Hawkingfan

We were told to start a new thread by the moderator, but I guess you didn't see his instructions.
originally posted by bg-from-kg:
"Of course I think science describes reality better; in fact, I don’t think religion describes reality at all. But this is an opinion. I don’t claim to know with “100% certainty”. In fact, if you were as dedicated to scientific methodology as you pretend to be, you wouldn’t claim to know anything with 100% certainty."

I respectfully disagree. I can tell you with 100% certainty that there never was, never is, never will be such a thing in this universe as a perpetual motion machine. It is 100% scientifically impossible. Of course, with all your scientific knowledge, and since I just pretend to know basic scientific facts, you could show me how the existence of a perpetual motion machine is possible?

And this brings up another point you made: "bd:
You know with 100% certainty that X is true because you have a strong belief that Y is true?"
In this case yes, I can believe that perpetual motion machines do not exist on Mars because I know that perpetual motion machines is a scientific impossibility.

And if it is your less-than-100%-certain "opinion" that science describes reality better than religion, then don't call yourself a "strong" atheist, because as long as we are not certain of scientific truths, there is always the possibility of the existence of god and the rational position would be an agnostic one.

excreationist

Hawkingfan:
Have you heard about Karl Popper?
Here's part of what someone wrote about his writings:

Clutch

Sure. It may be possible in the event that one or more of your beliefs (viz, about the laws you mention) is mistaken.

Speaking for myself, not bd, it seems to me that the point was just that a genuine scientific attitude consists in recognizing the principled defeasibility of any empirical belief. That is, you never know with certitude what data might come along, and what modifications might thereby be forced onto our current "best theory".

In short, you should distinguish between something's being "100% impossible" given our best theories, and its being "100% impossible" that our best theories are imperfect. One can accept the former while denying the latter; and denying the latter is just what scientific open-mindedness requires.

bd-from-kg

Hawkingfan:

If I hadn’t seen his instructions, how could I have replied to them? I think you misunderstood what Jobar was saying. His basic compliant was that we were getting off-subject. My reply was very clearly and directly on-subject.

Clutch has already answered this admirably.

If you know with 100% certainty that perpetual motion machines are impossible, you know with 100% certainty that there are no perpetual motion machines on Mars. (Of course you don’t know either of these things with 100% certainty.)

Don’t tell me what I may and may not call myself. To say that one is a strong atheist is to say that one has a positive disbelief in the existence of God. I have a positive disbelief in the existence of God.

I can go further. I think that it is a reasonable position that agnosticism is the rational stance if the possibility that God exists is high enough that it would be rational to take the possibility into account in some way. But I think that the possibility that God exists is so infinitesimal that one is rationally justified in ignoring the possibility entirely, just as one is justified in ignoring the possibility of the existence of invisible pink unicorns entirely. If that’s not strong atheism, there is no such thing as rational strong atheism. No one knows with 100% certainty that God does not exist (assuming that the definition of God in question isn’t logically impossible), and no sensible person thinks that he does.

Hawkingfan

If you knew what a perpetual motion machine was, you wouldn't say this.

Let's simplify this. Do you not know with certitude that data might come along to show that the earth is not a sphere, but is flat instead? I mean, can we really trust satellites? Has any credible scientist looked at the earth from far away, in person? Could the math be wrong that we use to measure the earth's radius? Do we really trust the astronauts that have been in space and told us in fact that the earth is a sphere? Is there anyone who can confirm that they have traveled around the earth and didn't fall off? Can they be trusted? How do we know this is not a conspiracy? And just because we SEE the earth's round shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse doesn't really mean the earth is spherical, does it? I mean, given our best theories, our eyes could still be fooling us. Are my eyes also deceiving me when I see the North Star lower in the sky when I view it in the south, and higher in the sky in the north? It's probably just a miracle? It must be, since my reasoning is flawed and science cannot be trusted. Yes, that's it. After all it IS JUST A THEORY so I can't be 100% certain the earth is a sphere. It must also be a miracle that I see the sail of a ship coming over the horizon and only later see the hull. The earth is round? What was I thinking!! I can't be for sure. Hey, maybe the bible IS right and the earth is flat. What a wise book that bible is.

Hawkingfan

If you didn't see his instructions, then I suggest you read all the posts from where you last left off so that those sort of mistakes aren't made. Here is what he said:
"bd, Hawkingfan, please start another thread if you want to continue this discussion. It's not precisely off topic, but I don't think it's a profitable direction to explore in understanding theistic belief."
Your reply could not have been on-subject if it was in response to me. And reading it over, I cannot see how you could think otherwise. You and I just don't see eye to eye on anything. And yes, I know with 100% certainty that perpetual motion machines are a scientific impossibilty and are not on Mars.

Clutch

First, calm down.

I know what a perpetual motion machine would have to be, and I understand why the most basic laws we take to characterize the universe rule out the possibility. What I discussed -- in the actual words of my actual post -- was the principled possibility that those laws will be revised. I wouldn't bet a plug nickel that they'll be revised in any way that would allow for perpetual motion. But I wouldn't call it impossible, either.

Any empirical belief could turn out to be false. You might as well add to your list the prospect of discoveries or developments that would make us reject the idea of absolute simultaneity, or overturn the fact that space is necessarily Euclidean, or teach us that the continents are not motionless. What makes science so interesting is that things too obvious to be doubted by aprioristic thinkers have a way of turning out to be untenable. That doesn't make it reasonable to positively expect deeply warranted empirical beliefs to be overturned; it's just grounds for prescinding from declarations about what is known with certainty to be beyond revision.

Hawkingfan

Thanks. I understand and agree that things could change that we hold to be scientific truths. But the likelyhood is so great that I am certain that they won't--just as bd is so strongly certain there is no god. If I was uncertain of scientific truths, I would have to take the position of the agnostic or weak atheist in order to be the most reasonable, because science may one day prove religion to be correct. It is not reasonable to take the strong atheist position until then, because of that possibility.

Clutch

Hawkingfan,

Thanks.

Again just speaking for me, if SA is defined in terms of logico-mathematical certainty, then there is room to be a non-strong atheist of a sort that it would be most misleading to describe as "weak". Ie, if one's belief that there are no gods is comparable in its warrant to one's belief that there are no perpetual motion machines, then term "weak" seems... uh, weak, as a way of describing it. bd, I think, is just defending the use of the label "strong atheism" in a more descriptively accurate way.

Anyhow, this is why the easiest thing is just to explain one's view. Then it doesn't matter a pair of dingo's kidneys how someone else wants to label it.

anonymousj

Clutch, others,

(Clutch)

Is it less than 100% certain that nothing will come along and show that the above passage did not appear earlier in this thread on this board?

aj