test your ideas against atheist reasoning. But there is no point doing that when you refuse to accept arguments back that contradict you - if someone says you are wrong, you simply claim they are misunderstanding you. You might as well just talk to yourself if you aren't going to engage sensibly, so I am really curious as to your motivation.

Other Comments by steve99

418. Comment #88787 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 2:04 am

Epeeist (post 318 or #88328):

According to Webster's dictionary a definition of Metal (noun) is: "A mixture containing two or more metallic elements or metallic and nonmetallic elements usually fused together or dissolving into each other when molten".

That would be an alloy, for metal see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal.

Somebody should inform the editors of Webster's dictionary that "metal" means only "elementary metal".

Do you want me to post links to mine and my wife's papers to show that we actually have worked in physics/chemistry to show we have a clue as to what we are talking about.

I am not disputing that you have a clue, Epeeist. It just seems to me you are drowning in a cup of water. "Metal", as many words, is ambiguous but from the context in the post #85459 where I brought this issue up it should be clear that the meaning is "metallic alloy".

And if it isn't falsifiable (at least in principle), then it doesn't count as science.

So which is it? Are you saying that the proposition "all metallic alloys melt at some temperature" can be falsified, or are you saying that this proposition is not scientific?

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

419. Comment #88794 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 2:15 am

Timnea (post 322 or #88339):

God directly causing our experiences of the physical universe, without the benefit of an actual objective universe being there

Assuming what you've said above, if god causes our experiences in the physical universe why does he kill thousands of men, women and children with earth quakes, tsunamis, hurricanes etc. It all seems a bit sadistic to summon them up if they're not actually objectively there in the first place. He must be causing us to experience these disasters followed by our own suffering and deaths. Looks like we have just proved a compassionate, merciful or loving god doesn't exist.

I have already discussed this issue in post #88393. Please let me know if you find that explanation inadequate, for the problem of evil is an important problem for theism.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

420. Comment #88796 by irate_atheist on November 19, 2007 at 2:21 am

414. Comment #88777 by Dianelos Georgoudis -

Just give up. Really, give up. We all have access to your previous posts that are contradictory and full of incoherent blatherings. Give up.

Some of us actually have serious qualifications in the subjects you witter on about (or perhaps you don't regard Master's Degrees' in Engineering Sciences from Cambridge etc. as 'serious qualifications' in your ontological worldview?).

Give up.

Go and do something useful with your time and stop making a fool of yourself on these threads.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

421. Comment #88801 by Peacebeuponme on November 19, 2007 at 2:32 am

Well, I can't say I have seen good counterarguments, even though I was looking for them. What I saw is plenty of red herrings (Buddhists are atheists), misrepresentations (you are saying no proofs are needed so any claim goes, you are saying that all peoples' beliefs are valid and therefore you believe in the Norse gods), question begging (if no physical reality exists then no objective reality exists; that we may live in the Matrix is just science fiction; God's mind must be complex because physical brains are complex, naturalism is the rational understanding of reality), a whole range of fallacies (the success of science evidences scientific naturalism; the theory of natural evolution implies that no designer exists; you are wrong because you are not convincing anyone here; - not to mention the naturalistic fallacy in various guises), much ignorance on a wide range of issues (mathematical theorems are true because they are proven mathematically; physical laws are getting less and less complex; evidentialism is a good idea; atheists are more ethical people), word games (atheism is a lack of belief and hence does not have to justify its position, atheism is a lack of belief so it can't motivate people do something wrong), and unfortunately plenty of ad-hominem.

you forgot to mention our misunderstanding of objective morality......

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

422. Comment #88808 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 2:46 am

you forgot to mention our misunderstanding of objective morality......

And our misunderstanding of metallurgy....

Other Comments by steve99

423. Comment #88816 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 3:03 am

Comment #88808 by steve99

And our misunderstanding of metallurgy....

And the new, washes whiter than white definition of "proposition"

Proposition
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Other Comments by epeeist

424. Comment #88818 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 3:06 am

Comment #88808 by steve99

And our misunderstanding of metallurgy....

And your inability to write proper English, "Simple" indeed.

Oh, and your pathetic attempt to understand and describe quantum mechanics.

Other Comments by epeeist

425. Comment #88819 by Peacebeuponme on November 19, 2007 at 3:11 am

It seems to me, Dr Benway, that while the moral Zeitgeist for the last thousands of years has been slowly catching up with theistic ethics

AAAARRGHH! I just can't believe anybody can actually write that!

:-) Well, it's not my idea. And I invite you to think about it. Even Dawkins in TGD recognizes that Christian ethics were beyond their time. Some argue that the idea of equality under the law has its roots in Old Testament's ethics, and the idea of the equality of all people has its roots in New Testament's ethics. New Atheism's books select the most ugly bits of the Old Testament where God supposedly commands the Jews to destroy their enemies. But these stories were obviously concocted in order to find a way to whitewash crimes committed during war, and the very need to whitewash these crimes evidences the Jewish peoples' probably more advanced sense of ethics for their time.

Thanks for the invite, Dianelos.

So the Chinese and Greeks were ethical puppies compared to the Jews 2,000 years ago were they? I think it's probably a hard one to call either way. In any case I can't imagine how you can conclude that human rights were more respected then than now (which is the implication of your original comment).

In terms of the Bible, and to your cherry-picking (standard theist) accusation. Would that the bible did not include all these nasty bits in the first place. What would our world look like then?

To your explanation above:

(i) What war crime was whitewashed by Abraham almost murdering his son?
(ii) As Christopher Hitchens has pointed out, Jesus brought us hell, which I wouldn't consider advanced morally. We don't have to just stick to the Old Testament.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

426. Comment #88828 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 3:27 am

Comment #88819 by Peacebeuponme

So the Chinese and Greeks were ethical puppies compared to the Jews 2,000 years ago were they?

Vizzini: I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
Westley: You're that smart?
Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Westley: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.

I will leave it up to readers of the thread to decide whether the names of the speakers should be changed, and if so what they should be replaced by.

Other Comments by epeeist

427. Comment #88829 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 3:32 am

Oh, and your pathetic attempt to understand and describe quantum mechanics.

I am eager for the Danielos Drive starship. (post 400).

Other Comments by steve99

428. Comment #88834 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 3:40 am

Yaweh (post 329 or #88350):

Steve makes a slip of the tongue, calling pi "infinite" when he likely meant either "infinite number of digits after the decimal" or "irrational." Somehow this is Dawkins' fault.

I was not referring to that specific error by Steve, but to his general carelessness: his custom of not making an effort to understand the other person's thoughts and/or not to think a little more or do a little more research before just exclaiming "nonsense" or "you are just making things up", and so on. As for Dawkins he clearly believes that theism is not only wrong, but also trivially wrong, and I fear that those who find TGD impressive will feel duty bound to behave as if theism were a trivial matter. But theism is not a trivial ontological position, and it gets tiring to debate with people when they try to keep the pretence that it is and that any claims by a theist can easily be brushed away. Here is a recent case in point: It's a fact (indeed a well-known fact that anybody who did 10 minutes of research would not fail to find out) that the various interpretations of quantum mechanics are mutually contradictory. But I find myself mentioning this fact repeatedly, just because Steve does not invest a few minutes of his own time to find out the truth in this matter for himself.

So unless one assumes that the physical universe objectively exists there can't be any evidence whatsoever for the objective existence of the moon or of the Statue of Liberty. I hope you can see that.

Something can be objective without being physical. But there's no practical difference between a physical universe and a universe that only seems physical.

When discussing about objective reality, it makes a huge difference. After all reality may seem physical but may not be physical. The distinction between how reality seems (i.e. phenomenal reality) and how reality is (i.e. objective reality) is one of the most basic insights of ontology. What's more, the fact is that reality does not even seem physical; only a particular part of phenomenal reality, namely our experience of physical phenomena, seems physical. But a huge part of phenomenal reality, for example our experience of colors, does not seem physical at all.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

429. Comment #88839 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 3:55 am

I was not referring to that specific error by Steve, but to his general carelessness: his custom of not making an effort to understand the other person's thoughts and/or not to think a little more or do a little more research before just exclaiming "nonsense" or "you are just making things up", and so on

Excellent. This shows I am hitting the target. Nothing like a good solid ad hominem to reveal weakness.

I made a mistake, and sloppily abbreviated a point. I should have said 'Pi would require an infinite number of digits to be written to represent it, therefore, although it is real, it is not somehow produced by anything physical, and no-one claims it is".

But to claim I don't research this is just a tad silly.

Also, I understand your thoughts very well, as I have come across precisely the same errors of logic before. Well mostly. Your reifications are well-known traps that those who misuse philosophy often fall into, but your misunderstanding of complexity was a real doozy - takes a lot of brain power to get things so intricately wrong.

I also understand your insistence that science is different from scientific naturalism. But this is part of a little game you are trying to play, so show that we can't understand reality, so you are allowed to invent Magic Man.

What you just can't get your head round is that all your arguments in this area backfire at you. If you try and prove with all the effort you can that we can't know reality, then you are in no position to claim that you do know reality, and it is a Big Mind.

To be honest, I have been lazy about the science/naturalism distinction in recent times. I just can't be bothered to argue about those in detail when Dr Benway and epeeist do this far better, and when you won't apply the same standard of rigour to your own thinking.

I only claim "you are just making things up" when you fail to provide evidence, or causal connections, such as when you claim that God is good, or attempt to use "it is completely obvious" as the basis for rational argument.

Look DG old fellow. No point proceeding here until you provide answers to the following questions:

You claim God is good. Please provide us with an objective measure of 'goodness' that we can use to determine this. If I claim God is evil, or neutral, how do you distinguish my theory from yours?

You claim ethics are objective. Please provide evidence for this. I have provided clear evidence to the contrary, this being the confusion about this matter and the existence of psychopaths.

And if you can't provide me with those, then it is entirely reasonable for me to respond "you are just making stuff up". Making stuff up is nothing to be ashamed of - imagination is one of the things that makes us human. The problem is that some people confuse imagination with reality. Stories with facts.

Other Comments by steve99

430. Comment #88840 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 3:58 am

Comment #88834 by Dianelos Georgoudis

After all reality may seem physical but may not be physical.

I don't think you would get any argument if you stuck to those two conditionals.

However, parsimony would lead us to assume the former unless there was some reason that forced us to take the latter position.

After all, one should prefer probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities.

Other Comments by epeeist

431. Comment #88842 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 4:08 am

Yaweh (post 333 or #88355):

Take away God's interventions in our world, and you're a deist, agnostic, or atheist. If you say, "there are no miracles but God does everything" you're still a deist.

I think that God has not only designed and is sustaining the whole of phenomenal reality (i.e. the experiential environment we live in), but also intervenes and interacts directly and abundantly in the subjective (i.e. non-physical or qualitative) aspects of our experience for life. I am basically agnostic about whether God also intervenes in the physical part of our experience of life (what one would call "miracles"); if God today intervenes in that part it happens in a way that is not regular enough to be detectable by objective methods. Having said that, I also believe with some confidence that the many miracle stories in the Bible are mythological. Why do I believe that? Because I find these miracle stories pointless and childish, not to say often demeaning to God. These stories are probably the result of people of little trust in God trying to impress others.

Incidentally, a deist is also a theist, as a deist believes in the existence of God – so I don't understand why some atheists make a big deal about the distinction between deism and the rest of theism.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

432. Comment #88848 by Peacebeuponme on November 19, 2007 at 4:22 am

Having said that, I also believe with some confidence that the many miracle stories in the Bible are mythological. Why do I believe that? Because I find these miracle stories pointless and childish, not to say often demeaning to God. These stories are probably the result of people of little trust in God trying to impress others.

Course, there's another way of looking at it: In the modern scientific age even theists are extremely sceptical whenever miracle stories appear. The fact that scientific progress has meant that we can easily dismiss all miracles today suggests that they didn't have them then.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

433. Comment #88849 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 4:26 am

Incidentally, a deist is also a theist, as a deist believes in the existence of God – so I don't understand why some atheists make a big deal about the distinction between deism and the rest of theism.

Because a theist says 'God fiddles with the universe', and if that is the case, then then it is within the realm of scientific investigation.

Other Comments by steve99

434. Comment #88853 by Dr Benway on November 19, 2007 at 4:37 am

Dianelos: Incidentally, a deist is also a theist, as a deist believes in the existence of God – so I don't understand why some atheists make a big deal about the distinction between deism and the rest of theism.

I've said this before. It's an important point, so please listen.

A deist god is rationally defensible.

A god who intervenes in our universe is not.

Rational people ought to require corroborative evidence for these alleged interventions before accepting them as facts. To date, we lack this evidence.

Now Dianelos, if we have to repeat the same material again, I'd like you to recognize that you have a "reset" problem.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

435. Comment #88856 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 4:41 am

Peacebeuponme (post 333 or #88355):

For example even though both idealistic theism and scientific naturalism are monistic ontologies, only the latter confronts that hard problem of how a physical system could produce consciousness.

Has scientific naturalism even tried to explain it yet? Scientific research is being carried out, but until then we say "I don't know".

It's true there is a lot scientific research going on, but it only studies the so-called easy problem of consciousness, namely how our brain produces intelligent behavior (including how we speak in general, including how we speak about our conscious experiences). But there appears to be a fundamental difficulty for scientifically studying how the brain produces consciousness (assuming that the hypothesis that the brain does produce consciousness is true in the first place). A good and very readable book about this issue is John Searle's "The Mystery of Consciousness". In this book you get a naturalist philosopher of the first order criticizing the work of other well-known philosophers and scientists on the mind-body problem (namely Francis Crick, Gerald Edelman, Roger Penrose, Daniel Dennett, David Chalmers, and Israel Rosenfield). What's interesting is that after explaining the ideas (mainly speculations really) about how the brain may be producing consciousness according to some of these thinkers he asks: Suppose that the ideas and research you propose succeed as well as they can conceivably succeed; why can't it be the case that nevertheless the brain produces consciousness in a completely different manner? Or, as I would put it: Why can't it be the case that nevertheless it's not the brain that produces consciousness? The mind-body problem is one of these problems that the more you study it the more clear it gets that there can't be any solution. And of course this problem only exists within a physical paradigm of objective reality.

Idealistic theism confronts the problem, but is the explanation it gives a good one?

Actually idealistic theism's solution to the respective problem (i.e. How does consciousness produce physical things?) is trivial: Physical things only exist as patterns in our conscious experience, so it's not like they are produced as something intrinsically different from conscious experience. But classical (and hence dualistic) theism does have kind of a problem with the ex nihilo (from nothing) creation of the physical universe. Or if not a problem at least some inelegance.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

436. Comment #88858 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 4:48 am

Yaweh (post 338 or #88376):

I don't see why; solipsists communicate with others just fine.

Solipsists don't believe in communication. Others don't exist.

You don't have to believe that others objectively exist in order to communicate with them: Solipsists too go to the market and ask for half a kilo of feta cheese.

Actually [the inductive method] is necessary for making predictions, not for communicating them.

Can't communicate predictions if you can't make them.

True, but irrelevant to my arguing against Dr Benway's suggestion that we are justified in believing in a proposition for which we have no evidence if we find it necessary for communicating with others.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

437. Comment #88859 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 4:49 am

Or, as I would put it: Why can't it be the case that nevertheless it's not the brain that produces consciousness?

The brain is a substrate that allows thought. Consciousness without thought, if it is anything, is just... "D'oh".

Actually idealistic theism's solution to the respective problem (i.e. How does consciousness produce physical things?) is trivial: Physical things only exist as patterns in our conscious experience, so it's not like they are produced as something intrinsically different from conscious experience.

No, sorry. That is not the solution of idealistic theism. That is the solution of idealism. It is a very big step from idealism to idealistic theism.

Your arguments against scientific naturalism have never been any justification for the theism bit, even assuming they are in any way backing for idealism.

Other Comments by steve99

438. Comment #88864 by Peacebeuponme on November 19, 2007 at 4:58 am

Dianelos - post 435. All I'm getting at is that we have a problem: how do we come to be conscious? No-one on earth can honestly say they are anywhere near knowing the answer. Except that you think you do: God.

Which just isn't really an answer at all.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

439. Comment #88866 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 5:06 am

Phil Rimmer (post 342 or #88412):

A related issue is why life's troubles are distributed so unjustly. The answer I think is that they are not distributed unjustly, for life continues far beyond death, and we shall all continue to experience both joy and pain and agonize over ethical decisions for a long time to come – and on average all people will get about the same deal. Moreover I think the distinction between individual persons is in a sense illusory: we are all in this together and in some fundamental sense the other person's suffering is my suffering also, and the other person's joy is my joy too.

Dianelos knows neither excuse is up to the job...

Actually I don't. On the contrary I think both complement each other, and both have explanatory power beyond the issue at hand. For example the latter gives one more reason why we should not hurt others: when we hurt others we are ultimately hurting ourselves.

But it seems you judge that neither idea above is up to the job, and I would like very much you to explain why not.

Did I just experience a little frisson of schadenfreude at his possible discomfort? You know, I think I did.

:-)

The problem of evil is probably the single most difficult problem for theism; one more reason to drill me on this issue.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

440. Comment #88867 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 5:11 am

The problem of evil is probably the single most difficult problem for theism; one more reason to drill me on this issue.

OK!

There is only a problem of evil if you assume God is good.

So please tell us where the Universal Goodness meter is that allows us to know that God is good.

Other Comments by steve99

441. Comment #88870 by phasmagigas on November 19, 2007 at 5:14 am

Having said that, I also believe with some confidence that the many miracle stories in the Bible are mythological. Why do I believe that? Because I find these miracle stories pointless and childish, not to say often demeaning to God. These stories are probably the result of people of little trust in God trying to impress others.

this paragraph was really written by the verbose ontology king??? its simple understandable posts like this that help us see what DG is really like behind those long arguments.

'people of little trust in god' what a load of nonsense, maybe they just made it up for the fun of it, maybe they were trying to deceive, maybe they were mad and thought it true, as for 'trying to impress others' hmm, so i can now see some guy in a desert making up stuff just to impress his peers by concocting a story or two.

As for the pointless and childish nature of the stories pointing to their mythological origins, im sure they could be seen as untrue even if they wernt childish or pointless, like the ressurection, well maybe that is childish and pointless too? reads more like a horror flick.

and 'demeaning to god' really means nothing does it.





Other Comments by phasmagigas

442. Comment #88873 by irate_atheist on November 19, 2007 at 5:28 am

Latest scores on richarddawkins.net :

BillySands 3 - 0 Wea Flea

Veronique 2 - 0 CHeard

Richard Morgan 1 - 1 Everyone Else

Epeeist vs Dianelos Georgoudis cannot be stopped.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

443. Comment #88874 by Diacanu on November 19, 2007 at 5:29 am

DG-

Post 431

I think that God...

YES!! That's the very crux of it!! You THINK that God does yadda yadda!!
That's the basis of your whole speal!!
That's all you're selling us!!
It's all you've got!!
You admitted it!!
You finally admitted it!!

Other Comments by Diacanu

444. Comment #88876 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 5:34 am

Comment #88856 by Dianelos Georgoudis

It's true there is a lot scientific research going on, but it only studies the so-called easy problem of consciousness

You know I think there might be a reason for this...

John Searle's "The Mystery of Consciousness". In this book you get a naturalist philosopher of the first order criticizing the work of other well-known philosophers and scientists on the mind-body problem (namely Francis Crick, Gerald Edelman, Roger Penrose, Daniel Dennett, David Chalmers, and Israel Rosenfield). What's interesting is that after explaining the ideas (mainly speculations really)

Exactly - all these are conjectures.

Sooner or later some or all of them will be subject to refutation

The mind-body problem is one of these problems that the more you study it the more clear it gets that there can't be any solution.

As Lord Kelvin said in 1895 of an admittedly simpler problem "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

Other Comments by epeeist

445. Comment #88878 by Dr Benway on November 19, 2007 at 5:38 am

steve99: To be honest, I have been lazy about the science/naturalism distinction in recent times. I just can't be bothered to argue about those in detail when Dr Benway and epeeist do this far better, and when you won't apply the same standard of rigour to your own thinking.

Communication involves an encoder, a message, and a decoder. The snags over ambiguities - which are ubiquitous - often reveal interesting differences among decoders.

If I say to a colleage in my field I've never met before, "the problem is likely supratentorial," I know I'll provoke a smile. The meaning of the words isn't only in the words, but in the mind of the decoder as well.

I'm generally blind to slips or ambiguities in your writing until Dianelos reacts to something like "pi is infinite." Likely we share a similar educational experience. I'm no physicist but I have a grounding in science. Philosophy, I confess, isn't my strong suit. Seems you might be like me in this.

Comparing notes, then: Do you feel, as I do, a strong hesitation to take seriously the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism? I've come to realize what that's about: Thou shalt not overstate thy data. Service to this commandment makes it impossible to comment upon metaphysics, except perhaps to say where logic has been violated or not.

The mindset of someone like Dianelos - someone who seems to feel that we embrace metaphysical models much as we decide who to vote for in the next election - seems alien to me. I don't choose truth. I present my data and follow the rules, no more than this.

At Prestigious University, we had an inside joke: presenters at conferences from our program didn't bother with color slides. They didn't have to. Black and white and badly formatted was entirely sufficient.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

446. Comment #88879 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 5:40 am

Comment #88873 by irate_atheist

Epeeist vs Dianelos Georgoudis cannot be stopped.

Actually I am having fun now that I have stopped taking DG seriously.

I am thinking of offering a prize to anyone who can spot all the quotations I have dropped in this thread. There are some from Aristotle, Popper, Ernest Brahmah, Shakespeare, Tarski and even the "Princess Bride". This isn't them all by the way.

Now whether DG has seen them and ignored them or whether he didn't realise they were quotations I wouldn't know.

Other Comments by epeeist

447. Comment #88881 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 5:45 am

Comment #88878 by Dr Benway

I'm generally blind to slips or ambiguities in your writing until Dianelos reacts to something like "pi is infinite."

And of course pi is simple since it can be expressed as 4 * sum ((-1)ⁿ/(2 * n +1)) where n runs from 0 to infinity.

I believe Steve might have mentioned something about simple equations somewhere back in the thread.

Other Comments by epeeist

448. Comment #88882 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 5:46 am

Lauregon (post 343 or #88439):

Such a rosy perspective doesn't sound at all like that of someone who has actual empathy for or understanding of the suffering of others.

On the contrary, to affirm the existence of ultimate justice gives comfort to those who are unfortunate. Atheism just tells them: You know, hard luck, but that's reality.

And theism gives theists one more reason to help those who are unfortunate beyond one's own benefit. Atheism's logic would be: Why should I care for the unfortunate, we shall all be dust one day. Let the bleeding heart theistic morons help these people, or at least keep them off my back. And if the downtrodden represent any danger for my way of life, why, they are my enemies and the reasonable thing is to destroy them. (To avoid misunderstanding: I am discussing the atheistic logic not the atheist practice which more often than not follows the image of God within. But if you think I am misrepresenting atheistic logic then please suggest how atheistic logic would motivate an atheist to help others beyond what personally benefits the atheist.)

[You are] writing as one who appears to imagine he knows the mind of "God,"

If my worldview is right then you can know the mind of God too. Just study how you yourself deep inside are.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

449. Comment #88883 by irate_atheist on November 19, 2007 at 5:53 am

446. Comment #88879 by epeeist -

Latest odds for 'Loon of the year award':

6-4F Wea Flea
7-2 Dianelos Georgoudis
5-1 Shergar

Other contenders 20-1 bar

Other Comments by irate_atheist

450. Comment #88885 by Peacebeuponme on November 19, 2007 at 5:56 am

Dianelos

please suggest how atheistic logic would motivate an atheist to help others beyond what personally benefits the atheist.

That's like asking how the recipe for spaghetti bolognese motivates one to help others. A meaningless point. Atheist logic does not comment in that area. Atheist logic consists of one sentence:

"There is probably no God".

I think you may have been told this before.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme