Inspired by the Atheism Thread

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by Martian

Source

The principle of parsimony indicates that in a situation where multiple explanations of a phenomenon are possible, one should choose the least complex (simplest). This is, at it's essence, a statement of probability; it is essentially equivalent to stating that, all things being equal, complexity and probability are inversely proportional.

You're begging the question, here. You think that parsimony is the inverse relationship of complexity and probability (if I understand your current use of this term) because you're assuming that parsimony is a statement on how likely an hypothesis will be true.

In a scientific context, one should never settle for any answers. If the evidence is inconclusive, one should state that. If the evidence correlates to a conclusion but does not prove it, one should state that. One should never settle for any sort of an answer or assume something to be true or false based solely on it's complexity.

When I say "settle" I don't mean "settle for all time." We have scientific theories but, by definition, they're all tentative. In other words, there exists scientific theories, so we've settled for some explanations, but we're willing to scrap them for new ones once we get contradicting data, so we haven't settled for them, permanently.

I never claimed that one should settle for answers "based solely on it's complexity." It's statements like these that make me think you're going for rhetoric rather than honest communication. Are you even trying to understand my point?

In an objective evaluation, what one wants has nothing to do with the conclusions one draws.

...but doesn't one want their conclusions to be objective and true?

In a scientific context, this simply isn't true. There are many things we want from our theories. That they accurately describe reality is one of them. That they be useful to us is another. For example, it could very well be that God created all life on Earth and designed them all to look just as if they all descended from a common ancestor. This, however, is not a useful theory. If nothing else, it fails to help us make any kind of predictions...

Precisely. You seem to be misunderstanding what this implies. One cannot simply choose the truth. I firmly believe that the truth in a theological context is beyond human grasp, but I do not take this as license for me to choose the answer I like best.

Perhaps my problem is that I've been assuming we've been talking about parsimony in a scientific context and you're not. Then again, judging by some of the things you've said, above, it sounds like we have been talking about it in a scientific context and you simply don't really know what you're talking about.

We're talking about answers we like best. For most of us (actually, this isn't true but I like to think it is), the best answers are the "truthy" ones... but what is truth? In a scientific context, we judge the "truthiness" of theories by how well they fit our data, how well they predict the future and their utility (that would be the parsimonious part), in that order.

This is exactly why said principle does not apply in this discussion. We can use the principle of parsimony to inform a bias, but once that's done we cannot investigate the matter any further. There's no evidence to base any investigation on, and therefore application of the principle of parsimony doesn't lead to any progress towards an answer to questions theistic in nature.

I think there's something we can almost agree upon and that's that there is no "truth." I suspect that you believe that there is a truth but it is beyond our "grasp" whereas I believe that it's just a poorly defined human construct and doesn't really exist. To me, our beliefs are functionally equivalent and are, therefore, equivalent, because what the fuck is there beyond function?

You can tell how much I apply parsimony to my life. The last paragraph demonstrates this. If you can never grasp the truth, how is that different than there not being truth? You might as well assume there's no truth 'cause that's a more simple hypothesis...

Your problem stems from a misapplication of the principle of parsimony; you're trying to apply it after analysing the data, where in truth it should be applied before any analysis occurs. This is where your confusion lies.

Oh, this is going to be funny and I'll be waiting for your reply with a bowl of popcorn. Why do you think the application of parsimony is restricted to before the gathering of evidence?

Consider that parsimony is about choosing among different theories. You're suggesting that we theorize before gathering evidence. Really? Do you care to reconsider that?

I assure you that I have a full and complete understanding of the philosophic principles in play here, and based on past discourse I feel confident in stating that willravel does as well.

You have not instilled me with any confidence...

[Martian]

Knifemissle:

I don't have time to reply fully right now, as I have to be down at the hospital shortly for some tests. Regardless, I will give you two questions now, and will address your further points this afternoon.

1) Typical debate practice when accusing someone of begging the question is to ask the question being begged. Where is the unasked question in my earlier statements?

2) You seem to use hypothesis and theory interchangeably, which they are not. Do you understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in a scientific context?

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by Martian

Knifemissle:

I don't have time to reply fully right now, as I have to be down at the hospital shortly for some tests. Regardless, I will give you two questions now, and will address your further points this afternoon.

No worries. Life comes first...

1) Typical debate practice when accusing someone of begging the question is to ask the question being begged. Where is the unasked question in my earlier statements?

I'm guessing that you're in such a hurry that you didn't have time to read the link of "begging the question." I'm using the classic meaning of the term, rather than the modern bastardization because I don't believe in changing the meaning of terms through ignorance and I've expressed this opinion on many threads, here, on the TFP...

2) You seem to use hypothesis and theory interchangeably, which they are not. Do you understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in a scientific context?

I am using the two words interchangeably and this may be confusing. Please assume I've been using it in the colloquial sense since I don't think I've used it in its sceintific sense in this discussion...

I do understand the difference between a scientific theory and a colloquial theory. So much so, in fact, that I feel free to use the term in both senses because I understand the motive behind the use of the word in science and don't, personally, see any confusion. The difference between the two are generally overstated for a public unequiped to understand the nuances of scientific discourse.

The reason why the word "theory" is used to describe well supported scientific models is to remind ourselves that no matter how well supported a scientific theory may be, it can always be overturned in the face of new, contradictory evidence. That is to say, not matter how well supported a theory is, it is always tentative and, thus, will always be a theory. In a sense, nothing in science is absolute truth, which is why it's all "just theory." Some theories just happen to be better supported than others.

To give you an idea of how closely related the two senses of the term "theory" are, take a look at string theory. We call it a theory even though it has no supporting evidence and few physicists (no, really, not like the alleged scientific dissent from Darwinism, whatever that's supposed to mean) have any faith in it. As it is, unless it's injected with some actual testable hypotheses, it's about to implode. Yet, we still call it a theory. Why is that? It's because a scientific theory and a colloquial theory aren't so different...

[Martian]

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

I'm guessing that you're in such a hurry that you didn't have time to read the link of "begging the question." I'm using the classic meaning of the term, rather than the modern bastardization because I don't believe in changing the meaning of terms through ignorance and I've expressed this opinion on many threads, here, on the TFP...

I did not read your link because I'm already familiar with the concept. If you like, I can rephrase the question. What assumption have I made that you're taking issue with? So far as I can see, all I've done is expanded upon the underlying reasoning for the principle in question.

Originally Posted by KnifeMissle

I am using the two words interchangeably and this may be confusing. Please assume I've been using it in the colloquial sense since I don't think I've used it in its sceintific sense in this discussion...

This, then, is the source of confusion. As I've stated above, during an investigation the principle of parsimony is properly applied at the hypothetical stage. We observe a phenomenon, we devise a possible explanation, then we use said principle to help us choose the best possible explanation to put to the test. Should the testing prove the hypothesis to be invalid we can go back and try again. As I've said all along, this is inapplicable to discussions of theology because we have nothing to test; we can use the principle of parsimony to inform a hypothetical bias, but cannot take it any further. Logically, no one unproven hypothesis is any more valid than another. If we have no proof we cannot logically conclude that your explanation is superior to mine or anyone else's. Therefore, the principle of parsimony, in the context of this discussion, is of no use to us.

I think you underestimate the layman. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is not so difficult to grasp; the problem is not one of capacity so much as it is one of education.

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by Martian

I did not read your link because I'm already familiar with the concept. If you like, I can rephrase the question. What assumption have I made that you're taking issue with? So far as I can see, all I've done is expanded upon the underlying reasoning for the principle in question.

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

You're begging the question, here. You think that parsimony is the inverse relationship of complexity and probability (if I understand your current use of this term) because you're assuming that parsimony is a statement on how likely an hypothesis will be true.

The emphasis on both quotes are mine...

This is the best understanding I can make from your statements. We both agree that parsimony states that you should choose the simplest explanation but it doesn't say why. You claim that this statement is, "in essense," "a statement of probability." I can't see how this follows or is even related so my best guess at what you're thinking is that the motive behind parsimony is to choose the most probable explanation. My entire thesis, of course, is that this is not the case...

Originally Posted by Martian

then, is the source of confusion. As I've stated above, during an investigation the principle of parsimony is properly applied at the hypothetical stage. We observe a phenomenon, we devise a possible explanation, then we use said principle to help us choose the best possible explanation to put to the test. Should the testing prove the hypothesis to be invalid we can go back and try again. As I've said all along, this is inapplicable to discussions of theology because we have nothing to test; we can use the principle of parsimony to inform a hypothetical bias, but cannot take it any further. Logically, no one unproven hypothesis is any more valid than another. If we have no proof we cannot logically conclude that your explanation is superior to mine or anyone else's. Therefore, the principle of parsimony, in the context of this discussion, is of no use to us.

I disagree with your description of the scientific method.

We don't need parsimony to decide which hypothesis to test. Why not just test them all! Maybe you can use parsimony to prioritize which hypothesis to test first, especially if resources are scarce but, really, this is quite rare. The real interesting case is when you have more than one hypothesis pass the test! What do we do then? We may apply parsimony... although, in practice, even this is quite rare. Parsimony is generally just a rule of thumb; a strive to not needlessly complicate things.

In science, the testing of hypotheses and theories never stops. That's why scientific theories will always be theories regardless of how much evidence we have for them. As such, parsimony will always be applied...

Your claim that we cannot apply parsimony to theology is a little curious. Perhaps you feel that you don't want to apply it to theology but to claim that we can't? Suppose we have two theories that are both utterly unsupported. Wouldn't you still prefer the simpler one? If the Universe behaves exactly as one would expect if there were no god, the simplest explanation is that there is none.

If I may indulge a bit, we can make the hypothesis that there is a tea pot in orbit around Jupiter. There is no telescope powerful enough to confirm or deny this so we have no evidence, either way. Do you think it's inapplicable to apply parsimony and say that there simply isn't one?

I think you underestimate the layman. The difference between a theory and a hypothesis is not so difficult to grasp; the problem is not one of capacity so much as it is one of education.

I don't think it's so difficult, either, but I'm not the one making soundbites on TV about it so I don't have much of a choice on the matter. Scientific theories are just simply models of reality that may or may not be well supported...

[AKR]

A few people addressed the idea that atheists are more belligrent than theists. I think that needs to be addressed.

First off, its totally balance.s Sure, when it comes down to debate, we're probably more inclined to make our point (though more than often not), we're also not going around knocking on people's doors while they're eating dinner.

Also, we're abit more belligerent on the topic from a political standpoint. Alot of people go from atheist to antitheist (Hitchens, anyone?) because of the atrocities that get committed in the name of religion. I'm not as hardcore as some, but i'm still a firm believer of the separation of church and state, as well as keeping religion out of the classroom.

Right now I think the only way to firmly support religious belief is by faith, and (in most cases) i can respect that, but creation science, with all due respect, is a joke.

[jlanez]

I was drawn to this thread because Daniel set up a forum where people can express their beliefs without getting mired in an infinite and unresolvable argument and game of one-upmanship. Although the thread hasn't reached this state, I do believe it has digressed from it's original intent. So, to bring attention to this, I propose a brief intermission. While you relax, consider what one of our great Americam philosophes has said:

"What I Believe."

I believe in rainbows and puppy dogs and fairy tales.

And I believe in the family - Mom and Dad and Grandma.. and Uncle Tom, who waves his penis.

And I believe 8 of the 10 Commandments.

And I believe in going to church every Sunday, unless there's a game on.

And I believe that sex is one of the most beautiful, wholesome and natural things.. that money can buy.

And I believe it's derogatory to refer to a woman's breasts as "boobs", "jugs", "winnebagos" or "golden bozos".. and that you should only refer to them as "hooters".

And I believe you should put a woman on a pedestal.. high enough so you can look up her dress.

And I believe the United States should let all foreigners in this country, provided they can speak our native language: Apache

And I believe in equality, equality for everyone.. no matter how stupid they are, or how much better I am than they are.

And, people say I'm crazy for believing this, but I believe that robots are stealing my luggage.

And I believe I made a mistake when I bought a 30-story 1-bedroom apartment.

And I believe the Battle of the Network Stars should be fought with guns.

And I believe that Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was - an arctic region covered with ice.

And, lastly, I believe that of all the evils on this earth, there is nothing worse than the music you're listening to right now.

That's what I believe.


-Steve Martin

[Johnny Rotten]

Originally Posted by Leto

I think that this pretty well sums it up in my mind as well. It takes a heap of faith to be either Atheistic or Theistic. Given the lack of proof either for or against a God, I choose to "Not Know" (Agnostic).

Given the advances of human capability to measure and predict using the scientific method, I can't discount that one day we will be able to use provable (to the scientific community) methods to take the measure of a supreme being. So as a scientist, I would never disclaim the existence of a God, simply because I cannot take God's measure. In this way, I think that there should be no problem for religion and science to co-exist.

Well, atheism is not a leap of faith. It's a conclusion of logic based on a complete absence of verifiable data, independent corroboration, or repeatability of a given phenomenon. It is the opposite of faith.

The debate of divine existence, and its degrees and nature of intercession, goes around in circles like this because some people simply want to or need to believe. The world is already cruel enough without the distinct possibility that you will not, in fact, enter eternal paradise if you are a good Christian; that suffering and misery is not a Jobian test of spiritual resolve, but just the way life is; that the Devil didn't make them do it, nor was it God's will.

While formalized mysticism runs counter to Occam's Razor, so do we in general. Unlike scientific methods, slide rules and Bunsen burners, we possess the infection of hope -- hope that we individually or at least collectively belong to a higher purpose that is worth the gauntlet we run from the cradle to the grave.

So there is no explanation based in logic, because faith is a psychological attribute.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

Well, atheism is not a leap of faith. It's a conclusion of logic based on a complete absence of verifiable data, independent corroboration, or repeatability of a given phenomenon. It is the opposite of faith.

The debate of divine existence, and its degrees and nature of intercession, goes around in circles like this because some people simply want to or need to believe. The world is already cruel enough without the distinct possibility that you will not, in fact, enter eternal paradise if you are a good Christian; that suffering and misery is not a Jobian test of spiritual resolve, but just the way life is; that the Devil didn't make them do it, nor was it God's will.

While formalized mysticism runs counter to Occam's Razor, so do we in general. Unlike scientific methods, slide rules and Bunsen burners, we possess the infection of hope -- hope that we individually or at least collectively belong to a higher purpose that is worth the gauntlet we run from the cradle to the grave.

So there is no explanation based in logic, because faith is a psychological attribute.

I don't know that atheism needs to have anything to do with a commitment to logic. I've spoken with quite a few atheists who didn't really seem like they were all that concerned with framing their atheism in a logically rigorous way. On the other side, there are plenty of logical reasons to believe in a god. I don't think logic is necessarily relevant in any kind of general way. Certainly you might be an atheist (I'm not sure if you are) out of a commitment to logic, but then one might wonder how such a commitment to logic can be reconciled with the fact that it is very difficult to make a sound logical argument that the universe behaves absolutely logically. At some point in any organized system of ideas, usually near the base, logical arguments evaporate and all we are left with are assumptions. Logic says nothing about the verifiability of these assumptions, just what they must mean if they are true.

[Willravel]

There's a correlative link between being an atheist and being interested in logic considering the environment in which most atheists live. It's that commitment to logic among others that leads people away from the very strong hold of religion.

there are plenty of logical reasons to believe in a god.

The point is that it's not logical to believe god exists. It's not about thinking the belief is logical due to whatever hypothetical peace comes with the belief.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by willravel

There's a correlative link between being an atheist and being interested in logic considering the environment in which most atheists live. It's that commitment to logic among others that leads people away from the very strong hold of religion.

There's a correlative link between eating peanut butter as a child and smoking crack. It is not a commitment to peanut butter that leads people to crack. Also, there isn't necessary a causal relationship between having a self perceived commitment to logic and having an actual commitment to logic. From my experience, there is more a correlative relationship between being an atheist and having a half-assed hobby-like interest in things like logic and science than there is for being an atheist and having a rigorous, this-is-fucking-boring-and-difficult-to-wrap-my-head-around interest in science. See any comment section digg when the news item involves either pop-science or atheism if you don't believe me.

There is definitely something that divides theists and atheists, but commitment to logic or science isn't it.

The point is that it's not logical to believe god exists. It's not about thinking the belief is logical due to whatever hypothetical peace comes with the belief.

What's not logical about it? Remember, logic has nothing to do with proof.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by filtherton

There's a correlative link between eating peanut butter as a child and smoking crack. It is not a commitment to peanut butter that leads people to crack.

And?

Originally Posted by filtherton

There is definitely something that divides theists and atheists, but commitment to logic or science isn't it.

It's what divides THIS atheist from theists.

Originally Posted by filtherton

What's not logical about it? Remember, logic has nothing to do with proof.

You're incorrect. It's illogical to absolutely believe in something's existence absent any evidence.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by willravel

It's what divides THIS atheist from theists.

But you are a specific person, whereas I was speaking about more general differences between atheists and theists. The only difference between atheists and theists is the belief in the existence of a deity. To claim that atheists are somehow more reasonable and/or logical than theists isn't really accurate; there are plenty of atheists who aren't really that "reasonable" and plenty of theists who are very "reasonable".

You're incorrect. It's illogical to absolutely believe in something's existence absent any evidence.

There is evidence. The fact that it doesn't pass a scientific litmus test only invalidates it from a scientific perspective, not a logical perspective. Logic and science are two different things.

[Johnny Rotten]

Originally Posted by filtherton

I don't know that atheism needs to have anything to do with a commitment to logic. I've spoken with quite a few atheists who didn't really seem like they were all that concerned with framing their atheism in a logically rigorous way. On the other side, there are plenty of logical reasons to believe in a god. I don't think logic is necessarily relevant in any kind of general way. Certainly you might be an atheist (I'm not sure if you are) out of a commitment to logic, but then one might wonder how such a commitment to logic can be reconciled with the fact that it is very difficult to make a sound logical argument that the universe behaves absolutely logically. At some point in any organized system of ideas, usually near the base, logical arguments evaporate and all we are left with are assumptions. Logic says nothing about the verifiability of these assumptions, just what they must mean if they are true.

There's anecdotal ignorance on both sides of the fence. Those anecdotes do not address the underlying reasoning. While some people are secular because they follow a certain logical rigor, others simply reject God because they are bitter or angst-ridden. So? Does the presence of the latter group mean that atheism is a weak position? No. No more than the ridiculous claims of fundamentalist Christianity define theism. They merely occupy stations in a spectrum.

As for your claim that a person can't say that the Universe behaves logically -- of course it does! People can tend towards the irrational, but the laws of physics are pretty well defined. When we get down to the subatomic level, we get paradoxes like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But does that mean or even suggest that God or something mystical hides within this gap of understanding? That depends: How rational are you?

At the edge of understanding, there are always assumptions. In science, this is called a hypothesis. Sir Isaac Newton had a hypothesis about how and why the Moon orbited around the Earth, and how planets revolved around the Sun. The Wright Brothers had a hypothesis about what it would take to keep an aeroplane in the air. We know how these systems work now. At the time, they seemed as cryptic and bizarre as Heisenberg's discovery. But no one would claim that God was moving planets or airplanes around. It was just a matter of testing assumptions until you found the right one.

But when no testable data ever represents itself, over the course of thousands of years, you have to eventually move on to something that is in some way tangible.

There is evidence. The fact that it doesn't pass a scientific litmus test only invalidates it from a scientific perspective, not a logical perspective. Logic and science are two different things.

I'm usually a diplomatic guy in these discussions, but... I just got through saying how it's a leap of faith. You're going much further than most religious folk, who acknowledge and accept and are sometimes even proud of the fact that their decision is not based on logic.

Second, separating logic and science this way is, frankly, ridiculous. Logic is used by science all the time. Math is logic, only defined with numbers instead of words. Science is observation, with logic (often math) used to determine what the observed phenomenon is.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by filtherton

But you are a specific person, whereas I was speaking about more general differences between atheists and theists.

It's tough to speak in generalities on the differences because people are theistic and atheistic for a myriad of reasons. Generalizing seems to ignore this reality

Originally Posted by filtherton

The only difference between atheists and theists is the belief in the existence of a deity. To claim that atheists are somehow more reasonable and/or logical than theists isn't really accurate; there are plenty of atheists who aren't really that "reasonable" and plenty of theists who are very "reasonable".

There is no reason in believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that a thing or person for which there is no evidence absolutely exists. So in being atheist or theist, there is a definite difference in reason.

Originally Posted by filtherton

There is evidence. The fact that it doesn't pass a scientific litmus test only invalidates it from a scientific perspective, not a logical perspective. Logic and science are two different things.

There is no evidence. Logic and science are two different things, yes. So are science and math. But they team up quite often.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

There's anecdotal ignorance on both sides of the fence. Those anecdotes do not address the underlying reasoning. While some people are secular because they follow a certain logical rigor, others simply reject God because they are bitter or angst-ridden. So? Does the presence of the latter group mean that atheism is a weak position? No. No more than the ridiculous claims of fundamentalist Christianity define theism. They merely occupy stations in a spectrum.

I agree. This doesn't agree with your claim that atheism is a conclusion of logic. All atheism is is a rejection of belief in a deity. Logic need not have anything to do with it, and frequently it doesn't. It has nothing to do with atheism being a weak position; one would need to know more about the particular justifications one uses for being an atheist.

As for your claim that a person can't say that the Universe behaves logically -- of course it does! People can tend towards the irrational, but the laws of physics are pretty well defined. When we get down to the subatomic level, we get paradoxes like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. But does that mean or even suggest that God or something mystical hides within this gap of understanding? That depends: How rational are you?

I didn't say the universe doesn't behave logically. I said that it is very difficult to make a sound logical argument that the universe is absolutely logical, especially in light of certain phenomena that seem to be completely random (assuming my understanding of them is correct). It has nothing to do with god. What it does speak to is the inherent flaw, from a scientific perspective, in assuming that the universe is governed completely by logic.

But when no testable data ever represents itself, over the course of thousands of years, you have to eventually move on to something that is in some way tangible.

You have to? Why? I mean, I understand the thirst for actual, verifiable scientific knowledge, but I also understand that most people don't care, because it doesn't really matter to them. Most people only care about science to the extent that they enjoy watching dumbed down bits of it on the discovery channel. I think that there are a great many atheist who have merely replaced god with anyone with a PhD or a lab coat. It isn't logical at all, just a substitution. You seem to make the same mistake that many religious folk do, which is that you presume to have the correct perspective, instead of just a perspective. There is more to the world than that which can be independently verified in peer reviewed academic journals.

I'm usually a diplomatic guy in these discussions, but... I just got through saying how it's a leap of faith. You're going much further than most religious folk, who acknowledge and accept and are sometimes even proud of the fact that their decision is not based on logic.

What's you're point? I thought we were in agreement that the words of a subset of members of a group don't define that group.

Second, separating logic and science this way is, frankly, ridiculous. Logic is used by science all the time. Math is logic, only defined with numbers instead of words. Science is observation, with logic (often math) used to determine what the observed phenomenon is.

Logic is used by science all time, that is correct. Logic uses science never at all; people often reference science while using logic, but there is nothing about logic that requires science. Logic and science are separated every time someone writes coherent science fiction.

And as far as math goes, science needs math a lot more than math needs science. Mathematically speaking, one can rotate an infinitely large area around one of its boundaries and end up with a finitely large volume. Scientifically speaking, no. If all the natural laws of the universe changed overnight, there is no single purely mathematical proof that would need to be changed. Without math, science would be pretty much useless for a lot of things. Without science, math would be pretty much useless too. They are complementary, but they are still separate; there are a whole lot of "pure" mathematicians who frown upon the idea of wasting their time developing useful mathematics.

[Johnny Rotten]

I agree. This doesn't agree with your claim that atheism is a conclusion of logic. All atheism is is a rejection of belief in a deity. Logic need not have anything to do with it, and frequently it doesn't. It has nothing to do with atheism being a weak position; one would need to know more about the particular justifications one uses for being an atheist.

Your statements here do not add anything to your original position, nor do they address the points I brought up about it. Furthermore, why would someone need to justify being an atheist?

I didn't say the universe doesn't behave logically. I said that it is very difficult to make a sound logical argument that the universe is absolutely logical, especially in light of certain phenomena that seem to be completely random (assuming my understanding of them is correct). It has nothing to do with god. What it does speak to is the inherent flaw, from a scientific perspective, in assuming that the universe is governed completely by logic.

Randomness is illogical? Therefore the Universe is flawed?

You have to? Why? I mean, I understand the thirst for actual, verifiable scientific knowledge, but I also understand that most people don't care, because it doesn't really matter to them. Most people only care about science to the extent that they enjoy watching dumbed down bits of it on the discovery channel. I think that there are a great many atheist who have merely replaced god with anyone with a PhD or a lab coat. It isn't logical at all, just a substitution. You seem to make the same mistake that many religious folk do, which is that you presume to have the correct perspective, instead of just a perspective. There is more to the world than that which can be independently verified in peer reviewed academic journals.

We can never know everything about the Universe, therefore... God might exist? Therefore one cannot really know anything? I don't think you're arguing very clearly here either. And I'm not going to bother defending the opinions of theoretical people. There are a "great many" of people who do all kinds of stupid shit.

And as for your talking about the differences between science and logic, I don't know where you're going with that either. Yes, they are distinct elements, like red and blue and up and down. You wanted to separate them, whatever. Does it matter? Not really.

But what I can tell you is that atheism is not a "perspective." It is a conclusion. There is no logical support for faith. That's why it's called "faith," and not "reason."

For someone who claims to be agnostic, you sure do work up a sweat for the theists.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

Your statements here do not add anything to your original position, nor do they address the points I brought up about it. Furthermore, why would someone need to justify being an atheist?

You said atheism was

It's a conclusion of logic based on a complete absence of verifiable data, independent corroboration, or repeatability of a given phenomenon.

I implied that you were being a bit ostentatious, and that all atheism really is is a lack of belief in a deity. You said some stuff that I thought had something to do with that, but I guess I was mistaken.

Randomness is illogical? Therefore the Universe is flawed?

Randomness places a certain limit on the predictability of phenomena, which seems like the kind of thing you wouldn't expect in a completely "logical" universe. It is one thing for deterministic process to be treated randomly for lack of information, it is another thing for a process to be intrinsically probabilistic.

And I never said the universe was flawed, I said that's its difficult to claim that it is absolutely logical, and that any argument that attempts to prove the universe inherently logical that also happens to be argued from an empirical perspective must necessarily be flawed.

We can never know everything about the Universe, therefore... God might exist? Therefore one cannot really know anything? I don't think you're arguing very clearly here either. And I'm not going to bother defending the opinions of theoretical people. There are a "great many" of people who do all kinds of stupid shit.

I'm not a theist. I don't mind if you don't bother to defend the opinions of theoretical people. You didn't seem to mind claiming for them a sincere and robust commitment to reason and logic, though so your refusal to defend their opinions seems odd.

And as for your talking about the differences between science and logic, I don't know where you're going with that either. Yes, they are distinct elements, like red and blue and up and down. You wanted to separate them, whatever. Does it matter? Not really.

You're the one who said:

separating logic and science this way is, frankly, ridiculous. Logic is used by science all the time. Math is logic, only defined with numbers instead of words. Science is observation, with logic (often math) used to determine what the observed phenomenon is.

Apparently, now that it obviously isn't ludicrous it is irrelevant. Well, if it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up?

But what I can tell you is that atheism is not a "perspective." It is a conclusion. There is no logical support for faith. That's why it's called "faith," and not "reason."

Well, if atheism is a conclusion, then certainly so is theism, not that that phrase really means anything; belief in the supremacy of mountain dew is a conclusion too. All can be perspectives, in that they inform the way one perceives and interacts at the world. Just because you don't see atheism as your perspective doesn't mean it can't be. The kind of atheist that you are isn't necessarily the same kind of atheist that other atheists are.

And why is there no one who says things like "There is no logical support for faith." who can also explain what it means for something to be logical?

For someone who claims to be agnostic, you sure do work up a sweat for the theists.

Well apparently agnostics are now atheists, so i guess we're members of the same club. Be that as it may, I don't really think of this as "working up a sweat for theists" as much as "being annoyed by vapid atheist cheerleading", not that what you said was necessarily vapid.

Originally Posted by willravel

It's tough to speak in generalities on the differences because people are theistic and atheistic for a myriad of reasons. Generalizing seems to ignore this reality.

That's kind of my point. It is a mistake to claim that folks only choose to be atheists out of a commitment to reason or the scientific method. That's all I was really trying to say.

There is no scientifically valid reason in believing beyond a shadow of a doubt that a thing or person for which there is no evidence absolutely exists. So in being atheist or theist, there is a definite difference in the evidentiary standards of the reasoning involved, but neither position necessarily shows a lack of reason.

I changed it to reflect what I think it should say. I'm clever.

There is no evidence. Logic and science are two different things, yes. So are science and math. But they team up quite often.

Tru dat. Chocolate and coffee team up quite often in my house, but they are also fully appreciated on their own.

[Johnny Rotten]

As much as I'd like to continue this discussion, I'm really not into piecemeal breakdowns. I can't even read that stuff, it makes my eyes hurt. I don't think it's a good way to exchange ideas. Sorry. You seem to disagree with pretty much everything I said, though. Well... that's your problem now. I've said my piece.

Edit: Although I do recommend checking out The God Delusion. It addresses many of the issues you bring up, and although the title is confrontational, the body of the work isn't. At least, I didn't find it confrontational. It may not give you all the answers you're looking for, but I guarantee it won't bore you. There's a part about agnosticism that you should find especially interesting, and there's a new

trade paperback version

trade paperback version

with an updated preface, going for less than ten bucks.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

As much as I'd like to continue this discussion, I'm really not into piecemeal breakdowns. I can't even read that stuff, it makes my eyes hurt. I don't think it's a good way to exchange ideas. Sorry. You seem to disagree with pretty much everything I said, though. Well... that's your problem now. I've said my piece.

Edit: Although I do recommend checking out The God Delusion. It addresses many of the issues you bring up, and although the title is confrontational, the body of the work isn't. At least, I didn't find it confrontational. It may not give you all the answers you're looking for, but I guarantee it won't bore you. There's a part about agnosticism that you should find especially interesting, and there's a new trade paperback version with an updated preface, going for less than ten bucks.

It seems these things always end up in the piecemeal breakdowns. And I don't know that I disagree with everything you said, as discussions like this one often hinge on misunderstandings. All I was trying to say is that it is not accurate to claim that atheism is somehow the result of a triumph of reason.

In any case, I'm not particularly interested in anything that Dawkins has to say on the matter, if he's anything like his most vocal acolytes he is prone to self-serving misunderstandings and undeservedly smug self congratulation. I don't need someone to tell me how to not believe in god or why it might make sense in some sort of overarching way why people would believe in god. In many ways evolutionary psychology has as much relevance to my life as theism does; which is to say, I get enough trivia in my life already.

[Johnny Rotten]

Originally Posted by filtherton

In any case, I'm not particularly interested in anything that Dawkins has to say on the matter, if he's anything like his most vocal acolytes he is prone to self-serving misunderstandings and undeservedly smug self congratulation. I don't need someone to tell me how to not believe in god or why it might make sense in some sort of overarching way why people would believe in god. In many ways evolutionary psychology has as much relevance to my life as theism does; which is to say, I get enough trivia in my life already.

That's a lot of guesswork you packed in there. Also, evolutionary psychology? No, he's an evolutionary biologist, and his evolution-based arguments take up about a page in a half in the entire book.

But if you're more comfortable with setting fire to straw men, don't be surprised when someone torpedoes one of your arguments, as I have several times in this thread, using arguments he brought up in the book. Which ones? It doesn't matter, because according to you, the guy's probably a fucking douchebag anyway.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

That's a lot of guesswork you packed in there. Also, evolutionary psychology? No, he's an evolutionary biologist, and his evolution-based arguments take up about a page in a half in the entire book.

Well, like I said, I don't really care all that much. I'd rather read about things I find interesting, and to tell you the truth, convoluted rationalizations for atheism aren't all that interesting. Neither are the bulk of evolutionary psychology or evolutionary biology.

But if you're more comfortable with setting fire to straw men, don't be surprised when someone torpedoes one of your arguments, as I have several times in this thread, using arguments he brought up in the book. Which ones? It doesn't matter, because according to you, the guy's probably a fucking douchebag anyway.

What exactly were my straw men?

You didn't even know what I was talking about, and then when I tried to talk about it more you threw your virtual hands in the air and said "This is too difficult, I'm going to take my superior commitment to reason (which apparently doesn't actually extend to conversation) and go. Just read Dawkins." Why should I read it? You read it, if you understood what you read correctly and what you read proves that I'm wrong, by all means, convince me that I'm wrong. I would love to find out that I'm wrong, then I could stop getting in these stupid arguments with people who make broad statements about the nature of logic, yet can't even be bothered to define what exactly logic is beyond silly claims that essentially boil down to "logical positions are based on assumptions that I agree with and illogical positions are based on assumptions that I don't agree with".

All you did was make a claim or two, and then when I responded, you couldn't be bothered to actually address what I said or attempt to clarify what you said. You may be right, but I have no way of knowing because you can't seem to clearly communicate what you're talking about or even read the words I wrote in the order I wrote them so as to not misunderstand them.

And c'mon, the ability to poorly paraphrase ideas you read in a book in a context where they aren't even relevant isn't the same as "torpedoing". I mean, you seem to have the Dawkins tone down, but the ability to come across as dismissive is a poor substitute for the ability to express your ideas clearly.

Shit, even Ustwo thinks Dawkins is a douchebag, and ustwo loves being dismissive and sardonic. It's not like the perception of Dawkins as being an asshole is something I just made up.

[Johnny Rotten]

You seem to have difficulty appreciating the points of my arguments, and you don't you see the flaws in your own. You keep repeating things I've responded to like I haven't addressed them. I point out that Dawkins' book is a good read, and you astonish me by revealing that you don't even have a passing familiarity with him or is work, because he's probably an asshole. If you were in my shoes, would you continue this discussion?

I don't know, I'm trying here, but you just get angrier and angrier. That you don't even see all the straw men you dressed up means to me that there isn't much point in continuing to be at the receiving end of uninformed dismissiveness. I have better things to do with my time. I'd rather talk about this with people who know the material.

Edit: Just so we're clear here -- because I know you're going to respond with something along the lines of "Why should I have to read some book to have a discussion on this?" -- these books are the most influential written on the subject. Not having a familiarity with them is like trying to have a discussion about great films without having seen Citizen Kane or The Godfather. It just doesn't work.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

You seem to have difficulty appreciating the points of my arguments, and you don't you see the flaws in your own. You keep repeating things I've responded to like I haven't addressed them. I point out that Dawkins' book is a good read, and you astonish me by revealing that you don't even have a passing familiarity with him or is work, because he's probably an asshole. If you were in my shoes, would you continue this discussion?

I find the points of your arguments less than compelling, because they don't really seem like points. As far as I can tell, your "points" consist of not much more than expressions of incredulity.

Did you know:

Atheism existed before Richard Dawkins wrote a book about it?
Many people don't need a book to tell them why atheism is right for them?
The reasons that Richard Dawkins is an atheist do not comprise the entire set of reasons that people are atheists?

It seems to me like you're treating "The God Delusion" like some sort of bible, which is dumb. That's the thing that's nice about not believing in god, you don't need a bible.

I don't know, I'm trying here, but you just get angrier and angrier. That you don't even see all the straw men you dressed up means to me that there isn't much point in continuing to be at the receiving end of uninformed dismissiveness. I have better things to do with my time. I'd rather talk about this with people who know the material.

You know, I asked you to point out my strawmen, so until you can, perhaps you should refrain from mentioning them. And this isn't a discussion of "The God Delusion". I don't care about the "The God Delusion"-- atheism exists without Richard Dawkins. If you can't formulate positions and arguments on your own, then perhaps you should stop talking to me. If you want to talk more, then leave your atheist bible out of it.

For the record, I'm not angry, maybe just annoyed.

Edit: Just so we're clear here -- because I know you're going to respond with something along the lines of "Why should I have to read some book to have a discussion on this?" -- these books are the most influential written on the subject. Not having a familiarity with them is like trying to have a discussion about great films without having seen Citizen Kane or The Godfather. It just doesn't work.

Sounds like a cop out. Dawkins influential? All the atheists I know were atheists before Dawkins cashed in on the apparently large number of atheists who require some sort of intellectual handholding to justify their atheism. If Dawkins convinced you to be an atheist, that's fine, but you're being just a tad foolish if you think that Dawkins is the reason that most atheists are atheists. He is probably the reason that most people think atheists are assholes, though.

[roachboy]

i dont really play in these threads any more because they're essentially always the same thing-filtherton is right in that a commitment to "logic" (which is really just a formal procedure) does not and cannot lead you one way or another on the a/theism question because in logical terms, belief or non-belief is an axiom. your use of logic presupposes it, and so does not and cannot demonstrate it.

on the other hand, if you think about being-in-the-world as processes or through the metaphor of emergence (complex dynamic systems theory, say) it is pretty obvious that logic, as it is built off of the way sentences stage the world, provides incomplete and refracted access to the world--this need not lead you in any particular direction in terms of the a/theism division--but it does point to a potential underlying driver that pushed folk on both sides along, which is their capacity to deal with uncertainty or incompleteness.

for some reason, incompleteness seems to spook people and drives them to more rigid relations to the procedures and frames of reference that situate them than it really makes sense to have, if you think about it at a remove.

i've said this before, all of it, really (this is the effect of the sameness of the threads)---but you cannot account for the processes that go into making a sentence in terms shaped by the sentences that you make. incompleteness is all around you. it's constituitive of being-in-the-world. this doesn't mean that anything goes, that rigor doesn't matter in games that call for rigor--but it does mean that there are fundamental dimensions of being that you don't know about---but not knowing does not require that you therefore go running to a god to enable you to pretend that at some level or another the situation is otherwise any more than it should prompt you to make ludicrous claims about the comprehensiveness of logic's ability to account for the world.

you just don't know.
systems are incomplete.
it's just like that.

boo.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten

I point out that Dawkins' book is a good read, and you astonish me by revealing that you don't even have a passing familiarity with him or is work, because he's probably an asshole. If you were in my shoes, would you continue this discussion?

For the record, Dawkins is in fact an asshole.

Doesn't make him less right.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

For the record, Dawkins is in fact an asshole.

Doesn't make him less right.

If you want to see a real asshole, check out Christopher Hitchens. He makes Dawkins look like a saint.

[filtherton]

roachboy

Thank you. I was beginning to think that I didn't speak english.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

For the record, Dawkins is in fact an asshole.

Doesn't make him less right.

Well, it doesn't make him more right. Dawkins is only right if you happen to subscribe to his very particular notions of what science is and how scientists must interact with the world. To claim that he is "right" isn't correct.

It is interesting that you think he's right, though. On the subject of global climate change, he's apparently a big fan of a certain movie by a certain former VP. Does that make him a better scientist in your eyes?

BTW, nice avatar. I haven't had a reason to use adblock's manual feature in a long time.
edit: not the Israeli flag avater, but the spinning spiral avatar

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by filtherton

It is interesting that you think he's right, though. On the subject of global climate change, he's apparently a big fan of a certain movie by a certain former VP. Does that make him a better scientist in your eyes?

This is why I brought up Hitchens. He manages to be quite atheist, but is also deeply conservative. He believes there were WMDs in Iraq, in fact.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by willravel

This is why I brought up Hitchens. He manages to be quite atheist, but is also deeply conservative. He believes there were WMDs in Iraq, in fact.

Yep. I just goes to show that a commitment to atheism isn't necessarily correlative with a rational commitment to reality. Which is my point.

If mofos don't want to believe in god, that's great. They should refrain from pretending that not believing in god is somehow reflective of any sort of advanced ability to think logically or rationally.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by filtherton

Yep. I just goes to show that a commitment to atheism isn't necessarily correlative with a rational commitment to reality. Which is my point.

His arguments are simply based on outdated information, and he's naturally stubborn. Just fyi.

Originally Posted by filtherton

If mofos don't want to believe in god, that's great. They should refrain from pretending that not believing in god is somehow reflective of any sort of advanced ability to think logically or rationally.

But if they do believe that, who am I to stop them?

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by willravel

His arguments are simply based on outdated information, and he's naturally stubborn. Just fyi.

Well, the same could be said about the president. I'm not really apt to put either on my "people who's opinions I will go out of my way to appreciate" list.

But if they do believe that, who am I to stop them?

Nothing. It's just something to argue about on the internet.

How would you respond to someone who was self-righteously claiming a superior appreciation mathematics and in the same breath proclaiming that 2+2=5? You'd say something? I would.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by filtherton

How would you respond to someone who was self-righteously claiming a superior appreciation mathematics and in the same breath proclaiming that 2+2=5? You'd say something? I would.

You misunderstand, when it's about ME it's okay.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by willravel

You misunderstand, when it's about ME it's okay.

You know I love you, baby.

[ring]

Rigor mortis sets in eventually.

Boo Hiss, would be be a good name for a band.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by filtherton

BTW, nice avatar. I haven't had a reason to use adblock's manual feature in a long time.

You didn't know there was a right wing coup that already took over the news media and brainwashed you I see.

[roachboy]

dont be an ass, ustwo.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You didn't know there was a right wing coup that already took over the news media and brainwashed you I see.

Thanks for changing it, you're a real pal.

[KnifeMissile]

There's a lot I could respond to, in this thread, but I simply can't keep up. So, I'm just going to touch upon some of the more major points, I think...

Originally Posted by roachboy

i dont really play in these threads any more because they're essentially always the same thing-filtherton is right in that a commitment to "logic" (which is really just a formal procedure) does not and cannot lead you one way or another on the a/theism question because in logical terms, belief or non-belief is an axiom. your use of logic presupposes it, and so does not and cannot demonstrate it.

I think "logic" is being used colloquially, here. Indeed, formal logic is a procedure and, alone, can't render decisions.

I think we can all agree that, in general, people don't believe things without due evidence. Theists, however, make an exception for their religion. They rationalize this exception, of course, but under scrutiny, they really have no reason to believe in their religion other than that they want to. I think it's this inconsistency of critical thinking that people often label as "illogical." I prefer to use the term "unreasonable," since "logic" has a specific meaning to me, as a mathematician...

Originally Posted by filtherton

What exactly were my straw men?

Originally Posted by filtherton

In any case, I'm not particularly interested in anything that Dawkins has to say on the matter, if he's anything like his most vocal acolytes he is prone to self-serving misunderstandings and undeservedly smug self congratulation. I don't need someone to tell me how to not believe in god or why it might make sense in some sort of overarching way why people would believe in god. In many ways evolutionary psychology has as much relevance to my life as theism does; which is to say, I get enough trivia in my life already.

If nothing else, he's not an evolutionary psychologist, so that's a strawman. Now, it may very well be that you're just as disinterested in evolutionary biology but say that rather than to dismiss something no one has brought up.

For the record, Dawkins is very fair in his arguments and does not prey on misunderstandings. He's not like Hitchens, whose arguments are often as specious as his theist opponent's. The only reason Hitchens has a career is because he's so funny. He's a witty and vocal atheist writer but not a fair debater...

How did you develop your view of Richard Dawkins? Simply because he's smug?

Originally Posted by roachboy

on the other hand, if you think about being-in-the-world as processes or through the metaphor of emergence (complex dynamic systems theory, say) it is pretty obvious that logic, as it is built off of the way sentences stage the world, provides incomplete and refracted access to the world--this need not lead you in any particular direction in terms of the a/theism division--but it does point to a potential underlying driver that pushed folk on both sides along, which is their capacity to deal with uncertainty or incompleteness.

for some reason, incompleteness seems to spook people and drives them to more rigid relations to the procedures and frames of reference that situate them than it really makes sense to have, if you think about it at a remove.

i've said this before, all of it, really (this is the effect of the sameness of the threads)---but you cannot account for the processes that go into making a sentence in terms shaped by the sentences that you make. incompleteness is all around you. it's constituitive of being-in-the-world. this doesn't mean that anything goes, that rigor doesn't matter in games that call for rigor--but it does mean that there are fundamental dimensions of being that you don't know about---but not knowing does not require that you therefore go running to a god to enable you to pretend that at some level or another the situation is otherwise any more than it should prompt you to make ludicrous claims about the comprehensiveness of logic's ability to account for the world.

you just don't know.
systems are incomplete.
it's just like that.

Originally Posted by filtherton

roachboy

Thank you. I was beginning to think that I didn't speak english.

As always, I have great trouble understanding what the hell roachboy is saying but I'm pretty sure that this is not an endorsement for religion. Now, I understand that filtherton is not looking to endorse religion but I don't understand what he's thanking roachboy for...

Originally Posted by filtherton

Well, it doesn't make him more right. Dawkins is only right if you happen to subscribe to his very particular notions of what science is and how scientists must interact with the world. To claim that he is "right" isn't correct.

The claim wasn't that Dawkins' asshole behaviour makes him "more right." Whether Dawkins is correct is independent of his demeanor. I've never understood why people dismiss the arguments of people they dislike, personally. These people are cutting off a world of information based on personal whims. It's simply stupid...

Whatever disagreement you have with Dawkins, his views on what science is happens to coincide with scientists' views on science. Seriously, sceintists share a very particular view on what science is and, in this sense, Dawkins can be said to be right. With what are you disagreeing, in particular?

[RetroGunslinger]

I'm going to have to agree with Willravel, while no generalities can be made without discriminating against some minority, it can safely be said that Atheists either a) being so because of a basis in logic or b) being rebellious or angst-ridden. However, "b" should be disregarded, as I'm sure in a completely Atheistic society there would be rebels wishing to praise a supernatural being. For the most part--at least in my experience--even the most logical Theists often disregard that logic and take a leap of faith in their beliefs. I say this mainly because I have yet to hear an argument for a god that doesn't go something along the lines of "there has to be more out there" or "everything that exists must have a creator", without bordering on the simply ridiculous ("my momma said so," "I had a feeling").

Now, anyone who's read my posts knows I'm not nearly as intellectual or articulate as Willravel or, for that matter, most anyone in this thread, so I'll skip trying and simply say that the above arguments are a heaping load of horse shit. To believe in something supernatural because it cannot be disproved is silliness, simple as that. This is not to say agnostics are wrong, but rather that any Theist who uses the argument as their reasoning while also saying they are being logical are. If there is absolutely no proof, there is absolutely no reason to argue for it, in my opinion.

I personally believe in science, and when someone disproves evolution via scientific means, I will cease to believe in evolution, for example. Now, I'm sure someone could combat this by saying "Science makes no comment on the supernatural." I agree with this, partly because I refuse to believe in anything fictitious and as everyone knows, you can't use science to explain Harry Potter.

Further, I can't see any reason beyond selfishness or ignorance to believe in a god from any Theistic standpoint. I recall my mother once arguing that she simply couldn't live thinking there was nothing out there, and my thinking that it was the most ridiculous thing I'd ever heard her say. I have no reason personally to fear death (well, unless it's early death, but that's another matter), because not only do I not know what happens, but assuming you just stop existing, it seems perfectly sound. We're nothing but a biological entity with an advanced intellect that allows us to think outside the box, so it seems only logical that we would cease to comprehend once dead. Sure, it would be nice if we could go off to Heaven and spend eternity without boredom (somehow, it is Heaven after all) enjoying every minute, as hackneyed as that reads, but wanting something does not mean it exists. The idea that people base their lives around the notion that this can't be it is confounding and very close to depressing.

You can read into the attitude of people like Dawkins and Hitchens (whom I adore by the way), you can bring up angst-ridden teenagers, you can romanticize life and make philosophic mincemeat of the matter, but in the end it does not logically prove any religious belief.

That is my opinion on the debate this thread has become, as well as my Atheistic belief.