Plato's Playground
i found a very interesting article in
whole earth magazine titled "What Keeps Jaron Lanier Awake at Night?". i can't link directly to it. the link on the magazine page downloads a pdf of the interview. seems to me to be on point to your post here, as he mentions of the humanist project. i was noodling around for info on peter warshall, also an interesting guy.
I am one of a growing percentage of people in the United States and Europe -- including 60% of all scientists polled, by the way -- who do not believe in God
Ah, but my dear Cervantes, do I believe in you? Now there's a bothering question.
Humanists, realists, free thinkers, whatever you want to call us, begin with an attitude of skepticism. We don't believe anything on faith, or simply because some authority said so.
Well now if that's the case, that you don't believe anything on faith, then how can you assert with such certainty that As for our ability to distinguish truth from falsehood, it is obviously imperfect (or people would not hold such false beliefs as the existence of God!)
Fortunately I have a sense of humor,( I need only point to the duck billed platypus, or the syntax errors of the man in role of President in your country to prove my point). I will certainly be vexing you and 60% of your scientist friends for quite some time to come.
Well God, if you don't believe in me, I have to question your omniscience.
As for your existence, while in general it is nearly impossible to prove the so-called negative existential statement (there does not exist X such that . . .), in your particular case, your existence would be logically contradictory, and that sort of proof is generally accepted.
Finally, I am surprised but intrigued to learn that you are a defrocked economist who got famous as a cynical liberal blogger. As I often say of your site, nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded.
cervantes----i see you got PZ Myers at pharyngula to chime in on the democratic party's problems with religion as amy sullivan sees it.
god----i think you linked to the wrong homepage. you wouldn't try to deceive us would you? oh yeah, that would make you the devil.
Cervantes, I think you really went off on that post. Please, calm down. Chill out a bit. If this is to be a reasonable and rational discussion then it is best to keep emotions in check and avoid going in the direction of talk radio. I would hope that this dialog would allow all views to be expressed in a civil manner and where we could at worst agree to disagree.
Halo scan is not really conducive to commenting on both these posts at length and it would be interesting if the content could be broken up so as to allow more discussion.
My view is that science is amoral, regardless of the fact that there may be immoral people involved in it. . It seeks the “truth” of how the universe we perceive works and not the reason it exists. On a current subject of the times; science has the ability to keep the flesh “alive” indefinitely. The ethical problem is at what point this ceases to make sense due to the fact that the neural activity which defined the person who inhabited this flesh no longer
The ethical problem is at what point this ceases to make sense due to the fact that the neural activity which defined the person who inhabited this flesh no longer exists. This is a problem I don’t see as relevant to science but rather as one for humanistic, religious or combination of both to solve.
From my reading of the works of Joseph Campbell I conclude that religion goes so far back in human history that it has become a part of the human psyche. Campbell pointed out that religion is common to all peoples on this planet. At the same time I conclude that religion must be a matter of faith as it is not possible to prove the existence of God. Thus I would conclude that faith will be with us for a considerable time and involved in all debates involving things like ethics and morals.
I also think that that saying that problems MUST be solved rationally is far to strong. Problems can and have been “solved” in irrational manner. If certain dogmatic elements gain political power then th
If certain dogmatic elements gain political power then they can and may compel that flesh be kept “alive” as long as feasible regardless of how rational this may in fact be. My view is that problems SHOULD be solved rationally. And where problems are of an ethical or moral nature I think that faith will be a part of that rational solution.
I hope we could continue this dialog as there is much to discuss and many views to consider. But I would like to ask Cervantes his comment on the proposition that from a purely observational viewpoint there is no difference is between his “distinguishable truth and falsehood” propositions?
I'm going to be a bit harsh about this post of yours; I hope you'll take it in good humor, and will understand that there's no personal animus behind it. A vigorous attack invites a vigorous response, right?
I guess I'll have to post in a few sections....
===Our friend Philalethes is pretty upset by my comment that "the question of whether we proceed on the basis of faith or science has great implications for the future of humanity." ===
I'm not upset; I just think it's so simplistic as to be effectively false, and that it's meaningless in practical terms! If you believe it - against all evidence to the contrary - that's your problem, not mine.
I have to say that while I'm interested in debating this stuff with you, unless we can manage to agree about what we're actually debating, it's kind of pointless. Virtually none of the outlandish views you attribute to me have anything to do with what I actually believe. To say - as you accuse me of doing, for no reaso
To say - as you accuse me of doing, for no reason that I can understand - that one can't "propose a path without faith" - would be insane. You can propose anything you like. But what you propose and happens may be two different things. I find it interesting that someone with a worldview based so strongly on induction should reject the notion that what has happened in the past is at least likely to keep on happening.
You also claim that I believe we need "faith" to make us good. Not at all. I'm saying that we need to know what "good" is, and that our logical basis for knowing this is uncertain. I've raised this question with you repeatedly, and you've consistently evaded it. Are we interested in what actually is true, or in what sounds true, or might be true?
I'm not arguing for faith or religion, or against science or logic; I'm arguing against pseudocertainty, and for the kind of realism about human nature that leads through humility to tolerance. Not
Not tolerance of viciousness and stupidity, mind you, but tolerance of goodness. Essentially, I'm arguing for freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.
Although you worry inordinately about the willingness of other people to challenge their beliefs, you're so far from challenging your own pseudocertainty that you apparently can't even engage with my actual arguments; you're too busy having the argument you want to have, as though I'm some kind of pathetic stand-in for the creeps at the Discovery Institute.
For instance, according to you, I also believe that
===scientific conclusions aren't really distinguishable from faith-based beliefs.===
Of course, I never said anything like that. Some conclusions are easily distinguishable, and some aren't. Sensible people make an epistemic distinction between the two. Proving that mitosis happens is easy; proving that string theory provides a true picture of reality is a bit trickier. Am I obliged to believ
Am I obliged to believe in string theory? Not on your life.
You seem to think I'm some sort of epistemological nihilist. I'm not. But there are questions that may not be decidable by science; you've argued as much yourself, over at the Dharma Bums' place. Honestly, if you're going to continue to misrepresent my views to this extent in order to "rebut" me, I'd really like to bow out of this discussion here.
=== I would note that a few centuries ago, no-one at all, as far as the historical record reveals, publicly claimed that God did not exist. ===
That's utterly ahistorical nonsense, and I don't see why your intellectual laziness should require me to do your homework for you. If you're interested in being accurate, the truth is out there and you can look it up yourself.
===First I would ask, how can any assertion be called "objectively false" if we cannot reliably distinguish truth from falsehood, or rationality is not the only path to truth? Phila contradicts himself before he even gets started.===
That's just childish, Cervantes. I never argued that truth was indistinguishable from falsehood; I argued that humanity en masse has neither the ability nor (very often) the willingness to make the distinction. I suggest that the proof of this is all around you. If this were not the case, you wouldn't be writing anti-religious screeds like a man possessed, and we wouldn't be lamenting the horrors of the Bush regime. The fact that I don't believe we're going to live in some happy wonderland, just as soon as you compel everyone to think as you do, does not make me irrational or anti-scientific. Quite the opposite! Materialism is not an infallible prophylactic against delusion, sad to say.
My opinion is that what we need in order to be good people is compassion. I'm a fairly pragmatic person, so I don't care how people arrive at that point. I confess it all seems pretty supernatural to me...or mysterious, if you prefer. But if you don't want to get there through what you're calling "faith," fine. Get there through evolutionary biology, or "democratized rationality," or whatever hypothetical or pseudo-rational or utopian daydream makes you happy. I'd rather you didn't call this process "scientific," since it's nothing of the sort. But to each his own...we can still be friends, I hope!
By the way, I'm happy to debate this stuff further, but I'm not willing to be patronized by means of lectures about the Wonders of Science. I've done scientific work, and I know a fair amount about the history and philosophy of science (more than you, perhaps). I don't need a refresher course on Newton or the solar system from you, especially when it's offered a propos o
especially when it's offered a propos of nothing I've said or implied.
See why I haven't switched to Haloscan?
Get there through evolutionary biology, or....
I meant to say "evolutionary psychology."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--From Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)
Phila. Please let me ask of you what I asked of Cervantes; Calm down. Chill. Take a deep breath, hold it a moment, let it out slowly, and relax. This isn’t or at lease should not be talk radio. Let us have a spirited and vigorous debate and avoid all animosity. The discussion is getting very interesting and I would like to see it continue.
I agree with parts of what each of you has to say. I think that it is a false dichotomy to pit faith against science. As I said above I hold that science is amoral. It seeks to determine how the universe works. I gains knowledge such as that of nuclear physics and from this how to make a very big bomb. But whether to make such a bomb or to use such a bomb is not something relevant to science. It is in the realm of faith, humanistics, or whatever to determine what if anything to do with what science discovers. This may indeed have a profound impact on the future of humankind and faith or religion or whatever we choose to call it will certainly be a p
This may indeed have a profound impact on the future of humankind and faith or religion or whatever we choose to call it will certainly be a part of it. To paraphrase John C. Lilly; in the realm of perception, that which is believed to be true is true. If Earth were destroyed to make way for a hyperspace bypass what would become of truth?
Gary, I have to reiterate that I have no personal animosity toward Cervantes whatsoever. I like him!
To me, there's not much to debate here. The basic problems in human society are zealotry and aggression and a lack of empathy. Make everyone on earth an atheist tomorrow, and you've done exactly nothing to solve these problems; we have plenty of other things to fight over, from territory to money to sex to ego.
It would be as idiotic of me to believe that humanity will become reliably compassionate and tolerant as it is for Cervantes to believe it'll become reliably scientific. But my solution, at least, is a solution. His doesn't even scratch the surface, and has certain earmarks of zealotry.
But whether to make such a bomb or to use such a bomb is not something relevant to science.
I pretty much agree with that. We have to know how to use science ethically, which is why science alone can't solve our problems. But who's going to formulate the ethics of science in Cervantes' brave new world? And how will that ethics be demonstrated to be true? And what happens when people who reject it take advantage of the people who accept it? I mean, we all believe in democracy...but how much good is that doing us, right now? For someone who fancies himself a hard-headed realist, Cervantes comes across as remarkably naive sometimes.
I agree with Phila that it is awkward to use haloscan for lengthy discourses. That's why I invited him to post here. Gary S., I appreciate your injunction to keep it civil, but I think you will see, if you read Philalethes' post that I was responding to, that whatever his intention may have been, it is quite aggressive and essentially accuses me of being a fool. I believe I didn't even match his tone.
I'm not going to try to respond using Haloscan, I'll make a new top-level post soon. And Phila, as far as I'm concerned, if you want to post here, I'm all for it. E-mail DPR, Speechless and me if you are interested.
I did in fact read Philalethes' post. And there were things I might agree with and things I might not, but nothing to go ballistic over. I think we all came here for the dialog, the debate and things are looking tasty and delicious so let’s continue in the scholarly spirit and leave animosity and acrimony to talk radio.
Perhaps this may be worth considering:
It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind
…..
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!
Moral:
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!
Cervantes, here's a hypothetical. Suppose that the beliefs of my faith, including the existence of God, are all illusions. But I believe that my faith helps me to move closer to my ideal of living a righteous life. This righteous life would include being compassionate, caring, empathetic, concerned for the common good, wanting justice for all, rich and poor, and perhaps other qualities which you and I would, I believe, agree upon. Now my faith may be all illusion, but if I not only believe that it helps me to live a righteous life, but that I do, in fact, live a more righteous life because of my faith in these illusions, wouldn't it be better to leave me with my illusions? If more compassion, caring, and concern for others is the desired outcome, why does it matter to you how I arrive there?
if you read Philalethes' post that I was responding to, that whatever his intention may have been, it is quite aggressive and essentially accuses me of being a fool. I believe I didn't even match his tone.
Cervantes, I'm very sorry if I came across that way! I don't see what I wrote that way, but obviously you do and that's what's important here. I don't think you're a fool by any means, and I'm sorry if I gave the impression I did. Outside of this debate - which, as I've said, I think is pretty much pointless - I don't think you've ever written anything I didn't think was well-spoken, wise and correct. I do admit that I think you're out of your element, here, and that your arguments are more emotional than reasonable. But that's OK with me.
I must say this is quite a thread. To think we have God, possibly the Devil, Cervantes and the Bard ( not to forget Philathetes, Dread Pirate Roberts and Gary S. Johnson too!) all in one comments section. I just had to write something so that I can tell my children that I commented on the same thread as God and Shaekespeare.
This is pretty cool stuff for a rookie southpaw center fielder from East Podunk PA..!!!
And Phila, as far as I'm concerned, if you want to post here, I'm all for it.
I appreciate that. But I'm just not that interested in this debate. Or I'm interested in a different side of it. To me, it's fine if people believe in God, so long as it leads to ethical behavior (as per janeboatler). If you disagree with that, or feel some need to "convert" people who - at least by my standards - are more tolerant than you are, then I'd say you're a zealot & we have nothing to discuss. If you want to argue that religion causes problems, we all agree already. If you want to debate epistemological/phil of sci issues, we can do that; it has the virtue of being fairly straightforward. I'd be happy to post a friendly summation of my views on that stuff; I could easily e-mail it to you.
I don't understand the difference between the debate you say you are interested in, and the one you say you aren't interested in. I'm perfectly tolerant of people who disagree with me, I just have my own beliefs. I do believe it is important to convert people to reason, because unreason is dangerous, as the current political regime proves to my personal satisfaction.
Commenting by HaloScan
