5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer

TedB · 27-07-2009 01:14PM

togster wrote: »

But isn't science the product of the human mind and therefore somewhat flawed? Or is that too simplistic?

It's just i've read so many people say that the human mind is flawed so therefore we must constantly doubt it and use science to prove things.

All conditions and criteria are governed by an understanding. And this understanding is derived in the mind?

Thank you sir, finally a man who understands.

No-one else seems to even bother trying to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying science is wrong - I'm saying that humans are prone to being wrong. How do we even know that this is reality? How do you not know that you are suffering from some rare mental illness and are lying in a hospital bed somewhere, strapped down and restrained from moving and that all of this is just a delusion? Is there any way to seperate reality from the delusions of our minds? Our brains are capable of creating a rational and logical parallel world - how do we not know that we are living in that fabricated reality? Does science answer this? Can it? Is there any way that we can actually prove beyond doubt that this is reality?

togster · 27-07-2009 01:15PM

JC 2K3 wrote: »

The individual mind is flawed, but a collaboration of multiple minds is less so.

Science is like a language that multiple, different minds can understand.

Ah ok. I see the reasoning there. It's a sum of parts. So the imperfection is diluted?

Isn't it really then mind control? Like other forms of collective mind sets?

5uspect · 27-07-2009 01:16PM

But isn't science the product of the human mind and therefore somewhat flawed? Or is that too simplistic?

It's just i've read so many people say that the human mind is flawed so therefore we must constantly doubt it and use science to prove things.

That's too simple.

The Scientific method is self correcting and it is assumed that any Theory is provisional pending new evidence.
The Hypothesis can be weak flawed as per your argument. The evidence is the selective pressure that picks the best hypothesis. That way we get Science that is constantly tested and retested and therefore rigorous and divorced from human bias.

EDIT: Science can also be performed without human minds:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7979113.stm

Dave! · 27-07-2009 01:16PM

togster wrote: »

How does it prove itself reliable? I'm not having a go here, just curious :pac:

If something proves itself reliable, then it must have a pre-defined set of parameters within which to prove itself reliable. Or?

And isn't it the human mind that basically decides that?

Airplanes, open heart surgery, computers, medicine, etc., etc.

That's how we know it works -- it leaves behind it a track record of success

If your rebuttal to this is "yeah but how do we know it works? the mind is flawed!", then save it or I will have to smash up my computer

edit:

TedB wrote: »

Thank you sir, finally a man who understands.

No-one else seems to even bother trying to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying science is wrong - I'm saying that humans are prone to being wrong. How do we even know that this is reality? How do you not know that you are suffering from some rare mental illness and are lying in a hospital bed somewhere, strapped down and restrained from moving and that all of this is just a delusion? Is there any way to seperate reality from the delusions of our minds? Our brains are capable of creating a rational and logical parallel world - how do we not know that we are living in that fabricated reality? Does science answer this? Can it? Is there any way that we can actually prove beyond doubt that this is reality?

Oh dear, I saw it coming, but couldn't stop it happening

*SMASH*

Sam Vimes · 27-07-2009 01:19PM

TedB wrote: »

Thank you sir, finally a man who understands.

No-one else seems to even bother trying to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying science is wrong - I'm saying that humans are prone to being wrong.

We know, that's why we use the scientific method to eliminate the human error component as much as possible

CerebralCortex · 27-07-2009 01:20PM

TedB wrote: »

....beyond doubt that this is reality?

Nope but it's all we have.

togster · 27-07-2009 01:21PM

5uspect wrote: »

That's too simple.

It's that simple if you want it to be or not.

Are you saying it is perfect?

I am saying it is not. That is all.

I see your point. But ultimately it is not perfect. You can go as deep as you like. BTW the deeper you go, the more oscure things often get.

togster · 27-07-2009 01:23PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We know, that's why we use the scientific method to eliminate the human error component as much as possible

As much as possible.... It is still flawed to a degree. Not as flawed as other reasonings but flawed all the same.

5uspect · 27-07-2009 01:23PM

TedB wrote: »

Thank you sir, finally a man who understands.

No-one else seems to even bother trying to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying science is wrong - I'm saying that humans are prone to being wrong. How do we even know that this is reality? How do you not know that you are suffering from some rare mental illness and are lying in a hospital bed somewhere, strapped down and restrained from moving and that all of this is just a delusion? Is there any way to seperate reality from the delusions of our minds? Our brains are capable of creating a rational and logical parallel world - how do we not know that we are living in that fabricated reality? Does science answer this? Can it? Is there any way that we can actually prove beyond doubt that this is reality?

That's a lot of assumptions right there. It is indeed possible but almost impossible to test, at the moment. But we can't deal with those ungrounded questions until we deal with much more pertinent questions first.

The simple answer is we don't know, yet.

What we will do is model the world around us until we understand it as best we can and slowly chip away at the unknowns. To make such big. unfounded. leaps like you have done there leads to nothing useful and only serves to confuse and speculate.

Malari · 27-07-2009 01:23PM

TedB wrote: »

Thank you sir, finally a man who understands.

No-one else seems to even bother trying to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm not saying science is wrong - I'm saying that humans are prone to being wrong. How do we even know that this is reality? How do you not know that you are suffering from some rare mental illness and are lying in a hospital bed somewhere, strapped down and restrained from moving and that all of this is just a delusion? Is there any way to seperate reality from the delusions of our minds? Our brains are capable of creating a rational and logical parallel world - how do we not know that we are living in that fabricated reality? Does science answer this? Can it? Is there any way that we can actually prove beyond doubt that this is reality?

But science is a way of explaining the world we percieve.

I don't think what you're asking is related that much to whether science explains the phenomena we observe in our environment.

Sam Vimes · 27-07-2009 01:24PM

Togster, I must admit that every time you post my mental image of you gets a little bit closer to this :P

attachment.php?attachmentid=86168&stc=1&d=1248697467

attachment.php?attachmentid=86168&stc=1&d=1248697467

togster · 27-07-2009 01:24PM

Dave! wrote: »

Oh dear, I saw it coming, but couldn't stop it happening

If you saw it coming, you could have stopped it :pac:

5uspect · 27-07-2009 01:25PM

togster wrote: »

It's that simple if you want it to be or not.

Are you saying it is perfect?

I am saying it is not. That is all.

I see your point. But ultimately it is not perfect. You can go as deep as you like. BTW the deeper you go, the more oscure things often get.

Define perfect?

togster · 27-07-2009 01:26PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Togster, I must admit that every time you post my mental image of you gets a little bit closer to this :P

Your mind is playing tricks on you.

Science is your only way of knowing the real me Sam

togster · 27-07-2009 01:26PM

5uspect wrote: »

Define perfect?

Exactly. There is no such thing.

Dave! · 27-07-2009 01:27PM

togster wrote: »

If you saw it coming, you could have stopped it :pac:

If only it were so simple

I am but a flawed human!

togster · 27-07-2009 01:29PM

Dave! wrote: »

If only it were so simple I am but a flawed human!

It is that simple Dave!

pts · 27-07-2009 01:29PM

I think we've got two people who think they've uncovered the ultimate "anti-atheist argument" when in fact they seem to be talking about the brain in a vat thought experiment.

In one way they are right, how does one know if one is a "brain in a vat" (or in its modern incarnation, if one is part of the matrix)
It would be hard to argue that it is impossible that we are not. However what I would ask is what would you gain my holding this world view? All you could get us to concede is that science can't be 100% reliable. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone here is claiming that. To me it seems like a straw man argument.

5uspect · 27-07-2009 01:29PM

togster wrote: »

Exactly. There is no such thing.

So why complain about the best tool we have? No one here says its perfect, we just agree that its pretty damn good.

togster · 27-07-2009 01:31PM

pts wrote: »

I think we've got two people who think they've uncovered the ultimate "anti-atheist argument"

Not an anti-atheist argument, just an anti collective thinking argument and the importance of the individual.

pts wrote: »

All you could get us to concede is that science can't be 100% reliable.

All anyone can concede is the fact that nothing is 100% reliable.

togster · 27-07-2009 01:33PM

5uspect wrote: »

No one here says its perfect, we just agree that its pretty damn good.

I agree.

pts · 27-07-2009 01:40PM

togster wrote: »

Not an anti-atheist argument, just an anti collective thinking argument and the importance of the individual.

That makes no sense. That isn't an "anti collective thinking" or "importance of the individual" argument at all. If you are arguing
humans can't trust their input ->
humans are unreliable ->
scientists are unreliable ->
science is unreliable

you still haven't argued that the individual is important, as an individual is a human, and humans can't trust their input. I would argue that science is more likely to be right as it is made up of countless individuals, who all "error check" each other. It's not a perfect system, but as a whole it is a lot more reliable than the individual.

Zombrex · 27-07-2009 01:40PM

togster wrote: »

But isn't science the product of the human mind and therefore somewhat flawed?

It is an assumption of science that all human knowledge and understand is either inaccurate or unknowably perfectly accurate (ie your theory is 100% accurate but you have no way of knowing that since you cannot know that there is no more information to discover about the phenomena)

That is a sort of meta-assumption, inferred from logical deduction.

It is paradoxical for it to be wrong, if in fact humans can and do perfectly understand the world around them then we contradict this by the existence of the original assumption

togster wrote: »

It's just i've read so many people say that the human mind is flawed so therefore we must constantly doubt it and use science to prove things.

Science does not "prove things". This appears to be a very common misunderstanding of what science is.

Science attempts to provide a better system of learning than relying on human perception and judgement alone. It produces more accurate models of the world than if we just state around making stuff up about what we think is happening, and provides a framework to test these models.

But possibly more important than that it also provides standards for saying what we don't or can't know. This is possibly the most important thing science does. It does not claim that it produces 100% accurate understanding of any phenomena, and in fact claims quite the opposite that if you think you have proved something or know something for certain you don't.

Flamed Diving · 27-07-2009 01:46PM

5uspect wrote: »

So why complain about the best tool we have? No one here says its perfect, we just agree that its pretty damn good.

Because it doesn't fit in with my wishy-washy view of the universe. Of which I am so arrogant to believe has some relevance to the universe which I occupy.

Oooh, I like my iPod though.

Zombrex · 27-07-2009 02:13PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Because it doesn't fit in with my wishy-washy view of the universe. Of which I am so arrogant to believe has some relevance to the universe which I occupy.

Oooh, I like my iPod though.

Person on the street - Science is flawed and limited, it can't tell me why I'm special and important

Scientist - Who said you are special and important?

TedB · 27-07-2009 02:34PM

pts wrote: »

I think we've got two people who think they've uncovered the ultimate "anti-atheist argument" when in fact they seem to be talking about the brain in a vat thought experiment.

In one way they are right, how does one know if one is a "brain in a vat" (or in its modern incarnation, if one is part of the matrix)
It would be hard to argue that it is impossible that we are not. However what I would ask is what would you gain my holding this world view? All you could get us to concede is that science can't be 100% reliable. I could be wrong but I don't think anyone here is claiming that. To me it seems like a straw man argument.

The importance is the level of doubt we should all naturally have. If indeed any of us are truly skeptics.

If there is no way to determine that me, as an individual is a cognitive, autonomous being within a 'real' world, then how can anything else be possibly 'true' - or indeed, how can anything be 'fact' or 'false'? This is the most important question humanity can ask. Dodging it and pretending it isn't there is intellectually lazy. It may confuse and it may lead to speculation, but I fail to see what can be gained by ignoring the most important aspect of our consciousness.

pts · 27-07-2009 02:48PM

TedB wrote: »

The importance is the level of doubt we should all naturally have. If indeed any of us are truly skeptics.

If there is no way to determine that me, as an individual is a cognitive, autonomous being within a 'real' world, then how can anything else be possibly 'true' - or indeed, how can anything be 'fact' or 'false'? This is the most important question humanity can ask. Dodging it and pretending it isn't there is intellectually lazy. It may confuse and it may lead to speculation, but I fail to see what can be gained by ignoring the most important aspect of our consciousness.

As far as I can tell there is no way of determining if we are brains in a jar or not. So what does that change? It is an interesting question to ask, but to refuse to engage with the perceived world just because we can't be sure of if what we perceive is true seems much lazier to me.

The reason to ignore the most important aspect of our consciousness is that it is probably impossible to answer, and even if we did manage to answer it it wouldn't change anything.

An analogy would be if you some how managed to realise that we are inside "the matrix". Unless you can actually remove yourself from it, the fact that you know you are inside the matrix doesn't mean that you are not bound by the rules of the matrix. Further how do you know that the matrix, isn't a matrix inside another matrix? You wouldn't, and would end up with an infinite regression.

As I said earlier, it is an interesting philosophical dilemma, but it is by definition unsolvable.

Sam Vimes · 27-07-2009 02:49PM

TedB wrote: »

If there is no way to determine that me, as an individual is a cognitive, autonomous being within a 'real' world, then how can anything else be possibly 'true' - or indeed, how can anything be 'fact' or 'false'? This is the most important question humanity can ask. Dodging it and pretending it isn't there is intellectually lazy. It may confuse and it may lead to speculation, but I fail to see what can be gained by ignoring the most important aspect of our consciousness.

I'm afraid that all anyone can do is avoid the question because we currently don't have the answer to it. We have to make a certain level of assumption, ie that we are not a brain in a vat or plugged into the matrix, or we'll have to start living in caves poking berries up our noses.

It's impossible to prove that human beings are capable of rational thought because in order to prove something you have to assume your thought process is rational so the closest we can come is by verifying our thought processes through others and most importantly through experimentation.

That, however, is not an argument that any hypothesis is as valid as any other. In some metaphysical, philosophical way no one knows anything but in the practical real world we know quite a lot

robindch · 27-07-2009 02:54PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Person on the street - Science is flawed and limited, it can't tell me why I'm special and important
Scientist - Who said you are special and important?

Prelate - Aw, not only are you special and really important, but right here, I've got this holybook and invisible accompanying god who loves you too! That'll be fifty euro, by the way.

Zombrex · 27-07-2009 02:57PM

TedB wrote: »

The importance is the level of doubt we should all naturally have. If indeed any of us are truly skeptics.

If there is no way to determine that me, as an individual is a cognitive, autonomous being within a 'real' world, then how can anything else be possibly 'true' - or indeed, how can anything be 'fact' or 'false'?

But (again) science does deal in absolutes. A unlike a priest a scientist will never say that something is certainly true. It is always accurate within workable limits.

For example Newton's laws are accurate within certain limits at predicting movement. But the fail at a certain high fidelity. General relativity took over, but that again fails at certain points.

A scientist would never (or should never) say Newtonian laws are "true", without at the very least adding "..up to a point"

Part of the problem is the difference between exact usages of words like "true" or "proof" and common usage of these words. If I say it is true that I am in work I mean that in the common sense of the word. I don't mean that it is proven to a certainty that I'm in work and not a brain in a jar on a space ship hovering above the planet.

It is a workable truth, true up to the point where I can actually do stuff with this information. It is not a certainty or absolute given.

When you think of things in this way it actually becomes some what irrelevant if I'm actually a brain in a jar. To me, for my every day existence, it doesn't matter if I'm a person sitting at a desk or if I'm a brain in a jar believing due to sensory manipulation that I'm a person sitting at a desk. The end result is equivalent.

If I'm not proclaiming absolute truths about the universe around me then I don't need to know if I'm not a brain in a jar.

TedB wrote: »

This is the most important question humanity can ask. Dodging it and pretending it isn't there is intellectually lazy.

You may feel it is the most important question humanity can ask, but considering we can't answer it (at least not at the moment), and that answering it would pose no real advantage to you, I wouldn't agree.

Again what would be the actual difference between me being a person and me being a brain in a jar thinking I'm a person. The end result is the same.

It might be fascinating to find this out, and I certainly don't think people should not ask the questions. But the idea that without this answer we are some how a drift in a sea of uncertainty is some what naive. We are in a sea of uncertainty but we are hardly a drift. We function fine without requiring to know everything for absolute certainty.

Better than the brain in the jar example I think a more mind boggling idea is the idea that the 3D universe is some kind of holographic projection from a 2D plane. This idea has been floated recently as it solves some interesting problems to do with entropy and black holes.

The point to remember though is that if the universe is actually a projection from some where else that doesn't change reality. That just ends up being what reality is. I'm still a person sitting at a desk. It doesn't matter to me that I'm actually a complex 2D shape some where on a plane on the surface of the universe that just appears to be a 3D shape. It is all the same to me.

5 Questions Every Intelligent Atheist MUST Answer

Comments