nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Big Bird and the Belief that All Beliefs are Equally Improbable

antiskeptic

mr_fegelien wrote: »

Logical Reason - There's just no evidence for a God. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

1. What is extraordinary about the claim that God exists.

2. Since extraordinary appears to lie in the eye of the beholder, where is the extraordinary proof that evidence for God has to be provable (to others) in order to qualify as evidence? It seems an extraordinary claim to me.

MOD NOTE:

This thread exists so that antiskeptic may give free rein to his/her hypothesis that Empiricism is a Belief without attracting further sanctions. Any post on this general topic he/she posts in other threads will be moved here. The rules against soapboxing are suspended in this thread only - the rules of civility have not been suspended. The gloves are off but please mask up.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since OscarBravo, one who has taken up the discussion, agrees with me for the purposes of discusson, this point is moot.

OscarBravo speaks for himself/herself.

So since you agree that nobody has given you the right to define what it is, why are you assuming the right to define it?

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

...or, for argument's sake, that the north poles of magnets mutually attract.

Now, I can play with two magnets and find out that they behave in a particular way when I observe them. You can do the same, as can antiskeptic. When all our observations coincide, my argument is that we have a consensus that the behaviour of magnets is objectively real.

That there is consensus that the behaviour of the magnets is objectively real doesn't mean their behaviour is it objectively real. There was a consensus once that the world was flat.

Your argument, at root, is that you have decided that consensus gives you more confidence as to objectivety. More confidence that you would have from a solo observation. Which is fine - we do what we reckon best given our limitations.

That decision of yours* though (i.e
consensus lends me greater confidence) is a subjective one.

*and mine oft times

If you are happy that a subjective decision of yours leads to greater confidence as to objectivity, why cannot a subjective decision of mine lead me to greater confidence than the consensus view provides in the matter of God's reality. Its a personal assessment at the end of the day.

We would both assessing our subjective perceptions and declaring on the need, or otherwise, for additional, external support.

If I/you percieve it as necessary, then seek it we do. If not, not. We remain the final arbitrators of our need.

This consensus view is one that antiskeptic has rejected.

Not so - I spent today with any number of contractors regarding an engineering problem I would be in trouble with were I to attempt to solve it on my own.

What I reject is the view that the import you subjectively assign to the consensus view exceeds the import I subjectively give to not following the consensus view.

In so far as you or I find the consensus view useful (insofar as we find it raises our individual confidence as to reality) then by all means deploy it. But equally, if we figure it has no use, or indeed is counter productive, then dispense with it.

Ultimately we ourselves decide when our subjective view needs such an outside aid or not. Indeed and ironically, in deciding that we need such an outside aid, we are declaring our subjectively concluding ourselves to be in need, as a correct conclusion!

If we can correctly conclude our propensity to subjectively err (such as to require outside assistance) we can also correctly conclude we are capable of not-error. Both require us to suppose our subjective judgement correct.

We are, ultimately, on our own. Our subjective decisions are always the root judges. I need to refer externally / I need not refer externally.

I'm proposing that it has the merit of utility - by arriving at a consensus as to what is objectively real, we can have rational discussions about that reality. That makes consensus useful. What I'd like to know is, what working definition of objective reality can antiskeptic suggest that offers equal, or greater, utility?

I can have rational discussions with people who have had similar experiences to me. That I can't have the population-wide breath of discussion with people about God, in the way I might about magnets doesn't disturb me greatly. I mean, my Dad was tone deaf and I could not share music with him.

You utility is a very personal thing. It is not any kind of killer argument.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

So why are you assuming the right to define it? It's that, well, quite presumptuous?

Since OscarBravo, one who has taken up the discussion, agrees with me for the purposes of discusson, this point is moot.

oscarBravo

robindch wrote: »

In antiskeptic's universe, nope, you can't. And therefore, every belief is epistemologically equivalent to every other one and therefore, god can be said to exist with the same force as one can say that gravity exists.

...or, for argument's sake, that the north poles of magnets mutually attract.

Now, I can play with two magnets and find out that they behave in a particular way when I observe them. You can do the same, as can antiskeptic. When all our observations coincide, my argument is that we have a consensus that the behaviour of magnets is objectively real.

This consensus view is one that antiskeptic has rejected. I'm proposing that it has the merit of utility - by arriving at a consensus as to what is objectively real, we can have rational discussions about that reality. That makes consensus useful. What I'd like to know is, what working definition of objective reality can antiskeptic suggest that offers equal, or greater, utility?

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Who gives you the authority to define objective reality like that?

No one.

So why are you assuming the right to define it? It's that, well, quite presumptuous?

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which leads neatly in turn to the question of whether we can know that anything is objectively true.

In antiskeptic's universe, nope, you can't. And therefore, every belief is epistemologically equivalent to every other one and therefore, god can be said to exist with the same force as one can say that gravity exists.

Unfortunately, the same nihilistic logic leads one to conclude that leprechauns are as likely to exist as gravity, so the conclusion isn't quite as useful as it might, at first, appear.

oscarBravo

Peregrinus wrote: »

The question antiskeptic raises is not whether this is objectively true, but whether we can know that this is objectively true.

Which leads neatly in turn to the question of whether we can know that anything is objectively true.

If the argument is that we can't know what is objectively true, then there is no basis for rational discussion between subjective beings. And yet, antiskeptic and I appear to be having what has, so far, been a reasonably rational discussion, which suggests that there's some hope for at least the concept of knowable objective reality.

We're interacting through this website, which tends to imply that we both accept that it exists (setting aside for the moment the question of what "existence" means for a website). Given that we can both observe it, we have arrived at sufficient consensus as to its objective reality to be able to use it as a means of communication.

Peregrinus

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure. Well, let's take an example. The north pole of a magnet will tend to repel the north pole of another magnet. This happens whether I believe it will, or whether you believe it will, or whether or not either of us ever bothers to experiment with magnets. Is this objectively true?

The question antiskeptic raises is not whether this is objectively true, but whether we can know that this is objectively true.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Firstly, are we in agreement as to what objective reality is: that reality which is independent of what we might make of it?

Sure.

Whether we can know anything about it is a secondary question.

Well, let's take an example. The north pole of a magnet will tend to repel the north pole of another magnet. This happens whether I believe it will, or whether you believe it will, or whether or not either of us ever bothers to experiment with magnets. Is this objectively true?

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

How do you know what is? What assessment can you make, other than your subjective one?

Firstly, are we in agreement as to what objective reality is: that reality which is independent of what we might make of it?

Whether we can know anything about it is a secondary question.

-

What assessment can you make, other than your subjective one?

It would be a subjective (i.e. solo) decision of yours, for instance, that a consensus view better enables you to know what the objective reality is.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

That which is, irrespective of our subjective assessments of it.

How do you know what is? What assessment can you make, other than your subjective one?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Who gives you the authority to define objective reality like that?

No one. If we're to talk about it we might as well define it though

And if the definition is agreeable to someone then we can proceed. If not then they are welcome to have a stab themselves

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

So how do you define objective reality?

That which is, irrespective of our subjective assessments of it. Worthwhile defining subjective too.

Who gives you the authority to define objective reality like that?

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

So how do you define objective reality?

That which is, irrespective of our subjective assessments of it. Worthwhile defining subjective too.

Subjective: the solo view. It might correctly detect the objective. Or it might not.

Point is: it is up to us alone to decide. Whether we decide our solo view is correct. Or we decide our solo view might be incorrect and take the solo decision that deferring to others would help us.

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Me, I don't see how a subjective view can pull itself up by it's bootstraps so as to produce an objective view.

So how do you define objective reality?

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

You're describing subjectivity. I thought we were talking about objective reality.

We were. And you were going to tell me why a consensus view would objectivize a your solo subjective view - outside it being your subjective view that it achieves such a thing.

Wouldn't you have to be right in your subjective view as to the value of the consensus view?

Me, I don't see how a subjective view can pull itself up by it's bootstraps so as to produce an objective view. What it can do, is to provide you with more confidence that your subjective view is indeed accurately detecting the objective reality. That confidence too is subjective (i.e. it stems out of yourself / you decide to assign the consensus view with authority over your own view) though.

You are, as I say, on your own. There is no authority outside yourself you can defer to - since it is your choice and assessments which would be doing the deferring and assigning the authority

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

But I can observe it. That I can't demonstrate that to you is irrelevant...

You're describing subjectivity. I thought we were talking about objective reality.

You seem to be operating off a different definition of objective reality to me, or, frankly, pretty much anyone else. Worse, your argument seems to be that your objective reality is different from mine, which is a logical contradiction in terms.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Not in the slightest

What do you mean not in the slightest? You mean there is no presumption that God is interested in partaking of this experiement?

What kind science takes no interest in whether its experiments are well designed?

That nothing happens could be because your deity is mean and capricious, or because your deity does not listen to your prayers.

Or has no interest in being empirically demonstrated. Something that doesn't appear to have crossed the minds of these 'scientists'

You'd have thunk that the scientists would have asked themselves the question "if God didn't mind being empirically demonstrated, why would he sit around and wait for us to do it on his behalf?"

Maybe he was listening to their prayers "Please God, don't show up!"

-

Your position appears to be: "if science attempts to measure something, then that thing is, per definition, measurable by science"

Now that is faith. Mind bogglingly faith.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

The mind boggles at this sort of 'science'. You would be making a supposition that God (if he exists) is interested in dancing to your experimental tune. To think of but one fatal flaw.

Not in the slightest. You claim that your deity listens to your prayers. It's quite clear that, on checking, your deity entirely ignores your prayers.

That nothing happens could be because your deity is mean and capricious, or because your deity does not listen to your prayers.

antiskeptic

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm confused. My understanding of objective reality is that it's independent of the observer

And potentially independent of whatever tool the observer utilizes to approach the objective reality.

which in turn opens the question of how a consensus can be arrived at as to what's real.

I'm not sure where consensus comes into it.

The personal decision to incorporate the views of others into your reckoning - supposing that that gives a more accurate take on reality - is just that: a personal decision.

It need not necessarily be or always be the right decision.

And so, the only added value in obtaining a consensus view is the value you decide to attribute to it.

In other words: you're on your own as to what you conclude is real. You can appeal to no other. Even you appeal to another (consensus) is founded in you and your granting consensus authority.

You seem to disparage empiricism as a method of arriving at such a consensus, but - for all your sniffing about test tubes - its advantage is that it is, ipso facto, independent of beliefs. That which can be empirically measured can be measured by anyone, no matter what they believe.

Having decided the consensus view is worthwhile I'm happy to utilize it - where I think appropriate.

The problem occurs when someone (lets say you) decides that their decision as to the utility of the consensus view means the consensus view is supreme for everyone in deciding what reality is.

You decide consensus is supreme and suppose that everyone ought share your view. That the consensus be what you say it is.

But that's a bootstrap argument: the value attributed to the consensus view is your subjective decision. If someone else (me) decides the consensus view has limits, or even has no value in certain areas, then that too is a subjective decision of mine.

Stalemate beckons - since one subjective view cannot trump another subjective view.

You seem to suggest that something that exists outside of spacetime can be objectively real, but how can you know something is real if you can't observe it?

But I can observe it. That I can't demonstrate that to you is irrelevant - unless you are right in your decision that the consensus view is superior to the solo view in all cases.

But that cannot be shown.

antiskeptic

Double post..

oscarBravo

antiskeptic wrote: »

The objective reality is what's there, aside from whether or not an approach (philosophical or otherwise) is able to access it.

For example: if God exists and God not approachable via empirically demonstrable means, he would still be part of the objective reality. That the empirical method may not detect God (at least not in the test tube way atheists are wont to demand) would say something about the limitations of the empirical method.

I'm confused. My understanding of objective reality is that it's independent of the observer, which in turn opens the question of how a consensus can be arrived at as to what's real.

You seem to disparage empiricism as a method of arriving at such a consensus, but - for all your sniffing about test tubes - its advantage is that it is, ipso facto, independent of beliefs. That which can be empirically measured can be measured by anyone, no matter what they believe.

To coin the old phrase, it works, bitches. I still haven't seen a useful definition from you of "better", but if you can describe a way by which people can agree on what is objectively real that is "better" than empiricism, I'm curious to know what it is.

You seem to suggest that something that exists outside of spacetime can be objectively real, but how can you know something is real if you can't observe it?

antiskeptic

Interesting title for the thread. The belief
(i.e. my belief) that all beliefs are equally improbable.

For a forum which prides itself on demanding claims be demonstrated, an forum-contradicting attempt on behalf of whoever framed the title to put the shoe on my foot.

But I am not the one claiming empiricism (which is our representative belief system, there are many other such philosophies ) is superior to other avenues for approaching and interrogating reality. That's a claim made (directly but usually indirectly) by folk here.

The normal course of events here is to show your work. You claim it, you show it.

It is no belief of mine that all approaches are equally improbable. By default they all are, until such time as they can elbow their way to the top of the pile.

What we shall see, I suspect, is that most folk who consider empiricism superior:

a) don't know that they are empiricists

b) haven't the first clue how to defend the belief that empiricism reigns supreme. I say so because the philosophy section of this forum is a surprisingly inactive forum, given the certainty displayed on here.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Except of course, most christians (indeed, most religious people) seem to believe that praying will achieve something. We can test this empirically,

I didn't think you'd step up to the plate and start revealing all the subjective ways in which you believe empiricism is a superior approach to whatever the reality happens to be.

Instead, an old canard. I'm afraid to say that whilst you can set up an experiment to test the efficiacy or otherwise of prayer you make no mention of an experiment to test the efficiacy or otherwise of the experiment.

Tell me: say I was to tramp through the woods shouting out "are there any lesser spotted shy kites here?" And none showed up. Would I be safe in saying I've empirically demonstrated there are none of these birds in the woods.

Of course I would not. Yet you seem to assume your experiment is "adequate"

The mind boggles at this sort of 'science'. You would be making a supposition that God (if he exists) is interested in dancing to your experimental tune. To think of but one fatal flaw.

Yet this is cited research, presumably peer reviewed. What does that say about the objective, go where the truth leads claims made about science and the proponants of Science-ism.

The Fathers of Science would be turning in their graves, were they still there.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

if God exists and God not approachable via empirically demonstrable means

Except of course, most christians (indeed, most religious people) seem to believe that praying will achieve something. We can test this empirically, and people have. Multiple studies show quite adequately that prayer does not do what religious people say it does.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11761499/

Conclusion, Study on Intercessory Prayer, 2001 wrote:

As delivered in this study, intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/

Conclusion, Study on Intercessory Prayer, 2006 wrote:

Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

antiskeptic

To clarify on Mod's opening note top of thread

Empiricism (etc) isn't a belief (at least, I'm not saying it is). Empiricism is a philosophy. The belief arises when someone says the philosophy is superior to other philosophies/theistic belief systems. Superior, that is, as a way of approaching and understanding the objective reality.

The objective reality is what's there, aside from whether or not an approach (philosophical or otherwise) is able to access it.

For example: if God exists and God not approachable via empirically demonstrable means, he would still be part of the objective reality. That the empirical method may not detect God (at least not in the test tube way atheists are wont to demand) would say something about the limitations of the empirical method.

And something about the belief that empircial method is a superior way to investigate reality (namely, that it would be a false or incorrect belief).

Just thought to straighten that out.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Mod:As per the note in the feedback thread here, the consequence of you posting with the aim of denying discussion is that your posts will now be restricted to this thread, where the forum's usual requirement that posters must engage in good faith discussion is temporarily vacated.

Fair enough. It will be interesting to see whether any of the regular posters would take a stab at briefly stating how it is they elevate their philosophical beliefs beyond ... well belief.

The silence could be deafening..

robindch

Mod:

antiskeptic wrote: »

[...] the underlying sense (sown in by conscience) that there are and ought to be, consequences for our bad behaviour. I don't suppose even atheists would disagree with this - although they might argue with the degree of consequence involved.

As per the note in the feedback thread here, the consequence of you posting with the aim of denying discussion is that your posts will now be restricted to this thread, where the forum's usual requirement that posters must engage in good faith discussion is temporarily vacated.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

You might deepen your knowledge of Christianity by the way if deciding to comment.

Mod note: While I realise the above is advice rather than instruction, I'd remind you that you are on an atheist and agnostic forum. There is no necessity for any poster to have an in-depth knowledge or any knowledge of Christianity to comment on any post other than arguing matters of Christian theology. It is your point of view that is the exception here and I'd suggest you move from that rather than expecting others to do so when posting here. Thanks for your attention.

antiskeptic

Lorddrakul wrote: »

I would contend that, while no one has definitive answers, the parameters of the discussion are not as unknowable as they might appear.

For example, it has been known since ancient times, that a bang to the head can fundamentally alter a person's nature.

We now know that to be brain injury. The Egyptians sent us along the wrong path for millennia, with the heart as the seat of emotions, even though we now also know that there are ganglia of brain-like neurons in the heart too.

The point is, conscious resides and emanates from the brain and an impaired brain, through injury or disease, can show a deterioration in a person's consciousness.

Therefore, if consciousness cannot be separated from the brain, then it makes the idea of a soul, spirit, whatever, very difficult.

Prof Brian Cox put it very succinctly when he said that we have now, for about 150 years, refined what has become known as the standard model, which includes the sum of all knowledge about how matter, space and energy interact.

All we know thus far, he said, indicates that energy on its own, without physical structure, will dissipate. Therefore, if the soul can exist independently of the body, it does so in a manner not just completely unknown, but also completely unevidenced - as in, no hint or indication what or which might be at play.

This is tantamount to the very idea of gods themselves - unknowable. And therefore, mere conjecture, up there with teapots orbiting the other side of the sun.

From a logical perspective, I have to say: feck that from a height.

Everything we associate with the personal experience of the divine, from the all consuming presence, to the feeling of oneness with the universe, or even the demon presence, can be induced with drugs, or other physical stress. This would indicate that what we are experiencing is not the divine, but a biological interpretation of a set of stimuli that tends to go in one direction. But, that one direction has resulted in the veritable cornucopia of belief, religions and daftness that we enjoy today.

I do not claim to know why we do this; there are probably evolutionary advantages to having religious ideas, such as social cohesion, order and species distribution, but it does result in some awful behaviour by our species.

The more we refine our ability to measure what is going on in our brains and nervous systems, the more we understand how our brains work.

We now know that there is a level of precognition in our decision making that is breathtaking in its effect but very hard to understand in its effectiveness. It has been shown that the certain decisions are made by certain parts of the brain milliseconds before the conscious part becomes aware of it, or responds.

But the fact remains, consciousness, in every single test that has ever been devised or carried out, does not survive the destruction of the brain that produced it.

Not only that, everything else we have learned about the environment it exists in supports that position.

To ignore this and persist in an unsupported belief, or worse still to insist that others alter their lives to conform to it, is the very height of madness.

I fully believe in people's rights to believe in whatever the feck they like, but as soon as someone thinks that right allows them to compel someone else to do something, then they lose the that right.

As one wag put it, if one person has an imaginary friend, they are a bit odd. If everybody has the same one, it's religion.

What if there is no intention that the soul exists apart from a body? In Christianity the idea is that we be raised with an immortal, but physical body and that rather than residing in float-like fashion in the clouds, we will occupy a re-created Earth. Pretty much like now, but without the more negative elements.

That notwithstanding, trying to extrapolate what we know (the consciousness needs a physical brain in order to exist) so as to comment on what can be or is even likely to be is a fools errand.

All we know is all we know and that is true at all times. When we thought the Earth was flat for example...

You really think we have come so far that folk 1000 years from now won't laugh at the things we knew, through science, were true? That somehow everyone in the past lived in the dark but we have transcended ignorance? Seems to me that if science shows anything it's that current knowledge is always.capable of being overturned

But back the the original point, if one considers the vastness of time before and after one's own birth, look at the wonder there is to cherish the time you have. Look at the choice you have to either make the world a better place by being kind to all, not because of an eternal reward or the threat of hellfire, but because it's just a good thing to do, or just be a dick and always been known for that.

I think making that choice, not to be good, but to do good with the time you have, is the most human thing you can do because it contributes to something larger than one's self - the species well being as a whole, with the small resource you have: your time.

Or something, I dunno.

What?

You would have to wonder why you might do that - other than by supposing yourself to be subject to evolutionary forces pressing you in that direction.

But since evolution has no goal as such, and since the decision to be bad is as much a product of evolutionary force as the decision to be good, what matter what you pick? Indeed, how can you say you are picking when that picking is an illusion: you, a product of evolution, are merely doing what you have evolved to do. You no more chose than does a cat chose to catch.mice.

-

You might deepen your knowledge of Christianity by the way if deciding to.comment. Its hardly a minority view that no one is saved through trying to do good. The whole point is that no matter how hard you try you can't be good enough.

As a Christian, it matters not one wit whether I am good or bad for the rest of my days. Saved I am and will remain. How does that fit with your be good for eternal reward paradigm?

This works based view is very prevalent. Islam, Hinduism, Roman Catholicism. Indeed even Christians I know who understand they are saved by grace rather than their good work still suppose God frowning down on their misdeeds and have a niggling thought that they might still be cast into Hell fire.

It probably stems from the underlying sense (sown in by conscience) that there are and ought to be, consequences for our bad behaviour. I don't suppose even atheists would disagree with this - although they might argue with the degree of consequence involved.