For Moonwood and KTR

[Moonwood the Hare]

In context, here is what I said:

Choices made based primarily on one's emotions is rife with challenges because you base your actions not on what is objectively demonstrable but on what you subjectively feel is right. This is fine ONLY if you keep such actions to yourself. If your (the general "your") actions are going to have an impact on me (the general "me"), then you need to defend to me why your emotions are in some way the default, which I submit here that you cannot ever hope to accomplish-- that is why it's subjective to you.

But on the Reasonist side of the equation, if my (the general "my") behaviors are based on physical evidence and logic that is demonstrable to you (the general "you") -- and it has to be if it is physical -- then you at LEAST are privy to why I make the choices I do. You still may disagree with me, but at the very least we have something we can wrestle over in the physical sense rather than just something grounding in "because I feel like it". Anything else is tyrannical by definition.

If I do understand you you are saying that no action based on an act of valuing can ever be rationally justified since values are not physical.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Yet another name for "logical empiricism"? I think Moonwood's point has been that one cannot escape the flaws of a philosophy simply by changing its name.

I Guess I don't see how we could think differently about these issues. For any moral issue or political one, I am glad we have different views in different cultures and political parties. It helps us establish a point of reference on witch we can gauge our own ideas and moral philosophies. But epistemological arguments and what is the basis for rational knowledge, I don't think is an area we have much to debate. If reason and evidence are not your foundational cornerstones on witch to base your knowledge claims about our universe. I don't see how that could even function at all. (initial assumptions aside.)
We ought to have a podcast on this issue I think. Though I know there wont be one for a good while.

"What can we rationally claim to know, and on what basis can we claim it?" This is the principle difference that I can see, regarding the whole god issue. For me its the most important question that needs to be answered.

I want to apologize for all my posts in the past that have sounded rude or disrespectful. Its never been my intention to be either of those things. I have gotten to the point of frustration most of the time in these conversations. On the morality issue for sure, but that was hashed out really well I think between KTR, ChristianHeretic and myself. But now with the conversations with Humanguy and moonwood. Some questions which have seemingly simple answers are given such convoluted responses that I sometimes wish It was easier.

HG asks how MW knows "insert god claim here". I think what we are looking for is answers like we would get to How do you know dogs are in the Canidae family? The answer: Morphological similarities amongst certain carnivorous mammals along with DNA testing and phylogeny have made it possible for us to set groups of animals together according to a taxonomic structure. Given that data we are able to, through repeatable processes, determine that a dog does indeed belong in the family Canidae.
Or
How do you know Jon Doe died of drug overdose? Answer: After an analysis of his blood, and internal organs, elevated numbers of "x" was found in his body, we have studies that show us the effects of this drug, and the dangers associated with it.

for me at least that is the type of response I would like to hear. Unfortunately I know the theists on this site will tell me that I will not get an answer like that. And at least for me, that is the most frustrating part. How do you know God came to earth in the form of a human body and called himself Jesus? How do you even know that a God exists at all? the answer: You don't. Not by any standard I would classify as knowledge. If you can prove me wrong do so please. If you can show me why my standard is flawed, than do that instead. So far I have been unimpressed by any claim to knowledge that a theists claims to have regarding his/her God. So lets try this again. I'm all ears.

Well I think we should start by asking what basis there is for a knowledge claim.The two examples you gave above are ones where we infer a particular from a general theory, that is to say they are examples of deduction. In science in order to be able to make deductions we first make observations and then generalise from those observations to a theory. From that general theory we can infer specific claims and then test these. This kind of process leads to knowledge in empirical science. The next questions are what kind of status such claims have: what is that we know. Do we know that a general theory for which we have supporting evidence is true or do we know someting more subtle. Beyond that the question is whether there are any other ways in which we can know. Now since the question of whether this method works and how it works and what status claims made from using this process have are not themselves answered by the application of this process then we know there are other ways of knowing that are not part of the scientific method. I am saying religious claims are not validated using the hypothetico deductive method. And that opens the door to the question what other ways of knowing are there and under what conditiona are they valid? Does that make sense Dr M?

[Keep The Reason]

If I do understand you you are saying that no action based on an act of valuing can ever be rationally justified since values are not physical.

No, not "no" Stop being so either - or. There are exceptions, but what will generally happen is that an act done grounded in demonstrable justification will have a trail of understnadings for others to emulate or not accoridng to how it ends, whereas a hunch played upon may turn out right, but this doesn't mean that playing hunches are the best method to make choices. You may have merely lucked out in a positive outcome in playing a hunch; pure coincidental luck.

[Moonwood the Hare]

If I do understand you you are saying that no action based on an act of valuing can ever be rationally justified since values are not physical.

No, not "no" Stop being so either - or. There are exceptions, but what will generally happen is that an act done grounded in demonstrable justification will have a trail of understnadings for others to emulate or not accoridng to how it ends, whereas a hunch played upon may turn out right, but this doesn't mean that playing hunches are the best method to make choices. You may have merely lucked out in a positive outcome in playing a hunch; pure coincidental luck.

When my hunches play out it is rarely a matter of pure luck. I can imagine why it might seem like that to someone who lacked a well developed intuitive faculty but I had not thought that was you. David Hulme once said that where reason and gut instinct are in conflict it's always best to go with your gut. I agree. Have you come accross Polany's concept of the tacit dimension? He points out how much vital knowledge, including in the sciences, stems from that which cannot be articulated but has to be learned through personal contact.

Could you give me an example of the two kinds of acts of valuing the ones that can be rationally justified and the ones that cannot. I don't really understand how any act of valuing can be material.

[mitchellmckain]

If you can show me why my standard is flawed, than do that instead.

It is flawed because it is impossible as a universal rule. It can only be applied selectively. It is quite consistent to define a specialized activity like science by such a standard but it is quite inconsistent to declare it to be a universal rule when it is clear that you only apply it selectively to things you don't want people to believe.

So far I have been unimpressed by any claim to knowledge that a theists claims to have regarding his/her God.

So far Moonwood and I have been unimpressed by your amateurish forays into epistemology. You are not required to be impressed by the claims to subjective knowledge of others. You are only required to LIKEWISE accept that any claim you make to the contrary must be no less subjective. So they are not science (or anything else you care to define by such a standard), if you have no interest in things that do not accept such a standard then by all means avoid religion, and don't look too closely at your own knowledge claims either.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Mitch - while I think you are fundamentally right your tone is a bit harsh and dismissive. I think Dr Mundo while being unimpressed with our arguments does want to give them another shot.

[Dr Mundo]

It is flawed because it is impossible as a universal rule. It can only be applied selectively. It is quite consistent to define a specialized activity like science by such a standard but it is quite inconsistent to declare it to be a universal rule when it is clear that you only apply it selectively to things you don't want people to believe.

You know I don't care what you believe, so long as it doesn't harm others right?

So far I have been unimpressed by any claim to knowledge that a theists claims to have regarding his/her God.

So far Moonwood and I have been unimpressed by your amateurish forays into epistemology. You are not required to be impressed by the claims to subjective knowledge of others. You are only required to LIKEWISE accept that any claim you make to the contrary must be no less subjective. So they are not science (or anything else you care to define by such a standard), if you have no interest in things that do not accept such a standard then by all means avoid religion, and don't look too closely at your own knowledge claims either.

Mitch - while I think you are fundamentally right your tone is a bit harsh and dismissive. I think Dr Mundo while being unimpressed with our arguments does want to give them another shot.

Yeah MW is right. I guess we speak in different voices. This is something Mitch and I have never been able to get over. I didn't type that to be disrespectful or insulting. What I meant was that the arguments to present information regarding god claims are very weak in terms of demonstrability. I see no convincing evidence supporting any of your claims about God. Not only that, but God claims have been around for a very long time and still have yet to produce any good argument or even a hint of evidence to their favor.

[mitchellmckain]

You know I don't care what you believe, so long as it doesn't harm others right?

ditto.

So far I have been unimpressed by any claim to knowledge that a theists claims to have regarding his/her God.

So far Moonwood and I have been unimpressed by your amateurish forays into epistemology. You are not required to be impressed by the claims to subjective knowledge of others. You are only required to LIKEWISE accept that any claim you make to the contrary must be no less subjective. So they are not science (or anything else you care to define by such a standard), if you have no interest in things that do not accept such a standard then by all means avoid religion, and don't look too closely at your own knowledge claims either.

Mitch - while I think you are fundamentally right your tone is a bit harsh and dismissive. I think Dr Mundo while being unimpressed with our arguments does want to give them another shot.

Give them another shot at what? Doing that which we repeatedly tell him that they can never do? I don't even understand "harsh" and dismissive. That it is the truth seems like the end of it to me. I don't even see the relevance that you think it is "harsh" and "dismissive". Shall we pretend that something is not the truth because people might think the truth is harsh or dismissive? I don't understand that, AND I certainly don't think that most atheist would care that what they declare is harsh and dismissive, ONLY that it is the truth as they understand it. Please remember that this is the way that I was raised, after all.

Yeah MW is right. I guess we speak in different voices. This is something Mitch and I have never been able to get over. I didn't type that to be disrespectful or insulting.

And I do not understand how what I said can be construed as disrespectful and insulting if what you said is not. In BOTH cases what was said can be construed as disrespectful and insulting and in BOTH case they can be construed otherwise. I don't insist on doing in one way with one and another way with the other and I cannot understand how you can do this yourself. Why would you not extend the same courtesy and benefit of the doubt that you expect of me???

What I meant was that the arguments to present information regarding god claims are very weak in terms of demonstrability.

I have stipulated over and over that they are not only subjective and impossible to demonstrate but that they are necessarily so.

I see no convincing evidence supporting any of your claims about God.

Yes you have said so many times and my response is simply... understood. I have, after all, repeatedly defended the rationality of the atheist postion.

Not only that, but God claims have been around for a very long time and still have yet to produce any good argument or even a hint of evidence to their favor.

Incorrect they have produced many arguments that a great many people have thought are very good and produced all kinds of evidence that many people think "suggest" that their views are correct. BUT I have repeatedly explained that they never will produce any evidence which objective or offer any argument that will convince most skeptics.

[Dr Mundo]

Give them another shot at what? Doing that which we repeatedly tell him that they can never do? I don't even understand "harsh" and dismissive. That it is the truth seems like the end of it to me. I don't even see the relevance that you think it is "harsh" and "dismissive". Shall we pretend that something is not the truth because people might think the truth is harsh or dismissive?

Obviously not. I'm almost positive that wasn't his point.

I don't understand that, AND I certainly don't think that most atheist would care that what they declare is harsh and dismissive, ONLY that it is the truth as they understand it. Please remember that this is the way that I was raised, after all.

But you aren't dealing with "most" atheists here. You are dealing with me and I certainly am not like that.

I have stipulated over and over that they are not only subjective and impossible to demonstrate but that they are necessarily so.

How could you possibly know that this statement is true? How do you know that they are necessarily so?

Incorrect they have produced many arguments that a great many people have thought are very good and produced all kinds of evidence that many people think "suggest" that their views are correct.

Could you give me one example, please.

[Moonwood the Hare]

So far I have been unimpressed by any claim to knowledge that a theists claims to have regarding his/her God.

So far Moonwood and I have been unimpressed by your amateurish forays into epistemology. You are not required to be impressed by the claims to subjective knowledge of others. You are only required to LIKEWISE accept that any claim you make to the contrary must be no less subjective. So they are not science (or anything else you care to define by such a standard), if you have no interest in things that do not accept such a standard then by all means avoid religion, and don't look too closely at your own knowledge claims either.

Mitch - while I think you are fundamentally right your tone is a bit harsh and dismissive. I think Dr Mundo while being unimpressed with our arguments does want to give them another shot.

Give them another shot at what? Doing that which we repeatedly tell him that they can never do? I don't even understand "harsh" and dismissive. That it is the truth seems like the end of it to me. I don't even see the relevance that you think it is "harsh" and "dismissive". Shall we pretend that something is not the truth because people might think the truth is harsh or dismissive? I don't understand that, AND I certainly don't think that most atheist would care that what they declare is harsh and dismissive, ONLY that it is the truth as they understand it. Please remember that this is the way that I was raised, after all.

Mitch, I think you are right that this is to do with the way you were raised. I wonder just how liberal your parents really were because what I hear from you is the voice of a critical parent that when challenged slips over into that of a petulant child and I think I am hearing echoes of conversations actual or internal that went on in your childhood home. I think the bewilderment you are expressing is genuine and perhaps you never really learned to relate to other people on a feeling level, or perhaps you can do this in life but on this site these aspects of your total make-up come over more strongly.

Yeah MW is right. I guess we speak in different voices. This is something Mitch and I have never been able to get over. I didn't type that to be disrespectful or insulting.

And I do not understand how what I said can be construed as disrespectful and insulting if what you said is not. In BOTH cases what was said can be construed as disrespectful and insulting and in BOTH case they can be construed otherwise. I don't insist on doing in one way with one and another way with the other and I cannot understand how you can do this yourself. Why would you not extend the same courtesy and benefit of the doubt that you expect of me???

Terms like amateurish which imply a more professional approach in you and I. A choice of phrasing that is imperious and preachy 'You are only required . . . ' A use of rhetorical irony in your final sentence where you use an imperative 'don't' to imply its antithesis.

What I meant was that the arguments to present information regarding god claims are very weak in terms of demonstrability.

I have stipulated over and over that they are not only subjective and impossible to demonstrate but that they are necessarily so.

Yes and you can stipulate until you are blue in the face. Dr. Mundo insists that truth can only be known through demonstration. I have tried to argue against this. He does not accept the arguments as valid but the matter cannot be settled by stipulation; it has to be argued. Again there is that parental tone.

I see no convincing evidence supporting any of your claims about God.

Yes you have said so many times and my response is simply... understood. I have, after all, repeatedly defended the rationality of the atheist postion.

I think we all agree that there is no convincing objective evidence.

Not only that, but God claims have been around for a very long time and still have yet to produce any good argument or even a hint of evidence to their favor.

Incorrect they have produced many arguments that a great many people have thought are very good and produced all kinds of evidence that many people think "suggest" that their views are correct. BUT I have repeatedly explained that they never will produce any evidence which objective or offer any argument that will convince most skeptics.

Mitch is surely right. Actually arguments for the existence of God have been some of the best arguments around. It took centuries to dismantle Aquinas's arguments though you would never realise how subtle they are from the crass parodies Richard Dawkins presents. Anselm formulated the ontological argument way back in the 11th Century and Descartes reformulated a few centuries later. Dawkins on the basis mainly of his own gut reaction dismisses it but as he rightly notes it had enough sound features to attract Bertrand Russell who introduced new logical distinctions partly to counter it. Kurt Gödel who is one of the greatest mathematical logicians ever spent years working on it in secret in case people thought he was a theist. I doubt that logicians will still be working on meme theory in a thousand years' time!

What Mitch and I both agree on is that arguments of this type are not the main reason why we believe what we do.

[Aaron]

Anselm formulated the ontological argument way back in the 11th Century and Descartes reformulated a few centuries later. Dawkins on the basis mainly of his own gut reaction dismisses it but as he rightly notes it had enough sound features to attract Bertrand Russell who introduced new logical distinctions partly to counter it. Kurt Gödel who is one of the greatest mathematical logicians ever spent years working on it in secret in case people thought he was a theist.

The ontological argument gives me brain pain. But it seems to me that if we've finally conceived of the most perfect being, which is God, and somehow that therefore proves God, then what we've really done is to show that God is contained inside of reason and logic and we've actually disproved ourselves... but like I said big time brain pain...

[Dr Mundo]

Yes and you can stipulate until you are blue in the face. Dr. Mundo insists that truth can only be known through demonstration. I have tried to argue against this. He does not accept the arguments as valid but the matter cannot be settled by stipulation; it has to be argued. Again there is that parental tone.

Just to clarify, I am not clamming that I know for certain that all truth claims can only be known through demonstration, but that the most reasonable position is to put the most stock on those claims for which we have evidentiary support. Those claims that we don't have a way to validate or even falsify, I would be extremely cautious with. Especially when they are claimed to be the most important set of claims in all of existence.

I absolutely love talking about these things with you guys, and we can continue to hash this out in the demonstration thread if there are still some misunderstandings in my position.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Anselm formulated the ontological argument way back in the 11th Century and Descartes reformulated a few centuries later. Dawkins on the basis mainly of his own gut reaction dismisses it but as he rightly notes it had enough sound features to attract Bertrand Russell who introduced new logical distinctions partly to counter it. Kurt Gödel who is one of the greatest mathematical logicians ever spent years working on it in secret in case people thought he was a theist.

The ontological argument gives me brain pain. But it seems to me that if we've finally conceived of the most perfect being, which is God, and somehow that therefore proves God, then what we've really done is to show that God is contained inside of reason and logic and we've actually disproved ourselves... but like I said big time brain pain...

For Anselm and for that whole tradition that tries to combine Greek philosophy with Christianity God is contained inside reason and logic. Or to expand on that reason is an aspect of the being of God and when he creates the world he allows that property of reason to flow over into creation. So this view would say we have a rational creation because we have a rational God.

[Moonwood the Hare]

Yes and you can stipulate until you are blue in the face. Dr. Mundo insists that truth can only be known through demonstration. I have tried to argue against this. He does not accept the arguments as valid but the matter cannot be settled by stipulation; it has to be argued. Again there is that parental tone.

Just to clarify, I am not clamming that I know for certain that all truth claims can only be known through demonstration, but that the most reasonable position is to put the most stock on those claims for which we have evidentiary support. Those claims that we don't have a way to validate or even falsify, I would be extremely cautious with. Especially when they are claimed to be the most important set of claims in all of existence.

I absolutely love talking about these things with you guys, and we can continue to hash this out in the demonstration thread if there are still some misunderstandings in my position.

I don't know if this will help but I found this recently in the appendices to a collection of Descartes writing:

When we observe that we are thinking beings, this is a sort of primary notion, which is not the conclusion of any syllogism; and, moreover, when somebody says; I am thinking, therefore I am or exist, he is not using a syllogism to deduce his existence from his thought, but recognizing this as something self-evident, in a simple mental intuition.

He is here using the words self evident and intuition in the ways I usually use them. He is saying we know by intuition not argument that we exist. He goes on to say that to argue from our self experience to our existence we would have to know that whatever experiences exists and we can only know this by generalising from our own experience. And again this act of generalisation is intuitive. Now knowing that I exist seems to me to be very important and to be the basis for a lot of other claims but is it really demonstrable? You cannot experience my conciousness and my knowledge that I do exist does not seem to depend on my ability to demonstrate that to you.

Now Descartes would say that my knowledge of my own existence is unique in being something no one can doubt but actually he is wrong. There are mystics who declare categorically the illusoriness of their own existence and I have certainly found it something that it is possible to doubt - maybe the idea that I am a mind is just a grand illusion - is that impossible to think. St Augustine countered this centuries before Descartes by saying 'they say I am mistaken in thinking I exist but I say in order to be mistaken I must exist and call nonsense by its name.' But why should that experience of doubt not be as illusory as any other. It is my experience of myself as an existing conciousness, which I cannot demonstrate, that convinces me I am such, but I know that that experience could be mistaken.

[Dr Mundo]

Yes and you can stipulate until you are blue in the face. Dr. Mundo insists that truth can only be known through demonstration. I have tried to argue against this. He does not accept the arguments as valid but the matter cannot be settled by stipulation; it has to be argued. Again there is that parental tone.

Just to clarify, I am not clamming that I know for certain that all truth claims can only be known through demonstration, but that the most reasonable position is to put the most stock on those claims for which we have evidentiary support. Those claims that we don't have a way to validate or even falsify, I would be extremely cautious with. Especially when they are claimed to be the most important set of claims in all of existence.

I absolutely love talking about these things with you guys, and we can continue to hash this out in the demonstration thread if there are still some misunderstandings in my position.

I don't know if this will help but I found this recently in the appendices to a collection of Descartes writing:

When we observe that we are thinking beings, this is a sort of primary notion, which is not the conclusion of any syllogism; and, moreover, when somebody says; I am thinking, therefore I am or exist, he is not using a syllogism to deduce his existence from his thought, but recognizing this as something self-evident, in a simple mental intuition.

He is here using the words self evident and intuition in the ways I usually use them. He is saying we know by intuition not argument that we exist. He goes on to say that to argue from our self experience to our existence we would have to know that whatever experiences exists and we can only know this by generalising from our own experience. And again this act of generalisation is intuitive. Now knowing that I exist seems to me to be very important and to be the basis for a lot of other claims but is it really demonstrable? You cannot experience my conciousness and my knowledge that I do exist does not seem to depend on my ability to demonstrate that to you.

Now Descartes would say that my knowledge of my own existence is unique in being something no one can doubt but actually he is wrong. There are mystics who declare categorically the illusoriness of their own existence and I have certainly found it something that it is possible to doubt - maybe the idea that I am a mind is just a grand illusion - is that impossible to think. St Augustine countered this centuries before Descartes by saying 'they say I am mistaken in thinking I exist but I say in order to be mistaken I must exist and call nonsense by its name.' But why should that experience of doubt not be as illusory as any other. It is my experience of myself as an existing conciousness, which I cannot demonstrate, that convinces me I am such, but I know that that experience could be mistaken.

Yeah I'm not a fan of Descartes.

Now knowing that I exist seems to me to be very important and to be the basis for a lot of other claims but is it really demonstrable? You cannot experience my conciousness and my knowledge that I do exist does not seem to depend on my ability to demonstrate that to you.

I think it is demonstrable. I don't have to experience your consciousness in order to demonstrate your existence. How you define existence and how you define "You" will set this up to be an easy thing to demonstrate. If by exist you mean able to manifest itself in reality and physically affect the surroundings, and if you by your own capacities chose to interact with the world around you then we can measure the impact you have on it. We can measure your body heat given off, we can take your mass and come up with consistent numbers, we can watch you take actions and record them to study or examine later. So long as you are independent of the person examining the actions or physical attributes that make you up, we can establish that you exist.