Atheism's Burden of Proof

[KCfromNC]

No. That isn't what I'm implying. What I AM saying is that if a philosopher happens to "review" the work of scientists, it might be handy for scientists to not completely ignore what philosophers (particularly philosophers of science) have to say.

I mean sure, there's a chance any random amateur might luck into finding an error in a professional's work if they beat their heads against it long enough. But it seems more practical for scientists to run their work by other professionals in the field if they're hoping for consistent good feedback.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I mean sure, there's a chance any random amateur might luck into finding an error in a professional's work if they beat their heads against it long enough. But it seems more practical for scientists to run their work by other professionals in the field if they're hoping for consistent good feedback.

Did you happen to watch that NOVA video I attached in a previous post?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's also a sheer misrepresentation of what I actually said.

Which was that, just because science could be said to have been motivated by the beliefs of religion X, in no way means that the beliefs of relgion X are valid.




No. I am implying that the beliefs of those engaged in science (or those who kickstarted it), are irrelevant.



You should really start reading with more attention. Again you seem to have missed a few crucial words in the quote you are responding to. I'll help you out once more:

But giants that were incorrect, which is why it took a Newton to correct or complete the ideas of those giants

If those giants were completely correct, then there would have been nothing for Newton to come up with as it would have been known already. Seems rather obvious.........



Sure. But now, we are completely losing track of the point that was actually being discussed: the idea that christian beliefs deserve some kind of "validity" or whatever, just because it could be said that "the first scientists" were christians. I don't even agree to that notion of the first ones being christians, but I'll go along with it for the sake of argument and to get back on track of that point.

If these people found motivation/inspiration in their christian beliefs to develop the scientific method, great. But, again, that doesn't mean that there christian beliefs were accurate or even valid.



Really? Seems rather logical to me...
Science is an continous stream of improvement of ideas and expansion of knowledge.
It seems rather obvious that if you turn back time and track back on that "stream" that you'll only be resurecting the inaccurate models that were discarded and replaced by science further down the line.....



Comments like this are really uncalled for and counter productive.




Nope! The point exactly. The question is, WHY doesn't it matter?
Answer: because the alchemy thingy were just his mere beliefs. While his physics / math thingy were things he could actually demonstrate and support.

See? Beliefs are irrelevant in science!
If they weren't, his work in alchemy WOULD be relevant.



Not from his alchemy. But from his religious beliefs - YES.
Funny that you would bring this particular thing up, actually.

Indeed yes, his own religious beliefs, in a very real sense, blocked him at the end.
In his entire work, he doesn't mention god anywhere. UNTIL he hits a wall. There was something (don't remember what exactly, but not that important) about the orbital paths he could not explain. Strange, because he had all the info and math he needed in order to solve the problem. He just never came around to go that extra step. And that's the point where he suddenly invokes his god. He can't explain something and then says "...this is where I see the hand of god".

A century later, someone takes up the problem (LaPlace, I think) and actually solves it. No gods required.

Perhaps, if Newton wouldn't have had that showstopper belief, he would have cracked it as well.

And now that I'm on that point anyway.... this exact "show stopper belief" is also what plummethed the islamic world in its own dark ages, from wich it never really recovered. The Golden Age of Islam was a period of great advances of knowledge, of economic uplift, etc.
Along came Al-Ghazali. He is the one that came up with the essence of the Kalaam argument - the very definition of a showstopper argument, I'ld say.

After his philosophical ideas had spread through the islamic world, the golden age was over. Because suddenly, all problems had a default answer: "god dun it".




I tried to explain to you that a religious brain is not required to do that.
And that the person being religious isn't any more relevant to his accomplishments in physics then the person having a mustache.

Newton invoked God ONCE in his physics work: when he was stuck. He didn't know, so he then settled on "god dun it".


I have never witnessed any atheist claim that theists can't be good scientists.

But I have yet to see a single theistic scientist invoke god in his work and actually being correct about it.

Oh, I see where we're miscommunicating. You seem to be under the impression that I'm picking up with Silmarien's point about Christianity being influential to the development of modern science. Well, I don't remember jumping onto that particular 'band-wagon.' My starting point with you above, as I remember a few posts back, had to do with your idea that the Muslims "kick-started" science ...

 

[KCfromNC]

The discoveries themselves come from, and appropriately belong to, the field of science. However, when mistakes and a lack of accountability is discovered in the applied methodology of research and/or theory, this is open to the scrutiny of philosophers and is, in fact, appropriate for the field of philosophy.

Just like it is open to the scrutiny of everyone outside the field and is, in fact, appropriate for the field of anything outside of science. Or inside it. I don't see the need to pretend that philosophy is somehow uniquely equipped to handle this.

Sure, sure, sure. We can talk all day about how 'ideally' scientists build this or that control into their experimental research, or apply for peer review, or claim that they are honestly reporting their findings.........................but the 'truth' of the matter is that all of these claims by scientists are pocked with inconsistencies, some of which I've already mentioned in various places here in this thread, but of which have heretofore remained un-examined (and unaddressed) by most of those who think they're so successfully scrutinizing (or really philosophically evaluating) what I'm saying here.

Seems like the big insight here is that something done by humans is imperfect. I guess if it takes a philosophy degree to figure this out great but I'm not really sure that everyone needs that much work to figure out something so basic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Seems like the big insight here is that something done by humans is imperfect. I guess if it takes a philosophy degree to figure this out great but I'm not really sure that everyone needs that much work to figure out something so basic.

Nice use of amphibology there, KC.

 

[KCfromNC]

Did you happen to watch that NOVA video I attached in a previous post?

Yeah, but I'd prefer to see a discussion of the qualifications given by a philosophy degree to second-guess scientific results along with research showing the effectiveness of applying these qualifications to real world problems.

Instead, I'm pointed to more talking by people with random opinions. That's not really convicing. Especially when the few concrete testable claims are wrong. For a quick example about the quip about what has physics given music : Amplifier modeling - Wikipedia. Good luck doing that without understanding semiconductor physics.

And I hesitate to even post that counterexample because I'm worried it will lead to yet more posts of distractions away from the main point. Which ironically enough, would kinda be more evidence for my feelings that the emperor here really has no clothes.

 

[KCfromNC]

Nice use of amphibology there, KC.

Seemed clear enough to me.

Any chance you're ever going to try and address the content of what I posted?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, but I'd prefer to see a discussion of the qualifications given by a philosophy degree to second-guess scientific results along with research showing the effectiveness of applying these qualifications to real world problems.

Instead, I'm pointed to more talking by people with random opinions. That's not really convicing. Especially when the few concrete testable claims are wrong. For a quick example about the quip about what has physics given music : Amplifier modeling - Wikipedia. Good luck doing that without understanding semiconductor physics.

Physics in music? That wasn't in the NOVA video.

And I hesitate to even post that counterexample because I'm worried it will lead to yet more posts of distractions away from the main point. Which ironically enough, would kinda be more evidence for my feelings that the emperor here really has no clothes.

You have evidence for your feelings? Where have I heard that kind of thing before?

 

[Silmarien]

The point is, we experience life the way we do. We experience free thought, free will and personhood. If tomorrow we find out for sure that indeed everything is deterministic and that free will etc are actually just our brains tricking us... then what would it really change in your life? I say: nothing at all, because you will simply continue to experience reality just like you always did.

I'm already predisposed towards viewing reality as a pointless and meaningless exercise in futility, so you're right in that it wouldn't change that much. I don't really see the wisdom in arbitrarily being a nihilist, though.

If a deterministic silicon chip that simply processes 1's and 0's can do that, why wouldn't our brains be able to do the same?

Silicon chips don't really have goals in mind. Even with deep learning, the goals have already been preprogrammed. It will be interesting to see if we can develop AI that is actually self-determining and aware, but what you're describing does not resemble free will as we experience it in any shape or form. If we have no control over our goals, the fact that we can use reason to reach them isn't really saying much.

The only real objection I'm reading between the lines here is "I wouldn't like a deterministic universe where our bodies are in fact fundamentally just carbon bags regulated by complex chemistry"

Well, no. My objection is that determinism is a relic of a mechanistic worldview that was overthrown by quantum physics. I haven't mentioned chemistry except in the context of philosophy of mind, where materialism does have some pretty absurd implications, so if you're going to try to read between the lines, it would be helpful if you actually read what I was writing at all.

You were implying that science originated in and was motivated by judeo-christian religion. Clearly, that's incorrect.

No, I said modern science developed within the context of the Judeo-Christian worldview, which is true. Islamic science is not modern science. This is something that historians of science are aware of, and some have suggested that there were theological factors at work. There is nothing clearly incorrect about this thesis at all.

 

[Silmarien]

And now that I'm on that point anyway.... this exact "show stopper belief" is also what plummethed the islamic world in its own dark ages, from wich it never really recovered. The Golden Age of Islam was a period of great advances of knowledge, of economic uplift, etc.
Along came Al-Ghazali. He is the one that came up with the essence of the Kalaam argument - the very definition of a showstopper argument, I'ld say.

Actually, no. What is now called the Kalam Cosmological Argument actually dates back to Al-Kindi in the 9th century. It was refined by a handful of Islamic theologians, including Al-Ghazali, but he did not come up with it.

One thing you may not realize about classical and medieval thought is that according to Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, the universe was eternal. The Kalam is unique amongst cosmological arguments because it rejects this premise and attempts instead to establish that the universe must have had a beginning. It isn't a show-stopper at all; quite the opposite, really, since its proponents need as much evidence as they can get that the universe doesn't stretch back infinitely. The argument by its very nature actually requires empirical support--there's a reason why apologists like WLC are always arguing from cosmology.

 

[KCfromNC]

Physics in music? That wasn't in the NOVA video.

3:02 or so.

You have evidence for your feelings? Where have I heard that kind of thing before?

I don't know, I'm not a mind reader. But then again I did predict there would be more word games in place of an attempt to address the point so maybe I should rethink my day job.

 

[KCfromNC]

Silicon chips don't really have goals in mind.

This seems to sum up this part of the discussion. No matter how much computers do the same things as humans, simply assert they don't "really" do it, as if that means anything.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

3:02 or so.

...I'm talking about the video back up in post #189, not the other video with David Albert in it ...

But, you're apparently looking at the video with David Albert, and yes, he did say the comment about physics and music as a 'jest.' You do realize that David Albert was a Theoretical Physicist before switching over to becoming a Philosopher of Science, right? And he has had a feud with Lawrence Krauss.

David Albert - Wikipedia

I don't know, I'm not a mind reader. But then again I did predict there would be more word games in place of an attempt to address the point so maybe I should rethink my day job.

Oh sure. It's all just "word games."

 

[KCfromNC]

...I'm talking about the video back up in post #189, not the other video with David Albert in it ...

But, you're apparently looking at the video with David Albert, and yes, he did say the comment about physics and music as a 'jest.' You do realize that David Albert was a Theoretical Physicist before switching over to becoming a Philosopher of Science, right?

Oh sure. It's all just "word games."

I'm just going by what I read. I'd be less inclined to believe this if the discussion didn't consistently seem to devolve into irrelevancies like the top quote.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually, no. What is now called the Kalam Cosmological Argument actually dates back to Al-Kindi in the 9th century. It was refined by a handful of Islamic theologians, including Al-Ghazali, but he did not come up with it.

Al-Ghazali is the one that popularized the idea and he is generally seen as the one who is responsible for it spreading throughout the islamic world. The guy had a lot of influence.
He applied it in much broader ways and it is generally accepted that the concept as he presented it in that broad context, is what marked the beginning of the end of the islamic "golden age".

One thing you may not realize about classical and medieval thought is that according to Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, the universe was eternal. The Kalam is unique amongst cosmological arguments because it rejects this premise and attempts instead to establish that the universe must have had a beginning. It isn't a show-stopper at all;

The show-stopping part, is the idea that if you don't know something, you can just plug the knowledge gap with "god-dun-it".

The argument by its very nature actually requires empirical support--there's a reason why apologists like WLC are always arguing from cosmology.

WLC's version of the argument is the worst of its kind.
Invalid/unsupported premises followed by an assumed conclusion.

It reads like a demonstration / illustration of common logical fallacies.

 

[Silmarien]

Al-Ghazali is the one that popularized the idea and he is generally seen as the one who is responsible for it spreading throughout the islamic world. The guy had a lot of influence.
He applied it in much broader ways and it is generally accepted that the concept as he presented it in that broad context, is what marked the beginning of the end of the islamic "golden age".

You really think that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is what ended the Islamic Golden Age? I would agree that Al-Ghazali's occasionalism likely played a role, but that's a much bigger issue than a single argument. You can't really conflate the Kalam with theology more broadly.

The show-stopping part, is the idea that if you don't know something, you can just plug the knowledge gap with "god-dun-it".

There's nothing inherently show-stopping about doing that. If you don't at least start out by insisting that the universe is intelligible because God made it so, there would be no good reason to even try to understand it at all. If you're going to drop secondary causality and say that God is directly causing everything, you're going to have problems, but the Kalam really doesn't do that.

WLC's version of the argument is the worst of its kind.
Invalid/unsupported premises followed by an assumed conclusion.

I disagree with his premises, but I would hardly accuse him of not supporting them, since his whole argument involves providing justification for those premises. In any case, it's completely irrelevant whether or not his argument succeeds--the point is that by its very nature, it's not a show-stopper when it comes to encouraging empirical research.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You really think that the Kalam Cosmological Argument is what ended the Islamic Golden Age?

Yes. Once that philosophical thought became common place in that world, it only went downhill.

I would agree that Al-Ghazali's occasionalism likely played a role, but that's a much bigger issue than a single argument. You can't really conflate the Kalam with theology more broadly.

I'm not conflating anything. It's just common sense. Doing science (I'll just call it that, eventhough the "scientific method" wasn't standardized until much later) requires a specific reasoning process. It requires openness, transparancy, intellectual honesty/integrity and, perhaps most importantly, the acknowledgement that whatever you believe to be correct today, might be shown false tomorrow.

Scientific reasoning is in direct conflict with the ideas around which Kalaam is centered.

There's nothing inherently show-stopping about doing that.

Yes, there is. Because when you consider "god-dun-it" to be an acceptable answer to any question at all, the questioning stops. Why continue to do research or ask questions? You have your answer: it was god.

Contrast that with saying "we don't know yet, let's get to work and find out..." when you hit a wall or have a gap in knowledge...

If you don't at least start out by insisting that the universe is intelligible because God made it so, there would be no good reason to even try to understand it at all.

The "because god made it so" is completely unecessary and also problematic. It implies that a universe that is not the result of some creating god, could not be intelligible. There is no reason at all for such a dichotomy. It is, as they say, a false dichotomy.

Having said that... this is not the same thing as what we were talking about above...
The point being discussed is not "god kickstarted all and now we can find out how it all works". The actual point being discussed is rather "this aspect of reality here... I can't explain it. So God must have done it."

I disagree with his premises

Then you disagree with the entire argument.
You can't disagree with the premises and still accept the conclusion. At least not, if you care about rationality and logical reasoning...

, but I would hardly accuse him of not supporting them, since his whole argument involves providing justification for those premises.

Yet, he never does it.
All of his attempts, consist of just more such "arguments" with invalid premises and assumed conclusions.

You don't support unsupported claims with more unsupported claims....
A logical fallacy doesn't go away by piling on more fallacies.

In any case, it's completely irrelevant whether or not his argument succeeds--the point is that by its very nature, it's not a show-stopper when it comes to encouraging empirical research.

Except WLC is not at all about encouriging empirical research.
He feels that his arguments that consist only of mere words, should take priority over actual empirical data.