|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ushering In An Age of Reason....Or Not.....? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
It seems that there is no real basis for a belief in god beyond "It subjectively seems reasonable to me". And "Lots of other people believe in similar things". Surely you can see why in this "Age of Reason" these are not considered a valid basis upon which to draw conclusions?
GDR writes: If for no other reason than a large percentage of the world believes it and thinks it has value. As a method of knowing Argumentum ad populum is a demonstrably unreliable tool. Deeply prone to flawed human intuitive thinking.
GDR writes: It would at least be more democratic than what you are suggesting IMHO. Democracy may well be the least worst form of choosing government that we have devised. But it is a desperately poor method of deciding what is and isn't objectively true.
GDR writes: What you haven't shown is that the generic idea of an undefined god(s), is incorrect.... I don't have any idea what a "generic idea of an undefined god(s)" even means? How can anyone hold any belief at all (including agnosticism) towards something when they have no idea what it is they are even considering? That is absurd. I believe that the correct term for my attitude to such things is ignostic. ignostic (plural ignostics) 1. one who holds to ignosticism.2. one who requires a definition of the term God or Gods as without sensible definition they find theism incoherent and thus non-cognitive. ignostic - Wiktionary
GDR writes: .....or for that matter that all ideas of god(s) are incorrect. To get the "ALL" conclusion requires inductive reasoning. The sort of reasoning essential to all scientific conclusions. A method of drawing conclusions with a proven track record of success.
GDR writes: Why should this brave new world be based solely on what you believe and disregard beliefs that differ. This "Age of Reason" isn't about selecting one set of baseless beliefs over another. It is about only taking seriously conclusions based on demonstrably reliable methods of knowing. And rejecting demonstrably flawed methods of knowing such as the ones you seem to be advocating.
GDR writes: The last thursdayism thing is frustrating as it is essentially an attempt to prove something I don't believe. I am not for one moment seeking to suggest that you do, or that you should, believe in the truth of Last Thursdayism. The reason I bring it up is because it is entirely unfalsifiable and entirely evidentially equivalent to claims regarding the existence of God. The reason I reject Last Thursdayism is exactly the same as the reason I reject notions of God. So I am genuinely perplexed as to why you think one conclusion is any more reasonable than the other. Beyond mass belief in some idea of God there doesn't really seem to be any basis for making any distinction at all. If there is can you explain what it is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
In a Faith & Belief context, I would vote for "Not." Faith is often unreasonable.
This "Age of Reason" isn't about selecting one set of baseless beliefs over another. It is about only taking seriously conclusions based on demonstrably reliable methods of knowing. And rejecting demonstrably flawed methods of knowing such as the ones you seem to be advocating. I would argue that rejecting flawed methods is entirely up to the individual. Pointing out the flaws in reasoning should be done in the discretion of a light touch. Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given. Edited by Phat, : trying to make sense
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Like I said earlier - I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that humans are incapable of an "Age of Reason" as this term is generally used in recent times (I didn't invent it BTW)
I think that humans are just too innately irrational as a species to actually end up rejecting irrational beliefs. They are just too ingrained in our DNA.
Phat writes: I would argue that rejecting flawed methods is entirely up to the individual. Pointing out the flaws in reasoning should be done in the discretion of a light touch. Given what I have said above this is arguably a very sensible approach. But it also means that we have to accept that people are going to believe in utter nonsense some of which will be outright dangerous but most of which will be entirely harmless. With this social context in mind - Identifying whcih is which and where certain religious beliefs fall into that spectrum might be a better basis for challenging them on than just how ridiculous any given belief actually is in evidential terms.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Straggler writes: It seems that there is no real basis for a belief in god beyond "It subjectively seems reasonable to me". And "Lots of other people believe in similar things". Surely you can see why in this "Age of Reason" these are not considered a valid basis upon which to draw conclusions? It seems that there is no real basis for not believing in god beyond "It subjectively seems unreasonable to me". Surely you can see why in this "Age of Reason" this is not considered a valid basis upon which to draw conclusions? Not trying to be too clever here but the point is that we exist, intelligence exists, there seems to be a moral code or sense of fairness that deep down we all understand, and of course there is the appearance of design. I don't think it is a huge step to conclude that there is an intelligent mover, (insert whatever term you like), involved in our existence.
Straggler writes: As a method of knowing Argumentum ad populum is a demonstrably unreliable tool. Deeply prone to flawed human intuitive thinking. Actually my point wasn't that it made it true. My point was that as a large percentage of the world is having its world view shaped by the idea, then the "AOR" should be informed by that voice unless the intent is to maintain the AOR by force. (When it has been attempted previously it hasn't worked out all that well.)
Straggler writes: I don't have any idea what a "generic idea of an undefined god(s)" even means? How can anyone hold any belief at all (including agnosticism) towards something when they have no idea what it is they are even considering? That is absurd. I believe that the correct term for my attitude to such things is ignostic. You're right. Bad wording. I only meant a non-specific god(s). A deist would probably fall into the category of believing something like that.
Straggler writes: This "Age of Reason" isn't about selecting one set of baseless beliefs over another. It is about only taking seriously conclusions based on demonstrably reliable methods of knowing. And rejecting demonstrably flawed methods of knowing such as the ones you seem to be advocating. In order to say that my method, (whatever method that is), of understanding God can be demonstrated to be flawed requires you to use one of your demonstrably reliable methods to show that my conclusion is wrong. You can't just lump my method of determining truth in with anyone or everyone else. Everyone is an individual. In order to show that my method is demonstrably wrong you have to show that my conclusion is wrong.
Straggler writes: I am not for one moment seeking to suggest that you do, or that you should, believe in the truth of Last Thursdayism. The reason I bring it up is because it is entirely unfalsifiable and entirely evidentially equivalent to claims regarding the existence of God. The reason I reject Last Thursdayism is exactly the same as the reason I reject notions of God. So I am genuinely perplexed as to why you think one conclusion is any more reasonable than the other. Beyond mass belief in some idea of God there doesn't really seem to be any basis for making any distinction at all. If there is can you explain what it is? Belief in Last Thursdayism is also the same as belief in the Easter Bunny as well. This of course makes belief in the Easter Bunny the same as belief in god(s). Would you consider that belief in the Easter Bunny is as reasonable as belief in god(s)? I don't agree that Last Thursdayism is as reasonable a conclusion as it is to conclude that there is an intelligent first cause in the universe.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
GDR writes: It seems that there is no real basis for not believing in god beyond "It subjectively seems unreasonable to me". There absolutely is an objectively evidenced basis for concluding that gods are human constructions though. The objective evidence clearly demonstrates that humans have a psychological proclivity to invoke false positive agency. As demonstrated by everything from conspiracy theories to fasle gods via imaginary friends and the imbuement of human-mind-like properties to inanimate objects and aspects of nature. And the "ALL" aspect is derived from inductive reasoning. So we have objective evidence combined with inductive reasoning leading to high cofidence but tentative conclusions. Methods of knowing that form the bedrock of all scientific conclusions. Methods of knowing that are demonstrably reliable.
GDR writes: You can't just lump my method of determining truth in with anyone or everyone else. Then you are going to need to be more explicit about what method of knowing it is that you are applying. So far you have mentioned 1) Mass belief and 2) Something akin to "It seems subjectively reasonable to me". Both of these are demonstrably woeful as methods of coming to reliable and accurate conclusions about reality. Both are demonstrably prone to all sorts of human psychological biases.
GDR writes: I don't agree that Last Thursdayism is as reasonable a conclusion as it is to conclude that there is an intelligent first cause in the universe. I know you don't. But the question is what method of knowing are you applying in order to come to that conclusion?
GDR writes: Belief in Last Thursdayism is also the same as belief in the Easter Bunny as well. This of course makes belief in the Easter Bunny the same as belief in god(s). You said it - Not me. If you think there is a basis for making a distinction what is it?
GDR writes: Would you consider that belief in the Easter Bunny is as reasonable as belief in god(s)? I would say that they are all almost certainly human inventions but that some are more directly derivable as such than others. The idea of the Easter Bunny, for example, I understand is derived from some sort of pagan fertility goddess. Humans false positively applying agency to the mystery of fertility............
GDR on imposing an age of reason writes: When it has been attempted previously it hasn't worked out all that well. Like I said to Phat - I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that humans are just not a rational species and that the sort of Age of Reason under discussion isn't something we are capable of. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Straggler writes: There absolutely is an objectively evidenced basis for concluding that gods are human constructions though. The objective evidence clearly demonstrates that humans have a psychological proclivity to invoke false positive agency. As demonstrated by everything from conspiracy theories to fasle gods via imaginary friends and the imbuement of human-mind-like properties to inanimate objects and aspects of nature. And the "ALL" aspect is derived from inductive reasoning. So we have objective evidence combined with inductive reasoning leading to high cofidence but tentative conclusions. Methods of knowing that form the bedrock of all scientific conclusions. Methods of knowing that are demonstrably reliable. The objective evidence that you keep repeating tells us nothing at all about whether or not an actual intelligent first cause exists or not. It is completely and totally irrelevant. Sorry.
Straggler writes: Then you are going to need to be more explicit about what method of knowing it is that you are applying. So far you have mentioned 1) Mass belief and 2) Something akin to "It seems subjectively reasonable to me". Both of these are demonstrably woeful as methods of coming to reliable and accurate conclusions about reality. Both are demonstrably prone to all sorts of human psychological biases. My point, not well explained is that we are all individuals with individual minds, and as a result everyone has come to their general and specific conclusions in their own unique way. There is no point in criticizing my opinion because it is subjective when your belief is just as subjective as mine. You subjectively believe that your view is more solidly grounded than mine, but frankly I see it the other way around. Everyone is the same when it comes to what we believe about god(s). You can call it inductive reasoning if you like. I look at what I do know and then form opinions based on that - just like everyone else.
Straggler writes: Like I said to Phat - I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that humans are just not a rational species and that the sort of Age of Reason under discussion isn't something we are capable of. The irrational ones would be the ones that don't share your views I suppose. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi GDR, how goes the battle?
Straggler writes: There absolutely is an objectively evidenced basis for concluding that gods are human constructions though. The objective evidence clearly demonstrates that humans have a psychological proclivity to invoke false positive agency. As demonstrated by everything from conspiracy theories to fasle gods via imaginary friends and the imbuement of human-mind-like properties to inanimate objects and aspects of nature. And the "ALL" aspect is derived from inductive reasoning. So we have objective evidence combined with inductive reasoning leading to high cofidence but tentative conclusions. Methods of knowing that form the bedrock of all scientific conclusions. Methods of knowing that are demonstrably reliable. The objective evidence that you keep repeating tells us nothing at all about whether or not an actual intelligent first cause exists or not. It is completely and totally irrelevant. Sorry. It's worse than that. Straggler's much hyped "inductive reasoning" is really nothing but his own intuitive thinking (guessing), and his much ballyhooed "objectively evidenced basis" is nothing more than confirmation bias that has not yet shown that a single supernatural entity is a product of human imagination while ignoring other possibilities. The human ability to create fictional characters does not mean that non-fictional ones don't exist. Cowboy fiction stories do not mean that all cowboys are the product of human imagination. This is just another example of the all A Is B, B, therefore A logical fallacy.
Because something is in the B category does not mean it is in the A category: because a cowboy is in the B category does not mean it is in the A (fictional cowboy) category. This is how "inductive reasoning" gives you false results. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: The objective evidence that you keep repeating tells us nothing at all about whether or not an actual intelligent first cause exists or not. In exactly the same way that it tells us "nothing" about whether Last Thursdayism is correct, whether Immaterial Unicorns actually exist or whether the Easter Bunny is real or fictional. Or indeed any other concept that can be defined so as to be unfalsifiable. What it does tell us is that these things are more likely to be human constructions than real entities.
GDR writes: My point, not well explained is that we are all individuals with individual minds, and as a result everyone has come to their general and specific conclusions in their own unique way. Well that sounds lovely. But the end result is that any belief in anything unfalsifiable is equally valid. Do you really think that an 'Age of Reason' can be meaningfully conceived on that basis?
GDR writes: You can call it inductive reasoning if you like. It isn't a question of what I like. That is what it is. Inductive Reasoning ALL scientific conclusions are inductive to some degree. So to denounce inductive reasoning is to denounce one of the key components of scientific conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Your little logical constructions, as ever, fail to take into account that it is evidence rather than deductive logic that we are talking about.
Do you understand the role of inductive reasoning in science? Are you suggesting that all of science is illogical because it makes generalised conclusions from specific instances? IF SOME THEN ALL as you foolishly translate it in the deductive terms that you are obsessed with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Typical Straqgler bias.
It seems to be the expectation (or at least hope) of the new atheists that an age of reason be ushered into existence. An age in which religious and other superstitious beliefs are sidelined into irrelevance by a near universal acceptance that rationality, reason and evidence based inquiry hold the key to human advancement and progress. Curiously, when anyone, atheists included, employs logical fallacies, pseudoskeptic arguments and pseudoscience, they are not contributing to a trend to increase rationality, reason and evidence based inquiry. The first step then, to promote a new age of reason, is to rid oneself of false logic and pseudoskeptical and pseudoscientific arguments. http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htmhttp://usabig.com/autonomist/fallacies.html One should become familiar with logical fallacies so that one can recognize them when they appear. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism
quote: One should become familiar with pseudoskepticism (and the false types of arguments used) so that one can recognize it when it appears. Pseudoscience - Wikipedia
quote: Equally, one should be aware of the pitfalls of pseudoscience (and the false types of arguments used) when it involves theistic and atheistic topics/arguments/positions, so that one can recognize them when they appear. A (much) better basis, imho, is open-minded skepticism and the honesty to say "we don't know" when the evidence is not sufficiently conclusive, meaning we can be open to the possibilities that are not contradicted by objective empirical evidence while remaining skeptical of views\positions that are not (or insufficiently) supported by evidence. Neither is an "age of reason" necessarily at odds with theism. The Age of Reason - Wikipedia
quote: Open-minded skepticism is neither religious nor anti-religious, it is unbiased in its evaluation of issues, topics, and positions. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : It appears that Panda thinks that logical fallacies, pseudoskeptic arguments and pseudoscience do contribute to a new age of reason if he dislikes this post. Amusingly, disliking a post doesn't make it false or invalid. Edited by RAZD, : inglashby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Your little logical constructions, as ever, fail to take into account that it is evidence rather than deductive logic that we are talking about. LOL. Straggles has consistently failed to present any such evidence to show that his pet conjecture is anything but opinion, wishful thinking and bias.
quote: Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : disliking a post does not change the truth of what is posted, it just exposes bias in the person that dislikes those truths.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Straggler writes: In exactly the same way that it tells us "nothing" about whether Last Thursdayism is correct, whether Immaterial Unicorns actually exist or whether the Easter Bunny is real or fictional. Or indeed any other concept that can be defined so as to be unfalsifiable. Absolutely
Straggler writes: What it does tell us is that these things are more likely to be human constructions than real entities. No it doesn't. Each case is subjectively judged on its own individual merits. Whether the easter bunny, unicorns or the FSM are real or fictional tells us nothing about the existence or non-existence of a prime mover for the universe.
Straggler writes: Well that sounds lovely. But the end result is that any belief in anything unfalsifiable is equally valid. Do you really think that an 'Age of Reason' can be meaningfully conceived on that basis? It's absolutely necessary. It is unfalsifiable whether or not it is better to help feed the starving in the third world or not, but I sure wouldn't want to live in the Age of Reason where we do nothing.
Straggler writes: ALL scientific conclusions are inductive to some degree. So to denounce inductive reasoning is to denounce one of the key components of scientific conclusions. I wasn't denouncing inductive reasoning at all. What I said was:
quote: My point was to show how we have come to our different conclusions and I was fine with that method being called "inductive reasoning" or any other label you want to put on it. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: Each case is subjectively judged on its own individual merits. This is a recipe for ridiculousness. ALL becomes equally subjective. Did evolution occur? The answer "Yes I believe evolution did occur because the scientific evidence tells us this" becomes no more or less subjective than "No I don't believe evolution occurred because I believe that the world was created omphamistically Last Thursday". Are all rabbits born from other rabbits? The answer "Yes I inductively conclude this to be so" becomes no more or less subjective than "No because I believe that some rabbits came into existence Ex-nihilo". How do we decide anything if objectively evidenced and inductive conclusions are no more or less valid than anything that sounds subjectively plausible?
GDR writes: My point was to show how we have come to our different conclusions and I was fine with that method being called "inductive reasoning" or any other label you want to put on it. And my point is that labels are irrelevant because it is demonstrable record of reliability that counts when applying different methods of knowing.
GDR writes: It is unfalsifiable whether or not it is better to help feed the starving in the third world or not, but I sure wouldn't want to live in the Age of Reason where we do nothing. Nobody is disputing that moral philosophy would be included in an age of reason. Because morality doesn't have to be about objective truths. It is about how we want to live and reasoning our way to the best way to achieve that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I can only repeat the things you have ignored previously. Mod's summary is the most succinct. So here it is again:
The proclivity for humans to embellish, confabulate, imagine, speculate. The proclivity for confirmation bias in superstitious behaviour and beliefs. The hyper active agency detection of human minds, the need for 'false positives' in survival. The tendency to pay more mental attention to entities that are minimally counter-intuitive. The sheer number of conceptions of supernatural beings which have been shown false by science. The fact that no evidence supporting the existence of any supernatural entity has been forthcoming in an age where we figured out time dilation and quantum physics. The very existence of 'wishful thinking' that you point out and the very 'wishful' nature of many supernatural concepts. The hierarchical mind set of primates. Our strong desire for narrative, even or especially ones that circumvent our common notions in interesting ways. The connection between epilepsy and religious ideas, the common content of delusions and so on and so forth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Straggler writes: This is a recipe for ridiculousness. ALL becomes equally subjective. Did evolution occur? The answer "Yes I believe evolution did occur because the scientific evidence tells us this" becomes no more or less subjective than "No I don't believe evolution occurred because I believe that the world was created omphamistically Last Thursday". Are all rabbits born from other rabbits? The answer "Yes I inductively conclude this to be so" becomes no more or less subjective than "No because I believe that some rabbits came into existence Ex-nihilo". How do we decide anything if objectively evidenced and inductive conclusions are no more or less valid than anything that sounds subjectively plausible?
Omphamistically eh? If you are trying to impress me let me tell you it’s working. When I googled this beauty the only reference that google could find for it was in your post on this forum. It appears that you are the first person on the planet to have employed this very impressive word. Now the trick is going to be how to fit this into my own conversations with the guys down at the pub. If you want to look at it that way then all conclusions are equally subjective in terms of process but not all conclusions are equally plausible. Also of course some people are objectively better informed than others and are more likely to come to a reliable conclusion. (Evolution is a good example.) There are lots of answers in life that are ambiguous - there are many things on which we won't have certainty and never will. The question of whether there is a prime mover or not isn't, at least directly, objectively evidenced so we are left with coming to a subjective conclusion based on things such as intuition etc. with neither conclusion being objectively superior. However, I am firmly convinced that subjectively my conclusion is superior to yours which of course you disagree with.
Straggler writes: Nobody is disputing that moral philosophy would be included in an age of reason. Because morality doesn't have to be about objective truths. It is about how we want to live and reasoning our way to the best way to achieve that. So now you are incorporating unfalsifiable belief. How do you choose which unfalsifiable beliefs are going to be part of this Age of Reason. Some cultures believe in polygamy and some don't. As your view is that moralism has come from a totally natural evolutionary process the there are no absolutes, how are you going to objectively know what is moral and what isn’t?Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024