Welcome to the Philosophy Forums! If you already are a member, please log in. If you are not a member, please join the forums now. It's completely free, and all viewpoints are welcome.
| View previous topic :: View next topic :: |
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3324
|
Post: #16  Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:59 am Post subject: |
  |
|
|
| Santini wrote: |
| Belinda wrote: |
| The fact that Santini has thought about those anomalies he lists proves that the anomalies exist, after an inexact and incomplete fashion. They exist as concepts and incomplete,inexact concepts that have no correlates in space time, As such I'd say that e.g. the luminous ether exists but that its existence is markedly inferior to the existence of e.g. the Statue of Liberty, or Santini's keyboard, or oxygen. |
The things that I listed to which Belinda refers in her post are not "anomalies" and, why, yes of course they exist as concepts. Since anything that can be conceived exists as a concept, it's difficult to imagine someone who doesn't believe a thing that can be conceived doesn't exist as a concept, at the very least.
But I can't speak for Belinda. She must know people who disbelieve the existence of some things that can be conceived even as concepts!. She should point out to those people the self-refuting nature of such a belief. |
Some enocuragement to Santini and Belinda et alia:
"Atheism turns out to be too simple.
If the whole universe has no meaning,
we should never have found out [the meaning] that it has no meaning..."
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
"Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism."
Henry F. Schaefer III.
"Here I will take up the case of Mortimer Adler, a well known American philosopher, writer, and intellectual who has spent much of his life thinking about God and religious topics. One of his most recent books is titled 'How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th Century Pagan,' (1980).
In this work, Adler presses the argument for the existence of God very strongly and by the latter chapters he is very close to accepting the living God. Yet he pulls back and remains among "the vast company of the religiously uncommitted." (Graddy, 1982).
But Adler leaves the impression that this decision is more one of will than of intellect. As one of his reviewers notes (Graddy, 1982), Adler confirms this impression in his autobiography, Philosopher at Large (1976). There, while investigating his reasons for twice stopping short of a full religious commitment, he writes that the answer "lies in the state of one's will, not in the state of one's mind." Adler goes on to comment that to become seriously religious "would require a radical change in my way of life . . ." and "The simple truth of the matter is that I did not wish to live up to being a genuinely religious person. (Graddy, p. 24).
As one of his reviewers notes (Graddy, 1982), Adler confirms this impression in his utobiography, 'Philosopher at Large' (1976). There, while investigating his reasons for twice stopping short of a full religious commitment, he writes that the answer "lies in the state of one's will,
not in the state of one's mind." Adler goes on to comment that to become seriously religious "would require a radical change in my way of life . . ." and "The simple truth of the matter is that I [hated and so] did not wish to live up to being a genuinely religious person" (Graddy, p. 24).
There you have it! A remarkably honest and conscious admission that being "a genuinely religious person" would be too much trouble, too inconvenient. I can't but assume that such are the shallow reasons behind many an unbeliever's position.
In summary, because of my social needs to assimilate, because of my professional needs to be accepted as part of academic psychology, and because of my personal needs for a convenient lifestyle - for all these needs - atheism was simply the best policy. Looking back on these motives, I can honestly say that a return to atheism has all the appeal of a return to adolescence.[2]"
[2.]I understand there is a sequel to the story of Adler. I've recently been told that about 2 years ago Adler became a Christian, and Anglican.
Professor Paul C. Vitz, The Psychology of Atheism
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth12.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Santini
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Posts: 349
|
| Post: #17 Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ape, why would you go to all the trouble of quoting my and Belinda's words at the top of your reply and then simply ignore them?
Here's something to which I'll hope you'll respond directly:
=========================================
"I think the scale for probability of belief in the non-evidenced should begin at just above 0.0 and not at 0.5. I base this chiefly on the premiss that while the number of things which exist is limited, the number of things which could but do not exist is unlimited.
"IOW, as far as you know, the shirt that I am wearing at the moment could be any one of a virtually unlimited number of shades of color -- but my shirt is in fact only one precise shade of color. Since you have scant evidence (although you do have some) what that color might be, the probability that you should believe my shirt color is red or blue or green or yellow or purple or orange or any other particular shade or combinations of shades of color should be much closer to 0.0 than to 0.5.
"While it's true that the claim "Santini's shirt is blue" is either true or false, this doesn't mean that it is 50% likely that the claim is true and 50% likely that it's false. In fact this claim (and any other claim similar to it) is MUCH more likely to be false than true if there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim."
===========================================
If there is anything in that passage that is unclear (and given my lack of communication skills, I'm sure there is) just ask and maybe I can clear it up. Otherwise I'd love to hear your thoughts about it. Do you believe that a skepical position should be assumed in regard to non-evidenced claims or do you believe that a position of neutrality is best (by neutrality, I mean the likelihood that the claim is true is about the same as is the likelihood that it is false)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dewey
Contributor
Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 515
Location: California
|
| Post: #18 Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Belinda thinks of the names of the items on Santini’s list as the items themselves. I do not. But I have no trouble thinking of them as both evidence and possibilities of the items’ existence. That serves the strong atheist’s purpose to the extent of allowing him to assign a low rating on his scale of probabilities. But it also illustrates the great difficulty of trying to positively prove the items do not exist.. To do that, one would have to completely exhaust every conceivable possibility of existence proposed now or in the future. How high can we rate the probability of successfully doing that!
I have mentioned the influence that attitudes can have on the intensity of our atheistic beliefs and non-beliefs. The strong atheist’ attitude towards deism is that it seriously distracts the world from solving its problems. The weak atheist’ is less concerned or less sure of that consequence.
With that hopefully clear explanation, I retire from this and the related forum discussion. I enjoyed and learned a lot from them |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Santini
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Posts: 349
|
| Post: #19 Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Dewey wrote: |
| But it also illustrates the great difficulty of trying to positively prove the items do not exist.. To do that, one would have to completely exhaust every conceivable possibility of existence proposed now or in the future. How high can we rate the probability of successfully doing that! |
Just curious but why didn't you say this when I asked you earlier to explain your standard for proving nonexistence?
Anyway . . .
No, on a practical level, no one holds that standard for nonexistence. This is because to be consistent by that standard, one must also be "on the fence" about the existences of such entities as Santa, leprechauns, fairies, the luminous ether, phlogiston, and anything else that is not a logical contradiction. To say that it's 50-50 that X might exist because it is logically possible that X might exist is to misunderstand logical possibility and what people assert when they say, "X doesn't exist."
The claim "X doesn't exist" does not mean the same thing as "X cannot exist," which is what you seem to think hard atheists are saying about the existence of god(s).
Well, they are saying the former not the latter.
Last edited by Santini on Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3324
|
| Post: #20 Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Santini wrote: |
Ape, why would you go to all the trouble of quoting my and Belinda's words at the top of your reply and then simply ignore them?
Here's something to which I'll hope you'll respond directly: |
Hmmmm, I see that by 'ignore' you mean 'to respond to indirectly!'
Indirectly responding was what I doing!
=========================================
| Santini wrote: |
"I think the scale for probability of belief in the non-evidenced should begin at just above 0.0 and not at 0.5. I base this chiefly on the premiss that while the number of things which exist is limited, the number of things which could but do not exist is unlimited. |
And since the infinity of the non-existent is based on the evidenced of the infinity of interconnections in one brain, there being more interconnection in one brain than there are atoms in the universe, and that one brain is what makes sense of the things which do exist, then the probability of what we think does not exist and the reality of what we think does not exist is more real and higher than things which do exist.
Examples:
Hebrews 11:3 Through faith [which works by Love for all words and their opposites] we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were made of things which do not appear.
"There are more things in true philosophy than exist in heaven and earth."
ape with thanks to Shakespeare.
"Now, my suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose."
J.B.S. Haldane
| Santini wrote: |
"IOW, as far as you know, the shirt that I am wearing at the moment could be any one of a virtually unlimited number of shades of color -- but my shirt is in fact only one precise shade of color. |
And it wd be more presise to say that, based on the infinity of the inner reality of the mind, there are endless shirts of only one precise shade of color.
| Santini wrote: |
Since you have scant evidence (although you do have some) what that color might be, the probability that you should believe my shirt color is red or blue or green or yellow or purple or orange or any other particular shade or combinations of shades of color should be much closer to 0.0 than to 0.5.
"While it's true that the claim "Santini's shirt is blue" is either true or false, this doesn't mean that it is 50% likely that the claim is true and 50% likely that it's false. In fact this claim (and any other claim similar to it) is MUCH more likely to be false than true if there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim."
|
True, but only if we ignore the brain-user and what words and their opposites the brain uses.
The subjective is more true than the objective.
Example:
Is a river more or less a flower than a river?
===========================================
| Santini wrote: |
If there is anything in that passage that is unclear (and given my lack of communication skills, I'm sure there is) just ask and maybe I can clear it up. Otherwise I'd love to hear your thoughts about it. Do you believe that a skepical position should be assumed in regard to non-evidenced claims or do you believe that a position of neutrality is best (by neutrality, I mean the likelihood that the claim is true is about the same as is the likelihood that it is false)? |
Pretty clear! Smile
Skepticism either way or neutrality is fine as long as there is the Bias of Love for both skepticism and neutrality AND their opposites.
"In fine, I repeat, you must lay aside *all prejudice* on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything, because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it.
Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision."
Letter to
Jefferson's letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, from Paris, August 10, 1787. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #21 Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Santini wrote:
| Quote: |
| The claim "X doesn't exist" does not mean the same thing as "X cannot exist," which is what you seem to think hard atheists are saying about the existence of god(s). |
I used to go to Humanist meetings where there were , actually, atheists whose opinios included that God cannot exist. I am not one of those I am mainly a pragmatic atheist and a strong one. Insofar as God belief is good then I believe- as- in- trust but not believe- as -in -evidence- for or logical.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gearge
Joined: 14 Aug 2009
Posts: 62
Location: Hobart Tasmainia Australia
|
| Post: #22 Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Personally I don't believe in god becouse I haven't any proof, And if I had proof my belief would not be a religious one based on faith. hence even if god existed and I believed in him it would be though empirical evidance and I would still be (efectivly) an Athiest.
This mindset Is what I believe sets me apart from other athiests and agnostics who would be willing to take up a religious viewpoint when they have their own personal proof not backed up by evidance or science, even if i heard the word of God whisper in my ear I think I would believe myself Mad before anything else.
_________________
Apologies for the spelling.
I was not - I have been - I am not - I do not mind. - Epicuras
I abhor your views, but I am willing to die to defend your right to express them - Voltaire |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #23 Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Santini wrote
| Quote: |
| But I can't speak for Belinda. She must know people who disbelieve the existence of some things that can be conceived even as concepts!. She should point out to those people the self-refuting nature of such a belief. |
I think I do, when the social circs allow.I mean there may not be much point in arguing with a schizophrenic, or some old man dying. But this is philosophy and as such there is the ontological position(which I espouse) that all perceptions including those which are illogical or even morbid, are components of the total truth. Indeed if I use Chaos theory along with this broad brush through all perceptions I imagine that some trivial and eccentric detail may become the new big truth. The uncovered petrie dish that grew penicillin for instance. Isaac Newton's apple experience for instance.The future is unpredictable, therefore truth cannot be transcendentally established by means of formal logic or in any other suggested way.
| Quote: |
| Belinda thinks of the names of the items on Santini’s list as the items themselves. I do not |
No I don't, Dewey. I think of the names of the things on Santini's list as names,also as concepts and if any of Santini's examples were things with temporo-spatial reality (which they were not), I'd also think of them as items. Sometimes concepts coincide pretty well with temporo-spatial reality. I doubt very much that words ever exist without immediately accruing some sort of concept to accompany them. Even exclamations made in the extremity of some passion are not only expressions of the exclamer's feelings but also, if there is some other person there to hear the exclamation it accrues some meaning for the hearer, the hearer interprets the sound.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Santini
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Posts: 349
|
| Post: #24 Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Belinda, truth is not the same thing as the determination of what is true. Truth is the way things really are. Agreed?
Whether we can know the way things really are is a different question.
Some gods cannot exist, just as your atheist friends told you. Other gods can. It is only this latter group of gods whose proposed existences is an empirical question like that of the proposed existence of Nessie.
The former group's nonexistence is a matter that is established by logical necessity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Keith Russell
Joined: 06 Jan 2010
Posts: 588
|
| Post: #25 Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
I believe that "God" is impossible, if some of my other beliefs are also true.
(Remember the "if"...)
If the universe is made of only matter and energy, and if energy and matter are merely two forms of the same substance, and if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then the universe is eternal--it was not created, and thus it is unecessary (and incorrect) to posit a "Creator God"... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Belinda
Contributor
Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Posts: 3807
|
| Post: #26 Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Santini wrote
| Quote: |
Belinda, truth is not the same thing as the determination of what is true. Truth is the way things really are. Agreed?
Whether we can know the way things really are is a different question. |
To say that truth is the way things are is a faith stance that I don't espouse. It seems more probable to me that truth is how the whole system seems to hold together.But of course the whole system is itself not an everlasting fixture.
I agree that whether we can know the way things really are is a different question. Leap of faith is necessary before we can believe what we choose to believe, if we are not to remain agnostics, anally retentive.
_________________
Socialist |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vulcanised
Banned
Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 250
|
| Post: #27 Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Keith IF`s mean nothing, either you know or you don`t what is it?
Belinda wrote
| Quote: |
| To say that truth is the way things are is a faith stance |
No it isn`t what planet are you on? and try to back your claim |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ape
Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3324
|
| Post: #28 Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Keith Russell wrote: |
I believe that "God" is impossible, if some of my other beliefs are also true.
(Remember the "if"...)
If the universe is made of only matter and energy, and if energy and matter are merely two forms of the same substance, and if matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, then the universe is eternal--it was not created, and thus it is unecessary (and incorrect) to posit a "Creator God"... |
And KR, since matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed SINCE they are first created as interdefinable opposites in terms of opposite words such as matter and energy and in physical reality as such,
then God is not only possible and but also probable and ...ahem and amen! :smile |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Santini
Joined: 20 Nov 2009
Posts: 349
|
| Post: #29 Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Belinda wrote: |
To say that truth is the way things are is a faith stance that I don't espouse. It seems more probable to me that truth is how the whole system seems to hold together.But of course the whole system is itself not an everlasting fixture.
I agree that whether we can know the way things really are is a different question. Leap of faith is necessary before we can believe what we choose to believe, if we are not to remain agnostics, anally retentive. |
If truth depends only a propositon's (prop's) consistency with other claim's I don't see how it's possible to deny obviously false claims made in well-written works of fiction or, for example, the claim that a god, witch, fairy, etc., exists if that belief is consistent with one's other beliefs.
A prop's coherence with other beliefs is a necessary condition for a prop to be true but it's not a sufficient one. IOW it's helpful in our determining whether a particular claim is true but it is not what is meant by a claim's actually being true.
As Quine says, nothing is true without reality making it so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Felix
Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Posts: 504
|
| Post: #30 Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Santini, Please define your terms.
(1) What do you mean by "god"? An entity or entities whose intelligence/awareness is higher or broader than that of man? (And if this God's consciousness vastly exceeds our own, what makes you think you have the capacity to prove/disprove his existence? Could an ant dis/prove the existence of man?)
(2) In your mind, what would be adequate evidence to prove the existence of "god"? And what does it mean to "exist"? Can you prove that any/every thing you experience actually exists?
_________________
Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by language. - Wittgenstein |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
