Atheists and the validity of reason

[Sarpedon]

Atheists posit a reality in which there is only STEM- space, time, energy and matter (although technically energy and matter are the same).

How do they come to this conclusion?

They do so by using reason (whether that reason is true or not is irrelevant for this discussion).

Now, reason is a function of the mind in which the mind deduces truths from observed or abstract things. Reason only exists as a derivitive of the mind. If there where no reason-capable minds left in existence, reason would no longer exist in “conceptual existence”. The observable enitities and abstract things reason deals with would still exist, but there would be mind to “connect the dots” so to speak.

Since STEM is the only reality, the brain is composed of STEM. Since the mind is the function of the brain, it is a derivitive of STEM. Since reason is an operation of the mind, it is also a derivitive of STEM.

Having established (per atheism) that reason is a derivitive of STEM (and nothing else), what assurance have we that reason derives from STEM in such a way as to assure its accuracy?

If the mind is derived from STEM, how do we know that it accurately percieves reality? How do we know that the STEM-mind we have connects the dots correctly?

In a nutshell: in a reality of only STEM, how can we assume that our mind is always accurate? Given that STEM has no purpose and no ultimate direction, why should we assume that it would form an entity capable of understanding reality and deducing philosophical truths? This seems like an incredible accomplishment for purposeless stuff. Even if it did manage to form this entity, why should we assume that we are in possession of it?

 

[Touchstone]

Atheists posit a reality in which there is only STEM- space, time, energy and matter (although technically energy and matter are the same).

How do they come to this conclusion?

This is the most robust and effective model available for explaining the status and behavior of the world around us. We’ve arrived at this model over centuries of observation, analysis, skepticism and empirical testing.

They do so by using reason (whether that reason is true or not is irrelevant for this discussion).

Reason is required but not sufficient. Reason must be integrated with experience to arrive at the materialist model of reality.

Now, reason is a function of the mind in which the mind deduces truths from observed or abstract things. Reason only exists as a derivitive of the mind. If there where no reason-capable minds left in existence, reason would no longer exist in “conceptual existence”. The observable enitities and abstract things reason deals with would still exist, but there would be mind to “connect the dots” so to speak.

If there were no reason-capable minds left in existence, reason would cease to exist.

Since STEM is the only reality, the brain is composed of STEM.

It’s important to be precise here. Materialism does not rule out extensions to it’s understanding of reality – if a ‘third state’ of ‘stuff’ that was neither energy or matter were empirically derivable as a functional concept from the world around us, for example, that would be an annexation to the current reality model. Materialism limits what is real as a method, a method that demands performance and coherence for the term real. It does not fix its conclusions just for the sake of drawing a perimeter.

There may be more to reality than STEM, but if so, it will have to be established through reason and evidence, which leaves out current and historical models of ‘supernatural’ and the like. If there’s more, it must be qualified before it can be integrated into the model.

Since the mind is the function of the brain, it is a derivitive of STEM. Since reason is an operation of the mind, it is also a derivitive of STEM.

Ok so far, provisionally.

Having established (per atheism) that reason is a derivitive of STEM (and nothing else), what assurance have we that reason derives from STEM in such a way as to assure its accuracy?

The performance of reason and science in the real world. Atheists make the unavoidable leap that all reasoning, living minds must make that reality is real, and observation generally reflects the state of reality around them.This is not faith like embracing Allah or Vishnu or Yahweh, but compulsory for humans who want to live, eat, and avoid being burned, eaten, crushed or otherwise killed or seriously harmed by the necessary consequences of denying that reality is real.

Once the atheist commits to the reality of reality, like every other human who chooses to live, then reason applied to evidence becomes a power tool for building ever more sophisticated and performative models of reality. Newton could supply you with very adequate math for plotting the path of a baseball through the air, but broke down in predicting more difficult things like the precise orbit of the planet Mercury. Einstein, using reason and observation, was able to develop a competing model that provided similar utility in plotting the path of a baseball, but was also able to predict with stunning accuracy future positions of the planet Mercury, among other things.

If you believe reality is real, reason applied to observation and testing is able to provide the best available explanations and predictions for that reality.

If the mind is derived from STEM, how do we know that it accurately percieves reality? How do we know that the STEM-mind we have connects the dots correctly?

If you believe the natural world is real, then answer is simple – reason provides falsifiable explanations, predictions and integrated models that are not matched by any other known method. Reason is by definition a fallible and imperfect endeavor, so there cannot be any guarantees of perfection or complete correctness. But it demonstrably matches up (“connects the dots”) our perceptions with explanatory models better than anything else.

If you don’t believe reality is real, all bets are off. Reason won’t help you, in that case.

In a nutshell: in a reality of only STEM, how can we assume that our mind is always accurate?

It’s not reasonable to assume this. Demonstrably, our minds are sometimes inaccuration, and everyone possesses some amount of illusion and false beliefs.

It’s important to understand that reason is a method, and doesn’t attempt to come with guarantees. For example, at a recent lunch, a colleague’s chair broke as he sat down at the table, sending him tumbling to the floor. Was he reasonable in thinking the chair would hold him? He was easily the smallest of the men in the party, and the chairs were all ostensibly the same, and hefty looking chairs, too. He reasonably believed something false, that the chair in front of him would bear his weight, as our chairs did for us, along with everyone else in the restaurant that day.

Reason will often lead to a false belief. It’s not foolproof or a panacea. Instead, it is a means of making optimal judgments and inferences based on the (limited) evidence available.

Given that STEM has no purpose and no ultimate direction, why should we assume that it would form an entity capable of understanding reality and deducing philosophical truths?

If you accept the reality of reality – which is an assumption (but a necessary one), then STEM emerges from the reasoning and observational process as the model that best explains the world around us, while having to justify the reality of the resources it uses for its explanation (God and the like as explanations get their explanatory resources by illicit means, by naked assertion or unfounded assumption). Using reason in a disciplined way, STEM is what emerges as the “stuff of reality”.

This seems like an incredible accomplishment for purposeless stuff. Even if it did manage to form this entity, why should we assume that we are in possession of it?

If reality is real, and observation reflects reality, then the reasoning process applied to observation leads to STEM-based models of that reality, due to the superior performance of that model in terms of falsifiability, predictive performance, explanatory power and accounting for available evidence and observations. It may be just partially correct – it is certainly only partially correct as a model of our underlying reality – but it performs and achieve where nothing else can.

-Touchstone

 

[ateista]

Could not have said it any better than Touchstone.

Let me add something: the properties of STEM are not separate from STEM, though they are not the same. “Movement” for example is not an ontological object, but it is tightly coupled to a STEM-reality object. The “mind” is not an ontological object, it is the electro-chemical activity of the brain. The properties are not ontological objects themelves, they are the characteristics of ontological objects.

I would like to add one more thing. Many times people argue that we accept the external reality, or the accuracy of out senses and many of our basic principles on “faith”. That is a serious misuse of the word.

The word “explanation” means to reduce a complex phenomenon to a simpler, and already accepted or understood model. Without a set of basic principles, that cannot be “proven” there would be an infinite descent of explanations. These basic principles are accepted axiomatically, because their denial would lead to logical and physical absurdities.

 

[Sarpedon]

There may be more to reality than STEM, but if so, it will have to be established through reason and evidence, which leaves out current and historical models of ‘supernatural’ and the like. If there’s more, it must be qualified before it can be integrated into the model.

So natural philosophy and the scientific method are the only acceptable means for arriving at truth? If so, see my response to Ateista below.

The performance of reason and science in the real world. Atheists make the unavoidable leap that aperformative models of reality. Newton could supply you with very adequate mall reasoning, living minds must make that reality is real, and observation generally reflects the state of reality around them.This is not faith like embracing Allah or Vishnu or Yahweh, but compulsory for humans who want to live, eat, and avoid being burned, eaten, crushed or otherwise killed or seriously harmed by the necessary consequences of denying that reality is real.

Exactly. This is a necessary position for any person who wants language and ideas to have meaning. I accept it, as do you and all atheists. The question is whether the atheistic or theistic model of explanation is the most coherent for explaning the decidely unscientific leap of faith we all take.

If you believe reality is real, reason applied to observation and testing is able to provide the best available explanations and predictions for that reality.

The key word phrase here is “believe that reality is real”. Anything after this statement is irrelevant to the question at hand, because it assumes the thing is question to be true.

I want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to argue for solipism or that what we percieve is not the true reality. Rather, I argue that the atheistic explanation for how and why we know that we percieve reality correctly is vastly inferior to the theistic explanation.

If you believe the natural world is real, then answer is simple – reason provides falsifiable explanations, predictions and integrated models that are not matched by any other known method.

This also assumes the thing in question.

 

[Sarpedon]

I would like to add one more thing. Many times people argue that we accept the external reality, or the accuracy of out senses and many of our basic principles on “faith”. That is a serious misuse of the word.

The word “explanation” means to reduce a complex phenomenon to a simpler, and already accepted or understood model. Without a set of basic principles, that cannot be “proven” there would be an infinite descent of explanations. These basic principles are accepted axiomatically, because their denial would lead to logical and physical absurdities.

(my emphasis)

Here you have demonstrated the logical flaw in the position that we can only know truth through the scientific method and natural philosophy. Each of these methods ultimately rest of the truth of axioms unproven by either the scientific method or natural philosophy.

You say that these axioms cannot be denied because they would lead to absurdities. This may be true for some axioms (within the system of axioms still held), but ultimately this is not true. For example, why do you hold the axiom that logical or physical absurdities cannot be real? I accept it on faith.

 

[Sarpedon]

Having established that we all accept the axiom that our minds accurately percieve truth, we can move on from there. There are two main ways to explain why this axiom is true.

1. An intelligence programmed it that way
2. STEM either came into being during the big bang or has always existed. It has no direction, purpose, or guidance. Eventually, it formed into various physical objects. Some of these were planets. On these planets, lipid bubbles gained small constructions such as mitochrondria and DNA. This lipid bubbles could reproduce, and began to evolve in response to the enviroment.

Remember that so far, all of this has been unguided and without purpose of direction.

Eventually, these “cells” became multicellular organisms. These organisms continued to evolve and adapt to their enviroment. Eventually, they evolved into land animals.

Keep in mind that all of these organisms are ultimately organic compounds that are arranged in a certain way as to be able to function together.

These land organisms continued to evolve. Eventually, a type of organism known as the “monkey” evolved in Africa. One type of monkey began to walk bipedally. The organic compounds known as its “brain” evolved further, much farther than most animals. These compounds gained the ability to plan and create tools. They did not stop there, however. They continued, forming into an organic computer capable of self-conciousness. They went even further, developing the ability to arrive at the truths of reality. What’s more, they were capable of doing it without error.

This is quite an accomplishment for those organic compounds. Given the fact that none of this had to happen and it was completely unplanned and undirected, I find it fortunate that it actually took this course. Quite honestly, as a third-party oberver I would almost think this would be too improbable- especially the part about the lack of any glitches in the system.

Is the second scenario possible? Certainly. But it’s also possible that Elvis is still alive. Honestly, I am not apt to believe either scenario 2 or that Elvis is alive.

 

[Touchstone]

So natural philosophy and the scientific method are the only acceptable means for arriving at truth? If so, see my response to Ateista below.

In objective terms, yes, but only as a matter of circumstance, rather than prescription. I have no trouble with “blue is the most beautiful color” being a final truth completely apart from any scientific investigation, because I understand that proposition to be inherently subjective. It’s ‘true’ as a matter of personal preference.

But for other propositions, objective qualifications obtain. If you claim “Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States”, that would carry propositional content that bears objective confirmation (or disconfirmation). When it comes to objective propositions, propositions which are ‘true’ or ‘false’ independent of the preferences or desires of the subject, then reason applied to evidence and observation is the best tool we’ve got.

Exactly. This is a necessary position for any person who wants language and ideas to have meaning. I accept it, as do you and all atheists. The question is whether the atheistic or theistic model of explanation is the most coherent for explaning the decidely unscientific leap of faith we all take.

Coherence is a minimal qualification, and really only means you’ve avoided be nonsensical and/or self-contradictory. Being incoherent is good rational grounds to discount a model, but coherence doesn’t prove out its truth. And even then, the theistic model has huge problems with coherence, at least theistic models that sustain the idea of ‘supernatural’. As I’ve been pointing at over on the “Evidence and Existence” thread, ‘supernatural’ is a very sketchy concept, and I’m being charitable in putting it that way.

In any case, what commends one hypothesis over the other is the ability to account for its resources, account for the available evidence, make novel, precise and successful predictions, and liability to falsifiability. Given that theism isn’t able to account for its explanatory resources (God, for example, is not available in evidence, but is relied upon in crucial ways for the explanation), this is a serious problem for theism as a matter of straight reasoning. Materialists cannot point to the precise sequence of protein combinations responsible for abiogenesis, but they can support the idea that the necessary materials and elements were around and available at the point for the formational processes. The “stuff” was there, even if we are ignorant of many of specifics of the formation process.

In theism, the “raw materials” aren’t anywhere to be found, even. So a lot of this will depend on if one feels free to skip over the conspicuous absence of the basic resources used in the explanation. Materialism, by contrast, is unable appeal to miracles or other “intelligent interventions”, and must provide its explanations in the context of what can be plausibly supported as available and capable naturally.

The key word phrase here is “believe that reality is real”. Anything after this statement is irrelevant to the question at hand, because it assumes the thing is question to be true.

I want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to argue for solipism or that what we percieve is not the true reality. Rather, I argue that the atheistic explanation for how and why we know that we percieve reality correctly is vastly inferior to the theistic explanation.

OK, well maybe you can tell me what makes an explanation 'inferior" or “superior”. As I said above, in my view, competing hypotheses must provide:

a) account for explanatory resources (did the raw materials for DNA formation in deep ocean ravines plausibly exist for abiogenesis, for example? Does “God” plausibly exist as the basis for whatever God is through to have done or created?)
b) account for the available data
c) novel, precise, successful predictions about future events, and past events where the results are/were unknown at the time of prediction?
d) liability to being falsified.

Competitors are judged on these criteria, where a), b) and d) are really just minimal qualifiers (if it can’t be falsified, it ain’t worth considering, for example), and c) is where the real “inferiority” and “superiority” are established with respect to competitors.

That’s my brief overview. Can you give me an overview of your criteria for “superior” vs. “inferior”?

This also assumes the thing in question.

No, it does not. Theism could be the method that makes better predictions and performs better under testing than applied reason. That’s not the way things have worked out, but that’s not to say that it could not have been that way. If you believe reality is real, then there is no enterprise that provides more precision and detail in modeling that reaity than applied reasoning and science. That’s the post facto conclusion, rather than the a prior assumption.

The only way to assault that idea would be solipsism, and an appeal to the idea that a model corresponding better than anything else to the observations and dynamics of our experiecne is somehow not corresponding to reality better than anything else. It’s just a recapitulation of the idea that reality isn’t real, in that case.

-Touchstone

 

[ateista]

Here you have demonstrated the logical flaw in the position that we can only know truth through the scientific method and natural philosophy. Each of these methods ultimately rest of the truth of axioms unproven by either the scientific method or natural philosophy.

An important question: what do you mean by the phrase “to know truth”? There are two distinct environments of knowledge: one is the physical reality and the other is the abstract systems. (We can safely forget about music, literature and other artistic endeavors. The hypothetical question: “Is the Ninth Symphony true?” is simply nonsensical.)

In the natural sciences which deal with the physical world we have basic principles (which are not actually axioms), like the preservation of matter and energy. These are very well established, but it is possible that any or all of them eventually will be falsified. If and when it happens we shall have to do a major revision of our view of reality.

As long as our models conform to the specific aspect of reality we speak of a good, useful, correct or “true” model. This kind of “truth” is verified empirically.

In the abstract sciences (mathematics and abstract games, like chess) we set up some basic axioms, and “play” with the results. The axioms **can be **totally arbitrary. In these environments something is “true” if it is a logical corollary of the axioms.

Logic is part of the abstract sciences, but it is also a “meta-science”. The three laws of logic are not arbitrary. They cannot be denied, because to attempt to deny them would be also affirming them. Without the law of identity, we literally could not to speak of anything. Without the law of contradiction we could not speak of “truth” or “falsehood”. Without the law of excluded middle we would get absurdities that we have something “in beteween” a proposition and the negation of the proposition (something would be neither “white” nor “not-white”, neither “true” nor “not-true”).

To accept these one does not need “faith”, one must accept them or become a lunatic.

You say that these axioms cannot be denied because they would lead to absurdities. This may be true for some axioms (within the system of axioms still held), but ultimately this is not true. For example, why do you hold the axiom that logical or physical absurdities cannot be real? I accept it on faith.

What do you mean by the highlighted text? If you wish to retain coherence, you cannot deny the law of identity or the law of contradiction.

I find it strange that you need “faith” to accept that there are no 4-sided triangles, or married bachelors.

And another question: please clarify for me the exact meaning of the word “faith”. This is a very abused word, it is used both as “to believe the veracity of something lacking Cartesian certainty”, and it is also used as an “alternative method (beside reason) as an epistemological tool”. I would like to understand which of these possible meanings do you have in mind when you use it.

 

[ateista]

Having established that we all accept the axiom that our minds accurately percieve truth, we can move on from there. There are two main ways to explain why this axiom is true.

No, it has not been established at all. We can agree that the physical reality exists, and the information about the reality is available to the mind.

The mind can take the information and it can build a model about the reality. The model can be accurate or incorrect. If it is accurate, it can make successful prediction about the reality. If it is incorrect, reality will prove it incorrect. Sometimes the incorrect model can have fatal consequences, thus preventing the organism to propagate its genes.

The model building has a positive and negative feedback “built” into it.

1. An intelligence programmed it that way

Of course the question immediately arises: “who programmed the intelligence”? Did it just “emerge” from somewhere via sheer “chance”?

But a more serious objection is that we are capable of building incorrect models of reality. What kind of “intelligence” would build a mind which is capable of such errors? The fact that we are capable of building incorrect models speaks ill of the hypothesised “intelligence”. Maybe it built us “imperfect” because it was unable to do better. Maybe it built us “imperfect” out of spite?

1. STEM either came into being during the big bang or has always existed. It has no direction, purpose, or guidance. Eventually, it formed into various physical objects. Some of these were planets. On these planets, lipid bubbles gained small constructions such as mitochrondria and DNA. This lipid bubbles could reproduce, and began to evolve in response to the enviroment.

Remember that so far, all of this has been unguided and without purpose of direction.

Eventually, these “cells” became multicellular organisms. These organisms continued to evolve and adapt to their enviroment. Eventually, they evolved into land animals.

Keep in mind that all of these organisms are ultimately organic compounds that are arranged in a certain way as to be able to function together.

These land organisms continued to evolve. Eventually, a type of organism known as the “monkey” evolved in Africa. One type of monkey began to walk bipedally. The organic compounds known as its “brain” evolved further, much farther than most animals. These compounds gained the ability to plan and create tools. They did not stop there, however. They continued, forming into an organic computer capable of self-conciousness. They went even further, developing the ability to arrive at the truths of reality. What’s more, they were capable of doing it without error.

Up until the last sentence your description is quite accurate. The last sentence (highlighted) is not true, by a long shot.

This is quite an accomplishment for those organic compounds. Given the fact that none of this had to happen and it was completely unplanned and undirected, I find it fortunate that it actually took this course. Quite honestly, as a third-party oberver I would almost think this would be too improbable- especially the part about the lack of any glitches in the system.

Your reasoning is akin to the lottery player who is unaware of the existence of the other lottery players. He only knows that there is a one in 45 million chance of winning. He went and bought one ticket, and hit the jackpot. He cannot believe how lucky he was, and declares that a benevolent “intelligence” organized it that way.

The theory of probabilities is not intutive. Before we speak of “luck” we had better examine the Kolmogorov-space and ascertain the probabilities of the events.

(And forget about the lack of “glitches” in the system! Their number is huge!)

 

[Sarpedon]

Logic is part of the abstract sciences, but it is also a “meta-science”. The three laws of logic are not arbitrary. They cannot be denied, because to attempt to deny them would be also affirming them. Without the law of identity, we literally could not to speak of anything. Without the law of contradiction we could not speak of “truth” or “falsehood”. Without the law of excluded middle we would get absurdities that we have something “in beteween” a proposition and the negation of the proposition (something would be neither “white” nor “not-white”, neither “true” nor “not-true”).

To accept these one does not need “faith”, one must accept them or become a lunatic.

Actually, we need faith because they are not proven and only apparent. How do we know that what is “apparent” is true? How do you know that we don’t live in a Matrix world? How do you know that the biological pathways known as the “senses” have evolved to process their data in a way that makes truth known? All that is necessary for evolution is fitness, not necessarily true understanding.

What do you mean by the highlighted text? If you wish to retain coherence, you cannot deny the law of identity or the law of contradiction.

I find it strange that you need “faith” to accept that there are no 4-sided triangles, or married bachelors.

And another question: please clarify for me the exact meaning of the word “faith”. This is a very abused word, it is used both as “to believe the veracity of something lacking Cartesian certainty”, and it is also used as an “alternative method (beside reason) as an epistemological tool”. I would like to understand which of these possible meanings do you have in mind when you use it.

By “faith” I mean accepting something as true without syllogistic proof.

As an example, consider Euclidian geometry. I would consider postulates to be a matter of faith in that they are only apparent, not proved. Other things in geometry can be proved, but only insofar as the postulates are true.

It seems as if there is only one line parallel to a given line through a single point. This seems to be true, but we lack proof of it. Other things can be known with certainty by deduction from that postulate, but only insofar as the postulate is true.

You are going to say that postulates can be known with certainty despite lacking proof because they are “self-apparent”. I disagree. They are self-apparent, but then the question can be moved to how we know that self-apparent things are in fact true, and then on to how we know that truth is a real concept, and on and on and on. At some point (the location of which is not necessary to determine) faith becomes necessary, because we need starting point for reason.

 

[Sarpedon]

No, it has not been established at all. We can agree that the physical reality exists, and the information about the reality is available to the mind.

The part I bolded is where you depart from what I am talking about. We know that we have information (i.e. this is hot, this is cold, that is green). The question is whether the information correctly reflects the subject (reality). I maintain as a matter of faith that it does, and atheists usually do as well.

Of course the question immediately arises: “who programmed the intelligence”? Did it just “emerge” from somewhere via sheer “chance”?

God is usually proposed as the “end” of things that otherwise would have an infinite regress. For example, God is the unprogrammed programmer because otherwise an infinite regress would result. (whether an infinite regress is logical is a whole nother discussion. I am willing to take it up with you, but not on this thread)

But a more serious objection is that we are capable of building incorrect models of reality. What kind of “intelligence” would build a mind which is capable of such errors? The fact that we are capable of building incorrect models speaks ill of the hypothesised “intelligence”. Maybe it built us “imperfect” because it was unable to do better. Maybe it built us “imperfect” out of spite?

Actually, we all form (barring mental problems) a correct model of reality in the sense that God has designed our senses to correctly transmit true information about reality. God gives us the free will to try to discover more about reality, but He gives us the correct starting blocks. Why God doesn’t instantly infuse us with all knowledge is another discussion as well, one I am willing to engage you in on a separate thread.

Up until the last sentence your description is quite accurate. The last sentence (highlighted) is not true, by a long shot.

Then why on earth would you risk your eternal salvation by believing a potentially faulty computer?

Your reasoning is akin to the lottery player who is unaware of the existence of the other lottery players. He only knows that there is a one in 45 million chance of winning. He went and bought one ticket, and hit the jackpot. He cannot believe how lucky he was, and declares that a benevolent “intelligence” organized it that way.

In the lottery, someone has to win. In my example of an unguided, undirected reality, no one has to win at all.

(And forget about the lack of “glitches” in the system! Their number is huge!)

Then please don’t trust it too much! Why are you even here?

The point of my argument is not that atheism is impossible, rather, that it is so unlikely that it is unreasonable to believe it. For example, is it possible that Bush is a pawn of galatic space aliens trying to take over earth? Of course. Would you take someone who held that position seriously? I wouldn’t.

 

[ateista]

Actually, we need faith because they are not proven and only apparent. How do we know that what is “apparent” is true?

What is the difference? If all our senses tell us that it is “true”, then what kind of “authority” is there to appeal to?

Let me give you an example. Suppose we walk in a desert and see a “lake” in the distance. Our sense (vision) tells us that it is a lake. Now you may warn me that maybe what we see there is not a lake at all, it is a mirage. You explain about the reflection of hot air creating an illusion. What can we do?

Well, we can continue to walk and arrive at something that looks like a lake. We drink from the water, we take a swim. At that point it would make no sense to deny that it is a lake. To say that maybe it is just an illusion. That all our senses “lie” to us.

This would be what is called “universal skepticism”. It is very easy to refute.

How do you know that we don’t live in a Matrix world?

We don’t. And it is irrelevant. If we live in a Matrix, then it is the reality.

How do you know that the biological pathways known as the “senses” have evolved to process their data in a way that makes truth known? All that is necessary for evolution is fitness, not necessarily true understanding.

Understanding has a huge survival value. The better the understanding, the more accurate the prediction will be.

By “faith” I mean accepting something as true without syllogistic proof.

Syllogistic proof is only possible in an axiomatic system. The natural sciences are not axiomatically based. Your definition of faith is simply not applicable there.

As an example, consider Euclidian geometry. I would consider postulates to be a matter of faith in that they are only apparent, not proved.

Of the six postulates only the famous fifth one in not self-evident. And consequently, it was substituted by two other ones, and next to the Euclidean geometry came the Riemann geomerty (on the surface of a sphere) and the Bolyai-Gauss-Lobatchevski geometry (on the surface of psudo-sphere). All there are valid, on three different surfaces. There in no need to have faith.

At some point (the location of which is not necessary to determine) faith becomes necessary, because we need starting point for reason.

Self-evident starting points should not be called “faith”.

 

[ateista]

The part I bolded is where you depart from what I am talking about. We know that we have information (i.e. this is hot, this is cold, that is green). The question is whether the information correctly reflects the subject (reality). I maintain as a matter of faith that it does, and atheists usually do as well.

The proof of the pudding is that it is edible. One can only doubt it at the peril of destruction. If one believes (on faith) that sand has nutritional value, he can try and survive on a diet of sand. Reality will not tolerate it, the experiemnter will die. Where is the need for faith here?

Then why on earth would you risk your eternal salvation by believing a potentially faulty computer?

If you can substantiate the “eternal salvation”, I will reconsider. So far I only have your word for it.

In the lottery, someone has to win. In my example of an unguided, undirected reality, no one has to win at all.

You did not tell me why is it that someone has to win? Because there are millions of players. The drawing of the lottery is just as random and unguided.

The truth is that the whole “probability based” argument against atheism is based on a faulty understanding of probability theory. If you want me, I can give you a short summary why it is totally incorrect. Let me know. It will be a few paragraphs, but I am not inclined to do it if you are not interested.

The point of my argument is not that atheism is impossible, rather, that it is so unlikely that it is unreasonable to believe it. For example, is it possible that Bush is a pawn of galatic space aliens trying to take over earth? Of course. Would you take someone who held that position seriously? I wouldn’t.

Of couse not. That is why I don’t take it seriously that an unknown and unknowable entity using pure magic made this world what it is. Bush being a pawn in an inter-galactic power struggle is far more probable.

 

[Sarpedon]

What is the difference? If all our senses tell us that it is “true”, then what kind of “authority” is there to appeal to?

None. We need faith, because nothing is left. Even if we had an authority we would just push the problem back a little bit farther.

Let me give you an example. Suppose we walk in a desert and see a “lake” in the distance. Our sense (vision) tells us that it is a lake. Now you may warn me that maybe what we see there is not a lake at all, it is a mirage. You explain about the reflection of hot air creating an illusion. What can we do?

Well, we can continue to walk and arrive at something that looks like a lake. We drink from the water, we take a swim. At that point it would make no sense to deny that it is a lake. To say that maybe it is just an illusion. That all our senses “lie” to us.

This would be what is called “universal skepticism”. It is very easy to refute.

Then refute it.

I do not believe in universal skepticism. However, I would consider it the only logical position if you require proof for everything. If you add faith to the picture, you can escape the trap of having to prove everything (with nothing to build off of) and begin to base reason off accepted axioms.

We don’t. And it is irrelevant. If we live in a Matrix, then it is the reality.

But all of our senses would be telling us otherwise, and so would reason. The guy in the matrix could be saying the same things that you are saying, only they wouldn’t be true.

Understanding has a huge survival value. The better the understanding, the more accurate the prediction will be.

To some degree, sure. But knowing philosophy? In my experience, that doesn’t help with much in terms of survival.

I can understand why religion would have evolved. People who are religious tend to lead statistically healthier and happier lives. It brings the community together, and aids in hard times.

There’s one catch, though. People can choose to be non-religious, and thus hurt their survival chances. I would think that evolution would have selected humans who follow religion without question. Since religion is helpful, natural selection should have eliminated any capacity for doubt from us. The fact that people can doubt seems to me like a powerful indicater that something beyond natural selection is at work.

Syllogistic proof is only possible in an axiomatic system. The natural sciences are not axiomatically based. Your definition of faith is simply not applicable there.

Your’re right. That wasn’t the best term to use. I consider faith to be accepting something as true without proof. Several different kinds of proof can be used, and the type influences the degree of faith. For example, I consider all scientific theories to require faith in that they are not absolutely proven. Certainly, some have more evidence and thus require less faith, but all require faith to some extent. In some situations I choose to not place my faith in a theory or choose between competing theories, and don’t take a position.

Of the six postulates only the famous fifth one in not self-evident. And consequently, it was substituted by two other ones, and next to the Euclidean geometry came the Riemann geomerty (on the surface of a sphere) and the Bolyai-Gauss-Lobatchevski geometry (on the surface of psudo-sphere). All there are valid, on three different surfaces. There in no need to have faith.

Can you back up your last statement?

Self-evident starting points should not be called “faith”.

Well, I disagree. Can you support your position?

 

[Sarpedon]

The proof of the pudding is that it is edible. One can only doubt it at the peril of destruction. If one believes (on faith) that sand has nutritional value, he can try and survive on a diet of sand. Reality will not tolerate it, the experiemnter will die. Where is the need for faith here?

Maybe his death is only within his perception and experience of reality and not in the true reality.

If you can substantiate the “eternal salvation”, I will reconsider. So far I only have your word for it.

My point was that it seems foolish to me to reject God for philosophical reasons and at the same time maintain that our minds are not necessarily accurate.

You did not tell me why is it that someone has to win? Because there are millions of players. The drawing of the lottery is just as random and unguided.

No matter how many people play lottery, a winner will be chosen. In the atheistic model, no one is trying or planning to choose a winner. It could just as easily have no winner at all, and when you count the odds of both the people playing and the fact that no one is planning on picking a winner, the odds become extreme.

The truth is that the whole “probability based” argument against atheism is based on a faulty understanding of probability theory. If you want me, I can give you a short summary why it is totally incorrect. Let me know. It will be a few paragraphs, but I am not inclined to do it if you are not interested.

I would enjoy reading it if you are inclined to write it, but if not, that’s okay.

Of couse not. That is why I don’t take it seriously that an unknown and unknowable entity using pure magic made this world what it is. Bush being a pawn in an inter-galactic power struggle is far more probable.

Hmmm… on one hand you have an entity using magic to create the world, on the other hand, you have matter giving rise to self-concious computers that can grasp the deepest secrets of reality, all without purpose.

 

[Sarpedon]

Touchstone,

I tend to dislike specific criteria for choosing which idea is more reasonable, because I think a lot of nuance can be lost by their use. I prefer making overal judgements in light of evidence and experience

I explained why I think theism is a better explanation in post 6.

 

[Sarpedon]

I think the following quote by Darwin expresses in a nutshell what I am trying to say:

With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind…?

From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism

Letter to William Graham, Down, July 3, 1881. In The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including an Autobiographical Chapter, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, Albermarle Street, 1887), Volume 1, pp. 315-316.

 

[Touchstone]

Having established that we all accept the axiom that our minds accurately percieve truth, we can move on from there. There are two main ways to explain why this axiom is true.

1. An intelligence programmed it that way
2. STEM either came into being during the big bang or has always existed. It has no direction, purpose, or guidance. Eventually, it formed into various physical objects. Some of these were planets. On these planets, lipid bubbles gained small constructions such as mitochrondria and DNA. This lipid bubbles could reproduce, and began to evolve in response to the enviroment.

Remember that so far, all of this has been unguided and without purpose of direction.

Eventually, these “cells” became multicellular organisms. These organisms continued to evolve and adapt to their enviroment. Eventually, they evolved into land animals.

Keep in mind that all of these organisms are ultimately organic compounds that are arranged in a certain way as to be able to function together.

These land organisms continued to evolve. Eventually, a type of organism known as the “monkey” evolved in Africa. One type of monkey began to walk bipedally. The organic compounds known as its “brain” evolved further, much farther than most animals. These compounds gained the ability to plan and create tools. They did not stop there, however. They continued, forming into an organic computer capable of self-conciousness. They went even further, developing the ability to arrive at the truths of reality. What’s more, they were capable of doing it without error.

This is quite an accomplishment for those organic compounds. Given the fact that none of this had to happen and it was completely unplanned and undirected, I find it fortunate that it actually took this course. Quite honestly, as a third-party oberver I would almost think this would be too improbable- especially the part about the lack of any glitches in the system.

I don’t understand how you arrive at “too improbable”, here, especially in light of your preferred alternative – a metaphysical programmer. Even crudely, how do you gauge the probabilities of 1) and 2)? What are the odds of there being a Metaphysical Programmer? Is it just a hunch? A desirable preference just masquerading as “more likely” when it’s simply more appealing to the anthropic mind?

Failing some scaffolding (at least) as to how you establish the probabilities here, I’d say this looks like caprice on your part. You’re welcome to it, but let’s call it what it is, if so.

Is the second scenario possible? Certainly. But it’s also possible that Elvis is still alive. Honestly, I am not apt to believe either scenario 2 or that Elvis is alive.

As far as I can tell, there’s no basis for any denominators or numberators in the metaphysical phase space you’re assessing here. Just waving your hands and talking about possibilities, unattached to any probabilistic foundation. If we look at a six-sided, we might crudely gauge the probabilities of it any of its six sides landing up when thrown at 1/6. There may be asymmetries in weighting or surface textures, etc. that slightly skew things, but we can point to six fundamental outcomes of that die coming to rest on a flat surface. We would be justified in saying that it’s more likely that a “not-six” will be rolled on the next roll than a “six” being rolled, given the roughly fair possibilities of each surface.

But you haven’t a clue how many sides of the Metaphysical Die there are, or if there are any sides at all as a matter of probabilities in a phase space. Forget how many “hits” out of the possibility space your Metaphysical Programmer occupies, if any, you don’t have the faintest idea what the possibility space is. This renders “likely” and “probable” absurd terms to use here, and just so much projection of one’s hunch, desire or fancy onto the metaphysics for the universe.

If I’m wrong and you have some basis for laying out the metaphysical phase space, please do. Do it with any rigor and you’ll be famous (seriously, that would be an astonishing breakthrough in the history of philosophy and knowledge). Failing that, though, you might as well say “Meh, I just like the programmer idea better”.

-Touchstone

 

[Touchstone]

Touchstone,

I tend to dislike specific criteria for choosing which idea is more reasonable, because I think a lot of nuance can be lost by their use. I prefer making overal judgements in light of evidence and experience

OK, but it just makes your arguments look unsupportable and capricious. Getting specific is a way to tease out and elaborate on any nuances involved, and “overall judgments”, as a euphemism for “don’t want to be give details” is only bound to obscure or ignore any nuances involved.

I explained why I think theism is a better explanation in post 6.

I saw that. There seems to be some magic you are invoking in determining what the metaphysical probabilities are. I hope you’ll show us how you did the magic needed to arrive at your probabilities… something maybe a little more detailed than simply justifying them as “overall judgments”, maybe.

-Touchstone

 

[ateista]

None. We need faith, because nothing is left. Even if we had an authority we would just push the problem back a little bit farther.

Ok. Let’s take an example: you inadvertantly burn your hand with flame, and you feel pain. Do you need faith to accept that you actually feel pain, or do you think that it is just an illusion, since the pain is merely supported by your fallible senses, and not supported by a syllogistic proof?

If you accept that you actually feel pain, then next time you will be careful not to repeat the “experiment”. If you think that the pain was just an illusion, then you can safely put your hand in another flame, after all it is not reality, and an illusionary pain can’t hurt you. If you happen to dream that you burned your hand in the morning there will be no marks, your skin will be intact.

How many times do you need to conduct this experiment before you know that fire will hurt you and not just have faith that fire “might” hurt you?

Then refute it.

Very well. Universal skepticism says that one cannot accept any proposition, unless it is supported by a full proof. Now let’s apply this principle to the proposition above. It is not supported by any proof, therefore it must be discarded. You see, “universal skepticism” refutes itself.

I do not believe in universal skepticism. However, I would consider it the only logical position if you require proof for everything.

But that is the point. I don’t require “proof” for the most basic “assumptions” about reality. Precisely because the concept of “proof” is not applicable.

But all of our senses would be telling us otherwise, and so would reason. The guy in the matrix could be saying the same things that you are saying, only they wouldn’t be true.

Now you appeal to your senses. I point back to the first paragraph of this post.

To some degree, sure. But knowing philosophy? In my experience, that doesn’t help with much in terms of survival.

Not directly, no. But to have a correct worldview is “better” than to have an inaccurate one, so even such an abstract endeavor can help.

I can understand why religion would have evolved. People who are religious tend to lead statistically healthier and happier lives.

That is simply not true. There is no statistical evidence for that. People’s religious inclination has no predictive value for health and happiness.

It brings the community together, and aids in hard times.

That is true. But people tend to stick together anyhow, after all we are both individuals and social beings.

Imagine a bunch of people who are surviviors in a shipwreck. If they are “really” religious, they might just to kneel and pray for help. If they are skeptics, they will try to repair the radio and actively seek help. Which group has a better chance of survival? Mind you I am not saying that religious people will not try to repair the radio. If they do, their chance of survival is about the same - however in this case they act rationally and that is what can help them. But if they truly believe that God will “bail them out”, they will likely die.

Your’re right. That wasn’t the best term to use. I consider faith to be accepting something as true without proof.

I don’t like to use “faith” in this context, because it “muddies” the waters. Let me ask you: “do you know that you exist?”. Or do you have faith that you exist? Do you need faith to say that A and ~A (not A) is always false? Do you need faith that the external world exists? Do you need faith that putting your hand into a flame actually hurts you? These are the basic questions.

Can you back up your last statement?

I am not sure what you mean. The three kinds of geometry, Euclidean, spherical and hyperbolic geometries are all based on some basic axioms. The fifth postulate for the Euclidean geometry was that given a line and a point outside it one can have one and only one parallel line to it. In the sheprical (Riemann) geometry there is no parallel line. In the hyperbolic geometry there are 2 parallel lines. On other surfaces (of which there are infinitely many) the concept of a parallel line is not defined.

Well, I disagree. Can you support your position?

Please read the second paragraph above about the faith.