Plato's Playground
Cervantes, I feel like I could be standing on my head dangling my feet up and down and singing arias all at once and you wouldn't hear, see or notice what I'm trying to communicate. Not because what I'm trying to get across wouldn't amuse or interest you , but simply because you're not using the faculties that would allow you to apprehend the means of communication I'm using.
I'm not afraid to say that I believe God uses ordinary and extraordinary means to reach us, to be in communion with us. That communion is larger than any of us. We are not the creator but part of the creation. If we could step beyond God and name what God is, what all of creation is, then we could offer the definitions you want. But we're simply all swimming round in the same sea.
Some people have a knack for tuning in on the spiritual frequency. Others receivers are tuned on the ethical channel. Others perhaps deny or are blind to either, or perhaps they're too anxious and can't wait to
Others perhaps deny or are blind to either, or perhaps they're too anxious and can't wait to receive experience but feel obliged to name and know everything a priori. I'm sorry I can't take this any further. It's not something that bothers me as it does you. I swim around in the sea of life, happy in knowing that creation is a marvelous and varied thing. It's ok with me if you don't name it a gift of God. I am just thankful to be able to recognize and receive the blessings of it all.
Speechless, it doesn't bother me in the least that you have this ineffable experience. As I have tried to make clear, that is not what concerns me. Rather, it is how people decide what is true, and what is right. Most people who have religious experiences or spiritual feelings take them as evidence for the truth of scripture or the validity of the what the Pope decrees or their preacher says from the pulpit. They aren't just personal feelings to most people, they have far more concrete consequences in both every day life and politics. I believe that you have the experiences you describe, that is not the issue here. Does that make sense?
Yes, what you say makes sense, though too, I'd say that I do recognize concrete consequences of my fatih in my everyday life and in my politics. In everyday life it means I have chosen to follow the consistent teachings of the church (yes I use my own reason and experience to guide me in some of this) by personally working toward justice through sacrificial giving, maintaining and demanding a preferential option for the poor, working for restorative justice, speaking out and using my power to hold before elected leaders the ways they fall short of what I expect of them.
Ultimately, I really do try to trust and follow the light I've been given, informed by the teachings of the church. It's a combination of working tirelessly for justice, and accepting that ultimately redemption of all of this is in God's hands. Not satisfying in relation to your concerns though. I'm sorry.
Well, now we're getting to the crux of the matter for me. Different churches have different teachings. As far as I can tell, if you have faith-based beliefs, you can believe anything. I'm not sure what your church is -- Society of Friends? Christians believe that I am going to hell because I do not accept Christ. Do you believe that?
Well, now we're getting to the crux of the matter for me. Different churches have different teachings.
Just as there are different schools of mathematics, which yield different conclusions about mathematics.
Just saying all churches don't agree, doesn't mean that all "rationalists" do.
Crap.
Had a lovely long post on the indeterminacy of "infinity" within mathematics, and Haloscan ate it.
But the fundamental assumption that there is knowledge that is "known," and therefore beyond question, and knowledge that is "unknown," and therefore based solely on conjecture, doesn't pass muster. The empiricist David Hume (empricism being the philosophical basis of Western science) destroyed that distinction as "illusion" some 200 years ago. Kant reinstated our ability to speak of the "known" world only by an appeal to the kind of "idealism" that leaves "science" on rather shakier epistemological ground than you might like.
ust as there are different schools of mathematics, which yield different conclusions about mathematics.
Robert, surely you know this is not true. There are different branches of mathematics, some of which develop the consequences of contrasting axiomatic systems. But they do not contradict each other. Mathematics is a rather confusing subject to invoke in this context in any case. It is a set of methods for reasoning from assumptions; the applicability of any mathematical construct to the material world is always an empirical question.
Next, scientists do not claim that anything is absolutely "known." Rather, they claim that theories are consistent with observations, or not. We are always prepared to make new discoveries. I think you will agree that as much as we can know anything at all, we know that the earth is approximately spherical, that it circles the sun, and that the sun circles the center of the galaxy along with more than 100 billion other stars. We know that the Genesis account of creation is not literally true -- yet some people believe it to this day. Are you prepared to say that they are just as right as I am?
I am most certainly willing to defend my beliefs about the world, but I have asked people to defend their own beliefs (after first defining them). Let's do both!
I don't want to cut off RMJ, because he clearly has the upper hand intellectually over me.
Just for the sake of not seeming to be chickening out, I'll tell you, I am a Catholic Quaker, which may sound like an quare duck altogether, but isn't all that strange. Both religions have a mystical element, and both have a teaching on the consistency and integrity of truth...meaning that teaching which are of God are consistent. One "opening" as Quakers speak of it will not contradict another opening, but they will be consistent over time. These openings are held by the community and are lived out by individuals and the community.
And as for the question of damnation, my understanding is that if we are called to be people of God, if we have heard the good news of God's love and willingness to sacrifice all for us, and we turn our back on that love and that sacrifice, then we are cutting ourselves off from that love and that life which is the source of all hope and all true and lasting happiness. God doesn't need to damn us if we damn ourselves. And that's pretty much standard Catholic teaching. Forgivenss and reconciliation are always available.
As for the stories of creation told in Genesis, come on. Surely you can see them as inspired stories that tell something of a group of people's sense of having lost their connection to God. That loss of unity is so much a part of our culture (at least those of us who have been raised in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic cultures).
If you want to get a take on one idea of the creation story, look over on my blog in the archives, Under the posting "Ah, Wilderness." Have fun. Tell me what you think, if you do.
Cervantes, at this point I've reread my original post carefully, and I detect no ad hominem whatsoever. I called one of your assertions "nonsense." I also said that another concept I attributed to you was "objectively false." At no point in that post did I attack you personally, and if what I said constitutes ad hominem by your lights, we're in sorrier shape than I thought.
I may feel that you've said foolish things (as who hasn't?); it doesn't mean I think you're a fool.
As I said below, I'm concerned that the arguments here keep getting wrenched back to a specific argument that you want to have. As fas as I can tell, it's not an argument that interests me. Still, I'll jot down my objections to your point of view when I get a chance, and you can post 'em or not as you see fit.
Well that's basically true Phila that you didn't call me names, per se (although you have called me ignorant in a comment, and also "out of my depth.") However, Gary seemed to find my post intemperate for some reason, and I don't think I was even as confrontational as you were, so that is what I was referring to.
I think the question of how we decide what is and is not true is a pretty basic one. I would hope that I'm not the only person in the world who's interested in it, but you don't have to be.
Speechless -- many people believe that the stories told in Genesis are literally true. I have said nothing about my opinion of them as fiction, I don't object to people enjoying them as metaphor, part of the history of human belief, or entertainment. But they are not the truth about cosmology or history. That is what I am talking about here.
I'll check out your blog.
Things are looking interesting so let me jump in and attempt to say something that doesn’t look like the rambling of an old kook.
I mainly agree with Cervantes in that my knowledge and logic lead me to conclude that there is no god. But as an atheist I must confess that I have doubts. I guess that would make me more of an agnostic.
I also think that criticizing someone’s religious belief is a bit too strong. I may disagree with someone’s belief but not criticize someone for having it. Then again I have no use at all for someone like Dobson or G.W. Bush. My view is that religion has been around for so much of human history that it has become part of the ROM bios much as the bears that frighten children in the night. I don’t think it can be easily dismissed regardless of how much I revere science, reason, and logic.
I may be totally wrong, Cervantes, but I sense an emotion very like anger in what you have been writing and I think it take a bit from the arguments you put forth. I think
I think you would agree that those who post here are in my option good people who may have differing views and beliefs but who nonetheless respect the views of others. And that is what makes this dialog so great.
I would like to ask you to defend or at least expound on some of the thing you have just posted. But first let me ask you if you accept the fact that we cannot prove the existence of god and also the converse that we cannot disprove the existence of god. Why must god be observable in the universe to exist? Science has put forth the idea that there may be other universes than our own. They are not observable in our universe and we may never be able to detect them but that in no precludes them from existing. So why not god? Why is it an invalid argument to say that the existence of the perceived universe is a consequence of god’s having created it? Lastly as a very short comment from science; we have inferences of and detected the effects of what is called dark matter but we ha
Lastly as a very short comment from science; we have inferences of and detected the effects of what is called dark matter but we have not detected it and we no nothing of its properties. Are we to dismiss it?
Then consider this which always boggles my sorry excuse for a mind. Ignoring for the moment that string theory and./or quantum mechanics may change the theory drastically, according to the big bang theory in the beginning was an infinitesimal bit of nothing but energy. It was not contained in anything, it was everything. It became unstable and began to expand. Again it was expanding but not expanding into anything. I cooled and became everything. Now I love science but this is some weird stuff and I don’t think belief in a god is any weirder. To borrow from John C. Lilly; in the realm of perception what is believed to be true is true. Truth is one of those slippery words for which there seems to be no hard and fast definition that applies to all cases.
Let the dialog continue!
Robert, surely you know this is not true. There are different branches of mathematics, some of which develop the consequences of contrasting axiomatic systems.
Actually, it's quite true. Mathematicians and philosophers are still arguing over what Godel's proof "means." Wittgenstein rejected it outright. And there are mathematicians who follow Hilbert's ideas of formal mathematics, and mathematicians who argue from an 'intuitive' basis for mathematics.
It's all, of course, about metamathematics, but then, that's what Godel's proof did: mapped metamathematics into mathematics, and used a paradox to reach it's conclusion of incompleteness.
Math, by the way, is not based on observation at all. That's why it's "a priori" true, as opposed to science, which is "a posteriori" true.
We know that the Genesis account of creation is not literally true -- yet some people believe it to this day. Are you prepared to say that they are just as right as I am?
False analogy. Within my lifetime there were people who asserted the earth was flat. Probably some such people still exist. Just because they believe it, doesn't mean anything to me.
Catholics believe in purgatory, but I don't. Doesn't make their doctrine any more valid or invalid than mine.
I am most certainly willing to defend my beliefs about the world, but I have asked people to defend their own beliefs (after first defining them).
You really want me to drag Wittgenstein into this? 
Why introduce math? Because so much of physics, is based on math. Einstein thought he might be a mathematician, early on. Godel contemplated studying physics. And the concept of infinity, is a mathematical concept, which has since been applied to reality.
All geometrical concepts, for example, are mathematical. And, as Socrates showed in the Meno, they are all a priori.
The interesting thing is, Godel only achieved his amazing proof of incompleteness, by being such a rabid Platonist. It was his conviction that there is a reality beyond the empirical one, that led to his working out the proof that establishes that any formal system (which includes the scientific ones) will generate a theorem which cannot be validated within the terms of that system.
One more reason, by the by, that AI is probably a pipe dream. But I digress....
Hi folks. Gary, I'm not angry, certainly not with anyone who visits here. I have a tendency to say what I think rather bluntly, maybe without the sugar coating or affirmative assurances of mutual respect that would help it go down better. This is a tough medium to navigate because it's somewhere between the very impersonal form of conventional publication, where all your readers are anonymous, and conversation, where we are connecting personally and people often take things personally. I'll try to soften my edges, but I hope people will understand that I'm must saying what I think, everyone is free to disagree.
Well Robert M, now you're basically getting to what, for me, is the crux of the problem. Religion, or faith, leads people to all sorts of different conclusions -- you adduced purgatory vs. no purgatory, I adduced creation vs. evolution. So that is the fundamental question that I am asking in this whole thread: Why do you believe what you believe and not something else? What are your criteria for judging what is true? You have alluded to some of the deep labrynths of epistemology, but I'm not sure why. Wittgenstein is obviously my guy, not yours. And you're right about math, it's all based on a priori assumptions. As I say, that means that establishing any relationship between mathematical truths and phenomena requires a step of empirical testing. Mathematical arguments tell us something about reality only when we have first established, by observation possibly including experiment, that phenomena in nature map onto some mathematical construct.
And regarding Goedel's proof, it establishes that complex systems of formal logic are incomplete, not inconsistent. There are true statements that cannot be proved within them, but that does not mean that any proofs are invalid. And it certainly gives no reason to believe in any unproven statements; the whole point is, they might be true, but you can never have any basis for believing them. And these are statements about relationships among entities within formal logical systems, not statements about phenomenal reality. I don't think Goedel has any substantial bearing on how we ought to go about deciding the truth and falsehood of propositions and he certainly doesn't provide an argument for faith.
(although you have called me ignorant in a comment, and also "out of my depth.")
See, this is where I start to get very interested in precisely what it is that makes you reliably "rational." I said that a specific set of questions you asked would strike many religious people as ignorant, and that they struck me that way. That's hardly the same thing as calling you ignorant. But you feel free to leap beyond my words to what you think I mean; that's human nature, after all.
I also said that you were "out of your depth," by which I mean that you're discussing something - faith - that you yourself confess you don't understand. ("Depth" is relative; you're free to imagine yourself probing the mysteries of the deep, while the rest of us are wallowing in the shallows.) My comment simply meant that there is little shared language here, nor shared experience behind that language.
If God, to you, means an entity which does not intervene in the universe, is not in the universe, does not communicate with humans, and has no describable properties, I would say that is a pretty good definition of something that does not exist.You've pretty much gutted theoretical physics here.
And regarding Goedel's proof, it establishes that complex systems of formal logic are incomplete, not inconsistent. There are true statements that cannot be proved within them, but that does not mean that any proofs are invalid.
You'll have to show me where I ever said, or implied, that they were.
But the definition of "incompleteness" is not so simple as "Unfinished," either. Specifically, Godel's proof establishes that a formal system that includes an arithmetic will generate statements which it cannot verify.
Hence the reference to AI: a computer program is a formal system. It will generate questions it cannot verify. Human beings call this "imagination." It was the very thing (if you reject Platonism) that led Godel to formulate his proof. Why? Because that's what it took for him to get interested, apparently.
Why do I believe what I believe? Might as well as why I love my wife. Seriously. I was asked that question in seminary, and that was my
drat...cont'd
answer. Best explanation I could come up with. And it still is.
Nothing personal in that response, BTW. Just trying to clarify and respond to your quite reasonable question.
awhwhwh...big yawn and a stretch, scratching her stomach momentarily then remembering where she is...perhaps it's time for a nice cup of tea?
You GUYS finished yet? This little room is rank with the odor of overheating testosterone. Maybe it's time to go chop a little wood, or start turning over the garden bed to get the peas in the ground for Paddy's Day. What? Oh, what's that? You haven't established the true meaning and nature of God yet...ok, well I'll just get these post holes dug myself, don't worry. Let me know when you're through. Maybe you can help me harvest the last of the pumpkins by then, or bring in the cabbages before the snows of next winter. No bother.
Yo, Speechless.
janeboatler, Speechless
We're poor little lambs who have lost our way
Baa, baa, baa
We're little black sheep who have gone astray
Baa, baa, baa
Gentleman philosophers off on a spree
Doomed from here to eternity
Lord have mercy on such as we
Baa, baa, baa
It's much better when sung.
You mean I've stumbled into a whiffenpoof frat house? Yikes, Jane, quick hold my hand!
Gotcha Speechless!
Loving your wife and holding a belief about reality are completed unrelated states. Belief is not about taste, or feelings. It's about what is real out in the universe, not inside our minds.
Speechless, I do plan to dig some postholes ASAP, but the ground is still frozen up here.
Speechless, Janeboatler, I sincerely and humbly ask your forgiveness. It pains me to think that such dear good people as yourselves might be upset at us guys. I, for one, value your input and wisdom.
Seriously, I have often wondered if things might have been better had used the female metaphor for God instead of the male. I can see nothing whatever lost in praying; Our Mother who art in heaven… And it might serve better for a God who gave birth to the universe. It might also help dampen down those male hormones that seem to come into play when using the male metaphor. But then again if you are looking for someone with a little knowledge, I have as little as anyone.
But please, the trash man doesn’t come for another day or so, so please don’t toss me out just yet.
Gary, not a worry. I think in my next effort at posting here, I'm going to have a few things to say on all these male female dynamics. I'm really appreciating everybody's throwing there thoughts in, and I enjoyed the whiffenpoof song.
Gary,
There is nothing I need to forgive you for. You are always courteous in your comments, and I enjoy them. And, by the way you express yourself well. I don't in the least mind disagreement; a faith that is so weak that it could not survive opposing views, is a faith not worth having.
My comment about taking out the trash did not refer to anything anyone had written. I'm so sorry if you or others thought otherwise. I was referring to getting back to the mundane tasks of life, like literally taking out the trash.
Commenting by HaloScan
