GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion

POSTED BY: CALHOUN
UPDATED: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 20:12
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 32300
PAGE 5 of 7

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:00 PM

ETHAN


Sorry double post.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:03 PM

ETHAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:

Originally posted by Calhoun:
I prefer to accept theories or information in general based on scientific evidence or factual data.



And therein lies your own set of unprovable beliefs.

Who says scientific data is the only kind of data that has evidentiary quality? Surely this is nothing more than epistemological imperialism. Much stock is given to the idea that only things that are empirically verifiable count as knowledge. But curiously, there's no way to empirically verify that idea!

Furthermore, the idea that only material things exist is also an unprovable hypothesis. Universal statements like that reduce to the form, "Given any X, X is physical." But that sort of universal is impossible to prove because to prove it, you'd have to have access to every X that currently exists, and ever did exist and ever will exist, and then you'd have to have a way to test all those Xs to see if they really were purely physical. And of course, it's ludicrous to think that we could ever gather all Xs for examination, and it's doubtful whether we're equipped to examine them all.

I guess the main point is that a purely scientific worldview rests on unprovable hypothesis, just like religion does. Its foundations rest on certain metaphysical and epistemological commitments which, though they be so widely repeated and so widely accepted as to appear to be beyond doubt, are really nothing more than the fruits of philosophical inquiry. To quote John Stuart Mill, "The truths which are ultimately accepted as the first principles of a science are really the last results of a metaphysical analysis."

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police



The above statement manages to illustrate a very flawed equivication at the heart of most arguements between believers and their detractors.

It's true science can probably never claim to prove anything absolutely. True science should never and would never claim to anything resembling epistemological imperialism. Rather science is valid in a range which varies in it's ability to predict. The greatest scientific theories are are the ones which manage to predict the most fantastic occurences sight unseen which sometimes don't become validated for decades at a time, as in the case of many of Einstein's prediction. Newton is the best example of science's measured worth through predictive range. The X's fundamentally ingrained in his equations fail on the quantum level, but these failings are immaterial to it's true worth in a range of predictive knowledge regarding gravity.

Theists often get it wrong when they try to equate the validity of scientific knowledge to the purely backward looking philosophies religions use to describe the existence of the natural world. That all crucial moment of creation is their first and final obsession...it's the true face of the 'causality' chain so central to the visions of theistic thinkers like Spinoza and Liebenitz. Science is not dependent on such foundational issues. Luckily(heh ironic)it just so happens to be the case, science's predictive values often work in both directions when it comes to temporal observations.

If I'm not mistaken, theism offers little by way of similar predictave value. It may try, but I don't think anyone's been bowled over by any one result yet. That said, it doesn't really need to. Religion often seems to derive it's greatest value out of foundational theories, whether used for justifying moral behavior or creating a sense of comfort and place in the vast universe. Faith is religion's function, which does not adhere to the logical apprehensions of time and space. Causality is a surprisingly weak principle inside the labratory.

The equivication difficulties for theists and their detractors continue beyond arguements of science. For one, nonbelief driven behavior does not equal atheism. Same can be said for overstated aethistic proclomations that deistic religions are at the root of evil. It would be more usefull for aethists to claim that evil is at the root of what enables religious thinking...and in turn religious thinking is often a mechanism which enables prolific amounts of evil to be perpatrated. Without staking a claim on either side...I do believe this is the articulation most anti-theist want to make. Evil is fundamentally a process of mistaken thinking. And I do personally believe deistic religions often perprate no small amount of evil when it tries to force the world around it to it's own shape...enforcing it's own predictions down upon us...red in the tooth and claw...rather than resigning itself to the rather benign meadows characterizing the eternal "waiting for god-o" that is faith.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:25 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I don't know.... I missed Casual's post the first time around but now after reading it I think it's pretty good.

Bottom line is I think both science and religion are bullshit. Or they are both real. Or one is right, while the other is wrong.


It takes a leap of faith to subscribe to either philosophy. There are things that happen in the Science world and observations made that I do happen to believe are true. Many claims Science has made are false and have even been proven false by other Science... and who's to say they won't someday be prooven true again by Science. There are also things that I've read in the Bible that I believe are true. There are also many things in the Bible I've read that I simply can't believe, or would have to seriously change the way I thought about everything else in my life to fully buy into.

As far as a Science vs. Religion debate goes, I really don't see how either side has much of an argument here at all. We're all just a bunch of lost souls latching onto something to legitimatize our otherwise pointless existances.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:29 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Quote:

I know you know what I'm saying.... being that in actuality you wouldn't even classify yourself as an Athiest


Actually I think that the Strong Agnostic subgroup fits better under the Atheist group then the Agnostic group, perhaps renamed as "Weak Atheist"? So by my own (obviously superior ) classification system I would fall under Atheism.



I thought some more about this as I was burning my fingers off in an attempt to consume some Taco Bell and I've come to the conclusion that the Strong Agnostic group isn't even a valid classification. The difference between Atheism and Strong Agnosticism is simply the admission of fallibility which has no bearing on beliefs. Thus the subgroup that used to be Strong Agnosticism would be folded into standard Atheism just with the caveat that we admit that we are fallible, which most atheists, 6ix's brother being an exception apparently, would be willing to stipulate.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2007 8:38 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


I don't think I'm grasping this Atheism concept then. I'm confused. Please define Atheism to me because I was under the impression that they flat out didn't believe in God, and I just don't know why you would be willing to go as far as to come right out and say "THERE IS NO GOD" without being absolutly sure that there wasn't a God. That's a big gamble to make if you're unsure.

I've been called a pussy for being Agnostic because I won't make up my mind, but I don't care. Personally, I think it's better to have an open mind. I take from Science and Religion what I feel are the good they have to offer and I discard the rest. Mulling all this shit over in my mind I find to be an excellent time waster.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:06 PM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I don't think I'm grasping this Atheism concept then. I'm confused. Please define Atheism to me because I was under the impression that they flat out didn't believe in God, and I just don't know why you would be willing to go as far as to come right out and say "THERE IS NO GOD" without being absolutly sure that there wasn't a God.



You are taking the admission of fallibility as a sign of being unsure when in reality it is simply the admission of fallibility. I am not a god, I do not know everything, thus to state that my conclusion is infallible would be amazingly arrogant and stupid. Your definition of atheism is correct, atheism is defined as the lack of belief in a god.

Quote:

That's a big gamble to make if you're unsure.


With the other option being Agnosticism? I really don't think that god would be much happier with "I don't there is a god but I'm not sure" then "There is no god, but I could be wrong". Personally I think Pascal's Wager is shit, if god is so vain that lip service to belief will do or so blind that he-she-it can be fooled by false belief then I think I'd rather kick it with Satan for eternity myself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:19 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by fredgiblet:
With the other option being Agnosticism? I really don't think that god would be much happier with "I don't there is a god but I'm not sure" then "There is no god, but I could be wrong". Personally I think Pascal's Wager is shit, if god is so vain that lip service to belief will do or so blind that he-she-it can be fooled by false belief then I think I'd rather kick it with Satan for eternity myself.



I don't think he would either. In the end, if I do decide that I'm a believer and I'm "born again", God will know that there was no difference between your views and mine. This is more for my benifit than anyone elses. It's so I don't look like a dumbass and have to eat a lifetime of words against God if I decide to go that route. Plus the more you say something the more true it becomes to you too. You are what you think. I'm just not ready to repeat "There is no God" over and over and over again. I haven't yet decided to take that road either.

With your definitions, there really doesn't seem to be any difference between the two anyhow. Neither an Agnostic or an Atheist knows what the hell is happening, but an Agnostic will admit they don't know while an Atheist will pretend vehemently that they do know, while having a little fine print clause saying that they could be wrong.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2007 9:53 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If you live a life without regret, and somehow it's in conflict with God's law, you go to hell. Without the factor of hell, you have just lived a life without regret. Seems freerer to me.



This is assuming that you are incapable of guilt and conscience free. Hannibal Lechter lived a life without regret.




Says who? It's perfectly possible to be at peace with one's life at the end of it. That doesn't mean certain things have not been regretted at a point or that no mistakes were made.



Unrelated to that:
After yesterday's heatwave has died down, I am less motivated to make a fuss about what amounts to be my own personal problem with the bible, so unless people are eager to keep discussing this (I doubt it), I'll be bowing out now and leaving this thread in peace.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2007 10:08 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


All I meant here was that while there is truth to the statements made about Religion and belief in God causing guilt, being free from God does not equate being free from guilt and regret. I'm sure you couldn't possibly believe that to be true. Humans do a lot of bad things and there are quite a few things I've done that I feel guilty about and stuff that I've said that I regret and I don't believe they are attached to God at all. I do not believe that if the concepts of God or Religion never existed that I would be free from guilt or regret.

Hannibal Lechter is an example of what it would be like to be free from guilt and regret. That would be pretty scary to have 6.5 Billion Hannabals roaming the world.


EDIT: I re-read your posts and it seems that you think that everyone has their regrets and makes mistakes (that's what you said last post). The reason I said anything in the first place was because of a line in your previous post:

"If you live a life without regret, and somehow it's in conflict with God's law, you go to hell. Without the factor of hell, you have just lived a life without regret. Seems freerer to me."

This is impossible for any sane individual, with or without God. Although because of your most recent post, I think you were speaking more ideologically here rather than literally.



"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2007 10:44 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

EDIT: I re-read your posts and it seems that you think that everyone has their regrets and makes mistakes (that's what you said last post). The reason I said anything in the first place was because of a line in your previous post:

"If you live a life without regret, and somehow it's in conflict with God's law, you go to hell. Without the factor of hell, you have just lived a life without regret. Seems freerer to me."

This is impossible for any sane individual, with or without God. Although because of your most recent post, I think you were speaking more ideologically here rather than literally.




I'll admit to a poor word choice there and say "If, at the end of your life, you can look back with acceptance and peace...[insert rest]"


I think it's possible to live a life that one doesn't have to feel sorry for at its end (and I include arrangements made with human society and its rules in there) that might stand in conflict with God's laws, and I dislike the notion of having to pay for that in hell fires, simply because my idea of good and God's idea of good aren't the same. If that's his idea of free will, he can bite me. That's not loving, that's controlling.

Which is basically my point.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2007 10:54 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

I think it's possible to live a life that one doesn't have to feel sorry for at its end (and I include arrangements made with human society and its rules in there) that might stand in conflict with God's laws, and I dislike the notion of having to pay for that in hell fires, simply because my idea of good and God's idea of good aren't the same. If that's his idea of free will, he can bite me. That's not loving, that's controlling.


I agree 100%. This is one of my biggest hurdles when trying to accept religion. I just can't buy that somebody who would create us and give us free will would at the same time try to control our thoughts and actions via the threat of eternal fire.

My Grandma says that "hellfire" is a relatively new concept and that to be denied entry into heaven was to exist eternally in nothing.... not exactly darkness, but kind of being alone with your thoughts forever. I imagine it like an eternity of Saturday detention. No talking, no sleeping, nothing to do but entertain yourself with your own thoughts. I'm not exactly sure if this is true or where she got it, but I prefer this over hellfire.

She is Episcopalian. She also says that it is not your acts that get you into heaven, as the Catholics would have us believe (which not coincidentally is her largest gripe with Catholics thinking they can buy their way into heaven), but it is simply acceptance and belief in God and letting him into your heart. She says that having this belief and love of God will lead you to making the right choices. Of course we are human and make mistakes and fall prey to our vices all of the time, but that is what forgiveness is for and if we ask, and really mean it, we shall recieve. When it's explained to me like that I feel a whole lot better about it.

If I ever went back to Christianity I don't think I'd ever follow Catholisism again. I do believe I'd have to do a bit of homework before choosing.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:19 PM

AGENTROUKA


Well, an eternity of lonesome nothingness doesn't exactly sound appealing, either. I'm fine exchanging eternal oblivion for that, really.


I want to say that, while these issues keep me from ever having a theistic faith, I have deep respect for people who do believe and practice religion. I am happy when people find what gives them peace inside, I know I have found it for myself.

So I wish you luck, whatever your spiritual path may end up being.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, May 26, 2007 11:48 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Thanks AR.... I wish the same for you and am glad for you that you have found it. Being one who is anything but centered and at peace internally, I know it must be great for anyone to have found it any way they can. I'd like to think that my own personal hells now will only leave me with a much greater appreciation for the balance and peace I hope to one day find.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 12:46 AM

MALACHITE


Hey Citizen,
You quoted me as saying we should weigh "only" the good in considering this. I haven't said that and apologize if I said anything like that. I am trying to point out that if we are going to discuss whether something is "The Root of All Evil", one aspect to consider is whether it has any good aspects or has done anything good for humanity.

Let me address your question about why I am focusing on whether people with religious beliefs (as opposed to atheists) have done any good. I was trying (for once) to stay on topic. Since the topic is about whether the "God delusion" and "religion is the root of all evil", I was focusing on whether people with theistic beliefs had done any good for humanity. If the topic had been, "Is atheism the root of all evil?", I would have focused more on the good people have done in the name of atheism.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 1:20 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Malachite:
Hey Citizen,
You quoted me as saying we should weigh "only" the good in considering this. I haven't said that and apologize if I said anything like that. I am trying to point out that if we are going to discuss whether something is "The Root of All Evil", one aspect to consider is whether it has any good aspects or has done anything good for humanity.

Sorry, you caught a bit of my Annoyance at Finn there, I'm afraid. Shouldn't have been directed at you.

What I was trying to say is that charity comes not only from religion.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:01 AM

MALACHITE


Calhoun: Perhaps it is a bit late in the discussion for this, but if we are going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil, we may need to define what evil is and whether there is such a thing as absolute evil. After we've done that, we may be able to assess whether an atheist like Dawkins really has the philosophical underpinings to claim that something is evil. What I mean is, how does an atheist claim something is evil and therefore wrong? Can an atheist deduce that there are certain absolute evils? How? I thought the morals an atheist could produce was a moral relativism like, "You can have your beliefs and do what you think is good and I'll believe what I want and do what I think is good". If that is the case, how can Dawkins say something is the root of evil when it might actually be defined by someone else as good. So, from his point of view, religion is the root of evil, but from a religious person's point of view, religion is the source of good. How can Dawkins determine who is really right? I think that in order to claim something is truly evil, you have to have some absolutes on what evil is. How does an atheist do this? (I hope I don't sound antagonistic here -- this is something I've really started getting curious about lately).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:12 AM

MALACHITE


Hey Citizen,
Thanks for the apology. I certainly agree that non-religious people can be charitible. I think that religious people can sometimes find it hard to acknowledge that non-religious people are capable of doing just as much good as the religious ones and that this is insulting and a shame.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:19 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I knew how to build a nuclear bomb by the end of High School.

No offence, but I seriously doubt that. I'm sure you knew how they work in principle, but there's no way you could've constructed one yourself given enough material. Nations that have the bomb spent years and millions of dollars until they finally got it right, and nations that don't have it spend years and millions of dollars on trying to develop it. If any kid from high school could build one, every nation and terrorist organisation on the planet would have had a nuclear arsenal ages ago. So that seems like a laughable comment to make.

But I digress, I realise that that wasn't your point. I have to be honest, I'm not sure anymore if this knowledge/free will thing is supposed to be an analogy or if you're seriously saying that knowledge is the root of all evil. If the former I'll just get to the underlined part of the following:
Quote:

And you don’t need to be taught “how” to build one, any student with a basic knowledge of first year college Physics, Chemistry and Calculus can figure it out.
This is where the knowledge/free will analogy (if it's an anlogy) breaks down. You say that a basic knowledge of science serves as a springboard for students to "figure out" how to build devices that can be used for evil purposes (bombs, guns, etc.). Yes, but that's because knowledge can be extended, since humans can learn. But this doesn't apply to a limited free will, since if free will is limited, there's no way for a human to extend it, pretty much by definition. Somebody couldn't one day "figure out" how to torture, since his limited free will would inherently bar him from thinking in that direction.
Quote:

By teaching our children we allow evil to flourish. So we should stop teaching our children?
If it's not an analogy:
i) Evil would flourish because the students would choose to use their education to do evil. It comes back to free will.
ii) So uneducated people can't do evil? An uneducated person has never raped, robbed or murdered? Only those that have received a standard education, expand on that in order to use it to build bombs and guns in their basement to be used for evil deeds are the ones engaging in such? So that's, what, 10^-5% of the population? Hardly enough to make evil flourish.
iii) If evil in the world could be eliminated by God limiting free will or by humans abolishing education (a ludicrous thought, education being the source of all evil, but let's go with it), then why is God waiting for humans to abolish education? Unless he wants us to, so that we can spend more time thinking about him and less time thinking about important stuff, and generally significantly decrease our quality of life. Which again contradicts the hypothesis of a benevolent God, one that deserves to be worshipped.

I'd say it's time for you to think of a new analogy/root of evil, this one's broken.



Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:31 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
Basically, since he has the power to have initially prevented humanity's capacity for evil by limiting free will from the get-go, or limiting free will after seeing all the carnage that results from unlimited free will (which he already would have known about in the beginning due to omniscience), it follows that since humanity still has the capacity for evil, and exercises it freely, that this must be part of God's plan, and since God's plan goes against the well-being of humanity, why should humanity worship him? People can believe in him if they wish, but why the worship?



Whoa, and we've just moved from philosophical to theological (which is an area where, like LeadB, I'm hesitant to go).

But that was my original point about a hundred posts ago, the one you orignally responded and that started this whole sub-discussion, that he's the root of all evil and therefore not worthy of worship. It was meant to be theological question (provoke people into thinking why they worship God) and a philosophical one as well (is a being that's the cause of one's misery worthy of adulation because of its perceived strengths?).
Quote:

I can say at least this: if God is perfect (and I think most religions take him to be) then above anything else, he is worthy of adulation.
It seems like omnibenevolence is assigned to a perfect being, but all evidence suggests that God isn't omnibenevolent. Is he still perfect?



Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:01 AM

CALHOUN


Quote:

Malachite wrote:
Sunday, May 27, 2007 02:01
Calhoun: Perhaps it is a bit late in the discussion for this, but if we are going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil, we may need to define what evil is and whether there is such a thing as absolute evil. After we've done that, we may be able to assess whether an atheist like Dawkins really has the philosophical underpinings to claim that something is evil. What I mean is, how does an atheist claim something is evil and therefore wrong? Can an atheist deduce that there are certain absolute evils? How? I thought the morals an atheist could produce was a moral relativism like, "You can have your beliefs and do what you think is good and I'll believe what I want and do what I think is good". If that is the case, how can Dawkins say something is the root of evil when it might actually be defined by someone else as good. So, from his point of view, religion is the root of evil, but from a religious person's point of view, religion is the source of good. How can Dawkins determine who is really right? I think that in order to claim something is truly evil, you have to have some absolutes on what evil is. How does an atheist do this? (I hope I don't sound antagonistic here -- this is something I've really started getting curious about lately).



I think its fair to say that someone who straps explosives to their body to blow up civilians in some sort of religious mission or someone who fly jets into buildings to kill as many civilians as possible in the name of allah.. is evil. If you disagree with this opinion then dont bother responding, you'll be dismissed as another religious nutjob..

You dont need any special qualifications to be able to recognise something as evil. To any reasonably intelligent person it should be obvious.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:04 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by ethan:
The above statement manages to illustrate a very flawed equivication at the heart of most arguements between believers and their detractors.

It's true science can probably never claim to prove anything absolutely. True science should never and would never claim to anything resembling epistemological imperialism. Rather science is valid in a range which varies in it's ability to predict. The greatest scientific theories are are the ones which manage to predict the most fantastic occurences sight unseen which sometimes don't become validated for decades at a time, as in the case of many of Einstein's prediction. Newton is the best example of science's measured worth through predictive range. The X's fundamentally ingrained in his equations fail on the quantum level, but these failings are immaterial to it's true worth in a range of predictive knowledge regarding gravity.

Theists often get it wrong when they try to equate the validity of scientific knowledge to the purely backward looking philosophies religions use to describe the existence of the natural world. That all crucial moment of creation is their first and final obsession...it's the true face of the 'causality' chain so central to the visions of theistic thinkers like Spinoza and Liebenitz. Science is not dependent on such foundational issues. Luckily(heh ironic)it just so happens to be the case, science's predictive values often work in both directions when it comes to temporal observations.

If I'm not mistaken, theism offers little by way of similar predictave value. It may try, but I don't think anyone's been bowled over by any one result yet. That said, it doesn't really need to. Religion often seems to derive it's greatest value out of foundational theories, whether used for justifying moral behavior or creating a sense of comfort and place in the vast universe. Faith is religion's function, which does not adhere to the logical apprehensions of time and space. Causality is a surprisingly weak principle inside the labratory.

The equivication difficulties for theists and their detractors continue beyond arguements of science. For one, nonbelief driven behavior does not equal atheism. Same can be said for overstated aethistic proclomations that deistic religions are at the root of evil. It would be more usefull for aethists to claim that evil is at the root of what enables religious thinking...and in turn religious thinking is often a mechanism which enables prolific amounts of evil to be perpatrated. Without staking a claim on either side...I do believe this is the articulation most anti-theist want to make. Evil is fundamentally a process of mistaken thinking. And I do personally believe deistic religions often perprate no small amount of evil when it tries to force the world around it to it's own shape...enforcing it's own predictions down upon us...red in the tooth and claw...rather than resigning itself to the rather benign meadows characterizing the eternal "waiting for god-o" that is faith.



Well, Ethan, you've missed my basic point. You seem to be taking me to be suggesting that religion can answer the same questions as science tries to answer, and if I were trying to claim such a thing, you'd be right to take me to task. Fortunately for me, that's not at all what I am saying.

My post was in response to the belief that theism is an inherently illogical set of beliefs because its foundation is, ultimately, something that is impossible to prove. This, the thinking goes, is irrational. Often, the folks who make these sorts of arguments use scientific knowledge in contrast to religious knowledge, and claim that as opposed to religion, the data of the sciences can be proven; hence, they are rational, and I am not.

In the first place, this sort of attitude is a result of a philosophical movement known as logical positivism. The basic belief of logical positivism is that nothing counts as knowledge unless it can be empirically verified. The fatal flaw of logical positivism is, of course, that the proposition, "nothing counts as knowledge unless it can be empirically verified" cannot be empirically verified! So for the most part, philosophers have abandoned logical positivism. Unfortunately, the demand for scientific verification remains in popular thought. But that demand suffers the same problem as the foundation of logical positivism.

In the second, my defense against the claim that religion is irrational because unprovable foundations consists in pointing to what I believe to be unprovable foundational beliefs of a purely scientific worldview. The two examples I used were dogmatic naturalism and material reductionism. But a further example might be useful: the Uniformity Principle (UP). According to the UP, natural laws will continue in the future to operate in the same way as they have been observed to operate in the past. Now this seems obvious. Why would anyone need to formalize something everyone already knows? The answer is that the UP is an attempt to overcome the problem of induction. The problem is this: in virtue of what are we justified in making predictions about the future based on our experiences of the past? David Hume first posed the problem in his groundbreaking Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding--he concluded that any attempt to prove the legitimacy of future expectations from past experience would be circular. That is, any argument attempting to justify the inductive method would commit the logical fallacy of begging the question, because it would have to assume the very thing it was trying to prove. For instance, saying something like, "I know induction is reliable because it's always worked in the past" assumes that past experience will continue to be reliable in the future, and the conclusion has been assumed, the question begged, and the argument fails. Now, I don't disagree that the UP is incredibly useful (in fact probably essential to getting along in life). But nevertheless, it cannot be proven. And that, Ethan, is my point.

Your fundamental mistake in responding to my post is that you assumed that I was equating religion and science in terms of their ability to describe the world and make predictions about it. But that's not my project. Religion and science treat on very different issues. To paraphrase Galileo, "The bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how heaven goes." So you've committed the straw man fallacy: you've erected a false version of my argument, then patted yourself on the back for defeating my "argument." My real assertion is this: any worldview, whether theistic or not, relies on certain foundational beliefs that are beyond proof. That is what I'm arguing. If you'd read my post thoroughly, I suspect you'd have realized that.

By the way, you may want to look up the definition of the fallacy of equivocation: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html If you're going to accuse someone of equivocating you may as well use the term correctly.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:09 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
iii) If evil in the world could be eliminated by God limiting free will or by humans abolishing education (a ludicrous thought, education being the source of all evil, but let's go with it), then why is God waiting for humans to abolish education? Unless he wants us to, so that we can spend more time thinking about him and less time thinking about important stuff, and generally significantly decrease our quality of life. Which again contradicts the hypothesis of a benevolent God, one that deserves to be worshipped.

This one seems to be in the firing line of a few Christian, and Muslim Fundementalist...



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:11 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Malachite:
Calhoun: Perhaps it is a bit late in the discussion for this, but if we are going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil, we may need to define what evil is and whether there is such a thing as absolute evil. After we've done that, we may be able to assess whether an atheist like Dawkins really has the philosophical underpinings to claim that something is evil. What I mean is, how does an atheist claim something is evil and therefore wrong? Can an atheist deduce that there are certain absolute evils? How? I thought the morals an atheist could produce was a moral relativism like, "You can have your beliefs and do what you think is good and I'll believe what I want and do what I think is good". If that is the case, how can Dawkins say something is the root of evil when it might actually be defined by someone else as good. So, from his point of view, religion is the root of evil, but from a religious person's point of view, religion is the source of good. How can Dawkins determine who is really right? I think that in order to claim something is truly evil, you have to have some absolutes on what evil is. How does an atheist do this? (I hope I don't sound antagonistic here -- this is something I've really started getting curious about lately).



Hear, hear!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:25 AM

LEADB


Malachite;
You ask how atheists (or agnostics, which I'll throw in since in most likely hood, that's where'd you'd throw me, tho it's a bit too simple for where I'm at) might try to determine good Vs. evil... as an -example- take a look at secular humanism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Note, I'm not necessarily adovacating it, just referencing it.
-----------------------

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:27 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Malachite:
I think that in order to claim something is truly evil, you have to have some absolutes on what evil is.

An absolute on what evil is, is not necessarily projected from the actions of 'an ultimate evil'.

I would say 'evil' is: that which stands as a barrier to the continuation of the species; with the directness, and scale of the action determining how 'evil' it is.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:34 AM

KHYRON


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I would say 'evil' is: that which stands as a barrier to the continuation of the species; with the directness, and scale of the action determining how 'evil' it is.

I don't know, in that case rape wouldn't be evil but good (since it's possible that the victim becomes pregnant and therefore aids the propagation of the species).

Evil is defined by society, regardless if the society is secular or theistic - what may be evil to some societies maybe be accepted in others, and vice versa. The only absolute evils are those evils that are condemned by every real society, and arguably every hypothetical society too.



Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:41 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
I don't know, in that case rape wouldn't be evil but good (since it's possible that the victim becomes pregnant and therefore aids the propagation of the species).

Rape is a violent act on another Human being, I'm not advocating that an evil act is simply a physical one. If I were, bullying someone mentally until they commit suicide couldn't be considered an 'evil' act.

Rape causes the victim very real psychological problems that extend to those around them, and far from increasing chances of procreation, due to a pregnancy from the act, I would submit it reduces it. How many rape victims end up not having children because they can't trust another Human being sexually after the rape?

It's an evil act, because it can have far reaching consequences for at least the victim, that reduce the possibility for the species survival.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:52 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Calhoun:

I think its fair to say that someone who straps explosives to their body to blow up civilians in some sort of religious mission or someone who fly jets into buildings to kill as many civilians as possible in the name of allah.. is evil. If you disagree with this opinion then dont bother responding, you'll be dismissed as another religious nutjob..

You dont need any special qualifications to be able to recognise something as evil. To any reasonably intelligent person it should be obvious.


To your first post, I would say suicide bombers taking out civilians is evil regardless of the religious motivations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam
you can read about a group who use suicide bombing not in the name of allah.

The second statement is somewhat more of a challenge. There will be points of agreement and points of disagreement. For instance, we agree that suicide bombers directed at (or even simply 'indifferent to') civilians are committing evil acts. I'm confident we can eventually find something we will disagree on. Since the contention of the original statement is 'all evil' I believe we can safely say no, as at least some evil is committed 'free and clear' of religious influence (what a shocker, eh?)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:56 AM

KHYRON


This is going to sound really horrible and I apologise for it, but it actually underlines my point that that definition isn't completely workable a bit more. So let's assume the rape victim isn't a healthy, fertile woman, let's assume instead that it's somebody who's a burden to society, a mentally handicapped person or an old pensioner long past child-bearing age. In a way, these acts would be considered to be even more evil by society than the rape of a healthy young woman, even though these two would be representative of people not actively contributing to the advancement of the society, perhaps even hindering it if it's a society that can't really afford to support them.



Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 3:58 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:

Originally posted by Malachite:
Calhoun: Perhaps it is a bit late in the discussion for this, but if we are going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil, we may need to define what evil is and whether there is such a thing as absolute evil. After we've done that, we may be able to assess whether an atheist like Dawkins really has the philosophical underpinings to claim that something is evil. What I mean is, how does an atheist claim something is evil and therefore wrong? Can an atheist deduce that there are certain absolute evils? How? I thought the morals an atheist could produce was a moral relativism like, "You can have your beliefs and do what you think is good and I'll believe what I want and do what I think is good". If that is the case, how can Dawkins say something is the root of evil when it might actually be defined by someone else as good. So, from his point of view, religion is the root of evil, but from a religious person's point of view, religion is the source of good. How can Dawkins determine who is really right? I think that in order to claim something is truly evil, you have to have some absolutes on what evil is. How does an atheist do this? (I hope I don't sound antagonistic here -- this is something I've really started getting curious about lately).



Hear, hear!


I really don't want to go too far down this path, personally, I think it is silly to try and prove the 'title' of this thread as true. It is patently false.

While certainly we can refine what is good and evil, I'm willing to wager you will find that of those posting here, once all the 'fireworks are done', we will agree on 90% what constitutes good Vs. evil.

Since the topic is "going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil" I can close this topic down immediately. The answer is no. Sad to say, I'm not perfect. I have committed evil, and said evil is not, and was not, religiously inspired, motivated, intitiated, caused, or any other way tied to religion. I will say I regret such occaisions, and do henceforth intend to reduce my evil and increase my good. However, this is sufficient to prove the point, you really don't need anything more.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 4:05 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
I would say 'evil' is: that which stands as a barrier to the continuation of the species; with the directness, and scale of the action determining how 'evil' it is.


So which is more evil: using a birth control pill which fairly directly reduces the number of people? Or not using the pill; which while in the short term reduces the number of people, but in the long run may prevent a population spike which will ultimately drive a population crash from which we might not recover?

Who decides this? Personal decision, which is driven by factors which often have little to do with the impact to the world; or by the state, which is trying to keep catastrophy at bay?

I will note that the USA has taken a very different path on this matter than, say, China.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 4:11 AM

KHYRON


LeadB, thanks for finding a counterexample that's less revolting than mine.

By the propagation of the species argument, birth control, one-child policies, etc. could be considered more evil than anything else.

Birth rates in Europe would suggest that even the combination of peace, education and female emancipation would be regarded as evil.



Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 4:37 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
This is going to sound really horrible and I apologise for it, but it actually underlines my point that that definition isn't completely workable a bit more. So let's assume the rape victim isn't a healthy, fertile woman, let's assume instead that it's somebody who's a burden to society, a mentally handicapped person or an old pensioner long past child-bearing age. In a way, these acts would be considered to be even more evil by society than the rape of a healthy young woman, even though these two would be representative of people not actively contributing to the advancement of the society, perhaps even hindering it if it's a society that can't really afford to support them.

It's rather disturbing you see it that way, or you're just stretching to find reasons why that definition is wrong .

In a species that relies on cooperation to survive, attacking weaker members is detrimental to the survival of the overall cooperative, even if it may seem at first to be an action, on the face of it, that strengthens the speicies.

What a burden Stephen Hawking is, on those of us more physically able, eh.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 4:55 AM

KHYRON


i) I wasn't stretching, it was well in line with my initial rape counterexample. See LeadB's post to see that counterexamples are easy to come by.
ii) I really don't see how, generally, weaker members of a species help to advance it, no matter how social the species. But fine, let's say an old lady living alone in the woods who hasn't had anything to do with society in decades one day gets raped in her log cabin. That's an act that would still be considered evil by society, even though she wasn't part of society and didn't contribute to its advancement.
iii) I said mentally handicapped, and I'm betting you know that too. I respect you, Citizen, but don't twist my arguments around, I can get very grumpy with people if they do that.
iv) Bored now, so I'll exit this discussion for a bit.



Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 5:43 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
i) I wasn't stretching, it was well in line with my initial rape counterexample.

Please forgive me, I meant no offence, it just seems that you are determined to find 'counterexamples' without fully thinking through the ramifications.
Quote:

See LeadB's post to see that counterexamples are easy to come by.
I don't see it as a counter example at all. I explain further in my next post.
Quote:

ii) I really don't see how, generally, weaker members of a species help to advance it, no matter how social the species. But fine, let's say an old lady living alone in the woods who hasn't had anything to do with society in decades one day gets raped in her log cabin. That's an act that would still be considered evil by society, even though she wasn't part of society and didn't contribute to its advancement.
Who said anything about the advancement of society? I was talking about the survival of the species, the two are not the same thing. Would the advancement of the Nazi state be cogent to the overall survival of the species?

The point is in order to assume this isn't evil under my definition you have to look at it in a very specific, and narrow way, and ignore the ramifications.
Quote:

iii) I said mentally handicapped, and I'm betting you know that too. I respect you, Citizen, but don't twist my arguments around, I can get very grumpy with people if they do that.
I'm sorry if you saw it that way, but my intention was never to twist your argument. I had no comment on your argument with my statement about Hawking at all, I was making my own point. The argument *could* be made that Stephen Hawking was nothing more than a burden on the species, due to his physical ailments. Yet if you take all factors into account his contribution is far from restricted to the physical.

This works with the mentally handicapped as well. I rather suspect the way we currently treat the mentally handicapped, although ostensibly humane, may be considered 'evil' by future generations. By merely placing them in institutions, or treating them for perceived faults, we may be preventing them from realising potential we can't currently quantify, in the same way Stephen Hawking would likely have been prevented from realising his potential in past centuries.
Quote:

iv) Bored now, so I'll exit this discussion for a bit.
Your choice, I apologise if you thought I was trying to insult you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 5:43 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
So which is more evil: using a birth control pill which fairly directly reduces the number of people? Or not using the pill; which while in the short term reduces the number of people, but in the long run may prevent a population spike which will ultimately drive a population crash from which we might not recover?

If neither is producing mental, or physical harm to either individuals, or the cooperative, and neither through incidence or design can lead to over population nor a population crash then by my definition neither are 'evil'.

The criteria are fixed, but the actions aren't, necessarily. For instance I once read a Dystopian future novel, where one of the characters was lamenting the evils of private housing. From their situation it is absolutely true, private housing reduces the share of living space for the majority, and increases the chance of disease, amongst other things.

The problem is you're asking if something is evil, devoid of it's repercussions, intent, and environment. Is taking food from someone suffering from an over eating disorder 'evil' in the sense that it will harm them? No, it's actually helping them, and so leads to aiding the overall survival of the species. Conversely, would taking food from a starving person be 'evil'?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 6:06 AM

KHYRON


Well, at this point in time there's no way that murder and rape and the like will have an impact on the survival of a highly successful species such as humans, and as such, by the proposed definition, wouldn't be evil, so I thought that you were talking about advancement of society in the context of humans. But you're not, so in that case replace "advancement of society" with "survival of the species" in my old-lady-in-the-woods example.
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:Your choice, I apologise if you thought I was trying to insult you.
I don't and there's no need to apologise, I'm genuinely bored at the moment, need to think about some other stuff for a while. Too bad the French Open is rained out, although I do have some studying to do...

But I'll give your argument another think-through later tonight, although at the moment I can't see my position changing. See you later (or tomorrow).





Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 6:33 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
So which is more evil: using a birth control pill which fairly directly reduces the number of people? Or not using the pill; which while in the short term reduces the number of people, but in the long run may prevent a population spike which will ultimately drive a population crash from which we might not recover?

If neither is producing mental, or physical harm to either individuals, or the cooperative, and neither through incidence or design can lead to over population nor a population crash then by my definition neither are 'evil'.

The criteria are fixed, but the actions aren't, necessarily.


It appears I failed to provide enough context; for which I appologize.
Earlier, Citizen asserted: "I would say 'evil' is: that which stands as a barrier to the continuation of the species; with the directness, and scale of the action determining how 'evil' it is."

Quote:


The problem is you're asking if something is evil, devoid of it's repercussions, intent, and environment.


Um, it wasn't devoid of repercussions, though of course had assumptions. Assumption: 'overpopulation can drive a population crash.'
Quote:


Is taking food from someone suffering from an over eating disorder 'evil' in the sense that it will harm them? No, it's actually helping them, and so leads to aiding the overall survival of the species. Conversely, would taking food from a starving person be 'evil'?


I have perceived I was in error in offering a counter to the 'rape' discussion. I'm prolonging a discussion which I've personally already considered resolved; which is 'Is religion the root of all evil?', which which I'm quite clear the answer is 'no'. I believe this attempt to define evil is, while perhaps ammusing, is not likely to help in answering the question on the floor.

(Minor note: Simply taking food from someone with an eating disorder is not necessarily helpful to the person. I know what you meant, though; just don't like to see that sterotype re-inforced.)

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 7:24 AM

FREDGIBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
With your definitions, there really doesn't seem to be any difference between the two anyhow.



An Atheist who admits they are fallible believes there is no god but understands that they are not perfect and thus could be wrong, an Agnostic doesn't believe either way.

And I just thought of something else too. The assumption that denying god is dangerous rests on the assumption that if god exists he-she-it-they is vindictive about non-belief. I'm not a religious scholar but I've read a little bit about a few different religions and of the ones I've read about vindictiveness for non-belief seems to be in the minority by a fair margin.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 7:42 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:
I really don't want to go too far down this path, personally, I think it is silly to try and prove the 'title' of this thread as true. It is patently false.

While certainly we can refine what is good and evil, I'm willing to wager you will find that of those posting here, once all the 'fireworks are done', we will agree on 90% what constitutes good Vs. evil.

Since the topic is "going to discuss whether the "God Delusion" is the root of all evil" I can close this topic down immediately. The answer is no. Sad to say, I'm not perfect. I have committed evil, and said evil is not, and was not, religiously inspired, motivated, intitiated, caused, or any other way tied to religion. I will say I regret such occaisions, and do henceforth intend to reduce my evil and increase my good. However, this is sufficient to prove the point, you really don't need anything more.



I think my interest in Malachite's proposal stems less from its utility in the discussion at hand and more from my interest in the topic as such. I think it warrants an entry into our string of Important Conversations.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 8:05 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
I think my interest in Malachite's proposal stems less from its utility in the discussion at hand and more from my interest in the topic as such. I think it warrants an entry into our string of Important Conversations.


Then I'd suggest a fresh thread.
1) This one is getting awful long.
2) I'm not 100% clear those wishing to discuss the current topic are done; and it will help keep folks from being confused if they come in based of this thread's introduction.
3) By clearly introducing the topic to be discussed, it will help keep a clearly focussed discussion; and trust me, you are going to need something to keep a discussion like this on track ;-)

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 8:22 AM

ETHAN


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:

Well, Ethan, you've missed my basic point. You seem to be taking me to be suggesting that religion can answer the same questions as science tries to answer, and if I were trying to claim such a thing, you'd be right to take me to task. Fortunately for me, that's not at all what I am saying.

My post was in response to the belief that theism is an inherently illogical set of beliefs because its foundation is, ultimately, something that is impossible to prove. This, the thinking goes, is irrational. Often, the folks who make these sorts of arguments use scientific knowledge in contrast to religious knowledge, and claim that as opposed to religion, the data of the sciences can be proven; hence, they are rational, and I am not.

In the first place, this sort of attitude is a result of a philosophical movement known as logical positivism. The basic belief of logical positivism is that nothing counts as knowledge unless it can be empirically verified. The fatal flaw of logical positivism is, of course, that the proposition, "nothing counts as knowledge unless it can be empirically verified" cannot be empirically verified! So for the most part, philosophers have abandoned logical positivism. Unfortunately, the demand for scientific verification remains in popular thought. But that demand suffers the same problem as the foundation of logical positivism.

In the second, my defense against the claim that religion is irrational because unprovable foundations consists in pointing to what I believe to be unprovable foundational beliefs of a purely scientific worldview. The two examples I used were dogmatic naturalism and material reductionism. But a further example might be useful: the Uniformity Principle (UP). According to the UP, natural laws will continue in the future to operate in the same way as they have been observed to operate in the past. Now this seems obvious. Why would anyone need to formalize something everyone already knows? The answer is that the UP is an attempt to overcome the problem of induction. The problem is this: in virtue of what are we justified in making predictions about the future based on our experiences of the past? David Hume first posed the problem in his groundbreaking Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding--he concluded that any attempt to prove the legitimacy of future expectations from past experience would be circular. That is, any argument attempting to justify the inductive method would commit the logical fallacy of begging the question, because it would have to assume the very thing it was trying to prove. For instance, saying something like, "I know induction is reliable because it's always worked in the past" assumes that past experience will continue to be reliable in the future, and the conclusion has been assumed, the question begged, and the argument fails. Now, I don't disagree that the UP is incredibly useful (in fact probably essential to getting along in life). But nevertheless, it cannot be proven. And that, Ethan, is my point.

Your fundamental mistake in responding to my post is that you assumed that I was equating religion and science in terms of their ability to describe the world and make predictions about it. But that's not my project. Religion and science treat on very different issues. To paraphrase Galileo, "The bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how heaven goes." So you've committed the straw man fallacy: you've erected a false version of my argument, then patted yourself on the back for defeating my "argument." My real assertion is this: any worldview, whether theistic or not, relies on certain foundational beliefs that are beyond proof. That is what I'm arguing. If you'd read my post thoroughly, I suspect you'd have realized that.

By the way, you may want to look up the definition of the fallacy of equivocation: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html If you're going to accuse someone of equivocating you may as well use the term correctly.

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police



Well just as you claim I misread your post Causal, I think you've done just the same with mine. We almost reitrated each other albeit with some key arguements as exceptions. One of the reasons I ended decided only on a philosophy minor is my distaste for sticking mostly with officially recognized versions of an arguement. While I really do appreaciate a good reference like anybody else, having to cite every Joe 'continentalist' when performing mental gymnastics I find for me at least, stiflingly rigid.

I, like you don't want people to compare religion's foundational goals with science's predictave function. I differ from you however, when I laid out my arguement that any scientific absolute foundational claim is immaterial and a nonstarter to scrutiny of science itself, in fact it's not science at all. The Uniform Priniciple is very like a foundational arguement that has little to no application to science. Scientific predictions, most often in the fields of physics and astronomy...although sometimes in biochemistry...are created without any previous or neccessarily similar-type observations. The very definition of predicition. Rather predicitons extrapolate from current observations. Theories on why something we see is happening, lead to suggestions and implications for new observations never seen or linked before. The Uniform Principle, by your definition, is not useful when formulating heretofore unseen activity. These theories then become science fact only after they became observable, and it can be ruled out no other thing can be linked to their occurence. Examples include, the existence of genes. One could have predicted their existence based on the activities of Gregor Mendel. But the ability to see and manipulate genes on a chemical scale didn't become a reality until hundreds of years later.

I wasn't trying to cite an official 'arguement for equivacation,' merely I was just trying to say an erroneous equivication such a this often occurs in these religion versus science arguements. Though again, I do appreciate recieving a good reference...you won't often find me doling them out. I try to justify my arguements in of themselves on the same page.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 9:56 AM

CAUSAL


Quote:

Originally posted by ethan:
The Uniform Priniciple is very like a foundational arguement that has little to no application to science. Scientific predictions, most often in the fields of physics and astronomy...although sometimes in biochemistry...are created without any previous or neccessarily similar-type observations. The very definition of prediction. Rather predicitons extrapolate from current observations. Theories on why something we see is happening, lead to suggestions and implications for new observations never seen or linked before. The Uniform Principle, by your definition, is not useful when formulating heretofore unseen activity.



But isn't it the case that scientists wouldn't be able to make accurate predictions about what will happen unless they assume that in the future (or the far distant past) the laws of nature will remain the same as they are now? I mean, if that's not the case, then we couldn't make predictions about how long it will take a penny to drop from the top of a bridge, or how loud the speaker in a car will be. "Extrapolation" seems to depend exactly on the uniformity of nature. Because if nature were variable, there'd be no way to make such extrapolations. Take astrophysics for instance. If we want to launch a rover to Mars and have it touch down in a particular place, we'll have to make all sorts of calculations about when, where, and how to launch the rover. But if we can't assume that gravititational attraction (for instance) will remain constant, then all bets are off. Of course, there's no way to prove that gravitational attraction will remain constant--we just assume that it will. And although you're right that predictions are qualitatively different than launching a Mars rover, it seems that the predictive activity of the sciences is strictly bounded within certain norms; namely, natural laws.

Interesting coversation, anyway. You could be right, btw--we might have talked straight past each other back there. Wouldn't be the first time I've done that!

________________________________________________________________________

- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 11:14 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:

Originally posted by ethan:
The Uniform Priniciple is very like a foundational arguement that has little to no application to science. Scientific predictions, most often in the fields of physics and astronomy...although sometimes in biochemistry...are created without any previous or neccessarily similar-type observations. The very definition of prediction. Rather predicitons extrapolate from current observations. Theories on why something we see is happening, lead to suggestions and implications for new observations never seen or linked before. The Uniform Principle, by your definition, is not useful when formulating heretofore unseen activity.



But isn't it the case that scientists wouldn't be able to make accurate predictions about what will happen unless they assume that in the future (or the far distant past) the laws of nature will remain the same as they are now? I mean, if that's not the case, then we couldn't make predictions about how long it will take a penny to drop from the top of a bridge, or how loud the speaker in a car will be. "Extrapolation" seems to depend exactly on the uniformity of nature. Because if nature were variable, there'd be no way to make such extrapolations. Take astrophysics for instance. If we want to launch a rover to Mars and have it touch down in a particular place, we'll have to make all sorts of calculations about when, where, and how to launch the rover. But if we can't assume that gravititational attraction (for instance) will remain constant, then all bets are off. Of course, there's no way to prove that gravitational attraction will remain constant--we just assume that it will. And although you're right that predictions are qualitatively different than launching a Mars rover, it seems that the predictive activity of the sciences is strictly bounded within certain norms; namely, natural laws.

Interesting coversation, anyway. You could be right, btw--we might have talked straight past each other back there. Wouldn't be the first time I've done that!


"But isn't it the case that scientists wouldn't be able to make accurate predictions about what will happen unless they assume that in the future (or the far distant past) the laws of nature will remain the same as they are now?"
No; and yes. It used to be thought that the speed of light was a constant; instead, we learn it is a function of the medium in which it travels. Time was thought to flow smoothly and uniformly; however, we have found that time is affected by gravitation. I believe the most potent counter arguement to your general approach is that if science properly understood nature, and the laws of nature change over time, then science properly predicts how long it will take a penny to fall to drop from the top of a bridge at a particular point in time. Of course, one assumes some constants like "the earth still has an atmosphere of approximately the same nature, etc." e=mc**2, right? Maybe. It's an approximation, nothing more. It is useful under most circumstances.

Regarding the distant past, most discussion around the big bang do discuss some deviations from conventional physics; and thus imply that the laws of physics do change under extreme circumstances. For example, time is believe to change its flow as one approaches the speed of light. The laws of physics around black holes is expected to change, in some ways, which scientists think they have some grasp on.

So, let's take the ideal gas law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law pV = nRT. It is useful to make predictions; however, any good scientist will tell you that it is an approximation. And that particularly "R" is of interest because we really don't understand it.
R is the gas constant [8.314472 m3·Pa·K-1·mol-1] { the 3, -1 and -1 are all powers, blasted 'simple text' ;-) }
Why is R 8.31... rather than 8.32... no idea; it is. It is called an "experimentally determined value" Let's say we woke up tomorrow and found that if we measured R it was now 9. Nice even number, makes the math a -heck- of a lot easier. Does that means science was 'wrong', no it does not. It was never maintained that R was anything other than a measured value. If we can survive that, it would engender a great deal of research, I'm sure.

Let's say today, e=mc. Well, that would be unfortunate, and you are going to die. Our sun would put out the "square root" of the energy it used to, and the poor planet earth dies a chilly death. Perhaps if we had understood physics (read laws of nature) better we would have expected the change; pehaps e=mc**2 only if you are "so close" to the galatic core due to reasons no one has yet determined.

At this point, we don't know of any reason for the the above mentioned to change, and most notably, not in the directions (or especially -degree-) to which I've indicated.

If your point is, I cannot 'accurately' predict how long it will take a penny to fall from a bridge +/- 2 seconds 30 years from now (and you will have to grant any reasonable number of assumptions like 'The bridge exists' and the 'water level is still the same height below it'), I'd be willing to make a fair wager I could. And if the laws of nature change over time such I'm off by 2 seconds, I will still only grant it was a failure of man to understand properly the laws of nature.

Does this add anything to the discussion?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 11:25 AM

LEADB


Ah, found it. Sorry, first time I googled "Uniform Principle" My bad, mis-remembered it when I typed it in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_uniformity

Oh I see your point. Sorta. Its an assumption. We need to verify it. If you would be so kind as to fund a probe to a far distant galaxy so we can measure the constants of nature in a different local, we will be much beholding to you.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:29 PM

LEADB



Apparently, there's some assessment regarding at least one of the constants for change over time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Is_the_fine_struc
ture_constant_really_constant.3F

Is the fine structure constant really constant?

If it is found to be changing over time, if a formulatic expression of the change over time can be determined, it can be included into the scientific model to reflect change over time and thus improve future predictions. Of course if one is working in a small enough reference that the variation would not affect it, it can be left out of a particular model as it will not significantly affect the outcome.

Sorry, I really haven't followed the latest on physics, and having graduated from college 20 years ago is starting to tell.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 5:04 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
No offence, but I seriously doubt that. I'm sure you knew how they work in principle, but there's no way you could've constructed one yourself given enough material. Nations that have the bomb spent years and millions of dollars until they finally got it right, and nations that don't have it spend years and millions of dollars on trying to develop it. If any kid from high school could build one, every nation and terrorist organisation on the planet would have had a nuclear arsenal ages ago. So that seems like a laughable comment to make.

No offense taken. Most people have a hard time believing a nuclear device could be so simple, but it’s not the actual exploding part of the technology that causes years and millions of dollars of research. In any event...
Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
But I digress, I realise that that wasn't your point. I have to be honest, I'm not sure anymore if this knowledge/free will thing is supposed to be an analogy or if you're seriously saying that knowledge is the root of all evil. If the former I'll just get to the underlined part of the following:

I’m not saying that knowledge is the root of all evil. I’m saying that schools are the root of all evil because they provide students the foundation upon which can be built the means to perform great evil. And this is an analogy to the extent that you’re claiming that god is the root of all evil because god has provided his people with the foundation (free will) to perform great evil. But with the knowledge that we teach our students, so can great good be done. Just as, with the free will provided by god, so can great good be done. It comes down to choice, exactly as you stated:
Quote:

Originally posted by Khyron:
i) Evil would flourish because the students would choose to use their education to do evil. It comes back to free will.

So if you’re not prepared to blame the schools, why are you prepared to blame god?

And to clarify an earlier analogy that I made concerning the “evil” of the animal kingdom. Lions act on instinct, not free will. When a lion kills or drives off the Alpha of a pride, it instinctively kills all the cubs in that pride, so that it can populate the pride with its own offspring. This is driven by instinctive behavior, but you don’t consider this evil, purely because it is instinctive. But the same behavior from humans would be evil, purely because of free will? So what gives? What does it mean for god to eliminate the ability to do evil?



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 5:57 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
If you live a life without regret, and somehow it's in conflict with God's law, you go to hell. Without the factor of hell, you have just lived a life without regret. Seems freerer to me.

How? They are equally free. In both cases, you live a life without regret.

It seems to me that your issue with religion is that you don’t want to be reminded that there are consequences to your actions, but there are, and if you ignore those consequences, you may live a much shorter then expected. Religion is simply a metaphor for reality.



Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 7:52 PM

ETHAN


Quote:

Originally posted by leadb:

Does this add anything to the discussion?



Wow. I should think so.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, May 27, 2007 11:17 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
How? They are equally free. In both cases, you live a life without regret.



But in one case you face an additional punishment that lasts all eternity. How is there not a difference?

Quote:


It seems to me that your issue with religion is that you don’t want to be reminded that there are consequences to your actions, but there are, and if you ignore those consequences, you may live a much shorter then expected. Religion is simply a metaphor for reality.



It's not the consequences to actions I have a problem with. It's the externally imposed after-life judgment according to just one POV, who I have no reason to consider actually benevolent.

I have no problem with religion as a metaphor. It's the literal interpretation and personification of God as a sentient, judging entity that I have a problem with.

God = one path to heaven. Rest = hell.

I simply don't think that there is only one correct path to lead a life without huge conflict with society. I think you can live well and truly happily without honoring your parents, or without any kind of holiday. Or with lots and lots of Gods. Or, say, cussing out God's name when you feel unhappy with the fact that he made you without legs or some such.

The rules we create withion our society leave us greater freedom, generally, and if they don't, we have the theoretical choice to leave that society. You can't just opt out of hell.

It's the demand for worship and obedience, while giving the bogus choice of free will. It causes me to reject theistic religion.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL