Monday, January 28, 2008 | Reason : Wingnut News | print version

'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

by Wold Net Daily

Thanks to Carl H. Silverman for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59905

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily exclusive columnist Vox Day's new book, "The Irrational Atheist," scores a direct hit on atheism's most well-known practitioners. Using reason, science and historical documentation — not theology — Day argues the atheists into an inescapable corner.

WorldNetDaily Editor Joseph Farah recently interviewed Day about the new book, which is available at WND's online store.

Joseph Farah: The title of "The Irrational Atheist" refers to the Unholy Trinity of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, while Dawkins.Net is advertising the Four Horsemen of Atheism, which includes Daniel Dennett. Given that you wrote a chapter about Dennett, why didn't you include him in with the other three?

Vox Day: Originally, I intended to do just that. But after reading four of his books, it became quite clear that for all his atheism, Dennett really doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the other three. Despite his occasional problems with logic, Dennett is a respectable intellectual. He is seriously interested in the scientific questions, and he is very willing to ask hard questions about his own assumptions and core beliefs too. This is totally different than Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, who are entirely occupied with making groundless assertions when they aren't busy drawing errant conclusions from incorrect data.

Farah: Why have we seen this explosion of atheist titles?

Day: It's a bit strange because the so-called New Atheists are really not new at all. There is very little that Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens say that was not already said by Jean Meslier prior to his death in 1729. If Sam Harris didn't talk so much about Islam and make so many egregious errors, you'd think that he was Bertrand Russell's parrot. I suspect the reason is related to the current state of physics and the increasing uncertainty scientists feel about the universe based on the very, very low probability that the universe randomly happened to turn out the way it is now observed to be. Atheists have felt that science was on their side ever since the Enlightenment, and now they see it slipping away from them. So, this recent explosion of atheist books is not a sign of strength; it's a sign of desperation.

Farah: Are atheists becoming more militant? Extreme? Why?

Day: The outspoken ones are certainly becoming more desperate and shrill. Part of this is because they've got such terrible front-men. They've got these spokesmen who are demonstrably incapable of making a sober and rational case for atheism, so they have to make up for it by setting off rhetorical fireworks and making outlandish statements — for example, Dawkins's stupid assertion that a religious upbringing is worse than sexual child abuse. If I were an atheist, I'd be deeply embarrassed to have these clowns as the public face of my religious identification. I think the end result will be more atheists identifying themselves as agnostics, which is a much more reasonable perspective.

Farah: What are the consequences of widespread atheism?

Day: There are none, because atheism will never be a widespread phenomenon. Like socialism, it's a parasitic phenomenon that can't survive on its own. As Chesterton pointed out long ago, atheism rapidly mutates into paganism and diverse forms of spiritual absurdity. And we're already seeing signs that the post-Christian West is returning to paganism; it's not transforming into some sort of shiny, super-rational, post-superstitious science fiction society.

Farah: Why do you refer to Richard Dawkins as Darwin's Judas?

Day: He only finds Darwin useful insofar as his theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to eliminate the basis for a belief in a Creator God. As Dawkins states in his own words, he's "a passionate anti-Darwinian" with regards to the proper conduct of human affairs. Dawkins thinks humanity should follow Darwin just long enough to cast off Jesus Christ, then ditch Darwin in favor of following Richard Dawkins' opinion on life, the universe and everything. Just like philosophers, you can always count on a scientist to come around eventually to the concept of rule by scientist-king.

Farah: You compare Sam Harris to Michael Bellesiles, who was convicted of academic fraud and lost the Bancroft Prize awarded to him. Is that a fair comparison?

Day: It's probably not fair to Bellesiles. He may have made stuff up, but at least he can handle elementary school division. I also suspect he knows the difference between difficult concepts like "counties" and "states." Harris demonstrably does not.

Farah: What are the most common mistakes made by Christian apologists when dealing with atheism? How is "The Irrational Atheist" different?

Day: Too many Christians forget that their basic assumptions are not shared by the atheist with whom they're talking. Christians always want to quote the Bible to try to prove a point, but to the atheist, that's no more meaningful than reading Shakespeare at them. And Christians often want to talk about the way God makes them feel, forgetting that the atheist's feelings are equally relevant. My book doesn't rely on the Bible or theological gymnastics or emotional appeals; it simply makes use of detailed historical and scientific evidence in order to expose the logical and factual flaws in every atheist argument you're likely to encounter. "The Irrational Atheist" isn't a defense of God or Christianity; I assume the Creator Lord of the Universe can defend Himself. He doesn't need my help.

Farah: Are you considering an apologetic sequel making a case for Christianity?

Day: Not at the moment. Right now, I'm more interested in the philosophical implications of biotechnology. Cross some of biotech's more questionable developments with globalism and post-Christian paganism, and it's not hard to see that we're looking at some crazy days ahead.

Farah: I've heard the book has gotten off to a great start. So why are you making the entire book available as a free download from your blog?

Day: Yeah, it's already on its second print-run ahead of the official release date. As for the download, my theory is that the main problem from which most books suffer is that too few potential readers have heard about them, so I figure that word of mouth from someone who's read the ebook is just as important as that from someone who's read the hardcover. Also, if people like a book that they've read, whether it's a download, a library book or just one they borrowed from a friend, they want to have it. I must have four or five copies of Eco's "The Name of the Rose" myself, not counting translations. But "The Irrational Atheist" ebook isn't a free download per se. It's a Radiohead-style pay-what-you want setup, which includes the option to pay nothing. Various formats including PDF, PDB and LIT will be available starting on the official publication date of Feb. 1.

Farah: Or they could buy it right here at WorldNetDaily today.

Day: That would be even better.

Farah: One last question, and it's an important one. When are you going to lose that ridiculous mohawk and grow a righteous mustache like mine?

Day: The hawk is gone, I'm sad to say. But I'm not sure I've got what it takes pull off the Magnum P.I. look.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, January 28, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1601 - 1650 of 1993 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1601. Comment #121102 by MPhil on February 3, 2008 at 1:01 am

Always glad... :)

And the_assayer, from you're quite comical begging for a cross-examination and declaration that you've got "PROOF!!!", I tentatively hypothesize that you're an atheist (or agnostic) in for some fun. Then of course the thing about Krishna.If so, please forgive me, but I'm not interested.

If I'm wrong, I will conclude my comments on your "proof" by stating that if proposed evidence is not intersubjectively accessible, others cannot view it as such. Now, when you claim to be conscious, and you appear to be just as much a human being as I am, I am not overstepping my boundaries by assuming that you are indeed conscious. But when you claim to have observed a phenomenon that is not intersubjectively accessible, that cannot be viewed as evidence for anything else than than you having had a certain experience (assuming you're not lying)... and the hypotheses this leads to.

Other Comments by MPhil

1602. Comment #121103 by BAEOZ on February 3, 2008 at 1:01 am

If there's no evidence of something. And no way to show it, touch it, see it, or for everybody or anybody to measure it. It's best not to assume it's real. :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

1603. Comment #121105 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:06 am

I understand your dilemma.

I am a colour blind person and when people tell me about something being a shade of green or blue I find it tough to understand what it means. But I have to trust them nonetheless. I guess that is what it is like with the God thing. You people have not experienced it and hence are skeptical like how I am about colours. I guess you'll have to trust me based on how honest an individual I am generally in life. But I'm hopeful that God will prove himself to you. If only you were open-minded enough to entertain thoughts about him and let yourself think in ways that you wouldn't otherwise have done.

Other Comments by the_assayer

1604. Comment #121107 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:09 am

Your materialistic prejudices are showing through.

Other Comments by the_assayer

1605. Comment #121108 by BAEOZ on February 3, 2008 at 1:11 am

You people have not experienced it and hence are skeptical like how I am about colours.

No. Colors, as in electro magnetic wave lengths of certain frequencies that we can measure. Color-blind, blind or not, are about as real as you get.
No matter how honest you think you are, you aren't as honest as you could be. You have nothing to prove God, not in the sense of "proving" in the scientific sense (by observation and rejection of hypothesis that don't fit the evidence) as you've already admitted. But worse, you don't have it in the only sense of the word prove that means what you think it means, that is, mathematical proof.
If only you were open minded enough to see the world and not convince yourself of deities and accompanying fantasy. If it can't be measured. We can't say anything of it.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

1606. Comment #121109 by Greyman on February 3, 2008 at 1:12 am

1602. Comment #121090 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 12:33 am

Thats the problem. The evidence for God is not like evidence for "the earth being round". You need physical evidence to prove physical claim. But God is not like that. God has this meta quality to it. Trying to describe it to you would be like describing "red" to a blind person. You will get the evidence. Just that it won't be of the kind that we can describe using the English language. Does "red" need evidence for its existance? It is its own evidence.

That line of reasoning can be used to counter the lack of physical evidence of any imaginary friend.

"That's the problem. The evidence for the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not like evidence for "the earth being round". You need physical evidence to prove physical claim. But the Invisible Pink Unicorn is not like that. The Invisible Pink Unicorn has this meta quality to it. Trying to describe it to you would be like describing "pink" to a blind person. You will get the evidence. Just that it won't be of the kind that we can describe using the English language. Does "pink" need evidence for its existance? It is its own evidence."

"The Invisible Pink Unicorn does exist. To ask- Can we touch/smell/fell/see her is a tricky question. Most of us think it term of moving around in space-time as a way to get from one experience to another. What if that is not enough?"

"I can't direct you to a place where Invisible Pink Unicorn sits so that you can talk to her."

Other Comments by Greyman

1607. Comment #121110 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:13 am

God does exist. To ask- Can we touch/smell/fell/see him is a tricky question. Most of us think it term of moving around in space-time as a way to get from one experience to another. What if that is not enough?
I can't direct you to a place where God sits so that you can talk to him.

Other Comments by the_assayer

1608. Comment #121111 by MPhil on February 3, 2008 at 1:15 am

Okay, now I really suspect you're an atheist having fun. The colour-blindness problem of epistemology is soooo textbook!... damn me, but I'll still take the bait: In theory, I could gather evidence of your colour-blindness... a malfunction in the colour-opponent cells providing the vector coded impulses to your optical nerve or some other malfunction. I can then show you how this compares to normal vision in the relevant factors... I can show you how the vector coding maps perfectly to the qualia color space, and how your malfunctioning coding can only code values in a range the do not fall within the colour-space, but within the black-white axis.

And I can direct you to Churchland's and Dennett's papers on the "Mary, the colour-scientist who studies colour from within a completely black and white world" thought-experiment.

So please, stop the charade - although I have to say, you're not too bad at it.

Other Comments by MPhil

1609. Comment #121112 by BAEOZ on February 3, 2008 at 1:16 am

To ask- Can we touch/smell/fell/see him is a tricky question

Nothing tricky about it at all actually. That's why I say you're not being that honest. You know you can't (touch/smell/feel/see him).

What if that is not enough?

Grow up. We live for a short time. There's no reason to suppose the world isn't any more than it is. There's no reason to suppose that life goes on after death anymore than there is to suppose that life goes on before birth.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

1610. Comment #121113 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:17 am

Well Greyman, if you really and honestly have seen the pink unicorn then you are right. Man! I was so like you. Always eager to bring in "the pink unicorn" or "the celestial teapot" to win arguments with other opponents. The truth is, I was wrong. So Wrong!

Other Comments by the_assayer

1611. Comment #121114 by epeeist on February 3, 2008 at 1:18 am

I have just been over to Amazon to see what is happening with the book there.

I am afraid MPhil that you must be a moron. There are 8 reviews all of which give the book 5 stars and claim it to be logically unassailable. On top of that virtually everyone who voted found the reviews helpful. Given this the weight of evidence is definitely against you.

Alternately of course it could just be a case of astroturfing.

Other Comments by epeeist

1612. Comment #121116 by BAEOZ on February 3, 2008 at 1:20 am

Well Greyman, if you really and honestly have seen the pink unicorn then you are right.

OK. I agree with MPhil. That is so far past reasonable that it must be (poor) satire. I mean if I really, honestly believe God is telling me to kill the_assayer, then I must be right. I am the angel of death.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

1613. Comment #121117 by righton on February 3, 2008 at 1:21 am

Why is it always, god talked to me? Why dont people ever say they smelled or tasted god?

Other Comments by righton

1614. Comment #121118 by righton on February 3, 2008 at 1:22 am

God should use all of our senses and not discriminate by just using our ears.

Other Comments by righton

1615. Comment #121119 by MPhil on February 3, 2008 at 1:22 am

epeeist,

I've been to Amazon - grinned for a while, then sighed. Nah, I'm only doing this little destruction of the book (don't know that I won't lose interest at some point) so that people who come here and make those claims cannot just claim victory by default because "noone here has read it".

Other Comments by MPhil

1616. Comment #121120 by BAEOZ on February 3, 2008 at 1:23 am

Why dont people ever say they smelled or tasted god?

Who wants to smell divine butt I guess?

The obvious reason is we communicate through language, not smell so much or taste. We talk to ourselves all the time internally. The voice of God is just another voice that our brain creates.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

1617. Comment #121121 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:24 am

MPhill- Maybe my analogy was "textbook" like and probably I should have used a better analogy. What about a blind person with whole body paralysis(except for the part above his neck, lets say)? He can hear his friends speak and talk to them. Would he not have to trust the words of his friends and yet have no way of varifying things for himself?

Other Comments by the_assayer

1618. Comment #121122 by BAEOZ on February 3, 2008 at 1:24 am

Hi MPhil,where's your review? I read 3 chapters and suffered neural seizure of the stupidity overload variety.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

1619. Comment #121123 by righton on February 3, 2008 at 1:24 am

Seriously mPhil, I thank you very much. I pretty much knew the book was crap but was interested in hearing the crappy arguments.

Other Comments by righton

1620. Comment #121124 by BAEOZ on February 3, 2008 at 1:26 am

He can hear his friends speak and talk to them. Would he not have to trust the words of his friends and yet have no way of varifying things for himself?

If he's alive, then someone(s) care(s) enough to feed, clean and empty his crap bowl. It's a lot of evidence to base his assumption that they're speaking the truth (at least about feeding, cleaning and emptying his poopy jar. What they do with the poop, he'd have to take on faith).
Such a poor argument.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

1621. Comment #121125 by righton on February 3, 2008 at 1:26 am

"There are 8 reviews all of which give the book 5 stars and claim it to be logically unassailable. On top of that virtually everyone who voted found the reviews helpful."

So obvious, to quote dumb and dumber, VD is one pathetic LOSER"

Other Comments by righton

1622. Comment #121126 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:27 am

I'm a former atheist. You can read my earlier comments in RD.net if you want. And yes you have good reason to suspect it is JUST satire. Dumb me! I should have created another ID before I started posting comments again.

Other Comments by the_assayer

1623. Comment #121127 by MPhil on February 3, 2008 at 1:27 am

I've only destroyed chapter 2 so far... starting with this post:

http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2192,Irrational-Atheist-trounces-God-deniers,Wold-Net-Daily,page31#120973

and of course the subsequent ones, the last one so far being this one:
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2192,Irrational-Atheist-trounces-God-deniers,Wold-Net-Daily,page32#121051

Other Comments by MPhil

1624. Comment #121128 by BAEOZ on February 3, 2008 at 1:28 am

was interested in hearing the crappy arguments.

Well, did you know that science isn't falsifiable? Vox said so.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

1625. Comment #121130 by righton on February 3, 2008 at 1:30 am

Assayer,

Ya I thought you were mocking kardoshovel when we started this conversation but it turns out your serious. Oh well its ok, you will be fine.

Your not dumb.

Other Comments by righton

1626. Comment #121131 by BAEOZ on February 3, 2008 at 1:30 am

I read the 2nd and the attack on science (the 3rd) and had had enough. The first chapter was so execrable that I didn't have many more in me. But I posted on his inane argument that science isn't falsifiable. Sad.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

1627. Comment #121132 by MPhil on February 3, 2008 at 1:31 am

Sorry, the_assayer... I was planning on checking earlier posts of yours. Didn't get around to it - that's why it was a tentative hypothesis.

Other Comments by MPhil

1628. Comment #121133 by righton on February 3, 2008 at 1:33 am

"science isn't falsifiable"

What is that even supposed to mean?

Other Comments by righton

1629. Comment #121135 by BAEOZ on February 3, 2008 at 1:34 am

What is that even supposed to mean?

That if you define science as anything you want, ignoring contradictory evidence, then ID, religion and any other bunk you like is now science.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

1630. Comment #121136 by righton on February 3, 2008 at 1:39 am

What a pathetic loser.

Someone called his arguments sub-Souza earlier, I liked that one.

Other Comments by righton

1631. Comment #121138 by BAEOZ on February 3, 2008 at 1:46 am

Well, I'm going to call it a night. Read your posts MPhil. Very good. Much better than mine. :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

1632. Comment #121139 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 1:46 am

To,

BAEOZ,righton,MPhill, Greyman and Kurdoshovel-

SORRY to have wasted your time. :D

If only I could lie with a straight face! Hmmmm... Must take acting lessons. :(

Other Comments by the_assayer

1633. Comment #121140 by MPhil on February 3, 2008 at 1:49 am

Ha - knew it! Oh well, all good fun.

Other Comments by MPhil

1634. Comment #121174 by Steve Zara on February 3, 2008 at 4:15 am

I beg your pardon. Testimony is not evidence?

Not really. Testimony can be used to support evidence. But it is not sufficient to show anything by itself. You may not have heard about research into the accuracy of witnesses to crimes, or into the matter of "recovered memories". People aren't reliable.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

1635. Comment #121176 by Geoff on February 3, 2008 at 4:20 am

Comment #120996 by Kardashovel

Back to the testimony thing: what do you think would happen to your credibility as a witness if you testified in court that you heard "voices in your head"?

Other Comments by Geoff

1636. Comment #121189 by Steve Zara on February 3, 2008 at 4:45 am

I guess you'll have to trust me based on how honest an individual I am generally in life.

People can be honest about what they think, but that does not necessarily make what they think true.

Funny how God has gone all "meta" and shy. He used to wander around the world burning bushes and parting seas. He even dropped his Son off to have a look around.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

1637. Comment #121195 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 4:56 am

The problem with testimony is that it can be fabricated easily or is subject to all kinds of mis-interpretations. The Loch Ness monster as example of people seeing one thing and coming to the wrong conclusion about what they say. So ultimately people have to just have faith in the testimonial. But that isn't enough, is it?

Which is the more reasonable judgment:

1. You are being honest and there is a God. (based on just faith)

OR

2. You may be telling the truth but I can't decide in your favour unless I'm recieve much more conclusive evidence.

If I had continued on about Krishna and had acted better(sorry that it was poor satire), why should anyone trust your claim over mine? Moreover, even if they trust you to be honest, why should they think what you come to believe is actually true.

The reason for why atheists like us demand more evidence can be understood if you put yourself in our position and imagine someone(maybe your friend) claiming to have seen ghosts. Would you just say, "Oh he's an honest man, therefore ghosts exist", or would you say "Ok, I see that you may be telling the truth, but did you happen to take a photograph of the ghost. Do you have some "evidence"?"

Other Comments by the_assayer

1638. Comment #121198 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:00 am

Steve in case you didn't notice- I was only fooling around.

But to think that you fell for it is, well, flattering!... THanks.. :D

Other Comments by the_assayer

1639. Comment #121202 by Steve Zara on February 3, 2008 at 5:04 am

But to think that you fell for it is, well, flattering!... THanks.. :D

I was going to say that no matter how much you fool around, you are never going to sound as nutty as some of the theists we have had here in recent days.

But MPhil didn't fall for it...

I hang my head in shame.... fooled!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

1640. Comment #121205 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:09 am

"People can be honest about what they think, but that does not necessarily make what they think true."- Steve Zara

How can you 'know' that your experience of watching your monitor and reading these words is real? I agree with your point. Just that I think there is a fundamental problem here. We use our senses to inform us about reality and then we conclude that our senses are not trustworthy. Which part of our world of experience is the false one? If I suddenly start seeing spots around the moon which no one else sees, should I conclude "inreality there are no spots, just that my eyes have a problem" or should I conclude "Inreality I've been seeing bad all this while(including others), now I can finally see the spots which were already there"?

Other Comments by the_assayer

1641. Comment #121208 by Geoff on February 3, 2008 at 5:10 am

Steve in case you didn't notice- I was only fooling around.

But to think that you fell for it is, well, flattering!... THanks.. :D

I did take a sneaky look at your "other comments", but decided to keep quiet 'cos it was looking like fun!

Other Comments by Geoff

1642. Comment #121214 by MPhil on February 3, 2008 at 5:19 am

Well, basically we have to trust our senses barring special circumstances. Otherwise, if we were to generally not accept sense-data, then no derived data (readings off an instrument etc) we can gather would mean anything. But there are special circumstances where we should be doubtful - the non-possibility of intersubjective observation of certain proclaimed phenomena is one.

When we grow up and develop faculties of observation and reasoning, we are developing a certain framework that derives on the one hand from specific input (being taught something), and on the other from the systematic uniformity of patterns in the observation. These are then correlated with either positive or negative feedback - and we develop modes of thinking.

Being still alive at a certain age without needing constant care and supervision shows that these modes of thinking, the models we form of the world in our minds which are indeed consequential for our survival (avoiding being hit by a car as a most basic example) are reliable.

The problem of sense-data and its trustworthiness is a very old problem in philosophy... but I have to say one that has been dealt with to my satisfaction.

Other Comments by MPhil

1643. Comment #121216 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:20 am

"I did take a sneaky look at your "other comments", but decided to keep quiet 'cos it was looking like fun!" - Geoff.

Oh! It is Fun I tell you! Its a unique position for a debater to be in. I had intended it orginally for Kordashovel but righton had me thinking "Well a little dishonesty is not so bad, is it?".. :D.. On the whole I proved that I'm terrible at acting.

Other Comments by the_assayer

1644. Comment #121227 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:36 am

MPhil- I wonder what would happen if people in the future started living in virtual worlds more often than our real world. Assuming VR will be so real-life by then, wouldn't it become a serious problem for people then? How would they know which is real?

Other Comments by the_assayer

1645. Comment #121232 by Steve Zara on February 3, 2008 at 5:46 am

How would they know which is real?

Would it matter?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

1646. Comment #121235 by MPhil on February 3, 2008 at 5:51 am

If we could not tell such a virtual world apart from the real thing, then our reasoning faculties, the conclusions we draw from observations would still work within that framework - and our sense-data would be reliable for working in that world. If no systematic, uniform observation is possible, that would be how we could that world apart, because a creature with such faculties and modes of thinking could not have arisen in such a world.

And - of course - someone in such a society with such technology would know, because they would see other people engage in putting on the VR-suit (and those people would also know they have done that)... but I know, given a perfect simulation of their real world including them taking off the VR-Suit is not unthinkable etc etc...

This epistemological problem - that there is always the logical possibility that our senses are being elaborately deceived, (also the so-called Gettier-problem of knowledge as "justified true belief" [JTB])is quite old. And yes, we cannot prove any statement about the "outside world". We can never be 100% certain of anything but the existence of our own consciousness (not even of what that is) and logical consistence and inconsistence. We may know something - that is have justified true belief - but we can never know for certain that we know for certain something "about the outside world". (second order knowledge)

Honestly... so what? What matters is the reliability and that by virtue of having no other option, we are justified in trusting our senses as a general rule, barring special circumstances.
_________________________

Would it matter?

Yes, I think it would from a purely intellectual standpoint concerning the veracity of our beliefs pertaining to what is out there... because we would like to know that and be certain. But pragmatically (in the way I outlined above), I think no, indeed it wouldn't.

Other Comments by MPhil

1647. Comment #121242 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 5:57 am

Steve- Well it shouldn't be tough to think of reasons why it would matter. But then I can see how such a question may be unanswerable as the question of 'Is our reality real?".

Other Comments by the_assayer

1648. Comment #121247 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 6:00 am

MPhil- I guess thats the best answer we can give, given our limitations both known and unknown.

Other Comments by the_assayer

1649. Comment #121252 by Steve Zara on February 3, 2008 at 6:06 am

Steve- Well it shouldn't be tough to think of reasons why it would matter. But then I can see how such a question may be unanswerable as the question of 'Is our reality real?".

I think it does matter - I was just trying to be provocative.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

1650. Comment #121287 by the_assayer on February 3, 2008 at 7:18 am

The other day my mother came back from her weekly shopping and told me about how she had accidently left her hand-bag inside the auto-rickshaw before going to the store(I hope you know what that is)but thanks to God she spotted the same Auto rickshaw some 20 mins later in another spot and got her bag back. Her comment- "Certain things are not meant to be lost. God wants you to have it and it will come back to you no matter what."

I asked her if she would know a that-which-is-not meant-to-be-lost if she saw one. I asked her "Ma! Did you know that you would get it back prior to you getting it back?" To which she replied, "Why do you always pick on me? Leave me alone". :D

On a serious note. Isn't that the problem with all the supernatural nonsense? They don't really provide new knowledge that is of any consequence.

The Claim- "Our universe was created by a godly-act". What would qualify something as a Godly-act? If we can answer that question without merely mirroring what we already know about our universe, then we would be providing/creating new knowledge that is useful.

I realise this is just a different way of stating the principle of falsifiability. All testable hypotheses give us a clue about 'what' in the real world would fit the meaning implied by the words used in framing the hypothesis. That way Homeopathic doctors would know what a vibration is when it bites them on their collective butt and would be adding new and important knowledge to the world.

Other Comments by the_assayer

Reload Comments | Back to Top