| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dianelos Georgoudis" |
| Date: |
08 Jun 2006 02:34:12 AM |
| Object: |
Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
Milan wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1149666931.966173.210220@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
[snip]
Plantinga's proof fell like a bombshell in the circles of atheist
philosophy (easily 90% of academic philosophy) when he published it in
his book "God and Other Minds" in 1967. Significantly no errors
were found in his proof since then, even though some improvements were
suggested. So, as Gandalf pointed out, Plantinga single-handedly
managed a very impressive intellectual feat: to transform atheism's
centuries old and well established "logical proof from evil"
(widely considered to be the best argument for atheism by far) into
the
conceptually much weaker "evidential argument from evil" which only
claims that the existence of evil makes the existence of God
improbable. In fact, some consider Plantinga to be one of the greatest
philosophers of the second half of 20th century.
Plantinga's "proof" reminds me of an article I read some time ago
explaining
how it is possible for Superman to be able to fly at twice the speed of
light -which is something widely regarded to violate the theory of
relativity. I cannot remember the argument but the article was rather
persuasive. Such article might convince those of a Plantingan bend of
mind
that the arguments against the existence of Superman have been weakened.
Those of a non-Plantingan bend of mind realize that to refute the
argument
that a certain entity can or cannot do something is irrelevant if no
evidence for such entity exists.
It's a matter of objective fact that after Plantinga published his
defense in 1967 atheist philosophers stopped speaking of the "logical
proof from evil" of the non-existence of God and started speaking of
the much weaker "evidential argument from evil", in this way
backtracking on the best argument they had against the existence of God
as understood by monotheism. So, contrary to what you claim above,
Plantinga's arguments did convince and change the claims of many a
serious thinker who is not of a "Plantingan bend of mind".
It might be very entertaining in some circles that dont see theology as a
branch of ignorance to discuss about what the tribal god of the israelites
can or cannot do.
Oh well, you are aware of course that some circles see atheism as a
branch of ignorance.
In any case this is not an argument.
But it should be rather obvious that such activities are
but masturbatory exercises that would have been more appreciated in the
middle ages.
idem
As Dennett jocularly defines "Planting" in his hilarious
Philosophical Lexicon: planting, v. To use twentieth-century fertilizer to
encourage new shoots from eleventh -century ideas which everyone thought had
gone to seed; hence, plantinger, n. one who plantings. Plantinga deserves
another entry in the Lexicon: alvinize, v. To stimulate protracted
discussion by making a bizarre claim. "His contention that natural evil is
due to Satanic agency alvinized his listeners."
Actually that is funny, but of course not an argument either.
Incidentally Plantinga in his free will defense does not claim that
"natural evil is due to Satanic agency" - he only points out that
it is logically possible.
In general it is a fact is that much of what is happening in academic
circles of philosophy and of science takes several decades to filter
down into the popular mindset. For example Einstein was a scientific
realist who thought it is self-evident that the physical universe has
some basic properties (e.g. locality) but this has recently been proven
wrong experimentally. In fact, scientific realists cannot agree even on
the most basic descriptive properties of physical reality, and some
propose descriptions that are far more fantastic than, say, John's
Apocalypse. Still according to the popular mindset the
realist/materialist understanding of reality is as reasonable and as
solid as ever with few remaining problems left which are being ironed
out; well in fact it isn't so and maybe one is justified to interpret
the continuation of these beliefs contrary to evidence as mass delusion
and wishful thinking. Most people feel sure that science requires the
assumption that there is a real physical universe out there, when in
fact it isn't so either. The latest claim is very easy to prove: If
there isn't in fact a physical universe at all but only God directly
feeding us conscious experience science and technology would have
advanced exactly the same and would have no means to notice something
being amiss - therefore the assumption that there is a physical
universe out there is not necessary for science and technology. In
short most strongly felt beliefs about materialism in the popular
mindscape are in fact mythological beliefs because they are factually
wrong.
Your anti naturalist tirade is sort of interesting but rather off topic.
First of all above I argued against materialism, which at least enjoys
some kind of definition. The definition that naturalism as the view
that nothing supernatural exists is clearly circular. If you can give a
coherent definition of naturalism I'd like to hear it.
It
is indeed possible that there is not a physical universe but "God" (whatever
you might mean by that word), or Chtulhu, are feeding us our perceptions,
and in fact we are inmaterial (whatever that might mean) minds floating in a
vacuum made of nothingness. Maybe we are the dream of the green ants. Maybe
somebody in a village outside Birmingham is dreaming everything else. Maybe
there is a physical universe but it is completely different from what we see
and I think that I'm typing on my keyboard but in fact I am fingering the
***** of some horrific monster with three heads. Maybe the universe was
created by "God" or Chtulhu last Thursday with everything in it including
fossils and our memories. All these scenarios are possible and we cannot
really falsify such claims. We then choose the simplest and most
parsimonious hypothesis (which by the way has the advantage of not requiring
the inclusion of the gratuitous hypothesis "God"): that in fact there is a
physical world.
I like your passion and I agree with your principle that we must
"choose the simplest and most parsimonious hypothesis". And of course I
agree that the physical universe exists. What I don't agree is that it
exists as an external independent entity, i.e. as something that would
exist even if no persons existed (the latest bit is an excellent
example of a claim that is self-negating), and that it is the place in
which we ourselves exist. I think the physical universe exists as the
best way we can make sense of a large part of our conscious experience
- in other words the universe is a model we build (starting as infants)
in order to understand our experiences. Which does not imply in any
way, shape or manner that therefore we somehow "create" the physical
universe. For example if you see a series of dots on a paper and you
notice that they lie on a circle, it's not like you "create" the
circle; rather you detect the circle as a pattern present in the dots.
In the same way we detect the physical universe as a pattern present in
our conscious experience. Think about it - I think you'll find that's
exactly what we do. And of course to detect that pattern is very useful
as a practical matter because, between other things, it helps us avoid
bumping into walls. But to think that this pattern detected in the
field of our conscious experience is something more than just a pattern
detected in the field of our conscious experience is clearly an
arbitrary assumption. And, as materialism/realism shows it's an
assumption that leads one into many paradoxes and hard problems.
Above you poke some fun at Plantinga, but the fact remains that
Plantinga is an exceptionally successful philosopher because he was
able to actually change the tune sung by his philosophical opponents
(something that Dennett, for example, clearly didn't achieve). And it
is also rather funny to see how materialists/realists on the one hand
proudly proclaim that theirs is an *objective* epistemology and on the
other hand disagree ever more deeply between themselves about the basic
properties of their so very objective physical reality.
As for the simplest and most parsimonious hypothesis, as Einstein said,
we must make things as simple as possible but not simpler. You see, our
very own consciousness, the very space of conscious experience in which
we live every second of our waking lives, is not just some small
uncomfortable detail a rational person can easily shove under the rug
and ignore. On the contrary it is the most momentous fact of our
condition, and, not to put a fine point on it, the only thing that
really interests us. And the materialist/realist hypothesis utterly
fails to account for our consciousness and some materialist
philosophers already recognize that this is because of fundamental
reasons and not because we miss some data that neurophysiology has not
yet discovered (in fact consciousness is a scientific non-issue). So
maybe materialism/realism is just too simple.
I define "God" as the deepest explanation for the whole of our
conscious experience (including for the fact that there is conscious
experience in the first place), i.e. as the overarching pattern that
integrates and subsumes all other patterns found in the field of our
conscious experience, the one thing in which all our knowledge becomes
coherent. I use "God" to name this pattern because it displays the
basic properties that the great monotheistic religions have always
claimed for God: namely personhood, perfect goodness, power, wisdom,
etc.
As Simon Blackburn put it: realism is the position of all
philophers when they are off-duty.
I don't know about that. Anti-realism is used some times in relation to
some particular kind of object, e.g. mathematical objects, claiming
that this is not an object that "really" exists. In fact the latter is
the position of eliminative materialists (aka "naive materialists",
i.e. those who believe that only physical things exist - a fringe view
in academic philosophy but quite dominant in popular atheism). There
are very few if any philosophers who positively deny objective reality
in general; anti-realism is usually an agnostic position.
.
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
08 Jun 2006 02:47:01 PM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1149752052.253484.188270@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1149666931.966173.210220@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
[snip]
Plantinga's proof fell like a bombshell in the circles of atheist
philosophy (easily 90% of academic philosophy) when he published
it in
his book "God and Other Minds" in 1967. Significantly no errors
were found in his proof since then, even though some improvements
were
suggested. So, as Gandalf pointed out, Plantinga single-handedly
managed a very impressive intellectual feat: to transform
atheism's
centuries old and well established "logical proof from evil"
(widely considered to be the best argument for atheism by far)
into
the
conceptually much weaker "evidential argument from evil" which
only
claims that the existence of evil makes the existence of God
improbable. In fact, some consider Plantinga to be one of the
greatest
philosophers of the second half of 20th century.
Plantinga's "proof" reminds me of an article I read some time ago
explaining
how it is possible for Superman to be able to fly at twice the speed
of
light -which is something widely regarded to violate the theory of
relativity. I cannot remember the argument but the article was
rather
persuasive. Such article might convince those of a Plantingan bend
of
mind
that the arguments against the existence of Superman have been
weakened.
Those of a non-Plantingan bend of mind realize that to refute the
argument
that a certain entity can or cannot do something is irrelevant if
no
evidence for such entity exists.
It's a matter of objective fact that after Plantinga published his
defense in 1967 atheist philosophers stopped speaking of the "logical
proof from evil" of the non-existence of God and started speaking of
the much weaker "evidential argument from evil", in this way
backtracking on the best argument they had against the existence of
God
as understood by monotheism. So, contrary to what you claim above,
Plantinga's arguments did convince and change the claims of many a
serious thinker who is not of a "Plantingan bend of mind".
It might be very entertaining in some circles that dont see theology as
a
branch of ignorance to discuss about what the tribal god of the
israelites
can or cannot do.
Oh well, you are aware of course that some circles see atheism as a
branch of ignorance.
I wasnt, actually.
In any case this is not an argument.
It didnt try to be. I find it puzzling that in the 21st century "theology"
should be considered an academic and intellectual discipline. A few years
ago here in Cambridge the University spent quite a bit of money building a
new Dept of Theology; It's amazing. They even have computers and I've been
told that they actually use them. Plantinga's efforts are dedicated to
trying to make theism look a bit less ridiculous. I guess that for a theist
this should be considered to be a laudable endeavour. Of course many theists
are happy about his efforts. The question remains, Should we care that some
people devote their lives to discuss the magical powers of bronze-age tribal
gods as if they did exist? I think not.
But it should be rather obvious that such activities are
but masturbatory exercises that would have been more appreciated in the
middle ages.
idem
I thought that this point was actually far too obvious to need discussing.
Galileo's doctoral thesis, to give but one example, was about the location
of hell. And this was as late as the 16th century. In the middle ages God
and his abilities were all the rage in philosophical circles. The defense of
biblical orthodoxy was the full time job of many scholars at the time (it
helped quite a bit to prevent them from getting burned alive). I dont think
it should come as a surprise that these inanities were far more popular and
appreciated in the middle ages than they are now.
As Dennett jocularly defines "Planting" in his hilarious
Philosophical Lexicon: planting, v. To use twentieth-century fertilizer
to
encourage new shoots from eleventh -century ideas which everyone thought
had
gone to seed; hence, plantinger, n. one who plantings. Plantinga
deserves
another entry in the Lexicon: alvinize, v. To stimulate protracted
discussion by making a bizarre claim. "His contention that natural evil
is
due to Satanic agency alvinized his listeners."
Actually that is funny, but of course not an argument either.
Incidentally Plantinga in his free will defense does not claim that
"natural evil is due to Satanic agency" - he only points out that
it is logically possible.
Oh, good to know that. But I'm no longer a member of the Alistair Crowley
club.
In general it is a fact is that much of what is happening in academic
circles of philosophy and of science takes several decades to filter
down into the popular mindset. For example Einstein was a scientific
realist who thought it is self-evident that the physical universe has
some basic properties (e.g. locality) but this has recently been
proven
wrong experimentally. In fact, scientific realists cannot agree even
on
the most basic descriptive properties of physical reality, and some
propose descriptions that are far more fantastic than, say, John's
Apocalypse. Still according to the popular mindset the
realist/materialist understanding of reality is as reasonable and as
solid as ever with few remaining problems left which are being ironed
out; well in fact it isn't so and maybe one is justified to interpret
the continuation of these beliefs contrary to evidence as mass
delusion
and wishful thinking. Most people feel sure that science requires the
assumption that there is a real physical universe out there, when in
fact it isn't so either. The latest claim is very easy to prove: If
there isn't in fact a physical universe at all but only God directly
feeding us conscious experience science and technology would have
advanced exactly the same and would have no means to notice something
being amiss - therefore the assumption that there is a physical
universe out there is not necessary for science and technology. In
short most strongly felt beliefs about materialism in the popular
mindscape are in fact mythological beliefs because they are factually
wrong.
Your anti naturalist tirade is sort of interesting but rather off topic.
First of all above I argued against materialism, which at least enjoys
some kind of definition. The definition that naturalism as the view
that nothing supernatural exists is clearly circular. If you can give a
coherent definition of naturalism I'd like to hear it.
Well, I normally dont make much distinction between naturalism, materialism
or physicalism. Regarding your statement that nothing "supernatural" exists,
I'd like to know what you mean by "supernatural".
It
is indeed possible that there is not a physical universe but "God"
(whatever
you might mean by that word), or Chtulhu, are feeding us our
perceptions,
and in fact we are inmaterial (whatever that might mean) minds floating
in a
vacuum made of nothingness. Maybe we are the dream of the green ants.
Maybe
somebody in a village outside Birmingham is dreaming everything else.
Maybe
there is a physical universe but it is completely different from what we
see
and I think that I'm typing on my keyboard but in fact I am fingering
the
***** of some horrific monster with three heads. Maybe the universe was
created by "God" or Chtulhu last Thursday with everything in it
including
fossils and our memories. All these scenarios are possible and we cannot
really falsify such claims. We then choose the simplest and most
parsimonious hypothesis (which by the way has the advantage of not
requiring
the inclusion of the gratuitous hypothesis "God"): that in fact there is
a
physical world.
I like your passion and I agree with your principle that we must
"choose the simplest and most parsimonious hypothesis". And of course I
agree that the physical universe exists. What I don't agree is that it
exists as an external independent entity, i.e. as something that would
exist even if no persons existed (the latest bit is an excellent
example of a claim that is self-negating), and that it is the place in
which we ourselves exist. I think the physical universe exists as the
best way we can make sense of a large part of our conscious experience
- in other words the universe is a model we build (starting as infants)
in order to understand our experiences. Which does not imply in any
way, shape or manner that therefore we somehow "create" the physical
universe. For example if you see a series of dots on a paper and you
notice that they lie on a circle, it's not like you "create" the
circle; rather you detect the circle as a pattern present in the dots.
In the same way we detect the physical universe as a pattern present in
our conscious experience. Think about it - I think you'll find that's
exactly what we do. And of course to detect that pattern is very useful
as a practical matter because, between other things, it helps us avoid
bumping into walls. But to think that this pattern detected in the
field of our conscious experience is something more than just a pattern
detected in the field of our conscious experience is clearly an
arbitrary assumption. And, as materialism/realism shows it's an
assumption that leads one into many paradoxes and hard problems.
Above you poke some fun at Plantinga, but the fact remains that
Plantinga is an exceptionally successful philosopher because he was
able to actually change the tune sung by his philosophical opponents
(something that Dennett, for example, clearly didn't achieve). And it
is also rather funny to see how materialists/realists on the one hand
proudly proclaim that theirs is an *objective* epistemology and on the
other hand disagree ever more deeply between themselves about the basic
properties of their so very objective physical reality.
Usually christian fundamentalists are dimwits. With Plantinga, however, they
seem to have produced one who can think. Somebody who can think and believes
in creationism, Satan, devils and angels (not to mention God, and the rest
of the absurdities of Christian mythology, of course) is not the kind of
person who you meet often. I'm sure he's one of a kind.
As for the simplest and most parsimonious hypothesis, as Einstein said,
we must make things as simple as possible but not simpler. You see, our
very own consciousness, the very space of conscious experience in which
we live every second of our waking lives, is not just some small
uncomfortable detail a rational person can easily shove under the rug
and ignore. On the contrary it is the most momentous fact of our
condition, and, not to put a fine point on it, the only thing that
really interests us.
This is perhaps excessive. Most people are actually interested in other
things. The origins of life, the origins of the universe, Bergman's films,
Bach and mythology tend to generate interest in many people. Many people
actually take consciousness for granted. Like the beating of their hearts or
the workings of their liver. They know they are there doing their job and
maybe they worry if they malfunction, but if they work properly they usually
dont pay that much attention to them.
And the materialist/realist hypothesis utterly
fails to account for our consciousness and some materialist
philosophers already recognize that this is because of fundamental
reasons and not because we miss some data that neurophysiology has not
yet discovered (in fact consciousness is a scientific non-issue). So
maybe materialism/realism is just too simple.
Many people fail to remember that modern science as we know it started in
the 17th century with Boyle et al. Until a couple of hundred years ago we
knew zilch about physiology, biochemistry or cell biology. (This of course
thanks to Plantinga's predecessors who froze science for about 1,000 years).
Until 100 years ago we had no idea about neural pathways. Until about 50
years ago we had no idea about the structure of DNA. Second messengers,
receptors and neurotransmitters were discovered and determined between the
1950s and the 1980s. Glutamate, possibly the most important neurotransmitter
in the brain, was not identified as a neurotransmitter until the mid-1950s.
Peptide neurotransmitters were identified in the 1970s and 1980s and they
keep coming. Some neuronal pathways have still not been determined. And you
are surprised that we dont know the molecular/cellular basis of
consciousness? Allow me to chortle. This would be like saying in the 14th
century that materialism fails because nobody knows how blood flows in the
circulatory system. Your attempt to re-introduce the ghost in the machine is
touching. Thanks, but no thanks.
I define "God" as the deepest explanation for the whole of our
conscious experience (including for the fact that there is conscious
experience in the first place), i.e. as the overarching pattern that
integrates and subsumes all other patterns found in the field of our
conscious experience, the one thing in which all our knowledge becomes
coherent. I use "God" to name this pattern because it displays the
basic properties that the great monotheistic religions have always
claimed for God: namely personhood, perfect goodness, power, wisdom,
etc.
I think that it would be an understatement to say that I'm bemused by this
statement. According to your daring claim our conscious experience displays
perfect goodness, power and wisdom? So you call it God? I wonder whether you
are being facetious here. It's always hard to tell in this ngs.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
08 Jun 2006 05:26:51 AM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
Oh well, you are aware of course that some circles see atheism as a
branch of ignorance.
What's atheism?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
08 Jun 2006 01:15:51 PM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
Milan wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1149666931.966173.210220@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
[snip]
Plantinga's proof fell like a bombshell in the circles of atheist
philosophy (easily 90% of academic philosophy) when he published it in
his book "God and Other Minds" in 1967. Significantly no errors
were found in his proof since then, even though some improvements were
suggested. So, as Gandalf pointed out, Plantinga single-handedly
managed a very impressive intellectual feat: to transform atheism's
centuries old and well established "logical proof from evil"
(widely considered to be the best argument for atheism by far) into
the
conceptually much weaker "evidential argument from evil" which only
claims that the existence of evil makes the existence of God
improbable. In fact, some consider Plantinga to be one of the greatest
philosophers of the second half of 20th century.
Plantinga's "proof" reminds me of an article I read some time ago
explaining
how it is possible for Superman to be able to fly at twice the speed of
light -which is something widely regarded to violate the theory of
relativity. I cannot remember the argument but the article was rather
persuasive. Such article might convince those of a Plantingan bend of
mind
that the arguments against the existence of Superman have been weakened.
Those of a non-Plantingan bend of mind realize that to refute the
argument
that a certain entity can or cannot do something is irrelevant if no
evidence for such entity exists.
It's a matter of objective fact that after Plantinga published his
defense in 1967 atheist philosophers stopped speaking of the "logical
proof from evil" of the non-existence of God and started speaking of
the much weaker "evidential argument from evil", in this way
backtracking on the best argument they had against the existence of God
as understood by monotheism. So, contrary to what you claim above,
Plantinga's arguments did convince and change the claims of many a
serious thinker who is not of a "Plantingan bend of mind".
It might be very entertaining in some circles that dont see theology as a
branch of ignorance to discuss about what the tribal god of the israelites
can or cannot do.
Oh well, you are aware of course that some circles see atheism as a
branch of ignorance.
In any case this is not an argument.
But it should be rather obvious that such activities are
but masturbatory exercises that would have been more appreciated in the
middle ages.
idem
As Dennett jocularly defines "Planting" in his hilarious
Philosophical Lexicon: planting, v. To use twentieth-century fertilizer to
encourage new shoots from eleventh -century ideas which everyone thought had
gone to seed; hence, plantinger, n. one who plantings. Plantinga deserves
another entry in the Lexicon: alvinize, v. To stimulate protracted
discussion by making a bizarre claim. "His contention that natural evil is
due to Satanic agency alvinized his listeners."
Actually that is funny, but of course not an argument either.
Incidentally Plantinga in his free will defense does not claim that
"natural evil is due to Satanic agency" - he only points out that
it is logically possible.
In general it is a fact is that much of what is happening in academic
circles of philosophy and of science takes several decades to filter
down into the popular mindset. For example Einstein was a scientific
realist who thought it is self-evident that the physical universe has
some basic properties (e.g. locality) but this has recently been proven
wrong experimentally. In fact, scientific realists cannot agree even on
the most basic descriptive properties of physical reality, and some
propose descriptions that are far more fantastic than, say, John's
Apocalypse. Still according to the popular mindset the
realist/materialist understanding of reality is as reasonable and as
solid as ever with few remaining problems left which are being ironed
out; well in fact it isn't so and maybe one is justified to interpret
the continuation of these beliefs contrary to evidence as mass delusion
and wishful thinking. Most people feel sure that science requires the
assumption that there is a real physical universe out there, when in
fact it isn't so either. The latest claim is very easy to prove: If
there isn't in fact a physical universe at all but only God directly
feeding us conscious experience science and technology would have
advanced exactly the same and would have no means to notice something
being amiss - therefore the assumption that there is a physical
universe out there is not necessary for science and technology. In
short most strongly felt beliefs about materialism in the popular
mindscape are in fact mythological beliefs because they are factually
wrong.
Your anti naturalist tirade is sort of interesting but rather off topic.
First of all above I argued against materialism, which at least enjoys
some kind of definition. The definition that naturalism as the view
that nothing supernatural exists is clearly circular. If you can give a
coherent definition of naturalism I'd like to hear it.
Naturalism: The universe can be described with testable hypothesis.
Naturalism is the thought that science can describe all that we
interact with.
Naturalism doesn't need concepts of gods and devils to be defined.
And when was this "locality" disproven. As a physicist I might need to
know these things.
It
is indeed possible that there is not a physical universe but "God" (whatever
you might mean by that word), or Chtulhu, are feeding us our perceptions,
and in fact we are inmaterial (whatever that might mean) minds floating in a
vacuum made of nothingness. Maybe we are the dream of the green ants. Maybe
somebody in a village outside Birmingham is dreaming everything else. Maybe
there is a physical universe but it is completely different from what we see
and I think that I'm typing on my keyboard but in fact I am fingering the
***** of some horrific monster with three heads. Maybe the universe was
created by "God" or Chtulhu last Thursday with everything in it including
fossils and our memories. All these scenarios are possible and we cannot
really falsify such claims. We then choose the simplest and most
parsimonious hypothesis (which by the way has the advantage of not requiring
the inclusion of the gratuitous hypothesis "God"): that in fact there is a
physical world.
I like your passion and I agree with your principle that we must
"choose the simplest and most parsimonious hypothesis". And of course I
agree that the physical universe exists. What I don't agree is that it
exists as an external independent entity, i.e. as something that would
exist even if no persons existed (the latest bit is an excellent
example of a claim that is self-negating), and that it is the place in
which we ourselves exist. I think the physical universe exists as the
best way we can make sense of a large part of our conscious experience
- in other words the universe is a model we build (starting as infants)
in order to understand our experiences. Which does not imply in any
way, shape or manner that therefore we somehow "create" the physical
universe. For example if you see a series of dots on a paper and you
notice that they lie on a circle, it's not like you "create" the
circle; rather you detect the circle as a pattern present in the dots.
In the same way we detect the physical universe as a pattern present in
our conscious experience. Think about it - I think you'll find that's
exactly what we do. And of course to detect that pattern is very useful
as a practical matter because, between other things, it helps us avoid
bumping into walls. But to think that this pattern detected in the
field of our conscious experience is something more than just a pattern
detected in the field of our conscious experience is clearly an
arbitrary assumption. And, as materialism/realism shows it's an
assumption that leads one into many paradoxes and hard problems.
Above you poke some fun at Plantinga, but the fact remains that
Plantinga is an exceptionally successful philosopher because he was
able to actually change the tune sung by his philosophical opponents
(something that Dennett, for example, clearly didn't achieve). And it
is also rather funny to see how materialists/realists on the one hand
proudly proclaim that theirs is an *objective* epistemology and on the
other hand disagree ever more deeply between themselves about the basic
properties of their so very objective physical reality.
As for the simplest and most parsimonious hypothesis, as Einstein said,
we must make things as simple as possible but not simpler. You see, our
very own consciousness, the very space of conscious experience in which
we live every second of our waking lives, is not just some small
uncomfortable detail a rational person can easily shove under the rug
and ignore. On the contrary it is the most momentous fact of our
condition, and, not to put a fine point on it, the only thing that
really interests us. And the materialist/realist hypothesis utterly
fails to account for our consciousness and some materialist
philosophers already recognize that this is because of fundamental
reasons and not because we miss some data that neurophysiology has not
yet discovered (in fact consciousness is a scientific non-issue). So
maybe materialism/realism is just too simple.
I define "God" as the deepest explanation for the whole of our
conscious experience (including for the fact that there is conscious
experience in the first place), i.e. as the overarching pattern that
integrates and subsumes all other patterns found in the field of our
conscious experience, the one thing in which all our knowledge becomes
coherent. I use "God" to name this pattern because it displays the
basic properties that the great monotheistic religions have always
claimed for God: namely personhood, perfect goodness, power, wisdom,
etc.
As Simon Blackburn put it: realism is the position of all
philophers when they are off-duty.
I don't know about that. Anti-realism is used some times in relation to
some particular kind of object, e.g. mathematical objects, claiming
that this is not an object that "really" exists. In fact the latter is
the position of eliminative materialists (aka "naive materialists",
i.e. those who believe that only physical things exist - a fringe view
in academic philosophy but quite dominant in popular atheism). There
are very few if any philosophers who positively deny objective reality
in general; anti-realism is usually an agnostic position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
09 Jun 2006 03:23:58 PM |
|
|
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
Milan wrote:
[snip]
Your anti naturalist tirade is sort of interesting but rather off topic.
First of all above I argued against materialism, which at least enjoys
some kind of definition. The definition that naturalism as the view
that nothing supernatural exists is clearly circular. If you can give a
coherent definition of naturalism I'd like to hear it.
Naturalism: The universe can be described with testable hypothesis.
The physical universe you mean. But then not only naturalism says that.
Dualism and idealism, for example, says the same.
Naturalism is the thought that science can describe all that we
interact with.
All we physically interact with. You see my experience of beauty and
how it is to experience beauty are scientific non-issues as anything
related to the consciousness hypothesis. For science the consciousness
hypothesis is not required to explain any physical phenomenon - exactly
the same way that the God hypothesis is not required.
Naturalism doesn't need concepts of gods and devils to be defined.
Of course not, but the above still do not constitute a clear definition
of naturalism.
And when was this "locality" disproven. As a physicist I might need to
know these things.
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen proposed the so-called EPR paradox in a
paper in 1935. This is a thought experiment that purports to show that
quantum mechanics could not be a complete description of reality
because it predicted non-local phenomena ("spooky actions at a
distance") that were taken to be self-evidently impossible. In
response to the EPR paradox Bell proposed his theorem in 1965. It
basically proposed an experimental set-up that would allow to actually
test for the presence of such spooky actions at a distance. Starting at
1981 a series of experiments gave overwhelming evidence that such
spooky actions at a distance actually happen: a change in the state of
an elementary particle (e.g. the polarization of a photon) can
instantly affect the state of another elementary particle independently
of their distance. Test have been confirmed of such instantaneous
effects between pair of photons that were more that 10 km apart.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
09 Jun 2006 04:44:17 PM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
Milan wrote:
[snip]
Your anti naturalist tirade is sort of interesting but rather off topic.
First of all above I argued against materialism, which at least enjoys
some kind of definition. The definition that naturalism as the view
that nothing supernatural exists is clearly circular. If you can give a
coherent definition of naturalism I'd like to hear it.
Naturalism: The universe can be described with testable hypothesis.
The physical universe you mean.
No, that's not what I said. I mean what I said.
But then not only naturalism says that.
Dualism and idealism, for example, says the same.
No, not necessarily. That's not what dualism and idealism are. You can
easily have a dualism that is not a naturalism.
Naturalism is the thought that science can describe all that we
interact with.
All we physically interact with.
Nope. You are mangling the definition with your presuppositions.
You see my experience of beauty and
how it is to experience beauty are scientific non-issues as anything
related to the consciousness hypothesis.
That's your assertion and your belief. It is irrelevant to what
naturalism is. Even if naturalism is wrong.
For science the consciousness
hypothesis is not required to explain any physical phenomenon - exactly
the same way that the God hypothesis is not required.
Naturalism doesn't need concepts of gods and devils to be defined.
Of course not, but the above still do not constitute a clear definition
of naturalism.
Yes it does. You have not grasped it.
And when was this "locality" disproven. As a physicist I might need to
know these things.
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen proposed the so-called EPR paradox in a
paper in 1935. This is a thought experiment that purports to show that
quantum mechanics could not be a complete description of reality
because it predicted non-local phenomena ("spooky actions at a
distance") that were taken to be self-evidently impossible. In
response to the EPR paradox Bell proposed his theorem in 1965. It
basically proposed an experimental set-up that would allow to actually
test for the presence of such spooky actions at a distance. Starting at
1981 a series of experiments gave overwhelming evidence that such
spooky actions at a distance actually happen: a change in the state of
an elementary particle (e.g. the polarization of a photon) can
instantly affect the state of another elementary particle independently
of their distance. Test have been confirmed of such instantaneous
effects between pair of photons that were more that 10 km apart.
Ahh you were talking about quantum mechanics. I thought you were
talking about relativity. When you just use the word "locality" that
doesn't mean anything without context. States are global in QM, yes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
08 Jun 2006 12:48:37 PM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis wrote:
Milan wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1149666931.966173.210220@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Milan wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
[snip]
Plantinga's proof fell like a bombshell in the circles of atheist
philosophy (easily 90% of academic philosophy) when he published it in
his book "God and Other Minds" in 1967. Significantly no errors
were found in his proof since then, even though some improvements were
suggested. So, as Gandalf pointed out, Plantinga single-handedly
managed a very impressive intellectual feat: to transform atheism's
centuries old and well established "logical proof from evil"
(widely considered to be the best argument for atheism by far) into
the
conceptually much weaker "evidential argument from evil" which only
claims that the existence of evil makes the existence of God
improbable. In fact, some consider Plantinga to be one of the greatest
philosophers of the second half of 20th century.
Plantinga's "proof" reminds me of an article I read some time ago
explaining
how it is possible for Superman to be able to fly at twice the speed of
light -which is something widely regarded to violate the theory of
relativity. I cannot remember the argument but the article was rather
persuasive. Such article might convince those of a Plantingan bend of
mind
that the arguments against the existence of Superman have been weakened.
Those of a non-Plantingan bend of mind realize that to refute the
argument
that a certain entity can or cannot do something is irrelevant if no
evidence for such entity exists.
It's a matter of objective fact that after Plantinga published his
defense in 1967 atheist philosophers stopped speaking of the "logical
proof from evil" of the non-existence of God and started speaking of
the much weaker "evidential argument from evil", in this way
backtracking on the best argument they had against the existence of God
as understood by monotheism. So, contrary to what you claim above,
Plantinga's arguments did convince and change the claims of many a
serious thinker who is not of a "Plantingan bend of mind".
It might be very entertaining in some circles that dont see theology as a
branch of ignorance to discuss about what the tribal god of the israelites
can or cannot do.
Oh well, you are aware of course that some circles see atheism as a
branch of ignorance.
In any case this is not an argument.
But it should be rather obvious that such activities are
but masturbatory exercises that would have been more appreciated in the
middle ages.
idem
As Dennett jocularly defines "Planting" in his hilarious
Philosophical Lexicon: planting, v. To use twentieth-century fertilizer to
encourage new shoots from eleventh -century ideas which everyone thought had
gone to seed; hence, plantinger, n. one who plantings. Plantinga deserves
another entry in the Lexicon: alvinize, v. To stimulate protracted
discussion by making a bizarre claim. "His contention that natural evil is
due to Satanic agency alvinized his listeners."
Actually that is funny, but of course not an argument either.
Incidentally Plantinga in his free will defense does not claim that
"natural evil is due to Satanic agency" - he only points out that
it is logically possible.
Let us be fair when speaking of defense and possibility. If he cannot
rule it out he must be claiming, by inductive logic, that it "may or
may not" be a possible reason for natural evil.
In general it is a fact is that much of what is happening in academic
circles of philosophy and of science takes several decades to filter
down into the popular mindset. For example Einstein was a scientific
realist who thought it is self-evident that the physical universe has
some basic properties (e.g. locality) but this has recently been proven
wrong experimentally. In fact, scientific realists cannot agree even on
the most basic descriptive properties of physical reality, and some
propose descriptions that are far more fantastic than, say, John's
Apocalypse. Still according to the popular mindset the
realist/materialist understanding of reality is as reasonable and as
solid as ever with few remaining problems left which are being ironed
out; well in fact it isn't so and maybe one is justified to interpret
the continuation of these beliefs contrary to evidence as mass delusion
and wishful thinking. Most people feel sure that science requires the
assumption that there is a real physical universe out there, when in
fact it isn't so either. The latest claim is very easy to prove: If
there isn't in fact a physical universe at all but only God directly
feeding us conscious experience science and technology would have
advanced exactly the same and would have no means to notice something
being amiss - therefore the assumption that there is a physical
universe out there is not necessary for science and technology. In
short most strongly felt beliefs about materialism in the popular
mindscape are in fact mythological beliefs because they are factually
wrong.
Your anti naturalist tirade is sort of interesting but rather off topic.
First of all above I argued against materialism, which at least enjoys
some kind of definition. The definition that naturalism as the view
that nothing supernatural exists is clearly circular. If you can give a
coherent definition of naturalism I'd like to hear it.
There is no higher tribunal for truth than natural science itself.
There is no better method than the scientific method for judging the
claims of science, and there is neither any need nor any place for a
"first philosophy", such as (abstract) metaphysics or epistemology,
that could stand behind and justify science or the scientific method.
Therefore, philosophy should feel free to make use of the findings of
scientists in its own pursuit, while also feeling free to offer
criticism when those claims are ungrounded, confused, or inconsistent.
In this way philosophy becomes "continuous with" science. Naturalism is
not a dogmatic belief that the modern view of science is entirely
correct. Instead, it simply holds the processes of the universe have a
scientific explanation, and those processes are what modern science is
striving to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that studies knowledge. It
attempts to answer the basic question: what distinguishes true
(adequate) knowledge from false (inadequate) knowledge? Practically,
this questions translates into issues of scientific methodology: how
can one develop theories or models that are better than competing
theories?
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EPISTEMI.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
Naturalized epistemology is best seen as a cluster of views according
to which epistemology is closely connected to natural science. Some
advocates of naturalized epistemology emphasize methodological issues,
arguing that epistemologists must make use of results from the sciences
that study human reasoning in pursuing epistemological questions.
1. The most extreme view along these lines recommends replacing
traditional epistemology with the psychological study of how we reason.
2. A more modest view recommends that philosophers make use of results
from sciences studying cognition to resolve epistemological issues.
3. A rather different form of naturalized epistemology is about the
content of paradigmatically epistemological statements. Advocates of
this kind of naturalized epistemology propose accounts of these
statements entirely in terms of scientifically respectable objects and
properties.
In this they seem to contrast with more traditional epistemologists
whose accounts make free use of evaluative terms such as "good reasons"
and "adequate evidence". The significance of the claims of advocates of
naturalized epistemology can best be appreciated by seeing them as a
reaction to the methods and views that have been prominent in much of
the twentieth century.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-naturalized/
http://www.tehne.ro/education/tehne_significance.html
It
is indeed possible that there is not a physical universe but "God" (whatever
you might mean by that word), or Chtulhu, are feeding us our perceptions,
and in fact we are inmaterial (whatever that might mean) minds floating in a
vacuum made of nothingness. Maybe we are the dream of the green ants. Maybe
somebody in a village outside Birmingham is dreaming everything else. Maybe
there is a physical universe but it is completely different from what we see
and I think that I'm typing on my keyboard but in fact I am fingering the
***** of some horrific monster with three heads. Maybe the universe was
created by "God" or Chtulhu last Thursday with everything in it including
fossils and our memories. All these scenarios are possible and we cannot
really falsify such claims. We then choose the simplest and most
parsimonious hypothesis (which by the way has the advantage of not requiring
the inclusion of the gratuitous hypothesis "God"): that in fact there is a
physical world.
I like your passion and I agree with your principle that we must
"choose the simplest and most parsimonious hypothesis". And of course I
agree that the physical universe exists. What I don't agree is that it
exists as an external independent entity, i.e. as something that would
exist even if no persons existed (the latest bit is an excellent
example of a claim that is self-negating), and that it is the place in
which we ourselves exist.
I disagree and believe that there are exceptions to the rule of the
most basic explaination. Some explainations are correct and not as
basic as some incorrect but more basic explainations.
I think the physical universe exists as the
best way we can make sense of a large part of our conscious experience
- in other words the universe is a model we build (starting as infants)
in order to understand our experiences. Which does not imply in any
way, shape or manner that therefore we somehow "create" the physical
universe.
How would you know for certain that you do or do not create the
world-in-itself? Are you trying to make an inductive reasoning style
look deductive?
For example if you see a series of dots on a paper and you
notice that they lie on a circle, it's not like you "create" the
circle; rather you detect the circle as a pattern present in the dots.
The circle would seem to be a subjective mental abstraction not an
objective series independent of mental abstraction. "There are dots" is
about as far as objectivity can go, even then "dots" the word isn't
objective but subjective.
In the same way we detect the physical universe as a pattern present in
our conscious experience. Think about it - I think you'll find that's
exactly what we do. And of course to detect that pattern is very useful
as a practical matter because, between other things, it helps us avoid
bumping into walls. But to think that this pattern detected in the
field of our conscious experience is something more than just a pattern
detected in the field of our conscious experience is clearly an
arbitrary assumption. And, as materialism/realism shows it's an
assumption that leads one into many paradoxes and hard problems.
Above you poke some fun at Plantinga, but the fact remains that
Plantinga is an exceptionally successful philosopher because he was
able to actually change the tune sung by his philosophical opponents
(something that Dennett, for example, clearly didn't achieve). And it
is also rather funny to see how materialists/realists on the one hand
proudly proclaim that theirs is an *objective* epistemology and on the
other hand disagree ever more deeply between themselves about the basic
properties of their so very objective physical reality.
Sounds more like the description of the demise of philosophy or a
musical style or something where a big band re-defines everything in a
way that no-one can actually participate any more. But music and
philosophy go on despite you apocolyptic prescription here.
As for the simplest and most parsimonious hypothesis, as Einstein said,
we must make things as simple as possible but not simpler.
Sometimes but it hasn't been shown to apply at all times. Some theories
are more complex and explain the observation better than some more
basic explainations. Again your trying to be deductive but are really
theorizing with inductive logic.
You see, our
very own consciousness, the very space of conscious experience in which
we live every second of our waking lives, is not just some small
uncomfortable detail a rational person can easily shove under the rug
and ignore. On the contrary it is the most momentous fact of our
condition, and, not to put a fine point on it, the only thing that
really interests us. And the materialist/realist hypothesis utterly
fails to account for our consciousness and some materialist
philosophers already recognize that this is because of fundamental
reasons and not because we miss some data that neurophysiology has not
yet discovered (in fact consciousness is a scientific non-issue). So
maybe materialism/realism is just too simple.
I define "God" as the deepest explanation for the whole of our
conscious experience (including for the fact that there is conscious
experience in the first place), i.e. as the overarching pattern that
integrates and subsumes all other patterns found in the field of our
conscious experience, the one thing in which all our knowledge becomes
coherent.
But isn't "your" consciousness and soul merely the activities of "a"
brain?
I use "God" to name this pattern because it displays the
basic properties that the great monotheistic religions have always
claimed for God: namely personhood, perfect goodness, power, wisdom,
etc.
But consciousness might be very similar to water in that the activities
of hydrogen and oxygen are water with its wettness.
As Simon Blackburn put it: realism is the position of all
philophers when they are off-duty.
I don't know about that. Anti-realism is used some times in relation to
some particular kind of object, e.g. mathematical objects, claiming
that this is not an object that "really" exists. In fact the latter is
the position of eliminative materialists (aka "naive materialists",
i.e. those who believe that only physical things exist - a fringe view
in academic philosophy but quite dominant in popular atheism). There
are very few if any philosophers who positively deny objective reality
in general; anti-realism is usually an agnostic position.
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TKno/TKnoHowa.htm
1. Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical
beliefs (a) which are epistemically justified, and (b) whose
justification does not depend on that of any further emperical beliefs.
2. For a belief to be episemically justified requires that there be a
reason why it is likely to be true.
3. A belief is justified for a person only if he is in cognitive
possession of such a reason.
4. A person is in cognitive possession of such a reason only if he
believes with justification the premises from which it follows that the
belief is likely to be true.
5. The premises of such a justifying argument must include at least one
empirical premise.
6. So, the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends
on the justification of at least one other empirical belief,
contradicting 1.
7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs.
This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of
any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness
of human beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress"
of one belief depending upon another which depends upon another and so
on:
If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
emperical beliefs, then it must either:
(1) terminate in unjustified beleifs
(2) go on infinitely (without circularity)
(3) circle back upon itself in some way. (begging the question on
steroids)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
08 Jun 2006 01:15:45 PM |
|
|
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149788917.485031.157420@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There is no higher tribunal for truth than natural science itself.
Assertion
There is no better method than the scientific method for judging the
claims of science
True.
, and there is neither any need nor any place for a
"first philosophy", such as (abstract) metaphysics or epistemology,
that could stand behind and justify science or the scientific method.
Unsupported assertion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
08 Jun 2006 01:37:48 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149788917.485031.157420@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
There is no higher tribunal for truth than natural science itself.
Assertion
You are not allowed to be that confident if confidence is in doubt. The
skeptic can use your logic against anything you say and still be
agnostic about the conclusions. Natural science may be or may not be
the highest tribunal of human thinking and reasoning, but you cannot
decide the matter as I cannot. It being beyond what we can possibly
experience at this time with our brains and instruments.
-----------------------------
reanimation
Speculative reason will be mis-applied beyond the limits of possible
experience while considering such topics. The contradiction arises
because valid arguments can be made in favour of both views. If
unresolved this antimony could lead to 'the euthanasia of pure reason'
(AKA skepticism).
They are contradictory, but validly proven pairs of claims that reason
is compelled toward. The contradictory claims could both be proven
because they both shared the mistaken metaphysical assumption that we
can have knowledge of things as they are in themselves, independent of
the conditions of our experience of them.
An antinomy produces a self-contradiction by accepted ways of
reasoning. It establishes that some tacit and trusted pattern of
reasoning must be made explicit and henceforward be avoided or revised.
http://www.faithnet.org.uk/Philosophy/kant.htm
----------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
ANTINOMY [A340/B398] The antinomy of pure reason is one of three kinds
of "dialectical syllogisms" in which speculative reason is mis-applied
beyond the limits of possible experience, the other two being the
transcendental paralogism and the ideal of pure reason. An antinomy "is
directed to the transcendental concept of the absolute totality of the
series of conditions for any given appearance", a concept which we are
not entitled to employ.
They are contradictory, but validly proven pairs of claims that reason
is compelled toward. The contradictory claims could both be proven
because they both shared the mistaken metaphysical assumption that we
can have knowledge of things as they are in themselves, independent of
the conditions of our experience of them.
The Antinomies can be resolved, Kant argues, if we understand the
proper function and domain of the various faculties that contribute to
produce knowledge. We must recognize that we cannot know things as they
are in themselves and that our knowledge is subject to the conditions
of our experience.
"An antinomy produces a self-contradiction by accepted ways of
reasoning. It establishes that some tacit and trusted pattern of
reasoning must be made explicit and henceforward be avoided or
revised," writes a modern logician W. V. Quine, in The Ways of
Paradox (1966), p.7.
antinomies ('conflict of laws') which are usually described as
'paradox' or 'contradiction'. An example of one Kant sought to deal
with is whether the universe has a beginning (first cause) or whether
it has always existed.
The contradiction arises because valid arguments
can be made in favour of both views. If
unresolved this antimony could lead to 'the
euthanasia of pure reason' (skepticism).
Thus Kant believed antinomies must be reconciled.
http://www.faithnet.org.uk/Philosophy/kant.htm
-----------------------------------
The antinomy of pure reason; speculative reason is mis-applied beyond
the limits of possible experience. An antinomy is directed to the
transcendental concept of the absolute totality of the series of
conditions for any given appearance, a concept which we are not
entitled to employ.
antinomies ('conflict of laws') which are usually described as
'paradox' or 'contradiction'. An example of one Kant sought to deal
with is whether the universe has a beginning (first cause) or whether
it has always existed.
The contradiction arises because valid arguments
can be made in favour of both views. If
unresolved this antimony could lead to 'the
euthanasia of pure reason' (skepticism).
Thus Kant believed antinomies must be reconciled.
http://www.faithnet.org.uk/Philosophy/kant.htm
Antinomies are contradictions that Kant believed follow necessarily
from our attempts to conceive the nature of transcendent reality. Kant
thought the Antinomies cannot be resolved and that attempts to conceive
the transcendent will always produce irresolvable contradictions. This
does not mean that there is no transcendent or that attempts to
conceive the transcendent are meaningless. They are, just as Kant said,
necessitated by reason itself. It does mean, however, that the
transcendent defeats rational representation.
There is no better method than the scientific method for judging the
claims of science
True.
, and there is neither any need nor any place for a
"first philosophy", such as (abstract) metaphysics or epistemology,
that could stand behind and justify science or the scientific method.
Unsupported assertion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Johansson" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
08 Jun 2006 02:44:39 PM |
|
|
wrote:
You are not allowed to be that confident if confidence is in doubt. The
skeptic can use your logic against anything you say and still be
agnostic about the conclusions. Natural science may be or may not be
the highest tribunal of human thinking and reasoning, but you cannot
decide the matter as I cannot.
We can decide it together, and that is actually how thruth is decided
in the modern society.
In the scientific field a great number of scientists come to agreement
on what is considered to be true or not.
I can foresee your violent opposition to the idea that the truth is
decided by voting, basically, but that is actually how we decide what
is the truth, through communicating our subjective truths and by
agreement.
Different groups of people can decide differently what they consider to
be the truth. For example a group of jehovas witnesses in their church
will agree that god exists, but this is not valid for the secular
modern society outside their little group.
--
Roger J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
08 Jun 2006 10:00:36 PM |
|
|
Roger Johansson wrote:
extropy1@hotmail.com wrote:
You are not allowed to be that confident if confidence is in doubt. The
skeptic can use your logic against anything you say and still be
agnostic about the conclusions. Natural science may be or may not be
the highest tribunal of human thinking and reasoning, but you cannot
decide the matter as I cannot.
We can decide it together, and that is actually how thruth is decided
in the modern society.
In the scientific field a great number of scientists come to agreement
on what is considered to be true or not.
I can foresee your violent opposition to the idea that the truth is
decided by voting, basically, but that is actually how we decide what
is the truth, through communicating our subjective truths and by
agreement.
Different groups of people can decide differently what they consider to
be the truth. For example a group of jehovas witnesses in their church
will agree that god exists, but this is not valid for the secular
modern society outside their little group.
Again, science works. It produces.
Theology has a prefect track record of always
being wrong about the natural world anytime
it has made a claim, as in the case of Galileo
enforced by threats of torture.
Science works, theology does not.
That is all.
Until theology can show us that it can indeed do the job
of science without being wrong everytime it tries, theology
and its fans have no right whatsoever to say anything.
They only have the right to fix broken theology before
they say anything.
And if theology cannot be right about anything in the
natural world over seveal millenia, how can we trust
it to get anything rioght about purpoted gods and invisble
supernatural realms it cannot even prove exists?
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
08 Jun 2006 10:19:05 PM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128holfl54tkq5f@corp.supernews.com...
Roger Johansson wrote:
extropy1@hotmail.com wrote:
You are not allowed to be that confident if confidence is in doubt. The
skeptic can use your logic against anything you say and still be
agnostic about the conclusions. Natural science may be or may not be
the highest tribunal of human thinking and reasoning, but you cannot
decide the matter as I cannot.
We can decide it together, and that is actually how thruth is decided
in the modern society.
In the scientific field a great number of scientists come to agreement
on what is considered to be true or not.
I can foresee your violent opposition to the idea that the truth is
decided by voting, basically, but that is actually how we decide what
is the truth, through communicating our subjective truths and by
agreement.
Different groups of people can decide differently what they consider to
be the truth. For example a group of jehovas witnesses in their church
will agree that god exists, but this is not valid for the secular
modern society outside their little group.
Again, science works. It produces.
Explanations.
Theology has a prefect track record of always
being wrong about the natural world anytime
it has made a claim
That's because it's not the proper business of theology to explain nature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
09 Jun 2006 12:31:03 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128holfl54tkq5f@corp.supernews.com...
Roger Johansson wrote:
extropy1@hotmail.com wrote:
You are not allowed to be that confident if confidence is in doubt. The
skeptic can use your logic against anything you say and still be
agnostic about the conclusions. Natural science may be or may not be
the highest tribunal of human thinking and reasoning, but you cannot
decide the matter as I cannot.
We can decide it together, and that is actually how thruth is decided
in the modern society.
In the scientific field a great number of scientists come to agreement
on what is considered to be true or not.
I can foresee your violent opposition to the idea that the truth is
decided by voting, basically, but that is actually how we decide what
is the truth, through communicating our subjective truths and by
agreement.
Different groups of people can decide differently what they consider to
be the truth. For example a group of jehovas witnesses in their church
will agree that god exists, but this is not valid for the secular
modern society outside their little group.
Again, science works. It produces.
Explanations.
Theology has a prefect track record of always
being wrong about the natural world anytime
it has made a claim
That's because it's not the proper business of theology to explain nature.
It has in the past taken that task upon itself. Remember
Galileo? It has been offering up explanaitions fro milenia.
Why is there a rainbow. God did it to show he won't
destroy the world by flood again.
And on and on. Always wrong, always.
Today, we have morons telling us religion explains
the world and evolution is wrong.
And getting involved in medical technology.
If theology and religion would just shut up, that would be nice.
they refuse to. And they are always wrong. Like you.
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Always and ever wrong with
tedius regularity!
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
09 Jun 2006 12:42:51 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128i1fi9ssba73f@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128holfl54tkq5f@corp.supernews.com...
Roger Johansson wrote:
extropy1@hotmail.com wrote:
You are not allowed to be that confident if confidence is in doubt.
The
skeptic can use your logic against anything you say and still be
agnostic about the conclusions. Natural science may be or may not be
the highest tribunal of human thinking and reasoning, but you cannot
decide the matter as I cannot.
We can decide it together, and that is actually how thruth is decided
in the modern society.
In the scientific field a great number of scientists come to agreement
on what is considered to be true or not.
I can foresee your violent opposition to the idea that the truth is
decided by voting, basically, but that is actually how we decide what
is the truth, through communicating our subjective truths and by
agreement.
Different groups of people can decide differently what they consider to
be the truth. For example a group of jehovas witnesses in their church
will agree that god exists, but this is not valid for the secular
modern society outside their little group.
Again, science works. It produces.
Explanations.
Theology has a prefect track record of always
being wrong about the natural world anytime
it has made a claim
That's because it's not the proper business of theology to explain
nature.
It has in the past taken that task upon itself.
Just like you took upon yourself the task of claiming that you had a proof
of God's nonexistence. See how crappy things turn out when you take on
something you're not suited for?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
09 Jun 2006 04:26:43 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128i1fi9ssba73f@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128holfl54tkq5f@corp.supernews.com...
Roger Johansson wrote:
extropy1@hotmail.com wrote:
You are not allowed to be that confident if confidence is in doubt.
The
skeptic can use your logic against anything you say and still be
agnostic about the conclusions. Natural science may be or may not be
the highest tribunal of human thinking and reasoning, but you cannot
decide the matter as I cannot.
We can decide it together, and that is actually how thruth is decided
in the modern society.
In the scientific field a great number of scientists come to agreement
on what is considered to be true or not.
I can foresee your violent opposition to the idea that the truth is
decided by voting, basically, but that is actually how we decide what
is the truth, through communicating our subjective truths and by
agreement.
Different groups of people can decide differently what they consider
to be the truth. For example a group of jehovas witnesses in their
church will agree that god exists, but this is not valid for the
secular modern society outside their little group.
Again, science works. It produces.
Explanations.
Theology has a prefect track record of always
being wrong about the natural world anytime
it has made a claim
That's because it's not the proper business of theology to explain
nature.
It has in the past taken that task upon itself.
Just like you took upon yourself the task of claiming that you had a proof
of God's nonexistence. See how crappy things turn out when you take on
something you're not suited for?
I proved my point. What I cannot do is make brainless twits admit it.
Your god is dead. Sorry. Shouldn't have let him
out of his cage to run around loose. Where he could
get stepped on.
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
09 Jun 2006 10:08:19 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128if912hinl4b6@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128i1fi9ssba73f@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128holfl54tkq5f@corp.supernews.com...
Roger Johansson wrote:
extropy1@hotmail.com wrote:
You are not allowed to be that confident if confidence is in doubt.
The
skeptic can use your logic against anything you say and still be
agnostic about the conclusions. Natural science may be or may not be
the highest tribunal of human thinking and reasoning, but you cannot
decide the matter as I cannot.
We can decide it together, and that is actually how thruth is decided
in the modern society.
In the scientific field a great number of scientists come to
agreement
on what is considered to be true or not.
I can foresee your violent opposition to the idea that the truth is
decided by voting, basically, but that is actually how we decide what
is the truth, through communicating our subjective truths and by
agreement.
Different groups of people can decide differently what they consider
to be the truth. For example a group of jehovas witnesses in their
church will agree that god exists, but this is not valid for the
secular modern society outside their little group.
Again, science works. It produces.
Explanations.
Theology has a prefect track record of always
being wrong about the natural world anytime
it has made a claim
That's because it's not the proper business of theology to explain
nature.
It has in the past taken that task upon itself.
Just like you took upon yourself the task of claiming that you had a
proof
of God's nonexistence. See how crappy things turn out when you take on
something you're not suited for?
I proved my point.
You proved nothing but a scholastic contradiction that everyone has known
for hundreds of years, Barwell. Even the scholastics knew their argument
was flawed.
And you act like YOU discovered it.
You couldn't get your book published if you paid for it yourself, Barwell.
You're a fraud.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Plantinga |
09 Jun 2006 04:21:24 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128if912hinl4b6@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128i1fi9ssba73f@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Just like you took upon yourself the task of claiming that you had a proof
of God's nonexistence. See how crappy things turn out when you take on
something you're not suited for?
I proved my point. What I cannot do is make brainless twits admit it.
Your god is dead. Sorry. Shouldn't have let him
out of his cage to run around loose. Where he could
get stepped on.
--
"Its the hit dog what yelps."
- Mark Twain
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Let's poke some fun at Barwell |
09 Jun 2006 04:24:09 PM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128jp4velhku95d@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128if912hinl4b6@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128i1fi9ssba73f@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
Just like you took upon yourself the task of claiming that you had a
proof
of God's nonexistence. See how crappy things turn out when you take on
something you're not suited for?
I proved my point.
Not unless your point was that you're an intellectual fraud.
Let's see why....
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128hvqatou6i9bf@corp.supernews.com...
What process theology does is redefine omnipotence.
1. William Barwell does not understand Process Theology.
2. This remark on the part of Barwell leads to a complete verification of
the comments that started this thread.
Some quoting will be necessary in the argument to follow:
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC24/Griffin.htm
David Ray Griffin quote:
David: Yes. One of the central features of the pan-en-theistic view is
that
the divine creative power of the universe is a persuasive, evocative power
rather than a coercive power that works unilaterally. God influences us
not
by determining what we're going to do, or by external threats as depicted
in traditional theism, but rather by seeking to whet our appetites for
better ways of being - for the values of truth, beauty, goodness, and so
on. This is the one and only way that God works in the world, by
persuading
us.
To which Barlow writes:
This is utter ***** too.
Those who read this thread will recall one of my three points concerning
omnipotence. It has definite application to this post.
Let me requote it here in full before I comment.
"2. Anti-theists such as Antony Flew, Roland Puccetti and Dewey Hoitenga
have
done their best to insist that medieval catholic theology is the only 'true
form' of Christianity for no other apparent reason than that medieval
catholic theology is a convenient strawman to attack. So while, they
encourage Christians to stick to an Augustinian definition of "Omnipotence"
they simultaneously attack the view as logically contradictory.
Hence, methodologically and politically...for the anti-theists...all other
religious views are discardable because no other religious view is so
convenient for their polemics. This makes the traditional view of
omnipotence more of a theoretical need for anti-theists than it is a logical
necessity in assertions concerning the existence of god. Theists, agnostics
and clear thinkers should not be accepting a view of god merely because
anti-theists find it a convenient target for criticisms that seem unable to
handle anything that is not medieval catholic theology"
We see here, in Barwell's response, an excellent example of what I was
referring to in the paragraph above. Rather than embracing any new theology
as at least a novel approach to what the anti-theist must [according to
their own critiques] consider to be a already debunked scholastic theology,
Barwell rejects this non-traditional approach [to the extent that he
understands it] as being completely invalid.
This is an example of what I meant when I noted that part of the problem of
omnipotence is that anti-theists require a "vulnerable opponent," and that
this need is so great that they will create a vulnerable opponent if they
can't find one. When confronted by believers in non-traditional theologies,
they accomplish this by insisting that scholastic theology is the only
'True' Christianity while they're simultaneously busy tearing scholastic
theology to shreds. It's an example of "I'll tell you what you have to
believe and then I'll tell you why it's wrong."
Certainly, modern christians and believers of all stripes have the right to
believe whatever they wish. If they have rational arguments for those
beliefs, then it would seem only proper that those arguments, like every
other rational argument should be allowed to stand or fall on their own
merits. But this, the anti-theists cannot allow.
I take it as unassailably true that it would be contradictory for an
anti-theist to insist that a modern theology MUST fail automatically, for
the very reason that it does not resemble the traditional theology that the
anti-theist has already rejected. IF it is contradictory to believe in the
scholastic view of god, then surely it is doubly contradictory for the
anti-theist to insist that one must believe in the scholastic view of god.
Yet, here is exactly what we find Barwell resorting to.
Note this further quote from Barwell's response.
Barwell wrote:
Griffin here is just beyond ignorant.
Many ideas about god that were non-traditional were thoroughly
stamped out in 1277 when a reaction to this sort of attacks
on old and settled theology were quashed. In fact attacks
on such things go back further, John Scottus Eirugenis
for example attacked and was attacked over such issues
in the 9th century.
"Old and SETTLED."???
Settled by whom? "quashed" by whom? Anti-theists? I hardly think so.
You'd look under a lot of European rocks in the 9th. Century before you'd
find an admitted atheist. Non traditional theologies have been and continue
to be attacked BY TRADITIONAL THEOLOGIANS. And what tradition do these
theologians ascribed to? THE VERY TRADITION THAT BARWELL ATTACKS AS BEING
CONTRADICTORY.
Now it seems odd that Barwell would be joining hands with the very
theologians he believes he's proven to be utterly wrong about theology in
their attacks against non-traditional theology. Why would Barwell do this?
If anything, one would think that he would be applauding the non-traditional
theologians because they too attack traditional theology. Perhaps he
believes they're wrong as well. If so, we see no clue to that in his
writings; only dismissive comments that they are not traditional. To nod my
head to a pop culture reference: Well, DUH! One would think that Barwell
would at least give them a rousing hand for trying to fight the ignorance of
the scholastic point of view that the anti-theists are so proud of pointing
out. But no. He has nothing but contempt for neo-theologies even though he
never seems to know what to say about their actual details.
The problem for Barwell is that neo-theology presents a different set of
problems for anti-theists, problems that Barwell is apparently unequipped to
deal with.
Another quote from Barwell's response is in order:
Barwell wrote:
Gandy has bought into this trash too.
Griffin knows zip about ecclesiatical history and the
history of theology.
Its revisionism of the worst sort.
Now, read Barlow's comments with fresh eyes. At first glance, one would
almost think that the above was written by a full-fledged Catholic zealot.
Why in heaven's name would Barwell care whether neo-theologians know zip
about ecclesiastical history when Barwell rejects that history as productive
of nothing but error. No. For some reason, Barwell suddenly sounds like a
papist. Barwell is suddenly a defender of "the Faith" against
neo-theological "heresies." They're "revisionism of the worst sort." One
can almost smell the heated iron as Barwell readies the instruments of the
Holy Inquisition. But why would even the beginnin | | | | | | | | | | | | |
