Atheism and rationality

[headheart]

Not yet! But our experience of the scientific method dating back to Copernicus and Galileo is a strong indication that we are more likely to find the answer in physics than in the religions. And Stephen Hawking's scientific investigations “have shed light on the origins of the cosmos, the nature of time and the ultimate fate of universe” even if as yet he hasn’t arrived at the definitive answers.

When they do, I'll be first to shout out "Praise the Lord!!!"

Now back to cave paintings.

Peace,
Eric

[Tassman]

When they do, I'll be first to shout out "Praise the Lord!!!"
Now back to cave paintings.

Peace,
Eric

What does the lord have to do with it - and which lord? Are you referring to a supernatural entity?

[Teluog]

Sorry! But how do you justify faith/belief. Faith is belief that is not based on proof. Belief is confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. So how do you justify faith, to be knowledge. Knowledge is an acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition.

Faith/belief and Knowledge are mutually exclusive.

Is that what you really believe and have faith in?

[David Hayward]

Logical statements have to follow certain rules and restrictions.

Agreed. Though the rules and restrictions (axioms) vary between the various varieties of logic: inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning; syllogistic logic, propositional logic, predicate logic, modal logic, informal logic, mathematical logic, quantum logic, intuitionist logic; and probably there are a few more varieties, each with their different 'rules and restrictions'.

For a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be shown in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement cannot be logical if it cannot be tested.

Possibly you are confusing 'logical' with 'scientific', as substituting 'scientific' in the above yields ideas promoted by Karl Popper.

Here's an answer to the question, How is science different from logic?: "Science does involve logic, since we need logic to test our theories and check whether they are consistent. But for a theory to be a scientific one, it must either describe actual empirical facts about the world or the laws of nature in our universe. This is not the case with logic."

Your apparent reliance on falsifiability as a criterion of what is scientific is itself questionable (Wiki): "Many contemporary philosophers of science and analytic philosophers are strongly critical of Popper's philosophy of science. Popper's mistrust of inductive reasoning has led to claims that he misrepresents scientific practice. Among the professional philosophers of science, the Popperian view has never been seriously preferred to probabilistic induction, which is the mainstream account of scientific reasoning." Lee Smolin has commented that falsifiability is but one of the tools working scientists use to steer their research.

So far as I can tell -- I am not a logician -- only quantum logic (apparently a logical system whose semantics is given by a lattice of projection operators on a Hilbert space) requires agreement with reality; but I suspect that the agreement of quantum logic with the peculiarities of quantum reality is but a reason to adopt quantum logic in those specialised circumstances, and is not an axiom or rule of quantum logic itself.

The other logics seem devoid of any requirement to match premise, conclusion or anything else to experimental reality.

A statement cannot be logical if it cannot be tested.

Nonsense. Let's take two simple logical statements to illustrate this: if bertatberts is a man then bertatberts is a man; and: if bertatberts is a woman then bertatberts is a woman. Both are true, their the truth is quite unaffected by any empirical test you might commission, and neither can be verified or falsified by chromosome analysis.

For a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable...

You have said this a number of times, in various threads.

Please do stop repeating this utter rubbish.

David

[Roy]

God is the most straightforward way for it to be true that "Good always triumphs in the end", and "Every evil somehow serves the greater good". That is why God is needed. While possibly those claims could be true without a God, it seems to me that the existence of God is the simplest theory in which they are true.

Are they true?

Many murderers/rapists/terrorists/thieves are never brought to justice. Many despotic leaders have had long reigns and died undethroned. Many wars have been won by the aggressors, and many genocides have been complete.

And if they aren't true, where does that leave your God?

Roy

[nightbringer]

A statement cannot be logical if it cannot be tested.

You do know what a self-referentially incoherent statement is, right?

[ZackMartin]

It was an absurd request. Logic is a methodology – not an entity in its own right as god is claimed to be. It cannot be subjected to verification using an empirical experiment because there is no methodology to formulate a hypothesis or to deduct the consequences of a hypothesis as a testable prediction.

Are numbers entities? Is the number 17 an entity? Claims about numbers cannot be tested by empirical experiment. So, it appears, contrary to you, that there exist true claims about entities that cannot be tested empirically.

Zack

[ZackMartin]

Are they true?

Many murderers/rapists/terrorists/thieves are never brought to justice. Many despotic leaders have had long reigns and died undethroned. Many wars have been won by the aggressors, and many genocides have been complete.

And if they aren't true, where does that leave your God?

Roy

I think you misunderstand my approach. I believe that "the good always wins in the end", "every evil somehow serves the greater good", are true. And I believe this by faith.

Now, "Many murderers/rapists/terrorists/thieves are never brought to justice", etc., indeed pose a problem for these truths which I believe by faith. And God and an afterlife provide a solution. God provides an afterlife in order to provide justice for those who miss out on justice in this life. Which I would say always happens - earthly justice is so imperfect it is scarcely worthy of the name - all the relative wants is their lost loved one back, all the "justice" system can offer is to lock the perpetrator up for a long time, or in some countries, kill them. But God's justice actually gives people what they really want (their loved one back), rather than the kind of half measures which are all that earthly "justice" can command.

So, I have a contradiction between what I believe by faith, and what I observe with my eyes - and I turn to the idea of "God", since it seems to me that the idea of God can cure that contradiction, allowing me to keep both my eyes and my faith.

Zack

[Psychic Missile]

No, I’m not saying that. What I'm saying is there must be good reason to think there are valid arguments for God if a philosopher the caliber of Antony Flew would move from atheism to theism based upon those arguments.

That might be a reason to consider the possibility that there is a valid argument for God, but it's ridiculous to assume the existence of these arguments because someone was convinced.

I don’t need an argument for the non-existence of fairies because you have conceded there are no valid arguments for the existence of fairies.

That is the atheist position, with God substituted for fairies. You said:

To arrive one's position rationally, under my paradigm, one only need to demonstrate that one has arrived at one's position by building a valid argument, in favour of one's position, that adheres to the principles of logic.

I'm assuming your valid argument is "There is no valid argument for the existence of fairies, therefore I don't believe in fairies."

There are valid arguments for God. So the issue, in my opinion, is whether you have a valid argument(s) for your position or whether you are merely withholding assent to the valid arguments for theism.

When the number of valid arguments for a particular position start piling up we eventually hit a tipping point of where we can no longer say it is rational to merely withhold assent to that position as the scale is now so heavily weighted for that position. In the case of theism I believe we can say we have reached that tipping point as there are scientifically based arguments, historical arguments, arguments from personal experience, and philosophical arguments in favour, tipping the scale as it were toward theism. In my opinion, the atheist must necessarily build valid arguments in favour of his position if he wishes to tip the scale back, so to speak, in his favour and claim he has arrived at his position rationally.

There is ensuing irony in doing this, however. By building arguments in favour of his position the atheist is forced to build positive valid arguments for his position that God does not exist. In doing this the atheist is validating the claim that atheism is not merely a position of being without belief in God(s) but a positive position that God does not exist; a position that requires proof as it makes the positive claim that God does not exist. In short, the atheist is backed into a corner of establishing God does not exist to balance out the scale. Thus the theist in turn is justified in demanding that the atheist prove God does not exist (in the same way atheists sometimes demand proof for God’s existence) by virtue of (1) the sheer weight of valid theistic arguments and (2) the atheist having now made the positive claim that God does not exist.

There is not a single valid argument for God. Not scientifically, not historically, not philosophically, and arguments from personal experience are unreliable and should be discounted out of hand. Please present one of the many valid arguments you claim create a tipping point.

[Tassman]

Are numbers entities? Is the number 17 an entity? Claims about numbers cannot be tested by empirical experiment. So, it appears, contrary to you, that there exist true claims about entities that cannot be tested empirically.

Zack

Numbers are symbolic of entities but not entities as such. Mathematics is a process of deductive logic. Therefore it is useful as a deductive link between theories and experimental facts which can be verified. Logic is merely a tool for establishing verifiable facts, it is not the facts themselves. While logic and mathematics can be seen as the glue which holds the scientific theories in place and assist in avoiding errors of false inference, they cannot generate new truths about nature.

Jamie.

[headheart]

It's interesting to me that so many people who've grow up in certain parts of the world have a very split-up idea when it comes to thinking about the monotheistic God. Even Jesus has a very singular approach to this referring to the Hebrew Shema as his source of authority. Though some use the word 'one' as some sort of idea that God is more than one i.e., Father and Son, or Father, Son and Spirit there is no such idea in all of Scripture. Even if one were to try and draw up the idea of the Incarnation (an invention to explain what sort of being Jesus was, or is) it fails for even Jesus struggled throughout the accounts we read in the New Testament to settle with Father and I are one, Father is greater than I. Even when pressed he uses very singular terms. God is a spirit. God is one. It's a constant revelation in Judaism, Islam and Christianity. God is never viewed as being out there, or up in the sky, or either in all things, or all things, but rather simultaneously a part and yet not a part. So it's best not to think of God in dual terminology for it really ends up being the Trinity idea again. It's common in modern thinking to go further and divide ourselves up into a body, a mind, a soul, a spirit, a consciousness etc. etc. Yet it's pretty obvious now that it's more like we have mental faculties. It's not like there's a little Hitler or Jesus in there who are trying to run the show, but instead more of a wholeness of all things and not an immortal soul in a body. That's just missing the point of what Jesus (or rather the writer of the gospel of John) was trying to articulate in the prayer of Jesus in John 17. It's a crazy paradoxical way of saying 'It's all about one' It's just so hard in Western culture to understand ideas which have been embraced as quite normal in say Hindu culture in spite of their many, many deities, if one goes back to the basic root of it all one finds one acorn out of which a tree has sprung. Sort of like the idea that we have in Jesus's description of the Kingdom of God = a mustard seed and out of it, or caused by it is a tree. Any seed makes the point. It's therefore a complete paradigm when it comes to thinking about God (at least from my understanding of the matter) that God is 'alpha and omega' . Basically somewhere between 'Pantheism' i.e. Idolatry and Panentheism, where God is in but not it. It's a thing to complicated to reduce but when reduced helps us kinda understand it.
The incarnation and trinity are both classic examples (and we might as well add 'the atonement') are both small words, like a seed that have been argued, debated and discussed for centuries and yet we'll never really get much closer than the idea of a seed causing everything else. I'd be happy to read some ideas about this, but suffice to say it's been a thing most hard for one to simply say. It's all one. It is and it isn't is better, but to go the other way and divide it up the way some of the old school psychologists, theologians and such like do actually diminishes the understanding of that wonderful mystery of how we or rather the divine is woven into this tapestry we refer to as life.

Oink.
Eric.

[headheart]

Shema (Hear! O Israel) by Adrian Snell



I think it's a clarinet or a soprano sax that's carrying the melody line in this most beautiful song by Adrian Snell. It's something that really soothes most perfectly.

Shalom,
Erik. < my name written in Modern street Hebrew

[ZackMartin]

Numbers are symbolic of entities but not entities as such.

And what evidence do you have for that assertion? You are assuming a formalist philosophy of mathematics. A Platonist would disagree with you completely. And yet, where is your evidence that the formalist philosophy of mathematics is the correct one, as opposed to its competitors?

Mathematics is a process of deductive logic.

I'm not sure that is quite true. Of course, one cannot deny the importance of deduction in mathematics. But how do we know that "1+1=2"? Is it by deduction? Certainly one can deduce it from certain axioms, such as those of Peano arithmetic. And yet, we knew that "1+1=2" long before Giuseppe Peano ever lived, long before anyone had ever thought of proving it by deduction. Almost everyone knows that "1+1=2", but very few people know what Peano arithmetic is, or how to prove "1+1=2" as a theorem of Peano arithmetic. So, not all mathematical truth is known by deduction; while "1+1=2" can be deduced, we do not in practice rely on deduction to know that it is true.

Therefore it is useful as a deductive link between theories and experimental facts which can be verified.

Many mathematicians believe that mathematics has a value in itself, independent of its usefulness to the experimental sciences. Are you saying that they are wrong?

Logic is merely a tool for establishing verifiable facts, it is not the facts themselves.

Your use of the word "facts" is ambiguous - what do you mean by it? The original meaning of facts, rooted in its etymology as Latin factum (meaning "deed"), was a reference to deeds, to events that occur - as opposed to ethical or legal judgements of those deeds. However, in modern usage, "fact" has shifted in meaning into more or less synonym for "truth". So, are the truths of mathematics or logic facts? They are not facts in the original meaning of the term ("1+1=2" and "A is A" are not deeds, performed by a particular person at a particular time and place). But they are truths, so they are facts in the more modern usage of the word. Many of them are verifiable - verifiable by proof-checking.

While logic and mathematics can be seen as the glue which holds the scientific theories in place and assist in avoiding errors of false inference...

Mathematics has value beyond its use to the physical sciences. While a great deal of maths is useful to the physical sciences, there is also a great deal of it with no obvious practical application. Some of that may eventually find some practical application; some of it probably never will. How, for example, are Mahlo cardinals used in the physical sciences? I don't believe they are, and I'm doubtful that they ever will be (although I would not mind to be proven wrong regarding either).

they cannot generate new truths about nature.

Well, consider the unsolved P versus NP problem. If we ever solve it, we can be confident the solution will come through logic and mathematics, not through experimental science. And yet, I cannot help but think, that if someone found a proof or disproof of that mathematical hypothesis, we would actually be discovering something very deep about reality - would that not be a "new truth about nature"? And one with potentially great practical import - if we prove P!=NP, then we have proven that the holy grail of a polynomial time algorithm for an NP-complete problem is impossible, and it is fruitless to look any further for them. By contrast, if we proved that P=NP, then that would show that this holy grail is possible, and worth continuing to look for. (A proof that P=NP wouldn't necessarily give us such an algorithm - the proof might take the form of a non-constructive proof that such an algorithm must exist; and even if it gave us such an algorithm, it might be practically useless, say if it had absurdly high exponents.) But, if anyone could ever find a feasible algorithm to deterministically solve an NP-complete problem in polynomial time, that would have unimaginable consequences for numerous areas of science and industry. All these considerations lead me to the conclusion, that mathematics really can generate new truths about nature, contrary to what you say.

Zack

[Juice]

First you must define what you mean by a god.

Bert says he wants to debate honestly. I ask Bert to define a key term in his premise so I can try to meet his request. Does Bert answer? No, Bert pulls the old switcheroo and tells me I must first define God.

But okay Bert, I’ll call your bluff. Let’s say for the sake of argument I can’t fully define God. Let’s say the closest I can get based upon our limited understanding is some vague concept. What then Bert? Does it follow from there that an intelligent being that created the universe does not exist? If so explain your reasoning.

No. that's special pleading we have no evidence a god/gods/thing actually exist, so we can't posit them as a cause. We don't even know if the universe requires a cause. To posit a supernatural being having always existed is purely special pleading. Simply because I can claim, that anything (insert name here" " )is the creator, but that does not make it true. Sorry!

How on earth would it be special pleading to posit God as an explanation for the universe? I don’t think you know what special pleading is. I think special pleading is something you claim when you don’t know what else to say.

This is an argument from ignorance. I'd read up about abiogenesis if I were you.

I can play your game too, Bert - prove abiogenesis.

Prove that any of them actually occurred.

What do you mean by “prove”? If you mean scientifically verified then, no, I can’t “prove” them in that way. But then if that is the standard to “prove” something can you “prove” abionesis this same way? Also you’ll need to “prove” a whole host of other things you no doubt accept as true without this type of “proof.”.

[Juice]

It was an absurd request. Logic is a methodology – not an entity in its own right as god is claimed to be. It cannot be subjected to verification using an empirical experiment because there is no methodology to formulate a hypothesis or to deduct the consequences of a hypothesis as a testable prediction. And, by the same token, there is no means of establishing a sound case for a premise such as the existence of the supernatural or of gods. Thus, there is NO reason to give intellectual assent to the assertion that gods exist. It is based on a premise that has not or cannot, be verified.

Your record player is stuck again, Tassman, and you are repeating yourself. My request was absolutely reasonable as I was testing the veracity of your premise: Even an argument which has faultless logic will result in a incorrect conclusion if it is based on a premise that has not, or cannot, be experimentally verified

The premise itself is a self refuting proposition as it cannot pass the standard it imposes on all premises for them to be established as true - that is, they must be experimentally verified. But you can’t seem to experimentally verify that premise. Thus, according to your own premise, your premise will lead to an incorrect conclusion. So why would we believe it? You really need to take some time and understand what it means to be self refuting.

If you think god’s existence is a valid conclusion explain how you reached such a conclusion when you have no means of establishing the premise of your “reasoned” argument in the first place.

Apparently you still don’t know what makes an argument valid. If you are referring to “soundness” then it would depend on what you mean by “no means”? Do you mean that the only “means” of establishing a premise is by verifying it by experimentation? Because as we’ve seen above, that reasoning is self defeating.