navneet1990
- 78
- 0
which point??
Last edited:
Empiricism is measurable observable, directly inferable facts about our world. The world which affects us. The one thing which matters to us all...reality. Anything which isn't measurable, observable or directly inferable can only be described as 'imagined' and hence part of a dream world.Hurkyl said:*gasp* You did it again! And here I was thinking you couldn't use empiricism to circularly justify science.
What does "dream world" have to do with anything? It doesn't seem to follow from anything you've said today.
Actually he quite clearly explains what his objectives are. They are not to target extremist religions (although obviously he uses them in his discussion of the consequences of religion). He isn't just trying to target christianity judaism etc. He is systematically arguing that any belief system, ANY belief system, is a scientific statement.navneet1990 said:ive not read his book but from what i read he has been targeting what he believes are religion and says that they are harmful for society.
ohk so i tolerate him
what next he targets christianity,judaism,islam etc.
that is what I've read from the reviews
Organised religions bring about toleration of irrational precepts which allow extreme people to build up extreme ideas, therefore opening up much greater possibility for fundamentalist murderers, suicide bombers etc.navneet1990 said:ohk so he thinks these are organised religions and they are not suited for growth and all
Yes. But he does spend most of his energy on christianity because that is the civilisation we live in, the dominant religion of the english language, and the most popular religion. But all religions are treated equally, and the point is the same across the whole table. Christianity is as unlikely as hinduism is as unlikely as Apollo and Zeus.navneet1990 said:when you talk about religion arent you supposed to include all
i mean either you define religion properly...and then attack or you don't altogether..
what about religions like hinduism,buddhism,jainism,other eastern great "religions"
is there a mention of such religions in his so called "BOOK"?
Wrong. Simply wrong.navneet1990 said:so what i infer is that he is some kitty who is i should say trying to prove his santity by disproving others by avoiding those who become a hurdle in his path..
isnt that now soo unscientific...
also by the looks of it he seems to be the biggest threat to humans than hitler...
Actually its quite the opposite. Religion is the eternally avoided question. People just assume the answer everytime they get into it. Dawkins is actually tackling one of the most difficult questions ever because it is about time someone stood up and did it.navneet1990 said:im jus saying that richard is like a kid solving sums
if they are too hard he's avoided them
No, nothing wrong with the definition of religion, infact it has nothing to do with the definition of religion. Dawkins is a scientist and he is dedicated to the truth. So forget religion, let's talk about the truth. Does God exists? In reality? No.navneet1990 said:while attacking the others with full vigour...
he and a lot of people have got their definition of religion wrong...
no wonder such a thing was inevitable...
but its stilll a good read i guess...
Okay, good. Now, to move onto a stickier question...Another God said:While choosing to use empiricism to find out about our universe is a metaphysical choice (maybe we are in the matrix and our experienced world is not the 'real' world), so long as it produces empirical results, it is indeed being used circularly to justify itself.
Trying to use philosophy? Extra, extra, ask Feynman all about it :DHurkyl said:You believe in empiricism.
I expect you believe in rationalism too.
You appear to have the belief that all knowledge must either come from empiricism and rationalism.
Why do you think that?
He discusses the general idea of "gods", and sais that the probability of existence of any "gods" is very little.. as little as the existence of ogres and tooth fairies. This applies to all supernatural religions.navneet1990 said:ive not read his book but from what i read he has been targeting what he believes are religion and says that they are harmful for society.
ohk so i tolerate him
(Putting my Ancient Greek hat on)[/color] That Zeus exists is a fact, not a supposition, so you'll get no argument from me.SF said:It's either real or it's a supposition. That's my philosophy.
Every religion that contains supposition instead of fact is a delusion, according to Dawkins.
sneez said:by the way, atheism is a belief just like any other belief. What cannt you understand about it?
Tony11235 said:Sorry for the late post. It is just me or do most of us here describe atheism as the absence of belief and presence of reason and skepticism? I know I do.
Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.Tony11235 said:Sorry for the late post. It is just me or do most of us here describe atheism as the absence of belief and presence of reason and skepticism? I know I do.
Hurkyl said:Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.
I never understood, maybe you can explain -- what is the point of recent attempts to redefine atheism to include agnosticism?Another God said:No, agnosticism describes someone who cannot make up their mind eitherway. They are not sure. Atheism is no belief in a God. It a passive position, although you can take an active position and assert that there cannot be any gods, which sis till technically atheism, but subtly different, and hence why some people prefer to call that strong atheism.
Atheism in its most straight forward form is a passive lack of belief and requires no justification. Every human is born an atheist, and is free to choose their beliefs from that moment forwards.
Hurkyl said:Absense of belief is called agnosticism. Atheism is the belief that deities do not exist.
Hurkyl said:I never understood, maybe you can explain -- what is the point of recent attempts to redefine atheism to include agnosticism?
Now why do you think that?Tony11235 said:When it comes to proposing a god, one has to be agnostic.
...
But like many have said, it's no different than saying that I have an invisible friend.
Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?So one might as well lean towards the likelihood non-existence.
Hurkyl said:Now why do you think that?
Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?
I don't see how you could, if the issue is unknowable. That's what unknowable means! If you could assign a probability, then that provides some degree of knowledge.Tony11235 said:Can we not assign a probability of likelihood to proposals such as a supernatural being?Hurkyl said:Now, this I don't follow. If you believe something is unknowable, then shouldn't you believe that it's fallacious to make an assumption in either direction?
Hurkyl said:Er, to which part are you replying? I'll assume this:I don't see how you could, if the issue is unknowable. That's what unknowable means! If you could assign a probability, then that provides some degree of knowledge.
What do u consider evidence? One has to be careful not to define it in such a way that it rules out god by definition. Here's a suggestion for judging arguments 'against' and 'for' the existence of god:Another God said:If I knew of any evidence for God, I'd believe. But there is 0, so atheism is much more reasonable.
In some areas, the progress has been significant. In other areas, I don't see much progress.0TheSwerve0 said:Do you think the progress we've made in the U.S. is pretty good or just ok?
I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena. Simple.PIT2 said:What do u consider evidence? One has to be careful not to define it in such a way that it rules out god by definition.
I'm fond of the Burning Bush, myself. =)Another God said:I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena. Simple.
Show me a booming voice from the clouds. Show me clouds reshaping themselves to spell out "God exists", show me miracles which simply cannot be part of physics...there is an endless list of possibilities of how a God could assert itself as real, and more importantly a whole universe of time and space for it to happen in anyway. But instead we get this very stable very predictable continuity.
Boy, boy, don't you know that strawman argument is illogical? :)Hurkyl said:(Putting my Ancient Greek hat on)[/color] That Zeus exists is a fact, not a supposition, so you'll get no argument from me.
It wasn't meant as an analogy. You explicitly assume that experiment is the only source of truth. (I'm surprised you don't accept reason!) And thus, your argument means absolutely nothing to someone who assumes that there are other sources of truth. The devout ancient Greek doesn't suppose that Zeus exists: it's a fact he's learned from his religous teachings.SF said:Your analogy (as any other analogy) is invalid, but I like the fact that you introduced Zeuss :)
There is as much proof for the existence of Zeus as there is for the existence of YHWH or the yellow-pink uniflop. (what I just did was an enumeration/example not an analogy!).
Is "proof" a scientific term? No, science is based on interpreting proof as accurately as possible, but proof is something in itself. Proof reffers to results. You do something and you get the same result over and over again.
Sheesh, not only do you reject my religion, but you reject my profession too?Another God said:I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena.
Hurkyl said:Sheesh, not only do you reject my religion, but you reject my profession too?(mathematician)
I am not a native English speaker and in my native language they are much more similar.Hurkyl said:Incidentally, I don't think "proof" is the word you wanted to use -- I'm used to that word specifically meaning what you do when you use reason to get evidence for something. Experiments give you (experimental) evidence.
Nobody claimed that math created the universe, or that there is a Guardian Differential Equation for each of us.Hurkyl said:Sheesh, not only do you reject my religion, but you reject my profession too? (mathematician)
Really?Another God said:Its not rejected, but it cannot be accepted as truth until it is verified :)
Maths is great as a way of creating theories, and theories ultimately become factual or erroneous, but they must be formulated first. Their formulation absolutely requires reason, but without evidence that reason is baseless, prone to error, prone to bias and most likely outright wrong.
Only evidence can be relied upon.
Hurkyl said:Really?
(*) if {postulates of QM} then {Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle}
Certainly (*) is a true statement? If {postulates of QM} is false, then (*) is automatically true.
The only way (*) can be false is if
(1) {postulates of QM} is true,
(2) {Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle} is false.
But if we have evidence for both, then isn't that evidence for a contradiction in mathematical logic? (And if mathematical logic is self-contradictory, then (*) is automatically true) So, no matter what the empirical evidence actually is, it must be evidence for the truth of (*).
Of course, that's a rational argument, so you're going to reject on the basis that it's not empirical.
How about a more practical angle? Reason tells us:
(@) If {postulates of classical mechanics} then {Bell's inequality}
Now, suppose you performed an experiment that yielded evidence that {Bell's inequality} is false. Wouldn't you say that you have experimental evidence that {postulates of classical mechanics} is false? But how can you do that without Accepting (@) as a true statement?
(in both (*) and (@), I'm assuming that the hypothesis actually includes enough assumptions so that the conclusion can be mathematically proven)
No wonder you reject rationalism: you have logic wrong! If I wanted to assert that both {postulates of QM} and {HUP} were true, I would sayAnother God said:I don't really understand the specifics of what you are trying to say, but I do get the concept, and the answer is as simple as a littl bit of Aristotelian logic.
A statement can be said to be true if it is sound and valid. It must be logical, and it must be accurate with respect to reality. Simple. So if a statement is absolutely logical, then it is true if its premises are true. If the premises are wrong, then the statement is false, regardless of how logical it is.
Simple no?
Exactly. Claims of "God" are claims about the world, which require empirical evidence to take seriously. They deserve the same skeptical treatment as do similar outlandish claims one sees every week in the supermarket tabloids.Another God said:I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena. Simple.
Show me a booming voice from the clouds. Show me clouds reshaping themselves to spell out "God exists", show me miracles which simply cannot be part of physics...there is an endless list of possibilities of how a God could assert itself as real, and more importantly a whole universe of time and space for it to happen in anyway. But instead we get this very stable very predictable continuity.
Where does that leave human consciousness, which cannot be measured, and thus can also not be shown to interact with real world phenomena? Would u conclude that u are the only conscious being on the planet?Another God said:I treat evidence for God exactly as I treat evidence for anything else... It has to be measurable in someway. There must be demonstrable interactions with real world phenomena. Simple.
Asking for something 'that cannot be part of physics' equals asking for proof that that god doesn't exist. But i do know of a few 'miracles' that defy physical explanations: the universe, life, consciousness. We know they exist, but we do not have explanations for them.Show me a booming voice from the clouds. Show me clouds reshaping themselves to spell out "God exists", show me miracles which simply cannot be part of physics...there is an endless list of possibilities of how a God could assert itself as real, and more importantly a whole universe of time and space for it to happen in anyway.
A stable, predictable continuity says zero about whether some god is involved. Human minds can create objects that behave according to stable and continuous patterns also (such as a computer chip), but a computer chip is no argument that humans don't exist. Also, our own brains are to some extent shaped by consciousness and that demonstrates that it is not just possible, but also logical, to hold that the entire physical universe is to some extent continuously formed by some conscious entity.But instead we get this very stable very predictable continuity.
Can you make an argument that would be accepted by someone who doesn't already believe that reason and experiment are the only valid sources of evidence?Doc Al said:Exactly. Claims of "God" are claims about the world, which require empirical evidence to take seriously. They deserve the same skeptical treatment as do similar outlandish claims one sees every week in the supermarket tabloids.
Why would anyone waste time providing reasons for someone who doesn't appreciate reasons? And whether "reason and experiment" are the only source of knowledge is interesting, the issue at hand is does religion provide some secret source of knowledge not accessible to reason and experiment? (Or, less formally, clear thinking and experience.) If you believe so, state your reasons!Hurkyl said:Can you make an argument that would be accepted by someone who doesn't already believe that reason and experiment are the only valid sources of evidence?
PIT2 said:...our own brains are to some extent shaped by consciousness and that demonstrates that it is not just possible, but also logical, to hold that the entire physical universe is to some extent continuously formed by some conscious entity.
Human consciousness certainly is still here. What are u trying to say?Interposer said:Where does that leave both human consciousness and this supposed entity’s consciousness, which cannot be measured, and thus can also not be shown to interact with real world phenomena?
See how easy it is to slice through this argument?
I don't know. But I didn't ask you to prove a rational argument that would convince someone who rejects rationalism.Doc Al said:Why would anyone waste time providing reasons for someone who doesn't appreciate reasons?
Less formally? You mean more loaded?And whether "reason and experiment" are the only source of knowledge is interesting, the issue at hand is does religion provide some secret source of knowledge not accessible to reason and experiment? (Or, less formally, clear thinking and experience.) If you believe so, state your reasons!![]()
Huh?I'm curious as to what field of knowledge you are imagining where reason and experiment (where possible) are not relevant? (Please don't say theology!)
Im afraid I am not getting ur point.Interposer said:sorry, goof up, please read edited post, thanks
I don't mind that. Ever heard of Eliminative materialism? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminative_materialismPIT2 said:in the proces of denying god, some atheists use arguments that would equally deny the existence of our own consciousness.
I would contend that the mind (consciousness et al) is an illusion created by the very real world phenomenon of our brains. In fact I have long drawn a strong correlation between our mind and God, where the evolutionary justification for our supposing others have minds is so beneficial (it allows us to empathise, relate, predict and so on with other people and animals) for our societal selves, that the process of imposing mind on objects is a constant side affect. Thus we start to suppose the rain has a mind "Please rain god, rain for us", "Please god of the wind, blow for us", "Please god of thunder, don't be angry", "Please god of pestilence, don't kill my baby" etc etc etc.PIT2 said:Where does that leave human consciousness, which cannot be measured, and thus can also not be shown to interact with real world phenomena? Would u conclude that u are the only conscious being on the planet?
rubbish. I probably should explain why...but I can't be bothered. Maybe try again later and I will.PIT2 said:Asking for something 'that cannot be part of physics' equals asking for proof that that god doesn't exist. But i do know of a few 'miracles' that defy physical explanations: the universe, life, consciousness. We know they exist, but we do not have explanations for them.
Humans aren't God. Humans are bounded by the limitations of our brain which is completely subject to the experiences of its past and the predictable chemical reactions driving it.PIT2 said:A stable, predictable continuity says zero about whether some god is involved. Human minds can create objects that behave according to stable and continuous patterns also (such as a computer chip), but a computer chip is no argument that humans don't exist. Also, our own brains are to some extent shaped by consciousness and that demonstrates that it is not just possible, but also logical, to hold that the entire physical universe is to some extent continuously formed by some conscious entity.
You don't need to be. I know of plenty, but you are right, they are irrelevent. It is up to the religious ot have good arguments. Atheism is the default position, and you should be convinced otherwise away from atheism, not the other way around.PIT2 said:See how easy it is to slice through some atheistic arguments when one let's them loose on our human minds (as opposed to god)? Actually... I am not aware of any good atheistic arguments at all.
Why would that "evidence" be anything more than an unfounded claimHurkyl said:So, it seems like we should conclude that religous sources do, in fact, provide evidence that cannot be attained through reason and experiment alone.
They don't "defy" physical explanations, they just haven't been explained as easy as 1, 2, 3 (we don't even know if that's possible). Anyway, the "appeal to ignorance" is not an argument.PIT2 said:But i do know of a few 'miracles' that defy physical explanations: the universe, life, consciousness. We know they exist, but we do not have explanations for them.
Counsciousness interacts 100% with brain functions (a real world phenomena).PIT2 said:Where does that leave human consciousness, which cannot be measured, and thus can also not be shown to interact with real world phenomena? Would u conclude that u are the only conscious being on the planet?
Nope, it does not demonstrate that.PIT2 said:that demonstrates that it is not just possible, but also logical, to hold that the entire physical universe is to some extent continuously formed by some conscious entity.
Why would that evidence be an unfounded claim?SF said:Why would that "evidence" be anything more than an unfounded claim![]()
And what of any contradictions that arise between these sources?Hurkyl said:I was imagining, for example, someone who adpots reason, experiment, and the Vedas as sources of truth.
Why would it be any different than when a strict rationalist-empiricst arives at a contradiction?Gokul43201 said:And what of any contradictions that arise between these sources?
In other words, u have faith that one day there will be a physical explanation. How is this faith different from the one that one day god will be proven to exist? While I am not appealing to ignorance (i was merely stating the fact that there is no physical explanation), u do seem to be appealing to faith.SF said:They don't "defy" physical explanations, they just haven't been explained as easy as 1, 2, 3 (we don't even know if that's possible). Anyway, the "appeal to ignorance" is not an argument.
I agree completely, but u cannot show to anyone that u are conscious. Do u see the parallels between all conscious entities, and the demands for 'evidence' that they exist?Counsciousness interacts 100% with brain functions (a real world phenomena).
See: loss of counsciousness, black-out :)
Yes it is a supposition, but it is a logical one backed up by accepted evidence.Nope, it does not demonstrate that.
What you stated there is just a supposition as good as any other supposition without evidence to back it up. Not very good at all :)
The rationalist-empiricist who arrives at a contradiction must accept that at least one of the two contradicting claims is incorrect. S/he then goes on to figure out which it is, and having done that (metaphorically, of course, for I'm referring to the body of people, rather than the individual), abandons it.Hurkyl said:Why would it be any different than when a strict rationalist-empiricst arives at a contradiction?
Nope, you aren't even reading what I said, so attacking the straw-man will do you no good :)PID2 said:In other words, u have faith that one day there will be a physical explanation.
How is a rhetorical question an argumentPID2 said:How is this faith different from the one that one day god will be proven to exist?
Nope, "faith" by definition sais you are always right and there need not be any evidence.PID2 said:While I am not appealing to ignorance (i was merely stating the fact that there is no physical explanation), u do seem to be appealing to faith.
Perhaps you can't, but I can :)PID2 said:I agree completely, but u cannot show to anyone that u are conscious.
Just because PID2 states it on PF doesn't make it true :)PID2 said:Yes it is a supposition, but it is a logical one backed up by accepted evidence.
Actually, it is technically far more difficult than that. That describes 'Behaviourism' which, I, and most other philosophers of mind would all agree is a terrible theory of mind. To say that something behaves as if it has a mind is acurate, and a good enough reason (in our day to day lives) to assume said thing has a mind, but their actions are not their mind.SF said:Perhaps you can't, but I can :)
Again, define counsciousness.
To me, if you can make voluntary acts (move, talk, listen, act), you are counsciouss.
What is it to you? I predict a pseudoscientific redefinition of terms :)