Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts
The author simply implies his position is prima facie valid without argument. I do not believe one can rationally ground faith in the existence of entities which have no basis in the realm of public verification in nothing more than the argument from popularity. That is what I found question begging.
Actually, it is not question begging, but a debate about what underlying assumptions are valid when providing evidence. We know from experience that eye-witnesses are the worst form of evidence, but most people believe eye witness accounts are valid evidence. I do agree that popularity does not equate to hard evidence, but hard (scientific) evidence for such hypothetical entities is not forthcoming. So, if they do exist, then we must conjecture that we cannot as of yet measure the effects they have on the world. But, again, lack of evidence does not indicate that they do not exist.
My response is that you ought not and, in fact, do not withold judgement. Many, I would claim the vast majority of, advocates of the spiritual claim there are ethical implications of their metaphysical assertions. Either you find the claims sufficiently weighty to act as if they are true or you do not.
I, like you, distrust the ethics of the supernatural. Its basis is dubious at best. But, as the hard evidence indicates a null result, there is a third option in weighing their claims: withhold judgement, which is the logical, and scientifically sound, thing to do. That does not mean I believe their claims, but it is a well reasoned stance.
You:I agree that I have no evidence that God is subject to physics; I have no evidence of God whatsoever. It is inappropriate to speak of the application of physical laws to fiction.
Me:This is very dangerous ground. In this statement, you have essentially said that a null result implies a negative result. Simply put, just because there is no evidence of a something, does not mean it does not exist. Science can say nothing as to the existence or the nature of the Divine because, almost by definition, the Divine must exist outside of the physical realm, and science deals strictly with the physical. No more, no less.
You:From what grounds can I rationally, scientifically begin to make claims on the nature of that which is by definition unexperienced and if I accept your definition of the Divine, probably unable to be experienced?
Unable to be experienced? I did not mean to imply that. It may be possible for such an entity to exist outside of what we currently define as being physical and still interact with it. Nothing bars that from happening, as it would be outside of our current experience. But, only in this case could you begin to discuss it.
The truth value of any existential statement regarding properties of an entity which does not exist is false. Translated into English ...
I know the translation, I've studied logic as applied to language, in addition to my mathematical training. To my point though, "any existential statement regarding properties of an entity which does not exist is false" provided you have perfect knowledge. Unfortunately, we are dealing with imperfect knowledge, so which allows us to discuss what they may be like. These discussions can be self-consistent and logical, but without knowledge of an entities lack of existence, the truth of an existential statement must admit a third value: unkown.
The lack of any evidence or experience regarding some entity's properties discharges one to say nothing at all about them. Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent. It is epistemically invalid to discuss properties which are beyond ken; as I defined religious faith, all deities fit this category. Should you disagree, I will invite you to produce a deity that is otherwise.
Since, I am an agnostic, I do not have a deity that can fit this description. But, what I am arguing against is the statement, "it is epistemically invalid to discuss properties which are beyond ken." Arguing from an empirical point of view, think Hume, it is possible to establish knowledge of what is beyond one's experience. From a strict point of view, this comes about by inference and the understanding that different things may have common properties. (Incidentally, this is the counter to Hume's counter argument regarding his color of blue principle.) For instance, I know for a fact that dragons do not exist, but I can reasonably discuss them in the context of what I already know and understand. I can tell you which piece of dragon art has a truer depiction of what a real dragon (western, four legs, wings) must look like based upon established knowledge. Their lack of existence does not prevent such a discussion. In the case of a deity, this is more problematic, but the idea is the same.
I hoped my point was even plainer than pointing out the logical difficulties of infinite regression. If we can logically accept that an unexperienced Prime Mover need not have a prior impetus why can we not hold the same for everything else at some unexperienced point in time?
I actually was pointing out that this particular infinite regression has existed for a very long time, and does not look like it is going away. A different question that exists in physics, with similar logical obsurdities, is where did the universe come from? It is more subtle than the Prime Mover question, but it leads to many of the same questions.
If the concept of the Divine is internally contradictory, and I believe it is on many points, logic can dispense with the concept easily.
I would like to understand what you believe is self-contradictory about the concept of the Divine. Some of it I can glean from you initial, and other, postings, but I would like it spelled out.
The argument from design is one such argument that may be rejected for numerous flaws.
One of the most amusing points I have regarding design, is that complexity arises naturally from simple systems. The things people should be looking for as "proof" that the universe is designed is that the design is whether or not the design is simple and its ability to produce emergent behavior at increasingly larger scales. Personally, I find the "design" of the universe to be somewhat simple, and it scales to large structures quite well. Is it designed? Who cares. I don't have to factor it into my equations for them to come out correctly, so it does not matter.
RSS
RE: I will bite, a defense of sorts
Begging the question, as I understand it, is that the person has assumed the antecedent of what he is trying to prove. What has he assumed here? He states quite clearly that there is evidence for the existence of entities which defy scientific proof.
The assumption here, I felt was not the presentation of eye witness accounts as evidence, but the claim of existence of 'ample evidence' of entities which have no scientific basis. I was challenging people to either produce some rational grounds for faith.
The author simply implies his position is prima facie valid without argument. I do not believe one can rationally ground faith in the existence of entities which have no basis in the realm of public verification in nothing more than the argument from popularity. That is what I found question begging.
The author claims that his explanation of such hypothetical entities, that they do exist, required fewer suppositions than the conclusion that millions of people are insufficiently incredulous. The premise that verbal accounts of encounters with angels which fail to present themselves publicly is a prima facie argument for their existence begs his conclusion that such evidence is ample enough to place the burden of proof upon any who would disagree. After all, my stated point was for any defender of the faith to rationally ground it. The existence of an unseen, unexperienced 'spiritual' world would appear to me to be much more complex and require more suppositions than the explanation that some people are liars and neurotic. At least, I need some argument to show why the burden falls to me.
You are correct, that up to this point such entities have failed to stand up to scientific scrutiny. But, is it possible that some of these phenomena are sensitive to the expectations of the observer, e.g. placebo effect? I agree that Occam's Razor would tend to discount such entities, but we, as of this point, don't know everything and can't measure it either. (See this thread.) So, I'm going to withhold judgement.
My response is that you ought not and, in fact, do not withold judgement. Many, I would claim the vast majority of, advocates of the spiritual claim there are ethical implications of their metaphysical assertions. Either you find the claims sufficiently weighty to act as if they are true or you do not. I am assuming you do not from what you've written; keeping an open mind is good though.
Me:I agree that I have no evidence that God is subject to physics; I have no evidence of God whatsoever. It is inappropriate to speak of the application of physical laws to fiction.
You:This is very dangerous ground. In this statement, you have essentially said that a null result implies a negative result. Simply put, just because there is no evidence of a something, does not mean it does not exist. Science can say nothing as to the existence or the nature of the Divine because, almost by definition, the Divine must exist outside of the physical realm, and science deals strictly with the physical. No more, no less.
From what grounds can I rationally, scientifically begin to make claims on the nature of that which is by definition unexperienced and if I accept your definition of the Divine, probably unable to be experienced?
Any suppositions about the nature of a deity presume one exists. The truth value of any existential statement regarding properties of an entity which does not exist is false. Translated into English, all existential propositions begin, "There is at least one thing such that ..." Any statement I might make about the King of France's haircut is false.
The lack of any evidence or experience regarding some entity's properties discharges one to say nothing at all about them. Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent. It is epistemically invalid to discuss properties which are beyond ken; as I defined religious faith, all deities fit this category. Should you disagree, I will invite you to produce a deity that is otherwise.
For the most part, you are correct. The problem here is that this is a problem that has existed for millenia. The Greeks struggled with it. Their solution: the Prime Mover, the initial impetus for everything else. Unfortunately, this hasn't been resolved. We don't know what came before the Big Bang, and, as far as we know, we cannot know what came before. So, what started it all? It is an unanswerable question, and arguing about infinite regress, while a valid criticism, is going to get you nowhere.
I hoped my point was even plainer than pointing out the logical difficulties of infinite regression. If we can logically accept that an unexperienced Prime Mover need not have a prior impetus why can we not hold the same for everything else at some unexperienced point in time?
But, back to my point, all systems of logic are incomplete, as proved by Gödel. This essentially means that within a system of logic there are statements that can be made that meet all of the axioms of the system, but that cannot be proven by the system. Thus, while it is very tempting to put approach the concept of the Divine from a logical perspective, it is one of those statements that can be neither proven nor disproven using logic.
This is not completely correct. If the concept of the Divine is internally contradictory, and I believe it is on many points, logic can dispense with the concept easily. Logic alone will not be sufficient to prove even the existence of apples, much less a deity, but it is sufficient to disprove concepts which contain both some premise and its negation. So if some argument for the existence of the Divine rests implicitly upon either invalid or unsound argument, at the least, that argument can be rejected. The argument from design is one such argument that may be rejected for numerous flaws.
View Full Discussion