Why it is silly to look for evidence of God

[C C]

If there is any order in the Universe - and we take for granted that there is, or engaging in science makes no sense - then the descriptive and the prescriptive must, ideally, match.

Ought will persistently manage to adapt to the disinterested is of the naturalistic slash quantitative investigation - or find ways to wriggle around it. The physicist can't even live her everyday life in the latter product of experiment and inference; would have to be somewhat clinical or pathological to desire to.

That's part of why empiricism-shaped Anglophone philosophy, in the course of its language "turn", didn't succeed in the early 20th century mission to bury metaphysics. Historically, the latter tended to be the backbone foundation for resting schemes of human matters upon - or at least those that are not an ideological egalitarian surrender. (Latter referring to those supposed and various our minds are so open that our brains have fallen-out stances: "One plan is no more wrong or right than any other"; "everyone is invited to the party, even those who are commanded by their creed to subdue or slay the rest of us"; relativism, etc.).

Even physicalism isn't science. After logical positivism faded away with the original definition, it's become a worldview by the philosopher which attempts to convert aspects and fruit of the naturalistic methodology into a doctrine. Accordingly, there are physicalists somewhere waving their own stash of garlic cloves to ward-off nihilism: Trying to derive an upper, emergent anthropophilic framework from a lower base of uncaring stuff, or extending roots for bits of existing moral/social tradition into it. That is, these recent metaphysicians surely aren't all pitching tents by their gold and silver claims in philosophy of mind territory, or wherever their current hustle and bustle "seems" to be.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Do you deem your life is relevant to you?

What does have to do with the rest of my argument? A "rational, objective and real" does not use the appeal to emotion or personal, subjective ideas, there is the danger of projecting onto the universe what we want there to be. But still, I will play along. Yes and my life is important to me because I am me and I am a part of the complex civilization and society of my species.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Change doesn't equal betterment.

Its provides the potential for it.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Wynn, is the burden of rejoinder too much for you? Agree or agrue. Your outragious and laughable statement about which theories are worthy has been challenged by atleast half a dozen posters, and yet, rather than justifying why you consider the truth of the universe to be the exact opposite of all we observe or explaining why such a assumption should drive the choice of theories, you continue to pick on a few statements in ways which are apparently obtuse to the debate. Either agree that your idea about theories is this year's leading candidate for the darwin award [memetic edition] or back up your extraordinary assertion with a powerful case in support of it. You are not doing justice to your burden of rejoinder.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yazata,

That's problematic in my mind. It takes a list of philosophical ideas like necessary being, unboundedness and so on, and then kind of slaps the word "God" onto them.

You're not doing yourself any favours in becoming more knowledgable about God (if that is your goal), by labelelling things ''phiolosophical ideas'', especially as philosophical idea come as a result of that.

But isn't 'God' a lot more than that? Isn't God, well... a god? A being worthy of our worship and devotion?

Isn't your child, or spouse, or friend worthy of of love and devotion?
What's the big deal?

Where does all that religious stuff ccme from?

Where do you think it comes from?
Do you honestly think neanderthals or cavemen, or barbarians, could come up with it?

If God exists, then all scriptures must be talking about the same person, which they do. How can that be? How can a trend stay in perfect tact for literally thousands and thousands of years, not to mention pre-scriptoral (verbal). If it were man made, I dare say the trend would have changed numerous times.

As for most ''reiligions'', you can see how trends change each time to suit the powers that be.

And what justifies us in using the same word "God" to refer to hypothetical philosophical speculations about stuff like necessary or unbounded being, and to Judaism's, Christianity's and Islam's very specific and highly religious content alike? What justifies our somehow equating all of it as one and the same?

If you want to understand the essence of Islam, or Christianity, you've got to read the scriptures.
But out of curiosity. You are asking question. Righ?

How do you propose to find the answers to them?
Will it be a religious/spiritual source, or a non/anti-religious materialistic source?
And what would it take to satisfy your curiosity?

the word "God" looks like a storeroom filled by history's pack-rat, crammed with dusty concepts from many different places and times, that aren't always even consistent with one another.

Read the scriptures, or ask someone who lives according to the scriptures.
Bearing in mind that living in accordance with the present law, even demonic, is part of the tenet of every scripture.


jan.

 

[spidergoat]

Where do you think it comes from?
Do you honestly think neanderthals or cavemen, or barbarians, could come up with it?

Neanderthals maybe not, cavemen and barbarians, for sure. They are the same species as we are.

If God exists, then all scriptures must be talking about the same person, which they do.

Not true.

 

[Jan Ardena]

spidergoat,

Neanderthals maybe not, cavemen and barbarians, for sure. They are the same species as we are.

So what?

Not true.

Why?


jan.

 

[aaqucnaona]

spidergoat,

Sorry for jumping in, but i had a few things to say.

So what?

They had the same physical, linguistic [speech] and mental capacities as we do today. They were exactly like us, we could take a H.sapiens child from, say, 50-60k years ago and raise it today, it will be indistinguishable from others.

Why?

Whether those revelations were real or from one God, the current versions of them are highly contradictory, within and between religions. Then again, please ignore my off-topic suggestion -

 

[Yazata]

The ideas of God that you're likely going to encounter dealing with actual theists in your life - Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and some "philosophical/natural theists" - all indeed have in common some points about God

Sure, I don't disagree with that. Christians, Muslims and Jews are all kind of variants on one single Semitic religious impulse.

Hindus are interesting because they seem to be much more of an independent religious development. (There do seem to be some interesting simularities between first millenium Indian religiosity and ancient Greco-Roman 'paganism'.) But even in India, Muslims ruled most of the place since around 1,000 years ago and more recent (and theistic/sectarian) Hinduism has been strongly influenced by that. That's not to say that there aren't strong native theistic currents in India as well, there obviously are. Early south Indian bhakti devotionalism for example. But Muslim rule, Sufi influence and Islam-as-norm did kind of accentuate and shape the theistic tendencies of Vishnaivism and Saivism in my opinion, and probably influenced broader Indian religiosity in many ways. (Look at the Sant tradition, Kabir and the Sikhs.)

quoting Techne

I'm sure that Techne's right about what contemporary Christian philosophical theologians like to call 'classical theism'. Techne's likely giving it a Thomistic spin in my estimation, but what he says is still accurate. (Techne knows a lot more about that brand of thinking than I do.)

I'm just asking why, if by chance I was to set out (as the subject line suggests) "looking for evidence of God", why I should accept and adopt the presuppositions of "classical theism". That still seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur at this point. We still need some account of why that particular approach to God is the correct one. So far, the (implicit) answer to that seems to be something like, 'because its the traditional way of characterizing God among many Jews, Christians and Muslims'. (At least a sub-set of more philosophically influenced ones.) Ok, I can buy that, but why should I be looking for God in a traditional Jewish, Christian or Muslim place? Because the word 'God' derives its meaning from those traditions? Maybe so, but if that's the case, then why should my religiosity even be concerned with this "God" of theirs?

I do not believe that these overlaps indicate some higher truth or that they indicate what is essential about God.

I'll respond to the rest of your post soon. You're introducing new and important issues that I'd like to respond to at length, and I don't want this post to turn into a book. (Maybe thinking about what I'm going to say would be a good idea too.) Besides, it's a nice day out, and I've gotta stop squinting at a computer and get out of the house.

 

[wynn]

Ummmm, happy only because they worked out the theory to be true, not happy because it tickles their fancy. It's a major accomplishment to understand, predict, observe and validate a Theory based on Facts.

This is really a ludicrous point you're attempting to make. Take the expanding universe for instance. It is directly observed and verified by Hubble's law. The theory is TRUE but why would it make anyone "eventually happy". Eventually celestial objects in space could be so far away from us that we might not be able to observe them anymore. It will make us even more secluded and lonely in our corner of the universe. Why would this make anyone "eventually happy"? I suggest that it would make people "eventually" sad if anything. But of course this has no reality on the theory or Hubble's Law.

Excuse me...pardon me...coming thru...

wynn



This is pure non-sense. The Universe doesn't know or care what you think reality is or how happy you are about how reality is. And thinking happy thoughts will not ward off the real things the Universe throws at you.

A theory is best that explains all the facts and can be used to predict the future behavior of the system in question. Ex: It is raining hard but it makes you happiest to live close to the river because catching fish and getting water is very easy there and life is good. Now a theory that says the river is your friend, knows you are there and would never hurt you for you are the rivers favored people might make you happiest, but in reality relying on that will get you killed(unless you are REALLY REALLY good at swimming)but a theory that takes reality into consideration will put the pieces together(near river, hard rain=water rise)will keep you alive. Which is the better theory?

Now an apologist in your camp might say that the flood was because the River(personified)was mad at you for some slight and that if you sacrifice something(or someone)to the great River things will go back to the way it was before, thus saving your original theory, making you happy, and the next time it floods you could repeat the sacrifice, etc... Or you could decide to do the sacrifice ahead of time thinking it will prevent the next flood, but the next flood will occur anyway. Maybe you're just not doing it right, so the sacrifice is done more elaborately, with songs, drums and sermonson the greatness of the River(sure to attract the attention of the River and to please him), all good fun, much happiness. But it still doesn't stop the floods........

Or, you could put your faith in the second theory and when it rains and the river floods you will be unhappy, wet and miserable on the hill next to the river watching your house float down the river, but you will be alive. And some smart person in the tribe will suggest that the next time you build a house you build it up on the hill. It will make you somewhat less happy because trudging up and down the hill is hard work, especially carrying water and fish. But it is still the best theory of the two.

Your happiness does not affect reality, the Universe doesn't revolve around you, nor is it made to fit your needs. In fact, you are as you are BECAUSE you were made(by evolution)to fit reality, whatever your opinion about that reality is.

Sorry for the interuption...carry on.

Grumpy

Where do people get this ...

Do you think that being grim and mildly depressed is somehow the enlightened way to be?

 

[wynn]

I'm just asking why, if by chance I was to set out (as the subject line suggests) "looking for evidence of God", why I should accept and adopt the presuppositions of "classical theism". That still seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur at this point. We still need some account of why that particular approach to God is the correct one. So far, the (implicit) answer to that seems to be something like, 'because its the traditional way of characterizing God among many Jews, Christians and Muslims'. (At least a sub-set of more philosophically influenced ones.) Ok, I can buy that, but why should I be looking for God in a traditional Jewish, Christian or Muslim place? Because the word 'God' derives its meaning from those traditions? Maybe so, but if that's the case, then why should my religiosity even be concerned with this "God" of theirs?

Have you read William James' "Will to believe"?

 

[wynn]

Wynn, is the burden of rejoinder too much for you? Agree or agrue. Your outragious and laughable statement about which theories are worthy has been challenged by atleast half a dozen posters, and yet, rather than justifying why you consider the truth of the universe to be the exact opposite of all we observe or explaining why such a assumption should drive the choice of theories, you continue to pick on a few statements in ways which are apparently obtuse to the debate. Either agree that your idea about theories is this year's leading candidate for the darwin award [memetic edition] or back up your extraordinary assertion with a powerful case in support of it. You are not doing justice to your burden of rejoinder.

It is demoralizing to believe theories that are demoralizing.
Everyone agrees on this much.

The rest is up to one's ideas of happiness.

:shrug:

plaining why such a assumption should drive the choice of theories

It already does. People pursue theories according to how happy they make them. Of course, a theory or an explanation that seems satisfactory at one point or for some period of time might not have this positive effect forever; which is why we switch from one theory to another, always seeking for the best one. But in the process of this search, attachment plays a part too: we may hold on to a theory or explanation simply because we have come up with it or because we have held on to it for a long time.

 

[wynn]

Ought will persistently manage to adapt to the disinterested is of the naturalistic slash quantitative investigation - or find ways to wriggle around it. The physicist can't even live her everyday life in the latter product of experiment and inference; would have to be somewhat clinical or pathological to desire to.

In general, it seems that Western culture as a whole, not just philosophy has been trying to find an universal ought - a purposeless, objective, an-sich, per se, disinterested, impersonal/depersonalized kind of ought. An ought that would effectively abolish free will and individuality - and responsibility.

Why is that?


In Buddhism, for example, there are no oughts per se; oughts exist only in conjunction with a purpose or goal: "If you want to attain enlightenment, this is what you ought to do."
But there is no universal ought there.

Perhaps the Western universal ought is due to an uncritical reception of Christianity - taking "Do this, or be punished by God" but then, as secularists, omitting the second part.

 

[C C]

In general, it seems that Western culture as a whole, not just philosophy has been trying to find an universal ought - a purposeless, objective, an-sich, per se, disinterested, impersonal/depersonalized kind of ought. An ought that would effectively abolish free will and individuality - and responsibility. Why is that?

No, in most cases we'd surely be straying into category error, using "ought" there. Lack of goals and deliberating intellect, absence of participation in a societal environment, etc., rules out ascribing the "prescriptive need" of complex agents to the non-living, in either the latter's narrow or broad sense. Instead, what we might focus on is the passionless, mechanistic, or computational-like nomological order and regulative tendencies of a cosmos.

Back in '07, Paul Davies (minimal quote at bottom) brought up from the depths of history that it was monotheism that inspired the seeking of "universal law" in physical science (but eliminating the personhood of God) so as to go about actually understanding the natural world. Rather then merely indexing its contents. The effects of which he contends still linger to this day, regarding laws (or at least those of physics and cosmology).

However, I'd regard that more recent influence (divine order) as merely reinforcing what was inherited from the Greeks. Their fixation with the intellect, of how understanding comes about, and explaining this with the concept -- the generalization, the sorting of particulars under universals. This in turn leading to the development of the intelligible world of the ancients, and its "forms". Which are really just the global schemes or rules that spatial things or particular entities obey and derive their perceived manner of existence from (the organizing "will" that phenomenal or physical stuff conforms to). In the case of a triangle, for instance, there is its graphic or empirical depiction as an extended object; and then there are the geometrical rules or mathematical description for how to produce it (which they took to be non-spatial or ultimately purely of intellectual, spiritual origin).

Paul Davies ... The orthodox position (and the one I set out to challenge in my book) is that the universe is governed by a fixed set of laws in the form of infinitely precise mathematical relationships imprinted on the universe from its birth. In addition, it is assumed that the physical world is affected by the laws, but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe — they are immutable.

It is not hard to see where this picture comes from: it is inherited from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws. And the asymmetry between immutable laws and contingent states mirrors the asymmetry between God and nature: the universe depends utterly on God for its existence whereas God's existence does not depend on the universe. Historians of science are well aware that Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order.

I am depressed that reminding scientists of this well-known historical fact should elicit such a shock-horror response. As Scott Atran points out, the argument that science is based on faith is not new. Evidently Western society is so steeped in monotheism that the monotheistic world view, which was appropriated by science, is now regarded as "obvious" and "natural." As a result, many scientists are unaware of its theological origin. Nor do they stop to think about the sweeping hidden assumptions they adopt when they subscribe to that scientific/theological world view, assumptions that are in fact are not shared by most other cultures.

Not all scientists envisage the laws of nature in the theological manner I have described, however. One person who evidently doesn't is P.Z. Myers, who declares his a lack of faith in science and simply takes science "as it comes." I have found that his is a familiar position among biologists, for whom contingency as opposed to law looms so large in explanation.

Unfortunately, Myers goes on to attribute to me precisely the point of view I am seeking to refute: "That Davies seems to believe that order must rule everywhere and at every level is a stronger presupposition than is warranted by a scientific approach, and sounds remarkably theological." Well, yes, that's the whole point of my article! It is theological — but it is nevertheless the orthodox view among theoretical physicists, especially those working on the search for a unified theory. Such physicists believe there are perfect laws "out there", existing in some Platonic realm, even if the laws we find in our textbooks today are merely approximations to what Steven Weinberg calls "the final theory".

And that is the position that, contrary to Myers' statement, I seek to challenge in my book. In doing so, I encountered fierce opposition from my physics colleagues.
--Responses to Taking Science On Faith, with counter-response from Davies; Edge, The Reality Club (edge.org)

 

[LIGHTBEING]

Where do people get this ...

Do you think that being grim and mildly depressed is somehow the enlightened way to be?

No, that is not even remotely close to my point.

My point is that happiness (or any emotion) is not a component of the scientific method, nor should it be. In fact, the approach you are describing is typically championed by creation science and ID'ers. If the theory doesn't fit or the implications of the theory doesn't make them "eventually happy" then they throw out the theory.

You are arguing that somehow happiness is required for an explanation or theory. If a theory is worked out and describes and validates all the facts clearly and happiness doesn't eventually follow then that is reason to throw out the theory or submit to complete misery.....

That is a ludicrous assertion on your part and you have yet to provide any evidence to support it. Your view on what makes a theory valid is a complete and utter FAIL.

I already gave you one example where your theory on Theories fails. Try doing the exercise Wynn. Pick random theories and see if people are necessarily eventually happy.

 

[wynn]

My point is that happiness (or any emotion) is not a component of the scientific method, nor should it be. In fact, the approach you are describing is typically championed by creation science and ID'ers.

Not at all. Creationists and ID'ers as we are used to them in the West are usually of some Christian denomination that also believes in eternal damnation. According to this Christian theory, not everyone is eventually happy, in fact, many are considered to be miserable for all eternity. Which is why damnationist Christianity doesn't pass the criteria for "a theory according to which everyone is eventually happy."

If the theory doesn't fit or the implications of the theory doesn't make them "eventually happy" then they throw out the theory.

My criterion is "a theory according to which everyone is eventually happy."
Not "a theory that makes some people happy."

You are arguing that somehow happiness is required for an explanation or theory. If a theory is worked out and describes and validates all the facts clearly and happiness doesn't eventually follow then that is reason to throw out the theory or submit to complete misery.....

That is a ludicrous assertion on your part and you have yet to provide any evidence to support it. Your view on what makes a theory valid is a complete and utter FAIL.

I already gave you one example where your theory on Theories fails. Try doing the exercise Wynn. Pick random theories and see if people are necessarily eventually happy.

You don't think there is something wrong, something demoralizing and repugnant, about theories according to which a considerable percentage of the population is doomed to a miserable life, to be born, suffer, and die, with nothing more to it, or is merely fodder for evolution, or is otherwise considered worthless and irrelevant?

 

[LIGHTBEING]

Not at all. Creationists and ID'ers as we are used to them in the West are usually of some Christian denomination that also believes in eternal damnation. According to this Christian theory, not everyone is eventually happy, in fact, many are considered to be miserable for all eternity. Which is why damnationist Christianity doesn't pass the criteria for "a theory according to which everyone is eventually happy."

I was specifically referring to "creation science" for instance the theory that Setterfield proposed: The decay of c, where the speed of light slows down exponentially so that the observable universe appears 13.7 Billions years old through a telescope but in fact(according to Setterfield) is only thousands of years old. This theory(while it has many errors) satisfies Setterfield's presupposition as well as many other Christians in his camp. And they are "eventually happy"

My criterion is "a theory according to which everyone is eventually happy."
Not "a theory that makes some people happy."

and how do you propose to enforce that requirement short of surveying 7 billion people?

You don't think there is something wrong, something demoralizing and repugnant, about theories according to which a considerable percentage of the population is doomed to a miserable life, to be born, suffer, and die, with nothing more to it, or is merely fodder for evolution, or is otherwise considered worthless and irrelevant?

I can certainly see something is wrong with that interpretation and worldview. But I also know that my feelings can't and don't falsify a theory. It seems like you are projecting an internal conflict and struggle onto the scientific method.

 

[Grumpy]

wynn

Where do people get this ...

Do you think that being grim and mildly depressed is somehow the enlightened way to be?

Grim and mildly depressed but alive(and capable of future happiness) vs. being blissfully ignorant and dead. Hmmm, such a hard choice. But thanks for your thoughtful, erudite analysis and exhaustive critique.

Dude I just destroyed your statement...

The only explanation or theory worth pursuing is one according to which everyone is eventually happy.

All others are just recipes for misery.

...and that is all you have to say? If you can't defend stupid statements DON'T MAKE THEM(especially in any durable medium).

Your happiness has nothing to do with a good theory, the Universe will be just as happy to kill you as to let you live. The nervous, worried mouse knows to get out from under the elephants foot, the happy but ignorant mouse doesn't live long enough to reproduce as he is now a blissful stain on the bottom of that foot.

Grumpy

 

[Grumpy]

Jan Ardena

“ Where does all that religious stuff ccme from? ”

Where do you think it comes from?
Do you honestly think neanderthals or cavemen, or barbarians, could come up with it?

Not only could they, but they did. We have written records of religion going back over ten thousand years and the pictographs of the Aborigenis in Australia are thought to be twice that old. Carved and molded figures found from 25,000 years ago may be fertility figurines, due to their porportions. And the more primative societies had many gods/spirits, finding them within trees, game, volcanoes, rivers... The Egyptians had whole soap operas of gods, as did the Romans, the Norse and the Greeks. Long before they were written down they were passed down around the campfires at night by shamans. And don't forget the cave paintings in France and elsewhere, probably used in rites of a religious nature if it was only animism or puberty rites.

If God exists, then all scriptures must be talking about the same person, which they do. How can that be? How can a trend stay in perfect tact for literally thousands and thousands of years, not to mention pre-scriptoral (verbal). If it were man made, I dare say the trend would have changed numerous times.

Pantheism and multiple gods is not the same thing over thousands and thousands of those same years. The Norse and Native American pantheons were a couple of the last of them to die out(discounting India, which has myriad gods today). Monotheism is a modern phenomina in man's history, and I would argue that Christianity is still a religion of multiple gods(Father, Son, Holy Ghost, Mother Mary and the Angels plus Satan and his fallen Angels), and then there are the Saints who are worshipped in their own right. All are concidered to have supernatural existence and powers(que the apologetics). Deists may be the only true monotheistic religion, but their god created the Universe on day one and then took 13.7 billion years off. Spinoza and Einstein saw the Universe itself as the only deity worth concidering and the study of it the only logically consistent form of worship, it is certainly an eligantly logical position. This is what Einstein meant when he said he wanted to know the mind of god. So the concepts of what god is has not been consistent between cultures, the gods tend to match the lifestyles of those who held them(put another way, man created his gods in his own image, not the other way round). The Norse gods were warrior gods(Odin had only one eye, Thor carried a war hammer and Valhalla was the paradise the Valkyries carried you to IF you died on the battlefield)for example.

Grumpy

 

[wynn]

Dude I just destroyed your statement...

No, you just invented a very stupid caricature of what you thought I was talking about, and then took for granted that that caricature of yours is what I really think.


:bugeye: