The stumbling block for atheists.

[quatona]

Help me understand how to handle my inevidable death in an atheistic perspective.

I don´t see the problem. I never expected to live forever, in the first place.

 

[Radrook]

I don´t see the problem. I never expected to live forever, in the first place.

Nice consolation! LOL!

 

[Landon Caeli]

I don´t see the problem. I never expected to live forever, in the first place.

We can all say that now, but one day we'll be stranded in a hospital room, with tubes attatched to us, wishing it weren't so.

...And when we go, we go alone.

...After a short time, our whole existance will be forgotten, as if we never lived in the first place.

 

[Tinker Grey]

... And when I go, I won't know I've been forgotten.

 

[Chriliman]

Yeah; as Feynman said, "I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned".

I'd rather have questions that can be answered than questions that can't be answered.

 

[bhsmte]

I'd rather have questions that can be answered than questions that can't be answered.

If your answers work for you, knock yourself out.

 

[Michael]

I'm sorry Michael, if you are unable to grasp the difference between authority and veracity, I really can't help you. Maybe someone with more time on their hands could have a go...

That was a complete cop out, mostly because you have no way of validating the veracity of your invisible snipe hunt.

LOL!

 

[quatona]

We can all say that now,

Apparently not. It´s me who is saying that because you asked me how I feel about it.

but one day we'll be stranded in a hospital room, with tubes attatched to us, wishing it weren't so.

I have been there, and I have been in other situations I wished I weren´t in.

...And when we go, we go alone.

You almost make it sound like I´d still be there after death, in order to experience being alone.

...After a short time, our whole existance will be forgotten, as if we never lived in the first place.

And will be such a problem exactly how, why and to whom?

 

[quatona]

Nice consolation! LOL!

It wasn´t meant to consolate those who are afraid of death. I was asked how I deal with a certain problem, and I basically answered that I don´t have the problem Landon felt I should have.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We can all say that now, but one day we'll be stranded in a hospital room, with tubes attatched to us, wishing it weren't so.

...And when we go, we go alone.

...After a short time, our whole existance will be forgotten, as if we never lived in the first place.

Yeah, life can be tough.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'd rather have questions that can be answered than questions that can't be answered.

Wouldn't we all?

The key problem is 'what makes a good answer or explanation?' - this is what the philosophy of science addresses and the scientific method tries to implement (philosophy has been called 'asking questions like children and answering them like lawyers').

This is where abductive criteria ('Inference to the Best Explanation') come in, providing a means to compare the quality of competing explanations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That was a complete cop out...

OK, I'll explain - if two people are arguing about the way newspaper astrologer prepares a horoscope, with one claiming it is valid astrology and the other claiming it isn't, and one of them quotes from the 'International Society for Astrological Research' in support of her argument, that is a valid appeal to authority, because it is an appeal to experts or authority in the relevant field. If the other person quotes from the 'National Newspaper Association' in support of his argument, that is a fallacious appeal to authority, because it is not an appeal to experts or authority in the relevant field. It makes no difference whether the opinions or arguments are right or wrong, or whether the relevant field is rational or irrational, scientific or unscientific, logical or illogical, sensible or stupid; the fallacy only concerns authority or expertise in the relevant field.

Does that help?

 

[Michael]

OK, I'll explain - if two people are arguing about the way newspaper astrologer prepares a horoscope, with one claiming it is valid astrology and the other claiming it isn't, and one of them quotes from the 'International Society for Astrological Research' in support of her argument, that is a valid appeal to authority, because it is an appeal to experts or authority in the relevant field. If the other person quotes from the 'National Newspaper Association' in support of his argument, that is a fallacious appeal to authority, because it is not an appeal to experts or authority in the relevant field. It makes no difference whether the opinions or arguments are right or wrong, or whether the relevant field is rational or irrational, scientific or unscientific, logical or illogical, sensible or stupid; the fallacy only concerns authority or expertise in the relevant field.

Does that help?

Nope, not at all.

If I claimed that there was no empirical scientific validity to astrology, and she was claiming that it was a valid form of "science", how would we resolve the conflict?

Her "method" is to simply quote the astrologers, and claim that they are all "experts" in the field of astrology, and I'm not, therefore they are correct that astrology has some scientific merit and she won't change her opinions on the validity of astrology unless they do.

That's her argument in favor "dark" voodoo in a nutshell.

 

[Michael]

Look at it this way:

We are not debating a finer point of dark matter theory or astrology, like some debate about the finer points of axion models, or the meaning of "Aquarius", rather we are debating the *accuracy/legitimacy* of the whole dark matter hypothesis or the actual usefulness of astrology.

Her entire basis of claiming that the *field itself* is correct amounts to a pure appeal to authority fallacy, not a real scientific argument.

Had we been debating some *finer point of the dogma* within the hypothesis, sure, then an appeal to an "authority/expert" on the topic would make sense. Since I'm questioning the *merits* of astrology/dark voodoo *entirely*, it's not a legitimate argument. Either she has evidence to support the idea and she can cite that specific evidence, or she has no evidence to support the idea. Appealing to some "expert", who's very "expertise" has been called into question doesn't cut it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If I claimed that there was no empirical scientific validity to astrology, and she was claiming that it was a valid form of "science", how would we resolve the conflict?

Then there would be two authorities to appeal to, astrological and scientific, but the most relevant authority for that particular claim (i.e. is it 'science' or 'scientific'?) would be an authority on the philosophy of science - although the consensus of the scientific community would usually suffice.

 

[Michael]

Then there would be two authorities to appeal to, astrological and scientific, but the most relevant authority for that particular claim (i.e. is it 'science' or 'scientific'?) would be an authority on the philosophy of science - although the consensus of the scientific community would usually suffice.

In this case we're debating whether or not exotic forms of matter actually exists in nature, not whether or not the "field of science" is considered to be a field of "science". I'd willingly grant you that M-theory is considered a branch of theoretical physics, but I have no evidence it's actually *correct*!

Same issue here. I have no evidence that exotic forms of matter exist, and every "test" has been a dud. Even the entire basis for the claim to *need* exotic types of matter has been undermined by later studies.

Atheists around here in particular wish to see "evidence" to support any supernatural construct related to "God". Why wouldn't I expect the same thing from you as it relates to your "beliefs" in dark supernatural constructs?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Her entire basis of claiming that the *field itself* is correct amounts to a pure appeal to authority fallacy, not a real scientific argument.

As I understand it, he's not claiming that the *field itself* is correct (that would be meaningless), he's claiming that it's reasonable for lay persons to take the mainstream cosmological physics community as the expert authority in the field of cosmological physics.

I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Now the expert authority in the relevant field may be wrong about a particular question, and someone else may be correct; nevertheless, the lay person cannot reasonably be expected to know this, so is still justified in accepting the view of the expert authority.

In other words, it's not a question of true or false or right and wrong, but of reasonable expectation.

 

[Michael]

As I understand it, she's not claiming that the *field itself* is correct (that would be meaningless), she's claiming that it's reasonable for lay persons to take the mainstream cosmological physics community as the expert authority in the field of cosmological physics.

That might make sense were it not for the fact that 95 percent of their "beliefs" amount to placeholder terms for human ignorance, and every "test" of their "cold dark matter" claims hadn't come up empty. It might make sense of their baryonic mass estimates had stood the test of time over the past decade, but they haven't, not even close.

As it stands, there's no evidence that your "expert authorities" have any real or special expertise on these topics in the first place.

Now the expert authority in the relevant field may be wrong about a particular question, and someone else may be correct; nevertheless, the lay person cannot reasonably be expected to know this, so is still justified in accepting the view of the expert authority.

So you'd accept that same argument from a theist who essentially quotes their "pastor" and ignores your request for evidence?

In other words, it's not a question of true or false or right and wrong, but of reasonable expectation.

So it would be a "reasonable" expectation to expect you to change the minds of the pastors of planet Earth, otherwise we should just trust them?

 

[Ophiolite]

As it stands, there's no evidence that your "expert authorities" have any real or special expertise on these topics in the first place.

Whom do you assert does have expertise on these topics? (I trust modesty will forbid you from claiming that position.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In this case we're debating whether or not exotic forms of matter actually exists in nature, not whether or not the "field of science" is considered to be a field of "science".

I'm afraid your obsession has distracted you from the relevant point, which was about whom a lay person should take as an authority in a given field:

Saying that you believe an expert opinion isn't the same as saying "something exists because an expert says it exists". One is merely the belief that an expert knows more about his/her field than you do...the other is claiming a point of fact or truth based on nothing more than the words of an expert.

Michael doesn't seem to understand that I don't claim to know squat about dark matter...I simply trust those who do over him.

Being able to divorce yourself from the specific, to abstract, generalize, and take a self-critical and independent viewpoint, is an important aspect of critical thinking - and science itself; I hope you eventually find a way to do this.