|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
FUCK! Just as I spent an assload of time writing this I realize that the topic I've been responding into has been closed. Not going to let this go to waste though, so I'll make a blog post in reply to the OP of the closed thread, since the original idea of it was not that bad.
First, I think you mess up terminology somewhat. To be more precise, axioms and postulates. An axiom should be treated mostly as a basis for abstract analysis. According to Kant, analysis doesn't give any essentially new data, it just reveals the "hidden" properties of the initial statement. Well, an axiom is that initial statement. The difference from postulate, however, is that that initial statement may be totally random in case of an axiom, since it's absract. I can axiomatize "10=0" (oh well, we all know I actually can't, since I will also need to redefine "10", "0" and "=" in a different way that doesn't automatically imply that "10!=0" which it does in common definitions, but that's not the point, let's take it the simplest) and build a mathematical theory out of it, and it will be valid. To be more precise, validity is not even a concern here, as it's not something that can be applied to axioms. In contrast, a postulate is a statement that too, serves as a basis for analysis, but actually comes from some observations of the real world. It's not necessary to delve deeper into this, it's enough to say that postulates are based on observations, while axioms are based on nothing. Therefore, it's perfectly okay to question the validity of a postulate, but not an axiom. That for Neumann thing is somewhat different, as it's just an assumption that was later crushed by analysis, it's not an axiom, but since it's on the borderline between empyric and abstract (as much of probability and statistics is), it's best called a hypothesis, much like the ergodic hypothesis. Nothing wrong with a hypothesis proven false.
Well, that was somewhat offtopic, but messing up definitions when talking on such complex subjects generally leads to nothing good. Returning to the subject of faith (again, a little more proper word for this case, but not nearly that relevant), speaking of it, it's quite logical to discuss god. I'm sorry if my wording is poor, it's hard to discuss it even in my native language. God is an absolution of the idea of faith and studying extreme cases of something is a common scientific method. Well, as an idea, what properties does god have? It's main property is absolution, let's assume it takes manifest in absolute power in context of the material world. Definition is the hardest thing here, it will probably lead to a different result if defined differently, but I'll also try to provide some basis for why I define it like this. Had power not been absolute, the subject should be adhering to some sort of law, physical, mystical or whatever. Something that strictly adheres a law, however, is a phenomenon. Now moving on to the next part - to scientifically prove if something exists, we must conduct an experiment. What is experiment in it's essence? In essence, an experiment is a question to nature, to the world, but the point is that it's a question nature has to answer. If me measure voltage, we may ask "is voltage above 100mV?" and there is no way that question won't be answered. You can't get "no answer" from nature when experimenting, unless, of course, your equipment stops to function (but as fun as this picture is when applied to a god-measuring experiment, equipment malfunction in 100 consecutive tests is a result as well). One of the main postulates of quantum mechanics is that it's impossible to conduct a measurement that won't influence the object being studied. Experiment, therefore, implies we take some action on the studied object it can't resist. So, assuming it's possible to conduct an experiment that would prove the existence of god, we're automatically saying that we can ask god questions he can't refuse to answer or, wording it differently, we can apply some sort of force to god, which contradicts his absolute power. Therefore, in we define god with absolution in mind, it's inherently immeasurable. Inherentely unobservable. That doesn't in any way "prove" that god doesn't exist, since any kind of that proof would too rely on an experiment, but it immediately raises a point with the neo-positivist "verifying principle" that states:
Whatever isn't verifiable (it's impossible to think of an experiment that proves or disproves our statement) is not a scientific matter.
That simple, absolute god is not a scientific matter. The only way it limits us that any attempts to "prove" god's existence are fool's endeavours and frankly I'm amazed how many pseudo-scientifical books came out lately that try to blend god and science, and even more amazed at how many people actually buy this bullshit.
We can, however, define god as a non-absolute something, but those definitions are all inherently flawed. They are all either taken out by Occam's Razor (if god is just something that designed human without any additional properties, well, isn't it easier to assume that it's just an extraterrestrial intelligence, besides, synergetics tell us that simple laws with large numbers may lead to complexity and order being formed out of chaos by itself which is even more preferable) or have inherent definition loops (god made us, who made god?). The presence of absolution in god's definition should seem obvious.
Well, that was a long introduction for a very short point. Faith is irrational. It doesn't have any basis and can't have one. You just believe in god, you draw him in whatever colors you want, and it's meant to make you happier. Nothing more, leave the explanation of the universe to science. Besides, science doesn't answer the question "why?", it only answers "how?", so the former one is still a matter of faith.
Finishing the post with some offtopic, I'll quote one post from this thread:
"If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby."
This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does. Agnosticism seems much more of a rational position.
+ Show Spoiler [appendix] +I apologize to all people who might be offended by me referencing god as "it", but I'm more talking about god as an idea, without any gender specification.
|
Hmm, that's a pretty interesting topic there ^_^
Sucks that all that work had to go to waste without really proving its point 
|
Netherlands19130 Posts
|
On March 06 2008 23:14 BluzMan wrote:
This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does.
Common misconception of atheism is that it is a belief that there is no god. This is generally untrue. Atheism is not antitheism. This sort of messes up your last argument about atheism.
EDIT:
To clarify, the difference is that if scientific proof of gods and/or the supernatural were to be found, every true atheism would begin preaching the word of god, whereas antitheists would remain the same.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Well, after reading that, I stand corrected. Apply all the previous arguments to antitheism, atheism, I admit, was misunderstood by me. But it's still a system of beliefs I don't really like as it discards theism as destructive even though it has evident benefical features.
Replying to your edit:
Ain't what you're describing agnosticism? Besides, I hope that "scientifical proof" is as much of a loose assumption as "10=0".
|
very well written!
my opinion is however different regarding your answer to someones quote:
On March 06 2008 23:14 BluzMan wrote:
"If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby."
This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does. Agnosticism seems much more of a rational position.
the most rational thing to me is to believe in stuff that can be proven by experiment (science). this makes me think that god doesnt exist (there doesnt seem to be a need for some sort of absolute being in the world). i wouldnt say i strictly believe that there is no god, but if i had to bet money on the issue, i would choose the "no god" answer.
if i get a question where i know answer a) is 30% chance of being right, and answer b) has a 70% chance the rational way would be to answer b) and this IMO makes me a rational atheist 
EDIT:
didnt see Southlights post, he writes sort of the same thing but with better wording T_T
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
the thread is not closed now, it is open
edit closed again, strange was decent thread
|
So it's most rational to be agnostic towards Wodan or Xenu? What about fairies?
If you have never heard of Anu then are you agnostic towards that god? Probably not. Does that mean you are irrational.
No. Being an atheist is the neutral position. Also, being an agnost means you claim one cannot know if something exists or not. You can be both a theistic agnost and an atheist agnost.
Since you can't proof that something doesn't exist, if there is a total lack of evidence, the only position you can take is one of disbelief. Once you stop doing that you are merely suspending your disbelief.
Everyone understands this. Even all theists understand this perfectly well and make the same argument when it's about a god they don't believe in. They just refuse to apply it to their own god because then they would stop believing. And that can't be happening.
|
Germany2896 Posts
You only proved that you can't disprove a god with absolute power. And that you can't prove his existance against his will.
But you could observe an experimental result which(assuming your postulats are correct) is impossible to get without the existance of a god.
|
On March 07 2008 00:36 BluzMan wrote:
Ain't what you're describing agnosticism? Besides, I hope that "scientifical proof" is as much of a loose assumption as "10=0".
The difference between atheism and agnosticism lies primarily in the beliefs of the believers. Atheists in general, or dare I say every atheist, do not believe in any sort of god, because of the lack of proof. On the other hand, a fair number of agnostics believe in a god, for agnosticism is merely the acknowledgment that there is no proof either way. It's a more skeptical version of faith, so to speak, but a lot less rigid, in terms of 'non-belief' than atheism. In a sense, you can have a Christian agnostic, but a true agnostic would call themselves an agnostic Christian, in that order.
As for scientific proof, it's tough, isn't it? There are those that devise strict, scientific experiments to test whether people have supernatural powers - I forget who the name of the guy who's most famous about this was. However, without any sort of knowledge about a god, it's tough to really describe what sort of 'proof' would be necessary to prove the existence of gods, because you cannot even begin to create an experimental methodology to test it. That's why the presence of gods has not been proven either way, and there is no headway into that segment of study.
|
On March 07 2008 00:29 Southlight wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2008 23:14 BluzMan wrote:
This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does. Common misconception of atheism is that it is a belief that there is no god. This is generally untrue. Atheism is not antitheism. This sort of messes up your last argument about atheism. EDIT: To clarify, the difference is that if scientific proof of gods and/or the supernatural were to be found, every true atheism would begin preaching the word of god, whereas antitheists would remain the same.
In other words, we consider the existence of god so unlikely as to be without merit.
If he does exist (and could be proven to exist) then obviously we would believe. If any evidence at all that he exists existed, then we would be more likely to believe.
But that evidence hasnt surfaced in the past 2000 years
|
United States22883 Posts
Southlight hit it dead on. Buddhism is an atheist religion.
While it's true we can't deductively prove that God doesn't exist, I think we have done a fairly good job doing so inductively. That is, given the nature of God, it is impossible to prove 100% that it doesn't exist, but I think we're closer to 100% than 0%.
Many religious philosophers (from all religions) accept that faith is irrational. The more pertinent question is then - does being irrational necessarily make religion false? I'd answer more fully but I'm busy doing intern applications. >.> Some people believe that because faith is private, subjective and irrational that it becomes even stronger. Essentially, how can you disprove God to someone who believes they have been touched by God? Not proven by something like Ontological/Cosmological/Teleological argument, but from within.
|
This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does. Agnosticism seems much more of a rational position.
All smart atheists are agnostic to some degree. But, as dawkins puts it, just because we can't prove the inexistence of a god doesn't mean the chances of there being one are 50:50. Bertrand Russel gav the argument of the celestial teapot, and it goes something like this:
You argue there is a possibility of a god because there's no proof that one doesn't exist. I retort that there must be a possiblity, then, of a teapot which is orbiting the sun precisely halfway between earth and mars, because there's no way to prove there isn't one. It seems silly, but now imagine people here on earth building shrines, sacrificing animals, and preforming otherwise nonsense rituals because they fear the wrath of this celestial teapot.
Clearly just because we can't disprove something doesn't mean that the chance of the existence of that something isn't 50:50.
|
On March 07 2008 01:28 MasterOfChaos wrote:
You only proved that you can't disprove a god with absolute power. And that you can't prove his existance against his will.
But you could observe an experimental result which(assuming your postulats are correct) is impossible to get without the existance of a god.
That sounds plausible, but the thing is what experiment could you carry out that would rule out all other reasonable explanations for the observed phenomena?
Another thing considering terminology I used in the OP, yea my use of axiom/postulate was screwy. Also, by religion I actually meant religion not faith, cause as far as I can tell, most everyone is part of a religion NOT a faith. A faith is belief in a God of some nature or another, whereas in the religion you believe in everythign else that accompanies that statement in whatever holy book or another you may have.
Being agnostic in faith I can see as being a justified position, but for religion? Religion seems to be completely irrational to me if for nothing else than its completely silly, controlling nature. It's like "you gotta do this this and that all because it's written in this book! And we claim that God wrote this book through human intermediaries! Wait what contradictory things in the book? No, they don't exist even if you point them out because God's work is perfect". There are those of the religion who do recognize their book has inconsistencies, and yet they still continue to believe in the religion, claiming that even if there are errors in their book, even if they are reading a version that was translated through multiple languages to get to their own language, it must necessarily still reflect the will of the God they believe in, and that just seems wrong to me.
Oh, and upon coming back from class today, I found the last page of replies in the closed thread utterly hilarious lol.
|
I don't like religion.
Science doesn't explain "why?"
Faith is something almost "axiomatic", so if you begin to argue about which faith can be proven, etc... you get nowhere because you're arguing about your axioms.
Just as you can't eat food and have it fill someone else's stomach, it's hard to get someone to understand the power of "faith" unless they have experienced a certain faith themselves. I'm pretty sure there are some things you have taken with faith that you probably would not be willing to scrutinize.
As for the the errancy of the bible, inerrants believe that only the original version of the bible (wherever that may be) is completely true. Any other translation has been tainted by differences in culture/imperfections of language.
I disagree with your distinction between religion and faith. Religion is the set rituals and traditional behaviors that accompany the faith. It is not necessary to maintain faith, but it can sometimes reinforce your faith.
In response to BlackStar, agnosticism, is the neutral stance. The neutral stance is always "it's possible", not "it's impossible" or "it is true" which are the views of atheists and theists, respectively.
|
whereas in the religion you believe in everythign else that accompanies that statement in whatever holy book or another you may have. No, you really don't.
|
o.O Then what the hell would be the point of the Bible and related books for other religions?
|
Take the relevant parts. If you actually bothered to read the Bible, Quran, TNK, any of the vedic books, you'd know that they're 90% bullshit and written in a historical context which simply doesn't apply to us. Do I read genesis and say "goddam, abraham musta lived 900 years because the book says so?" no. Just means he was important. There are directions on how to stone people in 3 of the above texts, does that mean we go out with rocks and pelt women who've slept with men they aren't married to? No. What you CAN do, however, is look for the general themes, messages, and lessons.
It doesn't even have to do with translation through languages, its just a contextualized and relevant approach to religious literature.
|
Well i did read the entirety of the Bible a couple of times. The about that is, if you accept 90% of the Bible as bullshit, what's to say the overarching themes in it are not bullshit as well? It's like saying, "well this book I'm reading is just so completely full of bullshit, but I'll believe this and that point selectively from it anyways". it's just....... I dunno what to call it.
|
United States22883 Posts
By looking for the general themes and lessons, you're cherry picking which values you find acceptable. That implies that values and morality exist independent of the religion because certain parts of the holy books are worthwhile and others aren't. If morality exists independent of religion, then you should be obeying morality and not the religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
