toldailytopic: Which requires the greater faith, atheism or theism?

[zippy2006]

That's actually not the CA. The CA seeks to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural by the incompleteness of the natural Cosmos. It is not about the methodological limitations of science.

I'm going to quote something Selaphiel said early, because it addresses this confusion directly.



The CA is not a God-of-the-gaps argument in the sense of arguing from ignorance, nor does it rely on the limitations of science. It is an argument that the physical Cosmos requires that there be some non-physical First Cause.

I don't agree with it, but that's the argument.

I said the CA points to a inadequacy in the scientific approach or its applicability to certain questions. I don't particularly disagree with the other things you've said here, but they don't invalidate my statement. In any case it can be drawn out more clearly in this post:

God isn't another finite being in the chain, he is the answer to the very rational and scientifically unanswerable question, he is the necessary ground of being, the non-contingent anchor that is the only way around the infinite regress.

That's just special pleading, Zip. You can't just heap a bunch of properties upon God and declare that he alone is allowed to have them.

What properties? Necessity? Isn't that the whole point? A necessary being? Again, you're unable to disassociate your fairy-tale God from the philosophical concept. It's an atheistic taboo against the word.

Your "magical" talk is just your own inability to disassociate your fairy tale versions of God from a philosophical concept.

What I mean by "magical" is that it is opaque to further examination. Can you explain how an unmoved mover moves moving things without itself moving?

This is where the relevance of my earlier statement comes. By magical you mean it is opaque to further scientific examination. Of course it is. That's the whole point.

Science has access to contingent realities, things that can be empirically accessed. God, as the rational answer to these contingent realities themselves, is clearly not accessible to science in the way contingent realities are. Of course you are free to ask yourself whether an infinite regress of movers or an unmoved mover is more plausible. Aristotle's formulation has to do with "movement" from potency to act requiring something else itself in act.

I'm not opposed to answering, but could you narrow down the list a bit, just for the sake of brevity? It's a bit of a laundry list, and I can't imagine that I'll be able to write a response that does justice for each and every one of the things you suggested here before losing track of and interest in the thread. Specifically, what epistemological system do you propose to use to understand the origin of the Cosmos and how?

I'm not overly concerned with epistemology other than the fact that it helps highlight the futility of scientific/empirical/a posteriori justification.

Logic is fine, as far as it goes. But the danger in logic is that it is perfectly capable to creating abstractions that are beautiful and elegant and simple and self-consistent, and also that have no bearing on reality whatsoever.

Let me be curt: every single scientific achievement relies directly on logic.

I wasn't asking if you could use science to check their output. I was asking why we should trust epistemologies that produce errant conclusions so regularly when we can check them with science?

How can you check them? By putting the cart before the horse?

Physics is largely mathematics plus real-world confirmation. The Higgs Boson was predicted on the basis of little more than the fact that it made the math for the Standard Model work out, and we went and built the LHC to test it. But as for the Big Bang, there's lots of empirical evidence:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#evidence

Fair enough, the problem has more to do with the necessity of these other disciplines in order to make use of the data.

If you know what I mean, then how do you go on about the reliability of science? Is the induction principle sound or isn't it?

Well, science works. There aren't a lot of other things that work nearly as well.

You aren't really answering my questions. In other words, I could ask why science works, and the modern scientist in perfect honesty would answer, "I have absolutely no idea." It's beyond the purview of science, even of deductive reason or strong syllogisms.

z: Does science work?
s: Yes
z: Why does science work?
s: I have absolutely no idea
z: How do you know science is working?
s: We have buildings that stand up; it has worked in the past
z: Are you saying this is a reason to believe it is now working and will continue working?
s: No, of course not

...as soon as you let the inquisitive 4-year-old into the science lab the game is up; you're plunged into metaphysics. Without the metaphysical commitment, you're feeling your way blindly:

It would be more realistic to visualize the universe as a black forest hidden on a cloud-obscured night, with science as a lost child trying to find its way home, feeling blindly the branches of the trees, occasionally being slapped in the face by one, tripping over the roots of another, stumbling on a path and taking it eagerly only to find it branching or, worse, precipitately ending. Nothing to do then but turn around and go back, find another branch, or, worse luck, with no path to be found, try again and again to feel your way through the dark trees striving to find some light, somewhere, anywhere. -Fisher

The metaphysics-eschewing scientist is a closet-metaphysician, and typically Aristotelian at that. If he actually avoided metaphysics like he claims, he would see more clearly how well Fisher has described him. Once this obvious historical thought enters the modern scientist's mind, he is not too far afield the question of God and philosophy.

 

[rexlunae]

I said the CA points to a inadequacy in the scientific approach or its applicability to certain questions. I don't particularly disagree with the other things you've said here, but they don't invalidate my statement. In any case it can be drawn out more clearly in this post:

Just wanting to make sure we're on the same page when we're talking about the CA, I'll deal with my objection below.

What properties? Necessity? Isn't that the whole point? A necessary being?

Yes, necessity. It's a categorization that is invented ad hoc to enable God specially to answer the question behind the CA. An "unmoved mover" is a whopping big exception to causality, which is the whole basis of the argument in the first place.

Again, you're unable to disassociate your fairy-tale God from the philosophical concept. It's an atheistic taboo against the word.

The whole necessary/contingent paradigm is a philosophical invention that has failed every meaningful test that science can do, and it falls well within the scientific purview. It's not that I have a taboo against using the G-word. I find it interesting that there is such a drive to repurpose the word "God", especially from more orthodox theists. But the real issue is that I consider the entire dichotomy false and inapplicable. Particles pop uncaused into and out of existence all the time, particles that are no more or less "contingent" than the particles that compose our own bodies. And while we've discovered a "God particle" (tongue firmly in cheek on that pseudonym), we've never seen anything like a necessary, well, anything.

This is where the relevance of my earlier statement comes. By magical you mean it is opaque to further scientific examination. Of course it is. That's the whole point.

No Zip, that's not what I mean. I mean opaque to any rational examination of any sort. It's the wizard behind the curtain.

Science has access to contingent realities, things that can be empirically accessed. God, as the rational answer to these contingent realities themselves, is clearly not accessible to science in the way contingent realities are.

By what means (what epistemology) do you know anything about that God?

Of course you are free to ask yourself whether an infinite regress of movers or an unmoved mover is more plausible.

I do so love false dichotomies stated as a sort of freedom, but what science suggests is that causality is not the absolute law that it is often portrayed to be.

I'm not overly concerned with epistemology other than the fact that it helps highlight the futility of scientific/empirical/a posteriori justification.

Well that's a funny attitude given that it is basically all that we are discussing. If you're saying that you don't have a coherent epistemology to understand God with, then I would agree. Otherwise, I'd like to know what it is.

Let me be curt: every single scientific achievement relies directly on logic.

I didn't say otherwise. What I pointed out is that logic alone is very limited.

How can you check them? By putting the cart before the horse?

Indeed. How can you check them? That is my question, and the fact that you can't tell me seems to confirm what I've said.

You aren't really answering my questions. In other words, I could ask why science works, and the modern scientist in perfect honesty would answer, "I have absolutely no idea." It's beyond the purview of science, even of deductive reason or strong syllogisms.

z: Does science work?
s: Yes
z: Why does science work?
s: I have absolutely no idea
z: How do you know science is working?
s: We have buildings that stand up; it has worked in the past
z: Are you saying this is a reason to believe it is now working and will continue working?
s: No, of course not

...as soon as you let the inquisitive 4-year-old into the science lab the game is up; you're plunged into metaphysics. Without the metaphysical commitment, you're feeling your way blindly:

I'm not sure what sort of "metaphysical commitment" you're looking for, but I'd probably tell the four-year-old to read Wikipedia for a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Epistemology_of_science

Science is a methodology, a systemized form of skepticism that builds knowledge from evidence, which distinguishes it from systems of building knowledge that rely on revelation, ingesting psycho-active compounds, or sitting in a dark room thinking really hard.

The metaphysics-eschewing scientist is a closet-metaphysician, and typically Aristotelian at that. If he actually avoided metaphysics like he claims, he would see more clearly how well Fisher has described him. Once this obvious historical thought enters the modern scientist's mind, he is not too far afield the question of God and philosophy.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I eschew metaphysics. I don't believe in the supernatural, but that isn't the same thing.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, necessity. It's a categorization that is invented ad hoc to enable God specially to answer the question behind the CA. An "unmoved mover" is a whopping big exception to causality, which is the whole basis of the argument in the first place.

Right, I think that's pretty much the point.

The whole necessary/contingent paradigm is a philosophical invention that has failed every meaningful test that science can do, and it falls well within the scientific purview.

Modal logic? Says who? That is perhaps one of the strangest things I've ever heard, considering the fact that science relies directly on such distinctions and Aristotle, the scientist par excellence, is the one who initially saw such things. Is the fact that you have brown eyes an accidental or essential property? How about that you have a brain? These distinctions are not only perfectly rational and universally accepted, they are a bedrock of scientific discourse.

It's not that I have a taboo against using the G-word. I find it interesting that there is such a drive to repurpose the word "God", especially from more orthodox theists.

That's quite an assertion. So what was the old concept of God, and what is the new one? :idunno:

But the real issue is that I consider the entire dichotomy false and inapplicable. Particles pop uncaused into and out of existence all the time, particles that are no more or less "contingent" than the particles that compose our own bodies. And while we've discovered a "God particle" (tongue firmly in cheek on that pseudonym), we've never seen anything like a necessary, well, anything.

Er, you're a fairly smart guy. Do you really believe that because we have not scientifically observed a necessary being its existence is therefore doubtful? Do you actually think your argument is anywhere near sound? Do you think the methods of science are suited to such a discovery? We've been over this too many times.

No Zip, that's not what I mean. I mean opaque to any rational examination of any sort. It's the wizard behind the curtain.

Why is it opaque to rational demonstration? Isn't the CA a direct counter-argument to such a claim? :idunno:

Science has access to contingent realities, things that can be empirically accessed. God, as the rational answer to these contingent realities themselves, is clearly not accessible to science in the way contingent realities are.

By what means (what epistemology) do you know anything about that God?

By philosophy; by the CA.

Of course you are free to ask yourself whether an infinite regress of movers or an unmoved mover is more plausible.

I do so love false dichotomies stated as a sort of freedom, but what science suggests is that causality is not the absolute law that it is often portrayed to be.

:chuckle: And I do so love this old desperate canard. Science isn't concerned exclusively with causality? Stuff actually just pops in and out of existence from nothing, uncaused? Brilliant. I can't wait to see how science demonstrates that.

Bob: Hey Jim, this computer just popped into existence on my desk!
Jim: How in the world did that happen!?
Bob: I've determined that nothing caused it. No causality of any kind. It actually came into existence from nothing.
Bob: Oh? What sort of scientific tests did you run to come to your conclusion?
Jim:

I didn't say otherwise. What I pointed out is that logic alone is very limited.

...therefore?

Science is a methodology, a systemized form of skepticism...

No it's not. Skepticism and science are incompatible. Science takes as granted objective regularities in the world, intelligibility, substances and accidents. There is no scientific argument for any of these things that are necessary for science.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I eschew metaphysics. I don't believe in the supernatural, but that isn't the same thing.

Then what's wrong with the CA? Or the question that it answers?

 

[gcthomas]

Quote:
Science is a methodology, a systemized form of skepticism...
No it's not. Skepticism and science are incompatible. Science takes as granted objective regularities in the world, intelligibility, substances and accidents. There is no scientific proof for any of these things that are necessary for science.

Proof is no part of science, but inductive reasoning is, and concluding by induction is not the same as taking for granted.

The objective realities are observable and testable: it is not enough to say it has not been proven, when the evidence is overwhelming that the assumption of regularity of the rules of the universe is a reliable and reasonable one. You can believe otherwise, but you'd have less evidence than science does.

 

[Lon]

If God tells you He exists, then it would be worse than "more faith," it'd be mind assassination. For me, this is the fact of the matter.

Why some of you are not told as plainly as you need to hear it like I was, I don't know. One answer among several would have to do with the will and desire of a man/woman and whether that one is listening or not. God is there and He is not silent as far as my experience goes.

 

[Sandycane]

I hope there's no expiration date on these threads...


Being an honest atheist I would have to say I have no faith at all.

1) I may have confidence or trust in a person, but it is because they have proven they are worthy of it. I wouldn't put trust in someone on speculation, or on faith.

2) I require proof to believe in a thing.

3) I do not believe in an invisible being in the sky.

Faith is not required to live or die.

 

[way 2 go]

I hope there's no expiration date on these threads...


Being an honest atheist I would have to say I have no faith at all.

do you have faith that you are right ?

 

[Clem]

Theism requires the greater effort.
But one can be closer to atheism without knowing it.
Just as one an be closer to theism without knowing it.
General rule of thumb: it's the cocky confident ones
that are breaking the rules in favour of an easier life.