edit: changed the title. Indeed it was a bit misleading, as it doesn't really teach anything. Religion seems a hot topic on this site,especially since it seems we have both convinced Christians as well as atheists. Now I do believe that religion is a personal thing and that everyone should believe whatever makes him or her happy, as long as he or she doesn't harm anyone as a result. Yet apart from hurting people, there is one other way to get on my nerves where religion is concerned, and that is when people take science and philosophy, turn them around and present them as 'truths' to support their position. This includes intelligent design, which seems to be the poor answer of some radical Christians to Darwinism, but it also covers atheists that use 'logic' to come to the most unlogical conclusions. With logic I don't mean common sense, but pure mathematical logic as it is taught in universities, that bunch of implications, bi-implications, conjunctions, disjunctions, negations, and depending on the order of logic other operators. The entire methodology of modern science is built on this logic. Now if we ignore Schroedinger's cruel thought experiment, things are either true or untrue. In theory everything is possible, but the purpose of science is to reduce the number of possible worlds and thus to get closer to knowing the true one. As our great French philosopher Descartes showed though, we have to rely on input from outside in order to arrive at our conclusions about truth. For those who are a bit unfamiliar with him: Think of the Hollywood blockbuster The Matrix. There Neo finds out that his world is in fact a lie produced by machines that use him as a battery. This is no brilliant invention by the Wachowski brothers, but a well known idea in Western philosophy, called a brain-in-vat, something they just took very literally. Plato referred to it as 'shadows on the wall of a cave'; much less exciting, but the same idea. The core of this idea was well summed up as 'cogito ergo sum' (I think, therefore I am). We know we can think and that's about it... The rest could all be a lie. Thus far for the impossibility of claiming absolute truths. Let's now move on to 'philosophy of science', for if we cannot know anything for certain, then why do we need science anyway? Philosophy just showed that it's quest is doomed to fail... Well yes, if you are hoping to arrive at absolute knowledge about everything you might be a bit disappointed. Yet can we say nothing about truth then? If we never encountered an unicorn, then it's likely it doesn't exist right? Indeed, it seems unlikely that unicorns exist, but that is no proof. Consider for instance the famous example of the swans: In all your life you have only seen white swans and you have seen loads of them. Now it's easy to decide by induction, that all swans are white. After all, why would you bother proving what everyone can see? Until someone brings a black swan from some faraway country and your world view is crushed... A scientist that claims that all swans are white can do two things: Either he says:" Let's assume all swans are white", and then he can continue his research based on this assumption. Or he could say: " Let's go look for swans that are not white. I doubt if they exist, but if I travel all over the world and don't find any, I can tell everyone that at least I tried to find any." This is basically the way philosophy of science nowadays looks at scientific evidence. For every time our second scientist has been abroad and honestly tells his colleagues that again he didn't find any swan of a different colour, the stronger his theory that no such swans exist gets. Similarly though, if he does find one, no-one is in trouble. He himself might have made a great scientific breakthrough, but the first scientist, with his assumptions, can safely say:" Gosh, how nice, a black swan, who would have thought that, but then, my assumption was only that, an assumption..." Science therefore usually does not make claims about truth and when it does make them, they are based on mathematics and logic. Even within these fields though, it has been proven that some things are un-provable. This is quite interesting stuff, but it would go a bit too far to describe Turing machines, computability and the halting problem here. The bottom line is that any claim about absolute truth-values in the real world has to be questioned and it doesn't matter if this value is 'true' or 'false'. The logical positivists came up with the idea that unprovable things were irrelevant. Quantum physics seems to go even a step further, as it appears from above mentioned thought experiment by Schroedinger that things could be both true and false at the same time... |
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3567 comments posted) 6th September 2008 | I think this is your version of Philosophy. I got as far as:-
"but the purpose of science is to reduce the number of possible worlds and thus to get closer to knowing the true one"
and gave up. This doesn't make any sense- possible worlds?? what possible worlds? It is one of those phrases that sounds good until you try to deconstruct it and then you see it doesn't say anything.
This was starting to sound like one of those pamphlets that are thrust into my hand by smart dressed men with briefcases and faces that shine with moral superiority.
I don't' think you mean all this really. I suspect you are just playing devils advocate 
jane |
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 6th September 2008 | Thanks BBS for the review.
I suppose I'm a bit too hurried to be a good lecturer on philosophy ;-)
The idea of possible worlds you may find explained in many philosophical works: Basically everything could be true or false. If you proof something, you decrease the number of possibilities, since for that one element it's clear that it's true or false. Thus by increasing knowledge you are decreasing the set of possible worlds. Ideally you'd end up with one world, being the true one.
What I believe to be true or not is not relevant here: This is what the current scientific/philosophical world seems to believe... Although within that framework people are still fighting about all sorts of things. Science is far from a monolithic consensus thing... It's just as fractured as religion 
Indeed this may in many ways represent a 20th century Continental European (mainly German) view of philosophy and I do like to play the devil's advocate |
Written by Phil (6963 comments posted) 6th September 2008 | I have no idea what your expertise in philosophy is, Fledermaus. I'll be honest - personally, I'm just a thinker with a bit of education.
I'm not sure if you want a review of the writing style or a response to the content - you seem to be on a bit of a mission at the moment - so I'll comment first on the content.
The title suggests this will provide an overview of philosophy - much of what is written states a personal view of philosophies, not an outline of what they are.
Quote:
Now I do believe that religion is a personal thing and that everyone should believe whatever makes him or her happy, as long as he or she doesn't harm anyone as a result.
A seemingly harmless statement that would be difficult to disagree with. Unfortunately religion is not personal. For example, Christianity has at its roots, a tradition of evangelism. Christ, supposedly, sent his apostles far and wide to spread the 'good news'. As soon as a religion begins to attempt to convert and influence others (and which doesn't, at the very least, not try to have influence) it becomes a little more than a personally held view. I wonder how you define 'doesn't harm anyone as a result'? Some of the Catholic aid agencies in Africa do astoundingly wonderful and valuable work. At the same time they obstruct the distribution of condoms that would see some reduction in the explosion of AIDS and its consequences across the continent. Does the good they do outweigh the harm? Does their belief that Africans should just stop having sex justify actions that obstruct what may have a huge and positive impact. Does bringing up your own children and instilling religious beliefs in them constitute harm? To many, the answer would be a resounding 'no.' How can the teaching of morals and a god in heaven who loves you be harmful? Well personal experience tells me it can completely screw you up. It isn't quite as simple as you make out.
Sorry, I'm running out of energy already - and I'm only on the second paragraph.
I guess my reaction to this as a piece of writing is that it full of facts (I assume - I don't know enough to say for sure) that are all used to steer the reader to think in a particular way. You've selected 'evidence' that support your irritations - but the evidence base is narrow and, well, selective.
Practitioners of good science admit their evidence proves nothing absolutely - just a best fit according to our understanding at the time. It is based on testing, hypothesising, research, observations, cross checking etc etc. It recognises it's fallibilities. (That, BTW, is my opinion of good science.) If people chose to base what they believe and don't believe on good science, then they will recognise that their beliefs may change as science changes. The key difference between Christians (for example) and non-believers is that many non believers will be willing to change their opinions as science changes and develops. Faith precludes change. Faith dictates belief in absolutes.
I once saw an interview with Richard Dawkins. In answer to a direct question he admitted he would believe in god if science proved it. That's not a position faith puts anyone in.
Science and religion should not be kept apart - as has been suggested elsewhere. They both try to do the same thing - explain life. Philosophy, I suppose, puts those explanations into human terms.
Atheists get a bad press. Not because they are vocal or obnoxious - because they aren't. I've heard one interview with the oh so very famous famous Richard Dawkins in forty-one years of living with TV and radio. I don't remember anyone else on TV or radio explaining a atheistic viewpoint. I've witnessed countless occasions when the great and good (and downright ordinary) of the major religions have been wheeled out to spout about current affairs, moral dilemmas, etc etc . I think atheists get a bad press because they are seen (not heard) to challenge comfortable, established beliefs that help to maintain the status quo.
Religious people can also get bad press. But they have the weight of tradition, common sentiment, and often the law to protect them.
Balance is a hard thing to achieve. In my opinion - it wasn't achieved in this piece - nor my response in all probability.
Sorry, Fledermaus.
Phil |
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 6th September 2008 | Thanks Phil. At the uni we got a lot of philosophy, because for some reason we were part of that department. How coloured the views were I cannot fully say, but I do think that Continental Europeans such as the Wiener Kreis were a bit over represented in our books.
I once had an interesting discussion about this with an atheist and learned that my definition of an atheist is that what he called a 'hard atheist', so apparently there are also 'soft atheists', but what exactly separates those from 'agnostics' I don't know. Richard Dawkins as you describe him above doesn't seem to fit in my definition of an atheist. I'd most likely call him agnostic.
I'm not at all bothered by atheism, but I am a bit concerned when people are trying to talk about religion in terms of science. The two are completely separated. It might just be an opinion, but I do think that for scientists (including theologians) it's totally irrelevant if there are gods or not.
| Good stuff
Written by johniebg (553 comments posted) 6th September 2008 | Well fledermaus, I enjoyed reading this because here you substantiate your arguement. It is very similar to the arguement I recently read that was written to contend 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. I think the contending book was called 'The Dawkins Delusion' and here you have detailed many of the philosophical statements the writer of the Dawkins Delusion used.
Including the Swan scenario. The trouble with the swan scenario is it states a faith perspective for knowledge acquisition and then overlays it as a scientific approach.
Christians tend to use the Swan philosophy because they have absolutely nothing but a book of contradicting stories and messages on which to base their faith. They believe Swans are white because a bunch of people told them that must be the case, wrote that down and they are damn well going to deny anything else might be true. If the black swan existed four hundred years ago it would simply have been killed or been labelled a harbinger of the devil. Great philosophy.
A good scientist would state that the Swan species appear to be covered in white coloured feathers. If they found a Black covered swan the description would be changed to 'And have occasionally been noted as having a black covering. Although this is in minority.' They might also conclude the black covering might be down to a nutrional change or DNA mutation.
Christians have repeatedly denied anything that conflicts with their imaginative but contradicting book. Their minds are very oftern closed books. If there are any christians out there that sign on for evolution as well I am really keen to hear from you because I don't get how the two are valid in one mind.
Believing that there are no absolutes is a negative arguement used by people with faith to justify their belief in something that cannot be proven - if there are no absolutes then anything is possible This is faith at its absolute worst. It is an extremely negative way of thinking, ignorance embraced and dressed up in shiny philosophical shoes. But it is flawed by the fact that to believe there are no absolutes you have to take that statement as an absolute truth.
If that is your approach then I personally think it is a waste of a perfectly good mind.
I know I am alive because my heart beats, pumping blood through my body. Blood that carries oxygen and all things my body needs to maintain itself. That is a statement of absolute truth. I know my brain is repsonsible for maintaining the functioning systems of my body and that the processes of my brain create a state of consciousness. That is an absolute.
What consciousness is is still up for grabs.
You have detailed your arguement here but simply stating that nothing can be true is not a viable arguement. |
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 6th September 2008 | Thanks Johnie,
See, if a Christian would try to convince me that God does exist and comes with 'scientific' arguments, I'd probably hit him with those very same arguments, not because of his view about religion, but because of his view about science.
Of course Christianity (like any other religion) has twisted many facts, but then, their solution shouldn't be to claim absolute truth either, but to accept that their views are beliefs, assumptions, faith or whatever.
Where your last claim is concerned, yes you know you are conscious, but how sure can you be about those other things? I think The Matrix did a good job at making this question (which is at least as old as Plato) accessible to a larger audience. Can you actually be sure that the world exists? (OK, common sense tells me that it's best to assume it does, but purely logical it's not provable).
In the days of Copernicus the theory that claimed the entire universe revolved around earth was better able to predict the movement of the planets than his idea that earth revolved around the sun, yet because he dared to question the scientific views of his day, we are now able to send astronauts to the moon. Good science exists by the grace of skepticism. And yes, people do of course have to make assumptions in order to do anything at all. | More to Johnie
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 6th September 2008 | | I'm very curious what argument those Christians used when they used the swan metaphor btw: For it would mean that they would have to disprove the existence of god(s)... |
Written by Veronica_Milvus (751 comments posted) 6th September 2008 | "some things are un-proveable".
In fact, scientifically, nothing is provable. But if after years of experimentation and / or collecting evidence, there is nothing found to the contrary, then the balance of probability is that the hypothesis is correct. All science works that way.
You can't prove, you can, however, disprove... hence the religious people who say "aha! you have not proved there is no God..." they think they have won, when in fact, they show themselves up as not understanding the Scientific Method.
cf Karl Popper |
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 6th September 2008 | Thanks Veronica,
Within the framework of mathematics, absolute truths do exist and can be proven, yet the funny thing is that even there, in this world that's totally defined by humans, there are unprovable things.
For all other sciences, you're absolutely correct, which is why any claim about truth outside the scope of mathematics is a belief.
Indeed science does work as you describe above: That's what our second scientist here does with his swans: He sets out to falsify his own theory and whenever that fails, it becomes more plausible.
The irony with that, with respect to religion, is that both sides are trying to find the wrong evidence. Instead of trying to falsify their theories, they are trying to confirm them, thus strengthening their opponents position.
| Persian poet's reply to philosophic p
Written by patterjack (1435 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | Omar summed up my feelings
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.
patterjack
who is also reminded of the Poofoo Bird | title
Written by patterjack (1435 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | Last word in the last posting was to be periphrasis but like the kind of arguments illustrated above , it turned out to be endless
patterjack |
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | Thanks Patterjack.
I once read somewhere that the Mongol ruler of medieval Russia (who followed Mongolian shamanism) once invited a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Roman Catholic and a Nestorian to tell him which one was the one true religion. For a long time they argued and debated, and at the end of the meeting, the Mongol ruler told them he stayed pagan, but that he had enjoyed himself a lot... | Hmmm!
Written by wltshr (352 comments posted) 7th September 2008 |
Tricky this. Being a bear of very little brain there is very little I can contribute to this.
I think it may be safe to say that you have chosen to court controversy with this piece and have succedded admirably. As a self proclaimed cat amongst the pigeons putter-inner myself I applaud you.
However, what stood out for me was the use of the word "truth". You appear to blur truth and fact. My understanding is that Fact is incontovertible evidence based on knowledge, which by it's very nature may be altered in light of new information, and Truth which is belief based on interpretation of Facts.
Truth, like a nasty stain in the carpet, is rather more difficult to shift.
As usual my opinion is less than valid for so many reasons. I have no faith based beliefs. I am agnostic insofar as, on a purely personal level, if I could be convinced of the existence of a Supreme being I would gladly change my viewpoint. As a scientist I am even less certain of my ground, "A brief history of time" simply gave me a terrific headache.
Very diverting piece.
Wltshr |
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 7th September 2008 | Thanks Wltshr,
It seems your definition of truth differs from mine For me truth is the value that a boolean can take (true or false). Beliefs are beliefs about truth, while knowledge consists of justified beliefs which are also correct.
What a 'fact' is within that framework I didn't know, but the internet tells me that a fact is a state of affairs reported by a true proposition. Unfortunately the website didn't clarify whether it meant a "true proposition" or a "true" proposition...
What it appears to be is that a fact is a situation in which a proposition is true.
It also seems that according to the correspondence theory of truth, something is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact, but I'm afraid I should have paid more attention when cats sitting on mats and that sort of stuff were discussed... |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
