Atheism's Burden of Proof

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not sure of the relevance, except maybe as an attempt to poison the well. That's an ad hominem, as I'm sure you're aware.



That's nice, but you were talking about how useful epistemology was. Why the attempt to change the subject?

You said, "philosophy," two posts above. No?

Ok. So, you're really waiting for philosophy to show you some 'truth' (or something 'useful') about epistemology. And, I think that is what I have been doing in all my time here in the Apologetics section of CF.

My overall proposition is that "no one human will EVER break the code of the universe using the ol' grey matter ..." Hence, in the processes of everything else we do in this life, we can all come up with various systems illustrating how we THINK we have justified this, that, or the other idea (or technique, really...like building a jet), but we'll never truly get what we need to beat and cheat death, or defeat a black hole, or figure out a unified theory, or enter another of the supposed multi-verses, or even see God. It's just not going to happen; we human beings do have limits (despite what Hollywood tries to make it all look like to the contrary).

So, if there is one really good use for philosophy, it would be similar to the claim that Daniel Dennett has for the concept of evolution......that it makes a great "acid" by which to dissolve a lot of pretensions, whether those pretensions are held by religious people, or even by irreligious people. Philosophy is all about evaluating the world and is known for providing not only methods of First Order thinking, but also of Second Order thinking.

It also helps a person to realize he has been making philosophical evaluations when he had previously thought that he had been making only "scientific ones" (or "religious ones").

 

[KCfromNC]

You said, "philosophy," two posts above. No?

Ok. So, you're really waiting for philosophy to show you some 'truth' (or something 'useful') about epistemology.

Yep. And based on the response, looks like I'm going to continue to wait.

My overall proposition is that "no one human will EVER break the code of the universe using the ol' grey matter ..." Hence, in the processes of everything else we do in this life, we can all come up with various systems illustrating how we THINK we have justified this, that, or the other idea (or technique, really...like building a jet), but we'll never truly get what we need to beat and cheat death, or defeat a black hole, or figure out a unified theory, or enter another of the supposed multi-verses, or even see God. It's just not going to happen; we human beings do have limits (despite what Hollywood tries to make it all look like to the contrary).

Good on you for having an opinion.

Philosophy is all about evaluating the world and is known for providing not only methods of First Order thinking, but also of Second Order thinking.

Still waiting for it to evaluate the accuracy of the many opinions about the nature of reality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep. And based on the response, looks like I'm going to continue to wait.

What is it that you think the purpose of philosophy is? Obviously, it's not to "build" cars. Rather, you might want to understand "philosophy" as a part of "quality control."

Good on you for having an opinion.

Yes. Good for me, KC.

Still waiting for it to evaluate the accuracy of the many opinions about the nature of reality.

The purpose of philosophy is to "ask questions" of things that still seem open to further questioning...such as questioning various aspects of science as David Albert does.

 

[KCfromNC]

What is it that you think the purpose of philosophy is? Obviously, it's not to "build" cars. Rather, you might want to understand "philosophy" as a part of "quality control."

I see no reason to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see no reason to.

...I just presented a reason to (i.e. the video). So, if you don't "see" a reason, should I perhaps think that this is because you don't want to do the work that goes with "seeing"? And in regard to doing 'the work,' I'm not just talking about religious stuff, I'm talking about academic stuff in general.

I mean, why do you even come here to CF? You're presence here seems to be one akin to the student who shows up to class on the first day and promptly blurts out to the teacher that he won't do any work but still expects an 'A.' In such a fictional case, how seriously do you think the teacher (or even the other students) will take that person? Should we even call that person a 'student'?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You think you can toss out consciousness and free will and still save the concept of personhood? Where do I sign up for this brave new atheism?

I don't see how our fundamental physical / biological make-up would have to necessarily exclude concepts like consciousness and free will.

I'm fine calling free will / consciousness to being emergent properties of my physical brain.
I'm also fine with the idea that life, at bottom, is just an extreme expression of complex chemistry.

What I fundamentally am, how my body fundamentally works, is not really relevant to my "personhood".

My life is what it is. I can love, I can think about things, I have emotions, I have empathy, I am a member of a society filled with others like me who might care about me and whom I care about.

Wheter my body is a result of complex chemistry or not, seems irrelevant to those facts of reality. At best, it provides an explanation of how those facts manifest. So what?


This is like that ridiculous "argument" that says "if humans classify as animals, we might as well all crawl in trees and throw fecies at eachother".

I don't get that at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You might want to look into the history of modern science and its relationship with Scholastic philosophy. There's a theory out there that it required the widespread faith in the intelligibility of reality granted by Judeo-Christian faith to to get a project like the empirical sciences off the ground in the first place. It's pretty interesting.

It might very well be the case that the scientific undertaking was developed, or even motivated, based on some religious base.

It doesn't really matter.

Especially not if you consider the very real fact that the west (or the "judeo christian faith", if you wish) took over the scientific undertaking that started in the middle east during "the golden age" of Islam.

In a very real sense, science was kickstarted by muslims.
While we in the west here were busy forbidding people to read all kinds of stuff and burning witches, muslims were developing things like algebra, astronomy, etc.

None of it matters. How science originated has no bearing on what it is today.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't know. Are we enjoying ourselves with everything science has figured out?

If you are talking about what science figured out concerning atomic theory, then most definatly YES, as its medical applications saved millions of people and will continue to save many more millions every day.

Not to mention all the technologies it made possible which gave us our modern technological society with extreme levels of comfort the likes of which the world has never seen before.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you are talking about what science figured out concerning atomic theory, then most definatly YES, as its medical applications saved millions of people and will continue to save many more millions every day.

Not to mention all the technologies it made possible which gave us our modern technological society with extreme levels of comfort the likes of which the world has never seen before.

I don't think Oppenheimer shared your optimism ...

 

[DogmaHunter]

What is it that you think the purpose of philosophy is? Obviously, it's not to "build" cars. Rather, you might want to understand "philosophy" as a part of "quality control."

Does that mean that whenever a scientist comes up with a hypothesis in his particular field of expertise, he needs to first run it by a "philosopher" to have it "approved of"?

The purpose of philosophy is to "ask questions" of things that still seem open to further questioning...such as questioning various aspects of science as David Albert does.

Like Lawrence Krauss said once:

"Philosophy is great at coming up with questions. Science is great at actually answering them."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Does that mean that whenever a scientist comes up with a hypothesis in his particular field of expertise, he needs to first run it by a "philosopher" to have it "approved of"?

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.

Like Lawrence Krauss said once:

"Philosophy is great at coming up with questions. Science is great at actually answering them."

Even though I think Lawrence Krauss is an interesting guy--and we both know he gets around quite a bit in the public eye--I think I'll lean in the direction of David Albert or Frank Close rather than of Krauss.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think Oppenheimer shared your optimism ...

Is the discovery of iron and how it can be extracted, melted and used in production something you enjoy?

The guy who was decapitated by a sword probably didn't share your optimism either.

It's a pretty ridiculous argument against scientific progress.


Also, let's not forget that science is only responsible for figuring out how atoms work. Building nuclear weapons with that knowledge? That's the responsability of politicians - not scientists. Using such weapons? Also a decision made by politicians - not scientists.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is the discovery of iron and how it can be extracted, melted and used in production something you enjoy?

The guy who was decapitated by a sword probably didn't share your optimism either.

It's a pretty ridiculous argument against scientific progress.

No one said anything about some need to impede scientific progress. That's your own little twist that you've put on what you think I'm saying, or on what you think philosophers are saying, or even on what you think that some Christians are saying. I'm not saying that science needs to be stopped. In fact, 'stopping' science isn't even on my radar.

All I'm bringing to the table is that science is a two-edged sword that requires moral deliberation and some level of community accountability for its implementation, verification, and applications, particularly in those aspects of science that directly contribute to technological innovations.

 

[bhsmte]

I don't think Oppenheimer shared your optimism ...

Personal opinion, is a dime a dozen. When folks have to constantly claim; this guy said this and this other guy said that, it tells you something.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

What qualifications does a philosopher have to evaluate the work of let's say a geneticist or theoretical physicist?

What exactly would the philosopher be reviewing, exactly? And why would the scientists that actually work in these particular fields have to care about what that philosopher has to say about it?

Even though I think Lawrence Krauss is an interesting guy--and we both know he gets around quite a bit in the public eye--I think I'll lean in the direction of David Albert or Frank Close rather than of Krauss.

To quote Krauss once again:
"You philosophers can sit in your sofa's coming up with questions and thinking about things. Meanwhile, I'll go out in the field and actually make progress..."

 

[DogmaHunter]

No one said anything about some need to impede scientific progress. That's your own little twist that you've put on what you think I'm saying, or that you think philosophers are saying, or that you may even think that some Christians are saying. I'm not saying that science needs to be stopped. In fact, 'stopping' science isn't even on my radar.

Then I can only wonder what your point was.
Because just about every time someone mentions nuclear weapons in context of a conversation such as this one, it always is to make a point about how "evil" science is otherwise bath-mouthing science one way or the other.

All I'm bringing to the table is that science is a two-edged sword that requires moral deliberation and some level of community accountability for its implementation, verification, and applications, particularly in those aspects of science that directly contribute to technological innovations.

I'll point out once again, that science's contribution is ONLY figuring out how atoms work.
Building nuclear weapons and actually using them = decisions made by POLITICIANS.

What you talk about here, is not the responsability of scientists, but of society at large, politics in particular.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What qualifications does a philosopher have to evaluate the work of let's say a geneticist or theoretical physicist?

What qualifications does someone like David Albert or Frank Closed have? Are you really asking me this question? Are you really wanting me to do the work for you, or are you looking for me dole out every little detail and hand-feed it to you?

What exactly would the philosopher be reviewing, exactly? And why would the scientists that actually work in these particular fields have to care about what that philosopher has to say about it?

To quote Krauss once again:
"You philosophers can sit in your sofa's coming up with questions and thinking about things. Meanwhile, I'll go out in the field and actually make progress..."

... great, while you're worshipping Krauss, I'll just be rereading Lee Smolin.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then I can only wonder what your point was.
Because just about every time someone mentions nuclear weapons in context of a conversation such as this one, it always is to make a point about how "evil" science is otherwise bath-mouthing science one way or the other.

Well, don't assume that everyone who opens their mouth to say something "critical" is undertaking that same purpose and route of evaluation.

I'll point out once again, that science's contribution is ONLY figuring out how atoms work.
Building nuclear weapons and actually using them = decisions made by POLITICIANS.

What you talk about here, is not the responsability of scientists, but of society at large, politics in particular.

Science has to include some ethics within it's methodological framework. Wouldn't you agree? If so, then how can it ONLY be about figuring out this or that explanation to serve as a model for scientific understanding (and hopefully) advancement?

 

[bhsmte]

What qualifications does someone like David Albert or Frank Closed have? Are you really asking me this question? Are you really wanting me to do the work for you, or are you looking for me dole out every little detail and hand-feed it to you?



... great, while you're worshipping Krauss, I'll just be rereading Lee Smolin.

When science makes further discoveries, that may in fact update what science previously thought was likely accurate, are these updates discovered by philosophers, or is it typically other scientists, using scientific methods?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What qualifications does someone like David Albert or Frank Closed have?

...to review the work of a scientist in his particular field of expertise?

It seems you missed that part.

Are you really asking me this question?

Yes. What qualifies a philosopher to review the work of a geneticist, for example?

Are you really wanting me to do the work for you, or are you looking for me dole out every little detail and hand-feed it to you?

I'm just asking you about a claim that you made.
It's okay if you don't want to answer - but then just say so.

... great, while you're worshipping Krauss, I'll just be rereading Lee Smolin.

I don't worship anyone. I just think Krauss' comments about philosophers tend to be bang-on-the-money. And he's made half a sport out of "debating" with philosophers, so there's a lot of fun quotes out there from him.