Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nagirrac

marienbad wrote: »

So what is your point ? Are positing the notion that some people operate on the level of science/scientism to explain every human experience or what ?

I am making a distinction between science and scienticism. Science is absolutely the only way we have to examine our natural world. I am arguing against giving science the primary advisor role in how society runs itself. For example the current thinking in neuroscience is that free will is an illusion and all our actions are pre programmed by genetics and environment. I would hate to see social policy decided by science that may be overturned by a new set of experiments next year.

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

I am making a distinction between science and scienticism. Science is absolutely the only way we have to examine our natural world. I am arguing against giving science the primary advisor role in how society runs itself. For example the current thinking in neuroscience is that free will is an illusion and all our actions are pre programmed by genetics and environment. I would hate to see social policy decided by science that may be overturned by a new set of experiments next year.

Ok - lets stick with this example of neuroscience for a minute. So you are saying that because current thinking may/will be overturned next year we should chuck it.

Leaving aside for a mo that all knowledge is at best incomplete what do you suggest we use instead ?

nagirrac

marienbad wrote: »

Ok - lets stick with this example of neuroscience for a minute. So you are saying that because current thinking may/will be overturned next year we should chuck it.

Leaving aside for a mo that all knowledge is at best incomplete what do you suggest we use instead ?

Use what we have gone with for the past two millenia at least which is that we have conscious free will.

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

Use what we have gone with for the past two millenia at least which is that we have conscious free will.

So you have your mind made up before we even start ?

nagirrac

Gumbi wrote: »

First define morality. And before we go on, propose another system different to science with which to investigate it.

Its a very broad term but for the purposes of this discussion I would limit it to what advanced societies regard as actually "right" and "wrong". So, the normative sense as opposed to the individual descriptive sense.

In terms of how to approach it, I would say the accumulation of human wisdom over the many millenia we have existed as a species. The various philosophical traditions to me would be the relevant system.

nagirrac

marienbad wrote: »

So you have your mind made up before we even start ?

No, I am absolutely open to having my mind changed when presented with compelling evidence. I do not find the evidence for free will as illusion compelling.

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

No, I am absolutely open to having my mind changed when presented with compelling evidence. I do not find the evidence for free will as illusion compelling.

To be honest like most people I don't give a fcuk about it , it won't change my life one way or the other. That is at until someone explains otherwise.

But to take an extreme, if it came down to an either/or choice between faith or science I know which one I would pick every time.

nagirrac

marienbad wrote: »

But to take an extreme, if it came down to an either/or choice between faith or science I know which one I would pick every time.

But does it not depend on the topic at hand? I mean I agree if I had a medical emergency I would put my trust in medical science rather than homeopathy for example. However, I also believe science and faith can be compatible, otherwise how can there be scientists who are believers, not just in history but many contemporary leading scientists are believers. Why does it have to be an either / or question, both sides can be irrational and both sides can be rational. It is perfectly reasonable surely to believe in God and believe in the value of science.

vronki

marienbad wrote: »

To be honest like most people I don't give a fcuk about it , it won't change my life one way or the other. That is at until someone explains otherwise.

But to take an extreme, if it came down to an either/or choice between faith or science I know which one I would pick every time.

Note, it is an impossibility for science and faith to conflict, since they originate from the same source. It is peoples bias interpretation of science, that is, human ideas which conflict with certain theological claims. If any of these arguments had any merit whatsoever, faith would be dead in the water a long time ago.

Theologians don't take atheists claims seriously, because atheists don't take theology seriously. Their understanding of faith, religion and God is irrational and so easily crushed by a well equipped, thinking theist

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

Your question is not related to the point I am making about scientism (see my response to Gumbi).

Yes it is. You are claiming that there are other methods of discovering accurate knowledge about stuff that, for some reason, are not included in the scientific method, and if people don't hold to that position you say they are falling fowl of "scientisim"

I'm asking if this is true why do you think these other methods of accurately discovering knowledge are not already included in the scientific method if they work.

I would take the position that they don't work, they fail the standards required to be included in the scientific method and thus are not included in the scientific method.

But since you clearly don't agree with that I'm curious as to what reason you think science doesn't use them.

nagirrac wrote: »

Clearly you think I am making an argument against science which I am not.

You are making the argument that there are other methodologies that science does not use despite the fact that they work perfectly well.

I'm asking why you think science doesn't use them. I can't tell if you are making an argument against science or not until you answer the question.

Fanny Cradock

vronki wrote: »

Theologians don't take atheists claims seriously, because atheists don't take theology seriously. Their understanding of faith, religion and God is irrational and so easily crushed by a well equipped, thinking theist

I think it's a good theologian who takes the strongest arguments from atheism seriously. If they don't then they are ill-equipped to tackle a sizeable and growing minority. Indeed, the burgeoning apologetics movement is in part a reaction to these voices. The claim here is that we have good evidence for the trust we put in beliefs and that we can have confidence in them.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

In terms of how to approach it, I would say the accumulation of human wisdom over the many millenia we have existed as a species. The various philosophical traditions to me would be the relevant system.

Ok. So if that works fine as a methodology why is it not included in the scientific process?

Zombrex

vronki wrote: »

Note, it is an impossibility for science and faith to conflict, since they originate from the same source. It is peoples bias interpretation of science, that is, human ideas which conflict with certain theological claims. If any of these arguments had any merit whatsoever, faith would be dead in the water a long time ago.

Theologians don't take atheists claims seriously, because atheists don't take theology seriously. Their understanding of faith, religion and God is irrational and so easily crushed by a well equipped, thinking theist

That is like saying a Star Trek nerd will be able to crush the arguments of anyone who says Star Trek isn't real because the nerd has a great depth of understanding of all the episodes of Star Trek.

Normal Person - Star Trek isn't real
Star Trek Nerd - Ah yes, but have you seen episode 3 season 1. I have spent a life time studying that episode
Normal Person - No, I haven't. Or at least if I have I've forgotten it.
Star Trek Nerd - Bah! Well you are hardly qualified to say what is real or not, are you?!

Most atheist arguments for the rejection of theistic claims don't have a whole lot to do with the specific mythology of the religion the theist subscribes to.

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree the term can be used as dogma, as in "scientism is the claim that only science can lead to truth". When I think of scientism it is in terms of 1) affording science a stronger voice in public policy than it perhaps deserves, and 2) using a scientific evidence argument in the "is there evidence for God argument". In this respect I believe certain atheists, such as Dawkins and Harris, are displaying scientism.For example Harris in "Free Will" uses the scientific evidence from the Libet experiments to argue against free will and concepts of objective morality. I would hate to base our social policy on a set of scientific experiments that may be falsified a year from now.

I'm not sure what you mean by 1).

I don't see any problem with considering experimental results in neuroscience when discussing free will or, more specifically, the relationship between the mind and the brain.

Morbert

Zombrex wrote: »

That is like saying a Star Trek nerd will be able to crush the arguments of anyone who says Star Trek isn't real because the nerd has a great depth of understanding of all the episodes of Star Trek.

Normal Person - Star Trek isn't real
Star Trek Nerd - Ah yes, but have you seen episode 3 season 1. I have spent a life time studying that episode
Normal Person - No, I haven't. Or at least if I have I've forgotten it.
Star Trek Nerd - Bah! Well you are hardly qualified to say what is real or not, are you?!

Most atheist arguments for the rejection of theistic claims don't have a whole lot to do with the specific mythology of the religion the theist subscribes to.

On a related note,

I liked the first half of "The God Delusion". The problem I found with the second half was Dawkins argued that theology was a non-subject, but then proceeded to make theological claims.

Comprehensive knowledge of Star Trek is not needed to decide if it's real. But comprehensive knowledge of Star Trek is needed if you claim Picard is a "petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully".

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

On a related note,

I liked the first half of "The God Delusion". The problem I found with the second half was Dawkins argued that theology was a non-subject, but then proceeded to make theological claims.

Comprehensive knowledge of Star Trek is not needed to decide if it's real. But comprehensive knowledge of Star Trek is needed if you claim Picard is a "petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully".

True, it is one of the annoying things about Dawkins. He (correctly in my opinion) realizes that theology is rather irrelevant to the real world if the theistic claims that under pin it are not true.

But at the same time he gets sweeped up in the "gotcha" arguments that atheists like to propose to theists.

There is ultimately a paradox in attempting to present arguments based on logical inconsistencies in a story while at the same time holding that the story is fiction, since after all if the story is fiction there is no requirement on it to make sense in the first place. You aren't going to demonstrate anything other than your starting position (its fiction)

Or to put it another way, you aren't going to demonstrate to someone who thinks Star Trek is real that it isn't by pointing out that in one scene Kirk's phaser was on his right side and a second later it was on his left side because if the person believes Star Trek is real already then the explanation they use for this will be restricted to the set of possible explanations if the story was real. He very quickly moved it while the camera wasn't on him will be more plausible than the whole thing is a fiction and not filmed as it really happened.

marienbad

vronki wrote: »

Note, it is an impossibility for science and faith to conflict, since they originate from the same source. It is peoples bias interpretation of science, that is, human ideas which conflict with certain theological claims. If any of these arguments had any merit whatsoever, faith would be dead in the water a long time ago.

Theologians don't take atheists claims seriously, because atheists don't take theology seriously. Their understanding of faith, religion and God is irrational and so easily crushed by a well equipped, thinking theist

You can say the same about Astrology.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

On a related note,I liked the first half of "The God Delusion". The problem I found with the second half was Dawkins argued that theology was a non-subject, but then proceeded to make theological claims.

The same charge has been laid at the feet (or wheels) of the likes of Hawkins and Krauss. Both deny the usefulness of philosophy and the go on to make claims that I think can be correctly describe as philosophical in nature.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The same charge has been laid at the feet (or wheels) of the likes of Hawkins and Krauss. Both deny the usefulness of philosophy and the go on to make claims that I think can be correctly describe as philosophical in nature.

Dawkins most obvious example of this was arguing that experience of this universe tells us that intelligence arises out of increased complexity, that the brain is vastly complex compared to the atoms that form it, and that this is an arugment against God being both intelligent/emotional and simple and also an argument against him just existing in the state he is rather than being constructed from simpler parts.

Of course the obvious response to that is that by definition we cannot infer anything about God from the rules of this universe, and thus cannot say how god is likely to be.

Although it is worth pointing out that this holds equally for theists who claim to be able to infer properties of God from experience in this universe.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The same charge has been laid at the feet (or wheels) of the likes of Hawkins and Krauss. Both deny the usefulness of philosophy and the go on to make claims that I think can be correctly describe as philosophical in nature.

That I am not so sure about. Krauss was questioned about his attack on philosophy in an interview last year (here). He had this to say:

"Well, yeah, I mean, look I was being provocative, as I tend to do every now and then in order to get people's attention. There are areas of philosophy that are important, but I think of them as being subsumed by other fields. In the case of descriptive philosophy you have literature or logic, which in my view is really mathematics. Formal logic is mathematics, and there are philosophers like Wittgenstein that are very mathematical, but what they're really doing is mathematics---it's not talking about things that have affected computer science, it's mathematical logic. And again, I think of the interesting work in philosophy as being subsumed by other disciplines like history, literature, and to some extent political science insofar as ethics can be said to fall under that heading. To me what philosophy does best is reflect on knowledge that's generated in other areas."

They don't have a problem with the idea of philosophy. Instead, they have a problem with a lot of work that is generated by people in the field.

[edit]- Steven Weinberg has a good essay on the field of philosophy, and why scientists sometimes take issue with it (here).

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

You are making the argument that there are other methodologies that science does not use despite the fact that they work perfectly well. I'm asking why you think science doesn't use them. I can't tell if you are making an argument against science or not until you answer the question.

I am making the argument that there are questions that science cannot be applied to. For the scientific method to apply, there has to be at least two conditions: 1) they can be empirically measured by observation or experiment, and 2) They could be false.

Examples of where the scientific method cannot be applied (loosely borrowed from Paul Carroll's blog and just used for example):

1) 2+2=4. This is a true statement, there are no experiments you can run to further confirm it as true or falsify it. Mathematics is not science, although some would argue it is.

2) "Chocolate chip is the best possible ice cream". While we can explore areas of the brain that respond to the taste of ice cream, you can't say that I am wrong in asserting the above nor can I assert you are wrong if you prefer a different flavor. Science cannot test this question nor falsify it.

The latter simple example links to morality. I am not saying we should not use science to guide us on questions of morality, but fundamentally deciding the truth of moral claims is based on judgment which is generally arrived at by means other than science.

I would put the God question in exactly the same context, something that science can inform to some degree, but is generally not that useful in considering the question.

nagirrac

Morbert wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by 1).

I don't see any problem with considering experimental results in neuroscience when discussing free will or, more specifically, the relationship between the mind and the brain.

I have no issue with the discussion, I am cautioning against preliminary experimental results being used to guide public policy. I think some philosophers like Sam Harris have ran very far with the results of the Libet experiments, arguing essentially that all mental states are illusionary and relate to unconscious brain states that precede our awareness. From Harris' Free Will "The next choice you make will come from the darkness of prior causes that you, the conscious witness of your experience, did not bring into being". Harris goes on to use the examples of individuals with brain tumors or mental illness and essentially argues why would we exempt them from personal responsibility in crime cases and not exempt those who in his mind are no more responsible.

I understand Harris is not saying we can't hold people responsible practically in society but I would argue that this is an extreme philosophical position that suffers from scientism. Considering how little we know about the mind, how and why thoughts emerge, how thoughts can be positively or negatively utilized, it is quite the leap to claim free will in the context of personal responsibility is an illusion. I would argue the opposite to Harris. Rather than emerging from the darkness, I believe thoughts emerge based on our choice of what to focus on in our lives, and that mental events are causal in terms of behavior and actions. Although many live their lives without being aware of the causes and effects of their behaviors or actions, that does not mean we don't have the capacity to become aware. I would lean much more strongly towards the Libertarian view on this issue.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

I am making the argument that there are questions that science cannot be applied to.

I know that.

And I'm asking why is science not able to use the methods you claim we can use to accurately discover information about these questions which science restricts itself from?

nagirrac wrote: »

For the scientific method to apply, there has to be at least two conditions: 1) they can be empirically measured by observation or experiment, and 2) They could be false.

Have you ever wondered why science puts up these conditions? They aren't arbitrary, nor is it that science just doesn't want to know the answers to these questions.

nagirrac wrote: »

Examples of where the scientific method cannot be applied (loosely borrowed from Paul Carroll's blog and just used for example):

1) 2+2=4. This is a true statement, there are no experiments you can run to further confirm it as true or falsify it. Mathematics is not science, although some would argue it is.

2) "Chocolate chip is the best possible ice cream". While we can explore areas of the brain that respond to the taste of ice cream, you can't say that I am wrong in asserting the above nor can I assert you are wrong if you prefer a different flavor. Science cannot test this question nor falsify it.

And equally you cannot know if it is true or not. You can state it, and give your opinion, but you have cannot say it is a true or false statement.

If you said Chocolate chip is the best possible ice cream in my opinion then it becomes possible to test that and we can know whether it is or isn't your opinion. We can tell the difference between a reality where it is true and a reality where it is false.

So all you are saying here is that there are things we cannot know, not that there are things we can know but that fall outside of science.

Which takes us back to "scientisim". You can claim that there are questions science cannot deal with (which is correct), but I've yet to see an example of something science cannot deal with but that we can still know or discover using another method.

You obviously believe otherwise, which is why I keep asking you why if you can know or discover things using these methodologies does science not include them in the scientific method.

That question seems to have you a little stumped. Like I asked earlier why do you think science restricts itself to particular methodologies. These restrictions are not arbitrary.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

That I am not so sure about. Krauss was questioned about his attack on philosophy in an interview last year (here). He had this to say:

"Well, yeah, I mean, look I was being provocative, as I tend to do every now and then in order to get people's attention. There are areas of philosophy that are important, but I think of them as being subsumed by other fields. In the case of descriptive philosophy you have literature or logic, which in my view is really mathematics. Formal logic is mathematics, and there are philosophers like Wittgenstein that are very mathematical, but what they're really doing is mathematics---it's not talking about things that have affected computer science, it's mathematical logic. And again, I think of the interesting work in philosophy as being subsumed by other disciplines like history, literature, and to some extent political science insofar as ethics can be said to fall under that heading. To me what philosophy does best is reflect on knowledge that's generated in other areas."

They don't have a problem with the idea of philosophy. Instead, they have a problem with a lot of work that is generated by people in the field.

[edit]- Steven Weinberg has a good essay on the field of philosophy, and why scientists sometimes take issue with it (here).

I'm not sure if you caught his appearance on Unbelievable? or not but he was roundly dismissive of philosophy as a discipline and in particular philosophers who happen to criticise his "something is the new nothing" hypothesis. (I would personally use the term "equivocation".) Indeed, if I recall correctly, he appeared not to have been familiar with one of the famous philosophers who may or may not have appeared in this excellent sketch from Monty Python.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vV3QGagck

But perhaps he was speaking off the cuff and I shouldn't look into it as binding. Listening to the show I get the impression that once he gets going his mouth is as close to an unstoppable force as anything in the universe. I'll try to check out the articles you linked to if I ever again experience personal time.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

And equally you cannot know if it is true or not. You can state it, and give your opinion, but you have cannot say it is a true or false statement.

If you said Chocolate chip is the best possible ice cream in my opinion then it becomes possible to test that and we can know whether it is or isn't your opinion. We can tell the difference between a reality where it is true and a reality where it is false.

Which takes us back to "scientisim". You can claim that there are questions science cannot deal with (which is correct), but I've yet to see an example of something science cannot deal with but that we can still know or discover using another method.

If I state "chocolate chip is the best ice cream", that is a true statement (to me) and one that you cannot falsify. It is my opinion, but there is no means of testing how my judgment of what is the best ice cream can be false, but perhaps you can come up with one. Yes, we can look at my brain but its not going to tell us the basis for my subjetive opinion on ice cream. It actually might tell us my ice cream pleasure center lights up more when I eat a different flavor, but I still prefer chocolate chip.

Math is an example of something we can discover without using the scientific method. Math is derived totally from thinking and not based on empirical observations. Science obviously utilizes math, but although some philosophers disagree, I don't believe math is a science. Socities making decisions on what is moral or not, what is lawful or not, is not typically based on the scientific method, although it can be influenced by science. What I am debating is the degree to which current science should influence judgment based decision making.

We are in a philosophical debate regarding how science should be applied in society, so to state I am stumped is meaningless.

On that note I have to exit but will get back to this.

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

Dawkins most obvious example of this was arguing that experience of this universe tells us that intelligence arises out of increased complexity, that the brain is vastly complex compared to the atoms that form it, and that this is an arugment against God being both intelligent/emotional and simple and also an argument against him just existing in the state he is rather than being constructed from simpler parts.

Of course the obvious response to that is that by definition we cannot infer anything about God from the rules of this universe, and thus cannot say how god is likely to be.

Although it is worth pointing out that this holds equally for theists who claim to be able to infer properties of God from experience in this universe.

Properties of God's character rather than God as an object, tbf. In fact not even that most of what we believe to be true of God comes from revelation rather than deduction.

Fanny Cradock

tommy2bad wrote: »

Properties of God's character rather than God as an object, tbf. In fact not even that most of what we believe to be true of God comes from revelation rather than deduction.

Yes and no. There is the notion of general revelation (that which we can deduce about God from the world around us) and special revelation (that which is revealed by God in a concious act, e.g. the Incarnation). Assuming I am understanding the statement correctly, then I think that in principle Zombrex's statement is wrong. If, for a moment, we pretend that we all believe in a God then it would seem logical to think that we can deduce something about him or his intentions through his creation. If tomorrow we unearthed strange alien artefacts then it is possible that we could gain some information on this alien race by studying their creations.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

If I state "chocolate chip is the best ice cream", that is a true statement (to me) and one that you cannot falsify.

True statement to me doesn't mean anything, you do not have your own personal "truth". Something is true or it is false.

But even if was true, even if it was possible that something would be true just for you, how do you know the statement is true?

You can say it is your opinion that it is true, but then we are just back to what I originally said "chocolate chip is the best ice cream in your opinion

If you state that it is anything other than your opinion, that chocolate chip is the best is some how objectively true then not only are you describing something that doesn't make much sense, you are describing something you can't even know.

nagirrac wrote: »

It is my opinion, but there is no means of testing how my judgment of what is the best ice cream can be false, but perhaps you can come up with one.

That is an issue with the term "best". First of all you have to define what you mean by "best". When you do that we can test it. For example, if you say it is the ice cream that you find the most desirable we can objectively test a set of ice creams and see which one you crave the most. Heck we could even hook your brain up to a machine and see the response as you eat the ice cream.

nagirrac wrote: »

Yes, we can look at my brain but its not going to tell us the basis for my subjetive opinion on ice cream.

Why not?

If we see a particular big lights up when you taste something you claim to enjoy, we can see if it then lights up when you have strawberry or chocolate ice cream. If it lights up more which chocolate ice cream this would match the prediction.

nagirrac wrote: »

It actually might tell us my ice cream pleasure center lights up more when I eat a different flavor, but I still prefer chocolate chip.

Says who? There could be many explanations for why you claim to prefer chocolate. For example you could be lying.

The point is that once we tie this down to your experience we can start forming testable theories and thus it falls into the realm of science.

nagirrac wrote: »

Math is an example of something we can discover without using the scientific method. Math is derived totally from thinking and not based on empirical observations. Science obviously utilizes math, but although some philosophers disagree, I don't believe math is a science.

Maths is a formal science (as opposed to empirical science).

Empirical measurement is a tool in science. Science is concerned with discover of information in a manner that increases the confidence and accuracy of the information. Maths falls into this.

So again we are back to the original question, why are these others methodologies that you claim can discover the truth of claims about the reality we live in not included in science?

nagirrac wrote: »

Socities making decisions on what is moral or not, what is lawful or not, is not typically based on the scientific method, although it can be influenced by science.

And it is not something we know. No one knows if it is objectively correct to kill someone, or imprison someone. These are just our opinion on what we should do. We have no idea if it is true or not. The closest we can get to is knowing the objective outcome of such actions.

Again saying science cannot be applied to a claim (be it which is the best chocolate or whether it is right to imprison someone) is just another way of saying we cannot know the truth of a claim.

If we could figure out the truth of that claim in any serious fashion the method we used to figure that out would be part of the scientific method

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Properties of God's character rather than God as an object, tbf. In fact not even that most of what we believe to be true of God comes from revelation rather than deduction.

Either. You cannot infer anything from God's character from the universe he created because the rules you would use to do so come from this universe.

For example, say you say God must be benevolent since he created something in the first place. But you can only say that because in our experience the creative processes is (generally) an act of benevolence. But there is no requirement that God hold to that since it a rule that exists in this universe, it doesn't apply to anything outside of this universe.

Fanny Cradock

Why can't a thing apply in the universe and also outside of it?

For example, if we are talking about classical Christianity then the contention is that things like moral absolutes apply in both realms.