EPTIf we want to be hypocritical little ratdicks, we should use the scientific method to accrue information about some things (and accept other folks' information garnered through the scientific method) while impugning the scientific method and rejecting any attempts to apply it to our fetishes.
Critical Thinking and Skepticism - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
If we want to be hypocritical little ratdicks, we should use the scientific method to accrue information about some things (and accept other folks' information garnered through the scientific method) while impugning the scientific method and rejecting any attempts to apply it to our fetishes. | ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
Besides that, the original videos are mainly made for the demonstration of critical thinking, not for religion bashing. (Although I agree with others that it is alienating the religious crowd with its examples. It could also give examples that would alienate the atheistic crowd) Severedevil, your example of walking is an interesting one. I don't believe it is conscious critical thought that teaches you that, I think it is evolution that gave us the ability. Another story altogether, though  | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
On May 03 2010 16:14 BruceLee6783 wrote: I disagree with this. The game show host has revealed what is behind only ONE of the doors. You may have chosen one door for yourself, but it's contents have not yet been revealed. If he opened door number 3, you can now disregard door 3. The original distribution of odds no longer apply. Ok, let me explain you in this way. You have 100 doors. 1 has the money the rest is garbage. Now you choose 1 door randomly and the host opens other 98 doors which is garbage. Now when you did your first pick your chance to find money was 1/100 which is not good. When host removes 98 garbage doors you has to change your choice to remaining door because its more likely you couldn't find the right door in your first pick. Same thing goes for 3 doors selection too | ||
|
Lixler
United States265 Posts
On May 03 2010 16:18 tinman wrote: i wish that you had just said from the get-go. it would have saved me some time because i have absolutely no interest whatsoever in getting you to accept a worldview. On May 03 2010 16:20 XeliN wrote: And you are right Lixlel, but tinman can still maintain or even argue more strongly that if belief with evidence at its roots rests and is inextricably linked to value judgements that are subjective then it is no better or worse than belief without evidence, or substitute "science" is no better than "faith" e.t.c Although I feel silly posting the exact same response, my point in all this is that you need to accept these assumptions to participate in any kind of rational debate and still expect to be able to convince the other person. I wouldn't dream of saying "truth" is better than, say "faith," in any other context. | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 03 2010 13:10 Lixler wrote: Not to seem dense and simply repeat myself, but I think the general statement "Neutrality until evidence is shown either way" is pretty good, at least with the modern conception of logic. This would fall under agnosticism in the context of religion. That's what the videos are about  People can believe whatever they please while they recline at home, but trying to make judgments or commands etc. without some kind of proof is likely to be resisted.Not to seem dense myself, I do not think that you can present premises to an argument (i.e. syllogism) and maintain agnosticism, simply because of the nature of propositions. That said, I think this is something different than asking the question (for instance), "does God exist?" (which can be asked "agnostically") At which point one may take into consideration all the "evidence" and then move from there. On May 03 2010 13:10 Mindcrime wrote: I would. unless of course believing and then trying to rationalize that belief with bad arguments somehow counts as having proof. You would be correct in creating a distinction between actual and perceived proof (that is, proof that actually exists, and proof that we merely perceive to be truth, but is in some way false). The difficulty is the starting point: until examination, what you're dealing with is proof. How do you know a proof is true, or false? Examination. Even under examination, conclusions might be far from apparent. Though with that said, I can't sympathize with you. There are areas where Craig's arguments are very weak, and some areas where they are very strong. Saying that he is only trying to rationalize his belief (and with solely bad arguments) is on the extreme side. As a very strong philosopher, I grant him a lot of the proof he presents. To deny that, well, I think you're being a bit of a Dawkins--arrogant. On May 03 2010 13:50 Severedevil wrote: This. I watched the first youtube hit for him (since his website requires registration to see any content, which should raise a HUGE FUCKING RED FLAG) which was titled, "Dr. William Lane Craig humiliates Dr. Peter Atkins". It was a list of five things that WLG thinks science takes as unprovable assumptions, and he was pathetically wrong in all cases. He made it flagrantly clear he does not even understand the scientific process. Admittedly, that was from 1986. I'm watching him vs. Austin Dacey, and he's babbling incoherently about how god must exist because the universe exists. Uh... EDIT: Holy flying fuck, he says that God exists because Objective Moral Values exist, and he says Objective Moral Values exist because most people think raping children is bad. EDIT 2: Ugh, Austin Dacey is a philosopher, not a scientist or mathematician, so his arguments are much fuzzier than they need to be. Not a fan of the Kalam, I see. It's a nice change over Leibniz. The videos on his website are what you'll find on YouTube (you could visit commonsenseatheism and get linked to them, according to who he debated)--yeah I had to register to see them, big deal. As for Craig's arguments, if you believe that you can show all of them are weak, then you're either John Loftus, one of the brightest philosophers I've never heard of (and should organize a debate with Craig, he's getting old, after all!), or simply mistaken. I like organizing things according to trilemmas. Lets be honest, when most non-theists go up against Craig, then end up babbling about something entirely unrelated to the debate. | ||
|
daz
Canada643 Posts
| ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 03 2010 22:08 daz wrote: Is Craig the guy that came up with the Kalam arguement? If so I can't imagine that any "serious" non-theist would have much trouble with him... The "guy" that came up with the Kalam was a Muslim (at least this is the prominent view; I believe there were early Christian theists who came to similar conclusions), a few centuries ago (it accepted the premise that Leibniz and other rejected, that the universe had or could be shown to have a definite beginning). I find it's a fairly sturdy argument, in what way do you believe it is easily overcome? | ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 02 2010 10:22 Craton wrote: I like how this thread has devolved into bashing religion. This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos? | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
On May 03 2010 22:27 Biochemist wrote: This thread started out bashing religion. Did you watch the videos? I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this: If you can't at some point provide measurable verifyable evidence for spesific being you claim exists all the arguments in the world won't establish your claim is fact. I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says: Many people with theistic beliefs don't get tangled up in pursuing doomed arguments like these, they know they can't prove gods with logic and have no need to do so. They realize their beliefs are personal and that others are entitled to different wievs. Is this bashing ? I don't think so. | ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 03 2010 22:49 Aelfric wrote: I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this: I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says: Is this bashing ? I don't think so. I think the last thing you quoted hits the nail on the head. I've always felt that these debates are pointless, since religion (when practiced properly IMO, and speaking from my experience with Christianity) is so intrinsically personal. Nobody ever gets convinced of the presence or reality of God through logical arguments, but if someone has developed that personal relationship and seen their own life completely change as a result, no amount of logical argument is going to take that away. The problem is when people practice religion outwardly but don't allow their characters to be changed... then you have crooked people doing crooked things in the name of good (inquisition, crusades, 9/11, etc). | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 03 2010 22:49 Aelfric wrote: I don't think videos are bashing religion it just explains the basic needs to satisfy scientific perspective. In the faith video he says this: I personally do agree this. People can write thousands of pages but it will always turn back to the same thing. I mean you can't only rely on philosophic arguments, there must be both scientific and philosophic arguments to consider something fact. The video is about critical thinking. In the faith video he says: Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing. A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts. And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria). | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
On May 03 2010 22:58 Biochemist wrote: I think the last thing you quoted hits the nail on the head. I've always felt that these debates are pointless, since religion (when practiced properly IMO, and speaking from my experience with Christianity) is so intrinsically personal. Nobody ever gets convinced of the presence or reality of God through logical arguments, but if someone has developed that personal relationship and seen their own life completely change as a result, no amount of logical argument is going to take that away. The problem is when people practice religion outwardly but don't allow their characters to be changed... then you have crooked people doing crooked things in the name of good (inquisition, crusades, 9/11, etc). I'll post this video again, what you do is black and white thinking. | ||
|
Badjas
Netherlands2038 Posts
| ||
|
Failsafe
United States1298 Posts
My favorite thing about these threads is that philosophers are given a back seat to "scientists" and "mathematicians." My favorite thing about TL.net is how often these threads crop up. Number 3 is not true. Only one of these is true. | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 03 2010 23:30 Badjas wrote: Gnosis, I like your writing. I would like to add an idea. Call what is and what is not a fact based on the willingness to accept something as fact by all members of a discussion. For every discussion the relevant facts will differ. Those facts that are not accepted by every member of a discussion are not going to be of much use anyway until in some way everyone can become convinced of their truth. Well, it's much like the idea of a "default position," it's going to differ depending on the context you find yourself in. The same with facts, or I think more properly, the interpretation of facts. It seems to me that this is the reason why different conclusions share similar facts. One might argue against god on the basis of evil (i.e. evil, suffering and a good god are incompatible) , while another will argue for god on the basis of evil (i.e. to call something truly evil, and truly good, requires an objective standard that would not exist without a god). Hence why the majority of arguments are interpretations of facts, not simply the straight presentations of facts. But yes, you make a good point (if I understand you correctly). What is and is not a "fact" is going to differ to different people. It's not enough to only say "here are the facts". | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
On May 03 2010 23:07 Gnosis wrote: Though you must acknowledge that the certainty of your proof is in relation to that which is under question (an Aristotelian observation, if I remember correctly). A mathematical proof is going to be more certain that most metaphysical proofs, by their very definitions. Requiring (or demanding) scientific evidence for any and all arguments is, I think, either an oversimplification of considerations, or plainly incorrect. I think it's also incorrect to demand the same level of proof for different concepts, depending on the discipline. Keep in mind what I've said above; that which has a multiplicity of truths (scientific, philosophical, etc.) is going to have stronger evidence going for it. However, the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of the viability of a thing. A deistic god, for instances, might possibly exist even if all we had were philosophical and theological arguments for its (his, her?) existence. A Jewish / Christian / Muslim god might like wise exist (and this sort of god is more easily disproved than a deistic one). These aren't the same questions as asking mathematical questions, and it's not the same as asking a biological, astronomical, etc. questions. The problem starts when you bring in the word "fact"--how are you defining it? Is a metaphysical fact the same as a mathematical, or biological, or cosmological fact? Or are we in some way equivocating between the different uses of "fact"? Most theistic arguments I'm aware of don't argue that they are fact, but argue that they are the "best possible explanation" given the available evidence. They are interpretations of facts. And besides, I don't see how it can be asserted that to have a "fact" one must have scientific evidence (aside from this simply being an arbitrary set of criteria). Ok. If something is unknown(which means people couldn't find repeatable, mathemathical or any kind of observable evidence=scientific evidence) isn't it better to leave it as unknown and say "we don't know yet", instead of filling the gap with not even theories but fiction? The video never ever said that it is impossible for there to be a god or it is wrong to make any kind of theory about this. It is easily confirmable that scientific evidence > all because of its creating the exactly needed progress to the issues. So that i think needing any level of scientific evidence combined with its philosophical idea behind it is not absurd at all. | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
Absolutely amazing. We need more people like this and we need more people to think like this. 6/5 | ||
|
Gnosis
Scotland912 Posts
On May 03 2010 23:41 Aelfric wrote: Ok. If something is unknown(which means people couldn't find repeatable, mathemathical or any kind of observable evidence=scientific evidence) isn't it better to leave it as unknown and say "we don't know yet", instead of filling the gap with not even theories but fiction? The video never ever said that it is impossible for there to be a god or it is wrong to make any kind of theory about this. It is easily confirmable that scientific evidence > all because of its creating the exactly needed progress to the issues. So that i think needing any level of scientific evidence combined with its philosophical idea behind it is not absurd at all. I don't understand why you're restricting yourself to scientific evidence. Something that is unknown to science is not necessarily "unknown," it could be known to some other field of (truth) inquiry--philosophy, metaphysics, theology, etc. This comes back to what I said above, things which have a multiplicity of evidence are more certain than things which don't, but the strength of evidence is not necessarily indicative of that thing (even if it is a "good" indication). I also think you make an error in equating "observable evidence" with scientific evidence. For instance, what do you mean by observable? Science is very good at explaining physical processes, and it is horrible at explaining purpose and intention (especially among human agents), but I would say that this outside of science's realm of inquiry, and more properly suited for some other field of study (i.e. metaphysics). To me this isn't "filling the gap" with fiction, unless there is some proposition being made for no good reason (spaghetti monsters). More normally, this "filling the gap," if that's what you want to call it, is done so on the basis of perceived evidences. Consider that a person might not be justified by evidence in positing a god, but they may do so regardless. If in fact god exists, then they would not have posited a fiction, regardless of our thinking so. Now, I never said that the (second) video made the claim that it's impossible for there to be a god. The video is wrong, however, is dismissing all arguments in favor of their being god. The cube example, for instance, is largely irrelevant. Of course it's a lot easier to give a list of what god is not, but that has absolutely no relation to what god is, if god exists (and that is the question--what is god? not what is god not?). And while the video does not say its wrong to make suppositions about god, the video certainly isn't kind towards such people, who should keep their faith "private" (what if their faith isn't a private faith?). Please understand what I'm saying. Scientific evidence is good, mathematical evidence is better, but these two evidences aren't the only two in existence. There are many ways to discover truth. Scientific evidence isn't a default "I've proven my point"--it can be wrong, just as any evidence can be wrong. Until that evidence is examined, you don't know. | ||
|
UFO
582 Posts
| ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 03 2010 23:23 Aelfric wrote: I'll post this video again, what you do is black and white thinking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H57Z0yE3Qgw Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean to say that people can't be converted, just that people who are either atheist or have a personal relationship with God won't be converted by logic. Christians who are only Christians because they were raised that way can be converted by logical arguments, but I was specifically thinking of only the two above groups when I wrote the previous post. And I know someone is going to highlight the personal relationship thing and call that out for being ridiculous, so let me just say that it's not something I have and I'm not totally convinced either. But I've seen enough people completely turn their lives around and become completely different (better) people because of that. If it's not God, there's a really interesting psychological answer for it somewhere because there's definitely something there. But that's not my point. | ||
| ||
