Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sculptor1]

This topic concerns logical argument, nothing more.

This is palpably untrue.
Espacially amusing since to immediately lead off with the two examples and offer nothing in the way of logic for either.

[Sy Borg]

Your comments seemed to assume that I was somehow claiming that the Earth is flat, or that the flat-Earth theory should not be dismissed. I was arguing the exact opposite, and I'm fairly sure my words (above) made this clear.

In this respect the god hypothesis is exactly the same as the flat earth hypothesis. [...] - and the God hypothesis (which is what you are really talking about)...

This topic concerns logical argument, nothing more.

The flat earth idea can be placed on the Rejected pile because we have sufficient reason. Most, maybe all, ideas concerning God must remain on the Maybe pile, as there is not sufficient reason to place them on the Accepted or Rejected piles.

By that reasoning, we must also place Allah, Zeus, Odin and Zarathustra on the Maybe Pile - and any other deity that a society may dream up. Why should Yahweh be granted special privileges? Do you think Yahweh is a superior deity to those others?

[value]

Your comments seemed to assume that I was somehow claiming that the Earth is flat, or that the flat-Earth theory should not be dismissed. I was arguing the exact opposite, and I'm fairly sure my words (above) made this clear.

In this respect the god hypothesis is exactly the same as the flat earth hypothesis. [...] - and the God hypothesis (which is what you are really talking about)...

This topic concerns logical argument, nothing more.

The flat earth idea can be placed on the Rejected pile because we have sufficient reason. Most, maybe all, ideas concerning God must remain on the Maybe pile, as there is not sufficient reason to place them on the Accepted or Rejected piles.

By that reasoning, we must also place Allah, Zeus, Odin and Zarathustra on the Maybe Pile - and any other deity that a society may dream up. Why should Yahweh be granted special privileges? Do you think Yahweh is a superior deity to those others?

The rejection of principled rejection doesn't require principled acceptance in my opinion.

One doesn't need to be obligated to consider God a maybe to maintain an open mind in the face of its possibility. One doesn't need to consider God at all beyond the scope of reasoning that makes the idea applicable, e.g. in a discussion with someone who is religious or with a philosopher such as Stephen C. Meyer who attempts to make a philosophical case for the idea.

(2023) Return of the God Hypothesis
"Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle."
https://stephencmeyer.org/
https://returnofthegodhypothesis.com/

Some might argue: who are you to judge? While 'repeatable' science might be inclined to argue that God doesn't exist, when someone believes in the spiritual power of a crystal that enables him or her to win at sports, doesn't that 'count' (isn't that something to consider)?

I assume by the term "energy"... crystal gazing; dream web catching; ... spooky "energeeee"?

Some time ago a study showed that religious belief can enable people to be better able to cope with pain.

(2008) Religious belief can help relieve pain
Scientists have uncovered an ancient and elaborate source of pain relief that is based purely on the power of the mind.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/200 ... nbehaviour

Science discovered recently that 'belief' by the mind can overturn both nature and nurture when it concerns physiological development of the body.

Learning one’s genetic risk changes physiology independent of actual genetic risk
In an interesting twist to the enduring nature vs. nurture debate, a new study from Stanford University finds that just thinking you’re prone to a given outcome may trump both nature and nurture. In fact, simply believing a physical reality about yourself can actually nudge the body in that direction—sometimes even more than actually being prone to the reality.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562- ... -behaviour

It is evident that belief is both powerful and substantial (consider-worthy) and it might not be correct to state that the pursuit of science is the most optimal method for steering or grounding a presumably 'ought' justified belief. The belief involved in transcending both nature and nurture might require something else than 'justified knowledge'.

I would agree that one should attempt to reside within the scope of reason but not by an attempt to fixate reason in the form of a pursuit of the idea of (ought) attainability of conclusive reason.

By "justification", I mean to refer to having a good and sufficient reason to reach a definite conclusion. A conclusive reason, if you will.

With regard the dangers of a pursuit of 'ought conclusive reason', I re-cite Bertrand Russell's essay "Philosophers and Pigs".

It seems the essence of virtue is persecution, and it has given me a disgust of all ethical notions.
https://aeon.co/essays/philosophy-at-wa ... l-analysis

An attempt to simplify the idea: "What once has been perceived as good, is put in front of the charier as it were, and that is where the war begins..."

[Good_Egg]

We examine what evidence there is, and we come to a conclusion: 1. We accept the idea, maybe tentatively; 2. we place the idea back onto the 'maybe' pile, as there is insufficient reason to reach a conclusion; 3. we reject the idea, and place it on the 'discarded' pile. But the examination, and any accompanying analysis (etc), are the same in all cases...

...So what is the logical reason that allows us to take step 3 with much less reason than taking step 1? I don't think there is one. And yet I have seen, on philosophy forums and elsewhere, posters saying things like "this is obvious rubbish"; "this problem is not worthy of our attention"; "no sane person would believe such rot"

These utterances do not sound to me like someone calmly and logically giving reasons for their dismissal of an idea.

I suspect that we do not have a single undifferentiated Maybe pile, but a set of them ranked by some notion of likelihood. And that for the purpose of this discussion there's a difference between judging the Loch Ness Monster to be a very-low-probability-Maybe and outright rejection.

So I found the quoted post helpful as a clear example of rejection.

I find myself agreeing with Sculptor (stranger things have happened ) that they could be the utterances of someone has on previous occasions spent time considering similar notions, found them unsound, and has learnt from that experience. Nothing illogical in that.

But this sounds to me more like the utterances of someone with an emotional commitment or attachment to a particular worldview, who doesn't want any contrary idea to be true. Which is a rejection of logic in favour of emotion.

In neither case is there a "problem with logic" as such.

[Sculptor1]

Some time ago a study showed that religious belief can enable people to be better able to cope with pain.

I prefer mophine and mental focus.

[Sy Borg]

Your comments seemed to assume that I was somehow claiming that the Earth is flat, or that the flat-Earth theory should not be dismissed. I was arguing the exact opposite, and I'm fairly sure my words (above) made this clear.

In this respect the god hypothesis is exactly the same as the flat earth hypothesis. [...] - and the God hypothesis (which is what you are really talking about)...

This topic concerns logical argument, nothing more.

The flat earth idea can be placed on the Rejected pile because we have sufficient reason. Most, maybe all, ideas concerning God must remain on the Maybe pile, as there is not sufficient reason to place them on the Accepted or Rejected piles.

By that reasoning, we must also place Allah, Zeus, Odin and Zarathustra on the Maybe Pile - and any other deity that a society may dream up. Why should Yahweh be granted special privileges? Do you think Yahweh is a superior deity to those others?

The rejection of principled rejection doesn't require principled acceptance in my opinion.

One doesn't need to be obligated to consider God a maybe to maintain an open mind in the face of its possibility. One doesn't need to consider God at all beyond the scope of reasoning that makes the idea applicable, e.g. in a discussion with someone who is religious or with a philosopher such as Stephen C. Meyer who attempts to make a philosophical case for the idea.

(2023) Return of the God Hypothesis
"Stephen C. Meyer received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge. A former geophysicist and college professor, he now directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle."
https://stephencmeyer.org/
https://returnofthegodhypothesis.com/

Some might argue: who are you to judge? While 'repeatable' science might be inclined to argue that God doesn't exist, when someone believes in the spiritual power of a crystal that enables him or her to win at sports, doesn't that 'count' (isn't that something to consider)?

I'll chat about your last point first. The crystal is a placebo. I have felt the actual energy of crystals, but that came from spending an hour amongst a minerals collection - thousands of crystals, from large to small. It is quite remarkable how everyone felt from that tour. Even the collections managers agreed that being around the collections makes you feel good. Alas, a single crystal is about as powerful as a few grains of paracetamol but, if one believes, then the placebo effect comes into play.

The placebo effect itself is interesting, pointing to the intimacy of the mind/body connection.

As for deities, I see no reason to give Yahweh more credibility than Allah, Zeus, Odin or Zarathustra. It's simply the traditional story adopted by my society, but who says that my society knows best? My society, of course :)

[Pattern-chaser]

Your comments seemed to assume that I was somehow claiming that the Earth is flat, or that the flat-Earth theory should not be dismissed. I was arguing the exact opposite, and I'm fairly sure my words (above) made this clear.

In this respect the god hypothesis is exactly the same as the flat earth hypothesis. [...] - and the God hypothesis (which is what you are really talking about)...

This topic concerns logical argument, nothing more.

The flat earth idea can be placed on the Rejected pile because we have sufficient reason. Most, maybe all, ideas concerning God must remain on the Maybe pile, as there is not sufficient reason to place them on the Accepted or Rejected piles.

By that reasoning, we must also place Allah, Zeus, Odin and Zarathustra on the Maybe Pile - and any other deity that a society may dream up. Why should Yahweh be granted special privileges? Do you think Yahweh is a superior deity to those others?

I didn't mention Yahweh, I only referred to God. Where did all this spring from?

Yahweh should not be granted "special privileges", IMO. No, I do not think Yahweh "is a superior deity".

All of the names humanity has ever given to God, and all of the characteristics assigned to those names, illustrate aspects of the one ineffable God; I respect them all, even if I personally choose to venerate God as Gaia. You can use "Yahweh" instead, if you wish, it doesn't matter to God; She won't mind; it's OK.

[Pattern-chaser]

We examine what evidence there is, and we come to a conclusion: 1. We accept the idea, maybe tentatively; 2. we place the idea back onto the 'maybe' pile, as there is insufficient reason to reach a conclusion; 3. we reject the idea, and place it on the 'discarded' pile. But the examination, and any accompanying analysis (etc), are the same in all cases...

...So what is the logical reason that allows us to take step 3 with much less reason than taking step 1? I don't think there is one. And yet I have seen, on philosophy forums and elsewhere, posters saying things like "this is obvious rubbish"; "this problem is not worthy of our attention"; "no sane person would believe such rot"

These utterances do not sound to me like someone calmly and logically giving reasons for their dismissal of an idea.

Agreed.

I suspect that we do not have a single undifferentiated Maybe pile, but a set of them ranked by some notion of likelihood.

With this, I think I disagree. I disagree for a very specific reason, and it's nothing directly to do with our Maybe pile. It's about likelihood and probability. Statistics, correctly applied, is a very powerful tool. But there is always the chimera of "lies, damned lies, and statistics", and with good reason. Statistics can be, and often are, used to mislead and confuse. Sometimes this is deliberate, but many times it is genuinely inadvertent.

We live in a world rife with uncertainty, or so it seems to us. We try to limit or minimise that uncertainty, so that we can better predict the future, to see what might be coming, and prepare for it. And so we guess. Given the minimal or non-existent evidence we have to go on, our guesses are often remarkably effective. But that's another matter.

In the manner of humans, we habitually express our guesses in words that suggest more confidence, more certainty, than we actually have. We exaggerate for 'effect'. And our assignment of "likelihood" comes under that category. Sometimes we go farther, and claim "probability", as though we have solid statistics to back us up (when we don't).

You mention ranking the Maybe pile according to "likelihood", but how do we know how likely these things are? Guesswork, nothing more. Many/most things on the Maybe pile have not yet been examined, so we don't know their likelihood. Even those that have previously been examined have been returned to the Maybe pile, lacking the evidence necessary to reach a conclusion. So we probably don't know their likelihood either. So it seems to me that your idea of ranking these ideas, very sensible-seeming at first, is not actually possible or practical.

[Sculptor1]

We examine what evidence there is, and we come to a conclusion: 1. We accept the idea, maybe tentatively; 2. we place the idea back onto the 'maybe' pile, as there is insufficient reason to reach a conclusion; 3. we reject the idea, and place it on the 'discarded' pile. But the examination, and any accompanying analysis (etc), are the same in all cases...

...So what is the logical reason that allows us to take step 3 with much less reason than taking step 1? I don't think there is one. And yet I have seen, on philosophy forums and elsewhere, posters saying things like "this is obvious rubbish"; "this problem is not worthy of our attention"; "no sane person would believe such rot"

These utterances do not sound to me like someone calmly and logically giving reasons for their dismissal of an idea.

Agreed.

I suspect that we do not have a single undifferentiated Maybe pile, but a set of them ranked by some notion of likelihood.

With this, I think I disagree. I disagree for a very specific reason, and it's nothing directly to do with our Maybe pile. It's about likelihood and probability. Statistics, correctly applied, is a very powerful tool. But there is always the chimera of "lies, damned lies, and statistics", and with good reason. Statistics can be, and often are, used to mislead and confuse. Sometimes this is deliberate, but many times it is genuinely inadvertent.

We live in a world rife with uncertainty, or so it seems to us. We try to limit or minimise that uncertainty, so that we can better predict the future, to see what might be coming, and prepare for it. And so we guess. Given the minimal or non-existent evidence we have to go on, our guesses are often remarkably effective. But that's another matter.

In the manner of humans, we habitually express our guesses in words that suggest more confidence, more certainty, than we actually have. We exaggerate for 'effect'. And our assignment of "likelihood" comes under that category. Sometimes we go farther, and claim "probability", as though we have solid statistics to back us up (when we don't).

You mention ranking the Maybe pile according to "likelihood", but how do we know how likely these things are? Guesswork, nothing more. Many/most things on the Maybe pile have not yet been examined, so we don't know their likelihood. Even those that have previously been examined have been returned to the Maybe pile, lacking the evidence necessary to reach a conclusion. So we probably don't know their likelihood either. So it seems to me that your idea of ranking these ideas, very sensible-seeming at first, is not actually possible or practical.

If you are going to insist that there is a "problem of logic" then you are going to have to show your workings.

[Sy Borg]

Your comments seemed to assume that I was somehow claiming that the Earth is flat, or that the flat-Earth theory should not be dismissed. I was arguing the exact opposite, and I'm fairly sure my words (above) made this clear.

In this respect the god hypothesis is exactly the same as the flat earth hypothesis. [...] - and the God hypothesis (which is what you are really talking about)...

This topic concerns logical argument, nothing more.

The flat earth idea can be placed on the Rejected pile because we have sufficient reason. Most, maybe all, ideas concerning God must remain on the Maybe pile, as there is not sufficient reason to place them on the Accepted or Rejected piles.

By that reasoning, we must also place Allah, Zeus, Odin and Zarathustra on the Maybe Pile - and any other deity that a society may dream up. Why should Yahweh be granted special privileges? Do you think Yahweh is a superior deity to those others?

I didn't mention Yahweh, I only referred to God. Where did all this spring from?

Yahweh should not be granted "special privileges", IMO. No, I do not think Yahweh "is a superior deity".

All of the names humanity has ever given to God, and all of the characteristics assigned to those names, illustrate aspects of the one ineffable God; I respect them all, even if I personally choose to venerate God as Gaia. You can use "Yahweh" instead, if you wish, it doesn't matter to God; She won't mind; it's OK. 😋

Yahweh is God's name in the Old Testament. I didn't use "God" because it's a generic word. Which God? So I used "God's" particular name to refer to the deity of the Bible.

[Good_Egg]

If you're saying that humans are not very good at assigning likelihood to possibilities that they've never experienced, then I wouldn't disagree.

Similarly, we're not always very good at acknowledging just how uncertain those judgments are; some are no better than guesses.

But that doesn't mean we don't try. I'm suggesting that most of us do in practice judge some Maybes as less likely, less worthy of detailed consideration, than others.

Even if the level of confidence that we can justifiably have in that judgment is low.

[Pattern-chaser]

I didn't mention Yahweh, I only referred to God. Where did all this spring from?

Yahweh should not be granted "special privileges", IMO. No, I do not think Yahweh "is a superior deity".

All of the names humanity has ever given to God, and all of the characteristics assigned to those names, illustrate aspects of the one ineffable God; I respect them all, even if I personally choose to venerate God as Gaia. You can use "Yahweh" instead, if you wish, it doesn't matter to God; She won't mind; it's OK.

Yahweh is God's name in the Old Testament. I didn't use "God" because it's a generic word. Which God? So I used "God's" particular name to refer to the deity of the Bible*.

["*" added by me.]

I use "God" because it's a generic word. This allows me to avoid commenting specifically on the Jewish/Christian God.



* — Other sacred books are available.

[Pattern-chaser]

If you're saying that humans are not very good at assigning likelihood to possibilities that they've never experienced, then I wouldn't disagree.

Similarly, we're not always very good at acknowledging just how uncertain those judgments are; some are no better than guesses.

But that doesn't mean we don't try. I'm suggesting that most of us do in practice judge some Maybes as less likely, less worthy of detailed consideration, than others.

Even if the level of confidence that we can justifiably have in that judgment is low.

Perhaps so low as to be pointless? Perhaps.

But please don't confuse "less likely" and "less worthy of consideration". The former is a vehicle for self-deception, nothing more. I accept what you say, above, but it doesn't really change anything. It's not that our guesses are wildly inaccurate (they are!), but that we have no way at all to put a number on any probability, without a statistical foundation. We cannot even guess at the numerical probability of these things; we can only say (in statistical terms) that their probability lies between 0 and 1 (inclusive). Nothing more precise than that.

But back to "worthy of consideration". In this, I think we are free to choose, or not, based on any (or no) reason. There are many more Maybes than there are philosophers. Many, many, more. So it really doesn't matter whether we choose one or another. I choose based on what happens to intrigue me at the time. I claim no virtue for this method. I think what matters most is that a few Maybes get considered, now and again. For any reason at all. Prior to serious consideration, all Maybes are of equal "worth", IMO. Choose the one you fancy!

[Sy Borg]

I didn't mention Yahweh, I only referred to God. Where did all this spring from?

Yahweh should not be granted "special privileges", IMO. No, I do not think Yahweh "is a superior deity".

All of the names humanity has ever given to God, and all of the characteristics assigned to those names, illustrate aspects of the one ineffable God; I respect them all, even if I personally choose to venerate God as Gaia. You can use "Yahweh" instead, if you wish, it doesn't matter to God; She won't mind; it's OK. 😋

Yahweh is God's name in the Old Testament. I didn't use "God" because it's a generic word. Which God? So I used "God's" particular name to refer to the deity of the Bible*.

["*" added by me.]

🤣 I use "God" because it's a generic word. 🤣 This allows me to avoid commenting specifically on the Jewish/Christian God. 👍



* — Other sacred books are available. 😉

By using the word "God" you refer specifically and only to Yahweh, the Christian God, whether you mean to do so or not. "God" with a capital G now has a very specific meaning. To be generic you would need to refer to "deities" or "gods".

Is there any evidence that deities are physically real things in the universe and not just metaphorical and/or purely subjective?

[Gee]

I use "God" because it's a generic word. This allows me to avoid commenting specifically on the Jewish/Christian God.
* — Other sacred books are available.

By using the word "God" you refer specifically and only to Yahweh, the Christian God, whether you mean to do so or not. "God" with a capital G now has a very specific meaning. To be generic you would need to refer to "deities" or "gods".

I am not buying your explanation. Yahweh is NOT the Christian God; the Christian God is Christ -- AKA Jesus. What was known as Yahweh in the Old Testament is now referred to as "God the Father" -- ask a Christian (not a Yahweh an).

It is also very disrespectful to refer to all other "deities" as "gods" because by denying the capitalization in that word, we would be denying that the particular "god" is specific. It may not be specific to you, but I suspect that the "God" is very specific to it's worshipers.

Deities have been known as named Gods for tens and maybe hundreds of thousands of years, all over the globe, so to assume that in all that time that only Yahweh as earned the right to capitalization is unbelievably arrogant. IMO

I don't always agree with PC, but in this matter I fully agree.

Gee