Change in religious views

[Spark]

Rest assured, people who propose such ideas have given enough thought to various concepts of Gods and have even been brought up in religious households. There is no reason to assume complete ignorance just because an opinion is presented to you that is unfamiliar and unacceptable to you.

I see now that it relies on definitions of the word "meaning" which are essentially ultrapositivist-verificationist in nature, going way beyond Popper (and mostly predating his much more comprehensive theory).

Suffice to say that very few serious philosophers actually advocate that sort of hardcore "only things that can be empirically verified are meaningful" any more, and most regard it as kind of embarrassing tbh. Taken to the level that these atheists have it means that all of mathematics is cognitively meaningless too, because that too is a set of self-referential circular tautologies which can never be made logically consistent or closed.

 

[Spark]

That strikes me as too circular to be useful. What type and level of intolerance gives us the green light to be intolerant? Racial? Political? Moral? Intellectual?

I get the sentiment, but a rule like that just serves to justify control while providing nothing substantial to help with navigating the grey areas in which the world exists.

In fairness this is basically the contradiction inherent in liberalism (in the very broad sense of the word) itself, as many scholars from all over the place have argued. It's what makes post-liberal thinkers really interesting to read, even if I think their politics are generally wrong on substantive issues like 70% of the time. But that doesn't remove the apparent contradiction, which I've seen conclusively argued is the main logical disconnect which is causing such disruption across the West as the two somewhat antagonistic impulses inherent there kind of peak. Which is why - according to this line of argument - you have simultaneously a supposedly "intolerant left" on campuses and the like and a resurgent nationalist right in its historical homeland (continental Europe) arguing for profoundly illiberal policies to supposedly protect liberal societies.

Cultural defense policies create a Paradox of Liberalism. Liberal democracies, in order to protect what they perceive as a liberal regime, resort to illiberal means that violate the same values they seek to protect. Herein lies the paradox. Either the liberal should tolerate illiberal practices, or turn to illiberal means in order to “liberate” the illiberal. Either choice undermines liberalism. The idea that one should adopt a liberal way of life as a prerequisite for living in a liberal society is, in itself, illiberal. This is because liberalism contains the freedom to choose not to hold liberal beliefs or live a liberal way of life as long as a person’s way of life complies with law and order. Overall, the chapter illustrates risks involved in immigration and citizenship policies which, in order to protect liberal values, embrace illiberal means that violate those very same values.

http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/vi...68687.001.0001/acprof-9780199668687-chapter-5

 

[hendrix]

I see now that it relies on definitions of the word "meaning" which are essentially ultrapositivist-verificationist in nature, going way beyond Popper (and mostly predating his much more comprehensive theory).

Suffice to say that very few serious philosophers actually advocate that sort of hardcore "only things that can be empirically verified are meaningful" any more, and most regard it as kind of embarrassing tbh. Taken to the level that these atheists have it means that all of mathematics is cognitively meaningless too, because that too is a set of self-referential circular tautologies which can never be made logically consistent or closed.

I'll say again that my reference to Popper was in relation to PEWS questioning of empirical truth and epistemology, hence why critical rationalism is entirely relevant. Also, it might be somewhat outside his intention, but Popper's criticism of positivism could quite strongly apply to Ikki's reasoning above and in other threads.

 

[Spark]

I'll say again that my reference to Popper was in relation to PEWS questioning of empirical truth and epistemology, hence why critical rationalism is entirely relevant. Also, it might be somewhat outside his intention, but Popper's criticism of positivism could quite strongly apply to Ikki's reasoning above and in other threads.

Oh yeah I'm responding to this idea that God is a meaningless concept at the cognitive level. Like, surely the fact that humans have had notions of God in every single society in every corner of the globe makes that facially absurd?

 

[ankitj]

I see now that it relies on definitions of the word "meaning" which are essentially ultrapositivist-verificationist in nature, going way beyond Popper (and mostly predating his much more comprehensive theory).

Suffice to say that very few serious philosophers actually advocate that sort of hardcore "only things that can be empirically verified are meaningful" any more, and most regard it as kind of embarrassing tbh. Taken to the level that these atheists have it means that all of mathematics is cognitively meaningless too, because that too is a set of self-referential circular tautologies which can never be made logically consistent or closed.

No, that's not what this stance is about. This stance attacks lack of consistency of definition of God, it's infinite flexibility. That's what makes it cognitively meaningless. It does not mean that any non verifiable hypothesis is meaningless. But the minimum requirement is that there has to be a well defined concept to be accorded consideration. Take example of tachyons. They are hypothetical particles which by definition are not observable and verifiable. But they have a definite definition and therefore are cognitively meaningful.

I hold theological cognitivst view. My response to God question is: "which God?". Until that is answered the whole concept is meaningless.

 

[Spark]

Yeah I'm really unimpressed tbh. That different peoples have different notions of deities is a really unconvincing reason to say that a deity is a impossible idea to get your head around.

 

[Ikki]

This is quite a good debate, relating to our discussion here. Notice Harris doesn't even tackle the questions at hand or rebut his opponent properly. It's just the same old tactic - reducing these concepts to absurdism or the worst level of argument for the opposition so that you can feel proud for not being a fool. Craig's performance in the debate is really cogent and airtight.

 

[hendrix]

This is quite a good debate, relating to our discussion here. Notice Harris doesn't even tackle the questions at hand or rebut his opponent properly. It's just the same old tactic - reducing these concepts to absurdism or the worst level of argument for the opposition so that you can feel proud for not being a fool. Craig's performance in the debate is really cogent and airtight.

Sam Harris was not much of a scientist himself and does not particularly engage in any scientific critique within the scientific community, because he is too busy engaging with the non-scientific community (i.e. easy targets). It is not surprising that he has virtually no reference to or understanding of some pretty basic philosophical ideas.

Craig however makes a false premise right from his first statement, and really Harris should have been quick enough to pick up on this. To say that there are objective morals and values is NOT to say that they are independent of humanity - Craig cleverly disguises his argument as the latter by masking it as "human opinion", when he really means humanity. Harris allows this false premise and is unable to rebut because he's already accepted the framing of the debate.

 

[Ikki]

Sam Harris was not much of a scientist himself and does not particularly engage in any scientific critique within the scientific community, because he is too busy engaging with the non-scientific community (i.e. easy targets). It is not surprising that he has virtually no reference to or understanding of some pretty basic philosophical ideas.

Craig however makes a false premise right from his first statement, and really Harris should have been quick enough to pick up on this. To say that there are objective morals and values is NOT to say that they are independent of humanity - Craig cleverly disguises his argument as the latter by masking it as "human opinion", when he really means humanity. Harris allows this false premise and is unable to rebut because he's already accepted the framing of the debate.

I think you've misunderstood Craig. His point isn't that morals are a human opinion but that they occur objectively if there is a god as without god we cannot have objective standards as we will create subjective ones - and that is how nihilists rationalise their view that no objective value exist, as such there is no reason for humans to exist, let alone act a certain way.

I get your point re Harris but the atheist arguments from others are hardly better. They play on the same themes and don't address the chasm running through their ideology: that science cannot determine morality. Harris doesn't address it because he can't, he's not even prepared. Craig is really poking fun because he says they are in agreement about objective morality - when their conceptions of that are different, as he explains.

 

[Ikki]

In fairness, Popper's ideas about falsifiability strictly speaking only apply to science (which is a point I've made here a lot wrt religion). But it's not surprising that many people take that to mean it applies to all fields of inquiry about the world. There's a difference between "this claim is unfalsifiable and therefore outside the realms of scientific inquiry" and "this claim is unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless". I'd put most theological questions in the former category, and most of the claims of modern string theory in the latter.

Speaking of Popper, not related to this thread, but this famous passage from The Open Society should be of interest to people:

Neither Popper nor anyone has solved the demarcation problem. In fact, one can argue that the very essence of the question of needing demarcation is itself unscientific.

 

[hendrix]

I think you've misunderstood Craig. His point isn't that morals are a human opinion but that they occur objectively if there is a god as without god we cannot have objective standards as we will create subjective ones - and that is how nihilists rationalise their view that no objective value exist, as such there is no reason for humans to exist, let alone act a certain way.

If this is his point it's wrong.
1. Objective standards do not require the existence of god to exist themselves. Us creating subjective ones doesn't mean that objective standards don't exist.
2. Nihilists do not say that objective values can't exist. They say that no inherent meaning exists. You are thinking of post-modernism. Epistemological nihilists question whether objective knowledge is possible, but make no comment on objective values/standards existing themselves.

 

[Ausage]

In fairness this is basically the contradiction inherent in liberalism (in the very broad sense of the word) itself, as many scholars from all over the place have argued. It's what makes post-liberal thinkers really interesting to read, even if I think their politics are generally wrong on substantive issues like 70% of the time. But that doesn't remove the apparent contradiction, which I've seen conclusively argued is the main logical disconnect which is causing such disruption across the West as the two somewhat antagonistic impulses inherent there kind of peak. Which is why - according to this line of argument - you have simultaneously a supposedly "intolerant left" on campuses and the like and a resurgent nationalist right in its historical homeland (continental Europe) arguing for profoundly illiberal policies to supposedly protect liberal societies.



Illiberal Liberalism - Oxford Scholarship

Yeah definitely.

I guess my issue with that statement was that it would read better to the most illiberal among us. The nationalist right would agree on the basis that they shouldn't have to be tolerant of cultural practices that are not aligned with liberalism, while Antifa would agree on the basis that they shouldn't have to be tolerant of those who have an aversion to others on the basis of race or culture. Neither claim is entirely without merit theoretically (which is why such movements gain traction), but in practice you're talking about encouraging people who are out to commit violence or some other kind of force.

 

[Spark]

Neither Popper nor anyone has solved the demarcation problem. In fact, one can argue that the very essence of the question of needing demarcation is itself unscientific.

I'd say Popper made a very good practical approximation though. It'll serve people well to use it in 90+% of practical situations to distinguish between science, psuedoscience, and non-science. EDIT: And a more ontological, abstract variety of falsfiability does serve pretty well to distinguish between meaningful and meaningless questions, so long as you aren't ridiculously strict about what passes as falsifiable.

As for the above, which I haven't had to time to watch yet, I'm not super surprised if Craig came out on top. He's definitely a serious thinker although I find some of his ontological arguments really dependent on wordplay, particularly with respect to "infinity". I'm willing to give him a pass though because this **** is hard and trips up (non-specialist) scientists all the time.

 

[Ikki]

If this is his point it's wrong.
1. Objective standards do not require the existence of god to exist themselves. Us creating subjective ones doesn't mean that objective standards don't exist.

Strictly speaking he is right though. You can argue whatever standard we impose will be that of a human being and as such subjective.

2. Nihilists do not say that objective values can't exist. They say that no inherent meaning exists. You are thinking of post-modernism. Epistemological nihilists question whether objective knowledge is possible, but make no comment on objective values/standards existing themselves.

Nihilists say meaning doesn't exist. If that is so, then no objective values can exist. If you have no values and no point of reference, what is objective or subjective is meaningless. If you cannot have objective knowledge then how can you ascertain whether you can have objective values - and if you accept the possibility that you can you still do not demonstrate how that can be so.

 

[Ikki]

I'd say Popper made a very good practical approximation though. It'll serve people well to use it in 90+% of practical situations to distinguish between science, psuedoscience, and non-science. EDIT: And a more ontological, abstract variety of falsfiability does serve pretty well to distinguish between meaningful and meaningless questions, so long as you aren't ridiculously strict about what passes as falsifiable.

As for the above, which I haven't had to time to watch yet, I'm not super surprised if Craig came out on top. He's definitely a serious thinker although I find some of his ontological arguments really dependent on wordplay, particularly with respect to "infinity". I'm willing to give him a pass though because this **** is hard and trips up (non-specialist) scientists all the time.

Falsification is a good method for most things but you can't take it all the way for reasons you've already elaborated - such as unfalsifiable claims re god. It's somewhat ironic that even determining what is scientific starts to become as problematic as what is god - maybe not to the same extent but with regard to the proposition that we may never define it satisfactorily and whether defining it strictly as one thing is of utility in the long run.

TBH I wasn't interested in the debate to show Craig beating Harris in a debate, it's the actual debate itself that is illuminating. Craig is lasered in on the question, Harris cannot rebut directly and goes on spiels. When it comes to these questions, I am yet to hear an argument from an atheist I still agree with. It's ironic that the side that generally claims to be rational and scientific cannot address the points directly - may as well be speaking a different language.

 

[Ikki]

 

[ankitj]

"Can Science teach us ethics?"

Next question: "Can Science teach us Salsa dance?"

 

[hendrix]

Strictly speaking he is right though. You can argue whatever standard we impose will be that of a human being and as such subjective.

You can argue that, but but such an argument doesn't mean that objective standards do not exist. Difference between epistemology and ontology.

Nihilists say meaning doesn't exist. If that is so, then no objective values can exist. If you have no values and no point of reference, what is objective or subjective is meaningless. If you cannot have objective knowledge then how can you ascertain whether you can have objective values - and if you accept the possibility that you can you still do not demonstrate how that can be so.

Meaning is not necessary for objective values to exist. We may never be able to know these objective values - primarily because as you say we have no fixed point of reference - but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. Again, this is the difference between epistemology and ontology. Nihilism accepts limits to epistemology - we are unlike to ever understand the complete truth of anything. Thus we probably can't find fixed objective values. But that doesn't mean that these fixed objective values don't exist.

Now, PEWs might take your line of reasoning further to a relativist perspective and say that actually, these fixed objective values do not exist at all, irrespective of our incapability of finding them. I don't think this.

 

[Spark]

Falsification is a good method for most things but you can't take it all the way for reasons you've already elaborated - such as unfalsifiable claims re god. It's somewhat ironic that even determining what is scientific starts to become as problematic as what is god - maybe not to the same extent but with regard to the proposition that we may never define it satisfactorily and whether defining it strictly as one thing is of utility in the long run.

So this is kind of what I was getting at wrt being "ridiculously strict". God is most certainly an empirically unfalsifiable statement - under our current understanding of the universe, there is no experiment that will be able to conclusively determine the existence of unphysical or superphysical consciousness either way - but it's certainly falsifiable in the abstract. "There is no God" is a sentence that has profound implications for the nature of reality even if just in the abstract realm. This isn't string theory landscape stuff where literally any possible physical theory is possibly true in a certain region of an effectively infinite parameter space, that to me is totally unfalsifiable because it makes true and false logically indistinguishable. But that's an aside.

Science can't assign moral values or preferences - which to me are irreducibly abstract even if somewhat socially constructed - a priori, but it's one of the better systems we have for assigning substantive real-world outcomes to underlying moral preferences. For e.g. if we have a moral system that says that mass hunger is bad, then scientific and positivist methods are how you work out what constitutes mass hunger etc etc

TBH I wasn't interested in the debate to show Craig beating Harris in a debate, it's the actual debate itself that is illuminating. Craig is lasered in on the question, Harris cannot rebut directly and goes on spiels. When it comes to these questions, I am yet to hear an argument from an atheist I still agree with. It's ironic that the side that generally claims to be rational and scientific cannot address the points directly - may as well be speaking a different language.

Tbh I'm increasingly in this boat too. It's a shame.

 

[Ikki]

"Can Science teach us ethics?"

Next question: "Can Science teach us Salsa dance?"

It's funny you frame it that way because atheists take the first question and seriously contend it does.

You can argue that, but but such an argument doesn't mean that objective standards do not exist. Difference between epistemology and ontology.

He's not saying they don't exist. He is saying they do. He is saying that without god or some thing/concept like god we cannot have objective morality. This is in line with our previous discussions on natural rights. Otherwise, the objective rights are only illusory as far as our reason dictates - but in reality this is still the subjective reasoning of a human. In a sense, objective morality requires objective perception. God as the ideal good is the objective standard with which we relate these values.

I'm not sure how far that implication is useful for this discussion but it's a technicality that is quite true when you think about it.

Meaning is not necessary for objective values to exist. We may never be able to know these objective values - primarily because as you say we have no fixed point of reference - but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. Again, this is the difference between epistemology and ontology. Nihilism accepts limits to epistemology - we are unlike to ever understand the complete truth of anything. Thus we probably can't find fixed objective values. But that doesn't mean that these fixed objective values don't exist.

Now, PEWs might take your line of reasoning further to a relativist perspective and say that actually, these fixed objective values do not exist at all, irrespective of our incapability of finding them. I don't think this.

You are playing games with words. Meaning, values, these are all qualitative distinctions we are giving to ideas and actions. Nihilism = no objective quality exists or at worst cannot be shown to exist even if they do. Nihilism is essentially useless. It is not going to aid you in the discovery of objective values. You seem not to realise you are using epistemology for the ontological.