Scientists create artificial life form - another nail in the coffin of religion?

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

And so we are left with, ultimately, that which we find "good". That which appears "reconciling". That which strikes us as "harmonious". Isn't that all that the 'reasonableness of the reality' achieves for us at root - a striking of the "rightness" bell within.

And so, my response to "I am too" is to consider the reasonableness of my having a personaly disorder. Only to find it doesn't strike the "rightness" bell - compared to the multiple ways in which the conclusion: "God exists" does.

Well that's definitely one way you could go about it. That however is setting the bar incredibly low, virtually anything can appear "reconciling" depending on personal perspective. Indeed under those condition a belief in a 'flat earth' and a 'flying spaghetti monster' are permissible.

Although we can never conclusively rule out anything as being nothing more than a manifestation of our subconscious, we can be so bold as to make the logical leap that other conscious entities such as ourselves exist and that we can bilaterally communicate with them. We can also make the leap that that which we can physically perceive is more likely to exist than that which we can not perceive. It's also logical to conclude that that which we perceive can be corroborated by other concious entities has a higher probability of existence. It also logically follows that that which can be verified through multiple empirical tests is at the height of probability of that which we can judge to exist.

That which we cannot perceive physically, can't be corroborated and can't be empirically tested is several orders of magnitude less likely to exist than that which can. Even more so, that which contradicts any of the above is unlikely to exist.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

What you've implied is that one cannot establish a confidence level for one's knowledge, hence -- by simple logic -- all knowledge much be equally valid (or invalid):This position, as above, equates to epistemological nihilism.

I'm not denying that one can establish a confidence level for ones knowledge. I'm pointing out that it is oneself ultimately, that is doing the establishing.

Would you disagree?

(It must be said, that of all the unbelieving philosophies, nihilism appears to be the most honest and intellectually rigorous - for it contains the least bootstraps of all).

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not denying that one can establish a confidence level for ones knowledge. I'm pointing out that it is oneself ultimately, that is doing the establishing.

Would you disagree?

(It must be said, that of all the unbelieving philosophies, nihilism appears to be the most honest and intellectually rigorous - for it contains the least bootstraps of all. I'm not sure ).

No I wouldn't disagree, it is up to oneself to choose what level of confidence one is comfortable with. However I would argue that the continuum is universal, we just choose which points along we wish to rest. By that reasoning I can conclusively say my comfort level is objectively higher up the continuum than yours.

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

No I wouldn't disagree, it is up to oneself to choose what level of confidence one is comfortable with.

True.

However I would argue that the continuum is universal, we just choose which points along we wish to rest. By that reasoning I can conclusively say my comfort level is objectively higher up the continuum than yours.

That's the claim part over with, now comes the objectivising of that claim. Over to you..

Assuming we can find common ground with Descartes minimum truth, what do you say to the idea that God too occupies that existential space - a space that sits at the very root of existance, long before the empirical rears it's head.

antiskeptic earlier wrote:

Could Descartes deny the ability of another "I am" - with whom he shared non-empirical, existential space - to think too? Surely recognition of his own ability to think would place him in good stead when it came to evaluate whether or not he was interacting with another thinker. And to realise that that other thinker wasn't part of himself ("I didn't think that, therefore I amn't that thinker")

"He thinks therefore he is too" .. as it were.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not denying that one can establish a confidence level for ones knowledge. I'm pointing out that it is oneself ultimately, that is doing the establishing. Would you disagree?

No, I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that if one starts as you do with epistemological nihilism, it's impossible to move any further. As a philosophy, it's quite sterile.

antiskeptic wrote: »

(It must be said, that of all the unbelieving philosophies, nihilism appears to be the most honest and intellectually rigorous - for it contains the least bootstraps of all).

"unbelieving philosophies"? What are they?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

No, I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that if one starts as you do with epistemological nihilism, it's impossible to move any further. As a philosophy, it's quite sterile."unbelieving philosophies"? What are they?

But we've already gotten off the ground in agreeing that 'I think' leads to undisputed knowledge. I now know I exist. A beetle can't say that - even though he exists.

The nihilistic view is one I imagine one arrives at rather than starts at. It would come from deconstructing the competing philosophies and finding that they all contain a nub of undemonstrable assumption. A bootstrap as it were.

Granted, the bootstrap makes things interesting. But it doesn't lessen the bootstrapedness.

as for "unbelieving philosophies"? I suppose I was extrapolating an opinion formed from listening to people philosophically arguing the possibility of a godless meaning to life. It struck me that because such meaning is ultimately self-determined, any meaning you like (no matter how ridiculous sounding) was as valid as any other meaning (once the intellectual snobbery was torn clear). This renders all meaningless (as per the Teacher in Ecclesiastes). And so I find the nihilists to be the most intellectually honest. Curiously, in such forum discussions, I've always found the nihilsts and Christians click the most. They both agree that a godless life is meaningless. It's just that the nihilist doesn't believe in God.

The same could be said of any category of nihilism I'm guessing.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

What else can any of our systems of knowledge appeal to ultimately?

Robin points out "I think therefore I am" isn't so much a system of knowledge as it is an inescable conclusion. That inescapableness or self-evidency is what I mean by something 'sitting right'. It's not that you have a choice in the matter. It's a place were you just find yourself.

Don't shoot the messanger..

As Sink says, there are no absolute answers. Ultimately, what is inescapable is all we have.

So your belief is indistinguishable to an outside observer from a completely fictional belief?

I think we finally agree.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

So your belief is indistinguishable to an outside observer from a completely fictional belief?

I think we finally agree.

So long as you're prepared to sail in the same ship then agreement we indeed share. Otherwise I'll insist you show me your lifeboat..

Memnoch

antiskeptic wrote: »

So long as you're prepared to sail in the same ship then agreement we indeed share. Otherwise I'll insist you show me your lifeboat..

The theory of gravity within the wider theorem of General Relativity explains how individual bodies react with and attract each other. This is an observable phenomena and remains consistent. Any individual can apply the formula provided they have accurate measurements of mass and distance. It is independently verifiable and repeatable and will always yield the same result. Based on the theory of gravity we can calculate the speed required to reach escape velocity and launch objects beyond the pull of the Earth's gravity. Using the simple formula, Force = Mass x Acceleration. We can use the escape velocity to calculate the level of thrust needed and design technology appropriately. Not only can we do this in theory, but we have executed this in practise, thus proving the validity of the theory of gravity, time and time again.

To somehow argue that personal religious belief, without any emperical evidence is equally credible to scientific theory that can be independently tested and verified is not only severely dishonest, it is delusional.

Or as Kingmob put it, your beliefs are indistinguishable from the fictional and for all intents and purposes you might as well be making them up, and as far as I'm concerned, you probably are.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Where does the confidence in any position come from. If not your own judgement and court of last resort.

That isn't really the point. Everyone makes judgments but it would be rather silly to think that that therefore makes every judgment equally valid.

Do you agree that someone can make a stupid judgment?

For example thinking that their wife isn't cheating on him despite seeing her having sex with another man? Or thinking that God has spoken to them and their child dying of a very treatable disease doesn't need medical help?

If you think there is no such thing as good judgments and stupid judgments, that every judgment is equally valid so long as you make it, then there really isn't much more to discuss because we are at two sides of an uncrossable abyss.

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's the claim part over with, now comes the objectivising of that claim. Over to you..

Assuming we can find common ground with Descartes minimum truth, what do you say to the idea that God too occupies that existential space - a space that sits at the very root of existance, long before the empirical rears it's head.

I would say show me the observable evidence.

Say everything you believe is true, we still have no method of verification, so there is no way we can know it to be true. 'Outside the empirical' means outside our realm of verifiable knowledge. Step outside of verifiable knowledge and we're left with guess work and over-active imaginations.

antiskeptic

sink wrote: »

I would say show me the observable evidence.

That isn't you objectivising your claim. That is you restating your claim in different words.

Say everything you believe is true, we still have no method of verification, so there is no way we can know it to be true. 'Outside the empirical' means outside our realm of verifiable knowledge. Step outside of verifiable knowledge and we're left with guess work and over-active imaginations.

Again the empiricist/scientism uber-claim.

A claim for one philosophy isn't established by pointing to the problems of another.

I mentioned Descartes "I think therefore I am" as a piece of knowledge (about one's own existance) that doesn't rely on empirical verification. Would you now agree that you can know things without being able to verify them empirically?

sink

antiskeptic wrote: »

A claim for one philosophy isn't established by pointing to the problems of another.

I'm not making a claim based on the shortcomings of your philosophy, I'm making a claim for empiricism based on it's verifiability.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I mentioned Descartes "I think therefore I am" as a piece of knowledge (about one's own existance) that doesn't rely on empirical verification. Would you now agree that you can know things without being able to verify them empirically?

Hate to break it to ya but "I think therefore I am", is an empirical observation, the most fundamental empirical observation there is. If you think that 'thinking' is not an empirical observation then you would have to conclude that the entire field of Psychology and Psychopharmacology are not empirical.

antiskeptic

Memnoch wrote: »

The theory of gravity within the wider theorem of General Relativity explains how individual bodies react with and attract each other. This is an observable phenomena and remains consistent. Any individual can apply the formula provided they have accurate measurements of mass and distance. It is independently verifiable and repeatable and will always yield the same result. Based on the theory of gravity we can calculate the speed required to reach escape velocity and launch objects beyond the pull of the Earth's gravity. Using the simple formula, Force = Mass x Acceleration. We can use the escape velocity to calculate the level of thrust needed and design technology appropriately. Not only can we do this in theory, but we have executed this in practise, thus proving the validity of the theory of gravity, time and time again.

To somehow argue that personal religious belief, without any emperical evidence is equally credible to scientific theory that can be independently tested and verified is not only severely dishonest, it is delusional.

Or as Kingmob put it, your beliefs are indistinguishable from the fictional and for all intents and purposes you might as well be making them up, and as far as I'm concerned, you probably are.

There are sufficient posters beating that same empiricist drum for me to be getting along with. The discusson with some has progressed beyond the point of dealing with their bald assertions ("empiricism uber alles") and finds its locus in how it is they propose to demonstrate that (empirically of course).

Forgive me if I don't progress with you.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

There are sufficient posters beating that same empiricist drum for me to be getting along with. The discusson with some has progressed beyond the point of dealing with their bald assertions ("empiricism uber alles") and finds its locus in how it is they propose to demonstrate that (empirically of course).

Forgive me if I don't progress with you.

Maybe you should progress by answering the point.

How do you distinguish between your (or any) beliefs from fiction?

Memnoch

antiskeptic wrote: »

There are sufficient posters beating that same empiricist drum for me to be getting along with. The discusson with some has progressed beyond the point of dealing with their bald assertions ("empiricism uber alles") and finds its locus in how it is they propose to demonstrate that (empirically of course).

Forgive me if I don't progress with you.

You aren't progressing anything. You're simply shifting the goal posts because you have zero evidence to back up your beliefs.

In fact you can't even prove that they are genuine beliefs and not completely made up fiction.

The only progress beyond that is to pretend that evidence isn't important or determining of anything, which you've tried to do. i.e. argue that scientific conclusions supported by evidence are of no greater or lesser value than philosophical conclusions supported by no more than subjective individual opinion.

The irony of course, is that you want your subjective individual opinion to be given the same credibility as we give to scientific fact, which is illogical and paradoxical.

Waking-Dreams

The irony of course, is that you want your subjective individual opinion to be given the same credibility as we give to scientific fact, which is illogical and paradoxical.

Indeed.

antiskeptic, I just started reading Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) which I think you'd find very interesting. For clear, engaging explanations of psychological research, this is one of the best books you can get. Cognitive biases are like optical illusions, distorting our decisions, memories and judgement. This book focuses in particular on self-directed biases. I have no doubt you believe in your heart of hearts that you are "right", but have you considered that cognitive dissonance is at play? If this sparks your interest, then this book is for you. It is a fascinating insight into human nature and will help you understand both other people and more importantly yourself a lot better. I know you can accuse me of the same thing, but as Memnoch adequatley pointed out, sooner or later, a false belief bumps up against soild reality.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe you should progress by answering the point.

How do you distinguish between your (or any) beliefs from fiction?

Maybe you should do the same thing.

Before you launch into a homily regarding the wonders of empirical verification, can I remind you that you are not permitted to use the assumption of the existance of an empirical realm as evidence of your belief that there is such a realm.

Which brings us back to the assumption you make. And why you make it.

That's the point where you need to start off from - not at some convenient point further down the road where the assumption is taken to be fact.

Over to you..

antiskeptic

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Indeed.

antiskeptic, I just started reading Mistakes Were Made (but not by me) which I think you'd find very interesting. For clear, engaging explanations of psychological research, this is one of the best books you can get. Cognitive biases are like optical illusions, distorting our decisions, memories and judgement. This book focuses in particular on self-directed biases. I have no doubt you believe in your heart of hearts that you are "right", but have you considered that cognitive dissonance is at play? If this sparks your interest, then this book is for you. It is a fascinating insight into human nature and will help you understand both other people and more importantly yourself a lot better. I know you can accuse me of the same thing, but as Memnoch adequatley pointed out, sooner or later, a false belief bumps up against soild reality.

Forgive me for cutting to the chase but the way in which you manage to escape the same predicament you suppose me to be in is to suppose to only reality 'solid'.

How do you know this - or even better, demonstrate it? Empirically of course..

antiskeptic

Memnoch wrote: »

You aren't progressing anything. You're simply shifting the goal posts because you have zero evidence to back up your beliefs.

The goal post is well established by now - although most appear blithely ignorant of that fact. Most, just like you do here, jump straight into the science without appreciating that any evidence it provides you rests upon philosophical assumptions you hold about reality and the nature of it.

What I try to point out (somewhat unsuccessfully given the nature of the responses) is that at root, I'm making the same class of assumption as you

In fact you can't even prove that they are genuine beliefs and not completely made up fiction.

The only progress beyond that is to pretend that evidence isn't important or determining of anything, which you've tried to do. i.e. argue that scientific conclusions supported by evidence are of no greater or lesser value than philosophical conclusions supported by no more than subjective individual opinion.

The irony of course, is that you want your subjective individual opinion to be given the same credibility as we give to scientific fact, which is illogical and paradoxical.

Off the point

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't really the point. Everyone makes judgments but it would be rather silly to think that that therefore makes every judgment equally valid.

Do you agree that someone can make a stupid judgment?

For example thinking that their wife isn't cheating on him despite seeing her having sex with another man? Or thinking that God has spoken to them and their child dying of a very treatable disease doesn't need medical help?

If you think there is no such thing as good judgments and stupid judgments, that every judgment is equally valid so long as you make it, then there really isn't much more to discuss because we are at two sides of an uncrossable abyss.

I agree that people can make good judgements and bad judgements. And in the measure our ways of evaluating good and bad judgements agree we both would says such and such judgement by another was silly. In the measure we agree, I stress.

This conversation isn't about jumping straight into the "colour is empirically blue" vs. "colour is subjectively blue" debate. It's sat further back: at how it is we decide on the nature of reality and how it is that the nature of reality isn't really verifiable ultimately. What we're left with is the way reality appears to be and all we can do is conclude as best we think how regarding it.

We're subject to the nature of reality - not masters of deciding what it is. We cannot transcend ourselves to make it otherwise - no matter how hard we howl.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

What I try to point out (somewhat unsuccessfully given the nature of the responses) is that at root, I'm making the same class of assumption as you

As I said above, your position of epistemological nihilism starts off well enough, then stops after one step. It goes nowhere. It is a philosophical dead end as you have explained it.

Can you explain how you develop this nihilism into something that has a use?

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree that people can make good judgements and bad judgements. And in the measure our ways of evaluating good and bad judgements agree we both would says such and such judgement by another was silly. In the measure we agree, I stress.

This conversation isn't about jumping straight into the "colour is empirically blue" vs. "colour is subjectively blue" debate. It's sat further back: at how it is we decide on the nature of reality and how it is that the nature of reality isn't really verifiable ultimately. What we're left with is the way reality appears to be and all we can do is conclude as best we think how regarding it.

Agreed, but that is the bit you are ignoring

We cannot ever know something for certain, nor prove it is true using empirical study or not.

So it becomes even more important that we look at how we arrive at judgments about reality. As you admit there are good and there are bad ways of doing this, people can make good judgments about reality and bad judgments about reality.

Judging that God exists based solely on you thinking he does is a bad judgment. There is almost nothing to support a confidence in holding that position.

You may not care, but to say that it is as valid as any other judgment people make is just silly, particularly when you admit that there are good and bad judgments.

kiffer

antiskeptic wrote: »

Off the point

*looks at thread title*
*looks at how the thread meandered to its current topic*
I think it's not that far off topic at all... or off the point for that matter.

King Mob

antiskeptic wrote: »

Maybe you should do the same thing.

Before you launch into a homily regarding the wonders of empirical verification, can I remind you that you are not permitted to use the assumption of the existance of an empirical realm as evidence of your belief that there is such a realm.

Which brings us back to the assumption you make. And why you make it.

That's the point where you need to start off from - not at some convenient point further down the road where the assumption is taken to be fact.

Over to you..

So dodging the question entirely?

Without empirical evidence I would not know how to distinguish truth from fiction.
I cannot think of a way that would exclude the possibility of being fooled.

That is why I am asking you.

But since you have dodged the important questions as usual, I can assume you can't answer the question honestly.

Waking-Dreams

It's the same story each time regarding the whole evidence argument. People say, “well, there's different kinds of evidence,” or “what is evidence anyway?” etc. I think it's just quirk in the brain trying to make sense of the world that fits the person's current paradigm of what they want to be true because it brings them comfort on some level. It seems some people are impervious to self-correction and will go on and on spinning their tyres in the mud, avoiding any real questions that might seriously challenge or contradict what they're saying. It's a kind of confirmation bias and operates below conscious level so the person is rarely aware that they're filtering data through a lens of distortion.

Even the absence of any evidence is evidence for some irrational people, “The world didn't end on the doomsday, therefore, our praying to God must have played a part in saving humanity!”

It doesn't matter what we say to antiskepctic at the end of the day; I find these discussions only result in each “side” becoming more committed to their own argument.