An Atheist's Critique of … some other current Atheists

[Silmarien]

Anything is possible. I tend to lean towards, what is most probable, based on current knowledge of the human mind and psychology.

No, you clearly lean towards it because of your own personal psychology. Hard to judge probability when we're all just at the mercy of our individual psyches.

 

[bhsmte]

No, you clearly lean towards it because of your own personal psychology. Hard to judge probability when we're all just at the mercy of our individual psyches.

Everything we interpret, we interpret through our own lens. Unless of course, that magical force exists, that places an interpretation in your mind for you.

But, when we interject objective evidence into the foray, it tends to remove a level of the subjectivity from our personal bias. This doesn't mean our personal bias won't reject the evidence, but it does bring in an outside more objective force.

Science is a good example of dealing in certain levels of evidence and although science is by no means perfect, it tends to self correct as more evidence is discovered. This could be why, those in the field of science, have a much larger agreement in regards to this evidence (and especially as evidence mounts) and what it means, vs those who are in the religious or faith fields, where the conclusions and meanings, can simply be too many to count. This tells me, there is more personal bias in those conclusions.

So, when I personally judge probability by engaging evidence that originates from outside my own mind and was not just interpreted by me, that gives me confidence a level of the personal bias is removed.

 

[Silmarien]

Everything we interpret, we interpret through our own lens. Unless of course, that magical force exists, that places an interpretation in your mind for you.

But, when we interject objective evidence into the foray, it tends to remove a level of the subjectivity from our personal bias. This doesn't mean our personal bias won't reject the evidence, but it does bring in an outside more objective force.

Science is a good example of dealing in certain levels of evidence and although science is by no means perfect, it tends to self correct as more evidence is discovered. This could be why, those in the field of science, have a much larger agreement in regards to this evidence (and especially as evidence mounts) and what it means, vs those who are in the religious or faith fields, where the conclusions and meanings, can simply be too many to count. This tells me, there is more personal bias in those conclusions.

So, when I personally judge probability by engaging evidence that originates from outside my own mind and was not just interpreted by me, that gives me confidence a level of the personal bias is removed.

Oh, I see. You're psychologically predisposed towards believing that there's some mystical thing that we might call "objective evidence" that can help get the Elect out of this subjective confusion that everyone else is mired in. It is simply fascinating that you could focus so strongly upon psychological factors and yet still think such a thing is possible!

Now, we could have saved ourselves a whole lot of trouble if you'd admitted a couple posts ago that you did think psychological factors were not so extreme as to make knowledge itself impossible.

Whether your faith in the objectivity of science is itself just the result of psychological factors is an entirely different question, of course. I do not see the same agreement over the meaning of science that you do, at least where scientific progress starts having metaphysical implications and begins to solidify into a worldview of its own. And sometimes agreement just means orthodoxy, so I would tread carefully in general.

 

[bhsmte]

Oh, I see. You're psychologically predisposed towards believing that there's some mystical thing that we might call "objective evidence" that can help get the Elect out of this subjective confusion that everyone else is mired in. It is simply fascinating that you could focus so strongly upon psychological factors and yet still think such a thing is possible!

Now, we could have saved ourselves a whole lot of trouble if you'd admitted a couple posts ago that you did think psychological factors were not so extreme as to make knowledge itself impossible.

Whether your faith in the objectivity of science is itself just the result of psychological factors is an entirely different question, of course. I do not see the same agreement over the meaning of science that you do, at least where scientific progress starts having metaphysical implications and begins to solidify into a worldview of its own.

Ah, the old faith in science piece.

Granted we probably don't use the term "faith" the same. I don't need faith in things that have a sound track record of producing results, I have trust. Just wanted to get that out of the way. I have trust the lights will go on when I flip the switch. I have trust my car will start in the morning. I have trust the sun will come up tomorrow. When I invoke faith, it is when a track record of results is absent.

I never stated that specific individual psyche blocks learning, but it can certainly impact what a specific person is willing to accept as legit.

People tend to accept new knowledge on their own terms and especially so if that potential knowledge, conflicts with a belief that is important to them. As a general rule, people tend to protect beliefs that are important to them. Some, protect them at all costs and no matter what outside evidence is available that contradicts their belief, because it is simply too painful to accept the belief is not correct. Others, will accept new knowledge, even if it contradicts a current belief, when it becomes too painful to keep denying the evidence that contradicts it, but it may take time.

 

[HitchSlap]

Oh, I see. You're psychologically predisposed towards believing that there's some mystical thing that we might call "objective evidence" that can help get the Elect out of this subjective confusion that everyone else is mired in. It is simply fascinating that you could focus so strongly upon psychological factors and yet still think such a thing is possible!

Now, we could have saved ourselves a whole lot of trouble if you'd admitted a couple posts ago that you did think psychological factors were not so extreme as to make knowledge itself impossible.

Whether your faith in the objectivity of science is itself just the result of psychological factors is an entirely different question, of course. I do not see the same agreement over the meaning of science that you do, at least where scientific progress starts having metaphysical implications and begins to solidify into a worldview of its own. And sometimes agreement just means orthodoxy, so I would tread carefully in general.

It would seem to me that you’re engaging in sophistry by suggesting all positions have equal footing.

 

[Silmarien]

Ah, the old faith in science piece.

I don't think you recognize the complications inherent in the concept of scientific knowledge. To begin with, there's the debate between realists and anti-realists over whether science is actually providing objectively true knowledge about the external world or is simply a matter of functionality--science provides useful technological progress and we should discard antiquated ideals like the search for truth entirely. That is the first debate. Others follow, like reductionism vs. holism.

Now, perhaps you are psychologically motivated to write off anyone who points out the subjective factors present in scientific interpretation. After all, as you pointed out yourself, people tend to protect beliefs that matter to them no matter what. It is easier to simply ignore the various debates that rage within the philosophy of science than to admit that the matter is more complicated. Perhaps this is why you write off metaphysics as "paralysis by analysis"--so that you can avoid taking any of it seriously yourself. That's okay, though. After all, we've all got psychological factors at work, right?

Granted we probably don't use the term "faith" the same. I don't need faith in things that have a sound track record of producing results, I have trust. Just wanted to get that out of the way. I have trust the lights will go on when I flip the switch. I have trust my car will start in the morning. I have trust the sun will come up tomorrow. When I invoke faith, it is when a track record of results is absent.

We didn't need the theory of heliocentrism to trust that the sun was going to come up tomorrow. When I talk about faith in science, I mean faith that we are at all correct in our interpretation of the evidence, not faith that the natural order of the universe will be maintained from one moment to the next. That is a separate issue, but people didn't need chemistry to be able to produce fire, and our current scientific theories could be wrong in just the right ways to produce consistent, useful results.

 

[Silmarien]

It would seem to me that you’re engaging in sophistry by suggesting all positions have equal footing.

I never actually suggested that all positions have equal footing. I'm just trying to show how easily "psychological factors" can be turned in any direction.

For the record, I don't think scientific naturalism has any footing at all.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't think you recognize the complications inherent in the concept of scientific knowledge. To begin with, there's the debate between realists and anti-realists over whether science is actually providing objectively true knowledge about the external world or is simply a matter of functionality--science provides useful technological progress and we should discard antiquated ideals like the search for truth entirely. That is the first debate. Others follow, like reductionism vs. holism.

Now, perhaps you are psychologically motivated to write off anyone who points out the subjective factors present in scientific interpretation. After all, as you pointed out yourself, people tend to protect beliefs that matter to them no matter what. It is easier to simply ignore the various debates that rage within the philosophy of science than to admit that the matter is more complicated. Perhaps this is why you write off metaphysics as "paralysis by analysis"--so that you can avoid taking any of it seriously yourself. That's okay, though. After all, we've all got psychological factors at work, right?



We didn't need the theory of heliocentrism to trust that the sun was going to come up tomorrow. When I talk about faith in science, I mean faith that we are at all correct in our interpretation of the evidence, not faith that the natural order of the universe will be maintained from one moment to the next. That is a separate issue, but people didn't need chemistry to be able to produce fire, and our current scientific theories could be wrong in just the right ways to produce consistent, useful results.

When things work and provide predictable results, that is a good sign that it is trustworthy.

I can't add anything further to what I have already stated.

 

[bhsmte]

I never actually suggested that all positions have equal footing. I'm just trying to show how easily "psychological factors" can be turned in any direction.

For the record, I don't think scientific naturalism has any footing at all.

Who is talking about scientific naturalism? I was talking of the reliability of science, over time.

Nothing wrong with believing other forces are in play, I just don't see any reason at present, to say these forces are real.

 

[Silmarien]

When things work and provide predictable results, that is a good sign that it is trustworthy.

I can't add anything further to what I have already stated.

Ptolemaic astronomy "worked" and provided predictable results for about 1500 years.

Who is talking about scientific naturalism? I was talking of the reliability of science, over time.

Nothing wrong with believing other forces are in play, I just don't see any reason at present, to say these forces are real.

Eh, if you're going to insist that the scientific model of the universe is the most reliable picture of reality, in spite of all the debates raging about what science is telling us about reality at all, that's pretty much scientific naturalism.

It has nothing to do with other "forces" that may or may not be at play. That sounds like so much New Age superstition to me.

 

[bhsmte]

Ptolemaic astronomy "worked" and provided predictable results for about 1500 years.



Eh, if you're going to insist that the scientific model of the universe is the most reliable picture of reality, in spite of all the debates raging about what science is telling us about reality at all, that's pretty much scientific naturalism.

It has nothing to do with other "forces" that may or may not be at play. That sounds like so much New Age superstition to me.

I must be doing a poor job explaining myself, because you seem to have a habit of twisting what i write.

And, let us all know when you can demonstrate science completely rules out other forces and also when you have evidence for these forces.

This reminds me of posters that complain that the theory of evolution doesnt mention a god and they just cant understand why.

 

[bhsmte]

Ptolemaic astronomy "worked" and provided predictable results for about 1500 years.



Eh, if you're going to insist that the scientific model of the universe is the most reliable picture of reality, in spite of all the debates raging about what science is telling us about reality at all, that's pretty much scientific naturalism.

It has nothing to do with other "forces" that may or may not be at play. That sounds like so much New Age superstition to me.

How did this astronomy change and why?

 

[HitchSlap]

How did this astronomy change and why?

I'm guessing because some philosopher prayed about it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm guessing because some philosopher prayed about it?

No, it's because some philosopher "preyed" upon it!

 

[HitchSlap]

No, it's because some philosopher "preyed" upon it!

Much in the way a toothless, blind and arthritic tiger might prey on it's dinner?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Much in the way a toothless, blind and arthritic tiger might prey on it's dinner?

I don't know, is it? Do you think that Rene Descartes, considered within the times in which he lived and how he reconsidered Aristotle, counts as a "toothless, blind and arthritic tiger"? I hope that's not what you mean, because to say so would then say something about you, and I don't think that is what you're intending to say about yourself. Right?

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't know, is it? Do you think that Rene Descartes, considered within the times in which he lived and how he reconsidered Aristotle, counts as a "toothless, blind and arthritic tiger"? I hope that's not what you mean, because to say so would then say something about you, and I don't think that is what you're intending to say about yourself. Right?

Much in the way a toothless tiger might also attack a strawman in order to impress his cronies.

 

[Silmarien]

I must be doing a poor job explaining myself, because you seem to have a habit of twisting what i write.

And, let us all know when you can demonstrate science completely rules out other forces and also when you have evidence for these forces.

This reminds me of posters that complain that the theory of evolution doesnt mention a god and they just cant understand why.

I don't believe in supernatural forces. Immanent teleology, yes, supernatural "forces" at work within the universe, not so much. It seems kind of superstitious and New Age-y to me so I don't know why you keep bringing it up as the alternative to naturalism. Paranormalism and so forth makes me a bit antsy, though I would agree that science doesn't rule any of it out.

How did this astronomy change and why?

Because eventually they came up with a model that worked better.

Which was also wrong, of course.

The problem is that sometimes when science is wrong, it is really wrong and you have to throw out a lot of the conceptual framework that goes with it. That's really hard to do if you lack the philosophical tools to recognize what the framework is at all. Which is why we're still dealing with 19th century philosophical assumptions in a post-quantum world now. Intellectual revolutions are tricky business.

I'm guessing because some philosopher prayed about it?

That would actually be a pretty good description of a lot of what was going on with Galileo. He was totally divinely inspired and everyone who disagreed with him was contrary to Scripture.

It is not a good description of most philosophers, however. Even the religious ones.

Also, seriously, if you don't like philosophy, you're welcome to reject democratic theories of government and go find yourself an authoritarian theocracy somewhere. Good luck and have fun.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Much in the way a toothless tiger might also attack a strawman in order to impress his cronies.

.......... ......................................ok, HitchSlap.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Much in the way a toothless tiger might also attack a strawman in order to impress his cronies.

I guess I should stop expecting authentic, substantive, intensive, and vital discussion--discussion that actually means something--from non-Christians. Instead, I get evasion and the typical "non-answers" delivered in Communist style from the supposed disenfranchised and the malcontent.

If and when you want to have a real conversation, let me know, HitchSlap.