A Fine Example of Theocracy Indeed

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As I said, he had a personal bias that prevented him using the idea to it's full potential,

But so do you

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

But so do you

No, I don't. The only thing I have a bias about is that a claim should not be accepted without supporting evidence, especially a claim about an infinitely complex sky fairy whose son is also himself. A man who said the simplest answer is usually the right one should not logically take the most complex possible answer to the creation of the universe and yet he did, without any supporting evidence, because he wanted it to be true.

I suppose I'll ask again, since morality would exist whether god had a hand in it or not, what exactly did he do?

Btw, earlier on when I asked for a reason why you have to assume god's existence to use occam's razor, I meant a good reason, not a BS standard theist illogical rationalising one

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Btw, earlier on when I asked for a reason why you have to assume god's existence to use occam's razor, I meant a good reason, not a BS standard theist illogical rationalising one

Well thats me all metaphysiced out for the day.

And BTW it wasnt my reasoning you have a problem with its Occam's a medieval Franciscan monk .

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Well thats me all metaphysiced out for the day.

And BTW it wasnt my reasoning you have a problem with its Occam's a medieval Franciscan monk .

I know it was Ockam's reasoning and if I was using an argument from authority it would have been relevant but I'm not, so it's not

Now I suppose I'll wait patiently for you to explain what exactly God did for morality since, as you acknowledged, it would be the same had he done nothing

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Now I suppose I'll wait patiently for you to explain what exactly God did for morality since, as you acknowledged, it would be the same had he done nothing

Morality can operate independently but is connected to beliefs and originates and is derived from God - you know the part you biased against:)

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Morality can operate independently but is connected to beliefs and originates and is derived from God - you know the part you biased against:)

What do you have to indicate that it is derived from God other than you like to think it was since you acknowledge it would be exactly the same if it wasn't?

Edit: also the word biased has negative connotations. I'm only as biased against god as I am against the flying spaghetti monster, because there's nothing to indicate his existence

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What do you have to indicate that it is derived from God since you acknowledge it would be exactly the same if it wasn't?

Whats wrong with acknowledging that people are naturally moral but believing thats not the only criteria.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Whats wrong with acknowledging that people are naturally moral but believing thats not the only criteria.

What's wrong is there's absolutely nothing to indicate that's not the only criteria other than you like to think so

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What's wrong is there's absolutely nothing to indicate that's not the only criteria other than you like to think so

Well Im done but can you argue with Chuck Norris

“ It's funny. It's cute. But here's what I really think about the theory of evolution: it's not real. It is not the way we got here. In fact, the life you see on this planet is really just a list of creatures God has allowed to live. We are not creations of random chance. We are not accidents. There is a God, a Creator, who made you and me. We were made in His image, which separates us from all other creatures. By the way, without Him, I don't have any power. But with Him, the Bible tells me, I really can do all things — and so can you.[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52567

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

There had to be a point at which a culture of rational thinking emerged from whatever came before it. The fact that religion was predominant before science in no way gives religion credit for it. Sure, of course Christianity and science were mixed up for a long time, that still doesn't mean that science owes anything to Christianity. And it certainly doesn't mean we should indulge in thinking that religion now has anything to offer.

Science doesn't owe anything to Christianity, because science does not deny its own origins. You however, do not speak for science. You owe yourself a realistic understanding of history if you want to be someone who talks about it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What you just said is crucially important. Throughout history people have claimed that they got their morality from god but you have just acknowledged that a moral act is moral whether or not god exists.

Without God, prescriptive morality does not exist.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

When people ask me where I get my morality, I say "if I wouldn't like it done to me, I wouldn't do it to others"

People are often amazed by that idea. They ask me "what if no one would ever know so you'd never be punished?" and "why do good if there is no reward?" and I say "I do not do good because of the threat of punishment or the promise of reward, I do good because it is good and even if doing good inconveniences me, it is still good".

Doing good isn't the same thing as not doing evil.

The way I see it, religious 'morality' appeals to selfishness, do good because you'll be rewarded, don't do bad because you'll be punished. Without this carrot and stick situation the only motivation people have to do good is that it is good and this terrifies many because they have no faith in people to do good without a selfish motivation. Well I say you need to have more faith in your fellow man

Appealing to faith in one's fellow man is surely as irrational to you as appealing to faith in God. There is little evidence that humans are 'good' enough to put such huge faith in.

Religious morality is realistic morality. Don't rely on an appeal man's better nature; he might not have one. Faith in one's fellow man is neither naturalist nor rational.

MrPudding wrote: »

May well be. But it is also very simple, apparently too simple for the religious to understand. ONe of the things that annoys we most about you lot is that you claim to have all this faith in your stupid sky wizard story, and you claim faith is a virtue, but you can't seem to find a single gramme of faith in your fellow man.

Ironically, you claim that faith is not a virtue, yet all you're left with at the end of the day is faith in a violent animal species.

I find it really sad. I would hate to have to go through life thinking that people are incapable of doing good with the same carrot and stick as the religious appear to think they, and everyone else need.

We're certainly capable of it. But we tend not to be inclined towards it.

You might mock it and try to belittle it but doing good simply because you think it is correct makes a better person than someone that does it simply to avoid hell or receive a reward.

Self-righteous. It's incredibly easy for you or I to talk like this in our comfortable western lives, where competition for vital resources is not a daily reality. We don't generally get to choose whether we are "good people" or not. That is mostly determined by environment.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Without God, prescriptive morality does not exist.

Do you have anything to support that assertion?

Húrin wrote: »

Doing good isn't the same thing as not doing evil.

What's your point?

Húrin wrote: »

Appealing to faith in one's fellow man is surely as irrational to you as appealing to faith in God. There is little evidence that humans are 'good' enough to put such huge faith in.

Religious morality is realistic morality. Don't rely on an appeal man's better nature; he might not have one.

In a world where god's existence cannot be proven the only thing you can rationally appeal to is the inherent good in your fellow man

It has been shown throughout human history that people will do good even if they're not going to get anything out of it, there's plenty of evidence, but it has never been shown that god exists, so no, appealing to faith in one's fellow man is not as irrational as faith in god

If you're appealing to selfishness, how is it morality exactly?

Zillah

Just my thoughts on Occams Razor:

The principle can essentially be summarised as "The hypothesis that uses the least assumptions is likely to be correct". So basically applying this to the origins of the universe, the following are assumptions: God's existence, His qualities and his role as creator. So a hypothesis requiring these assumptions is less likely to be correct than a hypothesis that does not.

Now granted, we need to weight assumptions for this analysis, and we can get into the nitty gritty of the argument if anyone likes, but I just felt like summarising my take on it.

MrPudding

Húrin wrote: »

Ironically, you claim that faith is not a virtue, yet all you're left with at the end of the day is faith in a violent animal species.

I see humans doing good all around me. It is not such a leap of faith. Certainly not as much as the one you have had to made to believe the tripe you do.

Húrin wrote: »

We're certainly capable of it. But we tend not to be inclined towards it.

Whatever you think. Like I say, sad that people have so low an opinion of their fellow man. There is plently of evidence that mankind is generally good, perhaps that is the problem? Can you only believe in something when there is no evidence?

Húrin wrote: »

Self-righteous. It's incredibly easy for you or I to talk like this in our comfortable western lives, where competition for vital resources is not a daily reality. We don't generally get to choose whether we are "good people" or not. That is mostly determined by environment.

Wow. Being called self righteous by a christian, nice. Particularly when bringing up people in the third world and people that do not have lives as comfortable as us. Do you not feel in the least but hypocritical about calling me self righteous when you believe that you will spend an eternity in heaven, through an accident of geography, whilst the fate of these people is unknown, but probably not very pleasent?

MrP

MrPudding

Zillah wrote: »

Just my thoughts on Occams Razor:

The principle can essentially be summarised as "The hypothesis that uses the least assumptions is likely to be correct". So basically applying this to the origins of the universe, the following are assumptions: God's existence, His qualities and his role as creator. So a hypothesis requiring these assumptions is less likely to be correct than a hypothesis that does not.

Now granted, we need to weight assumptions for this analysis, and we can get into the nitty gritty of the argument if anyone likes, but I just felt like summarising my take on it.

See, you have it all wrong. As soul winner has pointed out peviously, saying that god did it is the simplest explanation of all. Try it, "god did it." See? Much simpler than chemistry and physics.

MrP

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Without God, prescriptive morality does not exist.

Too many steps there.

I think it would be fairer to say that prescriptive morality wouldn't exist without the notion of a god and a priesthood which profits from actively promoting a conservative social code which has the happy side-effect of increasing their own social standing and political power.

No better example than the Iranian mullahs who noted on Friday that god wanted the protesters executed. More on that here.

Húrin wrote: »

Don't rely on an appeal man's better nature; he might not have one. Faith in one's fellow man is neither naturalist nor rational.

It's entirely rational -- if you trust your fellow inhabitants of this earth, you will find, far more often than nine times out of ten, that your trust will be returned.

.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

Religious morality is realistic morality. Don't rely on an appeal man's better nature; he might not have one.

This point is actually one of the major reasons why religion was dreamt up in the first place. People had no faith in their fellow man to do good unless they had some selfish motive so they made the ultimate argument from authority and said the sky fairy would punish them for it. Nice and vague, completely unproveable but scary enough to keep people in line.

He says "Religious morality is realistic morality" and he might actually be right. The fear of hell might stop some people doing wrong who otherwise would. It doesn't matter that the god was made up because they have succeeded in scaring people straight, tricking them into doing good like a parent who says to an unrurly child "stop that now or the man will come over and take your ice cream!". Now we as adults know the man would be arrested if he came within ten feet of the kid but it has the desired effect. religious morality is maybe more realistic because it's not morality at all, it's selfishness and fear.

We're not unique in this, buddhists came up with the concept of karma to achieve the same goal

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

It's entirely rational -- if you trust your fellow inhabitants of this earth, you will find, far more often than nine times out of ten, that your trust will be returned.

As evidenced by the fact that Sweden, a country where the majority do not believe in God*, is probably one of the best countries in the world to live in (although I'm a bit biased because I lived there and loved it :P). If Hurin was right you'd expect them to be at each other's throats the whole time

*As opposed to North Korea and China where people are violently forced to say they don't believe in God which is not the same thing

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

Just my thoughts on Occams Razor:

The principle can essentially be summarised as "The hypothesis that uses the least assumptions is likely to be correct". So basically applying this to the origins of the universe, the following are assumptions: God's existence, His qualities and his role as creator. So a hypothesis requiring these assumptions is less likely to be correct than a hypothesis that does not.

Now granted, we need to weight assumptions for this analysis, and we can get into the nitty gritty of the argument if anyone likes, but I just felt like summarising my take on it.

Ah but that is not how William of Ockam wrote it Zillah -using it you have to accept that" it is proved by Sacred Scripture" so by definition Creationists have a greater claim on Occams Razor- evolution being an unnesscessary assumption also.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As evidenced by the fact that Sweden, a country where the majority do not believe in God*, is probably one of the best countries in the world to live in (although I'm a bit biased because I lived there and loved it :P). If Hurin was right you'd expect them to be at each other's throats the whole time

But it also is a very wealthy country with very hig taxes.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Ah but that is not how William of Ockam wrote it Zillah -using it you have to accept that" it is proved by Sacred Scripture" so by definition Creationists have a greater claim on Occams Razor- evolution being an unnesscessary assumption also.

Game theory found applications in dozens of areas where its creator John Nash never intended it for but that doesn't mean those applications are not valid.

It is not possible to "prove by sacred scripture" because to date the scriptures have not been proven. I'm sure that had Occam been able to see beyond his beliefs and realise that they had not been proven as he suggested, which we all know is not the case, he would have applied it. Basically, his logic for why it can't be applied is entirely dependent on the idea that his particular God's existence has been proven and it has not. Once you remove that assumption and apply the concept, it becomes much more likely that they simply lied or were deluded than that a bloke raised from the dead.

Another example would be Darwinian evolution. We don't have to accept every single thing Darwin said to use his theory, it has actually been updated several times since his death, most notably to include genetics. In the same way, I can use Occam's razor perfectly well once I remove the completely unfounded and incorrect part where he for some mad reason thought the scriptures have been proven. Do you think they've been proven?

edit: This is actually a perfect example of what I was talking about earlier, the problems with religious reasoning. This guy failed in the application of his own idea because of his irrational belief in the sky fairy. His desire for there to be a God outweighed in his mind the fact that it's not at all likely. He took the bible to be the highest authority when in reality it should have the least authority because it is one of thousands of completely unsubstantiated stories of the supernatural from around those times

CDfm wrote: »

But it also is a very wealthy country with very hig taxes.

None of that should matter if Húrin is right in saying that appealing to a man's better nature rather than religious morality is irrational because "he might not have one". If Húrin is right then having a lot of wealthy people should only increase the incidence of theft.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm sure that had Occam been able to see beyond his beliefs and realise that they had not been proven as he suggested in the quote you gave, which we all know is not the case, he would have applied it. Basically, his logic for why it can't be applied is entirely dependent on the idea that his particular God's existence has been proven and it has not. Once you remove that assumption and apply the concept. it becomes much more likely that they simply lied or were deluded than that a bloke raised from the dead

Cmon you cant change it - you quoted it first- it isnt Occams and thats the point as his theory has God as a nesscessary assumption and is proof in itself therefore proving Creationism.Like it or not Occam accepted it as proof.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Cmon you cant change it - you quoted it first- it isnt Occams and thats the point as his theory has God as a nesscessary assumption and is proof in itself therefore proving Creationism.Like it or not Occam accepted it as proof.

The idea that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" has logical merit. It can be applied to many things to great effect. The idea that something can be "proven by sacred scripture" has no merit whatsoever.

In this situation, just because I take one idea from this guy based on its merit does not mean I have to take all of his other ideas even though they have no merit. I am not making an argument from authority so the fact that a guy called Occam who believed in God came up with this idea is completely irrelevant, so let's forget the fact that a guy called Occam came up with it and simply take the idea that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily on its own merits. When you say that God had a hand in morality even though this hand appears not to have done anything, you are multiplying entities unnecessarily.

Do you think the idea that something can be "proven by sacred scripture" is logically sound?

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I am not making an argument from authority so the fact that a guy called Occam who believed in God came up with this idea is completely irrelevant. I can take the concept that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" and apply in any way I want, whether this guy was personally biased against applying it in this way or not.

Well you are making an argument from authority except its Sams Razor using Occam you have to accept scripture.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Well you are making an argument from authority except its Sams Razor.

I suppose it is Sam's razor because apparently this guy had personal biases and dodgy ideas which made him think his idea couldn't be applied to areas where it can easily be applied.

So, since it is effectively my idea and I am not arguing that "a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative"*, how exactly am I making an argument from authority

Seems you're just shaking your magic 8 ball and randomly picking logical fallacies to accuse me of making


*The wiki definition of an argument from authority

Sam Vimes

You didn't answer me btw:

Do you think the idea that something can be "proven by sacred scripture" is logically sound? And if not, why must I take it in order to use another good idea? That would suggest that the whole idea of Occam's razor is invalid and that's clearly not the case.

And thinking about it it's not "sam's razor", it's still Occam's. The assumption that the scriptures have been proven is not actually a part of the idea, he just said the idea couldn't be applied to God because of this. But his reasoning for saying it couldn't be applied to God is fundamentally flawed, so I can reject this reasoning and apply the idea in its entirety to God without changing one bit of it.

As wikipedia says "Rather than argue for the necessity of God, some theists consider their belief to be based on grounds independent of, or prior to, reason, making Occam's razor irrelevant." So even they admit that it's not that belief in God is required to use it, they just think it can't be applied to God. And their reasoning is also fundamentally flawed. They are right though, to suggest that their belief is based on grounds other than reason, it's based on wishful thinking and the real reason they don't want it to be applied is that it makes their beliefs look ridiculous because they are taking the most complex possible answer over the millions of far more simple ones

CDfm

Since when was Wikipedia an authoritative source.

William of Ockam was a very sophisticated thinker in any era and abstract philosophical thought was his thing. His ideas mean that we consider philosophical questions in a holistic way.He doesnt need you to do a rewrite.

So if you reject Occam then its no longer Occams Razor its Sams. Even Occam when applied does not always give the correct answer and the simplest answer is not always the right one. Occam points to a holistic view which is why he uses wide parameters as opposed to a narrow view.

Of course, belief needs faith but that doesnt need to be pointed out to you.

BTW - I thought you were converting once I proved that using Occam involved scripture? Cmon Sam - give up yer old sins;)

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

Since when was Wikipedia an authoritative source.

You are effectively ad hominem'ing wikipedia here. Just because it's on wikipedia doesn't mean it's BS, such as in this case, where it's not. Take a look at this part where I got it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor#Religion

and look through all of the sources it references if you want, eg Søren Kierkegaard and the Clarkian Presuppositional apologetics.

CDfm wrote: »

William of Ockam was a very sophisticated thinker in any era and abstract philosophical thought was his thing. His ideas mean that we consider philosophical questions in a holistic way.He doesnt need you to do a rewrite.

As I just said, I am not rewriting it. I am using the idea in exactly the way it was written, except I am applying it to an area to which he said it couldn't be applied because he was under the mistaken impression that you can "prove by sacred scripture". And you have still to answer me about whether "prove by sacred scripture" is logically sound.

CDfm wrote: »

So if you reject Occam then its no longer Occams Razor its Sams.

Even if I was, that would not effect the validity of my statement in any way. You are still unnecessarily multiplying entities.

CDfm wrote: »

Even Occam when applied does not always give the correct answer and the simplest answer is not always the right one. Occam points to a holistic view which is why he uses wide parameters as opposed to a narrow view.

I know that, I've already said that. To quote myself: "I never said it was perfect, in fact I acknowledged it wasn't. That does not, however, mean that it should be dismissed out of hand. It is still a useful tool as long as you keep in mind that it's not perfect."

CDfm wrote: »

Of course, belief needs faith but that doesnt need to be pointed out to you.

BTW - I thought you were converting once I proved that using Occam involved scripture? Cmon Sam - give up yer old sins;)

Occam does not involve scripture. He said it cannot be applied to scripture. Very different things. You say the two are completely inseparable and he said one can have nothing to do with the other. In reality you're both wrong.

You're wrong because you seem to have no concept of what Occam's razor actually is and he was wrong because he thought his particular God's existence has been proven and it hasn't

Sam Vimes

Also, you have still yet to answer me about what exactly God did for morality since you acknowledge it would be exactly the same had he done nothing.

CDfm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You are effectively ad hominem'ing wikipedia here. Just because it's on wikipedia doesn't mean it's BS, such as in this case, where it's not. Take a look at this part where I got it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor#Religion

Ah Sam - Im disappointed. I expected you to read him in the original Latin.But really its a philosophical theory.

Occam does not involve scripture. He said it cannot be applied to scripture. Very different things since you say the two are completely inseparable and he said one can have nothing to do with the other. In reality you're both wrong

He actually accepted scripture as proof.

Sam Vimes

CDfm wrote: »

He actually accepted scripture as proof.

Yes, I know he did and he was wrong to do so because scripture is not proof. You will also acknowledge this because if it was then God's existence would be proven and we all know it isn't.

Therefore he was wrong to say that the idea cannot be applied to scripture but the idea itself is still sound, although not perfect, as I have pointed out several times