I am not a number, I am a free man! Somewhat Cartesian, to continue our intellectual exchange from elsewhwere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Printable View
I am not a number, I am a free man! Somewhat Cartesian, to continue our intellectual exchange from elsewhwere.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Where duh... intellectual? When I hear that word i reach for my water pistol
This is only Goering to get worse.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Put me down as an atheistic - I have no proof of a deity and suspect that such proof is unobtainable through evidence-based observance of the world.
I would take the position of Bertrand Russell
"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a god. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a god, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods."
But maybe Russell was wrong? Maybe there are many Gods. The hindus have millions. I am agnostic about that also - to a philosophic audience and to the man on the Clapham omnibus.
There are very few claims in this life that are susceptible to absolute proof. Certainty is a bugaboo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prospero
Did the early masons have absolute proof that the Churches they built were architecturally sound? They had faith that God would hold it together, they had the evidence of experience that certain structures built of certain materials would be sound and they had an understanding geometry and statics that was current to their times.
Absolute proof and absolute certainty are never available. Unless one is a True Believer, there is always doubt. So what reasonable burden is actually placed upon a reasonable believer?
Well first let's ask what is a belief? To believe a proposition like "This building will stand," means one is willing to act on the proposition; i.e. build the structure and encourage a whole congregation to stand within it. In this case the burden on the believer is that the actions based on his belief do not lead to disaster.
I step up to the cross walk. I look up the street and down the street. No cars in sight. Here lack of evidence for the existence of cars on the road is evidence that it's safe to walk across the street. I look again... and while crossing I continue to check my hypothesis. The degree of my vigilance is proportional to the degree of my doubt. Nevertheless, I cross on the belief that no cars are approaching and that belief is based on the evidence (or lack thereof) and on my experience with cars, their relative speeds and the habits of drivers.
The burden of proof, is not a burden to provide absolute certainty and remove all doubt, but a burden to provide a sufficient preponderance of evidence (or lack thereof) and to provide a theory or an understanding that together invoke in a reasonable (and in certain circumstances a professional) critic a willingness to act as if the hypothesis in question were true.
I act all the time as if gods don't exist and I think in my first post I outlined sufficient reason for doing so. I have no problem with calling myself an atheist. Could I be wrong? I won't say, "No," but I will say, "My level of doubt is so low I continue not to believe 'gods exist'. "
Indeed. I fully understand this principle Trish. That is why I asked for believer to prove though perhaps i should have said offer some evidence that will sway those who are agnostics and even those who are atheists. I agree that almost nothing can be proved to be true - the very basis of science is to offer hypotheses that hold until someone disproves them.
However perhaps we should all go for Pascal's wager - that we might as well believe in God (even if we really doubt that he exists). The alternative after all, should he or she or it turn out to exist would be unnacceptable - i.e. we will go to hell.
I think Pascal was on the right track (all assertions of belief are wagers to act or not to act) but I think his analysis is way too simplistic. It only depends on a handful of payoffs that he pulled out of thin air and placed into a two by two payoff matrix. Evidence from the natural world, from science, from other cultures, other religions, from literature, from philosophy etc. are all irrelevant to his analysis of the wager.
Again, for the reasons I outline earlier, I think the net result of all these considerations goes against the existence of gods.
But each person must weigh the evidence on their own and make their own wager: Should I act as though gods exist(and if so how does that play out in my life...what would my behavior look like)? Or should I act as though gods do not exist (and hows does that play out...how would I behave if I acted under that belief)? Or should I act like I'm in doubt as to the existence of gods (and what does that look like)?
Tricky - because of course, if an omniscient being did exist he'd know you were just gambling and you'd still fry! (pre-supposing a Christian god that is. )
Indeed, Pascal's wager is a cheat. Belief in a proposition is not just a brain state, it is a willingness to act upon the truth of the proposition. This means the cost of believing is the cost of acting as if one believed, it is not merely a matter of changing your mind or assenting to the truth of a proposition.