A colossal accident?

[warpspeedpetey]

We agree that Christianity rests on empiricism then?

Of course not, I just pointed out that its a logical contradiction.

Or at least on evidence.

Evidence is not the same thing as Empiricism, and all rational thought depends on “evidence” so in that there is a reason that anyone thinks anything, yes.

… only statements about truth which have evidence for them ought to be taken seriously…

I don’t understand this sentence. It seems like you are saying that “statements about the subject truth” is that what you mean? If so, such a specific case doesn’t change the geeneral rule from what I can see. Or do you mean that only statements that have evidence can be considered true? Or did you mean that only statements with evidence can be taken seriously? Any of these are the same contradiction. If only statements with evidence can be taken as true or seriously. Where is the evidence that this statement is true? Self refuting logical contradiction.

 

[James1215]

Only statements claiming to be true - ie have a correspondence with reality - which are evidenced ought to be taken seriously. Not that these statements can only be true if there is evidence for them, but that we can only rationally think something is true if there is evidence for it.

That’s reasonable enough, and I don’t think it fits the contradiction you pose.

Obviously something doesn’t have to be vocalised to be (truly) existent, but when we’re talking about things that we want others to accept as plausible/possible/true, if we give no evidence we give them no reason to accept anything.

 

[tonyrey]

1. Nothing need exist.

1. Order needn’t exist.

An original and interesting point. Possibility emanates from God’s creative power. The word is derived from possibilis = “that can be done” - which implies an agent.

2- If all ‘things’ are measureable by space or time or matter or energy or any other form of demonstrable measurement then existence itself is order. If the order of this world were rearranged into any possible world, it could only change the dynamics of the measurements and only result in an altered order. In whatever possible world there is, the absolute of number cannot be denied.

How about chaos?

3- I believe that complexity exists necessarily because of possibility. Having knowledge and experience of possiblities realized within human invention and thought, we are fully aware of the possibilities our ancestors, the first protein particles had.

Complexity presupposes order.

4- If I were to swallow the conventional Koolaid of thought that says there has to be life on other planets, what with billions of galaxies out there, I would have to say yes life need exist. I believe it anyway, not that physical beings have to exist, because there are possible worlds we can conceive of where they do not, but that order has to be maintained, and not from randomness.

Why does order have to be maintained? Why not total chaos?

Thanks, Tobias, for a stimulating post.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Only statements claiming to be true - ie have a correspondence with reality - which are evidenced ought to be taken seriously.

All statements claim to be true, any that did not would be a moot point because their veracity wouldn’t be at question, and how do you mean we know if something corresponds with reality? Empirical evidence. This statement says " Only statements -]claiming to be true - ie have a correspondence with reality - /-]which are evidenced ought to be taken seriously." Its still the contradiction.

The reason why empiricism/verification/falsification died so long ago is because the best logicians and philosophers on the planet couldn’t avoid the contradiction. Their attempts always led to the admission of metaphysical statements, which is what empiricism was meant to avoid. It was a failure. Not verbalizing it doesn’t change anything because its a problem in the logic, not the language. Written symbolically the statements mean the same thing, just like a word problem corresponds to an equation.

Whats the point of being an atheist if the foundation of their beliefs is a logical contradiction? After all, that’s not just believing in the unseen, its literally believing in the impossible. That is much worse than people who simply have faith without much knowledge. I was a reasonable atheist, and now I am not because reason really was more important to me then anything else. You look reasonable to me. Food for thought.

 

[JonPHeretic]

I would be really interested in hearing which abstracta are necessary and why.

The key is possible worlds, if it’s impossible in any world, it’s necessary.

Could you start a thread and give us your argument?

Beyond the time I have available, but I appreciate your interest.

Or link us to some information on it?

Off the top of my head, Here is one place to start.

And how do the more militant atheists react to your Platonism given the vast majority are enamored of the long dead empiricism/verification/falsification statements?

Just to mention to possible lurkers, modern “Platonism” doesn’t resemble Plato’s actual ideas very much anymore. Also, Platonism about Abstract objects enjoys a slight majority in the field.

I’m not sure what a militant atheist is, but I don’t typically share the opinions of popular atheists and their fans. I doubt they’d care.

 

[JonPHeretic]

Yes, they do. There is a mapping between the mathematics and physical actions. He described the physical actions that some one could do with words. This allows us to confirm that 2+2=4 through experimentation.

This is where we disagree. I don’t believe substituting one way of notation for another is experimentation, or even an investigation into a phenomena. Sticks, stones, marbles, dots, or fingers, it’s still the same thing.

 

[JonPHeretic]

If these are not tautological, do they exist independently of our thinking them up?

I would say, yes they do.

 

[James1215]

Warpspeedpetey,

This is very interesting. Was the moment you thought you were no longer an atheist this very point? That if science/empiricism is the only way to test whether something is true, one should ask what is the scientific/empirical test for this statement.

If that was the breaking point for you, fair enough (perhaps…). But I say something slightly different, which is that evidence and also scientific methods are demonstrably effective and reliable, whereas faith is not. If we want to have a true belief or make a true statement, sure, all we have in favour of empiricism is efficacy, but who doesn’t want that? I said that we ought to go by evidence to reflect the fact that this choice of epistemological foundation may ultimately be a choice, but that indeed it is one with a good track record.

Every time we board a plane we’re engaging in an act of faith, but the reason it flies is cold, hard science That’s efficacy in action.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The key is possible worlds, if it’s impossible in any world, it’s necessary.

I am always up for a little frame semantics anything new is interesting.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Warpspeedpetey,

This is very interesting. Was the moment you thought you were no longer an atheist this very point?

No, it was combination of things over time I think (20 years ago). But mostly it was the hate and intolerance, I saw when my philosophy professors talked about G-d. I reasoned my way into atheism as a teen and when I met real atheists, I saw it wasn’t really a matter of logic. Your mileage may vary.

That if science/empiricism is the only way to test whether something is true, one should ask what is the scientific/empirical test for this statement.

Science isn’t the the subject of the conversation here. *I never mentioned science. * Why are you bringing it up? Science doesn’t have anything to do with this topic. We are talking about empiricism as an epistemic system and whether or not it is a satisfactory one. My position is that a logical contradiction cannot form the basis of an effective epistemology. Yours seems to be that it can regardless of its logical impossibility. Surely you are not insisting on the validity of a logical contradiction? That would be the very definition of irrationality. How could you tell a theist he is unjustified in his beliefs, when you would be unjustified in your own? Wouldn’t that be the kind of hypocrisy that atheists dislike so strongly in the faith meme?

The empiricism of the scientific method used strictly for empirical experimentation protects the falsification of the experiments. Its nothing more than a lab rule. There is nothing wrong with that. Its only when people confuse a very small, very limited tool, useful only in regards to experimentation as an epistemic philosophy and not a lab rule, that we encounter problems. If basic logic or the history of philosophy were taught to every student, this wouldn’t even be an issue, they would never confuse a lab rule for a valid epistemology, every student would be aware that it failed as an epistemology. You aren’t the first, nearly every atheist who walks in here confuses the scientific methods application of empiricism for an epistemic system. The truth is that the scientific method is very successful only in the realm of empirical things and such success does not justify an extension of empiricism beyond the lab.

 

[James1215]

Yes I knew that you did not mention science, but science is related to empiricism, and I have not swapped the terms but added science to it.

I brought up science not because of mere ‘lab rules’, but the general approaches that claims must be evidenced for credibility as demonstrated in science: provisional hypotheses, experimental tests, analysis of evidence, modification of theories, peer review.

These are good ways to show that what one person thinks is actually informative and not just an opinion. Whilst other academic disciplines are not scientific, by using evidence and peer review they match that test of credibility as far as is possible. So it is not false to draw attention to science as a model of some sort of epistemic system.

As to the accusation that science can only deal with empirical evidence, why do you say this? All of our perceptions and observations are empirical, and there is nothing more outside of these that is relevant here - to the theist or atheist. Science you admit is good where it deals with these empirical matters, and I wholeheartedly agree. Most religious people seem to have experienced or perceived something that stimulates belief; it is not through a lack of empirical evidence for God that they have faith. If faith is perfectly ‘legitimate’ in the absence of any empirical evidence, why should one have it? That would take us into the flying spaghetti monster’s territory, and He is very unforgiving.

So how is it a logical contradiction to say that one ought to use evidence to make a point? The use of evidence is certainly epistemologically satisfying! Whether empiricism is dogmatic you may be right, but it is not dogmatic to say that ‘the use of evidence has been very successful and is effective at demonstrating that what you think has grounding, when faith offers nothing so convincing’. That is exactly my position

…We are talking about empiricism as an epistemic system and whether or not it is a satisfactory one. My position is that a logical contradiction cannot form the basis of an effective epistemology. Yours seems to be that it can regardless of its logical impossibility. Surely you are not insisting on the validity of a logical contradiction? That would be the very definition of irrationality. How could you tell a theist he is unjustified in his beliefs, when you would be unjustified in your own? Wouldn’t that be the kind of hypocrisy that atheists dislike so strongly in the faith meme?

…The truth is that the scientific method is very successful only in the realm of empirical things and such success does not justify an extension of empiricism beyond the lab.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…science is related to empiricism…That is exactly my position

You are conflating philosophical and scientific empiricism.

Philosophical Empiricism

According to the empiricist view, for any knowledge to be properly inferred or deduced, it is to be gained ultimately from one’s sense-based experience.

Scientific Empiricism

A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence that is observable by the senses. It is differentiated from the philosophic usage of empiricism by the use of the adjective “empirical” or the adverb “empirically”.

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

 

[James1215]

Ok so the difference is that the philosophical stance is empiricism while science is empirical.

But what is wrong with relying upon evidence? Isn’t religious evidence empirical? For example, can you demonstrate to me that there is something beyond my perception in any convincing way without drawing something into perception?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…But what is wrong with relying upon evidence?

If you are practicing the scientific method, then nothing. When you are practicing the philosophy, everything. Its a logical contradiction. Because the scientific method is so efficacious, and basic philosophy is not taught in schools anymore people do not know the difference or what it means. Hence thousands of atheists roaming the electronic country side declaring faith is irrational because it doesn’t meet the standard of a logical contradiction. lol. Its not their fault, the education system completely failed them, they think they are being perfectly rational, from their viewpoint we are loons…only we are not the ones who believe a logical contradiction is a valid…in reality, we are the ones being rational by rejecting it as one would anything else that was a logical contradiction.

Hume’s phrase is most apropo

“A little philosophy makes a man an Atheist: a great deal converts him to religion”
— David Hume (Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion)

Isn’t religious evidence empirical?

If you mean physical events occurred and from them stems our faith, yes, I suppose we could call it empirical in that sense.

For example, can you demonstrate to me that there is something beyond my perception in any convincing way without drawing something into perception?

I am not sure what you mean by “drawing something into perception”. But until you can clarify let me ask you what you mean by “demonstrating”, and what you mean by “convincing”. I think you might have a hard time formulating an answer without using the empirical statement in some way. By “demonstrate” I think you probably mean to provide empirical evidence. By “convincing” I think you probably mean the same thing. Its ingrained in your world view. If that is not what you mean, then let me know.

 

[PJM]

=tonyrey;8087378]1. Nothing need exist.

1. Order needn’t exist.

1. Complexity needn’t exist.

1. Life needn’t exist.

1. Consciousness needn’t exist.

1. Intelligence needn’t exist.

1. Self-control needn’t exist.

1. Goodness needn’t exist.

1. Beauty needn’t exist.

1. Love needn’t exist.

To think everything exists for no reason is absurd…

I hadn’t thought of this in this precise manner. GREAT JOB! I like it:thumbsup:

God Bless,
Pat

 

[JonPHeretic]

What is it about empirical epistemology that is contradictory?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What is it about empirical epistemology that is contradictory?

For instance.

“A statement can only be proven true by empirical/verification/falsification means.” Is a logical contradiction because the act of holding it true makes it false. Therefore it is necessarily false. It is a metaphysical statement that seeks to deny metaphysical statements are true/meaningful/ etc. The empiricist is secretly a dogmatic metaphysician practicing his own little faith.

You won’t have much problem with this because you are a rationalist also. I tend to think in pics, so I am not particularly well spoken you would find a more colloquial explanation here

**Bertrand Russell: **
I will observe, however, that empiricism, as a theory of knowledge, is self-refuting. For, however it may be formulated, it must involve some general proposition about the dependence of knowledge upon experience; and that any such proposition, if true, must have as a consequence that itself cannot be known. While, therefore, empiricism may be true, it cannot, if true, be known to be so.

 

[James1215]

If you mean physical events occurred and from them stems our faith, yes, I suppose we could call it empirical in that sense.

Then might we not both fall into the trap you describe?

 

[James1215]

As to ‘demonstration’, ‘convincing’ and ‘perception’…

I don’t think relying upon evidence is restricted purely to when one happens to be practicing the scientific method, which I wanted to intimate in a way with these words.

‘can you demonstrate to me that there is something beyond my perception in any convincing way without drawing something into perception’

No you can’t: where ‘demonstrating’ involves showing, and showing perceiving, the whole thing is circular! This is just it, in life we have to be able to perceive something to believe it. Hence the Bible, Testament, etc - these are evidence.

I reckon the problem is that while empiricism may be dogmatic (and not empirically verifiable), the appeal to evidence is still always a good idea for getting to the truth of a matter. Note your own distinction between empiricism and an ‘empirical epistemology’

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Then might we not both fall into the trap you describe?

We aren’t empiricists by definition, we are rationalists. But what if we were? Would that make the empiricism any less of a contradiction? The Tu Quoque is a difficult argument to make, because even if the other party suffers the same error, it doesn’t fix the problem in the first parties position. Its an ad hominem an argument against the person and not the position.

Now all that said, what you seem to really be asking is if you can still claim that faith is irrational in light of empiricism’s loss. Remember, we do not reason to find a truth that is acceptable to us, we reason to find the truth that we might accept it.