Ep. 90: Why is there something rather than nothing?

[mitchellmckain]

What do you think the likelihood is, very roughly and generally speaking (I'm not looking for the mathematic statistical probability here), that the Greek pantheon actually existed outside the imaginations of the people who believed it existed?

This was directed to Mitch, but I would like to point out a problem with the question as stated.

Many of the Greek pantheon were anthropomorphisations of concepts that were important to the pre-Classical and Classical-era Greeks. So, for example, Nike was a personification of victory. Victory really existed as an important concept at the time. The word for "victory" the concept was nike, the same word as the name of the goddess. Therefore, Nike existed as a concept that you could reason about.

We still put statues of Themis, holding a sword and scales and sometimes blindfolded, outside our courthouses because, even though we don't believe that Themis is a literal goddess, we still understand the concept of "correct procedure" and why it is important that the justice system of any civilised society must follow it. We still believe in themis even if we don't believe in Themis. To the extent that most of the Greeks did not make a distinction between the two, Themis actually existed and still exists today.

Indeed and this is an excellent illustration of my belief that relgion played an indispensible role in man's ability to conceive abstract concepts -- seeing the invisible things beneath the surface appearances. We use stories to bring invisible and hard to explain things into the awareness of people all the time.

[Dave B]

it is intolerance to futher say or imply that something wrong with those whom they disagree with (whether in regards to intellegence, sanity, morality, freedom of thought, illness, burden of proof or whatever)

Here's where you lose me. I can understand why you would find it intolerant to suggest that christians are stupid, insane, immoral, ill or that they don't have the right to choose their beliefs. The burden of proof thing doesn't seem to fit with the others. Why is it intolerant to insist that in order to convince me that your beliefs are true, you need to provide sufficient reason to justify it? You seem to be applying the same standard to the many beliefs that you don't hold but are tolerant of.

[mitchellmckain]

There is no intolerance in a theist or atheist for asserting or denying that there is a God in disagreement with others, but it is intolerance to futher say or imply that something wrong with those whom they disagree with (whether in regards to intellegence, sanity, morality, freedom of thought, illness, burden of proof or whatever), when they have absolutely no objective justification for such a judgement.

Here's where you lose me. I can understand why you would find it intolerant to suggest that christians are stupid, insane, immoral, ill or that they don't have the right to choose their beliefs.

Where then in what you have quoted did I lose you?

I guess I shall have to put in the quotes that your subsequent statements actually refer to.

The burden of proof and of objective evidence is simply on whatever person is claiming that something is unjustified or in any other way making a judgement of another person.

The burden of proof thing doesn't seem to fit with the others.

??? ...the other what? ...the other statements? ...in what way??? This says that the burden of proof is on the person judging the beliefs of others and not on the person asserting their personal beliefs. Are you simply trying the dodge of classifying comments on others and their beliefs as personal beliefs that you are entitled to? When you share them with others, the fact that you are entitled to such beliefs does not make them immune to questions of whether those beliefs are intolerant, no more than your freemdom of speech to say logically inconsistent things means that others are not free to point out the logical inconsistencies. Like I said before, you are free to disagree but it is intolerance to take the next step and say that something is wrong with the other person unless you have objective evidence to back it up.

Why is it intolerant to insist that in order to convince me that your beliefs are true, you need to provide sufficient reason to justify it?

It isn't -- on the contrary the reverse is true. It is intolerance to expect you to change your beliefs that are consistent with logic and tolerance, where there is no objective evidence that you should. However if your beliefs are not consistent with logic and tolerance then it is a duty of rational people to point out the logical inconsistencies and the duty of those who want to live in free society to point out the intolerance. This is why I constantly dispute with Tony over this.

You seem to be applying the same standard to the many beliefs that you don't hold but are tolerant of.

Yes and that includes the beliefs of the atheist, I am a theist and yet I defend the atheist position as logically consistent in opposition to those who argue that it is not as well as challenge the intolerance of those who imply that there is something wrong with atheists (whether in regards to intellegence, sanity, morality, freedom of thought, illness, burden of proof or whatever), because of their position on this objectively undecidable issue.

[Dave B]

Mitchell,

I'm not sure how this is happening, but when you quote me and the quote includes a quoted line of yours, it tends to turn out wrong. I'm guessing that your browser is somehow at fault, as you seem to be responding as if I had quoted more than one sentence of yours in my previous post. I think your response addressed my point, however. You object to attacking people for simply holding beliefs, not for demanding that they satisfy a burden of proof when trying to convince others of the validity of those beliefs. I'm not sure why you use the term "burden of proof" for this, but I now see the miscommunication that led to our disagreement.

I do have one more question that I thought of while considering your earlier questions. If two people can hold ideas which logically contradict eachother, but are internally consistent within each person, then their premises must be contradictory. You don't believe that this implies that one of them must be wrong, as the universe need not be consistent. Why then is it problematic for a single person to hold internally contradictory beliefs? Shouldn't this be desirable in a contradictory universe? Or am I misunderstanding you once again here?

[scomsjw]

humanguy wrote:I don't see how a Christian could have any grounds for objecting to comparing the Christian god to any of the other gods that have been believed in over the course of history

I had a visit from a couple of mormon missionaries some months ago. I invited them in and we had a number of meetings over a few weeks. They were charming and intelligent and the first few meetings were very pleasant indeed. It got a bit uncomfortable later because I did a bit of reading about Joseph Smith and challenged some of their beliefs. Eventually it became apparent that they were quite desperate to convert me and they became increasingly frustrated with my scepticism. A little bit of emotion crept in and I had to end the meetings by being a bit rude. Even then I could see that they were upset not to have converted me. I think this was because they are quite sincere in their beliefs and genuinely concerned about my atheistic soul. I live in the UK, there are hardly any mormons here and not that many church-going christians. I was quite moved by the thought of these young mormons going from door to door meeting intelligent, good people most of whom have never heard of Joseph Smith. They are hardly ever invited in; when they are they hardly ever make a conversion. But it doesn't seem to dent their faith. These young people had good degrees from Brigham Young Uni, were articulate and bright yet they believe in Smith's gold plates and all the other strange parts of mormon theology. I wondered how Tony would have dealt with them. It seemed to me that it would be hard to argue that traditional christianity is "right" and mormonism is "wrong". How could you be sure?

[Brad]

Two queries:

1) Would it be fair to think of Mitch as sort of a postmodernist, at least as regards religion?

2) In antiquity, were at least some of the Greek gods worshiped and prayed to and considered to objectively exist in much the same way as Christians and Muslims and Mormons and the Jews at the Wailing Wall consider their God(s) to exist? If so, then wasn't Jim's question quite appropriate just as it was stated?

[Brad]

It seemed to me that it would be hard to argue that traditional christianity is "right" and mormonism is "wrong". How could you be sure?

That's a really great question!

[Brad]

A couple of things I read in the New Yorker magazine recently seem relevant to recent discussion here:

1) The suggestion that one’s personal experience, whether profound or incidental, should be considered equivalent with any other set of facts or experiences, and therefore beyond question or even ridicule, is very humorously presented in a comic bit of fiction by Ian Frazier, in the first person of a spurned scoutmaster. The scoutmaster has a religious vision, which in some ways resembles the Mormon narrative.

As the full piece is not available for non-subscribers online, I’ll type in a couple of lines here.

By now you all know, too, of the vision I had that restored my faith. So glorious was this miracle for me that I don’t care what it makes anyone think.
…
I am merely trying to impart that which was vouchsafed to me. An angel hovering my back yard on a snow-white pterodactyl would arouse anybody’s skepticism, even (at first) my own.
…
I also believe, with every fibre of my being, that the lost Dinosaur Scrolls he told me about do exist, somewhere in the Sinai Desert, and will be discovered someday.

2) Regarding consideration of tolerance and intolerance, and how those words might differ depending on who is using and/or defining them, I think a reading of this piece about Scientology and Scientologists is quite thought-provoking. This one is available in full for reading and/or printing.

I would argue (and have, elsewhere) that the Scientologists’ reactionary victim stance and cries of “intolerance” are not only echoed by other religions and believers, but come quite directly from identical ploys by various Christian and Jewish groups over the centuries, not least during the last century or so in the freedom loving and First Amendment possessing U.S.A.

Some of the other tactics used by the Hubbardites to draw and retain their “flock” and to repel criticism and inquiry are also very similar to those of other religions. If anyone would like to start (or restart) discussion on the article or on what Scientology might and might not have in common with large swaths of other religions in a thread in another forum section, I’d enjoy joining in that.

[JustJim]

What do you think the likelihood is, very roughly and generally speaking (I'm not looking for the mathematic statistical probability here), that the Greek pantheon actually existed outside the imaginations of the people who believed it existed?

This was directed to Mitch, but I would like to point out a problem with the question as stated.

Many of the Greek pantheon were anthropomorphisations of concepts that were important to the pre-Classical and Classical-era Greeks. So, for example, Nike was a personification of victory. Victory really existed as an important concept at the time. The word for "victory" the concept was nike, the same word as the name of the goddess. Therefore, Nike existed as a concept that you could reason about.

Yes, of course the concept nike existed, and could be reasoned about, but did the goddess Nike actually exist as a real being, not a concept, outside of the imaginations of those who believed she did? That is the question, Pseudo; it's not a question of whether the concept of victory exists or not, which of course it does. Do you see the difference?

We still put statues of Themis, holding a sword and scales and sometimes blindfolded, outside our courthouses because, even though we don't believe that Themis is a literal goddess, we still understand the concept of "correct procedure" and why it is important that the justice system of any civilised society must follow it. We still believe in themis even if we don't believe in Themis. To the extent that most of the Greeks did not make a distinction between the two, Themis actually existed and still exists today.

Yes, Themis existed for those Greeks as both a concept and a goddess. For us, themis exists today only as a concept (or at least I hope so), and the likenesses of Themis are used only to represent the concept of justice. For those Greeks who believed in the pantheon, Themis was not just a representation of the concept; she was also a goddess.

I don't think anyone disputes the existence of the Greek gods and goddesses in the imaginations of those who believed they existed, nor do they dispute the concepts around which the various gods and goddesses may have been conjured. The question is whether we (in the case of my original question, that was Mitch) believe those gods and goddesses actually existed as real beings outside of the imaginations of those who believed in them and apart from the concepts they represented. I hope that clears it up a bit....

Jim

[mitchellmckain]

I do have one more question that I thought of while considering your earlier questions. If two people can hold ideas which logically contradict eachother, but are internally consistent within each person, then their premises must be contradictory. You don't believe that this implies that one of them must be wrong, as the universe need not be consistent.

No the last part is incorrect. The universe is not equivalent to reality -- not as I use the word. For all that I can tell the universe is something governed by the mathematical laws of physics and is closely associated with what we share in our experiences and although our experiences of it are not necessarily the same, I certainly think its truths on macroscopic level are singular and consistent.

For example, suppose technologically advanced aliens visited a single person on the earth without leaving a shred of evidnece by which he could prove that such an encounter ocurred. That person's experience of the universe would indeed have diverged from the experience of other people. But if these aliens are really a part of the (physical) universe then I would indeed say that they either exist or they do not. Now when we look at the actual claims by people to have encountered aliens they are too numerous to fit the above senario and thus the lack of objective evidence is a bit suspicious causing me judge that it is most likely, that if these are experiences of things that are real, then they are experiences of things which are not part of this physical universe.

Why then is it problematic for a single person to hold internally contradictory beliefs? Shouldn't this be desirable in a contradictory universe? Or am I misunderstanding you once again here?

Setting aside the fact that your preceeding premise for what I was saying was incorrect, this amounts to a question about whether a person's experiences of reality can be inconsistent. I have to admit that I think that I think this does happen in dreams, and I think this lack of logical consistency is one of the reasons we have such a hard time remembering most of them. Such a lack of logical consitency in these experiences makes it impossible to put together a meaningful picture of the "reality" that those are an experience of. Perhaps it is a requirement of rational beings that they seperate out experiences that are incoherent like that and call them dreams.

I don't think anyone disputes the existence of the Greek gods and goddesses in the imaginations of those who believed they existed, nor do they dispute the concepts around which the various gods and goddesses may have been conjured. The question is whether we (in the case of my original question, that was Mitch) believe those gods and goddesses actually existed as real beings outside of the imaginations of those who believed in them and apart from the concepts they represented. I hope that clears it up a bit....

This presumes an absolute separation between what is imagined and what is real. When I assert that there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality itself, I am calling that presumption into question, and in fact asserting that since imagination is necessarily part of reality, that such a separation is not absolute.

[JustJim]

The burden of proof thing doesn't seem to fit with the others.

??? ...the other what?

Just to help out a bit, if I can, I think Dave was referring to this:

There is no intolerance in a theist or atheist for asserting or denying that there is a God in disagreement with others, but it is intolerance to futher say or imply that something wrong with those whom they disagree with (whether in regards to intellegence, sanity, morality, freedom of thought, illness, burden of proof or whatever), when they have absolutely no objective justification for such a judgement.

So, he was saying "burden of proof" didn't fit with "intelligence, sanity, morality, freedom of thought, illness". But you two have moved beyond that, I see....

Jim

[JustJim]

I don't think anyone disputes the existence of the Greek gods and goddesses in the imaginations of those who believed they existed, nor do they dispute the concepts around which the various gods and goddesses may have been conjured. The question is whether we (in the case of my original question, that was Mitch) believe those gods and goddesses actually existed as real beings outside of the imaginations of those who believed in them and apart from the concepts they represented. I hope that clears it up a bit....

This presumes an absolute separation between what is imagined and what is real. When I assert that there is an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality itself, I am calling that presumption into question, and in fact asserting that since imagination is necessarily part of reality, that such a separation is not absolute.

Okay... I understand what you mean when you say that, and I'm fine with it. I agree with it. But when I ask you if you believe Zeus was an actual, real person/god/being who existed outside the imaginations (the perceived subjective realities) of those who believed he did, I'm asking you if you think Zeus was as real a person/being as you or I are. Was there a being called Zeus who walked around on top of Mt. Olympus, even if not observed doing so, or not? Just because some (many?) ancient Greeks seemed to have believed so doesn't mean it was actually so. Or does it? I understand that the answer is YES as regards their subjective perceptions and interpretations of their subjective realities, but the answer is NO as regards my own and probably (I hope) your own. So I'm not really asking about whether the Greek pantheon existed subjectively in the minds and experiences of those who believed it did, or even in your mind or mine; I'm asking your opinion on whether you think the Greek pantheon objectively existed outside of the subjective realities of those who believed it did. Do you have no opinion on that? I think the rest of us do, but that, of course, doesn't mean you have to. I'd just like to know, if you have an opinion, what it is. And if there is no such thing as an objective reality that exists independently of our subjective perceptions of it, then... Wow...........

Jim

[mitchellmckain]

1) Would it be fair to think of Mitch as sort of a postmodernist, at least as regards religion?

How and in what way since I don't actually agree with the vast majority of philosophers that are called postmodern? You seem to be using this as an epethetical label of some kind rather than any serious examination of what that set of philosophers are actually saying. My thinking certainly is not based on their ideas. IF, however, by postmodern you simply mean that I have considered the philosophical conclusions of modernity and learned from them while seeing their limitations and gone beyond them, then I don't see any reason to object, especially if you leave out the implication of reaction against modernity. In which case how is your use of "postmodern" all that different than saying that I am not philosophically naive. I am indeed of this philosophical era, aware and appreciative of where philosophy has gone in the (even recent) past and drawing my own conclusions. Perhaps I am post-postmodern, LOL.

The current Wikipeida article mentions Heidegger, Kuhn, Derrida, Lyotard, Rorty, Baudrillard and Jameson, and is considerably changed from previous explanations of postmodernism -- perhaps the very meaning of the term "postmodernism" is in flux. It is pretty obvious that I reject Heidegger's objections to subjectivity/objectivity analysis of Phenomenalism and I see nothing in common between my view of reality and his. I am contemptuous of Kuhn's view of science which it has been suggested is typical of a physicist's reaction. I am likewise contemptuous of the deconstuctionism of Derrida, have even greater outraged reaction to Foucault, and I am not finding much of value in Rorty. On the other hand, I am not finding as much to object to in Lyotard, Baudrillard and Jameson, but finding some of their ideas intriguing.

It seemed to me that it would be hard to argue that traditional christianity is "right" and mormonism is "wrong". How could you be sure?

What an absurd question! We are not dealing here with two alternative propositions but with two sets of claims, which are far from clearly defined sets. Some of the claims in these two are true some are false and most are just different. Is their anything that actually appeals to you in these mormons besides their sincerity? I live here in Salt Lake City and I love the Mormons, but I am not a Mormon. I like the people and I appreciate them, but that doesn't mean that I like their religion - not for myself anyway. However well it may work for them, it does not work for me.

[Brad]

1) Would it be fair to think of Mitch as sort of a postmodernist, at least as regards religion?

How and in what way since I don't actually agree with the vast majority of philosophers that are called postmodern? You seem to be using this as an epethetical label of some kind rather than any serious examination of what that set of philosophers are actually saying. My thinking certainly is not based on their ideas.

I don't claim to be a scholar, armchair or otherwise, of philosophy. I don't think that should prevent me from using a philosophical term within the limits of my general understanding and to the degree that I think other non-academics might comprehend. Your reply reminds me of Don Johnson's insistence that Emery shouldn't critique Christianity because he's not a theologian.

Nevertheless, as my public query was about you, Mitch, you certainly have every right to respond. And you did.
But I was actually asking everyone else who is reading this thread.
Does anyone else have an opinion on this question, given Mitch's posts about the subjective nature of reality and the terms such as "intolerance" he uses to bash those of us who critique the content of either his thinking or those aspects of Christianity he favors?
Does anyone else follow what I'm asking?

IF, however, by postmodern you simply mean that I have considered the philosophical conclusions of modernity and learned from them while seeing their limitations and gone beyond them, then I don't see any reason to object, especially if you leave out the implication of reaction against modernity. In which case how is your use of "postmodern" all that different than saying that I am not philosophically naive. I am indeed of this philosophical era, aware and appreciative of where philosophy has gone in the (even recent) past and drawing my own conclusions. Perhaps I am post-postmodern, LOL.

Humble as ever, Mitch! Btw, you're welcome very much for the link to the sermon I offered to you earlier (in the previous thread?).

[Dave B]

Mitch,

You seem to be using "reality" to mean either an individual's subjective picture of how the universe works or something which includes both the objective universe and the supernatural. So do you mean that two people's contradictory beliefs can both be correct because they can both be justified by each person's subjective experience, or because the supernatural can contain actual (and not just apparent) contradictions?