Thanking god. Is it really appropriate?

[Washington]

First of all I think it's well to understand that thanking is a form of gratitude aimed at some entity.

From MSN encarta dictionary:

thank (past and past participle thanked, present participle thank·ing, 3rd person present singular thanks)
transitive verb

Definition:

1. express gratitude: to express feelings of gratitude to somebody or be grateful to somebody

"We'd like to thank you for a wonderful evening."

"Thank goodness you got here in time."
​

The reason this has come up is that in innumerable news items we often read how people are thankful to god they survived some terrible incident others suffered, or thank god they missed the incident altogether. What this implies is that if it wasn't for god's intervention on their behalf they would have suffered the incident. So the question is, why would god intervene on their behalf? If god is truly a fair god then I can only imagine he intervened because they merited it, and he didn't intervene on the behalf of others because they didn't merit it. So god was acting purely by some standard he had set up. If he hadn't been then his action would have been no different than flipping a coin to decide who would suffer and who wouldn't, which, being nothing more than the outcome of dumb luck, would hardly merit a "thank you." You might be grateful your name came up heads rather than tales, but this had nothing to do with any conscious decision of god.

So, god saved person X because he came up to some standard of god's. Now, who's to be commended for coming up to this standard? God? If so, than those who suffered have every right to blame god for not being given the same benefit as X. God would be blamable for any and all misery that befell people. If god is not to be commended for a person coming up to his standard then why should he receive any thanks when one does so? If a person measures up to god's standard and therefore benefits by his measurement then the entire commendation belongs to that person. He should be thankful to himself, not god.

Unless god applies a benefit across the board, to absolutely everyone, I fail to see why he deserves anyone's thanks in particular cases.

Got any suggestions?

 

[kathyA]

In everything give thanks for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you....giving thanks is a command over and over in the scripture...

 

[maybenotcrazy]

Would you find it somewhat reasonable to thank someone for holding the door for you? Certainly it was of some convenience and goodwill that they did it for you. Life is like the door. God may not have done it for one reason or the other but you got your life when you could've lost it. Who knows where you'd end up with that loss of life, who knows where your relatives would be who knows what would happen to the world should you have died. If you love God you can bet it was for your own good and the good of others you survived so it is very appropriate to thank god. If you don't love god and you survived it may be thanks worthy as well because he may have saved you for something good such as coming to a love of God in the future. If you love God you can bet he did the good thing he did for your own good so thanks are always worthwhile and meaningful. Even something bad may have been providential but not always. God doesn't always will what happens but what good is done for you is always God. You can't even hope to understand this unless you are religious so sit there and apply logic and reasoning to it all you want. God does not live within the constraints of logic. Remember the uncertainty principle or the wave particle duality for examples in science where logic fails and you get a taste of the total "irrationality" of religious belief in the face of scientific rationality. Yes the apostle says that the doctrine of the cross will seem as foolishness to those who don't see, and yes the proverbs say that God's foolishness is still far more wise than the greatest wisdom of men how much higher is God's wisdom. God doesn't think your thoughts says the book of Isaiah.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In my experience, people say "Thank God" as a figure of speech, not as actual praise to a deity.

Though perhaps things are different over the pond.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Would you find it somewhat reasonable to thank someone for holding the door for you?

Yes, but only if I thought that someone had indeed held the door open for me. If, as far as I could tell, the door was wholly automatic, to whom would I be giving thanks?

Remember the uncertainty principle or the wave particle duality for examples in science where logic fails and you get a taste of the total "irrationality" of religious belief in the face of scientific rationality.

We know about duality and uncertainty because of logic. To say that reality and science trump logic is to grossly misunderstand all three.

 

[maybenotcrazy]

Uncertainty and duality are illogical. They are postulated and THEN they have logical consequences that are valid based on them. They were not derived from logic. Saying they were is like saying that the definition of a point or line is validated by logic because theorems can be proved by using them. How can I say this even though observations led to their being postulated? Wave particle duality was true before we observed it. The pythagorean theorem was true before geometry was formalized and it was used in a primitive way before then. So. Logic may say yes particles are waves and waves are particles based on observation but rationalizing this is impossible because it is completely against the laws of logic. The uncertainty principle may have been deduced from experiment also but to say it is logical is similarly flawed. In anyone's mind there is no reason why position and momentum cannot be known with arbitrary precision simultaneously yet that is the way it is. It is similar to saying I can't know someone's appearance and name simultaneously yet those things are linked to each other by virtue of being essential for one and the other to have meaning. Momentum after all has position in it as a variable, or more precisely the derivative of position mdx/dt and of course position is x. Why can't you know them simultaneously then? Well maybe I'll shoot myself in the foot for trying to explain it but even in the particle interpretation it is not allowed. I mean if you knew the position of a particle that was moving at a constant velocity that you recorded before- supposedly you'd know the velocity of that particle and its position- but you couldn't know that the velocity was constant at all positions because YOU'D VIOLATE THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE- so an implication of this is that a particle can't have constant velocity over a distance that is demarcated but it can over time. Correct me if I'm wrong but is this not a contradiction? There is nothing logical about these ideas none at all... What I'm saying is once again if you know the path of a particle you don't know that it has a constant velocity even if someone else observing it may know that the velocity is constant over all the time it is along the path. So the particle is doing two things at once. Just imagine that the two observations are coincidental and not planned. But perhaps I'm shooting myself in the foot with this like I said. with p = hc/lambda and lambda being a crucial property of a particle based on its momentum one has a wave which cannot be contained in a position and when you know momentum you know the wavelength which kills the position- OK!!!!! You can't say that the uC principle is a contradictory or illogical one by this logic. SORRY!!!!! But the wave particle duality is obviously a contradiction and if the UC principle requires it to be rationalized then it is still irrational.


Then we have Godel's incompleteness theorem which implies that in keeping with some consistent system there are statements that are true which cannot be proven by that theory. This makes logic pretty much questionable in some cases itself because at least in number theory there are whole logical systems that can't prove things that are completely consistent with them. You need to refer to another system to prove the theorem always. Logic itself is not completely flawless.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

From idioms to quantum mechanics in 3.2 posts. That's a record in thread de-railing

Uncertainty and duality are illogical.

How, exactly? In what way do they lead to paradoxes, inconsistencies, false conclusions, etc? They are both consequences of quantum mechanics postulates, logically consistent and immensely useful. They are counter-intuitive, but then the universe isn't obligate to make sense.

They are postulated and THEN they have logical consequences that are valid based on them. They were not derived from logic. Saying they were is like saying that the definition of a point or line is validated by logic because theorems can be proved by using them. How can I say this even though observations led to their being postulated? Wave particle duality was true before we observed it. The pythagorean theorem was true before geometry was formalized and it was used in a primitive way before then.

Correct. But we would never have known to write ΔxΔp ≥ ħ/2, or a² = b² + c², without someone first deriving or proving it.

So. Logic may say yes particles are waves and waves are particles based on observation but rationalizing this is impossible because it is completely against the laws of logic.

Which laws, preciesly? Non-contradiction? Excluded middle? Idempotence? Bivalence?

The uncertainty principle may have been deduced from experiment also but to say it is logical is similarly flawed. In anyone's mind there is no reason why position and momentum cannot be known with arbitrary precision simultaneously yet that is the way it is. It is similar to saying I can't know someone's appearance and name simultaneously yet those things are linked to each other by virtue of being essential for one and the other to have meaning. Momentum after all has position in it as a variable, or more precisely the derivative of position mdx/dt and of course position is x. Why can't you know them simultaneously then? Well maybe I'll shoot myself in the foot for trying to explain it but even in the particle interpretation it is not allowed. I mean if you knew the position of a particle that was moving at a constant velocity that you recorded before- supposedly you'd know the velocity of that particle and its position- but you couldn't know that the velocity was constant at all positions because YOU'D VIOLATE THE UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE- so an implication of this is that a particle can't have constant velocity over a distance that is demarcated but it can over time. Correct me if I'm wrong but is this not a contradiction?

Nope. You are confusing scientific theories as being prescriptive, when in fact they are descriptive: the uncertainty principle describes a particularly strange aspect of the universe, but it doesn't prescribe it. We cannot know the position and momentum of a quantum particle to arbitrary certainty for the same reason that we cannot have two electrons simultaneously occupying the same state: that is simply how they behave.

Quantum mechanics (and the uncertainty relations derived thereof) is simply a very very accurate description of this behaviour. It is a set of postulates that can be used to predict various things, including the accuracy with which we can measure two non-commuting observable.

There is nothing logical about these ideas none at all... What I'm saying is once again if you know the path of a particle you don't know that it has a constant velocity even if someone else observing it may know that the velocity is constant over all the time it is along the path. So the particle is doing two things at once. Just imagine that the two observations are coincidental and not planned. (possible)

Again, no. The uncertainty relations tell us how accurately we can measure two observables simultaneously. Obviously, its position and momentum can both change by arbitrary amounts in the future, rendering our previous measurements useless.

 

[-Vincent-]

We know about duality and uncertainty because of logic. To say that reality and science trump logic is to grossly misunderstand all three.

No, reality is primary. Metaphysics is the first study in philosophy, it concerns itself with the first principles of reality. Science is merely descriptive of nature. Logic is a little mind game. Logic is rather compelling but reality is not drived from logic. Does the set of all sets contain itself, is a reasonable question in set theory. The logic of set theory does not provide an answer. If logic was the source of reality it would have to answer the question.

Logics are epistemological tools, and each definitely have limits...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, reality is primary.

Agreed.

Metaphysics is the first study in philosophy, it concerns itself with the first principles of reality. Science is merely descriptive of nature. Logic is a little mind game. Logic is rather compelling but reality is not drived from logic. Does the set of all sets contain itself, is a reasonable question in set theory. The logic of set theory does not provide an answer. If logic was the source of reality it would have to answer the question.

Logic isn't the source of reality, but we can use logic to deduce various things about reality (e.g., that invisible pink unicorns don't exist).

Logics are epistemological tools, and each definitely have limits...

I disagree. The 'limit' of a logical proof is determined by the limits of its premises: "A=>B, B, therefore A" is true only insofar as "A=>B" and "B" are true. Apart from that, a logical proof is true regardless of what reality might say.

 

[-Vincent-]

Agreed.


Logic isn't the source of reality, but we can use logic to deduce various things about reality (e.g., that invisible pink unicorns don't exist).


I disagree. The 'limit' of a logical proof is determined by the limits of its premises: "A=>B, B, therefore A" is true only insofar as "A=>B" and "B" are true. Apart from that, a logical proof is true regardless of what reality might say.

Logic is mainly used to follow the course of predicates, and applies functional predicates like and, or, not, etc... It is simply a formal mind game. Unicorn means a horse with one horn, it refers to the chineese word for rhinocerus. A philosopher of the past said that there are no black swans, his logic was fine, but he was completely wrong, because there were black swans in Australia when he said that...

Logic ignores reality, it is based on abstract principles of language.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Logic is mainly used to follow the course of predicates, and applies functional predicates like and, or, not, etc... It is simply a formal mind game. Unicorn means a horse with one horn, it refers to the chineese word for rhinocerus.

Actually, the mythology of unicorns stems from Ancient Greece and the Middle-East, not China. Their qilin is a chimera, not a unicorn.

In any case, my point was that logic tells us that an "invisible, pink unicorn" cannot exist in reality because to be both pink and invisible is a logical paradox. We may not know everything that is, but logic can tell us what is not.

A philosopher of the past said that there are no black swans, his logic was fine, but he was completely wrong, because there were black swans in Australia when he said that...

On the contrary, his logic was quite flawed indeed. I've had a look around, but I can't find any reference to a philosopher logically proving that there are no black swans.

The only reference to black swans in logic and philosophy seems to be the old notion that, before the discovery of Australia, all swans were white, simply because they had never seen a non-white swan. While this may be a a scientific hypothesis, it is by no means a logical proof that no black swans exist.

Can you cite this philosopher? Or, more generally, can you give an example of where reality contradicts logic?

 

[maybenotcrazy]

Nope. You are confusing scientific theories as being prescriptive, when in fact they are descriptive: the uncertainty principle describes a particularly strange aspect of the universe, but it doesn't prescribe it. We cannot know the position and momentum of a quantum particle to arbitrary certainty for the same reason that we cannot have two electrons simultaneously occupying the same state: that is simply how they behave.

Well. If a scientific law does not "prescribe" something then you are saying it is possible that it is not a law. I believe scientists imply that laws do prescribe things they state and what you said about two electrons simultaneously occupying the same state (the pauli exclusion principle I believe) if it is "simply how they behave" then yes verbally the words don't make it so but the fact that is how they behave makes it prescriptive. Incidentally I do believe scientific laws are descriptive rather than prescriptive because if they were not we'd be unable to explain how god can be omnipotent. To use a term you threw at me that I can figure out the meaning of etymologically and with the help of wiki I believe that You used a falsely idempotent operation on the words you spoke initially "that they are not descriptive but prescriptive" and then said exactly the opposite. What would that be called? Apopotence? No such word. just guessing.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well. If a scientific law does not "prescribe" something then you are saying it is possible that it is not a law.

I said nothing about 'laws' . A 'law' is true by definition (e.g., Newton's Second Law, F=dp/dt). Confusingly, some of what are called 'laws' are actually principles or theorems (e.g., Kirchoffs Circuital laws).

In any case, I only mentioned theories.

I believe scientists imply that laws do prescribe things they state and what you said about two electrons simultaneously occupying the same state (the pauli exclusion principle I believe) if it is "simply how they behave" then yes verbally the words don't make it so but the fact that is how they behave makes it prescriptive.

Not quite. The distinction between 'prescriptive' and 'descriptive' is simple: if I said "According to WC's First Law of Cheese, all cheese-based goods are blue in colour", would that describe the colour of cheese, or would it magically alter all cheese in the world to become blue?

The answer, of course, is the former. It is simply a statement describing some facet of reality (in this case, it happens to be an ultimately false description).

Likewise, 'prescriptive' means that the law dictates what reality can do.

Incidentally I do believe scientific laws are descriptive rather than prescriptive because if they were not we'd be unable to explain how god can be omnipotent.

To explain some phenomenon, a good place to start is to show that it actually occurs. Is God omnipotent? Does God even exist? Questions, I think, for another thread (or a PM).

To use a term you threw at me that I can figure out the meaning of etymologically and with the help of wiki I believe that You used a falsely idempotent operation on the words you spoke initially "that they are not descriptive but prescriptive" and then said exactly the opposite. What would that be called? Apopotence? No such word. just guessing.

That would be called a 'lie': I never wrote the words "that they are not descriptive but prescriptive", nor anything to that effect .

 

[-Vincent-]

On the contrary, his logic was quite flawed indeed. I've had a look around, but I can't find any reference to a philosopher logically proving that there are no black swans.


Can you cite this philosopher? Or, more generally, can you give an example of where reality contradicts logic?

"there are no black swans" You might find him somewhere in this search result, his words are clearly famous...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"there are no black swans" You might find him somewhere in this search result, his words are clearly famous...

Yes, I did think to try searching for the key phrase in the world's most popular search engine...

In any case, I notice you haven't answered my question, or indeed any of my points .

 

[-Vincent-]

"there are no black swans" You might find him somewhere in this search result, his words are clearly famous...

Here is a quote:

"The thing of it is there are lots of theories and hypotheses in science that are not provable because it is impossible in principle to rule out the unknown or the unobserved. Karl Popper famously stated how something cannot be provable but remain a valid scientific hypothesis. He illustrated it famously with a then mythical black swan. He gave the hypothesis “There are no black swans in nature.” He said this was a valid hypothesis because while it could never be proven true, that it was impossible to say all of nature was searched and no black swan possibly overlooked, the hypothesis can be disproven (falsified) by the observation of just one single black swan. In the meantime it was a valid hypothesis because it explained the known facts - millions of swans observed and none were black. A black swan in fact was eventually observed and science worked as it should - the black swan hypothesis was falsified."

 

[maybenotcrazy]

yes. I love using quotation marks for no reason whatsoever. Know that I failed punctuation.

 

[-Vincent-]

We may not know everything that is, but logic can tell us what is not.

No, it cannot, even Popper knew that...

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Here is a quote:

"The thing of it is there are lots of theories and hypotheses in science that are not provable because it is impossible in principle to rule out the unknown or the unobserved. Karl Popper famously stated how something cannot be provable but remain a valid scientific hypothesis. He illustrated it famously with a then mythical black swan. He gave the hypothesis “There are no black swans in nature.” He said this was a valid hypothesis because while it could never be proven true, that it was impossible to say all of nature was searched and no black swan possibly overlooked, the hypothesis can be disproven (falsified) by the observation of just one single black swan. In the meantime it was a valid hypothesis because it explained the known facts - millions of swans observed and none were black. A black swan in fact was eventually observed and science worked as it should - the black swan hypothesis was falsified."

V, I'm well aware of the idea, and I fully agree with Popper: evidence can never prove a hypothesis true. But I'm still waiting for the name of this philosopher who logically proved that there are no black swans in nature. I'm still waiting for an example where logic and reality contradict one another.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, it cannot, even Popper knew that...

Popper knew that induction is not a logical proof, not that logical proofs are unreliable.

And I do hope that wasn't an argument from authority you just wrote .