A couple of us got together from richarddawkins.net last week and the value of philosophy was discussed. One of the group was skeptical (as I once was). We discussed that one of its values was to think about how consistent your thinking is and how how sound the premises are that you base that thinking on. A position is more likely to be valid if both the premises can be argued for and the argument is internally consistent. This creates a real problem for those who claim supernatural phenomena explain certain aspects of the universe and human nature. How do you make claims about the untestable. At best, a theological argument can be consistent, but its premises can not be reasonably argued for. An example of a consistent argument would be only god eats pencils, therefore anything that eats pencils is god. I went to school with a girl who ate pencils. Therefore, she is god. However, how sound are the premises such an argument is based on? How do actual claims about god differ?
Here is another consistent argument. Watch it and think about the following.
How do we know it is not the truth?
What tools do we have to investigate this?
Is it reasonable to reject this possibility?
It could be true, like a deistic world view could be true, but what evidence is their to back it up
And yes, it was the blondes that drew my attention to the video - wahey, down boy! :-)
26 comments:
A couple of us got together from richarddawkins.net last week
A gathering?
Next there will be tea and biscuits... then what?
the value of philosophy was discussed. One of the group was skeptical (as I once was).
We have both been brainwashed by Brian...
And yes, it was the blondes that drew my attention to the video - wahey, down boy! :-)
I'm guessing there is a youtube video in the middle of this?
Oh well... if there are blondes involved maybe I should not be watching it at work anyway.
Lee
Oh well... if there are blondes involved maybe I should not be watching it at work anyway.
It's all done in the best possible taste
ok, I'll go for the burden of proof argument on this one.
when there are 2 viewpoints on something it does not mean that both are equally valid.
If a viewpoint is so outrageous, then the burden of proof has to lie with it, and it cannot claim itself to be equally valid until it has overcome this
If a viewpoint is so outrageous, then the burden of proof has to lie with it, and it cannot claim itself to be equally valid until it has overcome this
But how do you filter what is outrageous or not? How do you know the justnowism video is not reality? How do you decide?
where's the evidence for it?
if the evidence is the video itself then it is just circular.
where's the evidence for it?
But how do you know it is not true? How can we evaluate reality?
It's not so much a question of burden of proof, but a question of verifying our starting premises
It's not so much a question of burden of proof, but a question of verifying our starting premises
and in this case the starting premise is the claims made in the justnowism video.
Anyone can claim anything, but again I get back to burden of proof - if they do not have any evidence to back up their claims then why should they be taken seriously.
why do I feel this is becoming circular?
Anyone can claim anything, but again I get back to burden of proof - if they do not have any evidence to back up their claims then why should they be taken seriously.
That is true, but how do we know our starting position is sound? As I said in the text, it is more a problem for the god botheres than us
I don't like marketing or advertising, but a recent advert for something quotes einstein as saying "If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it"
I know quote mining can be a dangerous thing, but I think this statement has some worth.
This would suggest to me that the starting point may well appear not to be sound, but this is not really the point. What matters is whether this idea can be proved by backing it up with evidence.
I'm still struggling a bit to see the full worth of philosophy - I know it can aid in the logical process of working through ideas, but as far as I can see it is also quite possible to use it to disappear up your own backside.
Excellent video- does a good job of exposing some of the problems with religion in general and creationism in particular.
This would suggest to me that the starting point may well appear not to be sound,
It may be sound - or it may not be. The point is that we all have to start with some basic assumptions and work from there. We should not include things thatclearly dont fit or logical impossibilities like an omnipotent god. If we assume that we are not an example of justnowism, then we we build a picture of reality around that assumption. Physical constants and human history will all appear to be the same in either scenario. However, when you add a theistic deity, then you are hit with a burden of proof - even if you pre-suppose supernaturalism, as you are then making claims that may not be bore out by evidence, or logically impossible - does that make it any clearer?
Assuming that there are valid laws of logic - that we are applying here :-)
does that make it any clearer?
possibly - but which bit are we talking about that this makes clearer?
possibly - but which bit are we talking about that this makes clearer?
That epistemology is not clear cut and that god botherers have a problem
I'm not too familiar with all the concepts of epistemology - so I'll have to hang fire on that one.
Time to do some reading
Remind me to bring a copy of Bertrad Russel's book in for you on thursday.
will do
and if you do make it along to the archbishop of canterbury's thingy
have fun and try not to get burnt at the stake by the god botherers.
Studying and practising philosophy strengthens independence of mind. You can not really develop simply by inreasing your factual knowledge, you need to develop a reflective understanding of what this knowledge implies. One Japanese proverb sums this up nicely "Knowledge without wisdom is a load of books on the back an ass." I find people constantly trying to impress upon each other how clever they are, how well honed their argument is, here is the killer blow. There is an alarming increase in hubris and lack of empathy. I studied philosophy (and still do) because I'm curious, I met a lot of people looking for a book with the answer to everything. But then again I'm very, very drunk and the Jon Stewart show is coming on. Listen everyone, alcohol is the answer......
A few things here:
There are a number of theories of truth, empirically we use one where statements correspond to reality. Religion tends to do the same until it is pressed then it uses a coherence theory where a maximally coherent subset is sought. But as Russell said, one can have a perfectly coherent fairy tale.
From "god eats pencils" one cannot infer "anything that eats pencils is god". This is affirmation of the consequent (though in the form of abduction it is used in generating hypotheses)
For the above see Susan Haak's "Philosophy of Logics".
If you are looking for a book on contemporary epistemology then "Knowledge: Readings in Contemporary Epistemology" by Bernecker and Dretske is recommended.
And this is of course just a rehash of "Last Thursdayism" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Thursdayism
Hi Billy,
Off topic - but I just clicked on your feedjit map thingie.
Google ads on that page tried to sell me the following
"Christian Masturbation:
What Does The Bible Really Say About Masturbation In Marriage?"
Don't know what this tells me about me or your blog
Lee
And while I think on
All gods eat pencils
My school friend eats pencils
My school friend is a god
is an invalid argument
However
All pencil eating entities are gods
My school friend eats pencils
My school friend is a god
is fine
Hi Epeeist
From "god eats pencils" one cannot infer "anything that eats pencils is god". This is affirmation of the consequent (though in the form of abduction it is used in generating hypotheses)
The argument was only god eats pencils (I'll put that in bold in the text). I tend to stay away from posting on philosophy forums as someone will quite rightly pick up on a minor misuse of a word. It does however sharpen you up when that happens. It was loosly based on the ontological argument and used in an attempt to show that something being consistent does not make it right, like Russell's fairy tale comment.
Lee, I saw that. I wonder if I can get a copy off someone for a laugh. I did see a sad entry in an agony aunt section of a news paper recently. Some catholic was so convinced that playing with his purple headed custard chucker was such as sin that he was considering castration.
Epeeist, thanks for the book recommendation
Some catholic was so convinced that playing with his purple headed custard chucker was such as sin that he was considering castration.
What a mistake to make...
What a mistake to make...
The sad git had been in discussion with his priest too - where do you think he got the idea from?
The sad git had been in discussion with his priest too - where do you think he got the idea from?
Why ask a 60 year old virgin about sex?
Don't you just hate religion sometimes... it can really fuck your life up.
Lee
Post a Comment