tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post6497634187646894418..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Moving the Semantic Goalposts - some theological sleight-of-hand with wordsStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-39949612889119297032015-04-24T20:41:40.836+00:002015-04-24T20:41:40.836+00:00I would like her to prove that god exists. I would like her to prove that god exists. Mikehttp://www.repairpc.canoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-91491407102823625522013-07-20T23:49:38.552+00:002013-07-20T23:49:38.552+00:00Hi Everybody,
Recently I've been pondering th...Hi Everybody,<br /><br />Recently I've been pondering the idea of God as a World 3 concept, in Popper's Three Worlds theory.<br /><br />This has the advantage of seeing God as an entirely human-constructed concept, and also real. We atheists don't have to be scared of it, because in this sense God is real in exactly the same way as the Easter Bunny -- common cultural property that returns to influence World 2 (inner experience) and World 1 (the physical world, influenced through people's actions.<br /><br />The difference of course is that the God concept has been analyzed a lot more than the Easter Bunny, and has had a lot more influence on people's experience. If God is World 3, it can still be discussed, evaluated, and criticized, despite its ambiguous and paradoxical nature. <br /><br />What's most interesting is that if we use a healthy dose of myth/metaphorical reading, the gospels and Paul are almost fully amenable to such a view. <br /><br />I am NOT a desperate theist, trying any means possible to hold onto God. I just find this approach interesting, especially when read anachronistically on to Paul.<br /><br />Here's a discussion along those lines:<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/forum/religion/ref=cm_cd_t_rvt_np?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1M9TK6UGAX6EO&cdPage=1&cdThread=Tx2RTUQ8X7I8TZP#CustomerDiscussionsNew<br /><br />Eric in Hiroshimanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-20431214407673637202013-06-25T06:36:17.296+00:002013-06-25T06:36:17.296+00:00imnotandrei
I think Mathematics is a bad example...imnotandrei <br /><br />I think Mathematics is a bad example.<br /><br />Mathematics is an absolute, consistent system. It therefore cannot ask questions.<br /><br />A Mathematical proposition is not a question...it is instead more like a rule, i.e. like the rules in the game of chess.<br /><br />Besides Godels Incompleteness theorem is your answer, because even though we are certain that the axioms of mathematics are absolutely true.<br /><br />It is not possible to prove this absolute with certainty.<br /><br />But, we can ask questions about Mathematics.<br /><br />1/ Do prime numbers follow a pattern?...Yes they do...Benfords Law.<br /><br />2/ Do the integers in pi follow a pattern?...No they do not...the pattern they follow is 1/x power rule, hence the pattern contains no information.<br /><br />3/ Does a last transfinite number exist? Most probably not, as we can see no example of infinity in Nature.<br /><br />4/ Does the concept of limits exist? Yes, they do...we have one in the idea of Absolute Zero.<br /><br />Points 2/ and 3/ are interesting because they point to the idea that Mathematics is rooted in the physical.<br /><br />If you are suggesting that at its limit we cannot answer the question:<br /><br />Do numbers lie?<br /><br />Well, the answer that is that we have to trust numbers because we have no higher authority to appeal to in Mathematics.<br />Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-55189317557859442282013-06-24T20:56:56.432+00:002013-06-24T20:56:56.432+00:00Which for me (using theoretical physics as my mode...<i>Which for me (using theoretical physics as my model) means only one thing.<br /><br />If one comes up against a question that looks like there is no answer...<br /><br />It doesn't mean that there is a problem with the question.<br /><br />It is telling you that there is a problem with the model you are trying to use to answer the question, i.e. the model is wrong.</i><br /><br />I think perhaps you should look to mathematics for your answer, rather than physics.<br /><br />There are formally undecidable propositions in mathematics, that are indisputably *mathematical* questions -- and to which there are no useful physical analogues for solution.<br /><br />So, asserting that the model is "wrong" is, to put it mildly, not helpful; and if your next step was to assert that "Given model X, we can solve problem Y, so model X must be true!", your answer is not only unhelpful, but quite possibly wrong.<br />imnotandreihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15850536340957506236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-12820875353977119782013-06-23T11:01:50.367+00:002013-06-23T11:01:50.367+00:00The other thing I find peculiar as it pertains to ...The other thing I find peculiar as it pertains to Dr Law is his insistence (he does this a lot in his lectures and essays) is that there exist some questions that may not have an answer.<br /><br />This idea I can't get my head around, i.e. Why exactly?<br /><br />I mean, Aristotle wrote that ones knowledge is only limited by the questions one can ask.<br /><br />Which for me (using theoretical physics as my model) means only one thing.<br /><br />If one comes up against a question that looks like there is no answer...<br /><br />It doesn't mean that there is a problem with the question.<br /><br />It is telling you that there is a problem with the model you are trying to use to answer the question, i.e. the model is wrong.Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-40254748603397779722013-06-23T10:17:21.486+00:002013-06-23T10:17:21.486+00:00Wonderful comment DrDave...very subtle...I like it...Wonderful comment DrDave...very subtle...I like it...<br /><br />You know the one thing that I do find really odd and non-sensical in these atheist/religious debates is that atheists seem to have an issue concerning "evil" i.e. why does it exist?<br /><br />I would have thought that the model of natural selection would have given them the answer that "evil" has to exist!<br /><br />What I mean here is; how about if you apply natural selection theory to this (for want of a better model) "ethical space". <br /><br />Suppose evil and good are two measures of "ethical fitness" in a population. I won't go into details, but if you look up Muller Ratchet and try to apply it to this space....one could look at "evil" as being bad ethical mutations of this ethical space and "good mutations" improving the fitness of this space. <br /><br />Now, say a population is close to the optimum ethical fitness...this means good fitness is going to find it very difficult to improve...but, it does mean that evil will decrease the ethical fitness...<br /><br />Now, it could be that "evil" and "good" are necessary to reach a critical ethical fitness in a population where the effects of harmful ethical mutations and beneficial ethical mutations just balance. <br /><br />In other words, the dynamic ethical-mutation selection balance point in a population just balance, i.e. ethical equilibrium.<br /><br />I think the key point in this model is that such a balance could be achieved when a population has a high ethical fitness. <br /><br />So, in this model...evil is indeed necessary...actually it is paramount that it exists!Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-49552945993880647432013-06-22T12:12:19.473+00:002013-06-22T12:12:19.473+00:00Terrific post, admirably clear.
God really is 4...Terrific post, admirably clear. <br /><br />God really is 42.DrDavehttp://minorityattack.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43807463991840378662013-06-22T08:09:41.075+00:002013-06-22T08:09:41.075+00:00Symmetria prisca is a value one should use when di...Symmetria prisca is a value one should use when discussing philosophy.<br /><br />Claiming that "God exits" and the "electron exists" is not equivalent. This is because the concept of God is essentially based on "gut instinct" while the concept of the "electron" is based on episteme.<br /><br />The religious believe in their myth but, the atheist also believes in his or her on myth.<br /><br />That being the "myth of reification"...it is because of this myth that the atheist believes that God and the electron are equivalent.<br /><br />For example, explain to an atheist that things like complexity, chaos, and probability are not real things in the universe, i.e. they do not exist; they will be dumbfounded.<br /><br />Explain to them that such things merely describe human "relationship with the world", and that this relationship is merely a structure...they will not believe you...<br /><br />They will not believe because they believe in the myth of reification.<br /><br />Atheists are just as guilty of this "sleight of hand thingy".<br /><br />For example, if one discusses the existence of the "Tooth Fairy" with them...and you ask them to give you a probability of their existence; they will inevitably give you a non-zero probability...they do this because they believe probabilities of 0 or 1 cannot exist in the universe (this is a consequence of believing in the myth of reification).<br /><br />They will then state that yes, the probability of the Tooth Fairy is non-zero...therefore there is a possibility that the Tooth Fairy exists. BUT, then they will say that they have "no evidence", i.e. empirical evidence that it exists...therefore, they don't believe in the Tooth Fairy.<br /><br />This is a very good example of "moving the goal posts", but even more it tells you the reification bias view of the world they have...<br /><br />Because, essentially they are saying that numbers lie.Philip Randhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09143527524267821692noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-2846371247064900642013-06-20T16:06:08.607+00:002013-06-20T16:06:08.607+00:00Many thanks Nikolas - and yes I agree with your ob...Many thanks Nikolas - and yes I agree with your observation and understand why you gave up. As the philosopher John Searle once said: "You have to be a very recherche religious intellectual to keep on praying if you don't believe there's any real God outside the language who is listening to your prayers".Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-7373184325623833022013-06-20T15:27:06.361+00:002013-06-20T15:27:06.361+00:00Hi Stephen, wonderful post you have here. A few ye...Hi Stephen, wonderful post you have here. A few years ago I gave up on Christianity and theism because of many of the issues you raised here, especially the one about meta-goalpost shifting. As an apologist of sorts, I was aware of the many problems you stated, and that I had been running in circles between them for many years. I finally gave up, realizing that 'God's existence' was somewhere in the limboland of all those words, but not in reality. <br /><br />I wanted to comment on what I personally think brings cohesion to the analogical perspective of "sophisticated" theists, but once pointed out, I think ironically can help to show what's lacking in theistic rhetoric: that is the life of prayer and/or sincere religious devotion. When I was a Christian, I used to think about God in many of the same ways, as an analogy for something "greater" than a person, maybe even a being. I even recognized that i was using my names for him (that he supposedly revealed) and ascribed attributes to him and praised him for them, only on a sort of great metaphorical stage. But what's important is that it even ALLOWED me to pray or engage in religious devotion in the first place. Ultimately, what's so appealing about the religious life are these privileges, such as being able to actually go to the all-powerful maker of the universe (whether he/she/it/whatever actually exists or not) and speak your problems or your praises or whatever, and ACTUALLY feel like someone's listening and can maybe actually help. <br /><br />What the theologian really wants to exist is a reality wherein his supplication and religious behavior is justified. For many, the meta-goalpost shifting serves as the final tactic, not just in debates, but in self-justification too, for their behavior after they've become too tired from being shored up by the smaller, more specific critiques of theism. It's like all theistic apologists are really getting at is: "I'm not crazy to talk in a room by myself when's there's no justifiable reason to believe anyone or anything is listening, I swear!" These sorts of theologians may say they don't believe in a "thing" called God, but they certainly talk to one as if they do. That's the reality they want to preserve. Once I stopped feeling like anything was hearing my prayers, I finally saw through my rhetoric as the figure-eighted loop it was, and walked away. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04792914519459622612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77510670253845643442013-06-20T07:39:41.747+00:002013-06-20T07:39:41.747+00:00As always, an extremely lucid analysis of issues o...As always, an extremely lucid analysis of issues often cloaked in obfuscatory language.<br /><br />Kiwi DaveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-67765228862437015502013-06-14T17:52:17.270+00:002013-06-14T17:52:17.270+00:00Armstrong has quite the conundrum. She can't s...Armstrong has quite the conundrum. She can't say whether or not God (and therefore God-given morality) is good, yet she believes God is good nevertheless. What standard is she using to judge the things she presumably knows empirically about God?<br /><br />And, apropos of nothing, inhabitants of Eth are obviously called Ethlings.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14449091821037196341noreply@blogger.com