Atheism is reasonable, and Christianity is not

[KCfromNC]

It would be nice if, for once, you finally sat down and actually did read some kind of 'Introduction to Philosophy' book or website. Because from what I've seen of your ongong rhetoric, you almost make it sound that fields of study like Ethics and Morality, Business and Economic, Art, Education, Investigation & Analysis, among other things like Religion, not to mention 'science,' don't use any kind of philosophical evaluation (i.e. critical thinking).

Yeah, yeah, I get it. Because I don't think my garbage man is doing philosophy when he collects our trash I'm the one who is ignorant. It is a burden I'll have to bear.

 

[Silmarien]

Yeah, yeah, I get it. Because I don't think my garbage man is doing philosophy when he collects our trash I'm the one who is ignorant. It is a burden I'll have to bear.

I mean, seriously. Why on earth would I ever read Darwin or anyone who has ever written anything about him? Just because I don't think monkeys give birth to humans, I'm the one who's ignorant. It is a burden I'll have to bear.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, yeah, I get it. Because I don't think my garbage man is doing philosophy when he collects our trash I'm the one who is ignorant. It is a burden I'll have to bear.

The only burden you need to bear is to realize that Logic as a discipline and as a kind of science has historically been a part of the province of Philosophy. As has the field of Ethics/Morality. So, just as long as you are aware that these two fields are traditionally a part of Philosophy before they are a part of any other disciplines and/or sciences as we know them today, then I'll let this criticism of mine rest and you can play the philosophical "pleb card" to your heart's content.

2PhiloVoid

 

[KCfromNC]

So, just as long as you are aware that these two fields are traditionally a part of Philosophy before they are a part of any other disciplines and/or sciences as we know them today

The interesting thing is how much more quickly science has progressed since it has separated itself from philosophy many centuries ago. I'm sure it is just a coincidence.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The interesting thing is how much more quickly science has progressed since it has separated itself from philosophy many centuries ago. I'm sure it is just a coincidence.

Sure. I understand that. And I'm not advocating a position positing that Philosophy is even competing with science. Maybe some people today still think they are competing, but they're actually not.

No, what we have now, today, are various divisions (and kinds) of logical and/or rational inquiry. Physical science(s) is one of them, while Philosophy, Sociology, and Psychology, are a few of the others. Each has its own purpose and niche of inquiry.

For the most part, the purpose and application of philosophy today is to categorize, define, and elucidate the structure of our ideas and hypotheses, and this field (unlike religious thought) just happens to overlap with, and have some hooks into, many of the other fields because there is always theory at the center of our inquiries which drives the direction of further testing or development.

So, let's not get on this line of thought that Lawrence Krauss and John W. Loftus are known for where they unnecessarily pester philosophers or those who use philosophical resources (like Logic) for additional insights while doing science, or religion, or education, or economics, or government, or whatever else.

Here's an article to think about from BIGTHINK, if you're interested.

What's Behind A Science vs. Philosophy Fight?

 

[Silmarien]

Sure. I understand that. And I'm not advocating a position positing that Philosophy is even competing with science. Maybe some people today still think they are competing, but they're actually not.

Well, I would say that there is a conflict, but it's generally because scientists, especially physicists, have a habit of making wild philosophical claims despite having no qualifications whatsoever in the field. And then philosophers have to point out that their statements are completely unscientific nonsense based on unexamined, unargued, sometimes incoherent metaphysical assumptions. And then we go around and around in circles. Bill Vallicella has quite the time going after physicists and neuroscientists for this on his blog. For example, this gem.

This is why philosophy is important, because the same people who claim to be skeptics generally speaking do not have the intellectual tools necessary to call BS when it is the scientist who is making unwarranted assumptions, and then we're into the realm of unquestioned dogma. If you do not recognize where the line between science and philosophy is, you can't tell when someone has crossed it.

...which is precisely what the article you posted points out.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, I would say that there is a conflict, but it's generally because scientists, especially physicists, have a habit of making wild philosophical claims despite having no qualifications whatsoever in the field. And then philosophers have to point out that their statements are completely unscientific nonsense based on unexamined, unargued, sometimes incoherent metaphysical assumptions. And then we go around and around in circles. Bill Vallicella has quite the time going after physicists and neuroscientists for this on his blog. For example, this gem.

This is why philosophy is important, because the same people who claim to be skeptics generally speaking do not have the intellectual tools necessary to call BS when it is the scientist who is making unwarranted assumptions, and then we're into the realm of unquestioned dogma. If you do not recognize where the line between science and philosophy is, you can't tell when someone has crossed it.

...which is precisely what the article you posted points out.

But then again, maybe human philosophy does overstep its supposed boundaries, stepping onto the feet of scientists by asking too many questions. Maybe the solution to this is not to allow either scientists or philosophers to evaluate the world, but rather let our science itself DO all of the philosophy for us? Ay?

 

[Silmarien]

But then again, maybe human philosophy does overstep its supposed boundaries, stepping onto the feet of scientists by asking too many questions. Maybe the solution to this is not to allow either scientists or philosophers to evaluate the world, but rather let our science itself DO all of the philosophy for us? Ay?

Careful, that's sounding like the plot of Bladerunner or Battlestar Galactica.

 

[Dirk1540]

Sure. I understand that. And I'm not advocating a position positing that Philosophy is even competing with science. Maybe some people today still think they are competing, but they're actually not.

No, what we have now, today, are various divisions (and kinds) of logical and/or rational inquiry. Physical science(s) is one of them, while Philosophy, Sociology, and Psychology, are a few of the others. Each has its own purpose and niche of inquiry.

For the most part, the purpose and application of philosophy today is to categorize, define, and elucidate the structure of our ideas and hypotheses, and this field (unlike religious thought) just happens to overlap with, and have some hooks into, many of the other fields because there is always theory at the center of our inquiries which drives the direction of further testing or development.

So, let's not get on this line of thought that Lawrence Krauss and John W. Loftus are known for where they unnecessarily pester philosophers or those who use philosophical resources (like Logic) for additional insights while doing science, or religion, or education, or economics, or government, or whatever else.

Here's an article to think about from BIGTHINK, if you're interested.

What's Behind A Science vs. Philosophy Fight?

Well, I would say that there is a conflict, but it's generally because scientists, especially physicists, have a habit of making wild philosophical claims despite having no qualifications whatsoever in the field. And then philosophers have to point out that their statements are completely unscientific nonsense based on unexamined, unargued, sometimes incoherent metaphysical assumptions. And then we go around and around in circles. Bill Vallicella has quite the time going after physicists and neuroscientists for this on his blog. For example, this gem.

This is why philosophy is important, because the same people who claim to be skeptics generally speaking do not have the intellectual tools necessary to call BS when it is the scientist who is making unwarranted assumptions, and then we're into the realm of unquestioned dogma. If you do not recognize where the line between science and philosophy is, you can't tell when someone has crossed it.

...which is precisely what the article you posted points out.

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought something was off when people say "Intelligent Design is not science." I don't have a problem with the statement, as far as I can see I.D. is philosophy and not science. What bothers me is aren't you also doing philosophy and not science when you turn around and then say "Random mutation is responsible for this." ?? The science is the raw data, the observable things we can see, measure, etc. ANY claim as to the explanation of the underlying power source driving the observable raw data is philosophy, am I correct on that?

Oh and by the way, I just ordered another philosophy course from The Great Courses (DVDs). This one sounds a little tougher. Some of the (bad) reviews say this one is just too difficult. But there's definitely more good reviews than bad. Hmm, and it does seem like some bad reviewers are bashing philosophy of science in general, instead of the actual course. Anyway, the deciding factor for me to get it is that if I get lost I got you 2 to help me haha. Just a warning, you might wanna think about adding me to your Ignore list lol.

 

[Silmarien]

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought something was off when people say "Intelligent Design is not science." I don't have a problem with the statement, as far as I can see I.D. is philosophy and not science. What bothers me is aren't you also doing philosophy and not science when you turn around and then say "Random mutation is responsible for this." ?? The science is the raw data, the observable things we can see, measure, etc. ANY claim as to the explanation of the underlying power source driving the observable raw data is philosophy, am I correct on that?

Evolutionary biology is a disaster zone when it comes to metaphysical assumptions, yes. I find the rampant materialism and reductionism at play in the field very problematic, but I am one of those rare people who accepts theism specifically because of the Theory of Evolution instead of despite it, so it's a particularly touchy subject.

As far as genetic mutation goes... that is tricky. I would say that it's completely reasonable to say that what we see is consistent with random mutation as the driving force, though it's certainly less so to insist that random mutation must be the cause. However, as per methodological naturalism, science should accept the simplest explanation that fits all the known data, which in this case really does seem to point to genetic mutation, as far as I'm aware.

I am not very well versed in the criticisms that ID raises, though, so I cannot say whether or not there is anything there that really poses a challenge. (Or at least that poses a challenge specifically in the way that ID proponents would like it to.) But my philosophical leanings on this issue make me a first cousin to the naturalists and not terribly sympathetic to ID.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought something was off when people say "Intelligent Design is not science." I don't have a problem with the statement, as far as I can see I.D. is philosophy and not science. What bothers me is aren't you also doing philosophy and not science when you turn around and then say "Random mutation is responsible for this." ?? The science is the raw data, the observable things we can see, measure, etc. ANY claim as to the explanation of the underlying power source driving the observable raw data is philosophy, am I correct on that?

From what I've studied, I'll simply say that philosophical clarification feeds the rational handling of biological data by various scientists, so they are doing 'science' and not just philosophy. Moreover, science, especially that which addresses the evolution of organisms, utilizes all kinds of 'science' to bring together the conclusions that we now know of as the Modern Synthesis (or even the Extended Modern Synthesis).

The basic point is that philosophy of some kind is present and used within the overall corpus of theories, methods, and practices of science as it all relates to the theory of evolution. Science isn't just the 'raw data': science includes what you DO with the raw data as well, among other things.

Also, when you speak of a "power source" randomly driving the evolutionary process, you do involve some philosophy to form the theory, but as T. Ryan Gregory (2009) points in the following:

Mutation is random with respect to fitness. Natural selection is, by definition, non-random with respect to fitness. This means that, overall, it is a serious misconception to consider adapatation as happening "by chance." (p. 162)
​

Reference
Gregory, T. R. (2009). Understanding natural selection: essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(2), 156-175.

[The above reference is one of the sources I used in my graduate work ... so you might find it handy.]

Oh and by the way, I just ordered another philosophy course from The Great Courses (DVDs). This one sounds a little tougher. Some of the (bad) reviews say this one is just too difficult. But there's definitely more good reviews than bad. Hmm, and it does seem like some bad reviewers are bashing philosophy of science in general, instead of the actual course. Anyway, the deciding factor for me to get it is that if I get lost I got you 2 to help me haha. Just a warning, you might wanna think about adding me to your Ignore list lol.

Sounds good to me. Usually the Great Course materials are good.

 

[Dirk1540]

but I am one of those rare people who accepts theism specifically because of the Theory of Evolution instead of despite it

I might too, not positive though.

I would say that it's completely reasonable to say that what we see is consistent with random mutation as the driving force, though it's certainly less so to insist that random mutation must be the cause. However, as per methodological naturalism, science should accept the simplest explanation that fits all the known data, which in this case really does seem to point to genetic mutation, as far as I'm aware.

I guess I'm trying to go a layer deeper, trying to look at random mutation as the wound up clock, but wondering how we have this wound up clock at all. So I'm fine with the 2nd word being science, mutation, because that's what we can see & measure, but the 1st word, random, sounds like philosophy.

But my philosophical leanings on this issue make me a first cousin to the naturalists and not terribly sympathetic to ID.

But I would even put 'Intelligent' in front of genetic mutation, 'Intelligent Genetic Mutation.' Whether it is intelligently maintained during every second of reality, or if it was the intelligently wound up clock (I guess a little similar to how you have said in previous posts that you think we don't fully understand the Earth, and that potential of life was always there to begin with). So how are you a 1st cousin of naturalism? Isn't that just mindless matter in motion, the concept that you don't believe?

To tell you the truth I could be confusing myself, and jumping the gun, I haven't even scratched the surface of studying my new philosophy material. I should get back to you after I'm more up to speed. I was finishing up some non philosophy material but I'm ready to just focus on it now. I actually might disappear for awhile to study all of this, I know that I said that before but I think this time I will. I'm such a huge fan of The Great Courses, but unless you're into wasting lots of $$ you really need to wait until the courses go on sale. All the courses I wanted have gone on sale, got them all now...let the training begin!! I also have the great book recommendations from here too! See you in about a year ha. I might just pop in randomly if I have a question.

EDIT...

From what I've studied, I'll simply say that philosophical clarification feeds the rational handling of biological data by various scientists, so they are doing 'science' and not just philosophy. Moreover, science, especially that which addresses the evolution of organisms, utilizes all kinds of 'science' to bring together the conclusions that we now know of as the Modern Synthesis (or even the Extended Modern Synthesis).

The basic point is that philosophy of some kind is present and used within the overall corpus of theories, methods, and practices of science as it all relates to the theory of evolution. Science isn't just the 'raw data': science includes what you DO with the raw data as well, among other things.

Also, when you speak of a "power source" randomly driving the evolutionary process, you do involve some philosophy to form the theory, but as T. Ryan Gregory (2009) points out the following:

Mutation is random with respect to fitness. Natural selection is, by definition, non-random with respect to fitness. This means that, overall, it is a serious misconception to consider adapatation as happening "by chance." (p. 162)
​

Reference
Gregory, T. R. (2009). Understanding natural selection: essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(2), 156-175.

[The above reference is one of the sources I used in my graduate work ... so you might find it handy.]

Hello, I replied before seeing your post. Good post, but it looks like I'll have to dig deeper into that can of worms (mutation is random, natural selection is non-random).

Sounds good to me. Usually the Great Course materials are good.

Oh yeah awesome company!! You can just spend your entire paycheck there! There are a few great visual courses as well I've been eyeing up, one on understanding the night sky, there is a VERY visual new paleontology course (off site, seems their courses are even getting better). I was even about to order the course on how to play guitar!!

 

[Silmarien]

[The above reference is one of the sources I used in my graduate work ... so you might find it handy.]

Ooh, what was this on?

So how are you a 1st cousin of naturalism? Isn't that just mindless matter in motion, the concept that you don't believe?

No, there are forms of naturalism aside from materialism. But I think that if you need divine intervention to get the universe to produce fruit, so to speak, that would indicate a God who is too incompetent to set things up properly in the first place. Which is a sort of odd position for the ID folk to be trying to back themselves into, but maybe they'll come up with something useful in the process. Or not.

Anyway, that means that I agree with the naturalists that evolution should be working on autopilot. But as @2PhiloVoid pointed out, what we have in not really random selection--it's actually surprisingly Aristotelian, since we have genetic mutation functioning as a driving force or efficient cause, and natural selection as a final cause, since it is built into the nature of certain behaviors to produce better results. Toss in complications from Philosophy of Mind and the fact that consciousness, intentionality, and rationality could even arise naturally at all, and the whole thing becomes very intriguing.

 

[Dirk1540]

Ooh, what was this on?



No, there are forms of naturalism aside from materialism. But I think that if you need divine intervention to get the universe to produce fruit, so to speak, that would indicate a God who is too incompetent to set things up properly in the first place. Which is a sort of odd position for the ID folk to be trying to back themselves into, but maybe they'll come up with something useful in the process. Or not.

Anyway, that means that I agree with the naturalists that evolution should be working on autopilot. But as @2PhiloVoid pointed out, what we have in not really random selection--it's actually surprisingly Aristotelian, since we have genetic mutation functioning as a driving force or efficient cause, and natural selection as a final cause, since it is built into the nature of certain behaviors to produce better results. Toss in complications from Philosophy of Mind and the fact that consciousness, intentionality, and rationality could even arise naturally at all, and the whole thing becomes very intriguing.

Ok that makes more sense now.

But I think that if you need divine intervention to get the universe to produce fruit, so to speak, that would indicate a God who is too incompetent to set things up properly in the first place. Which is a sort of odd position for the ID folk to be trying to back themselves into

Haha good point. Yeah I was just throwing that out as an option people talk about, the autopilot definitely makes more sense!

This is day 1!! I'm really starting from the ground floor, 1st book 'The Story of Philosophy' by Will Durant, ever read it? (gonna read a few books before DVDs). This book is already pulling me in, it's a very old book, originally published in 1926...pretty funny to read a line like this "Geology speaks in terms of millions of years, where men before had spoke in terms of thousands" lol.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ooh, what was this on?

Nothing too spectacular. Most of it just had to do with social science related study, and a portion of that looked into some of the social nuances of science education. But let's just say that Pierre Bourdieu was one of my inspirations.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Obviously not.

It is not my problem that you don't read what I write.


The benefit of conscious manipulation is obvious. That it may be psychologically difficult to be self aware is what I am calling a side effect, not detrimental enough to cause the conscious manipulation to go by the wayside, but still something we have to cope with. I think one implies the other.



It's not a short cut it is the only cut.

We don't work with absolutes but we must derive our relationship with reality by relating to it.



No but poor assumptions can definitely be weeded out by further investigation. Otherwise I might keep thinking that wood is made out of fire water and earth.

The only way to refine our ability to understand reality is to interact with it. God is defined as something we can't interact with in any straight forward or controllable way (so we would be able to draw conclusions) so we're not going to understand it very well. Ideas that seem "intuitive", "spiritually fulfilling" or "aesthetic" are free to be entirely incorrect.

This always makes me wonder with people who understand the difficulty of dealing with reality, will then lapse into fanciful ideas like "spiritual sensations" as good ways of going about discovery of the truths of the universe.

If you don't believe you can come up with valid conclusions about reality by constantly interacting with it, then how do you suppose you can come up with valid conclusions by having much more nebulous spiritual experiences?



No, it's not obvious. The folly of the dead religion is in the a ability to convince people.

Religious ideas are pure appeals to popularity and thus are free to be at the mercy of human whims, psychology, social pressure ect none of which determines truth.

Again, I can tell you why we don't think trees are made of the elements of earth, water and fire because of how we have investigated them in the real world.

With religions only some of their claims can be investigated properly, while, for the most part, the deeper metaphysical stuff is not something we really know.



I'm not seeing a good reason why there can't be a sea God.

Please continue though.



I don't know. I find it rather obvious that conscious beings are going to reach out for explanations like Gods when they don't understand things. It's certainly possible that I am wrong on that but we've only got the one example.
.



Religion obviously tries to explain and shape reality in a way that is understandable, which is a metaphysical framework. It is the first thing every religion does. It answers basic questions about the world.

Where did the world come from. Why is there evil. Why are there people. ect. It provides the framework for these in the first chapter or so.

I fear we have reached the end of our discussion. Anything I could add to what I have said, would be mostly repetition I think, of concepts I have previously defended. We are obviously holding quite different trenches here, with our lines having solidified. I thank you for your time and for the debate.

I doubt your ability to worship that which you can't even grasp on a cursory basis.

Do we grasp the material world? Do we grasp human physiology? Certainly not. There are far larger lacunae than not in our knowledge, and even what we know, is fundamentally uncertain.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

@Dirk1540 I have a different take on Intelligent Design. I think there is a inconsistency at its heart. If God is the Creator, that is different from a Designer.

Design implies that something is planned and then unfolds in that way. A blueprint is drawn up, which is then followed.
To conceive God as an Ultimate Being, a fount of existence, an Unmoved Mover, entails all creation to flow from Him. This is not design, for if something is 'designed', then by nature something may go against the design, no? Even if it doesn't, it suggests an ongoing process of sorts.
The Universe exists by His will, and as an atemporal being, Time being a facet of existence or space in modern ideas, the entire temporality of the Universe exists in an eternal instant from His perspective. Whether this is perceived as a monistic unity or a linear phased existence of all Time, matters not. But Designed it was not, for all that exists or ever has or ever will, is one fluid act of Creation to our standard conception of God. It is one complete act, close to Calvinistic ideas of God as Author.

So to label it Intelligent Design, would be recognising a perceived flow of events from our perspective and then applying temporality to God to account for it. It is an act of Anthropomorphisation, as it were. Intelligent Design implies theological consequences, the most serious of which is perhaps the idea that God as a 'designer' is beholden to some form of time or process.

 

[variant]

I fear we have reached the end of our discussion. Anything I could add to what I have said, would be mostly repetition I think, of concepts I have previously defended. We are obviously holding quite different trenches here, with our lines having solidified. I thank you for your time and for the debate.

Do we grasp the material world? Do we grasp human physiology? Certainly not. There are far larger lacunae than not in our knowledge, and even what we know, is fundamentally uncertain.

My charge was that you didn't understand God on even a cursory basis. Cursory meaning hasty, not thought through or detailed.

So, If you are so down on our material grasp of reality then the question is:

Do we grasp the divine?

Why defend that last question so resolutely when you're so skeptical on things we have much more experience with and much better opportunity to study in controlled settings?

If you consider our ideas on biology a failure then you should logically consider our theology distressingly inept.

If the only thing keeping you from turning your incredible skepticism on theology is the same feelings you are defending then I suggest that you turn your skepticism on those feelings and see what happens.

Your philosophy is fundamentally conflicted at a base level here.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If you are so down on our material grasp of reality then the question is:

Do we grasp the divine?

Why defend that last question so resolutely when you're so skeptical on things we have much more experience with and much better opportunity to study in controlled settings?

If you consider our ideas on biology a failure then you should logically consider our theology distressingly inept.

If the only thing keeping you from turning your incredible skepticism on theology is the same feelings you are defending then I suggest that you turn your skepticism on those feelings and see what happens.

Yes, I do think our theology is quite uncertain as well. I thought I was clear on that point when I called God literally beyond understanding. We don't really have "much more experience with or opportunity to study" the materialistic though, then the Spiritual. As I said before, that is an assumption of Empiricism and so forth, with other human qualia having no less a fundamental 'existence' than our perceived sensual ones. We have been over this before.

We have no way of determining if anything we think is intrinsically true or not. Hence the requirement of Faith is necessitated for meaning to be efficacious, regardless what we are espousing.

 

[variant]

Yes, I do think our theology is quite uncertain as well. I thought I was clear on that point when I called God literally beyond understanding. We don't really have "much more experience with or opportunity to study" the materialistic though, then the Spiritual. As I said before, that is an assumption of Empiricism and so forth, with other human qualia having no less a fundamental 'existence' than our perceived sensual ones. We have been over this before.

We can actually put the material world to rigorous study. "Spiritual qualia" give us no such opportunity.

When we are wrong in our understanding about the material world it can become apparent when our explanations fail.

When spiritual explanations fail there is no such means of error detection.

We have no way of determining if anything we think is intrinsically true or not. Hence the requirement of Faith is necessitated for meaning to be efficacious, regardless what we are espousing.

The only way we can approach truth is through experience.