For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I have done just that, in my OP. I'm not going to compromise my explanation to suit your laziness or short attention span. I don't do philosophy for the intellectually challenged. We're done here.No, it's far too long, and far too indirect. Just say what you mean. Give me an example of an empirical observation that issues in a value.Read my OP for an explanation.
You don't do philosophy for the intellectually challenged.
Code: Select all
In [1]: class A: pass
In [2]: class B:
...: def __eq__(self, other): return False
In [3]: x = A()
In [4]: eval('x == x')
Out[4]: True
In [5]: x = B()
In [6]: eval('x == x')
Out[6]: False
Now that's just objectively bad reasoning.CIN wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 11:43 pm I'm an objectivist about values ('you did a bad thing when you kicked the cat') but I'm not an objectivist about morals ('you did a morally bad thing when you kicked the cat') because an action can only be morally good or bad if there's free will, and I don't see how there can be (what's the evidence for it? how would it work?).
Given that none of those you have presented so far have been persuasive (if anyone has been converted by Immanuel Can's efforts to date, please say so) do you not think it time to roll out something you have kept up your sleeve?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:03 pmNot nearly, actually.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 9:20 amWell, I imagine that after nearly 20 000 posts in 10 years, you have presented at least the bulk of your arguments.
I'm surprised that you should appeal to the theory dependence of observation. Yes, it is manifestly so that your circumstances affect your outlook. As we see, Christians overwhelmingly are raised in a Christian tradition, Muslims come mostly from Islamic stock, Hindus Hinduism, Jews Judaism. Unless the universe is much more magical than it already appears, our beliefs do not alter what gods may or may not exist.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:03 pmYes, we are. But we may not be looking at it the same way.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 9:20 amAs for the universe, however you happen to see it, you clearly believe that we are looking at the same universe.
For one thing, you and I have access to different sets of data. You were born in one place, I in another. You have had one set of experiences, I another. I am aware of some arguments, you of others. I have read some things, you others...and so on.
More importantly, though, you perhaps look at the universe with one set of expectations, and I another.
As Newton in a rare moment of humility conceded: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Newton was undoubtedly a brilliant mathematician, but others before him had already worked out that gravity acts according to an inverse square rule (more or less, as Einstein refined). Who knows what would have happened, but it is more likely than not that someone, Robert Hooke was a sniff away, would have invented the formula that was very much of its time.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:03 pmHave you ever asked yourself what would happen if (as the dubious story goes), Newton had not been the one sitting under his apple tree? When the apple fell on his head, what if it had been Fred Jones the novelist sitting there? Would gravity have then been discovered?
Probably not, right? It was because Newton was a brilliant physicist, somebody already interested in material phenomena and scientific explanations that he was able to recognize the apple falling for what it was: an exhibition of gravity.
Newton was prepared to see things in the way advocated by the Royal Society, which, greatly influenced by Francis Bacon, was founded in 1660 with the expressed intention of being a "College for the Promoting of Physico-Mathematical Experimental Learning". Newton was 17 at the time, so again, very much of his time.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:03 pmNewton was prepared to see in a certain way; and it turns out he was really onto something important. But Fred Jones, sitting in the same place and contemplating how to pen his latest romance novel would doubtless have felt only irritation that something had hit him on the head.
Well, "recognize" is putting the cart before the horse. If you are determined to see all evidence as the product of God, you are just as biased as anyone determined not to.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:03 pmIn the same way, a person has to be prepared to see the evidence as evidence of something. If he's already decided he's uninterested or skeptical of the idea of God, how is he going to recognize anything he sees, anything that happens to him, as an "act of God"?He's already ruled that explanation out, a priori. He's not open to the thought that anything that happens could be from God. So, naturally, nothing he sees seems to be that: his mind always finds an alternate interpretation of events -- "it was coincidence"..."I only thought I heard a voice"..."I just lucked out"..."It was only a dream or illusion"..."the Red Sea didn't actually part"..."the disciples stole the body"...and so on.
It is not enough that I am willing to be persuaded. I have instead to will myself to believe something that I am not convinced of; that is the essence of confirmation bias.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:03 pmDon't worry: you could demonstrate it to yourself, if you were willing.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 9:20 amRight. So it turns out that the extra knowledge that you have is deeply personal that you can express, but not actually demonstrate.
No indeed. What it does mean is that there are at least two explanations for your belief in God. You can't prove the one that you wish to be true, and nobody can prove the other to the exclusion of your preferred hypothesis. There isn't enough evidence, hence the two competing ideas are underdetermined.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:03 pmNo...but one would have to be careful how one interpreted those facts, or one could easily be fooled into a hasty conclusion.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 9:20 amWould it be irrational to hypothesise that your emotional and intellectual response to some stimulus only you feel might have some cause other than God? For instance:
"... research in the field of “neurotheology” — or the neuroscience of theological belief — has made some surprising discoveries that are bound to change how we think about spirituality.
For instance, some scientists suggest that religious experience activates the same brain circuits as sex and drugs.
Other research has suggested that damage to a certain brain region can make you feel as though someone’s in the room when nobody’s there."
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl ... xedContent
Would it be fair-minded to dismiss the findings of neuroscience?
The "finding of neuroscience" you indicate does not singularly conduce to the conclusion that God is a product of neurology.
As I was saying to Immanuel Can, the Royal Society was founded in 1660, shortly after the Stuart Restoration. Prior to that England had been run by a bunch of protestant literalists, who were even more opposed to science than the Catholics they reacted to. To protestants the Bible was authoritative, to Catholics it was the interpretation of that book by Vatican 'scholars', and ultimately the pope. In science there was still more trust in Aristotle than was healthy, and Galen still was more authoritative than a few dissections later made him. It is that kind of authority that the Royal Society was determined to withstand. With an ironic twist, it was the Royal Society's elevation of Isaac Newton to an authoritative figure that lead to English mathematicians sticking to his methods of fluxions, rather than adopting the now standard Leibniz system that slowed English mathematical progress in the 18th century. Anyway, the point of Nullius in verba is not don't believe anyone, rather it is don't believe anyone who can't back up their claims with experimental evidence.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:52 pmI had no idea what they claimed. My doubt was aimed at the reality of their practice. It's similar to my doubt about Socrates' actual position.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 10:54 amIt really is:Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Wed Aug 30, 2023 4:15 pmI don't think take nobody's word for it is the motto of the Royal Society.
"The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment."
https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/
None.
It depends on what you ask. It seems that people want to recycle the same debates. And maybe, as you say, that's because I'm insufficiently clear or persuasive. Maybe. Or maybe it's because people choose their Atheism for reasons other than intellection, and thus intellection is unable to dislodge them from their commitments.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 11:53 amGiven that none of those you have presented so far have been persuasive (if anyone has been converted by Immanuel Can's efforts to date, please say so) do you not think it time to roll out something you have kept up your sleeve?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:03 pmNot nearly, actually.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 9:20 amWell, I imagine that after nearly 20 000 posts in 10 years, you have presented at least the bulk of your arguments.
I can't imagine why. It's obvious that people have a priori assumptions that set what they are prepared to recognize. Those a prioris, though, can be good or bad, depending on whether they're a priori truths or a priori falsehoods. So at the end of the day, it simply moves the debate back one step, to the question, "How good are one's a prioris?" And that's right where the debate definitely needs to go.I'm surprised that you should appeal to the theory dependence of observation.
Christians overwhelmingly are raised in a Christian tradition, Muslims come mostly from Islamic stock, Hindus Hinduism, Jews Judaism.
Quite right. Our beliefs do not alter the existence or non-existence of anything...a salutary reminder not merely for the religious, but for the Atheists, to be sure.Unless the universe is much more magical than it already appears, our beliefs do not alter what gods may or may not exist.
Not a victim of "his time," though: his insight was genuinely new, genuinely revelatory. The more important thing to note, though, is that his so-important insight was a product of his scientific orientation. Another person, like a Fred Jones, would have undergone exactly the same revelatory experience and have seen nothing in it.Newton was prepared to see things in the way advocated by the Royal Society, which, greatly influenced by Francis Bacon, was founded in 1660 with the expressed intention of being a "College for the Promoting of Physico-Mathematical Experimental Learning". Newton was 17 at the time, so again, very much of his time.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:03 pmNewton was prepared to see in a certain way; and it turns out he was really onto something important. But Fred Jones, sitting in the same place and contemplating how to pen his latest romance novel would doubtless have felt only irritation that something had hit him on the head.
That would be so. But one need not be predetermined at all. Like Newton, one can adopt an openness to particular kinds of interpretations, even interpretations that one's esteemed colleagues have never seen, and then choose among the possible explanations that which is the most plausible. That's how we discover things, and how we recognize a phenomenon or piece of data as "telling" in some particular way.If you are determined to see all evidence as the product of God, you are just as biased as anyone determined not to.
But you can fight your bias. Or you can keep it, but open just a crack of doubt, so as to be open to new data and experiences. That's the thing that Atheists struggle with the most: they claim they owe others, and themselves, no data or evidence for their Atheism, and thus, having arbitrarily foreclosed on any question of the existence of God, they're in no position to recognize anything as evidence for God when it appears.It is not enough that I am willing to be persuaded. I have instead to will myself to believe something that I am not convinced of; that is the essence of confirmation bias.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 4:03 pmDon't worry: you could demonstrate it to yourself, if you were willing.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 31, 2023 9:20 amRight. So it turns out that the extra knowledge that you have is deeply personal that you can express, but not actually demonstrate.
More, I think.No indeed. What it does mean is that there are at least two explanations for your belief in God.The "finding of neuroscience" you indicate does not singularly conduce to the conclusion that God is a product of neurology.
Oh, I can...but not to you, perhaps. I don't mean merely because of your a priori commitments (although that could indeed be a sticking point), but because much of the really important evidence has to be had experientially. For God is not interested, you see, in convincing skeptics to concede His existence against their wills; He's concerned with producing real and dynamic relationships with the creatures He loves. One does not merely "rationalize" one's way to God; one has to commit. He does not ask much, but He requires at least those things spoken of in Hebrews -- the willingness to believe He might exist, and that He might reward somebody who sought Him. The true skeptic will have neither: he will not believe that God exists, no matter what; and he will not believe that God is good and intends good to Him. In such a case, no relationship can be established, and the evidence is not available.You can't prove the one that you wish to be true,
I haven’t a clue what “living as though…” entails.henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 2:41 pmNone.
As I say: if necessitarianism is true, and some of us are compelled to believe we're free wills and are compelled to live as though we were free wills, then some of us would be compelled not only to believe in necessitarianism but would also be compelled to live as necessitarians. None do.
...and...
Each and every necessitarian, no matter where, no matter when, lives his life as a libertarian free will. Not a one naturally, or intentionally, lives as though he were not a libertarian free will.
Both necessitarian and libertarians make choices.
Well, it would have been nice if you had interacted with my original objection, instead of making a more nuanced claim without interacting at all with it. I didn't claim what you are counterclaiming here. I didn't argue that they must be saying don't believe anyone. Which can been seen in my orginal response toWill Bouwman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 1:05 pm Anyway, the point of Nullius in verba is not don't believe anyone, rather it is don't believe anyone who can't back up their claims with experimental evidence.
Take nobody's word for it' the motto of the Royal Society and fundamental to the practise of science.
I didn't say I didn't like him. I said that there was something that irritates me on this (the claim to know issue). And then explained on what grounds I didn't like this given...well, what I wrote there. So you managed to (pejoratively, I'm not sure) connected me to the people who wished him dead without actually responding to what I wrote as to why I found his statement irritating.As for Socrates, you are not the first person to not like him. At his trial, more people thought he should be executed than found him guilty.
LOL 'Some objective evaluators' IS a 'self-contradiction' and 'oxymoron'.Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 7:09 amYou don't do philosophy for the intellectually challenged.
You do philosophy because you are intellectually challenged.
Objective evaluation is just another way to allude to computation.
Which does nothing to address the problem of there existing two (or more) objective evaluators which disagree on the value of the evaluation.
Is the value of "x=x" true; or false?
Some objective evaluators say it's true.
Some objective evaluators say it's false.
And what are 'you', "skepdick", if NOT a "philosopher"?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 7:09 amCode: Select all
In [1]: class A: pass In [2]: class B: ...: def __eq__(self, other): return False In [3]: x = A() In [4]: eval('x == x') Out[4]: True In [5]: x = B() In [6]: eval('x == x') Out[6]: False
That's not true. Everybody chooses.
Q.E.D. When you ask "Why?" you are asking for justification.henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 1:10 pm If necessitarianism is true, why is there the persistent, universal illusion of bein' a free will?
