I think many times, with all the discussion of religion, science, atheism, etc, it can be easy to lose sight of the real purpose of what one is trying to accomplish. Of course, this can happen in any discussion. But, one of those ever-famous text-images found on Facebook caught my attention today. (I do think it's funny, but from what I have seen a basic fact about human psychology, that people are more likely to read text when it is in an image--even if the image is purely text--than when it is just simply written text. I wonder if they've done any studies on that.)
So, to bring my own focus back to where it should be, here is what I will call the "fundamental theorem of atheism". Yes, that's a very mathematical title--every branch (and sub-branch) of mathematics has a "fundamental theorem". So, here it is for atheism. The burden of proof lies on those who claim that there is a god to produce evidence of its existence. So, here's the image that reminded me of this focus.
If you claim that you have a way to perform cold fusion, you need to produce results indicating that you have done it. You need to be able to instruct another person on how to repeat the process. If you claim that you have an ice cream that won't melt in the sun, then you had better be able to produce such ice cream for people to observe. Similarly, if you claim that there is a god who does this, that, and the other, you had better be able to produce either your god or evidence of it to substantiate the claim that it does in fact exist. This is the reason I am an atheist. It is the only reason I call myself an atheist. Just as the text in the image suggests, there may be other reasons that people might believe I have for being an atheist, but they are at best auxiliary. My skepticism lies in the simple fact that that which cannot be proven one way or the other must not be accepted as true.
Now, I believe I should take just a moment to address the other issues at hand. I do believe that religious extremism is one reason to support the claim that religion is bad and to be an anti-theist. And I believe that evil existing in the world at the level of abundance in which it does exist is evidence against a god who is purported to be all-loving and who watches over each of us, cares for us individually, and wants what is best for us. It may be evidence to support an indifferent god, a vindictive or sadistic god, or perhaps an impotent god. But, at any rate, the existence of evil is clearly insufficient to conclude definitively that there is no supernatural being.
This, I believe, is a very good point to make. I have seen circulating around Facebook during the last few days a story about a professor who tries to convince his student that there is no god by arguing that he cannot sense god and because there's evil in the world. Then the student replies that evil is merely the absence of god, just as cold is the absence of heat. I believe I even saw a video that someone had put together where this scenario was played out. And it is claimed that this student was in fact Albert Einstein. Snopes.com has denounced this claim. Now, it should be noted only that this line of reasoning proves that the original logic (evil exists, therefore god does not) is invalid. And it is invalid. It's quite conceivable that there is a god which exists but does not rid the world of evil merely by its existence.
However, it should be noted that what this argument does not prove is god's existence. It is fallacious to say "Since your argument was wrong, my assertion that you were trying to disprove must be right." For example, I could be arguing that I am a toad and you could be arguing that I am a lamp. I prove to you that your reasoning is false because I do not have any properties that a lamp would have. That doesn't mean that I am right and that I am a toad (in fact, I am not a toad). All it means is that you were wrong and I'm therefore not a lamp. If you were to disprove the statement "there is no god", then the logical conclusion would be that there is a god. However, the statement being disproved is "there is no god because there is evil in the world", whose negation is only "the existence of evil in the world does not necessitate the non-existence of a god".
The important thing to note is that god is, by definition, supernatural. That is, it exists beyond the detection and comprehension we naturally have. Therefore, to prove its existence via natural means is impossible. If you want to claim that your god is in fact natural--that it adheres to all of the laws of nature, then it must be possible for you to produce evidence of it. However, if it is a natural being, subject to the laws of nature, and found in nature, then I would say that it does not deserve the title "god".
Anyway, the point is that while I see that there is value in all of the auxiliary discussion--about how religion poisons everything and all of the contradictions and impossibilities that religion presents--and I will continue to make or mirror such arguments, the important thing to remember is that the only position that atheists hold is that if you want me to believe in something, then you need to prove it to me. Prove me wrong. Show me evidence to support your claim. Reason logically with me why it is that I am wrong, and then I will believe you. Until you can do that, I will maintain that it is dishonest for you to assert the existence of a being when you cannot prove it. On just about everything else, atheists will disagree. But, on this one point, we all agree: the burden of proof is on you. If you want to believe, that's fine. But, if you want me to believe, then you have to give me a reason to believe.
So, to bring my own focus back to where it should be, here is what I will call the "fundamental theorem of atheism". Yes, that's a very mathematical title--every branch (and sub-branch) of mathematics has a "fundamental theorem". So, here it is for atheism. The burden of proof lies on those who claim that there is a god to produce evidence of its existence. So, here's the image that reminded me of this focus.
Now, I believe I should take just a moment to address the other issues at hand. I do believe that religious extremism is one reason to support the claim that religion is bad and to be an anti-theist. And I believe that evil existing in the world at the level of abundance in which it does exist is evidence against a god who is purported to be all-loving and who watches over each of us, cares for us individually, and wants what is best for us. It may be evidence to support an indifferent god, a vindictive or sadistic god, or perhaps an impotent god. But, at any rate, the existence of evil is clearly insufficient to conclude definitively that there is no supernatural being.
This, I believe, is a very good point to make. I have seen circulating around Facebook during the last few days a story about a professor who tries to convince his student that there is no god by arguing that he cannot sense god and because there's evil in the world. Then the student replies that evil is merely the absence of god, just as cold is the absence of heat. I believe I even saw a video that someone had put together where this scenario was played out. And it is claimed that this student was in fact Albert Einstein. Snopes.com has denounced this claim. Now, it should be noted only that this line of reasoning proves that the original logic (evil exists, therefore god does not) is invalid. And it is invalid. It's quite conceivable that there is a god which exists but does not rid the world of evil merely by its existence.
However, it should be noted that what this argument does not prove is god's existence. It is fallacious to say "Since your argument was wrong, my assertion that you were trying to disprove must be right." For example, I could be arguing that I am a toad and you could be arguing that I am a lamp. I prove to you that your reasoning is false because I do not have any properties that a lamp would have. That doesn't mean that I am right and that I am a toad (in fact, I am not a toad). All it means is that you were wrong and I'm therefore not a lamp. If you were to disprove the statement "there is no god", then the logical conclusion would be that there is a god. However, the statement being disproved is "there is no god because there is evil in the world", whose negation is only "the existence of evil in the world does not necessitate the non-existence of a god".
The important thing to note is that god is, by definition, supernatural. That is, it exists beyond the detection and comprehension we naturally have. Therefore, to prove its existence via natural means is impossible. If you want to claim that your god is in fact natural--that it adheres to all of the laws of nature, then it must be possible for you to produce evidence of it. However, if it is a natural being, subject to the laws of nature, and found in nature, then I would say that it does not deserve the title "god".
Anyway, the point is that while I see that there is value in all of the auxiliary discussion--about how religion poisons everything and all of the contradictions and impossibilities that religion presents--and I will continue to make or mirror such arguments, the important thing to remember is that the only position that atheists hold is that if you want me to believe in something, then you need to prove it to me. Prove me wrong. Show me evidence to support your claim. Reason logically with me why it is that I am wrong, and then I will believe you. Until you can do that, I will maintain that it is dishonest for you to assert the existence of a being when you cannot prove it. On just about everything else, atheists will disagree. But, on this one point, we all agree: the burden of proof is on you. If you want to believe, that's fine. But, if you want me to believe, then you have to give me a reason to believe.
Hey Keith! Sorry I don't keep up with your blog (especially during the busy school year). From your opening paragraph, could you make explicit what it is you are trying to accomplish? =)
ReplyDeleteAside from that, some thoughts:
I would agree that atheism is an acceptable position to stake when making sense of the various data afforded us by science. I would also point out that since science pretty much takes for granted the spaciotemporal continuity between now and all times past and future, and as you've noted is specifically concerned with naturalistic explanations for all things, it is unable to accept or take seriously the position of the theist. Supernatural causes naturally are the least likely and therefore absolutely least acceptable scientific explanation for any phenomenon.
Recognizing that the methods of science naturally exclude the supernatural, however, also means that even if the supernatural existed, say, 2000 years ago, science would not really produce much commentary on it. It would find explanations that exclude it, despite its existence. That we have such consistent naturalistic explanations of virtually all phenomena of nature and mankind is very persuasive to many, but it does not defeat the theists position.
Philosophers, while often humanists and naturalists, have long recognized this and related problems. For instance, we have no way of proving that induction is actually a valid form of reasoning. Without induction, I cannot prove anything about the laws of physics a billion years ago, or a billion years from now. Likewise, I am hard-pressed to prove (to myself) that anyone besides myself actually has a mind and is a thinking thing. I cannot refute solipsism.
This is why I think agnosticism is such a common position to reluctantly retreat to. Supernaturalism relies on an a priori acceptance of certain ideas about Gods and the universe. Naturalism relies on an a priori acceptance of certain ideas about induction and the universe.
Thus, I can't prove to you that you are wrong, but I'm not so sure the burden of proof is entirely on the side of the theists... is "proof" even an important part of inquiry, or is it a side-effect of a Mormon upbringing? I guess it depends on whether you consider yourself a philosophical skeptic, or a critical rationalist, or a positivist. Where on the spectrum between the first and the last of those categories would you place yourself?
From what I observe I would say you are closer to positivism, and my arguments here are aiming for critical rationalism, with some skepticism thrown in.
If you wouldn't mind specifying--what part of my opening paragraph do you find to be unclear? It isn't meant to state an explicit purpose, but rather simply serve as an anecdotal introduction to the post.
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely certain what you mean by "Thus, I can't prove to you that you are wrong". What precisely is it that I have said that you wish to disprove that you cannot? Perhaps you are making the false dichotomy that either there is evidence to prove the existence of a god or to disprove such existence. The point is that if a theist wishes to go about asserting that there is in fact a god, then the burden of proof lies on him to present the evidence supporting that claim--since it is a claim of fact. To state belief in a god is perfectly acceptable, since one's beliefs need not be grounded in reality. But to claim something as fact requires that it be justified by evidence.
The atheist position is not to assert as fact that there is no god, but simply to say that there is no evidence to support such a claim, just as there is no evidence to support claims of unicorns, fairies, and Santa Claus. If one were to assert that unicorns do in fact exist, then they would be asked for evidence to support the claim (this is indeed skepticism). Without such evidence, the claim would be ridiculous. Just in the same way, claiming that the existence of god is fact without evidence is ridiculous.
Your argument about not being able to ever truly know anything is definitely sound logic, but it is fruitless. If I were to convince myself that I was indeed the only existence in the universe and everything I perceive merely my own brain making it all up, then I would not be able to contribute to society and society would not benefit me. I am much more pragmatic than that. I have sufficient reason to believe that the universe is indeed as I perceive it, and I find such an assumption to be far more useful. It is not necessary to know things with surety, as the Mormon church is wont to claim. It suffices to have a sufficient amount of evidence to remove reasonable doubt, just as in deciding guilt of an accused criminal.
So you are trying to redirect your focus onto the position that the burden of proof for God's existence lies with the theist? I was unclear on whether this is all you mean about losing sight of "the real purpose of what one is trying to accomplish" as applied to yourself. What are you trying to accomplish, what is your purpose behind advancing your arguments? Is there anything I can gain from it, you knowing my feelings about theism? Is it logical for me to adopt a somewhat combative defense of atheism by requiring my opponents to furnish naturalistic evidence of supernatural phenomena? I don't believe such a position is beneficial for me or those around me.
ReplyDeleteI am resigned to the slow pace of human understanding, and the socioeconomic factors that effect it. Yet all around me there is hope. There is a general understanding among most of my peers that science most accurately reflects reality. Even my peers at church are more open-minded than any generation before. Then again, that's where I am proactive and focus my energies. I defend scientific topics and host discussions about historical and doctrinal issues with those willing and able to learn.
The reason I said that I cannot prove that you are wrong is because you said "Prove me wrong". You seem to mean, "prove me wrong that there is no naturalistic evidence for the supernatural", which is historically problematic. Before you can be answered, shouldn't the historical grounds be established and acknowledged? A priori reasoning for a long time was considered the only real valid form of thought. We've come a long way to accept a posteriori reasoning at all. A hidden premise of your demand for proof is that a posteriori reasoning is the only valid form of proof. More on this in a moment.
A difficulty with the reasoning of Dawkins, Hitchens, et alia is that they create, without complete justification, new premises for the debate over theism, without recognizing the roots of the debate. David Hume may be difficult to read, but he's probably necessary for adequate insight into this debate. His Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion may be among the easiest of his works to read, and more relevant to this discussion.
ReplyDeleteThere are two huge original arguments for God: the ontological and the cosmological arguments. Both essentially allow a priori a God transcendent of nature and discoverable only through reason. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to accept a priori the existence of God, and then struggle through the consequences of that idea in conjunction with a posteriori observations. Such a person might end up like Hume, finding the difference between theism and atheism to be a matter of degree, rather than substance.
You again demonstrate the strong bias of philosophical materialism, which is part of your LDS background. That is, that metaphysics has no meaning and all that is ought to have some kind of evidential proof. This kind of empiricism has somewhat leaked into other religions also. Traditional theistic meditations do not rely on proof -- it is a priori. Another odd assumption you are making is that theists claim God "as fact", as if it were a scientific observation. The traditional theistic claim for knowledge of God, again, is a priori. Something along the lines of, "I assume there is a God, and that God is perfectly good, powerful, and omniscient, and that nothing greater than God can be conceived". Nothing about God being a part of our physical universe, even, is implied, much less God doing anything more than having created it with all its laws, both physical and metaphysical.
An annoying position for you, but nevertheless the actual theistic position. Which makes your statement, "The atheist position is not to assert as fact that there is no god, but simply to say that there is no evidence to support such a claim", kind of ridiculous. Many theists themselves claim the same thing about no evidence, even going so far as to assert such evidence may not be possible. So what distinguishes them from this so-called atheist position you are proclaiming (aside from the militant way in which you seem to be presenting your side)?
You should really look at critical rationalism, if you are not a skeptic. You are accepting induction (again look to Hume for his classic but hard to read approach in his An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding) by talking about sufficient evidence to remove reasonable doubt, which relies on an a priori assumption about the nature of the universe. If you accept such a priori reasoning, do you really think your views have any advantage over the a priori reasoning of the theist?
Now you know I am not a theist. Nevertheless, I have looked into it and at the moment I find nothing to compel a theist to give up his/her views beyond what might be at the heart of both of our views: our inductive assumption seems more compelling, and we find more (secondary) reasons to reject theism, scientifically, logically and historically, than to embrace it.
Mind you, this theism is often closer to deism, and its rationale certainly doesn't apply to the hoi polloi who tout fundamentalism, materialism, or experiential proof, like the majority of American Christians.
To be honest, I have no interest in reading Hume, nor do I believe I ever will. For me, all of this boils down to a question of utilitarianism--of practicality. There is no utility in believing in accepting god a priori, so I will not do so. There is utility in accepting science as fact, since it has molded and shaped our society in visible and detectable ways. Our understanding of science has helped produce all of the amazing technology that we have. That has clear utilitarian benefits. I have not at any point in my life benefited from assuming that there is a god in the universe, nor do I believe there is any reason for me to do so.
ReplyDeleteYes, I do believe in the claim that anything which does exist is in some way detectable. That seems logical to me. No, I do not believe that empirical evidence is the only thing available to defend fact. I believe that logic is another. All of mathematics is abstract and therefore cannot be determined through induction (other than rigorous mathematical induction, which assumes much less than the induction used in empirical sciences of which you speak). As you are well aware, in mathematics, there are axioms that cannot be proven as true but are accepted as fact without question because there must be some knowledge which is accepted a priori.
But you seem to be saying that anything accepted a priori is just as useful or logical as anything else accepted a priori. I do not agree with that sentiment in the slightest. For me to accept the claim that the inductive reasoning used in the sciences is an appropriate way to understand the universe is logical and no small stretch of the imagination, since it has proven itself capable of doing so in the past. For me to accept the existence of god a priori is ridiculous. There is no logical reason to do so, nor is there any measurable benefit in it. It has no utility.
And I never claimed immunity from other people thinking that my arguments are ridiculous. You say that my claim that a god's existence must be substantiated by evidence would seem ridiculous to a theist. I neither dispute that, nor do I care. If a theist or anyone else wishes to call my ideas ridiculous, that is entirely their prerogative. I do not feel any need to defend my position, only to articulate it as clearly as possible so that people know what they are calling ridiculous when they do so.
"The reason I said that I cannot prove that you are wrong is because you said "Prove me wrong". You seem to mean, "prove me wrong that there is no naturalistic evidence for the supernatural", which is historically problematic. Before you can be answered, shouldn't the historical grounds be established and acknowledged? A priori reasoning for a long time was considered the only real valid form of thought. We've come a long way to accept a posteriori reasoning at all. A hidden premise of your demand for proof is that a posteriori reasoning is the only valid form of proof. More on this in a moment."
ReplyDeleteI believe that you are not understanding what was meant by the last paragraph of my post. What I am saying is that any argument I give or any statement I make that you believe to be false, and you believe you have evidence to support such a claim, then I would wish for you to present your case and show to me in what way I am incorrect. Since my ideal is to reach absolute truth (an ideal which I recognize I can never achieve, but still believe to be a worthy goal to pursue), I wish to be informed of anything false that I say. This is not particularly referring to the existence of god, although in the context of this particular post it could be interpreted to mean (and indeed, one of the interpretations intended when I wrote it was) that if you have evidence to support the existence of a god, then please present it to me and prove to me that I am wrong that no such evidence exists. As you say, most gods are decreed to be supernatural and therefore their existence cannot be proven through natural means. Therefore, I feel it is a safe position for me to say that there is no such proof.
You see, Jacob, all that I am saying, and all that I have heard Dawkins and Hitchens, et al, say is that the axiom "There is a god" is consistent with all of the other axioms of science--of empirical sciences, of logic, mathematics, etc--but that simultaneously there is no reason to adopt it. The exact same can be said for many similar axioms, including "There is a Santa Claus", "There are fairies", and "The only thing that exists is myself." Whether those a priori assumptions are consistent with the current logical system being employed by science is irrelevant. It has no bearing on whether they should be adopted.
ReplyDeleteI assume you are familiar with Euclid's axioms of geometry (I believe he called them "postulates"). His 5th states that given any line and a point not on the line, there is a unique line parallel to the first that contains the given point. I'm sure you're also aware that this axiom can be removed and interesting geometric systems can be constructed--most prominently hyperbolic and elliptical spaces instead of Euclidean spaces. These alternate systems are logically consistent and therefore worthy of mathematical study. Also, each one yields a rich and interesting field of study. However, that does not mean that any one of those three (or any other model) is an accurate model for depicting the universe in which we live. In just the same way, the fact that "there is a god" is consistent with all the existing framework of logic does not imply that it should be adopted or that it is in fact correct.
This is the position of the atheist. It is the position of the skeptic. Give me a reason why a certain fact should be believed--either a priori or a posteriori--if there is sufficient reason, then I will believe it. Short of that, I shall not believe it because it would be unreasonable to do so. To chase every single thing that we believe all the way back to its origins seems like an impossible and fruitless task to me. To ask "How do you know that" endlessly serves no purpose. Therefore, some things must be assumed a priori. In mathematics, this is done by listing axioms that are to be followed. But even the axioms themselves are insufficient. Before that, a common understanding of language must also be assumed. And I'm sure you can see this cascading indefinitely. However, there is no point in that discussion. It has no utility.
^_^ I hope this discussion has been fruitful.
ReplyDeleteSo it looks like we've established some common ground: we'll call axiom G "there is a God", defining God in such a way that G is consistent with known observations and axioms of science.
Folk theists might add more axioms that are less tenable, like "the Bible is infallible" or "Jesus died for the sins of all mankind". The former can be debunked through historical criticism, whilst the latter is a metaphysical statement and as such is somewhat like axiom G, wherein it can be made consistent with scientific axioms and observations.
Propositions like G, since they are consistent with the axioms of science, must be accepted or rejected via some other criterion. The one you raise is utility. Also, I think you implicitly add a criterion of fecundity in your discussion of Euclid's axioms.
I think these (at least by themselves) are dangerous grounds for accepting an ontological postulate. The utility criterion seems individual. That is, an axiom must have utility on an individual level. The fecundity criterion seems universal. That is, an axiom must have fruitful consequences for mankind. But can you see how one might argue that theism has both utility and fecundity? For instance, much of Christian ethics is actually Aristotelian ethics and is beneficial to the practitioner and often others around her/him. Are you sure the negative side effects of theistic belief aren't more a product of their times and their owners than they are of the belief per se?
People who do stupid or awful things seem to do so with or without religion. Religion is merely a tool used by processes more driven by testosterone and oxytocin, for example, and without religion those processes still go on and find other tools.
Likewise, people have managed to remain religious and yet accept the zeitgeist's changing ethical behaviors and sensitivities. They find enough good in theistic belief (to them, socially, mentally, emotionally, etc) to keep it whilst rejecting what we culturally no longer agree with.
The issue for atheism then becomes whether, in reviewing all that we have observed, we should throw out the baby with the bathwater as well. Is (appropriately liberal) theism really all that bad? I think Dawkins would argue that it is, due to unintended contingent effects. I'm not sure his argument is strong enough (evidence-wise) for a theist.
Do you have any other criterion for accepting an axiom? Occam's razor comes to mind...
"I hope this discussion has been fruitful." I find it stimulating at the least and often helpful in refining my own beliefs and how I articulate them.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be confusing atheism with anti-theism. Your wording suggests to me that you believe I endorse the enforcement of atheism dogmatically, just as any religion enforces its own doctrine. I do not. I share with people my own thoughts and feelings, and in any case where fact is in question I present the facts as candidly and honestly as I can. What people decide to do with that information is their own affair.
I do feel that you are mistaken in saying that the problems of religion are not with religion itself but of other sources. I have read several arguments about how religion is specifically insidious and I find many of them to be rather convincing. Particularly in America, where religion gets extra protection from criticism in the name of freedom of religion, there is plenty of opportunity for religion to do harm where other organizations or individuals would be incapable of doing so. In the sense that I believe that religion is in itself a danger, I am an anti-theist. However, I believe that the best way to remedy that is by rational discussion, not by enforcement. You speak as though the two of us here could make some decision concerning whether the whole of humanity accepts or rejects religion. That is clearly impossible. And, even if it were possible, it would be immoral.
So, I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say "whether...we should throw out the baby with the bathwater". If you mean me personally, I see no reason to hold on to religion in any form. I see no reason to believe in god. If you mean society as a whole, I have not the power nor the desire to throw out religion in the hearts of the inhabitants of the Earth.
Yes, certainly Occam's razor seems to be a perfectly reasonable mode for determining whether something should be accepted as true. It is not logical to expect that in every case the simplest answer is the correct one. However, it does often seem to be a reasonable deduction to say that a simpler answer is more likely to be correct.
Hey Keith,
ReplyDeleteYou are right that I construe the way you are presenting your atheism as anti-theism, mainly because you are making demands of theists in asking them to furnish evidence. I think you intend it to be a defensive position against those who would push their beliefs on you, but since it does not appear to be in response to someone pushing their belief on you, it comes across as an offensive position. I guess this is mainly in your last paragraph, and a little the second paragraph and picture.
I personally use the argument that much or most of religion has been historically awful and continues to be so today. I just don't think the argument is strong enough for the theistic mind. Mob mentality and action seems universal to humans, and has a deeper cause than religion itself. Religion might foster some really bad behavior and attitudes, but I'm not so sure treating the religion is the best way to treat the behavior.
Similarly, I think religiosity is a natural response to certain economic and other circumstances. It confers an adaptive advantage in some situations. Anthropologists probably understand its mechanisms the best. From what I can understand, there are root problems (and, I guess, features of our biological systems) that lead to unhealthy mindsets and behaviors, some of which correlate with religiosity. I'd personally much rather treat the problem (eg, through education or access to healthcare) and let the religious ideas treat themselves. They can either evolve like ecumenism or Mormonism's 1978 manifesto, or they can fizzle out.
Your rational discussion remedy I don't think actually is sufficient, for reasons outlined much earlier. It does get us partway there.
I do speak as if on behalf of all of humanity. It is my mode of dialect, because I find it useful to think in those terms.
ReplyDeleteThat's just me. For instance, when I remained a theist up through the first part of my mission, I had reasons I felt were quite justified. My struggle in giving up theism involved recognizing that there was no other way out of the decision to give it up while remaining honest. My thoughts were along the lines of, no matter what future evidence or arguments I could conceivably see being furnished, my position is finally settled. My "opponent" in making my decision (dialectically) was everyone and everything else who/which could conceivably convince me otherwise. My personal decision was yet also mindful of everyone else.
I feel it a personal duty to advance whatever is most useful to those I can influence. The puzzle is determining what the most useful actions are, to have the most positive overall effect for myself, my friends and family, and the world at large. I measure worth by the potential size and features of the ripples I have power to make.
I measure my thoughts as much as I can against my knowledge of the current state of humanity to see whether they have any virtue. Thus, the baby with the bathwater question is not about you or me individually, but mankind collectively. I don't mean that we have any influence over literally answering the question for mankind, but I mean to point out that if many people find worth in religion despite the arguments we've raised, we need to take them seriously, reconsidering ours and their positions (ad infinitum if need be) to ever come closer in understanding, if not in agreement.
Occam's razor is one of the guiding principles that worked for me. That theological positions have to be completely rewritten and narrowed (made less subject to experiment or observation) in light of new evidence (such as the limited geography theory for the Book of Mormon), was also convincing to me. Whereas laws that were true in nature seem to become less specific and broadened in light of new evidence. One could go on, but I guess what's important for me is providing appropriate grounds for debate. I can't ask my opponent to accept my methods ("Prove me wrong" -- but only in the way I tell you!), but we can discuss our methods for arriving at our conclusions and see if we can find common ground in this way.
I find your perspective interesting, and I am glad that you explained it to me. However, I think it is unfair for you to interpret my words in your perspective, since they were not meant that way. When I say that a certain precept should be accepted or rejected, it is usually to say that I myself feel that way, not that all people should nor even just that I think society would be better off adopting that precept. Those are valid points for discussion, but I certainly did not mean to take that route with my post or my discussion up to this point.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm not so sure that I'm accurately represented in your parenthetical "'Prove me wrong'--but only in the way I tell you!" I don't necessarily consider a theist to be an opponent. To me, discussion is more of a mixture of ideas all presented by different people in different ways so that the pair (or group) can achieve a higher level of understanding. Thus, the true opponent is falsehood, and all players are on the same team. But, aside from that, I think that you're still misunderstanding what I meant by my last paragraph. I am outlining how a theist would go about changing my mind, if he were desirous to do so. I do not require that anyone adopt my manner of logic or reasoning nor my world view. I am simply stating what it would take for me to change my mind about the matter, and I think that's a fair and kindly thing to do. Most theists won't do that--they'll simply decree that nothing will change their mind.
Thanks, Keith. I believe you've explained your methodology clearly before, too (and probably many times), and hopefully I can remain more mindful of that in the future. Then I could direct my arguments directly at you... but then again, at that point I would not have an argument for you, because I probably don't have anything useful to add to your worldview, in terms of facts or theories.
ReplyDeleteI guess I prefer a dialectic approach to discussion. I feel I understand what you mean by "prove me wrong", but the words I don't think can be helped from being misunderstood. Something along the lines of, "If you want me to change my mind, you need to at least furnish this kind of evidence rather than try to force your ethos on me" might be better. The "prove me wrong" sounds like a defiant, provoking challenge.
Anyway, this has been fun. Thanks for the lively discussion! I hope all is going well with you and look forward to future discussion or debate.
Unless you want to discuss one final point: "that which cannot be proven one way or the other must not be accepted as true". I don't think axiomatic systems need to be minimal. Euclid's 5th postulate is certainly useful to certain mathematics. The same with the axiom of choice. Or to move beyond axioms, the CS community accepts many results that cannot or have not been proven, so long as believing them has utility.
And since it's a personal discussion, then I would ask if your position might be better changed to, "I will only accept that which cannot be proven if it has utility for myself", which I don't think you'll accept, on account of your desire to eliminate falsehood I believe regardless of the utility of it, but maybe you'll accept something along the lines of, "I will only accept that which cannot be proven if there are sufficient reasons for believing that it is probably true", which religion does not have. =)
You are correct. I spoke in haste with that statement. There are axioms that cannot be proven but must be accepted without proof. And, as far as I am aware of my own feelings, I think that utility is probably the best measure of whether an axiom should be adopted.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I should branch out more and be more dialectic, as you put it. I am not averse to the notion, it's just that I simply haven't had much interest in it myself. What I am interested in is conveying my own thoughts and letting other people mull them over in their own minds to see on what points they agree or disagree with me. I always welcome any feedback that people wish to give, especially in the matter of offering their own feelings on the matter. Perhaps if I were in a position of power (say, an elected official or a prominent member of society with actual influence on the shape of society) then I would be more interested in your type of discussion--concerning what is best for the people, rather than what I individually believe in. Since I am merely an average individual with no such influence on society, I suppose I see it as meaningless, since it will have no effect either way. I suppose an analogy would be discussing morals for chimpanzees--I may very well have an opinion on how they should conduct themselves, but I have no means of influencing them to do so. This is not to say there is no merit in that type of discussion, only that I do not personally have the interest that you seem to have in it.
+1 to the chimpanzee comment! That was awesome.
ReplyDelete