451. Comment #88886 by phasmagigas on November 19, 2007 at 5:56 am

As Lord Kelvin said in 1895 of an admittedly simpler problem "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."

this says nothing about god and our minds but in the same way that there was (according to the theory of evo) and gradual series of forms from say ourselves back to simpler organisms>single cell>collection of molecules and membranes>>


I suppose a similar thing can be drawn with our minds, modern mind>ancestors>>>>> we can use modern organisms to emulate what those ancestor minds were possibly like as they went through generation to generation. one could imagine (i guess its easier for a human to imagine being an amphioxus rather than the other way around) the mind of an amphioxous, a fish, a frog, a komodo dragon, a cow, a lemur, a chimp, a human, of course this does not represent a lineage as you know but we can assume our ancestors went through a stage rather like a frog brain stage, a tadpole larva stage, a segmented wormy stage, a bilaterally symmetrical collection of cell stage, a slime mould like stage ie from a stage with no mind atall, again, thats the power of evo and that which terrifies creationists.

im not sure why one has to posit the requirement for god in the human mind when its obvious (assuming evo to be true) that our minds, like our bodies got added to bit by bit, generation by generation. now god might have added a bit to us later on, or gave us a soul uniquely but im just not falling for that, assuming im not in some matrix and my dog isnt real I can be quite confident that my dog, like another person has a little mind, it may not appreciate self like a person does but only like how a lamprey cannot appreciate jawiness like a trout can(he can flap his gills though) those who suggest that minds have to be from god are no different than those who say bodies have to be from god.

An alien intelligence could arrive and scoff at us for being so primitive, 'they havent even joined minds yet over the biosilico net fusion, and they think they need god to explain themselves, hahahaha, and they still have jaws the poor wretches, oh my aching sides'

edit: i also forgot about each humans actual run through the development of conciousness, as we grow from a single cell>>>>>>>>>>>

Other Comments by phasmagigas

452. Comment #88887 by Dr Benway on November 19, 2007 at 5:58 am

Dianelos: You don't have to believe that others objectively exist in order to communicate with them: Solipsists too go to the market and ask for half a kilo of feta cheese.

Button pushing is a form of communication, but it's not the form I mean when I say, "necessary for communication."

Allow me to restate myself: "Some propositions are accepted as necessary for intersubjective verification."

Agreement upon the inductive method is necessary for intersubjective verification of predictions. One can make predictions apart from accepted rules of inductive reasoning. But no one is obligated to take them seriously.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

453. Comment #88890 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 6:04 am

I'm generally blind to slips or ambiguities in your writing until Dianelos reacts to something like "pi is infinite."

If it is simply turning a blind eye, I would actually be grateful for correction if you feel I need it. I am not proud.

Likely we share a similar educational experience. I'm no physicist but I have a grounding in science. Philosophy, I confess, isn't my strong suit. Seems you might be like me in this.

Indeed. However my partner has done philosophy, and I often use him to check my ideas.

Comparing notes, then: Do you feel, as I do, a strong hesitation to take seriously the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism? I've come to realize what that's about: Thou shalt not overstate thy data. Service to this commandment makes it impossible to comment upon metaphysics, except perhaps to say where logic has been violated or not.

Comparing notes, then: Do you feel, as I do, a strong hesitation to take seriously the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism? I've come to realize what that's about: Thou shalt not overstate thy data. Service to this commandment makes it impossible to comment upon metaphysics, except perhaps to say where logic has been violated or not.

The mindset of someone like Dianelos - someone who seems to feel that we embrace metaphysical models much as we decide who to vote for in the next election - seems alien to me. I don't choose truth. I present my data and follow the rules, no more than this.

Yes, exactly. I feel just as you do. All we are doing is exploring stuff in a way that seems to work. I make no claims as to what the 'stuff' we are exploring actually is. I am not sure it is even a meaningful question. I think DG has a problem with this, as I suspect he finds this attitude incomprehensible. I find it amusing that I am being repeatedly told what my worldview must be, and how wong it is.

Other Comments by steve99

454. Comment #88892 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 6:11 am

BMMcArdle (post 344 or #88469):

According to your worldview, where everything is an illusion, why do you think you are you?

That's not what my worldview says. On the contrary my worldview says that conscious experience is the most fundamental aspect of reality, and that therefore what we experience is as real as anything can be. It's rather scientific naturalism that says that what we experience is a "representation" of reality produced by our brain, and is indeed very different from how objective reality actually is. So, for example, colors do not exist in objective reality according to scientific naturalism; when we see the blue sky or green grass or red apples that's only an illusion made up in our brain. You experience having free will? That's an illusion too, says scientific naturalism. You experience wall being solid? That's only an illusion says scientific naturalism, because walls are in fact mainly empty space. You experience time and space being independent? An illusion. And so on.

Do you honestly believe these things?

I do honestly believe what I claim here.

or are you just playing a game of "I can come up with an argument that no one can refute"?

:-) That's kind of a tricky question. You see if what I say is true as I believe then, necessarily, nobody will be able to come up with a good refutation. On the other hand what I believe is not a done job, but rather I am learning new things and how they fit, learning about better arguments, and so on. In fact I have learned and continue to learn a lot in my discussions here with you; let me know if you'd like me to elaborate.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

455. Comment #88893 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 6:18 am

Duff (post 347 or #88485):

God is this, and God is that??
I thought that to give god attributes is to limit him/her. You are a limiter of the first magnitude. Shame on you, you god limiter you.

:-) To discover how objective reality is does not in any way limit it of course, but rather limits our ignorance of it – or, if you prefer, expands our understanding of it.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

456. Comment #88895 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 6:24 am

Comment #88882 by Dianelos Georgoudis

(To avoid misunderstanding: I am discussing the atheistic logic

You know I have come across traditional and classic logic, modal, tense, deontic, epistemic, eroteic and many valued logics.

I can't specifically recollect coming across "atheist logic" (or "theistic logic" for that matter).

Other Comments by epeeist

457. Comment #88901 by irate_atheist on November 19, 2007 at 6:35 am

454. Comment #88892 by Dianelos Georgoudis-

...let me know if you'd like me to elaborate.

Don't, please don't. Seriously, I mean it.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

458. Comment #88905 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 6:41 am

BMMcArdle (post 351 or #88509):

A very very good person who perceives/is insensitve to, thinks/ignores, wills/neglects, loves/hates, creates/destroys, enjoys beauty/ugliness. Which is just like it would be if this person didn't exist. Isn't it simpler to assume he/she/it isn't reality?

If you accept scientific naturalism as a given, then what you write above makes some sense. But even then it's misguided, because it turns out that scientific naturalism simply cannot account for our very condition as human beings. It cannot account for what we are: conscious beings experiencing life, thinking about truth, agonizing about ethical decisions, applying our free will. It can't account for the obvious objectivity of at least some ethical precepts. Many figure that it can't even account for the objectively of mathematical truths. It can't even account for something as basic as our qualitative experience of colors.

What I am saying in other words is this: If scientific naturalism were a viable worldview then one could reasonably argue thus: Scientific naturalism works just fine without assuming that God exists, so to assume that God exists is a superfluous hypothesis. But in fact scientific naturalism doesn't work at all. Why do then so many people believe it does? Because they delude themselves by conflating scientific naturalism with science and therefore believing that the great successes of science are successes of scientific naturalism. The same delusion drives them to hope that the many problems and paradoxes and holes of scientific naturalism will be somehow some day be solved by science. But fallacies will be exposed, the clock is clicking, and people will not be fooled for ever.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

459. Comment #88906 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 6:41 am

So, for example, colors do not exist in objective reality according to scientific naturalism

"Oh, that was easy," says Dianelos, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

You experience having free will? That's an illusion too, says scientific naturalism.

Dennett believes otherwise. But perhaps he had no choice.

You experience wall being solid? That's only an illusion says scientific naturalism, because walls are in fact mainly empty space.

Naah. It is all due to those electrons you claim we can't show exist. what a repulsive thought.

You experience time and space being independent? An illusion.

Einstein claimed otherwise, but perhaps he was only relatively right.

But in fact scientific naturalism doesn't work at all.

I know. My laptop keeps crashing. I thought it was a problem with overheating, but now I realise it must be one of these holes in scientific naturalism stuck under the motherboard.

The same delusion drives them to hope that the many problems and paradoxes and holes of scientific naturalism will be somehow some day be solved by science.

Of all objects, the planets are those which appear to us under the least varied aspect. We see how we may determine their forms, their distances, their bulk, and their motions, but we can never known anything of their chemical or mineralogical structure; and, much less, that of organized beings living on their surface ...

I shall leave it to you to look this up.

Other Comments by steve99

460. Comment #88909 by Dr Benway on November 19, 2007 at 6:47 am

Dianelos: And theism gives theists one more reason to help those who are unfortunate beyond one's own benefit.

Theism is authoritarian. Theism suggests that one's relationship with Ultimate Authority is more important than one's relationship with fellow humans. Thus theism devalues human relationships.

Theism presents a knotty ethical problem no one has yet solved: who speaks for God? Arguments over who's personal revelation of the divine is more accurate have led to great evils in the world.

We have many good reasons to care for others. Adding "one more reason" that comes at such a price is unwise.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

461. Comment #88913 by irate_atheist on November 19, 2007 at 6:55 am

458. Comment #88905 by Dianelos Georgoudis -

Good grief man! Did you accidentally plug yourself into the mains as a child?

Please, go and lie down in a dark room for an hour or two. You'll feel much better for it, trust me.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

462. Comment #88914 by irate_atheist on November 19, 2007 at 6:55 am

458. Comment #88905 by Dianelos Georgoudis -

Good grief man! Did you accidentally plug yourself into the mains as a child?

Please, go and lie down in a dark room for an hour or two. You'll feel much better for it, trust me.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

463. Comment #88915 by Peacebeuponme on November 19, 2007 at 6:56 am

Dianelos

It can't account for the obvious objectivity of at least some ethical precepts.

Don't start this one again. You have not demonstrated the existence of objective morality (I find it obvious that it doesn't exist). The best you can do is to talk about God and goodness, which won't do.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

464. Comment #88918 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 7:04 am

Comment #88906 by steve99

The same delusion drives them to hope that the many problems and paradoxes and holes of scientific naturalism will be somehow some day be solved by science.

Of all objects, the planets are those which appear to us under the least varied aspect. We see how we may determine their forms, their distances, their bulk, and their motions, but we can never known anything of their chemical or mineralogical structure; and, much less, that of organized beings living on their surface ...

Hey come on, I thought I was doing the quotes. And you put two in the same comment.

I can only manage:

Ah yes, how quaint the ways of Paradox!
At common sense she gaily mocks!

Other Comments by epeeist

465. Comment #88920 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 7:08 am

Comment #88914 by irate_atheist

Good grief man! Did you accidentally plug yourself into the mains as a child?

Nah - he is just trying to sound like this "A spectre is haunting Europe..."

Other Comments by epeeist

466. Comment #88921 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 7:10 am

Smithyboy (post 354 or #88513):

So you are propounding pantheism, not theism.

Not pantheism, but panentheism is quite close to what I am propounding. Both affirm that there is nothing outside of God and hence that we are all part of God, but pantheism identifies God with nature alone whereas panentheism is not thus restricted.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

467. Comment #88923 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 7:16 am

Phil Rimmer (post 357 or #88525):

theism is far more ethically empowering than atheism.

I'm sure Bin Laden thinks precisely this.

I am not sure what kind of argument that is, but would like to point out that the fact that Bin Laden also thinks that 2+2=4 is not considered a threat to arithmetic ;-)

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

468. Comment #88925 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 7:19 am

Hey come on, I thought I was doing the quotes. And you put two in the same comment.

I humbly attempt to emulate the master....

Other Comments by steve99

469. Comment #88930 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 7:26 am

Epeeist (post 362 or #88574):

GR is still classical physics

What do you mean by "classical"?

By "classical physics" I mean any physics that does not entail the measurement problem.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

470. Comment #88931 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 7:33 am

but would like to point out that the fact that Bin Laden also thinks that 2+2=4 is not considered a threat to arithmetic ;-)

Let's have a look at some sentences...

"Objective ethics exist and I know what they are.
This means that planes should fly into buildings."

Don't like that one. Let's try again.

"Objective ethics exist and I know what they are. This means that planes should not fly into buildings."

Yeah, that seems better. But... oh dear. We have a problem. Let's call 'Objective ethics exists and I know what they are' O, and planes flying into buildings 'B'.

We have

O implies B

and

O implies ~B

Nasty problem, isn't it? Actually, no, I am a liar.

Other Comments by steve99

471. Comment #88934 by Dr Benway on November 19, 2007 at 7:37 am

Dianelos: theism is far more ethically empowering than atheism.

phil rimmer: I'm sure Bin Laden thinks precisely this.

Dianelos: I am not sure what kind of argument that is, but would like to point out that the fact that Bin Laden also thinks that 2+2=4 is not considered a threat to arithmetic.

It's an argument against "ethical empowerment" being a good thing.

"Ethical empowerment," as you've used the term, appears to be a personal sense of confidence that one is doing the right thing. Recently I came across a study indicating that ethical empowerment actually correlates with immoral behavior. I'll see if I can find a reference.

Do you not see the narcissistic theme running through all the arguments you present that are under dispute here? Are you under sway of some charismatic figure?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

472. Comment #88935 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 7:39 am

Epeeist (post 363 or #88575):

Comment #88503 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Well, then you are not really engaging with what I suggest, for I suggest we understand the meaning and truth of proposition based on its predictive content.

and

According to my scheme the meaning of a proposition encompasses also what all the propositions it implies predict.

Some 2300 years ago Aristotle codified the basics of logic. [snip etc]

So you see some logical problem here? Where exactly? In post #87981 where I explained to you what I mean by "truth", I clarified that the meaning of a proposition covers all predictions of that proposition, including the predictions of the propositions it implies. (See comment #1 in that post.)

Or maybe you're speaking in riddles again? :-)

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

473. Comment #88936 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 7:40 am

Comment #88930 by Dianelos Georgoudis

By "classical physics" I mean any physics that does not entail the measurement problem.

By the measurement problem I am assuming that you mean that you cannot observe the deterministic unitary evolution of a wave function.

Other Comments by epeeist

474. Comment #88937 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 7:45 am

Comment #88935 by Dianelos Georgoudis

Or maybe you're speaking in riddles again? :-)

No - I was pointing out that you can't make stuff up.

The word "proposition" has an accepted meaning in the domain of discourse that is logic. You ignored that meaning and, in your usual Humpty-Dumpty fashion, simply decided to replace it with another meaning that suited you.

As such your description of what you mean by "truth" is nonsensical.

Other Comments by epeeist

475. Comment #88938 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 7:45 am

Epeeist (post 364 or #88576):

I am certainly guilty of not understanding what you mean.

ROFLMAO Now the question is, is this a one word response?

Obviously it isn't; I think you can count. And I thought you would understand that this is an invitation for you to explain what you mean instead of speaking in riddles. But no matter, suit yourself.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

476. Comment #88942 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 8:10 am

....it turns out that theism simply cannot account for our very condition as human beings. It cannot account for what we are: conscious beings experiencing life, thinking about truth, agonizing about ethical decisions, applying our free will. It can't account for the obvious objectivity of at least some ethical precepts. Many figure that it can't even account for the objectively of mathematical truths. It can't even account for something as basic as our qualitative experience of colors.

Other Comments by steve99

477. Comment #88944 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 8:15 am

Steve99 (post 365 or #88585):

Well that objective reality out there, the whole of it, is not a huge physical mechanism as naturalists think, but rather a very very good person, a conscious being who, as we do, perceives, thinks, wills, loves, creates and enjoys beauty.

One minute you are claiming that we can't know objective reality. The next you are claiming that you know objective reality. Which is it, please?

Above I was only explaining that scientific naturalism and idealistic theism are two alternative theories about objective reality, and that it's not like theism = naturalism + God.

As for your question, it's true that from how reality seems to be we can't directly deduce how it is. So my suggestion is that one can decide fairly which theory about objective reality is more reasonable by comparing them one to one under the same set of criteria; criteria such as explanatory power, internal coherence and freedom from paradoxes, compatibility with science, experiential gains, ethical empowerment, simplicity, elegance, etc. I have been explaining this idea for months now and it is a little dispiriting for me that you should ask here this question as if you had not understood anything.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

478. Comment #88946 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 8:38 am

Above I was only explaining that scientific naturalism and idealistic theism are two alternative theories about objective reality, and that it's not like theism = naturalism + God.

You have been pressing us to prove that the moon, the statue of Liberty etc. "really objectively" exist. If we have a problem proving that these things "really objectively" exist, then that is a problem for any model of reality.

It also means I can ask you back to prove that God "really objectively" exists.

Assuming that anything "really objectively" exists, your arguments don't point towards an idealistic theistic model of reality, they only point towards an idealistic model of reality. The God bit is entirely superfluous.

As for your question, it's true that from how reality seems to be we can't directly deduce how it is. So my suggestion is that one can decide fairly which theory about objective reality is more reasonable by comparing them one to one under the same set of criteria; criteria such as explanatory power, internal coherence and freedom from paradoxes, compatibility with science, experiential gains, ethical empowerment, simplicity, elegance, etc. I have been explaining this idea for months now and it is a little dispiriting for me that you should ask here this question as if you had not understood anything.

I keep asking the question, as you just won't use terms like 'explanatory power', 'simplicity' and 'elegance' like everyone else.

I keep asking you HOW God is supposed to explain objective ethics, but you just won't answer. You just keep throwing the phrases 'God exists' and 'objective ethics exists' together as if they will somehow magically make sense.

In order to demonstrate explanatory power, you need to provide an actual explanation. So HOW does the existence of God make objective ethics? Saying 'God instantiates it' is just stringing words together. I want to know HOW.

You also misunderstand 'simplicity'. We know that because of the recent 'complexity' debacle, where you totally messed up 'organisational complexity'.

You also misunderstand 'freedom from paradox'. Precisely the same godelian issues with reality exist in a supernatural world as in a natural one.

So what are we left with?

A God we can't know, but is good (how do we know?) somehow responsible for objective ethics and stuff (how?); objective ethics we can't know, but we sort of have to guess at (which is no help at all - as I have said before, the existence of a map is no use if you don't have it to hand), and the idea that God is a vast Mind, when we know that whatever the substrate, minds are hugely complex.

The question is repeatedly asked because you have failed to demonstrate explanatory power, lack of paradox and simplicity. At least not as we use those words.

Other Comments by steve99

479. Comment #88947 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 8:39 am

Briancoughlanworldcitizen (post 369 or #88591):

No disrespect to the atheist posters here, great work really, but even you chaps must be wearying of saying the same thing over and over in different ways.

Actually I reject the observation that this thread keeps repeating the same. Just off the top in the head in the last week or so we have been discussing a lot of new stuff, including what "truth" means, whether Buddhism with its gods and hungry ghosts can be counted as atheism, whether there are scientific propositions that are not falsifiable, Dawkins's thesis that scientific laws are getting less complex and the feasibility of a TOE, whether evidentialism is a good idea and what evidence there is that he Statue of Liberty objectively exist without assuming the truth of scientific naturalism, a formal and much simpler version of Plantinga's argument against naturalism, Dr Benway's idea that some propositions may be justified based on the needs for interpersonal communication, the fact that some naturalist philosophers are already walking away from scientific naturalism (because of its failure to "naturalize" non-physical concepts in response to the transcendental argument) and are now postulating some kind of a more pluralistic naturalism, and more.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

480. Comment #88949 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 8:51 am

whether Buddhism with its gods and hungry ghosts can be counted as atheism

Some Buddhists believe in Gods and ghosts. Some don't. Buddhism is not about that.

from the BBC website:

"The Buddha did not claim to be in any way divine, nor does Buddhism involve the idea of a personal god.

The Buddha suggested that it was fear that produced the religious impulse in humanity.

Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines, but these are not a secure kind of refuge.The Dhammapada, 188"

The key phrase is:

"In many cultures Buddhism co-exists with local gods"

There are theist Buddhists, and there are atheist Buddhists.

The point that you just won't accept is that you can (like many atheist Buddhists) believe in the supernatural AND be an atheist. But, of course, that would destroy your straw man of 'what atheists believe'.

Other Comments by steve99

481. Comment #88951 by epeeist on November 19, 2007 at 8:57 am

Comment #88944 by Dianelos Georgoudis

So my suggestion is that one can decide fairly which theory about objective reality is more reasonable by comparing them one to one under the same set of criteria; criteria such as explanatory power, internal coherence and freedom from paradoxes, compatibility with science, experiential gains, ethical empowerment, simplicity, elegance, etc.

I agree with just about everything that Steve has written in #88946.

Additionally, you are trying to shoe horn a whole stack of disparate items into a single theory. All this does is get you back to my Marian Moore quotation.

Other Comments by epeeist

482. Comment #88954 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 9:03 am

Epeeist (post 375 or #88608):

4. If naturalism is true then the cognitive faculty for deciding the truth of ontological propositions offers no competitive advantage. (premise)

And the evidence for this is?

I have already commented on this premise in the original post #88603 The general idea is that knowledge about whether the tiger is real or only seems to be real makes no difference whatsoever in the behavior that optimizes the chances of multiplying one's genes, which in both cases remains to run away. Can you see any evolutionary advantage for having the cognitive capacity for deciding ontological propositions?

This is posited on two things: The word "believe", but of course naturalism does not rely on belief.

Oh, come on Epeeist. Don't tell me you are conflating "belief" with "religious belief". That's one of the most trivial arguments of popular atheism there are. In all philosophy "to believe" simply means "to hold to be true". So of course scientific naturalism is a belief system.

2. Cognitive capacity. If we did not have the cognitive capacity then we would not be capable of distinguishing the difference between rationality and irrationality.

The only thing under discussion here is the cognitive capacity for deciding ontological propositions, not cognitive capacity in general.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

483. Comment #88958 by Peacebeuponme on November 19, 2007 at 9:18 am

Can you see any evolutionary advantage for having the cognitive capacity for deciding ontological propositions?

Yes: posting arguments about ontology onto a website for months on end makes one a real hit with the ladies (or gentlemen if you prefer).

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

484. Comment #88962 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 9:24 am

The general idea is that knowledge about whether the tiger is real or only seems to be real makes no difference whatsoever in the behavior that optimizes the chances of multiplying one's genes, which in both cases remains to run away. Can you see any evolutionary advantage for having the cognitive capacity for deciding ontological propositions?

I have explained this. Not every characteristic of an animal's behaviour has to be adaptive, and to claim it is is to make a serious mistake in the understanding of evolution. Some characteristics just happen to go along with others. The ability of parrots to speak English does not have an evolutionary advantage. It is a side-effect of their ability to mimic sounds.

In the same way, the ability of humans to do philosophy need not be adaptive. It may be a side effect of increased cognitive ability, such as the ability to plan and reason about other's behaviour, which is certainly adaptive.

Plantinga is wrong. And before you call me arrogant, I am not disagreeing with his philosophical reasoning (others far more qualified than me have done that), I am disagreeing with his understanding of biology.

The only thing under discussion here is the cognitive capacity for deciding ontological propositions, not cognitive capacity in general.

No, you can't separate them. If you can explain the evolutionary advantage of isolating that specific cognitive capacity, go ahead.

Other Comments by steve99

485. Comment #88965 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 19, 2007 at 9:49 am

479. Comment #88947 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 8:39 am

Actually I reject the observation that this thread keeps repeating the same.

Well you appear to be pretty isolated on that front.

I refer you to Steve's comment

A God we can't know, but is good (how do we know?) somehow responsible for objective ethics and stuff (how?); objective ethics we can't know, but we sort of have to guess at (which is no help at all - as I have said before, the existence of a map is no use if you don't have it to hand), and the idea that God is a vast Mind, when we know that whatever the substrate, minds are hugely complex.

The question is repeatedly asked because you have failed to demonstrate explanatory power, lack of paradox and simplicity. At least not as we use those words.

Let me put it this way.

You live in a kind of philosophical flatland. From this limited perspective you think that you're making sense, progress and major "breakthroughs". However from our 3D perspective, we can clearly see you're simply looping endlessly around the same basic themes.

However, I've already said more than I intended. Leave these good people alone.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

486. Comment #88974 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 10:34 am

Steve99 (post 378 or #88616):

On the other hand, atheists do believe that life ends at death, which entails that people can get away with doing bad things.

That is just rabid nonsense, and you know it. It assumes that atheists only care about what happens to themselves personally, and don't care about what happens to friends, family, and the rest of the human race. Actions have consequences that go beyond ourselves. We don't need any silly 'God' idea to realise that.

If life ends at death as atheists believe then people can get away with doing bad things. That many atheists nevertheless care about others is fine of good, but does not affect the truth of my claim in any way whatsoever.

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

487. Comment #88975 by steve99 on November 19, 2007 at 10:44 am

If life ends at death as atheists believe then people can get away with doing bad things. That many atheists nevertheless care about others is fine of good, but does not affect the truth of my claim in any way whatsoever.

Of course it does. Bad things affect other people.

In fact, some branches of theism do a good job of encouraging ill-doing, through the doctrine of forgiveness. No harm in doing bad if this the slate can be wiped clean at confession. Even the worst person can be redeemed on their death bed, and experience eternal paradise.

Other Comments by steve99

488. Comment #88977 by phil rimmer on November 19, 2007 at 11:02 am

Brian,

Lets be absolutely clear about the "Dianelos Problem". We can have no concerns about his philosophical musings as to whether he is Neo or not. These thoughts follow the general form of the Thursday Liquid Philosophy sessions at my local pub, especially towards chucking out time. No it is the fact that, such musings, fueled by his first person data and the disparaging of ours, seeks to tell us that we are less holy than he, less moral and will remain inferior until we solve for ourselves God's Puzzle of spotting the friday-afternoon-job he did on reality and mend our ways.

This dangerous idea he seeks to clothe in moderation. No, we won't go to hell. Everyone shall have the same reward averaged over this life and the next. (Bit of a bummer when you're on your deathbed after a perfectly lovely life.) These spurious, imperfect and distinctly twenty first century human ideas fail completely to cover the indecency of his primary conclusion-

Atheists can never be completely moral beings.

My good Catholic friend is appalled.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

489. Comment #88980 by prettygoodformonkeys on November 19, 2007 at 11:37 am

Dianelos:

In all philosophy "to believe" simply means "to hold to be true". So of course scientific naturalism is a belief system.

In an earlier quote you equated 2+2=4 with theism. Scientific naturalism speaks to us from the evidence of this universe, not the parallel one you obviously inhabit.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

490. Comment #88991 by Dr Benway on November 19, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Dianelos: On the other hand, atheists do believe that life ends at death, which entails that people can get away with doing bad things.

You're expecting too much from rules of morality. Rules help us build and sustain relationships. They help us understand what to expect from each other. They don't stop people from doing hurtful things across the board.

Do you imagine if everyone believed that God would square accounts one day that we'd enjoy peace and harmony? I should point out that communities with 100% belief in God, heaven, and hell still have their crimes.

I certainly don't believe crime would vanish if everyone were an atheist, although I imagine rational discourse about ethical problems would be easier.

steve99: I keep asking you HOW God is supposed to explain objective ethics, but you just won't answer. You just keep throwing the phrases 'God exists' and 'objective ethics exists' together as if they will somehow magically make sense.

A materialist says, "According to natural selection, we are here to propagate our genes into future generations. Therefore, we ought to propagate our genes."

A theist says, "God made us so that we may worship Him. Therefore, we ought to worship Him."

Both arguments take the form, "Super human power X dictates Y. Therefore, we ought to do Y."

Both arguments imply a hidden assumption: that we want what super human power X wants.

Neither argument explains why this assumption is justified.

There is a more direct solution to the problem of ethics: let's talk about what I want and what you want. Let's see if we can agree and work together toward our mutual advantage.

This direct solution avoids the problem of having to justify the hidden assumption above.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

491. Comment #89004 by Lauregon on November 19, 2007 at 1:09 pm

#448

Such a rosy perspective doesn't sound at all like that of someone who has actual empathy for or understanding of the suffering of others. - Lauregon

On the contrary, to affirm the existence of ultimate justice gives comfort to those who are unfortunate. Atheism just tells them: You know, hard luck, but that's reality. - Dianelos

#1. I was speaking directly of your rosy attitude, and the fact that you don't appear to be in a position to know what real suffering is like. Your attitude clearly appears to be that suffering is tough luck for those who suffer, but, oh well, in the end they'll have pie in the sky, halleluia.

#2. Claims of pie in the sky can justify and have justified all manner of temporal cruelties inflicted upon the poor and suffering. Further, beliefs that the unfortunate are being punished or chastised by "God" and thereby deserve their misfortune are rampant---as is the idea that well-being and fortune is a sign of "God's" favor. There are no guarantees concerning what various theists believe about care of the unfortunate.

And theism gives theists one more reason to help those who are unfortunate beyond one's own benefit. - Dianelos

A barter arrangement with "God."

Atheism's logic would be: Why should I care for the unfortunate, we shall all be dust one day. Let the bleeding heart theistic morons help these people, or at least keep them off my back. And if the downtrodden represent any danger for my way of life, why, they are my enemies and the reasonable thing is to destroy them.- Dianelos

You're projecting your own thoughts onto atheists. You've already said that without belief in "God" you'd be a greedier, less moral person than you currently are. That's your problem, but not necessarily a problem shared by atheists as a whole.

(To avoid misunderstanding: I am discussing the atheistic logic not the atheist practice which more often than not follows the image of God within. But if you think I am misrepresenting atheistic logic then please suggest how atheistic logic would motivate an atheist to help others beyond what personally benefits the atheist.) - Dianelos

You wrongly assume that atheists as a whole lack compassion and empathy which is a dehumanizing and pernicious theist belief. Theist beliefs about rewards in the hereafter making up for suffering on earth are and have been a doorway to injustices and lack of caring for human suffering. Your ideas in this matter are hateful, and I find them reprehensible. I also sense that you often try to mask your true beliefs with a genial, academic facade, but in this discussion (as in some others) you've allowed the facade to fall away.

Other Comments by Lauregon

492. Comment #89007 by Lauregon on November 19, 2007 at 1:18 pm

If life ends at death as atheists believe then people can get away with doing bad things. That many atheists nevertheless care about others is fine of good, but does not affect the truth of my claim in any way whatsoever. - Dianelos

You're apparently like the young evangelical who came to my door trying to convert me who would've been profoundly disappointed to find a "God" who was as forgiving of murder as "he" was of greed.
You appear to really yearn for retribution.

Other Comments by Lauregon

493. Comment #89010 by Lauregon on November 19, 2007 at 1:23 pm

You are writing as one who appears to imagine he knows the mind of "God," - Lauregon

If my worldview is right then you can know the mind of God too. Just study how you yourself deep inside are. - Dianelos

Nothing you've written leads me to believe you know the mind of "God," but it's worth mentioning that George W Bush also believes he knows the mind of "God." Nor do I believe him.

Other Comments by Lauregon

494. Comment #89044 by Diacanu on November 19, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Y'know, it occurs to me, DG's whole shtick might be a tactic.
Wear us down, piss us off, see what it takes y'know?
Studying the opposition.

Other Comments by Diacanu

495. Comment #89047 by steveroot on November 19, 2007 at 3:07 pm

494. Comment #89044 by Diacanu on November 19, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Bingo!
Steve

Other Comments by steveroot

496. Comment #89054 by smithyboy on November 19, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Dianelos, comment 88921
Thanks for the clarification that 'panentheism' is quite close to what you are propounding. May I therefore request that you stop calling your worldview 'idealistic theism'. Perhaps 'something quite close to idealistic panentheism' would do it, though I admit it is not quite as snappy and does point up some of your difficulties.

The trouble with panentheism (well, one of a number of troubles) is that it literally does not make sense. It says nature is part of god, but not the whole of god, in that god is more than nature. But at the same time it requires nature to be distinct from god. In other words, I am (say) god's little toe and at the same time am no part of god. This clearly denies logic. Until you are prepared to give up a view which at its heart is illogical, I think you should stop claiming logic (and indeed reason) in any way supports your views or falsifies others' views.

In case you say you have never claimed nature is distinct from god (I don't know because I haven't trawled through all your posts), it seems to be an absolute requirement of your views that I am distinct from god: he is going to ensure I receive justice for what I do, he guarantees an 'objective reality' which I can have recourse to, I am not divine, etc etc.

Other Comments by smithyboy

497. Comment #89097 by prettygoodformonkeys on November 19, 2007 at 5:47 pm

The whole thing is a shell game.

We find ourselves in the position of comparing and justifying "things" (actual observations and measurements of our universe) to "god" (something made up).

The ploy is to get us to guess which shell god is under, and we are distracted because evolution has "blessed" us with pattern-seeking behavior; and lo, we are down into the game.

We tend to forget to pull back and see the obvious: there is nothing under the shell, any shell, no matter how many shells.

This is the world, not that; suck it, Dianelos.

(PS: nice to have you out & about, Doctor! Always something worth reading.)

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

498. Comment #89131 by Dr Benway on November 19, 2007 at 7:58 pm

Dianelos: If my worldview is right then you can know the mind of God too. Just study how you yourself deep inside are.

Oy! So much the self-other confusion.

Suzi, age 4, is going to Pete's birthday party. She's giving him a Barbie. Barbie is the best toy ever.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

499. Comment #89193 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 20, 2007 at 1:46 am

Thanks Steve99 (post #88619) and Phil Rimmer (post #88629) for your feedback to my argument against scientific naturalism in post #88603. It gave me something to think about.

Of course when one disagrees with an argument's result one must find something amiss with one of its premises (see the end of this post for some comments on this). Now the attackable premises are #2 and #4. #4 says that the cognitive capacity for deciding ontological propositions offers no competitive advantages; I have already discussed this rather obvious premise, so here I want to concentrate on Steve's and Phil's arguments against #2 which is: Through natural evolution we can only possess such cognitive capacities that offer some competitive advantage. I will concentrate my comments on the cognitive capacity at hand, which is the cognitive capacity for deciding ontological beliefs, or in short, "ontological reasoning".

Steve correctly observes that natural evolution sometimes imparts some characteristic that is latter used in an entirely different way. (Indeed this is how many cases of "irreducible complexity" are solved.) So his idea is that even though ontological reasoning may not have given us any evolutionary advantage in our evolutionary past other types of reasoning did, and we may now adjust that latter reasoning to ontology. He mentions the case of our ancestors counting tigers and how the resulting mathematical reasoning is now used for doing much more sophisticated math. This example is not a very good one, because given that we did evolve mathematical reasoning it's easy to accept that that reasoning is today used for more sophisticated mathematical tasks. But the issue at hand is how to account for a completely different kind of reasoning, not just for a more sophisticated use of the same. So perhaps Steve's idea is best expressed like this: There were in our evolutionary past evolutionary advantages for developing an entire series of cognitive capacities, such as mathematical reasoning, finding patterns in and modeling phenomena, 3D visualization, etc [1]. The amalgam of these faculties is such that we can today also reason about ontology. Now I see two problems with this argument: 1) It represents more a wish about how things should be in order for the argument against naturalism to be invalidated, than an actual argument. After all where's the evidence that such an amalgam of previous cognitive capacities would serve for the completely different task of ontological reasoning? 2) There are some counterexamples to his idea: Today it would be very useful if we could visualize more than 3-dimentional spaces (for example string theorists would love to be able to visualize 11-dimentional spaces) but the fact is that this is impossible, even though such capability only represents an extension of a cognitive capability we already have. An other counterexample is that we do not have the capability of solving differential equations in our head. Actually we do have that capability (we do that every time we catch a ball in the air) but there is no way to bring that capability under the control of conscious thought. My point using these examples is to show that our cognitive faculties appear to be much less flexible than what would be necessary for Steve's argument to work.

Phil suggests a different path to invalidate premise #2. His idea is that our current cognitive faculties are not only the result of biological natural evolution but also of cultural evolution. He claims that cultural evolution has had a profound impact on our individual and collective cognitive capacities. But I wonder if that's true; I think that cultural evolution (or sociobiology in general) strongly affects what we do with our cognitive capacities, but does not actually improve them. I mean try to use cultural evolution to give people the cognitive capacity of visualizing 11-dimentional spaces – it just doesn't work this way. Or take language; that mental capability has evolved (whether quickly or slowly it is not known) some time in the last 100,000 years and only once it is present cultural evolution can explain our sophisticated modern use of that capability.

Anyway, here is the happy state of affairs: Whereas many philosophical arguments use premises based on what intuitively appears to be obvious and hence are open to dispute, the premises #2 and #4 of my argument are scientific premises. So whether these premises are true or not can and will be decided on scientific grounds, which I am sure nobody here is willing to dispute. The force of Plantinga's argument resides precisely in the scientific validity of natural evolution, and studies what its implications are under the assumption of naturalism. (If you don't assume naturalism then there may be a supernatural cause for some of our cognitive capacities and the argument doesn't work.)

[1] I would like to make clear that this is not what Plantinga is saying. According to Plantinga's original argument if naturalism and natural evolution are true then the probability of us having any cognitive capacity is low or at best inscrutable. So, according to Plantinga, our mathematical reasoning for example would not necessarily have evolved towards truth but only towards causing (when combined with our desires) the appropriate behavior.

Finally I would like to make an observation beyond the issue of my argument against naturalism. We are here discussing which premise one must attack in order to avoid my argument's result. In a book on naturalism I am now reading there is a paper in which after some very serious problems of naturalism are discussed and all the suggested solutions are discarded the following strange kind of argument is made: that if one wants to avoid supernaturalism one must change naturalism in this direction. But I think that this kind of backwards reasoning ("I don't accept the argument's result so some of its premises must be wrong", "I don't accept supernaturalism so I must change naturalism in this direction") is kind of unreasonable. I used to think that those who claimed that atheism is a position of faith were overdoing it. But if a naturalist is always willing, no matter what, to make additional assumptions and/or change naturalism in any possible direction as long as doing so avoids supernaturalism, then that is a reaction motivated by a premise accepted on faith, isn't it? (Here I am using faith in its common meaning of "dogmatic".)

Other Comments by Dianelos Georgoudis

500. Comment #89199 by Veronique on November 20, 2007 at 2:05 am

Dianelos started posting on this site on May 13th this year. Since then he has posted 935 comments. And it doesn't look like he will stop.

Have you guys made any headway?? I think not. Not that I would want to stop your fun, frustration or whatever:-).

I still have this niggling desire to ask that he pay good hard cash for the opportunity to infest this site with his wonky reasoning. Josh Timonen spends most of his time administering this site. He needs his coffee to stay awake. Pay some money to RDF and maybe I won't just click past your comments, DG.

You should admit that you abuse the good naturedness of other posters to an extreme degree. How about a $100 donation to RDF, just to show that you are cognisant of the time you waste? Please don't respond to me, just pay your dues.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique