Faith and Reason: Incompatible or ????

[mfbukowski]

Here  is a quote from a great volume  by Perry on James' view of Radical Empiricism, and I  hope that some  can follow it.  This view is  really the basis of why I see  "direct  experience" as the closest we get to  "truth" and therefore religious experience can be "true" even in an absolute  sense.  For those  who might not  understand the jargon "trans empirical reality" is any version of "reality " which  is NOT empirical- ie: subject to experience.

So postulating that language "corresponds to reality" is an example of "trans-empirical reality" or also the theory that our perceptions are OF SOMETHING that are NOT INCLUDED in the perception can be said to be "real".  So this standard for truth that the "statement corresponds to reality as it is" as DEFINING "TRUTH" is erroneous BECAUSE we can NEVER experience- in that view- "reality as it is" but only our perceptions OF "reality"!

James is saying essentially that our perceptions ARE "reality" and that there is no other "reality" we can talk about.

Therefore if you see God- THAT is reality.  It is part of the relations and connections which you have  experienced.

So the problem of "category mistakes" is NOT EMPIRICAL - it is about how we DISCUSS the EXPERIENCES we have and how WE CATEGORIZE them for a purpose- but the CATEGORIES are NOT "real" or hard and fast in any way- they strictly apply to the CONTEXT.

One example that Ryle uses to illustrate category errors are about two people discussing a university, and one thinking that the word "University" applies to just the physical-  the buildings of the university.

He strolls around campus and then asks- "Well these are nice buildings but where is the UNIVERSITY?"

That is a "category error" because he has confused the LANGUAGE of the discourse- the university is not buildings, it is an institution.

Similarly "I know the church is true" does not mean that every sentence ever spoken in a church meeting is empirically accurate- it means that the INSTITUTION of the church is "true" in the sense that living its precepts gives the desired results of a pleasant life.

It is somewhat like saying that "I know that UCLA is a "True University" while USC may not be. 

(Ducking for cover)

James has had a strong but diffused influence on what has come since in philosophy- primarily because of the influence of his students 

I spent  three years doing grad work on William James at City University of New York under the tutelage of a great  James scholar- John Mc Dermott

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._McDermott_(philosopher)

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/j/james/william/radical/preface.html

Bolding, underlining and text color added.
 

Quote

 

Essays in Radical Empiricism, by William James

Editor’s Preface

THE present volume is an attempt to carry out a plan which William James is known to have formed several years before his death. In 1907 he collected reprints in an envelope which he inscribed with the title ‘Essays in Radical Empiricism’; and he also had duplicate sets of these reprints bound, under the same title, and deposited for the use of students in the general Harvard Library, and in the Philosophical Library in Emerson Hall.

Two years later Professor James published The Meaning of Truth and A Pluralistic Universe, and inserted in these volumes several of the articles which he had intended to use in the ‘Essays in Radical Empiricism.’ Whether he would nevertheless have carried out his original plan, had he lived, cannot be certainly known. Several facts, however, stand out very clearly. In the first place, the articles included in the original plan but omitted from his later volumes are indispensable to the understanding of his other writings. To these articles he repeatedly alludes. Thus, in The Meaning of Truth (p. 127), he says: “This statement is probably excessively obscure to any one who has not read my two articles ‘Does Consciousness Exist?’ and ‘A World of Pure Experience.’” Other allusions have been indicated in the present text. In the second place, the articles originally brought together as ‘Essays in Radical Empiricism’ form a connected whole. Not only were most of them written consecutively within a period of two years, but they contain numerous cross-references. In the third place, Professor James regarded ‘radical empiricism’ as an independentdoctrine. This he asserted expressly: “Let me say that there is no logical connexion between pragmatism, as I understand it, and a doctrine which I have recently set forth as ‘radical empiricism.’ The latter stands on its own feet. One may entirely reject it and still be a pragmatist.” (Pragmatism, 1907, Preface, p. ix.) Finally, Professor James came toward the end of his life to regard ‘radical empiricism’ as more fundamental and more important than 'pragmatism.' In the Preface to The Meaning of Truth (1909), the author gives the following explanation of his desire to continue, and if possible conclude, the controversy over pragmatism: “ I am interested in another doctrine in philosophy to which I give the name of radical empiricism, and it seems to me that the establishment of the pragmatist theory of truth is a step of first-rate importance in making radical empiricism prevail “ (p. xii).

In preparing the present volume, the editor has therefore been governed by two motives. On the one hand, he has sought to preserve and make accessible certain important articles not to be found in Professor James’s other books. This is true of Essays 1, II IV, V, VIII, IX, x, Xi, and XII. On the other hand, he has sought to bring together in one volume a set of essays treating systematically of one independent, coherent, and fundamental doctrine. To this end it has seemed best to include three essays (III VI, and VII), which, although included in the original plan, were afterwards reprinted elsewhere; and one essay, XII, not included in the original plan. Essays III, VI, and VII are indispensable to the consecutiveness of the series, and are so interwoven with the rest that it is necessary that the student should have them at hand for ready consultation. Essay XII throws an important light on the author’s general ‘empiricism,’ and forms an important link between ‘radical empiricism’ and the author’s other doctrines.

In short, the present volume is designed not as a collection but rather as a treatise. It is intended that another volume shall be issued which shall contain papers having biographical or historical importance which have not yet been reprinted in book form. The present volume is intended not only for students of Professor James’s philosophy, but for students of metaphysics and the theory of knowledge. It sets forth systematically and within brief compass the doctrine of ‘radical empiricism.’

A word more may be in order concerning the general meaning of this doctrine. In the Preface to the Will to Believe (1898), Professor James gives the name "radical empiricism" to his “ philosophic attitude,” and adds the following explanation: “I say ‘empiricism,’ because it is contented to regard its most assured conclusions concerning matters of fact as hypotheses liable to modification in the course of future experience; and I say ‘radical,’ because it treats the doctrine of monism itself as an hypothesis, and, unlike so much of the halfway empiricism that is current under the name of positivism or agnosticism or scientific naturalism, it does not dogmatically affirm monism as something with which all experience has got to square “ (pp. vii-viii). An ‘empiricism’ of this description is a “philosophic attitude” or temper of mind rather than a doctrine, and characterizes all of Professor James’s writings. It is set forth in Essay XII of the present volume.

In a narrower sense, ‘empiricism’ is the method of resorting to particular experiences for the solution of philosophical problems. Rationalists are the men of principles, empiricists the men of facts. (Some Problems of Philosophy, p. 35; cf. also, ibid., p. 44; and Pragmatism, pp.9, 51.) Or, “since principles are universals, and facts are particulars, perhaps the best way of characterizing the two tendencies is to say that rationalist thinking proceeds most willingly by going from wholes to parts, while empiricist thinking proceeds by going from parts to wholes.” (Some Problems of Philosophy, p. 35; cf. also ibid., p. 98; and A Pluralistic Universe, p. 7.) Again, empiricism “remands us to sensation.” (Op. cit., P. 264.) The “empiricist view” insists that, “as reality is created temporally day by day, concepts . . . can never fitly supersede perception. . . . The deeper features of reality are found only in perceptual experience.” (Some Problems of Philosophy, pp. 100, 97.) Empiricism in this sense is as yet characteristic of Professor James’s philosophy as a whole. It is not the distinctive and independent doctrine set forth in the present book.

The only summary of ‘radical empiricism’ in this last and narrowest sense appears in the Preface to The Meaning of Truth (pp. xii-xiii); and it must be reprinted here as the key to the text that follows. ¹

¹ The use of numerals and italics is introduced by the editor.

“Radical empiricism consists (1) first of a postulate, (2) next of a statement of fact, (3) and finally of a generalized conclusion.”

(1) “The postulate is that the only things that shall be debatable among philosophers shall be things definable in terms drawn from experience. (Things of an unexperienceable nature may exist ad libitum, but they form no part of the material for philosophic debate.) ” This is “the principle of pure experience” as “a methodical postulate.” (Cf. below, pp. 159, 241.) This postulate corresponds to the notion which the author repeatedly attributes to Shadworth Hodgson, the notion “that realities are only what they are ‘known as."’ (Pragmatism, p. 50; Varieties of Religious Experience, p. 443; The Meaning of Truth, pp. 43, 118.) In this sense ‘radical empiricism’ and pragmatism are closely allied. Indeed, if pragmatism be defined as the assertion that “the meaning of any proposition can always be brought down to some particular consequence in our future practical experience, . . . the point lying in the fact that the experience must be particular rather than in the fact that it must be active “ (Meaning of Truth, p. 9.10); then pragmatism and the above postulate come to the same thing. The present book, however, consists not so much in the assertion of this postulate as in the use of it. And the method is successful in special applications by virtue of a certain “statement of fact” concerning relations.

(2) “The statement of fact is that the relations between things, conjunctive as well as disjunctive, are just as much matters of direct particular experience, neither more so nor less so, than the things themselves.” (Cf. also A Pluralistic Universe, p. 280; The Will to Believe, p. 278.) This is the central doctrine of the present book. It distinguishes ‘radical empiricism’ from the “ordinary empiricism” of Hume, J. S. Mill, etc., with which it is otherwise allied. (Cf. below, pp. 42-44.) It provides an empirical and relational version of ‘activity,’ and so distinguishes the author's voluntarism from a view with which it is easily confused — the view which upholds a pure or transcendent activity. (Cf. below, Essay VI.) It makes it possible to escape the vicious disjunctions that have thus far baffled philosophy: such disjunctions as those between consciousness and physical nature, between thought and its object, between one mind and another, and between one ‘thing’ and another. These disjunctions need not be ‘overcome’ by calling in any “ extraneous trans-empirical connective support” (Meaning of Truth, Preface, p. xiii); they may now be avoided by regarding the dualities in question as only differences of empirical relationship among common empirical terms. The pragmatistic account of ‘meaning’ and ‘truth,’ shows only how a vicious disjunction between ‘idea’ and ‘object’ may thus be avoided. The present volume not only presents pragmatism in this light; but adds similar accounts of the other dualities mentioned above.

Thus while pragmatism and radical empiricism do not differ essentially when regarded as methods, they are independent when regarded as doctrines. For it would be possible to hold the pragmatistic theory of ‘meaning’ and ‘truth,’ without basing it on any fundamental theory of relations, and without extending such a theory of relations to residual philosophical problems; without, in short, holding either to the above ‘statement of fact,’ or to the following ‘generalized conclusion.’

(3) “The generalized conclusion is that therefore the parts of experience hold together from next to next by relations that are themselves parts of experience. The directly apprehended universe needs., in short, no extraneous transempirical connective support, but possesses in its own right a concatenated or continuous structure.” When thus generalized, ‘radical empiricism’ is not only a theory of knowledge comprising pragmatism as a special chapter, but a metaphysic as well. It excludes “ the hypothesis of trans-empirical reality “ (Cf. below, p. 195). It is the author’s most rigorous statement of his theory that reality is an "experience-continuum." (Meaning of Truth, p. 152; A Pluralistic Universe, Lect. v, vii.) It is that positive and constructive ‘empiricism’ of which Professor James said: “Let empiricism once become associated with religion, as hitherto, through some strange misunderstanding, it has been associated with irreligion, and I believe that a new era of religion as well as of philosophy will be ready to begin.” (Op. cit., p. 314; cf. ibid., Lect. viii, passim; and The Varieties of Religious Experience, pp. 515-527.)

The editor desires to acknowledge his obligations to the periodicals from which these essays have been reprinted, and to the many friends of Professor James who have rendered valuable advice and assistance in the preparation of the present volume.

Ralph Barton Perry.
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
January 8, 1912.

Essays in Radical Empiricism, by William James

 

 

This attitude started my search based on a church devoted to personal religious experience and a pragmatic attitude as perfectly exemplified  in Alma 32 and Moroni 10 and James 1 and all the  other statements about  the importance of "testimony" as direct experience of God and therefore His "reality".

And I suppose  I should really throw in here the quote that really hooked me on Mormonism- the view that any "true" God would have to be something like us and that  polytheism might in fact make sense

This is from Varieties of Religious Experience ("Postscript") https://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/james/james16.htm#526

Quote

Meanwhile the practical needs and experiences of religion seem to me sufficiently met by the belief that beyond each man and in a fashion continuous with him there exists a larger power which is friendly to him and to his ideals. All that the facts require is that the power should be both other and larger than our conscious selves. Anything larger will do, if only it be large enough to trust for the next step. It need not be infinite, it need not be solitary. It might conceivably even be only a larger and more godlike self, of which the present self would then be but the mutilated expression, and the universe might conceivably be a collection of such selves, of different degrees of inclusiveness, with no absolute unity realized in it at all. * Thus would a sort of polytheism return upon us- a polytheism which I do not on this occasion defend, for my only aim at present is to keep the testimony of religious experience clearly within its proper bounds. [Compare Lectures VI and VII above.]

And incidentally this is what eventually also brought Rorty around to religion but that is  another long story itself.

Edited August 28, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I care about the explanation and haven’t ever said otherwise, of course I care and I’ve been trying very hard to get a better understanding.  I said I don’t want to read an article by this author because I find his style grating.  

And btw, I think I’ve demonstrated a lot of patience over our many exchanges especially with what I would characterize as condescending remarks from you towards me.  I put up with these remarks because at the end of the day I think you have a sincere heart and probably don’t mean to be rude, but even my patience has its limits.  

You act like the communication breakdown is entirely on my side and I think that’s just arrogant.  I’m willing to own up to being part of the problem, but don’t start belittling and take some ownership on your end.  

As for the categories of scientific evidence and religious evidence, that was your point on the other thread.  I’m just using that same point in a slightly different context because I think it is applicable here.  

I genuinely apologize for my frustration and subsequent grumpiness  and  hope we can resolve our differences.

I am sorry I offended you.  I tend to do that and I am working on it.

But I  really am compelled  to make my answers short in the future and refer you to other material that you must read to understand my points.  I just don't have the time.

My very last post was at least  partially intended to help you understand my background, along with others.

I quit philosophy academically because  I believed (and still believe) Wittgenstein that he essentially "cured" philosophy by developing a method which solved all philosophical "problems" as semantic confusions.  And I hate repeating myself as I would have to do teaching philos 101 every year until I got tenure.

And this whole "category mistake" is exactly - a problem in SEMANTICS, not ontology or logic or "reality"- there are no mysterious "categories of ideas" floating around objectively - the use of the term is strictly to be based on a given statement within a context.  For there to be objective entities there would have to be objective evidence  and I don't think we have every photographed a cosmic "category"

Note that this professor speaks of a particular "grammar" of misunderstanding  resulting in category mistakes.  These are not ontological categories separating "science" from "religion" but grammatical mistakes we might make  coming from one way of thinking to another.

You may not read it but I have done my best.  

https://apps.missouristate.edu/outreach/icourses/transcripts/PHI110L7.pdf

 

[Glenn101]

33 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think you missed what I said then, because I directly commented on this very point when i pointed out that Givens makes a similar argument and I affirmed that I don’t have a problem with people choosing faith over scientific arguments.  

I also made the point about how evidence for faith is categorically different than scientific evidence and how I think it’s essential to treat them differently.  

Okay. I reread your comments.

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

That there is sufficient evidence on either side of these issues that we should just choose faith.  I don't really agree that there is sufficient evidence on both sides of this issue.  From my vantage point the types of evidence are categorically different.  Evidence for God isn't objective scholarly evidence, but evidence for natural causes for the origin of the universe is science based and objective.

The point that Dan makes in his article is that there is insufficient objective evidence for many things. As to the origins of the universe, there is insufficient evidence to conclude as did Bertrand Russell that this universe and man and woman kind are "the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms."  Evidence such as this conclusion by CERN scientists that we should not be here at all. James Gardner in his book "Bicosm" quotes Lee Smolin in his 1997 Book "Life of the Cosmos" that the odds of a universe created by randomly choosing the laws of physics will contain stars is something like 10 to the 229th power. One cannot statistically infer that the universe is a Bertrand Russell accident. The case for some type of external influence shaping, controlling the formation of the universe is 10 to the 229th power greater than formation by accident. 

Glenn

[Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The point that Dan makes in his article is that there is insufficient objective evidence for many things. As to the origins of the universe, there is insufficient evidence to conclude as did Bertrand Russell that this universe and man and woman kind are "the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms."  Evidence such as this conclusion by CERN scientists that we should not be here at all. James Gardner in his book "Bicosm" quotes Lee Smolin in his 1997 Book "Life of the Cosmos" that the odds of a universe created by randomly choosing the laws of physics will contain stars is something like 10 to the 229th power. One cannot statistically infer that the universe is a Bertrand Russell accident. The case for some type of external influence shaping, controlling the formation of the universe is 10 to the 229th power greater than formation by accident. 

Glenn

Having now read the article I feel qualified to comment informedly, but there is little I feel to add at this time. Especially since my PC is out of commission and I'm forced to rely on my tablet! 

But by coincidence I watched this FAIR video yesterday, which I believe will be useful to inject into this stream of consciousness. It's @Daniel Peterson of course.

 

 

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Having now read the article I feel qualified to comment informedly, but there is little I feel to add at this time. Especially since my PC is out of commission and I'm forced to rely on my tablet! 

But by coincidence I watched this FAIR video yesterday, which I believe will be useful to inject into this stream of consciousness. It's @Daniel Peterson of course.

That presentation seems to be a much expanded effort as compared to the Interpreter article. I can sleep easy now with the knowledge that I am not crazy, at least for having faith. Other things I am not so sure about. Thanks for sharing this. I was going to look for it myself but you made it easy for me.

Glenn

[stemelbow]

12 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I did not listen to the debate. I am hearing impaired and have a difficult time understanding the spoken word.

However, your response is interesting because I did not get from Peterson/James the idea that those who choose no God are to be "dashed to pieces in some sense." I will quote the quote from James by Peterson:

James here just seems to be saying that a person is better off believing, which is reinforced by Dan's follow up or amplifying remark:

Dan later on quotes James again:

Here, if I understand James correctly,  he is saying that religion contains much that is good that we will lose by our unbelief. I have not followed up to see what good things one will lose by our unbelief, if it be true, but lose little to nothing if it is found not to be true (i.e. upon one's death, if religion be untrue the dead person will never know). From an LDS perspective there is much more good to lose by unbelief because of the work for the dead, etc. if it be true.

Glenn

I was quoting Stephen, whom James quoted with the "dashed into pieces" phrase.  The argument is something like, it is better to believe because if you don't believe you will lose in the end, or something.  I'm not sure not believing is as bad as this argument would make it.  I think God is far more understanding of us than that.  On top of that I don't find belief a very genuine pursuit if its chosen as an option because someone wants a reward at the end of life.  And further, I don't see an argument for belief in God based on the notion that one might still win after this life if they choose to believe.  That remains guesswork.

Edited August 28, 2018 by stemelbow

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I genuinely apologize for my frustration and subsequent grumpiness  and  hope we can resolve our differences.

I am sorry I offended you.  I tend to do that and I am working on it.

But I  really am compelled  to make my answers short in the future and refer you to other material that you must read to understand my points.  I just don't have the time.

My very last post was at least  partially intended to help you understand my background, along with others.

I quit philosophy academically because  I believed (and still believe) Wittgenstein that he essentially "cured" philosophy by developing a method which solved all philosophical "problems" as semantic confusions.  And I hate repeating myself as I would have to do teaching philos 101 every year until I got tenure.

And this whole "category mistake" is exactly - a problem in SEMANTICS, not ontology or logic or "reality"- there are no mysterious "categories of ideas" floating around objectively - the use of the term is strictly to be based on a given statement within a context.  For there to be objective entities there would have to be objective evidence  and I don't think we have every photographed a cosmic "category"

Note that this professor speaks of a particular "grammar" of misunderstanding  resulting in category mistakes.  These are not ontological categories separating "science" from "religion" but grammatical mistakes we might make  coming from one way of thinking to another.

You may not read it but I have done my best.  

https://apps.missouristate.edu/outreach/icourses/transcripts/PHI110L7.pdf

Thanks, I appreciate the apology.  I can also understand the frustration with feeling like you have to keep repeating yourself.  I've gotten frustrated with that before as well.  I'll read through your last post, it will take a little time because you've provided a lot of information.  

One suggestion that I think would help with respect to these thread exchanges we keep having is if you took off your hat of teacher and just approached our exchange as co-participants.  While I'm happy and interested in learning from the wisdom of others on the message board, I don't look at you or anyone else here as my teacher in a teacher/student relationship.  If we both can approach our conversations as equal participants who deserve to have comments respected and thought about, rather than approaching the comments as something you have to "teach" me, then I think the chance that we can both learn more from each other is greater. 

I might not teach you anything about the discipline of philosophy, but I would venture to say you can learn things from me and my unique perspective based on my background and my life experiences and talents which are in other areas.  So if you will try to not think of our exchanges as teacher/student I think it would go a long way towards a more mutually respectful exchange.  

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The point that Dan makes in his article is that there is insufficient objective evidence for many things. As to the origins of the universe, there is insufficient evidence to conclude as did Bertrand Russell that this universe and man and woman kind are "the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms."  Evidence such as this conclusion by CERN scientists that we should not be here at all. James Gardner in his book "Bicosm" quotes Lee Smolin in his 1997 Book "Life of the Cosmos" that the odds of a universe created by randomly choosing the laws of physics will contain stars is something like 10 to the 229th power. One cannot statistically infer that the universe is a Bertrand Russell accident. The case for some type of external influence shaping, controlling the formation of the universe is 10 to the 229th power greater than formation by accident.

Thanks.  I think when you have scientific experts like Stephen Hawking stating that the scientific evidence is sufficiently strong to explain the origins of the universe, then I think we have to take those comments seriously, and Dan's opinion or some Cosmomagazine article that likely misrepresents what the authors of that study in Nature were trying to say about the universe, is not evidence that I consider compelling.  I'm not familiar with Lee Smolin, and I'm sure there are people with differing opinions which is fine.  

For me personally, I think natural processes explain many things, but certainly not everything about the origins of our universe and or the origins of life itself on earth.  Conversely I haven't found any empirical evidence to support claims of supernatural agents from in an unseen world influencing the universe that we live in.  Thankfully most people agree that we shouldn't be teaching our children about supernatural causes for things in public schools because, there isn't any objective evidence to support these claims that could be studied and evaluated in a school setting. 

[Glenn101]

37 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I was quoting Stephen, whom James quoted with the "dashed into pieces" phrase.  The argument is something like, it is better to believe because if you don't believe you will lose in the end, or something.

The idea that I got from James is that if religion is true, then one does lose by unbelief but will lose nothing by belief even religion (Christianity) is not true.

45 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think God is far more understanding of us than that.

But one has to believe to believe that. 🙂

46 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

On top of that I don't find belief a very genuine pursuit if its chosen as an option because someone wants a reward at the end of life

Why not? God promised us "all that He hath" and to become joint-heirs with Christ if we believe and obey His commandments? If God offered it I see no reason to turn it down. Well actually I see it as a reason to want to believe as opposed to the Bertrand Russell 'total despair." But that is not even in the picture here as a point. Dan is making the argument that faith can be a rational choice. His article is purposely generic, excluding spiritual experiences. he expanded on the topic to include some science in the presentation linked to by stargazer.

52 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

And further, I don't see an argument for belief in God based on the notion that one might still win after this life if they choose to believe.  That remains guesswork. 

I did not see that pont being made. You and I really come away with different takes on the same stuff. ☺️

[Glenn101]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks.  I think when you have scientific experts like Stephen Hawking stating that the scientific evidence is sufficiently strong to explain the origins of the universe, then I think we have to take those comments seriously, and Dan's opinion or some Cosmomagazine article that likely misrepresents what the authors of that study in Nature were trying to say about the universe, is not evidence that I consider compelling.  I'm not familiar with Lee Smolin, and I'm sure there are people with differing opinions which is fine.  

For me personally, I think natural processes explain many things, but certainly not everything about the origins of our universe and or the origins of life itself on earth.  Conversely I haven't found any empirical evidence to support claims of supernatural agents from in an unseen world influencing the universe that we live in.  Thankfully most people agree that we shouldn't be teaching our children about supernatural causes for things in public schools because, there isn't any objective evidence to support these claims that could be studied and evaluated in a school setting. 

Hawkins was man with an opinion. He saw the the universe from an athiest point of view which could only accept the the origins of the universe as an accident.  The existence of God was a "dead proposition" to him. The only way that he would have accepted the existence of God was with solid, objective proof, but he did not offer soild, objective proof that the universe came into being by accident. The universe is 10 to the 229th power (at least) more likely to have had something  controlling its birth than chance. I like the odds for God.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Hawkins was man with an opinion. He saw the the universe from an athiest point of view which could only accept the the origins of the universe as an accident.  The existence of God was a "dead proposition" to him. The only way that he would have accepted the existence of God was with solid, objective proof, but he did not offer soild, objective proof that the universe came into being by accident. The universe is 10 to the 229th power (at least) more likely to have had something  controlling its birth than chance. I like the odds for God.

Glenn

Hawking was one of the most brilliance physicists in the last couple generations.  He wasn't openly antagonistic towards religion, and his opinions should carry a lot of weight.  Statistically scientists are less likely to be religious than the general public by a significant margin, see the linked Pew poll. I think these statistics are interesting and significant.  The odds for a God that you reference are just "one mans opinion". 

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

But I should reiterate that I believe you're making a categorical error when you evaluate evidence this way.  The evidence used for science is a different kind of evidence than what religions typically operate in.  I don't see a direct conflict in belief in a God and accepting the best understanding that science can bring us today. 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Hawking was one of the most brilliance physicists in the last couple generations.  He wasn't openly antagonistic towards religion, and his opinions should carry a lot of weight.  Statistically scientists are less likely to be religious than the general public by a significant margin, see the linked Pew poll. I think these statistics are interesting and significant.  The odds for a God that you reference are just "one mans opinion". 

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

But I should reiterate that I believe you're making a categorical error when you evaluate evidence this way.  The evidence used for science is a different kind of evidence than what religions typically operate in.  I don't see a direct conflict in belief in a God and accepting the best understanding that science can bring us today. 

 

What do you mean by a "categorical error", and what evidence do you have that he is making one?

Who makes these "categories"?

Is there objective evidence for their Existence?

Edited August 28, 2018 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Hawking was one of the most brilliance physicists in the last couple generations.  He wasn't openly antagonistic towards religion, and his opinions should carry a lot of weight.  Statistically scientists are less likely to be religious than the general public by a significant margin, see the linked Pew poll. I think these statistics are interesting and significant.  The odds for a God that you reference are just "one mans opinion". 

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/

But I should reiterate that I believe you're making a categorical error when you evaluate evidence this way.  The evidence used for science is a different kind of evidence than what religions typically operate in.  I don't see a direct conflict in belief in a God and accepting the best understanding that science can bring us today. 

I think you mean "category error," but your point is well taken: we shouldn't assume hostility between science and religion, as they aren't operating in the same spheres. 

The trouble comes in applying the wrong approach. For example:

Suppose my neighbor says, "I have a 1952 Studebaker in my garage." So, I go to the garage and see if there really is a Studebaker there.

Now, suppose the neighbor says, "The Holy Spirit tells me I have a 1952 Studebaker in my garage." So, I go to the garage and see if there really is a Studebaker there. This offends the neighbor, who says, "Oh, but that's a category error!"

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by jkwilliams

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

What do you mean by a "categorical error", and what evidence do you have that he is making one?

Who makes these "categories"?

Is there objective evidence for their Existence?

Its essentially what we've been discussing earlier, but let me give an example.  Evidence to support the beginnings of the universe would be things like Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation or the Hubble Law or Primordial Gas Clouds.  This evidence is different in many ways, but two primary ways are first that this evidence is measurable using agreed upon standards of science and mathematics, and second through the peer review process it is reviewed and the experiments are replicated over and over again with precision.  

Religious evidence is very different.  For example, how to get answers to prayers.  While there might be some general descriptions of what people experience, there are also many different acceptable outcomes and methods that vary by person and culture.  Using the first criterion that evidence is measurable using agreed upon standards, prayer fails this test as there are no agreed upon standards, and no way of measuring the results.  For the second criterion that experiments can be replicated with precision, this also fails the precision element because even though people replicate prayer as a practice, the precision element can't be measured with respect to getting answers and results of these prayers in a specific way.  

There are probably much better examples, but hopefully that one will illustrate the point.  

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I think you mean "category error," but your point is well taken: we shouldn't assume hostility between science and religion, as they aren't operating in the same spheres. 

The trouble comes in applying the wrong approach. For example:

Suppose my neighbor says, "I have a 1952 Studebaker in my garage." So, I go to the garage and see if there really is a Studebaker there.

Now, suppose the neighbor says, "The Holy Spirit tells me I have a 1952 Studebaker in my garage." So, I go to the garage and see if there really is a Studebaker there. This offends the neighbor, who says, "Oh, but that's a category error!"

Thanks, English often gets in my way.  

I agree with your example, verifying the results is an important part of the scientific process and that doesn't apply in the same with with religious claims. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Thanks, English often gets in my way.  

I agree with your example, verifying the results is an important part of the scientific process and that doesn't apply in the same with with religious claims. 

I wouldn't want to make you "an offender for a word."

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Hawking was one of the most brilliance physicists in the last couple generations.  He wasn't openly antagonistic towards religion, and his opinions should carry a lot of weight.  Statistically scientists are less likely to be religious than the general public by a significant margin, see the linked Pew poll. I think these statistics are interesting and significant.  The odds for a God that you reference are just "one mans opinion". 

No one is disputing Hawking's brilliance. But he is/was not the only brilliant man in his field. Yet he was not immune to logical fallacies either.. You did not respond to my note that Hawking for all of his brilliance never provided any objective proof or even evidence that the universe happened by accident. He only noted, as does everyone else, that the universe happened. I do not see why his how it happened should be given preference over any other opinion, since the odds against an accidental creation are so astronomically small. Hawking was not a raging atheist in the mold of Richard Dawkins but rather hid his atheism behind some different facades over the years with statements that seemed to indicate some type of belief in God until in 2014 he finally declared that he was an atheist and that there is no God. That is something that he could not prove. had he said that "I do not believe there is a God," he would have not been in logical fallacy territory. When he said that science offered a better explanation he did not provide the evidence.

I did not provide a reference for the odds for a god. I provided a reference for odds that the stars happened by accident. You say it is "one man's opinion." But it is something that was arrived at mathematically. I have read several reviews of Dr. Smolin's book, "Life of the Cosmos" and while several reviewers have a problem with his theories, none of them blinked at his numbers. In fact they all seemed to agree with the with the assessment by Dr. Smolin "that we live in an improbable universe. There are dozens of parameters pertinent to our world. These parameters are numbers, such as the masses of particles and the strengths of forces, that can in principle be varied. Thus the world could be different: gravity could be ten times stronger than it is; the electron might be twice as light; the proton could be twice as heavy; the electric force might be five times weaker, and so on. Have these parameters been set to special values that make our Universe rich, complex and interesting? In a different universe with a different set of physical laws, structures such as planets, stars and galaxies might not form, and the same might be true for life. Dr. Smolin estimates that the chances that the parameters assume the values of our Universe are 1 in 10229 -- this probability is a number that begins with a decimal point, is followed by 228 zeros and ends with a 1, an extraordinarily small chance. It is thus surprising that our Universe is so interesting. " (Jupiter Science Review)

Science has not answered how or why the universe happened. It only observes what has happened and the observers formulate theories to try to explain it. To an atheist, a creator is out of the question, not one of the possibilities that he or she entertains. But what evidence do they provide for excluding the possibility of a creator?

I am not even trying to prove or marshal evidence for a creator in this thread. I am only attempting to put across the idea that based upon the physical sciences and mathematical probabilities, faith, belief in a divine creator is completely rational.

Glenn

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I think you mean "category error," but your point is well taken: we shouldn't assume hostility between science and religion, as they aren't operating in the same spheres. 

The trouble comes in applying the wrong approach. For example:

Suppose my neighbor says, "I have a 1952 Studebaker in my garage." So, I go to the garage and see if there really is a Studebaker there.

Now, suppose the neighbor says, "The Holy Spirit tells me I have a 1952 Studebaker in my garage." So, I go to the garage and see if there really is a Studebaker there. This offends the neighbor, who says, "Oh, but that's a category error!"

 

That's actually not a bad example because it is the neighbor who is making a specific error in categories, he is " mixing metaphors" and essentially contradicting himself. The error is in his logic, it is not in violating some cosmic objective "Category" on the Cosmic List of Categories.

Again it's like mistaking a University for a collection of buildings. 

It confuses psychological evidence with physical evidence. 

[stemelbow]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The idea that I got from James is that if religion is true, then one does lose by unbelief but will lose nothing by belief even religion (Christianity) is not true.

Yes.  and I'm not sure that's true.  If God, I'd think God would want people to go about belief in a more genuine manner.  To just believe to cover your bases isn't very genuine sounding. 

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

But one has to believe to believe that. 🙂

Why not? God promised us "all that He hath" and to become joint-heirs with Christ if we believe and obey His commandments? If God offered it I see no reason to turn it down. Well actually I see it as a reason to want to believe as opposed to the Bertrand Russell 'total despair." But that is not even in the picture here as a point. Dan is making the argument that faith can be a rational choice. His article is purposely generic, excluding spiritual experiences. he expanded on the topic to include some science in the presentation linked to by stargazer.

I listened to the debate with Shermer.  I'm not sure faith and reason are totally incompatible.  But it does seem for both sides the notion of what is compatible is ill-defined.  it made the whole argument a bit pointless to me.  They didn't seem to agree to any premises and didn't really do much but talk past each other.  But that's how these debates typically go... 

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I did not see that pont being made. You and I really come away with different takes on the same stuff. ☺️

Probably.  I think in terms of faith in God, it's a terrible argument to invoke Pascals.  I don't see it as reasonable--the reason being to cover your bases.  Whose to say God sees such disingenuous believing as rewardable?  Maybe God would reward the honest atheist over he who believes just in case.  

[Glenn101]

29 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Probably.  I think in terms of faith in God, it's a terrible argument to invoke Pascals.  I don't see it as reasonable--the reason being to cover your bases.  Whose to say God sees such disingenuous believing as rewardable?  Maybe God would reward the honest atheist over he who believes just in case.

That was only one of the points. Take them all together. It is not one of covering all of your bases, but is faith, belief a rational choice. To me, the bottom line is that belief, faith is a rational choice and it really boils down to whether a person wishes to believe. If he or she does not wish to believe, there is nothing that will convince him or her, since there has been no objective evidence that proves that we are the products of a divine creation.

Now I personally want to believe. I choose to believe. I came to pretty much the same conclusion as Bertrand Russell many years ago as to the state of humanity without a God. I read in the papers each day now it seems or watch on the news of people who do not seem to have any hope, who kill family, frinds, strangers in some type of futile rage against an implacable wall of despair. I much prefer the hope that comes with belief. I know that I am better off with my belief system. Happier, more able to cope with some deep rooted problems. And based upon the mathematical conclusions as to the probability that the universe happened by accident, I feel pretty comfortable with that belief, that is is a rational choice.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

No one is disputing Hawking's brilliance. But he is/was not the only brilliant man in his field. Yet he was not immune to logical fallacies either.. You did not respond to my note that Hawking for all of his brilliance never provided any objective proof or even evidence that the universe happened by accident. He only noted, as does everyone else, that the universe happened. I do not see why his how it happened should be given preference over any other opinion, since the odds against an accidental creation are so astronomically small. Hawking was not a raging atheist in the mold of Richard Dawkins but rather hid his atheism behind some different facades over the years with statements that seemed to indicate some type of belief in God until in 2014 he finally declared that he was an atheist and that there is no God. That is something that he could not prove. had he said that "I do not believe there is a God," he would have not been in logical fallacy territory. When he said that science offered a better explanation he did not provide the evidence.

Care to point out an actual logical fallacy that Hawking is guilty of, instead of just saying he’s not immune to them?  I also couldn’t find anything where he says the universe happened by accident, that sounds like either a misunderstanding of what he’s said or an intentional straw man arugument.  He does talk about the beginning of the universe starting because of natural laws of physics, and its at the intersection of the General Theory of Reletivity and the theory of quantum physics.  If you’re interested, this is a good essay that I found that explains his position rather well.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html

I don’t think Dawkins is a raging atheist either, he often gets a bad wrap because he takes a strident position.  Your take on Hawking seems quite unfair and uncharitable.  Hawking is a theoretical physicist, and to say that he did not provide the evidence just shows your ignorance of the field.  His positions on the beginnings of the universe are highly respected by his peers.  In the world of physics and the sciences, if someone just spouted off a theory without any sound understanding and backup they wouldn’t even be taken seriously.  Your points about Hawking are laughable.  

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I did not provide a reference for the odds for a god. I provided a reference for odds that the stars happened by accident. You say it is "one man's opinion." But it is something that was arrived at mathematically. I have read several reviews of Dr. Smolin's book, "Life of the Cosmos" and while several reviewers have a problem with his theories, none of them blinked at his numbers. In fact they all seemed to agree with the with the assessment by Dr. Smolin "that we live in an improbable universe. There are dozens of parameters pertinent to our world. These parameters are numbers, such as the masses of particles and the strengths of forces, that can in principle be varied. Thus the world could be different: gravity could be ten times stronger than it is; the electron might be twice as light; the proton could be twice as heavy; the electric force might be five times weaker, and so on. Have these parameters been set to special values that make our Universe rich, complex and interesting? In a different universe with a different set of physical laws, structures such as planets, stars and galaxies might not form, and the same might be true for life. Dr. Smolin estimates that the chances that the parameters assume the values of our Universe are 1 in 10229 -- this probability is a number that begins with a decimal point, is followed by 228 zeros and ends with a 1, an extraordinarily small chance. It is thus surprising that our Universe is so interesting. " (Jupiter Science Review)

I didn’t actually directly refute your author that created that model for the odds you sited.  Rather I just turned your critique of Hawking of being one mans opinion back around on you, to show how that kind of a critique is essentially useless.  

It’s possible that the odds are slim for the creation of stars, and for now I’ll ignore the straw man characterization when you say “by accident” as I still can’t recall hearing any scientists describe things in those terms.  Let’s say your author is right and that the odds are extremely rare.  What would that tell us in a universe that is billions of years old with billions of galaxies and billions of stars in those galaxies.  If something is very rare, but there are a number of ways that this outcome could occur in a number of different possible circumstances, then the likelihood of that event occurring is increased significantly.  I would point you to Leonard Mlodinow’s great book “The Drunkards Walk, How Randomness Rules Out Lives” as a really good reference on probabilities.  

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Science has not answered how or why the universe happened. It only observes what has happened and the observers formulate theories to try to explain it. To an atheist, a creator is out of the question, not one of the possibilities that he or she entertains. But what evidence do they provide for excluding the possibility of a creator?

I am not even trying to prove or marshal evidence for a creator in this thread. I am only attempting to put across the idea that based upon the physical sciences and mathematical probabilities, faith, belief in a divine creator is completely rational.

Science is essentially anti authoritarian dogma.  If evidence were presented to indicate an intelligence was responsible for creation, it would be scrutinized and evaluated, not just rejected out of hand.  There might be some atheists that fit your stereotype, but I think you’re largely incorrect when critiquing scienctists.  

I also didn’t state that believe in religion is irrational, and I continue to say that I have no problem with people having religious beliefs.  My point is that the kinds of evidence for religion are not the same as the kinds of evidence for science and that they can’t be conflated and evaluated in the same way in general.  Only when religious claims start to veer into the world of scholarly inquiry.  

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don’t think Dawkins is a raging atheist either, he often gets a bad wrap because he takes a strident position.  Your take on Hawking seems quite unfair and uncharitable.  Hawking is a theoretical physicist, and to say that he did not provide the evidence just shows your ignorance of the field.  His positions on the beginnings of the universe are highly respected by his peers.  In the world of physics and the sciences, if someone just spouted off a theory without any sound understanding and backup they wouldn’t even be taken seriously.  Your points about Hawking are laughable.  

To the present your arguments have went something like this:

Stephen Hawking was a brilliant theoretical physicist.

Stephen Hawking said that there was no God.

Stephen Hawking said that the universe was created spontaneously, from nothing.

Because Stepehen Hawking was such a brilliant, respected theoretical physicist his opinion should be respected.

Therefore I, hope_for_things do not try to refuteanything you say but just laugh at you.

My rejoinder has been that Stephen Hawking has produced no evidence that the universe was created spontaneously out of nothing. You call it laughable, so please provide me with a reference where Stephen Hawking has provided the world with objective evidence that the universe was created spontaneously, out of nothing.

Because the thorectical theorists have recognized just how improbable our universe is, how really infinistesimal are the numbers, the probablilities that this universe was created spontaneously, they have theorized an infinite number of universes, each with its own set laws of physics which produced conditions inimical to life some of which may even be empty. However, an infinite number of universes is something that is untestable accordiong to Stephen Hawking. He proposed a smaller set of universes in a paper that was published after his death. However that theory was not fleshed out and other physicists see problems with it becuase it "relies on on a number of unproven conjectures." Just Google around for all of the theories and counter theories. Einstein's theory of a singularity theorized a set of conditions where the laws of physics break down, as essentially does that of the Hawking theory that the universe was created spontaneously, out of nothing, which violates the law of conservation of energy. Have eny of those theories been tested? Please provide a refence for usch if you believe so.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I also didn’t state that believe in religion is irrational

Hmmm, yet you believe that the opinion of Hawking who declared that there is no God should be respected. Don't you see the dichotomy there?

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

To the present your arguments have went something like this:

Stephen Hawking was a brilliant theoretical physicist.

Stephen Hawking said that there was no God.

Stephen Hawking said that the universe was created spontaneously, from nothing.

Because Stepehen Hawking was such a brilliant, respected theoretical physicist his opinion should be respected.

Therefore I, hope_for_things do not try to refuteanything you say but just laugh at you.

My rejoinder has been that Stephen Hawking has produced no evidence that the universe was created spontaneously out of nothing. You call it laughable, so please provide me with a reference where Stephen Hawking has provided the world with objective evidence that the universe was created spontaneously, out of nothing.

Because the thorectical theorists have recognized just how improbable our universe is, how really infinistesimal are the numbers, the probablilities that this universe was created spontaneously, they have theorized an infinite number of universes, each with its own set laws of physics which produced conditions inimical to life some of which may even be empty. However, an infinite number of universes is something that is untestable accordiong to Stephen Hawking. He proposed a smaller set of universes in a paper that was published after his death. However that theory was not fleshed out and other physicists see problems with it becuase it "relies on on a number of unproven conjectures." Just Google around for all of the theories and counter theories. Einstein's theory of a singularity theorized a set of conditions where the laws of physics break down, as essentially does that of the Hawking theory that the universe was created spontaneously, out of nothing, which violates the law of conservation of energy. Have eny of those theories been tested? Please provide a refence for usch if you believe so.

Glenn

On one hand you are aware of some of the discussions happening in the world of theoretical physics, but on the other hand you draw conclusions about what you've observed that are laughable.  Its like climate change deniers.  They put together various points of data about how different scientific studies have disagreed with each other, and their take away from putting all these disparate points together as that the whole enterprise of climate science is bogus and manufactured. 

I'll ask you one question.  Why do you think your novice knowledge about physics qualifies you to dismiss the work of brilliant experts in the field?  

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I also didn’t state that believe in religion is irrational

Hmmm, yet you believe that the opinion of Hawking who declared that there is no God should be respected. Don't you see the dichotomy there?

Glenn

I'm not a black and white thinker.