There is a big difference between falsifiable and false. The theory of gravity is falsifiable, but not false. If two bodies of mass were shown to be unaffected by the force of gravity, then the theory would be proven false. Thus, there is a conceivable method for demonstrating the theory to be false, if such evidence could be found. But, no such evidence has been found, and thus the theory of gravity is given the label of "theory", which is essentially the scientific seal of approval that it is generally accepted as true.
Most people who believe in religion will say things to the effect that their beliefs are unfalsifiable, although not commonly using that term. Usually it's worded something "nothing will make my faith waver" or "I know beyond a shadow of a doubt". I wish to discuss why this is harmful. As the picture above states, if your belief is not affected by reality then it is not based on reality. That is, if your belief is unfalsifiable then there is no rational reason for you to believe it.
I wish to give an example of how belief in god is unfalsifiable. First, I will give an example of how a scientific experiment works and contrast that with the types of experiments believers typically use. I wish to test whether a certain kind of medicine is effective at curing a certain disease. My hypothesis is that it does. The hypothesis is falsifiable because I can observe the bacteria counts in the subject's bloodstream. If the counts remain the same after the medicine is administered, then the conclusion must be drawn that the medicine is ineffective and thus the hypothesis is falsified. So, I would proceed to give the medicine to multiple infected subjects and measure their symptoms and determine whether the medicine was effective or not. There are (at least) two possible outcomes--one which would indicate that the medicine is effective and one which would indicate that it is not.
Now, let us perform the same experiment with testing the existence of a god. Suppose that a person is inflicted with an illness. I wish to determine whether my god exists. I pray to my god and ask it to heal the person who is ill. If the person recovers, I attribute the recovery to my god and say that my prayers have been answered. If the person does not recover, I attribute the lack of recovery to a demonstration of god's will, concluding that my god has some higher purpose for the person or that it is somehow part of its plan to keep my friend ill. Either way, the conclusion is that my god still exists. That is, I have already made up my mind that my god exists and regardless of any evidence presented, I will continue to believe. In fact, this is the case with any unfalsifiable claim. If you adopt the claim to begin with, you will continue to believe it regardless of any evidence presented.
Now, this discussion should not be construed to mean that I believe I am presenting evidence that there is no god. I wouldn't do that. I'm claiming that it is an unfalsifiable claim, and therefore I am admitting that I cannot prove non-existence. A prayer going unanswered is not proof that no gods exist. What I am saying here is that there is a difference between a falsifiable scientific hypothesis and a belief, accepted a priori, which is unfalsifiable.
To me, this is a very personal matter. My own wife died of cancer three and a half years ago. She was diagnosed seven years prior to her death. She had been through multiple rounds of chemotherapy, radiation, and even two different trial drugs that were in the stages of research. Ultimately, all of the treatment was not sufficient to remove the cancer from her body and it took her life. During these seven years, her family and so many of her loved ones (including myself) fasted and prayed for her countless times. She received special priesthood blessings from her father, uncles, and me. If she had lived, it would be chalked up to a miracle and the credit would be given to god (even though the credit would rightly belong to all the years of scientific research that have developed the cancer treatments that we now have). Her death was accepted by all of us (myself included) as the will of god. We believed simply that she was more needed in Heaven than she was here on the Earth, that her work here was done.
The point is that regardless of the outcome, the conclusion is the same: that god lives. This is the case with every single possible test that could be presented to determine whether there is a god. The Book of Mormon contains a "promise" near the end of it that asks the reader to ponder the things ey has read, to pray about it and ask god whether the things in the book are true. If a warm fuzzy feeling is felt, that is supposed to be the Holy Ghost indicating that the book really is true. However, this test is as well unfalsifiable. If no feeling is felt, then the explanation is one of several things--that something was not present in the formula for making the feeling come. Perhaps you didn't pray sincerely enough. Perhaps you didn't read enough of the book or didn't understand it fully. Perhaps you didn't have enough faith when you prayed. The conclusion is never "Perhaps the book is not true." The only two possibilities are that it is true or that you did something wrong. Thus, this test is rendered completely useless. The only acceptable outcome is "it worked". If I were to present a hypothesis such as this one, design an experiment around it, and try to publish a paper on the matter, I would be laughed out of every scientific journal in the world because I have assumed what I'm trying to prove in the hypothesis itself.
The same is true in mathematics. In fact, in mathematics, we only talk about statements that are called "truth statements". Loosely speaking, a truth statement is a statement that is either true or false. If a statement is not of this nature, then it is not discussed at all in the mathematical world. An example of a statement that cannot be shown to be true or false is "This sentence is false." It is a logical paradox, and therefore it is not considered in rational discussion. But even if a statement can be proven either true or false, such as "every integer greater than 2 can be expressed as the sum of two prime numbers", it is not accepted as true until it is proven. The statement here is known as Goldbach's Conjecture and has not yet been proven true, thus it remains a conjecture. It is falsifiable because if a number greater than 2 is found that cannot be written as the sum of two primes, then such a number becomes a counterexample and the conjecture is shown to be false. No such number has yet been found and computers have tested numbers up to 1018. A math paper may say something along the lines of "If Goldbach's Conjecture holds, then..." but no mathematician would claim that it is in fact true without a rigorous proof indicating why it is true.
The point is that there is no rational justification for belief in any unfalsifiable claim. If there is no method to prove your belief wrong then you must accept it without reason. Bertrand Russell very wisely said "If something is true, then you should believe it. If it is false, then you should not believe it. And if it cannot be determined whether it is true or false, then you should withhold judgement."
The statement "there is a god" is just vague enough that it is unfalsifiable. However, once attributes are given to this god, some of them may be falsifiable (and in any case I'm aware of, also false). For example, the claim that god answers every prayer. This is falsifiable, and also false. In fact, there are many cases where it would be impossible for god to answer everyone's prayer since different people may be praying for different things (eg, a farmer praying for rain and a tourist praying for fair weather on the same day). To give the apologetic rebuttal that god answers prayers in his own way would then make the claim unfalsifiable, since there is no way to prove that a given outcome is evidence that god did not answer the prayer. But, if the original meaning is to be understood, then the claim is clearly false.
What's the benefit of ensuring that claims are falsifiable before believing them? Because humans are gullible. There's a reason there's such a big market for homeopathy, penis enlargement pills and devices, and many other things. We humans are susceptible to false beliefs. Many guys fantasize about having a larger penis. The idea is appealing. So, belief that it is possible by ingesting certain herbs is appealing. Of course, these claims can be falsified. So, it is important to check these claims, see if any research has been done to indicate that they are true, and determine whether the investment is worth it or simply a con.
Thus it is important to be able to answer the question "If I'm wrong, is there a way to know it?" If there is a way to know whether you're wrong, test it and see if you really are wrong. If there is no possible way to know whether you're wrong, then why are you believing the thing that you believe? There is no evidence to prove that mediums do not talk to the dead, so if you believe that they do you'll be endlessly trapped in that belief and be taken advantage of by mediums who charge you high prices for reading sessions where they pretend to tell you about that hidden stash of money in Uncle Vernon's chimney. Just the other day, I saw a friend post a story about a family who prevented themselves from getting the flu by having onions in every room of the house. Allegedly, the onions attracted all of the flu viruses, so the family didn't get it. This is a falsifiable claim, so let's go about deciding whether it's really true or false. And if something is unfalsifiable, let's set it aside and not worry about it.
"The point is that there is no rational justification for belief in any unfalsifiable claim."
ReplyDeleteKeith, I'm glad you have written this post because I think one of the strongest defenses about religion is the fact that un-falsifiable truths I think both exist and are some of the most important of all truths. I think, paraphrasing a very twisted form of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, there are more truths that are unfalsifiable then are falsifiable. Moreover, I think the analogy between unfalsifiable truths and falsifiable ones is the analogy between the non-transcendental numbers and the transcendental ones: There are much more of the former but it is *very* hard to name a specific example.
So, let's list some specific examples:
1. Does mathematics have an objective existence outside of the minds of men? I have written about it here about how Penrose says it is impossible to prove in a falsifible way that mathematics has an objective existence outside of human minds but he and I believe it does. To believe mathematics exists beyond the minds of men is to believe in an un-falsifiable truth.
2. Free will. John Conway, the mathematician at Princeton, has some lectures showing that the concept of free will is not falsifiable. And if one rejects free will, they immediately have to face the fact that they can no longer trust their thoughts as they are just forced upon them by nature. Thus, the only way that you can ever trust your thoughts can be trusted and aren't just forced upon you by nature is to believe in the unfalsifiable truth that free will exists.
3. Morality. The idea that good or bad exists is unfalsifiable. To condem a bigot or a sereal rapist is silly if you don't believe in un-falsifiable truths because their goodness or badness if an un-falsifiable assumption you have to make about them. This fact alone is why so many philosophers reject this idea from Positivism that only falsifiable truths matter.
4. Lastly God with an asterisk. Joseph had plenty of proof God existed as do countless people who take the experiment in Alma 32 seriously and try the Lord to see if He is there. But beyond personal experimental evidence like this, God seems to be in an un-falsifiable state.
So like I said: I think Godel's Theorem probably applies beyond the integers and could be made strong enough to claim that un-falsifiable truths are more numerous then falsifiable ones. But like non-transcendental numbers it is hard to find one. But when you do, like mathematics, the existence of free will, morality and God, you find these are perhaps the greatest of all truths. They are timeless and eternal and the ones that are the most fascinating to contemplate.
"Does mathematics have an objective existence outside of the minds of men?" That is of no concern to me. I need no application outside of the minds of men. Whether it does or not is, in my opinion, insignificant. I conjecture that it does, but as you say I cannot assert it, since it is unfalsifiable. The same with free will. To me, it matters not whether I have free will. In my perception, I live my life the way I wish to, thus for practical reasons I may assume I have free will (just as many papers will assume the Riemann Hypothesis without asserting that it is fact).
DeleteYour assertion about morality is false. The reason why certain anti-discrimination laws exist is because it can be demonstrated that certain kinds of discrimination are harmful. Explicit evidence can be given to indicate why it is undesirable to subject a fellow human being to slavery. This is not unfalsifiable. This is all very rational.
I'm confused by your point #4. You've stated that your list is one of precious truths which are unfalsifiable and yet you seem to be arguing here that it is falsifiable. You may wish to elaborate more. However, you'll also note that I addressed "experiments" of this nature in my blog post already. In fact, that was the main thrust of the post.
Also, concerning the matter of Gödel, you've actually stated quite the opposite of what his incompleteness theorems state. The first theorem says (essentially) that any system cannot be consistent and complete. That is, if a system contains no contradictions then there is a statement which cannot be proven in the theory. A very classic example is that the axiom of choice is independent of the other Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms. But, of course, the axiom of choice is falsifiable. If you constructed a set X of non-empty sets as elements which had no choice function, then the statement would be proven false. Since the axiom of choice is known to also be consistent with ZF, this is not logically possible to do. But possible and plausible are different, hence the axiom of choice is falsifiable.
DeleteReally all the Gödel did was show that we cannot construct all of mathematics from a finite set of axioms, thus ruining Russell's dream to do so. But this is all formal logic and the subject matter at hand really has more to do with empiricism than simply pure logic, since the question is that of understanding reality rather than hypothesizing about what is consistent, complete, and dependent.
"then there is a statement which cannot be proven in the theory"
DeleteRight I know. This is why I said I was giving a "twisted" version. If you read the wikipedia article on the "Theory of Everything" you will find that people think that Godel extends beyond just there always being a statement that can't be proved in the theory. Many scientists, and the page lists some examples like Hawking, believe this extends to there will always be a statement that is true or false but never be determined by science. These extensions of Godel are not rigorously shown like Godel did his, but using thought experiments (again read Hawking's speech) it's easy to conclude the same type of reasoning leads to this.
And another way of saying, "No matter your scientific theory there will always be a truth beyond your theory" is to say "there will always be an unfasifiable statement which is true" since falsifiablity and the reach of science are linked.
*And* since Godel's are argument is a diagonalization argument, by hawking-like analogy the unfalsifiable truths are uncountable. Hence my analogy with non-transcendental numbers.
The world has learned a thing or two since Godel and the applications have gone beyond the integers. The Haulting problem in computer science for example. A crushing blow to the limits of science as another. I encourage you to read some books on Godel-ish extensions to computer science, physics and philosophy.
Hi Keith,
ReplyDelete" it can be demonstrated that certain kinds of discrimination are harmful. "
Exactly. Science can demonstrate X is harmful what science can *never* do is to prove harming someone is wrong. The belief (as it is only a belief) that harming others is wrong is unfalsifiable. That you cannot derive "ought from is" is a philosophy 101 fact that dates back to avid Hume. I am glad you believe harming people is wrong, as do I, but this means you believe in a un-falsifiable claim. As I said, some of the most important truths are the unfalsifiable ones such as this.
"you seem to be arguing here that it is falsifiable."
This is another great thing I encourage you to study if you are interested in philosophy. God seems to be just as un-falsifiable as morality or free will but *unlike* these other things God seems to be a Being that has the capacity to prove His existence to those who He chooses. (And history is full of such people.) Again, there is a rich philosophical literature on this and I encourage you to read it. The deepest thoughts are often paradoxical like this. (Of course I realize you won't care. But you not caring doesn't make it less true and less interesting to professional philosophers.)
Here is a list of some other things, that are either true or false, but are not falsifiable, taken from the philosopher Truman Madsen. (And yet very interesting and sources of some of our most profound thoughts as a society)
Can the analytic and synthetic be reconciled? Is there empirical certainty? How are the theories of truth related? Is freedom compatible with determinism? Is reason the slave of the passions? Can altruism be reduced to egoism? Are good and obligation separate categories? Is the verifiability criterion itself verifiable? What possible justification can there be for induction? Are there new models for moral discourse?
Again, I realize you may not care but life is dull not caring about the deepest ideas of the universe. Ideas that are either true or not and yet are not falsifiable.
I will retract one thing. Rereading Madsen's list this is not necessarily a list of things that are non falsifiable. It is a list of issues where philosophers doen't think will ever be solved. There is a difference.
ReplyDeleteBut it is still the case that some things like morality ( you can't derive ought from is) are un-falsifiable. Proving something is harmful does not prove it is wrong as harm being wrong is an un-falsifiable belief. (But a un-falsifiable belief I am glad we both share!)
Not only do I not care, but I find such efforts to be fruitless and pointless. We can ask questions, as philosophers have since Socrates, to the effect of "Are we not just a brain in a vat somewhere?" yet I see no reason to do so. Perhaps we are brains in vats. Perhaps we are not. If there is a method to demonstrate one way or the other, let it be presented and the question can then be settled. Since no way has yet been proposed of which I am aware, I must ask you what value you see in pursuing such questions?
DeleteAlso, I challenge your assertion that people throughout history have witnessed a manifestation of deity. I would propose that the strongest assertion that can be made is merely that several people throughout history have claimed to be visited by deity and/or endowed by such deity with knowledge of its existence. However, people throughout history have also claimed to know of the existence of hundreds of other gods (aside from the monotheistic Christian one that I assume you refer to). They've also claimed to know all sorts of things that are demonstrably false, such as that letting blood will cure maladies.
But, come now, Joe, as a student of science yourself, you know many of the answers to these silly questions you've asked me. For example, is there certainty in empiricism? You know that there is not. You know there is a reason why scientists use the word "theory" to describe observed and well-established properties of the universe, such as gravity and evolution. Indeed, the very fact that these theories are falsifiable implies that they cannot be certain.
"these silly questions"
DeleteThey are only silly because you have decided to not take them seriously. Philosophy more then anything shaped western society and endow it with science in the first place. Just because philosophers are concerned about them doesn't mean that some of the greatest truths and advancements are contained their in.
Let's take this post which is known as positivism. Positivism gained a lot of ground in the early and mid 1900s because philosophers had hoped and believed all truth could boil down to science and logic. Essentially, to be over simplistic, Godel-like concepts destroyed this for the reasons I have suggested. The ideas and realization that more truth is out of the reach of science then in the reach of it. Again it's hard to know specific examples but I have listed classic examples.
So then postmodernism took over where people began to question whether anyone has truth that isn't just relative (including scientists). Or as the wikipedia says "In essence, postmodernism is based on the position that reality is not mirrored in human understanding of it, but is rather constructed as the mind tries to understand its own personal reality." And then people objected and things have gone on from there.
But there is this interesting pattern: the more you secularize then more you are unsure. Once you realize free will is as un-fasifiable as God you often reject it leading you to conclude thoughts can't be trusted as they are just forced upon you. Once you realize morality is as un-fasifiable as God you often reject the idea that there is right or wrong beyond labels (moral relativism). Harming people is only wrong if we say it is... So soon you have full blown postmodernism...
But having faith in the obvious but un0falsifiable saves from this downward spiral or rejecting truth as just an illusion. We are endowed with agency (free will) so thoughts can be trusted. Morality is real so there is right and wrong. Science and math will always be incomplete but that is okay because, like the example of free will, much can be seen/known through the lens of faith.
So in short, if you are willing to push your ideas as throughly as philosophers have you will either eventually conclude you can no longer accept any objective truth or you will conclude you must exercise faith in something. Knowing you when you probe philosophy that far you will realize exercising faith isn't such a bad idea and the alternative leads to absurdity.
I concede your point about radical skepticism. In fact, it is why I called all those questions silly in the first place, since pondering upon whether we're a brain in a vat is a result of over-thinking the matter. What I object to is your use of the word "faith". I've found that many believers who also try to be rational, such as yourself, use the word "faith" loosely. I do have faith. Faith is blind belief in a deity. I don't believe in any deity. I don't blindly believe in anything at all. I do not have faith in the axioms of set theory or of logic. I accept them. There's quite a difference. I accept these axioms because they seem reasonable to me, not because I feel endorphins in my brain when I think about them and meditate about them. If a more logical system were presented to me, I would abandon my present one for the improved version rather than religiously clinging to what I currently have.
DeleteSimilarly, I accept as general truths things such as "harming another person is undesirable", but only as general truths and not as incontrovertible doctrine. I do not have faith that harming other people is wrong, nor that right and wrong exist. I accept it because it seems reasonable and because I am capable of empathy for other people. I know that I would prefer not to be kept in a prison for 20 years, so I think that it is wrong to do so to someone else, at least without significant cause to do so (if at all). Faith is belief without evidence. I have evidence that harming others is wrong because I have been harmed and the resulting feeling was undesirable. I do not have faith in the maxim that harming people is wrong. If I had faith in it, I would accept it without reservation and without question, which I do not. I think there are instances where harming another person may be good. For example, in an attempt to prevent someone from doing something which is undesirable, it may be effective to harm them in some way. Many people do this. A policeman fearing that a person with a gun might try to harm someone else may shoot the person in the hand or foot or someplace to harm the prospective criminal in order to prevent greater harm to others. This action may very well be called good.
But I do not believe in the absolutes of good and evil presented by religion. I think that sometimes (indeed, often) it is impossible for us to know with any real surety whether an action should be labeled "good" or "bad". To have faith is to blindly accept without evidence and without question. I do not do that and I do not think that doing so is good. I think it is irrational and in many cases quite harmful (such as the religious backing of slavery, misogyny, and now homophobia).
Keith, well I have appreciated this conversation and enjoyed your post.
Delete"use the word "faith" loosely... To have faith is to blindly accept without evidence and without question."
Right so this is a problem with atheists and religious people. You see me as too loose and I see atheists as wording their definition to also accomodate their world-view. I think to say faith is blindly accepting without evidence is a convenient stretch designed to support an atheistic worldview. Two examples:
1. The lectures on faith discuss how farmers have faith to plant their fields this year. This is not blind. Farmers have plenty of evidence and this style of faith is what Joseph Smith is advocating in these lectures.
2. Alma 32 says we should exercise enough faith to plant the seeds of the gospel and to *reject* those for which evidence doesn't come that they are legitimate. This is also not blind acceptance. This is almost a version of the scientific method.
But anyways we can go back and forth all day arguing over definitions of faith. Between things like the lectures on faith and Alma 32 I think that the idea that faith is blind acceptance is a bad definition.... unless your goal was to define it intentionally to make it sound silly.
But I *also* confess atheists probably say my definitions of the word are specifically designed to make faith sound reasonable. But just so the world knows were I stand: definitions that encourage the type of testing described in Alma 32 or in the lectures on faith is the type of faith I care about. And this is why I say I have faith in free will. On one hand it isn't falsifiable and yet on the other it is a principle *I believe* that has a lot of reasons surrounding it to believe it. So is my belief in free-will blind? No, I have thought strongly about it and accept it. SO why still faith? Because I can't prove it is true.
So anyways, that's where I am coming from. And again Keith I thank you for this discussion. You are a great man. Perhaps one of the very best I have ever known.
I also enjoy the discussion and fear at times that my wording has become terse.
Delete1. I'm really not concerned with what Joseph Smith thought the word "faith" meant. He was wrong. The concept he's describing here is closer to "trust". Farmers know that in the past the seeds planted have grown into edible plants and therefore they trust that the same will happen in the future. In fact, this is the basis for empiricism, which is the antithesis of faith. The commonly accepted definition among Christians is from Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." That's the one I use.
2. The problem with the Alma 32 experiment is that if the conclusion "God exists, Mormonism is true, etc" is not reached as prescribed in the chapter, then it must be that something is wrong with the person performing the experiment. This would be like me saying I'm going to test the theory of levitation. I place a ball in the air. If it floats, levitation works. If it falls to the ground, then I've done something wrong in my experiment. If there are two outcomes in an experiment, you cannot accept one outcome as evidence in favor of your hypothesis without also admitting the opposing outcome would be evidence against your hypothesis.
Concerning free will, again I say it doesn't matter. If I have free will, then I am free to do what I choose. If I do not have free will, I am at least under the impression that my actions are my own and that I am free to act, so it matters not that my free will is an illusion. An illusion convincing enough to make me feel it is real seems indistinguishable from reality, hence why worry about whether it is real or not? If it is not real, I will have no way of knowing it, so it is of no concern to me to find out. I will proceed living my life as though I have free will and not worry about whether it can be proven one way or the other.
Different definitions of "faith" from Dictionary.com:
Delete1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
I have this kind of faith. I have confidence in myself, in my boyfriend, in mathematics, and in many other things.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
I acknowledge that this is a common side-effect of the brain that nature has given us. I make a conscious effort to detect and delete any of my beliefs that fall into this category.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
I do not have this kind of faith, nor do I wish to. I believe that religious doctrines concerning deity are incorrect.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
I do have a code of ethics. I admit it is influenced by many factors, including my upbringing, my past experiences, my emotions, the culture in which I live, and even the laws of my country and local jurisdictions.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
This again is something that I do not have and do not believe to be desirable.
Two things. First:
Delete1. Paul's definition of faith, in context, is no different then the version that is not blind I have been alluding too. After the verse you quote you read things like this: "by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" Obtaining a witness is hardly blind as to whether what you are doing is right. Or another "[thus who have faith discover] he is a rewarder of them that diligently eseek him." again like a scientific method: exercise faith in X. If X is correct X will be confirmed. This is hardly blind. And in every case
Now they didn't have a full witness before the proceeded. But the people building LIGO, a gravitational wave detector, didn't have a full witness they would detect gravity waves either. And LIGO is seeing nothing. :) I am sure you are going to say it was the next logical step based on what we already know but this is true with religion as well. You recieve witnesses for more obvious things first, like helping others is good, then this leads to more advanced things, like God exists. But in every way it is a testing process. Not blind.
Defining it as blind again is to ignore the context described in the scriptures where witnesses (evidence) are to be received if it is right. But like I said, atheists wouldn't have as strong of a case if they couldn't try make scary sounding definitions of faith like blind acceptance.
The same Paul you quote also said to "prove all things" and the Savior demanded testing reminding his followers "by their fruits ye shall know them" so to make definitions of faith out of context (forgetting a testing process repeatedly described) is to be disingenuous and is to build a stawman. But I guess if atheists can't knock down stawmen then life would be harder for them.
2. John Conway has some excellent lectures on defending free will. He admits you can't prove it but explains that he has reasons to believe it is true. This is an *excellent* example of faith not misplaced. On one had it can't be proven in a falsifiable way and on the other hand if accepted you find all kinds of reasons you are on the right track.
If you are going to attack the faith in un-falsifiable things advocated in the scriptures, the faith where things receive witnesses you are on the right track, the faith where it is also said to prove all things and to test "their fruits", then always keep these lectures in mind. Here is faith in an un-falsifiable thing, free will, that when accepted one discovers all kinds of good and legitimate reasons to believe one has chosen right.
SO if you are going to attack the faith described in scripture, attack this. Other definitions of faith are useful stramen for athesists, but not much else.
Anyways, the non-strawman version of faith that is described in the scriptures works like this:
Delete1. Have you every helped out your fellow man?
2. If yes did you receive legitimate reasons for believing what you did was good.
3. If so you have received confirmation of an un-falsifiable fact, that helping others is good or right (something that cannot be proved with science), and have received the witnesses described in Alma 32 or Hebrews 11 or Christ saying "by their fruits ye shall know them".
4. Repeat the process with another un-falsifiable principle.
5. As one receives more witnesses of un-falsifiable principles one has greater knowledge that what he/she is doing is good and right and should thus continue on to greater un-falsifiable things. God being the greatest.
This form of testing is to be done the who way and is not pure blind acceptance.
Keith, last analogy and I will go away I promise. :) (And this is only an analogy and admittedly isn't perfect)
DeleteOne can secularize mathematics and go so far as to get rid of all references to infinity as one cannot observe infinity with natural eyes. (They can define and conceptualize the infinite as to religious people, but you can't actually see and observe all the members of an infinite set)
But what have you really done other then shot yourself in the foot but such extreme secularization. Surely the greatest and some of the most beautiful theorems and branches of mathematics make reference to infinity. (Like Godel! or any other theorem making reference to something like the natural numbers of some un-countable set)
And once you accept infinite sets (whos members can't all be seen) you have to develop new and more general machinery to proceed. This leads to those greater theoerms and branches.
Likewise, a-la Godel reasoning, one may realize there may be a whole slew of un-falsifiable things. Should we secularize the world such that they go away or should we build a machinery generalizing the scientific method, like Alma 32, allowing us to tract these truths with a similar safety we see in science.
Just like mathematics with references to infinite sets (whos members can't be seen just defined or conceptualized) is beautiful and leads to some of the greatest advancements in that field, likewise, to accept there are certain un-falsifiable truths does the same. And even may lead one to the greatest theorem of all: God exists.
I know you will say "false analogy" and "you butchered this" but still... just wanted to say it anyways. Have a great New Year's Keith!
In your first (of these most recent three) reply, you speak of a straw man argument, yet your whole argument is centered around an ad hominem attack against atheists. It goes like this "Atheists use a definition of faith that I don't like, therefore everything that they say about religion is false." You know that I am an atheist, Joe. I do not appreciate you using such an attack against me. It is not polite.
DeleteThe method that you have described is indeed no different than the scientific method. There is no such thing as the "generalized" scientific method, because the one you have described is precisely the same. The one difference is that you claim that these experiments are all unfalsifiable. Tell me, Joe, why is this not the case? It is out of convenience. You want to believe that there is a God, so you pretend to be scientific and design an experiment to "know" whether there is one. You pray about it and ponder about it and IF you feel endorphins, you conclude that these feelings are one of the members of the godhead telling you that it's real. If you do not feel these endorphins, you make no conclusion.
This is not how an experiment works. An true experiment will result in a conclusion one way or the other, not just a conclusion in favor of the hypothesis on one side or no conclusion on the other side. If a person is to complete this experiment and receive no such endorphin rush as described by all of the religious people who have claimed to receive such witness, then they must conclude that the hypothesis (ie, God exists) is false. However, this conclusion is not allowed in your experiment, hence the reason you say it is unfalsifiable, and also the reason I say that your experiment is meaningless. This is called a confirmation bias. You will deny or deflect any evidence that contradicts your hypothesis and accept only evidence that supports it. You are not allowed to pretend that your experiment is scientific when you miss such a key step of the process. If scientists never admitted that sometimes they're wrong, we'd still believe that the Earth is flat and that removing vast amounts of blood would cure a person of any malady.
And I will say "false analogy" on two counts. First, the thing about helping other people. That is not religious at all. That is biological. I am capable of empathy because of the brain and psyche that I have been given by nature--the one that took billions of years to evolve from single-celled organisms. I can feel feelings and I can project those feelings onto other people. This is why helping other people feels good. I feel good when someone does something nice for me, and similarly I can empathize with the fact that someone else will feel the same way when I do something nice for them. To say that morality implies the existence of a deity is a non-sequitur. Your argument is thus "X is unfalsifiable, Y is unfalsifiable, therefore if you convince yourself of X then Y must follow immediately." There is no logical coherence in this argument.
DeleteThe same goes for mathematics. You use the word "secular", which also seems to be a word that you detest as much as "atheist". Why do you find these words so distasteful? But, anyway, the existence of infinity in no way de-secularizes mathematics. The infinite axiom (and yes, it is an axiom, it does not follow from the other axioms) is an axiom just like any of the others. You talk about "seeing" the members of an infinite set. The truth is that all sets are abstract and none of their elements can ever been "seen". You miss completely the point of math being an abstract field. It is not physics. It is not biology or chemistry. It differs from all the other sciences in the fact that it is not empirical in nature, it is purely logical. It is abstract. The existence of infinity is in no way more or less a stretch of the imagination than the existence of any finite set, or even the existence of the empty set.
The existence of an infinite set is in no way connected with the existence of a deity, and cannot result in the logical conclusion that any particular deity exists. If you are to embrace the existence of a god, it must be as an axiom. That's the point of the post.
Answer just this one question, Joe. Is there anything (logical argument, evidence, etc) that would convince you that belief in gods is not rational? If so, please let me know what would do it. If not, then I see no point in ever having this discussion with you again, since you admit that nothing I say will change your mind.
DeleteAnd, for the record, math is already secular. I am not trying to secularize it. No belief in gods is necessary or implied in the study of mathematics. The same is true of all scientific fields.
Keith,
ReplyDeleteI love you. You are a great man of passion and thus I know you will be very successful.
"since you admit that nothing I say will change your mind. "
I am very sorry I misunderstood. I didn't realize these discussions are only useful for conversion. My purpose is so that we can get out into the open where we are coming from despite our differences. I *always* hope to know where my friends are coming from. Your ideas are priceless to me even though I may not always agree.
And the second reason is, we are to search out of the best books and I take this to mean out of the best minds. My mind may not qualify with this criteria this but your mind surely does. You have one of the best minds I know and I enjoy searching it.
"You know that I am an atheist, Joe. "
I am very sorry for crossing this line. I am a Mormon and have been perfectly happy to accept critisisms you have given me about Mormons. Strawman are built by both sides. I freely admit Mormons build strawmen too and didn't realize accusing one side of constructing a certain strawman was so bad. Since I accept you critiques about Mormons "that [you] don't like" (to use your quotes), I didn't realize it was out of line for me to do the same.
So I am sorry and will try not to discuss strawmen I perceive plague atheism with you again.
"This is not how an experiment works."
This is the point. Science deals with falsifiable claims like the distance between us and the sun. Science *does not* deal with unfalsifiable claims that have a right or wrong answer like does free will or an objective morality exists. So the point is: how do you now approach unfalsifiable claims that are either true or false like: does free will or an objective morality exist? Obviously we must generalize.
I had hoped this would resonate with you since this happens in mathematics all the time. When one stops dealing with metric spaces and wants to define continuity one has to drop the concept of distance and move to something like open sets. So now we have a situation where statements are clearly true of false but are not falsifiable. Therefore, like dropping distance when one isn't discussing metric spaces, we need a system that generalizes the scientific method without making reference to falsifiability.
I maintain that Alma 32 and Christ's "by their fruits shall ye know them" provide the best generalization. You may disagree and have your own system but I have been willing to put on paper what mine is. I hope whatever system you chose attempts to generalize the scientific method, recognizes these statements are either true or false *and* recognizes the philosophy 101 facts that statements such as these are not falsifiable.
But you are right in your critique: to address non-falsifiable truths one must adopt a system that does not refer to falsifiability like standard science does. Likewise, definitions of continuity for metric spaces must not refer to distance.
"If you are to embrace the existence of a god, it must be as an axiom.... And, for the record, math is already secular."
Right, that's why I hope you had enjoyed the analogy because the existence of infinite sets *also* has to be axiomitized. Not sure where you got the idea this implies God is inside of mathematics... Anyways, I guess this was not taken as an analogy but somehow evidence for God in math so I am sorry I was so unclear.
But the larger thing is I am sorry I tried to construct an analogy I hoped you would enjoy. If you have tried to personally cater an analogy for my field of study, like cosmic inflation, I would be grateful and flattered. And even if you got all facts wrong about cosmic inflation I would still be flattered you tried. Sorry if this attempt was offensive.
I am very sorry Keith for crossing many lines. I am a man of many faults. I hope you forgive me and one again wish you a Happy New Years.