HOME | DD
Atamolos — Logic
Published: 2014-01-18 08:11:47 +0000 UTC; Views: 1263; Favourites: 22; Downloads: 3
Redirect to original
Description
A lesson in unfalsifiable hypotheses.Related content
Comments: 32
Easy; does belief in the flying spaghetti monster lead to an internally consistent worldview that corresponds to reality and can justify transcend universals, such as the laws of logic? Of course not, therefore it isn't true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, if you've ever read the Gospel of the FSM, you'll find it to be just as consistent as the Bible. Of course, thats because it was meant as satire to mock the Bible. And in any sense, belief in a god only corresponds to reality insofar as that there's no reason a god can't exist. There is no detectable indication of the existance of any sort of supernatural being. And you're remark in "justifying the laws of logic" is just silly. Logic doesn't need to be justified, its just our rationalization of self-proving postulates, there's no god needed.
The reason the FSM is not true has nothing to do with consistency or logic. The reason it'snit true is because it makes untestible positive claims that, like every other religion, cannkt be tested, and therefore cannotbe proven to exist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Justifying the laws of logic is silly?
Are you going on faith?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh please, don't play the "atheists have faith too" card.
What that means is that logic is self-evident and self-determinating. There is no need for a supernatural presence to justify their existence. Plus, logic is simply the result of quantifying perceptible observation, and thus wouldn't even exist if we did not. We invented logic to create rules for our own observation, and without observation, they simply would not have any cause to exist. They're a product of our own minds superimposing our own reasoning on reality, not the whims of a divine force.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I hope you do not mind my comments on your page, for I find the discussion very interesting. Also, I greatly appreciate when art encourages philosophical reflection.
My question isn't a "card" for knowledge requires faith, plan and simple.
This is my problem with atheism, it loves to make dogmatic assertions that it cannot justify, and then complains when other philosophies do the same. If an atheist can just assert something as true and beyond inquiry, then it cannot complain about any religion doing the same.
Logic, or any universal, cannot be merely limited to our own mind, less it lose its law like property. Does the law of non-contradiction, or the uniformity of nature only exist in our brains? If that is the case then it is merely arbitrary and destroys inquiry. Do we not have to believe (note the word) that such laws apply to the time when humanity didn't even exist?
The reason I am not an atheist is that atheism cannot explain anything and is self contradictory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not at all! I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression! I am enjoying this little discussion and feel free to comment on any and all of my work here.
My labeling of your approach as a "card' is simply because of the frequency I see it used, and slight frustration at having debunked it a dozen times over, but I suppose I'll word it again.
Knowledge does not require faith. Claims of absolute knowledge are indeed taken on faith, but simple knowledge of facts is based on simply testability and demonstrability. "Can I show/test/demonstrate this to be true?" If so, then it is accepted as knowledge, if not then it is not accepted until such a time as it can be.
Dogmatic claims?
---Dogmatic: adj. inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true
I have never known an atheist to claim to have absolute knowledge on anything, could you elaborate on your meaning here please? But on to your next claim:
“Does the law of non-contradiction, or the uniformity of nature only exist in our brains?”
Actually, yes they are. While it is true that non-contradiction is a property of reality, just as it is also true that nature is uniform, the laws explaining them are simply a consequence of superimposing our own perception and reasoning on what we observe. Would nature be uniform and objects non-contradictory without our perception? Yes they would, but logic would not.
And finally, you claim that “atheism doesn’t explain anything”. And you are absolutely correct. Atheism explains nothing, because atheism isn’t an explanation. It’s not designed to explain anything because it isn’t a religion. Atheism is the simple disbelief in theistic claims or in the existence of any version of a god or gods.
But you claim it’s also self contradictory? How so? Atheism makes no claims to contradict each other, so perhaps you could explain exactly what claims you think are contradictory.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you, and no apologizes are necessary. I tremendously enjoy chatting about these things, but I have learned to be careful. Some very intelligent people do not enjoy debate and it is easy to read in the wrong intentions or emotions into text communications.
I disagree with almost all of which you wrote, though I enjoyed hearing your thoughts. Eventually I would love to chat about the transcendant nature of beauty, which is one of the reasons I joined DA, however, let me focus on one particular issue first, less our conversation become too chaotic. If you wish to change the primary focus, please feel free to do so. Also, I have noticed that definitions are critical in this type of conversation.
I would contend that knowledge requires faith.
Faith is to intellectually believe, ascent and willfully trust in something or someone. Thus I know who my girlfriend is, I agree (or ascent) to the fact she is my girlfriend and I willfully trust that she will be faithful to me.
Therefore, how do I "know" the chemical formula for water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen? Have I very seen an H2O molecule? I have tested an H2O molecule? Have I tested all the H2O molecules that exist? Of course not. I have to believe that scientists know what they are talking about and have faith in what I have read is true. Let alone trust that my intellect and senses are valid.
Faith and knowledge are not opposites, but are fundamentally tied together.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Perhaps I should clarify something here. There are two separate definitions of "faith".
---Faith (1): allegiance to duty or a person, fidelity to one's promises, sincerity of intentions, loyalty
---Faith (2): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Your "faith" in your girlfriend refers to the former definition, while faith in a divine being refers to the latter. Moreover, "trust" and "faith" are not the same thing, but I will refer you to Merriam-Webster to confirm that. www.merriam-webster.com/dictio…
The reason you "know" the chemical formula of water is H2O is because water is, by definition, H2O. If it is not H2O, then it is not water. This isn't a matter of faith, it's a matter of definition.
"Have I tested an H2O molecule?"
---Actually yes, you have. You test trillions of them every day, even if you aren't aware of it. Just about every bodily system you have relies heavily on the intake of water. Your existence is a testament to the properties H2O molecules that we have observed, and operate through on a daily basis. I am no expert on the subject (my skills lend to evolutionary biology), so I will direct you to this informative web page on the subject. www.chemspider.com/Chemical-St…
And finally, your use of "believe [...] faith [...] trust" is a bit misleading. You're blurring the definitions of words together. Faith in the religious sense is not contingent on evidence, whereas trust in the capability of your own senses is based on evidence, as is belief in validity of modern science. You can observe and test your own senses, and observe the published results of scientific experiments, no faith necessary.
Faith does not need evidence to exist, while our knowledge of the universe is based upon evidence, by necessity. As I have said, any claim to absolute knowledge is indeed grounded in faith, but our understanding of reality has no need for it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you for the extensive response and the links; I love footnotes!
Forgive the personal question, but I am curious. Is your degree work, and/or occupation, in evolutionary biology? I would love to ask an expert a few questions related to that field.
As I feared we are going to have a disagreement over basic definitions.
My faith in my girlfriend involves more then mere allegiance, though that is part of it, which is what I am calling trust. If I had mere trust, without the first two (belief & ascent) then it would be blind irrational faith. The reason I trust my girlfriend because I know that she is in fact my girlfriend and not some other woman, and that I give ascent to that fact.
The definition I am working with is from the classical definition of faith, that it involves belief, assent and trust. Thus I am using faith, belief and trust in a very similar, following their Greek usage. For pístis (noun) and pisteúō (verb) can be translated as faith, belief or trust depending the syntax of the sentence. Just as the first definition of “faith” from Merriam-Webster is “strong belief or trust in someone or something.” Again, faith, belief and trust are fundamentally related and basically synonyms.
How can I have tested an H2O particle “even if you aren't aware or it?” There is no doubt I have experienced H2O, but I clearly do not know water is H2O based on evidence, but on trusting (i.e. having faith in) the chemistry books and teachers from my past education.
Question, how can I test my senses without using my senses? In the end, I have to have faith that my senses are valid.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're welcome! I enjoy being thorough with my responses!
I am not yet officially qualified to represent the filed on a professional level, but I have a decent education on the subject, so I will most likely be able to answer any and all your questions decently well.
This article does a better job of explaining the line between the two definitions of faith than I: www.askamathematician.com/2012…
Perhaps "tested" was the wrong word; "observed/experienced" may have been more accurate. It is true that you need to trust the facts presented to you (except those you can test yourself), but there are good reasons for this trust not based in faith. For example, the same science which describes the properties of water is responsible for the development of every single piece of technology grounded in hydrological chemistry, including but not limited to, water sanitation technology.
The same types of scientists who tell us that "water is a polar covalent molecule made of two hydrogens bonded to an oxygen" also made your drinking and bathing water fit for you to use, which is fairly good evidence that they know what they're talking about, and your trust in the information they give you is justified by evidence, rather than taken on faith.
Ah yes, the problem of induction. One of the basic problems for understanding the perception of reality. The funny thing is, we can never really know if the universe as we know it exists (we could be in the Matrix for all we know it). But this is why, for the intent of not being bogged down in epistemology, we have what are called basal assumptions. ( For more on that, here's wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_… )
Science makes three basal assumptions which are as follows:
1) Objective reality exists (i.e. I exist).
2) Science deals with objective reality (i.e. we can test nature).
3) Objective reality is constant (i.e. nature does not arbitrarily change).
Therefore, if reality exists uniformly, and science is able to test it, then we are able to build upon our knowledge. ( For more on epistemology: plato.stanford.edu/entries/epi… )
Technically, we can never really prove with certainty that any of these assumptions are true, but we do live in a world advanced by progress based in these assumptions. The average human life expectancy has doubled since science became mainstream during the Enlightenment, and we've no real cause to abandon the scientific method now, so until such a time as somebody can prove any one of these basal assumptions wrong, then we will continue to build knowledge upon them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmm, there is much I wish to respond to, but let me keep this simple and focused. Forgive the very basic nature of this next question, but again I am thinking we are using two very different definitions.
Question, what is your definition of the scientific method?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The scientific method is as follows.
Observations are made about reality from which hypotheses can be drawn and later experimented on to determine whether the hypothesis is supported or not, and is either elaborated upon by further experimentation or discarded in favor of a more accurate one upon which to base explanative models (theories). The process is repeated until all information is known (i.e. indefinetely).
You probably learned it as:
---Research
---Hypothesis
---Experiment
---Conclusion
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, we are in general agreement on this one, I think. The key being experiments which can be observable and testable.
So we are not debating science, but philosophy. Science cannot account for itself, but has to assume some basic dogmatic tenants.
How can one speak of "objective" reality and then deny certainty. It becomes self refuting, by ending in the contradictory position of "I am certain that one cannot be certain." Certainty is only possible if one is omnipotent and omniscience, or has revelation from one who is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Science cannot account for itself, but has to assume some basic dogmatic tenants."
What? Are you referring to basal assumptions, or something else? Dogma is necessarily unscientific because dogma puts forth claims which are to be undeniably true, while science makes no claims of absolute certainty. Nothing is sacred in the field of science. If you want to try to disprove something currently held as true, you're more than free to do so and collect your Nobel Prize.
Objective reality is how the universe is, beyond our perceptions. We do not actually directly perceive objective reality, and only the subjective view of our sensory interpretations. We can test objective reality, but the results we view are always subjective.
It's not self-contradicting. "Objective reality exists" is a basal assumption, and an assumption is defined as, "a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted". In other words, an assumption is something you cannot know with certainty. We make the assumption that reality exists outside of our senses because without making that assumption, we live in a world of epistemological pondering and no scientific progress would ever be made. We do not claim to be certain that objective reality exists, but we must make that assumption.
"'I am certain that one cannot be certain.'" No, that's not what I'm saying. I never made a claim to certainty about the uncertainty of human perception. I claimed that absolute certainty is not scientific, and must be taken as a matter of faith.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hmm, I think we are heading for an impasse. Though I enjoy and appreciate reading what you wrote, I would content that almost every one of your sentences is a dogmatic assertion based on faith. I understand you would reject my assertion and I would guess you think yourself as being neutral and scientific, which I would argue against. I would contend this isn't science vs. religion, but two different world views that are making dogmatic assertions.
Again I would define "faith" as synonyms with "belief" and "trust," which involves intellectual ascent and willful trust. To give the dictionary definition, a "strong belief or trust in someone or something."
"Dogma" is "something held as an established opinion, especially a definite authoritative tenet."
By the way, "dogma" is not a bad thing, but a requirement, just like faith, for knowing anything. The question isn't whether one is dogmatic or not, for everyone is dogmatic, the question is whether one's dogma is justifiable or irrational.
You listed three basal assumptions which are to be "taken for granted," i.e. as dogma. Such things as believing that reality exists, the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle, the uninformative of nature, etc., are all dogmatic beliefs. To give one example, to prove the law of non-contradiction through the scientific method is impossible. That is why I am contending science cannot account for science. This isn't a dig against science, but to protect science from expending beyond its foundational characteristics of testing, experimenting, etc.
I would think it has to come down to presuppositions. Is any world view (i.e. one's dogmas) internal consistent, corresponds to reality and can justify one's dogmatic claims. Can atheistic, materialistic naturalism account for science? I would argue no.
For example your dogmatic statement, "that absolute certainty is not scientific," is a claim to certainty. Are you certain that absolute certainty is not scientific?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
***Alright, from this point on, to avoid getting bogged down in semantics and epistemology, whenever I use the word "certainty" by itself, I am referring to a reasonable degree of certainty based on empirical observation, and not absolute certainty unless otherwise specified.
Faith in the sense of "a strong belief or trust [...]" is synonymous with belief or trust in this respect, but faith in the religious sense does not fall into this category.
While dogma itself is not inherently bad, it is anti-scientific. Having "definite authoritative tenent[s]" is to make claims to absolute certainty, which by nature, can never be based on empirical evidence, but rather on faith (in the religious sense).
The three basal assumptions are not dogma. As I said previously, "[...] until such a time as somebody can prove any one of these basal assumptions wrong, then we will continue to build knowledge upon them," They are not held to be indisputably true, that's why they're assumptions, which are conclusions that cannot be made with certainty.
Your example that, "to prove the law of non-contradiction through the scientific method is impossible," is flawed. The law of non-contradiction doesn't need to be proven scientifically, because it's a matter of definition rather than testibility; an apple is an apple and not a non-apple. That's a claim based in definition, and doesn't need to be proven scientifically, it's poven based on simple observation.
Can atheism account for science? Of course not. As I explained earlier, atheism doesn't account for anything because it isn't a positive claim. Atheism is not science, rather it is a lack of belief in the validity of theistic claims. Atheism explains exactly nothing because it isn't an explanation.
You're once again saying I'm claiming absolute certainty. Let me say again, I am not claiming to have absolute certainty. The fact that absolute certainty is not scientific is because the nature of science prevents any claim from being absolutely true beyond question. Science is a self-correcting process, and nothing is held to be true in the absolute.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We are definitely bogged down in semantics and epistemology. Again, I disagree with much of what you wrote. To be quick, let me list my points of contention.
* There is no “religious” sense of faith (by the definition I am using), we are both using the term in the same way.
* To have “degrees” of certainty is to have no certainty. Certainty by its definition implies absolute.
* “Basal assumptions” are dogmatic assumptions.
* Any worldview has to justify such things as the laws of logic, or it should be rejected as irrational.
* Atheism is a dogmatic belief system.
* If you state anything as true, or false, you are making a dogmatic claim to certainty.
* We do agree on one thing! That atheism cannot account for science. Which is one of the primary reasons I reject atheism.
Maybe we should call it a day? We are not going to be able to get past these epistemological issues, unless we go to our core presuppositions and see if they are internally consistent, correspond to reality and can justify our dogmatic knowledge claims.
I do have some general science questions if you would like to continue to chat, or we can continue on with the debate between theism and atheism, or again we can call it a day.
Either way, thank you for your replies, they have been very stimulating reading.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. Extraordinary claims REQUIRE extraordinary evidence. So yes, this is an excellent answer to a silly request.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All to often though, religious adherents will reply, "But that's not fair, those are fake, and God is real!"
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is the problem I have when people bash science. It's a negative attitude to think that science is about disproving the truth of fantastical ideas. Its about estimates, rationality and above all considering all possibilities before coming to a conclusion. I'm not arguing against this, I'm supporting it quite passionately.
My take on this whole "is God real or not" argument is that its possible that if he was real, we most likely do not have the tools to find him. He could be in a state of existence that current technology couldn't possibly find him like flying a starship in interstellar space or having a secret home in the intergalactic void.
My example: Galileo proved to us that the Earth orbits around the Sun but only had the know-how and the technology to identify that Jupiter had only four moons. Thanks to modern methods we know there are over 60 moons orbiting this gas giant.
And yeah, Galileio probably would have gotten laughed at if he ever said there were more because he had no evidence to prove such a thought. Sound familiar?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Denial of science especially annoys me, and I live in America where 80% of the country is Christian, and half of those are Biblical literalists (I.e. creationists) who think that the Bible is the greatest 'scientific' and 'historical' text of all time. The creationists seem to think they know better than most of the world's scientists, simply because the Bible is older. And some of the theories they've coined are batshit crazy.
I don't deny the possibility of a god, but I don't believe in a benevolent god, "for if he is willing and able, then whence cometh evil". So I am very confident that human ideas about god(s) are almost certainly untrue, but the existence of a higher order of consciousness is not impossible, in my opinion.
My problem is when Christians assume that scientific theory is the same as just a regular theory. The theories of evolution, gravity, relativity, etc have all be thoroughly tested, the results observed, and proven, so when so many people refuse to believe the evidence, preferring to worship a Bronze Age text whose existence stems from little more than the innate human fear of death, that's when I get annoyed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We live in an age where science is more integrated and more of a foundation on our lives than ever....and it's jaw-dropping how many people have no clue how the procedure works. And many rather choose not to bother - sticking to a text that is both confusing and often contradictory to itself.
Somehow they think this ONE text is completely infallible compared to the literally limitless number of historical volumes and published texts and volumes both before and after it. And in another part of the world you have others who think their one true text is the only infallible word. No point telling people if they willingly shut their ears to outside influence I guess.
Also it baffles me how much hate god-mode sues in modern fiction get when the very textbook example is still loved and supported by millions even when principles about it are so blatantly contradictory to itself...double standard anyone?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Many Christians never read the Bible, instead listening to people's interpretations of it, thus Church. I have a saying on the topic:
"Few Christians read the Bible. That's why they're Christians. And reading the Bible is what made me an atheist."
I think that's largely due to the general discouragement towards critical thinking in American society. Helped in full by the educational system's wholehearted focus on standardized tests, rather than critical thinking itself.
The ignorance towards the double standard, (for example in the Biblical 'prophetic' book of Jeremiah, God explains that he does not hold grudges, and then later in that same book explains how vengeful he is) is probably due to them having never read the Bible, instead listening to preachers, etc explain how all the horrible/contradictory things in the Bible are either 'metaphorical' or 'out of context'.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So all these Christians who celebrate and idolise a text they've never read are essentially kicking 300 years of rationalism in the head.
I do agree with you, I've come to learn that standardised tests are at their best an estimation, not something that is to be relied upon without question. I received an F in A-level physics and chemistry, does that mean I know jack about those subjects? Definitely not. When I took a more assessment and coursework-based science course for the next two years I excelled at those subjects.
it is funny how a being that is "incapable of evil" can undergo phases like periods of wrath or vengeance, both of which are considered evils by the very doctrine it is the symbolic figure to.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think their disregard for evidence, no matter the quantity, is the result of their desperation to believe that there's life after death. And I don't blame them, it's wired into our brains to have such hopes. I sometimes hope for an afterlife, but I don't let it warp my judgement of reality.
They're willing to turn a blind eye to any recorded atrocities all out of that hope for continued life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist and my 4 yo niece will kick your azz
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Neither personal god is anymore flawed a belief than the other because they're both based on faith and not logic. That's why I'm a pantheist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's the point. The purpose is to point out that there's no more evidence in favor of either of these gods, and the flying spaghetti monster is a very recent creation of theists. Comparing these two illustrates that they are both equally unrealistic, as they are unfalisifiable hypotheses.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1