Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ManM · 07-31-2002, 12:38 PM

ex-preacher,
So you compared an internally consistent naturalism to an internally inconsistent theism. Hence you conclude that all theism is internally inconsistent. Although consistent, I have found naturalism utterly bankrupt in explaining our humanity. When dealing with other human beings I most certainly do not use any hint of naturalism.

Pomp,
It is not necessary that the solipsist recognize order in his vision of reality, especially if you place dreaming on the same level as waking. As you said, this is quite the sideshow. I would contend that we do not believe in naturalism prerationaly. We perceive our choices to be free and not merely the inescapable result of scientific laws. I think a the obvious pre-rational assumptions are that I exist, something besides me exists (the world), I can control and direct what I think, and that I have a limited ability to interact with the world. I am free to think, hence I somehow more than a mere product of scientific laws.

DRFseven,
I think all that remains to be said is that we have two sharply different views and I can make no synthesis between them. I was presented with many different views of the world when I studied philosophy. After considering the value of each logically consistent worldview, I chose to believe what I do now. You seem to feel that my experience of choosing was somehow a deception. Even here I am faced with a choice. I perceive that I have the ability to deny my current thoughts about my past experiences and reinterpret them using your philosophy. I choose not to believe it.

Finally, a raw belief in elves carries no underlying values. Reason is silent since nothing was suggested to make elves consistent with. A belief in elves is a non issue and a strawman when discussing choices between real value-laden worldviews. William James would call it a dead hypothesis.

WJ · 07-31-2002, 01:19 PM

Manm

I see you're getting pummeled with alot of nonsense, or least erroneous advise. First, I see you are a WJ Fan, me too. If you haven't already, do check out the 'mind of god' by physicist paul davies. Here is a taste of the first chapter which is on-line covering the 'logic' behind reason and belief.

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0671797182/reader/10/ref=lib_rd_TT01/103-1992656-2972667#reader-link" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0671797182/reader/10/ref=lib_rd_TT01/103-1992656-2972667#reader-link</a>

Speaking of experience and pure reason, the synthetic apriori is what makes us say things like 'all events have a cause' and otherwise wills us to want to know something about our existence, and even keeps us suspended in faith about the discovery of an unknown. I believe that is natural and without experience. Kant's, critique of pure reason got that one right

He opened the door, its just he personally didn't make the choice. Nor did he take the leap or risk of faith, which of course seems contradictory from his own critique of pure reason.

Walrus

Jayhawker Soule · 07-31-2002, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
First, I see you are a WJ Fan, me too.

That much is certain.

DRFseven · 07-31-2002, 02:21 PM

Quote:

ManM: I think all that remains to be said is that we have two sharply different views and I can make no synthesis between them. I was presented with many different views of the world when I studied philosophy. After considering the value of each logically consistent worldview, I chose to believe what I do now. You seem to feel that my experience of choosing was somehow a deception. Even here I am faced with a choice. I perceive that I have the ability to deny my current thoughts about my past experiences and reinterpret them using your philosophy. I choose not to believe it.

Finally, a raw belief in elves carries no underlying values. Reason is silent since nothing was suggested to make elves consistent with. A belief in elves is a non issue and a strawman when discussing choices between real value-laden worldviews. William James would call it a dead hypothesis.

Yet, you fail to be able to answer in the affirmative the simple question that would prove that you are right. You CANNOT believe in elves or anything else your own views do not support. Far from being a straw man, the elf issue sinks your case. You can't believe in elves, can you?

Jamie_L · 07-31-2002, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
Finally, a raw belief in elves carries no underlying values

I'm not sure what underlying values has to do with belief. A thing can be true or not, exist or not, completely independent of its values. At a time in history, it was of value to believe in heavenly bodies that rotated around the earth in circular orbits with circular epicycles. While valuable, this belief was totaly false.

Jamie

Jobar · 07-31-2002, 06:29 PM

Our beliefs are sculpted by our experiences.

A toddler may believe he can grasp sunbeams coming in a window, or reach up and touch the moon in the sky. But after he's tried these things, he soon realizes he cannot.

A child of five may believe that Santa brings the presents she gets at Christmas- but after she learns that no presents are forthcoming unless momma and daddy stay up late the night before, and that reindeer really can't fly, and realizes that the sheer number of children in the world means Santa could never reach them all, her belief in Santa is carved away by the facts she has learned.

Incorrect beliefs may be the result of incorrect or incomplete information. I was taught that dinosaurs became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous because of a combination of increased vulcanism, changing climate, and the rise of mammals; not until I was out of college was the evidence gathered to show that the impact of a comet or asteroid was the overwhelmingly likely culprit.

Our beliefs *should* be held lightly and not grasped- if new facts are discovered which weigh against our beliefs, we should be prepared to change them. That is part of what freethought means. Simply choosing to believe or disbelieve in something, independent of any factual information, is irrational and perhaps even insane.

The only way we can choose to believe something contrary to the bulk of the facts we are aware of is to be intellectually dishonest. We can, like the churchmen who refused to look through Galileo's telescope, simply close our eyes and ears to information which threatens our beliefs. (Note that this is not the same thing as disagreeing over the interpretation of somewhat ambiguous information; in my dinosaur-extinction example, for some time it was unclear if the iridium anomaly at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary was definitely caused by an impact from space, or indeed if it existed at all.)

Since we humans do not know all there is to know about the universe, there is more than one valid interpretation of what was, and is, and is yet to come. But as we learn more and more, some interpretations- beliefs- will become less and less tenable, until only those who are ignorant (or willfully blind) will believe in them.

IMO theists continue to believe only because they close their eyes and minds to new truth.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]

excreationist · 07-31-2002, 07:12 PM

ManM:

I would contend that we do not believe in naturalism prerationaly. We perceive our choices to be free and not merely the inescapable result of scientific laws.
Actually we'd just go ahead and make the choices and not worry about whether those choices were free or deterministic. BTW, compatibalists believe in determinism AND free-will...

I think the obvious pre-rational assumptions are that I exist,
Well Decartes didn't assume that... he concluded that he existed, based on him sensing his own thoughts/beliefs. He required language which he used in order to sense his thoughts and conclude that he existed.

something besides me exists (the world), I can control and direct what I think, and that I have a limited ability to interact with the world.
We would learn this... a foetus that has been raised with no sensory input or motor outputs would never experience sounds or shapes or touch, etc... anyway, I think infants only come to believe that the world exists independently from them when they're not observing it after a while... they learn about object permanence(?). e.g. two toys might be put underneath a cloth and then the cloth is removed... showing ten toys... the baby would be surprised and look at it for a long time - if it had learnt about object permanence(?).

I am free to think, hence I am somehow more than a mere product of scientific laws.
Well I'd say that it takes us time to make decisions and this involves alternatives being weighed up. Since we don't know the outcome of the decision until we've finished weighing up the decision and have made it, our decisions seem "free". If someone used a time machine and told us what decision we'd make, we might choose a different one, even if it was a stupid choice, just to feel free. So since we don't know what decisions we will make, we seem to have free will, but I think this is compatible with a belief that the universe is purely physical.

You [DRF7] seem to feel that my experience of choosing was somehow a deception. Even here I am faced with a choice. I perceive that I have the ability to deny my current thoughts about my past experiences and reinterpret them using your philosophy. I choose not to believe it.
You still would have gone through a decision-making process even though a particular outcome may have been inevitable. You didn't find DRF7's framework to be more useful than your own based on your reading of it so you rejected it rather than integrating it into your core beliefs.

Finally, a raw belief in elves carries no underlying values.
How about "Elves exist - that's great!"
Or "I chose to believe in elves - I proved them wrong! Ha ha!"
Or "I'm better than them... I know the Truth... that elves exist!"

Reason is silent since nothing was suggested to make elves consistent with.
You'd integrate it in with your current world-view. e.g. you might believe:
- the day-time sky is normally blue
- the sun will almost certainly rise tomorrow
- my garden is pretty
- elves exist in my garden, though I haven't seen one yet

A belief in elves is a non issue and a strawman when discussing choices between real value-laden worldviews.
I thought believing in elves would be easy compared to having a very major change to your world-view.

excreationist · 07-31-2002, 08:11 PM

WJ:
...Speaking of experience and pure reason, the synthetic a priori is what makes us say things like 'all events have a cause' and otherwise wills us to want to know something about our existence, and even keeps us suspended in faith about the discovery of an unknown. I believe that is natural and without experience.
I doubt that an adult that has been raised since they were a foetus in total sensory deprivation, who had never sensed anything before (including their breathing, heart-beat, any headaches, etc)would ever declare "all events have a cause".
Or as another example, say an adult had been raised since they were a foetus in a tank that has random inputs and they were totally paralysed (so they can't affect their experience). So they would hear endless noise and see endlessly flashing lights. Based on that experience I don't think they could conclude that "all events have a cause" - since in their memory, those random sensations are all that ever existed, and there is no pattern to it.

I think we conclude that "all events have a cause" based on our experiences in the world. And BTW, some kids might believe that some things *don't* have a cause... it "just happens". BTW, I think it is illogical that ALL events have a cause... e.g. why did the big bang happen? And if that question can be answered... what caused the cause of the big bang? If the cause of the big bang is God, then why did God decide to create the world, and what caused God to exist? Eventually you'd get to the point where you can't go any further and there are just some "brute facts". e.g. physical reality exists just because. Or God exists just because.

mattmattmattmattv · 07-31-2002, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L:
I think we're getting into these word games again. What does it mean to "choose"?

A man sticks a gun to a woman's head and says, "have sex with me or I'll shoot you." She has sex with him.

Did she "choose" to have sex with him? So many things can be cast as a choice, but I don't think that's what the OP means.

Wow! DAMN good analogy! Sure, we do technically choose to disbelieve in God, but the gun of overwhelming evidence is pointed at our heads as we make the decision.

The only time that people choose what to believe about God WITHOUT this proverbial gun dictating their decision, I think, is when people who have a lot mentally, emotionally, physically and even fiscally, invested in their religion, and they may force themselves to believe despite the evidence they see for fear of such a huge change in their life that would result from disbelieving. Did that make any sense?

matt

ManM · 08-01-2002, 07:21 AM

WJ,
Yes, I'm a bit of a William James fan.

I'll be sure to check out Davies's book when I get the chance.

DRFseven,
I do not understand how you can continue to confuse elves with a worldview. I am exploring the foundations of how we interpret reality. Also, might I add that it would not prove me right even if I professed a belief in elves for a day. I am making a claim about the theories through which we interpret the world. The existence of elves is not one such theory. Naturalism, theism, and solipsism are examples of what I'm talking about. Furthermore I do not believe our choices are completely arbitrary. They are arbitrary with respect to reason, but not to value. You are arguing against the idea that we can randomly choose to believe any particular thing about the world. I agree with you on that point. I am claiming that the framework we use to interpret the world is free from logical necessity. Don't you see the difference?

Jamie_L,
Your example is a case of the evidence not being consistent with the theory. That falls squarely under the domain of reason. As I've said before, reason can only lead to consistency. Given two consistent theories, which do we choose? Reason is exhausted, and so what we have left is value. We value simplicity and so we choose the simpler of the two theories.

Jobar,

Quote:

Since we humans do not know all there is to know about the universe, there is more than one valid interpretation of what was, and is, and is yet to come.

Do you think we can choose between these valid interpretations? If so, then I turn over this discussion to you. I grow weary of being browbeaten by these undercover elves.

excreationist,
Either our actions are the necessary result of a set of external causes or they are not. It boils down to the question, "Could I have chosen other than I did?" In response I think that we are not free from self-determination. However this implies that there is a real self-determination.

But if we are nothing more than the result of scientific processes then our self-determination is the result of external causes. And so it must be said that our actions are the necessary result of a set of external causes. This is hard determinism. How can naturalism be reconciled with anything but hard determinism?

And so I am left with a hard choice. Either I accept naturalism and take on the philosophical baggage of determinism or I accept another theory which can better explain the element of self-determination in human experience. Since I reject hard determinism I must also reject naturalism. If I reject naturalism I must then believe in something beyond nature.

Did it take you reading 'cogito ergo sum' before you realized that you existed? Those things I listed as pre-rational are just the standard common sense inferences I think we all live by. They come before philosophy but can be reinterpreted by philosophy. Don't worry, I am not trying to propose innate ideas.

Finally, I forgot to tell you where to find a solipsist. The one I talked to was in IRC on the enterthegame network, #fat. He went by name LoserMan.

07-31-2002, 06:29 PM	#76
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Our beliefs are sculpted by our experiences. A toddler may believe he can grasp sunbeams coming in a window, or reach up and touch the moon in the sky. But after he's tried these things, he soon realizes he cannot. A child of five may believe that Santa brings the presents she gets at Christmas- but after she learns that no presents are forthcoming unless momma and daddy stay up late the night before, and that reindeer really can't fly, and realizes that the sheer number of children in the world means Santa could never reach them all, her belief in Santa is carved away by the facts she has learned. Incorrect beliefs may be the result of incorrect or incomplete information. I was taught that dinosaurs became extinct at the end of the Cretaceous because of a combination of increased vulcanism, changing climate, and the rise of mammals; not until I was out of college was the evidence gathered to show that the impact of a comet or asteroid was the overwhelmingly likely culprit. Our beliefs should be held lightly and not grasped- if new facts are discovered which weigh against our beliefs, we should be prepared to change them. That is part of what freethought means. Simply choosing to believe or disbelieve in something, independent of any factual information, is irrational and perhaps even insane. The only way we can choose to believe something contrary to the bulk of the facts we are aware of is to be intellectually dishonest. We can, like the churchmen who refused to look through Galileo's telescope, simply close our eyes and ears to information which threatens our beliefs. (Note that this is not the same thing as disagreeing over the interpretation of somewhat ambiguous information; in my dinosaur-extinction example, for some time it was unclear if the iridium anomaly at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary was definitely caused by an impact from space, or indeed if it existed at all.) Since we humans do not know all there is to know about the universe, there is more than one valid interpretation of what was, and is, and is yet to come. But as we learn more and more, some interpretations- beliefs- will become less and less tenable, until only those who are ignorant (or willfully blind) will believe in them. IMO theists continue to believe only because they close their eyes and minds to new truth. [ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-31-2002, 12:38 PM	#71
ManM Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: NW Florida, USA Posts: 1,279	ex-preacher, So you compared an internally consistent naturalism to an internally inconsistent theism. Hence you conclude that all theism is internally inconsistent. Although consistent, I have found naturalism utterly bankrupt in explaining our humanity. When dealing with other human beings I most certainly do not use any hint of naturalism. Pomp, It is not necessary that the solipsist recognize order in his vision of reality, especially if you place dreaming on the same level as waking. As you said, this is quite the sideshow. I would contend that we do not believe in naturalism prerationaly. We perceive our choices to be free and not merely the inescapable result of scientific laws. I think a the obvious pre-rational assumptions are that I exist, something besides me exists (the world), I can control and direct what I think, and that I have a limited ability to interact with the world. I am free to think, hence I somehow more than a mere product of scientific laws. DRFseven, I think all that remains to be said is that we have two sharply different views and I can make no synthesis between them. I was presented with many different views of the world when I studied philosophy. After considering the value of each logically consistent worldview, I chose to believe what I do now. You seem to feel that my experience of choosing was somehow a deception. Even here I am faced with a choice. I perceive that I have the ability to deny my current thoughts about my past experiences and reinterpret them using your philosophy. I choose not to believe it. Finally, a raw belief in elves carries no underlying values. Reason is silent since nothing was suggested to make elves consistent with. A belief in elves is a non issue and a strawman when discussing choices between real value-laden worldviews. William James would call it a dead hypothesis.

07-31-2002, 01:19 PM	#72
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Manm I see you're getting pummeled with alot of nonsense, or least erroneous advise. First, I see you are a WJ Fan, me too. If you haven't already, do check out the 'mind of god' by physicist paul davies. Here is a taste of the first chapter which is on-line covering the 'logic' behind reason and belief. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0671797182/reader/10/ref=lib_rd_TT01/103-1992656-2972667#reader-link" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0671797182/reader/10/ref=lib_rd_TT01/103-1992656-2972667#reader-link</a> Speaking of experience and pure reason, the synthetic apriori is what makes us say things like 'all events have a cause' and otherwise wills us to want to know something about our existence, and even keeps us suspended in faith about the discovery of an unknown. I believe that is natural and without experience. Kant's, critique of pure reason got that one right He opened the door, its just he personally didn't make the choice. Nor did he take the leap or risk of faith, which of course seems contradictory from his own critique of pure reason. Walrus

07-31-2002, 07:12 PM	#77
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	ManM: I would contend that we do not believe in naturalism prerationaly. We perceive our choices to be free and not merely the inescapable result of scientific laws. Actually we'd just go ahead and make the choices and not worry about whether those choices were free or deterministic. BTW, compatibalists believe in determinism AND free-will... I think the obvious pre-rational assumptions are that I exist, Well Decartes didn't assume that... he concluded that he existed, based on him sensing his own thoughts/beliefs. He required language which he used in order to sense his thoughts and conclude that he existed. something besides me exists (the world), I can control and direct what I think, and that I have a limited ability to interact with the world. We would learn this... a foetus that has been raised with no sensory input or motor outputs would never experience sounds or shapes or touch, etc... anyway, I think infants only come to believe that the world exists independently from them when they're not observing it after a while... they learn about object permanence(?). e.g. two toys might be put underneath a cloth and then the cloth is removed... showing ten toys... the baby would be surprised and look at it for a long time - if it had learnt about object permanence(?). I am free to think, hence I am somehow more than a mere product of scientific laws. Well I'd say that it takes us time to make decisions and this involves alternatives being weighed up. Since we don't know the outcome of the decision until we've finished weighing up the decision and have made it, our decisions seem "free". If someone used a time machine and told us what decision we'd make, we might choose a different one, even if it was a stupid choice, just to feel free. So since we don't know what decisions we will make, we seem to have free will, but I think this is compatible with a belief that the universe is purely physical. You [DRF7] seem to feel that my experience of choosing was somehow a deception. Even here I am faced with a choice. I perceive that I have the ability to deny my current thoughts about my past experiences and reinterpret them using your philosophy. I choose not to believe it. You still would have gone through a decision-making process even though a particular outcome may have been inevitable. You didn't find DRF7's framework to be more useful than your own based on your reading of it so you rejected it rather than integrating it into your core beliefs. Finally, a raw belief in elves carries no underlying values. How about "Elves exist - that's great!" Or "I chose to believe in elves - I proved them wrong! Ha ha!" Or "I'm better than them... I know the Truth... that elves exist!" Reason is silent since nothing was suggested to make elves consistent with. You'd integrate it in with your current world-view. e.g. you might believe: - the day-time sky is normally blue - the sun will almost certainly rise tomorrow - my garden is pretty - elves exist in my garden, though I haven't seen one yet A belief in elves is a non issue and a strawman when discussing choices between real value-laden worldviews. I thought believing in elves would be easy compared to having a very major change to your world-view.

07-31-2002, 08:11 PM	#78
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	WJ: ...Speaking of experience and pure reason, the synthetic a priori is what makes us say things like 'all events have a cause' and otherwise wills us to want to know something about our existence, and even keeps us suspended in faith about the discovery of an unknown. I believe that is natural and without experience. I doubt that an adult that has been raised since they were a foetus in total sensory deprivation, who had never sensed anything before (including their breathing, heart-beat, any headaches, etc)would ever declare "all events have a cause". Or as another example, say an adult had been raised since they were a foetus in a tank that has random inputs and they were totally paralysed (so they can't affect their experience). So they would hear endless noise and see endlessly flashing lights. Based on that experience I don't think they could conclude that "all events have a cause" - since in their memory, those random sensations are all that ever existed, and there is no pattern to it. I think we conclude that "all events have a cause" based on our experiences in the world. And BTW, some kids might believe that some things don't have a cause... it "just happens". BTW, I think it is illogical that ALL events have a cause... e.g. why did the big bang happen? And if that question can be answered... what caused the cause of the big bang? If the cause of the big bang is God, then why did God decide to create the world, and what caused God to exist? Eventually you'd get to the point where you can't go any further and there are just some "brute facts". e.g. physical reality exists just because. Or God exists just because.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.