Londoner wrote:uwot wrote:My disagreement is with those theists that insist I do want some cake.
Those would be theists who are insisting that you are also a theist.
I don't think you mean that.
I did, so if I have misunderstood you, you will have to explain.
Fair enough. The difference is between those who force feed you cake and those who persist in trying to persuade you to try their cake. Henry put it rather bluntly, but accurately.
Londoner wrote:Moral: avoid metaphors.
Well, it was you that introduced cake.
Londoner wrote:I think theists can be annoying to argue with because they tend to have a mission. They won't explore interesting arguments for fear this will somehow compromise them. But on the other hand, they do tend to be given a hard time; as you say it does tend to be Mr Can against the world on these boards.
That's the cross he has chosen to bear.
Londoner wrote:Why isn't having 'a code of laws' 'meddling in other peoples affairs'?
Fair point. Ideally a code of laws should aim to allow the maximum freedom with the minimum coercion, but that is just my personal belief.
Londoner wrote:I do not think there is a substance called 'merit' that we can objectively identify. By saying they have merit you are giving them your approval. And if you say that others should/must share your opinion, that is to assert that your approval is more than just a 'personal belief'. On what is that assertion based on? It must be on some claim of transcendental authority.
The problem with transcendental authority is that there isn't one that is universally accepted. We are stuck with arguing for our personal beliefs.
Londoner wrote:Suppose John says: 'I don't believe in gravity'. Mary asks: 'Why not?' John relies: 'No reason'. Then Mary asks: 'What do you mean by gravity?' How will John reply?
You'd have to ask John. The thing is that gravity is simply whatever it is that makes things fall to the ground.
Londoner wrote:He can deny he means anything by 'gravity', but in that case his saying 'I don't believe in gravity' was meaningless. But if he gives a description of 'gravity' then it will be in terms of more general things, 'scientific laws' or 'spacetime'. In which case, his disbelief in gravity must relate to more than just the word 'gravity'. It might be a rejection of science as a whole, or of relativity.
There are any number of hypotheses that seek to explain the cause of gravity. John can believe in any or none of them, but that massive bodies are subject to a force can easily be demonstrated by dropping something. In other words, John might not believe in, for instance, warped spacetime, but unless he has some esoteric, perhaps Eleatic metaphysical beliefs, it is unlikely that he will deny that something is making heavy objects fall to the ground.
Londoner wrote:In other words, there is no 'just not believing'. If we are saying something meaningful, then it has to relate to the rest of our ideas.
Well, it is worth remembering that scientific theories can consist of three elements.
1. The phenomenon you wish to understand. This is crucial; 'science', if it means anything, is investigating, describing and explaining things that demonstrably happen. Anyone suitably equipped should be able to agree that the phenomenon exists. If an area of interest does not relate to phenomena that others can agree is 'real', then science is just any idea that anyone happens to have. That is pretty much how sociology defines science, conveniently, as it grants sociology scientific status, but personally, I think physics is about physical phenomena, or it isn't physics.
2. Pattern recognition. This might simply be inductive reasoning: the sun has always come up, therefore, it probably will continue to do so. It might be a bit more sophisticated and predict where and when it will rise and fall, based on previous observations; or it might be a full blown mathematical model, like Ptolemy, and a general pattern is inferred from quantifiable measurements.
3. Finally, there is the explanation. You can attribute the rise and fall of the sun to anything you like. An hypothesis may or may not make predictions about future observations, but if it doesn't, it has no 'scientific' value.
I should add that utility, ease of use, is generally accepted scientific value. It's Occam's Razor, a simpler model is preferable to a more complicated one that gives exactly the same results, but it isn't necessarily any more 'true'.
Londoner wrote:If the goons are like minded, and the majority, then their imposing their will would be democratic.
That's the tyranny of democracy; there will always be some for whom that is the case, and as the US election has shown, it doesn't even need to be the majority.
Londoner wrote:Is personal belief sacrosanct, in the sense that nobody should be allowed to impose anything, on anyone?
Yes.
Londoner wrote:Because even that super-libertarian idea incorporates a 'should' that is supposed to govern everyone else, i.e. the law that there shall be no laws. (And presumably policemen whose job would be to prevent anyone becoming a policeman).
The job of the police is not to control what people think; it is to control what people do.
Londoner wrote:It is the same point as above. I do no see how one can have a completely unconnected belief or disbelief. It must be about something and it cannot be entirely personal.
Well, this is a philosophy forum and in a sense, serious philosophers are committed to making at least a logically valid case. The tool that philosophy uses is logic; this can be used to investigate the coherence of a narrative. Most people believe that their narrative is coherent, but the mistake many make is equating coherence with truth. The issue is not necessarily the logic, which can be analysed 'objectively', but the premises are often "entirely personal"; 'God exists' is such a premise. As a personal belief, it is sacrosanct, but when the narrative based on it becomes an excuse to interfere with other people's liberty, then it's time to call the police.
