Reason, Experience, And The Existence Of God

[Calm]

No, no, it is settled fact. No need to ask any more questions about it.

[mfbukowski]

Myths are stories we tell each other to explain why the thunder rolls, why the earth shakes, why the sun is swallowed by the moon.  Religious myths were based on "revelations" which I suspect were really just wild guesses, but in any event, they have been replaced by scientific myths which are based on experiment and observation.   The reason I prefer scientific myths is this:  If you did a complete reboot of human history, and erased all records and memories, taking us back to the stone age, then when we started over, our religious myths would be entirely different.  There would be no flood story, no Eden story, no savior.  But when our scientific myths emerged, they would be precisely the same as the ones we have today.  We would have immunology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics once again, and it would be exactly the same, because it is based on what is really there. 

Now notice, class, how this is a perfect example of a strongly held belief which is completely non-falsifiable, as well as metaphysical, for which evidence is completely impossible in principle, and which this individual defends with quite a lot of vigor.  It is a religious position, without need for belief in a deity.

 

In fact it parallels the views of Ronald Dworkin, the author of "Religion Without God" and many others including Richard Rorty.

 

In fact, one could call this an apologetic position.  The strength and continued insistence of the author in maintaining this highly imaginative belief confirms that it has great importance to her and great value in her life, and helps her to maintain her sense of "reality" despite the fact that there is no evidence for her view.

 

Ironically in other writings this author insists on the importance of falsifiability in propositions which might be truth candidates, but here in her own religious views, she abandons such a position.

 

This is in fact, a great confirmation of the religious impulse in mankind- one must create beliefs which give one purpose and direction in life which are totally disconnected from the possibility of the interference of logic and evidence.

 

Now for your homework.....

Edited November 30, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Actually, science has made no such determination.  It is simply the current theory.

Looking at LinuxGal's position, it is fun to speculate what might have happened if Heraclitus triumphed over Plato and Aristotle, and if what is regarded as the "real" was never bifurcated into the "mental" and "physical" which supposedly mirror each other in "true" statements.

 

The spirit would be seen as one with matter, and what we see and experience would be seen as the "real" rather than dreaming up this idea of "correspondence" between ideas and reality.

 

Or what if Pantheism became more dominant, and rocks and trees were seen as still having spirits?  That view is still held in Japan, which is one of the most progressive and scientific cultures on earth, yet Shinto beliefs are held by 80% of the people according to this wikipedia article

The word Shinto ("way of the gods") was adopted, originally as Shindo,^[8] from the written Chinese Shendao (神道, pinyin: shén dào),^{[9][note 2]} combining two kanji: "shin" (神^?), meaning "spirit" or kami; and "tō" (道^?), meaning a philosophical path or study (from the Chinese word dào).^[6][9] The oldest recorded usage of the word Shindo is from the second half of the 6th century.^[8]Kami are defined in English as "spirits", "essences" or "gods", referring to the energy generating the phenomena.^[10] Since Japanese language does not distinguish between singular and plural, kami refers to the divinity, or sacred essence, that manifests in multiple forms: rocks, trees, rivers, animals, places, and even people can be said to possess the nature of kami.^[10] Kami and people are not separate; they exist within the same world and share its interrelated complexity.^[6]

 

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

 

See what that dang Descartes did to us?  The Japanese sense of reality is entirely different than ours and yet we occupy the allegedly "same world" technologically.

 

And what of the Hindu beliefs of most Indians?   It is just incredibly naive to think the entire world sees things as we do in the West.

[mfbukowski]

I'll say it again, I'm not looking for confirmation, I'm waiting for the falsification hammer to fall.

KAATHUUNNNKKK.

[mfbukowski]

I will confess I got about half way through it and my eyes glossed over. It was heady stuff. My will give it another shot.

Here again is the short version.

[canard78]

Here again is the short version.

Don't sell yourself short people. Watch the long one. Keep your left hand on the pause button and your right hand holding a pen over a pad of paper. Pause every 2-3 minutes (minimum) and write down what you've just heard and what it has made you think.

This video remains one of the significant moments of my life. It was like my mind took a small, but essential, step in a forward direction. The world looks different after really, really thinking carefully about the long version.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk

[canard78]

More of the juvenile approach.

You can NOT know that your statement is accurate. You can only state that you "believe" it to be accurate.

Do you believe the Nephite writers had access to the New Testament text then? Which version, out of interest?

[mfbukowski]

Don't sell yourself short people. Watch the long one. Keep your left hand on the pause button and your right hand holding a pen over a pad of paper. Pause every 2-3 minutes (minimum) and write down what you've just heard and what it has made you think.

This video remains one of the significant moments of my life. It was like my mind took a small, but essential, step in a forward direction. The world looks different after really, really thinking carefully about the long version.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EjhVk-0Vhmk

This really can be a life changer but very few will listen in my experience. Thanks for the plug

I ran straight into this view (Not the video,obviously, but the philosophy behind it) 40 years ago studying philosophy in an secular university, while being an atheist myself and suddenly understood what religion was about, even though I did not believe in it.

I went to graduate school specifically to study this philosophy. 10 years later I discovered Mormonism and the Spirit whacked me over the head with an incredible spiritual experience and I have never looked back.

So now there are two here who say that this view changed their lives.

I know of others who had left the church, and are now prominent defenders of this new understanding of Mormonism, one of whom is now publishing books with this kind of view of Mormonism. This is the future of Mormonism- I am totally convinced.

The irony here is that Rorty himself was an atheist, or called himself one, though clearly he was more of an agnostic.

The MAJOR irony, which I have just learned, is that his wife was raised LDS, and still met with home teachers while she was married to Rorty, before his death. She was a philosopher in her own right, and I am positive they must have discussed this all privately. http://works.bepress.com/scott_abbott/58/

I am looking forward to some great conversations with him on the other side.

Edited November 30, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The world looks different after really, really thinking carefully about the long version.

So give me a little leeway in seeing my points. I have been thinking this way for about 45 years now, and I really am not in the same world at all.

It's quite odd for me to understand people who cannot see at least 2 or 3 different possible interpretations for every sentence they say. For me, language is a fog of ambiguity where most sentences have no importance, and the ones which might have importance have a list of possible interpretations as long as my arm.

That's why I find dogmatism so irritating. To think you can actually capture all the nuances of experience in a sentence or two is the height of hubris

[pogi]

Are you telling me that we are not qualified to judge that bats are in the class Mammalia and that fowls are in the class Aves?

 

I'm saying that it is arbitrarily based on some guys mental model of reality that other people (not all) agreed to accept.  It is not THE reality by which knowledge can be measured against, as you claim.  

Edited December 1, 2014 by pogi

[LinuxGal]

I'm saying that it is arbitrarily based on some guys mental model of reality that other people (not all) agreed to accept.  It is not THE reality by which knowledge can be measured against, as you claim.  

 

You'll forgive me if I appeared bored by the prospect of having to delve into a refutation of philosophical skepticism every time I try to make a simple point.

[pogi]

You'll forgive me if I appeared bored by the prospect of having to delve into a refutation of philosophical skepticism every time I try to make a simple point.

 

The point you were trying to make is not simple at all.  You were claiming that knowledge must be verified through a positive correspondence with reality, as if humans have discovered this realm of certainty by which we can measure all of our beliefs.  This is not just "philosophical skepticism", any scientist will admit that science is not about certainty.  So, where is this certain reality by which we are supposed to measure our knowledge against? 

 

Don't get me wrong, I love science.  It is incredibly useful, it expands our mental model of reality in useful ways, but they are still mental models only. 

Edited December 1, 2014 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

You'll forgive me if I appeared bored by the prospect of having to delve into a refutation of philosophical skepticism every time I try to make a simple point.

You seem perfectly willing to throw out your "simple points" without intellectual merit while insulting our intelligence, and yet when we present a real challenge, you are too "bored" to answer?

 

Stop posting your...  "simple points" ... and I for one will be glad to stop boring you making you reply.

 

In fact of course you DON'T reply.  I have challenged at least a half-dozen points you have tried to make, and all you do is ignore me and keep on repeating the same tired points.  And YOU claim to be bored with the discussion?

[LinuxGal]

The point you were trying to make is not simple at all.  You were claiming that knowledge must be verified through a positive correspondence with reality, as if humans have discovered this realm of certainty by which we can measure all of our beliefs.  This is not just "philosophical skepticism", any scientist will admit that science is not about certainty.  So, where is this certain reality by which we are supposed to measure our knowledge against? 

 

I will restate what I said upthread because I stand by it:

 

There is reality, and there are mental models of that reality.  Knowledge is when your mental model conforms with reality without contradiction.  

 

It is true there is nothing certain, since certainty falls under the aegis of a complete model of reality, which I consistently affirm is not required.

[LinuxGal]

I have challenged at least a half-dozen points you have tried to make, and all you do is ignore me and keep on repeating the same tired points. 

 

Then let's make it official.

[pogi]

I will restate what I said upthread because I stand by it:

 

There is reality, and there are mental models of that reality.  Knowledge is when your mental model conforms with reality without contradiction.  

 

It is true there is nothing certain, since certainty falls under the aegis of a complete model of reality, which I consistently affirm is not required.

 

Without the complete model, there are only mental models.

[LinuxGal]

Without the complete model, there are only mental models.

 

A complete model of the simplest thing is impossible.  The human brain doesn't have the processing power.

[pogi]

A complete model of the simplest thing is impossible.  The human brain doesn't have the processing power.

 

Ok, so your reality is not certain, we are finally getting somewhere. What does that leave you with?  A mental model only.  

[LinuxGal]

Ok, so your reality is not certain, we are finally getting somewhere. What does that leave you with?  A mental model only.  

 

A mental model consistent with reality.  Which is my definition of knowledge.

[mfbukowski]

I will restate what I said upthread because I stand by it:

 

There is reality, and there are mental models of that reality.  Knowledge is when your mental model conforms with reality without contradiction.  

 

It is true there is nothing certain, since certainty falls under the aegis of a complete model of reality, which I consistently affirm is not required.

Ridiculous.

 

How does one get to check the "reality" with what it supposed corresponds to???   Is science finished?

 

Are there no undiscovered "facts"?

 

Honestly you really need to study some philosophy of science.  Your views are embarrassingly naive.

 

9.2 No Independent Access to Reality

The objection that may well have been the most effective in causing discontent with the correspondence theory is based on an epistemological concern. In a nutshell, the objection is that a correspondence theory of truth must inevitably lead into skepticism about the external world because the required correspondence between our thoughts and reality is not ascertainable. Ever since Berkeley's attack on the representational theory of the mind, objections of this sort have enjoyed considerable popularity. It is typically pointed out that we cannot step outside our own minds to compare our thoughts with mind-independent reality. Yet—so the objection continues—on the correspondence theory of truth, this is precisely what we would have to do to gain knowledge. We would have to access reality as it is in itself, independently of our cognition of it, and determine whether our thoughts correspond to it. Since this is impossible, since all our access to the world is mediated by our cognition, the correspondence theory makes knowledge impossible (cf. Kant 1800, intro vii). Assuming that the resulting skepticism is unacceptable, the correspondence theory has to be rejected, and some other account of truth, an epistemic (anti-realist) account of some sort, has to be put in its place (Cf., e.g., Blanshard 1941.)

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/#5

 

Honestly you are just digging yourself deeper and deeper into the hole.

 

But I suppose you will not respond to this either and keep on digging and saying you are too bored to answer.

Edited December 1, 2014 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

A mental model consistent with reality.  Which is my definition of knowledge.

 

You forgot a word - "uncertain"

 

A mental model consistent with an "uncertain" reality.  There that's better.

 

 Do you know what uncertain means?  IT MAY NOT BE REAL (not yelling, just want to make it very clear).  If this supposed reality may not be real, then all we are doing is filling in the gaps with a mental model of what we think it may be.   In other words, what you are saying is that knowledge is a mental model of reality consistent with a mental model of reality. 

Edited December 1, 2014 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

A mental model consistent with reality.  Which is my definition of knowledge.

How can you know your mental model is consistent with "reality"?   How do you get "out" to "reality" beyond your perceptions, to check it?

[mfbukowski]

A mental model consistent with an uncertain reality?  Do you know what uncertain means?  IT MAY NOT BE REAL (not yelling, just want to make it very clear).  If this supposed reality may not be real, then all we are doing is filling in the gaps with a mental model of what we think it may be.   In other words, what you are saying is that knowledge is a mental model of reality consistent with a mental model of reality. 

Lol.  We are saying the same things.

 

OK I see I am not needed here. 

See also above post 195.

 

9.2 No Independent Access to Reality The objection that may well have been the most effective in causing discontent with the correspondence theory is based on an epistemological concern. In a nutshell, the objection is that a correspondence theory of truth must inevitably lead into skepticism about the external world because the required correspondence between our thoughts and reality is not ascertainable

 

Maybe if she reads it three times, the idea will get across, but that is doubtful I guess.

Edited December 1, 2014 by mfbukowski

[LinuxGal]

A mental model consistent with an uncertain reality?  Do you know what uncertain means?  IT MAY NOT BE REAL (not yelling, just want to make it very clear).  If this supposed reality may not be real, then all we are doing is filling in the gaps with a mental model of what we think it may be.   In other words, what you are saying is that knowledge is a mental model of reality consistent with a mental model of reality. 

 

I like to put forward a certain thought experiment to illustrate the difference between religion and science. Religion tells us the world was created in six days, about six thousand years ago, based on certain writings that come to us from the bronze age. Science tells us the world formed about 4.5 billion years ago in the solar accretion disk, based on observations through telescopes of other such solar systems forming, and the dating of certain radioisotopes obtained from the moon. Imagine a vast cataclysm that wipes out all human records and memories.  We're left alive, but we have to start all over. At first there very well may be a religious phase, but it will almost surely not involve another Moses, another Israel, another Exodus, another five books of the Torah.  We will have entirely different myths about the creation of the world, because our religious myths are not based on a methodical observation of nature.  But in time, over thousands of years, this religion will give way to science once again, because people will rediscover telescopes and radiation and space travel.  And the story that rebooted science will tell us is that the world was formed about 4.5 billion years ago in the solar accretion disk, because that is based on a reality that does not change.

[pogi]

I like to put forward a certain thought experiment to illustrate the difference between religion and science. Religion tells us the world was created in six days, about six thousand years ago, based on certain writings that come to us from the bronze age. Science tells us the world formed about 4.5 billion years ago in the solar accretion disk, based on observations through telescopes of other such solar systems forming, and the dating of certain radioisotopes obtained from the moon. Imagine a vast cataclysm that wipes out all human records and memories.  We're left alive, but we have to start all over. At first there very well may be a religious phase, but it will almost surely not involve another Moses, another Israel, another Exodus, another five books of the Torah.  We will have entirely different myths about the creation of the world, because our religious myths are not based on a methodical observation of nature.  But in time, over thousands of years, this religion will give way to science once again, because people will rediscover telescopes and radiation and space travel.  And the story that rebooted science will tell us is that the world was formed about 4.5 billion years ago in the solar accretion disk, because that is based on a reality that does not change.

 

Well that's one interesting mental model of reality.  I don't know what it has to do with what we were talking about though.

Edited December 1, 2014 by pogi