Honestly, there’s probably not much that could convince me either way. I just can’t discount the panda theory in the same way I can discount the geocentric universe–one of those things can be proven by looking at pictures and taking measurements, the other is designed to be non-provable. Really, can we prove anything concrete about the nature of reality? Can I prove that we’re not living in a computer simulation, or that everyone else around me isn’t a robot made out of flesh and bone that is indistinguishable from human flesh and bone, or that what I think of as “reality” isn’t just a massive drug-induced hallucination, and that the real world is full of 900-foot-tall sentient pandas? No, not really. I can say it’s far more likely that we’re living in a non-magically generated universe that’s not under any type of fate control, but there’s always going to be a shred of doubt. Don’t you (and I’m talking to atheists in general here, theists too I guess) ever have doubts about your beliefs?
I don’t believe that the nature of reality (including whether or not there is a God) can be determined absolutely. All we can do is try to respect one another in this reality, with the same respect and empathy we wish to be treated. Anything we can say about the nature of reality is all speculation, because if there was an all-powerful deity (or a computer simulation, or intelligent creator aliens) it would be very easy for it to hide itself. So I guess what I’m saying is that there’s very little that could prove the non-existence of God to me, and that there’s equal doubt on the other side. I don’t see this situation changing anytime soon.
Meh, this probably makes no sense. I really shouldn’t stay up until 3:30 talking about philosophy, I just totally go off.
I’m sorry, but this makes no sense to me.
Can you please rephrase that?
Because, otherwise I get all confused and you ask things like
It seems to me that if you accept Zeus as a real and honest to God God
(I couldn’t resist)
then you could accept any of the modern ideas as well.
What I do not understand is the logic that says "our current gods are cool, but Zeus, he’s just kerazey!
Now, depending on what you believe about Zeus (and think good thoughts or he will send you to Hades…) I’ll be able to discuss that further.
Right now I’m just confused.
Let me put this a different way.
If I was to take away one or the other, which one would you have to be left with in order to survive?
Really? There’s no way you could discount the giant invisible panda?
What if, say, I offered to sell my very own giant invisible panda to you.
Now, you’ll get His favor, and all sorts of neat stuff will happen including immorality. But there is no way what-so-ever that you can ever see if He is working, because, ya know, He works in mysterious ways.
I could tell you more about my giant invisible panda, about how wonderfully magic he is, and such, but I’m sure you’re already curious enough to consider investing hard earned dollars, right?
(If you wouldn’t give money for the giant (and magic) invisible panda, why would you give the arguably much more valuable commodity, belief? )
(And, if you are going to give the giant (and magic!) invisible panda a whirl, I’ll give you a paypal link )
The innability to attain perfect data points, as a result of forces ranging from Time’s Arrow to Uncertainty, is not to be confused with being unable to attain functioning bits of knowledge. Science, in all it’s flawed glory, gave us the information required to split the atom. This, is concrete enough.
That is correct. You can’t prove anything that is ‘by design’ beyond testing. Hypotheses such as those are exceedlingly poor, having no means of replication, refutation, or evaluation for tha tmatter. As such, they must be treated as mere semantic noise. If there ‘is’ anything ‘beyond’ the ‘limits’ of our ‘reality’ even saying “we don’t know about it” is wasting words. On this subject, it is best to remain silent. (perhaps)
A shred of doubt about the absolute veracity of all current data points should not be construed as possible support for a phenomona which exists in zero data points.
All the time.
But unless I feel like indulging in pure flights of fancy, which yes, are useful and/or enjoyable at the right times, I don’t engage in wondering of believing anything about that which is beyond all reasonable and rational standards of belief, proof, even awe and wonder. Something that is, by definition, beyond defnition, is something we can never discuss.
I hand you a basketball.
You cannot determine exactly where ever subatomic particle is and what their velocity is at any given second.
That does not mean it is reasonable to assume that that is a miniature invisible panda who lives inside the ball.
Just because you leave the doggy-door unlocked on your house, tha doesn’t mean a giant invisible (and oh so magical) panda can squeeze on through (to butcher a metaphor)
I disagree… I think the best we can do is to try to be true to ourselves. But then again, that’s discussion on the Reason We’re Here, and I don’t think there’s a Reason.
No, not all speculation by any means.
A large part interpretation, yes, but the data points are there.
And yes, Valis, interesting bugger.Problem is if something can be hidden from detection, that means it does not influence reality at all
What sort of relationship would you, could you, have with something that could not influence reality, at all?
Well, using your standards, you cannot ‘prove the non existance’ of anything. Unless you elaborate on the seemingly arbitrary line between ‘absolutely ridiculous’ and ‘okay to give blind faith to.’
(I might add, it is also a fallacy in reasoning to ask someone to prove something’s non-existance. )
There is not equal doubt on both sides.
I am a heck of a lot more sure that if I plant seeds one will germinate than if I pray to God one loaf of bread will come flying through my window.
However, yes, I don’t see this changing any time soon in society at large.
Why would that be the case? Maybe it’s just good at hiding, and covering its tracks after it mucks up reality.
And what if the deity didn’t want to influence reality, as opposed to not being able to? Think about the Deist view of God, as a force which set up the universe exactly the way it wanted it and then retreated into the background. Deists have no personal relationship with the deity, yet they believe in it. Does a force have to be sufficiently interventionist to be believable?
This is a really interesting conversation, and I have more to say, but it’s way too late for philosophy talk. I’ll come post more tomorrow when my head is clearer.
No might about it. I categorically would not. But then, I’m not the one who said, “And I think ‘idiot’ is being used to refer to those who place blind faith in something that can’t possibly be tested for, yet alone proven.” That was FinnAgain.
You stated that an idiot is someone who places “blind faith in something that can’t possibly be tested for, yet alone proven”. If you cannot prove Peano’s Fifth Axiom, and yet believe it, then you are by your own definition an idiot.
So long as I can draw breath and raise up my arms, you will not tell me how to educate my children. You will not define for me what is sound. You will not impose your ignorance of my consciousness upon me. If you’re so smart, go feed the third world.
Yes, that was me, and I would appreciate it if you would elaborate on your position rather than making these odd cryptic statements.
I do not understand your reaction to my paraphrasing of what I believed another Doper said. What exactly are you trying to say?
In addition, in what way do you believe mathamatical paradoxes are in the same leage as deities? Is it conceivable that systems which we create will be subject to Godel’s incompleteness theorem, but that mathamatical systems are one’s which we created, we wrote the rules, we wrote the language. Arguing that math has certain limitations of set, identity, etc… does not imply that you can sneak God in through the side door.
In other words, I’m nort
How would this ‘hiding’ be accomplished?
If it changes anything, that can be detected.
Unless of course it somehow muddles perception itself, but then you begin doubting the senses themselves… and while that too is an interesting and fun lil’ experiment for an hour or a day, you don’t want to walk out into traffic while you seriously doubt your senses.
The result is the same. Something which does not influence reality. Thus, something to be ignored for the most part.
I wouldn’t be so hasty with that paintbrush. Deists believe in the literal existance of a God or Gods. Amongst them there is variation on what exactly they believe that a God is, does, wants, etc…
Gnostics on the other hand have a very personal realionship with deity. Just as an aside and to introduce another paradigm as gnostics are certianly deists.
Sufficiently observable, yes.
[quote=continuity eror]
This is a really interesting conversation, and I have more to say, but it’s way too late for philosophy talk. I’ll come post more tomorrow when my head is clearer.
Okay, okay, I’m really going to sleep now. Just wanted to say real quick:
You’ve really only got a right to determine the religious content of your child’s education in non-public-school hours. In a public school, educators are expected, and have a responsibility to teach facts, truth, and wisest-practices for viewing the world. A biology teacher’s function, as per his job, is to teach his students everything about biology. It is also worth pointing out that there is nothing in biology about ‘genesis’.
As such, it is right to say that biology teachers should teach biology and religious teachers should teach religion. Or:
The public schools decide how to educate your children, and individual teachers decide how to impliment pedagogical axioms. If you don’t like that, there is always homeschooling.
Or: Children’s parents do not have a right to compromise the sound education of students. If parents want a teacher to question evolution, they should take their children to their local place of worship. It is, however, the job of a biology teacher to teach biology.
And with that, I wish all a good night, er, morning, fuck it. A good morning whatever time of you day you read this.
Indeed, and again, the argument against a purely Christian influence on science education is that there are hundreds of religions, and lots of them conflict! To be genuinely intellectually inclusive, you’d have to spend all your time showing how current scientific theories differ from all the other religions. Or, for purely practical reasons, you could keep religion out of science. Nothing to do with “you will not tell me how to educate my children”. Educate them how you like!
I’m not trying to say anything. I have unambiguously stated that your definition of “idiot” hoists you by your own petard. If an idiot is someone who believes something he cannot prove, and if you believe Peano’s Fifth Axiom, then you are an idiot.
Actually, no evidence has been presented that this is true. From the linked story (emphasis mine):
Now it is entirely possible that some run-amok secular humanist school administrator is purging all references to God/gods from the classroom. However, given the tenor of the story and the lack of substantive information, I would guess that it is at least as likely that the teacher in question has been cutting out little snippets of various documents tailored to “prove” that the U.S. is a “Christian” country and the principal has decided to eliminate the proselytizing that the teacher had been carrying out in the classroom.
If the principal is barring the Declaration on SoCaS grounds, then she is completely out of line. However, the presentation of this story has not established that that is the case. This is similar to the situation where various Christian Right web sites frequently run horrid examples of governmental (and judicial) persecution of Christians–and when one follows up on the facts of the stories, one tends to find that either a low-level administrator made a bad decision that was reversed by the courts or the story as presented leaves out salient points that demonstrate that the so-called Christians were imposing their specific brand of religion on others who did not share their beliefs.
Ghanima, I started out agreeing with you in principle. I am a firm supporter of keeping religion out of science classes. I respect the rights of atheists. I don’t think that God should be trivialized by being on our money. In my opinion, mention of God shouldn’t have been added to the Pledge – it was okay without it and just as meaningful. “God Bless America” sung at ballgames is not my preference, but at least it is not a government sponsored occasion.
But for you to lump all religious people or even all Christians in together as if all promote such intrusions is truly ignorant. It is the equivalent of someone saying that all atheists are immoral.
Again. You are attempting to claim that my paraphrase of someone else’s statement makes it ‘my definition.’ That is simply false. As I have called nobody an idiot, you have unambiguously stated a falsehood.
Further, you’ve only been cryptic and oh-so-superior up to now, we have not discussed the nature of belief or how it relates to so called axiomatic knowledge and how axiomatic knoweldge is different when dealing with observed laws of nature than when stating rules of systems human create.
Now, if you would like to discuss those things I would be happy to, but it’s hard to hold a discussion when you claiming that I hold definitions which I do not while taking certain ‘axioms’ ‘views’ ‘paradigms’ as givens.
The aforementioned axiom sure seems paradoxical.A limited, rule-governed pattern of addition results in limitless and unquantifiable results? Yep, fits the bill
And in many cases, home schooling must be in accord with district or collegiate guidelines. That’s where a process of accreditation comes in. And I, for one, would have no problem with college admissions officers making sure that chldren who were home schooled are fully proficient in all aspects of modern biology.
So let me elaborate, you really only have the ability to decide the religious content of your child’s education in non-public school hours and as long as you aren’t concerned about colleges judging the curriculum of a particular homeschooled child lacking.
And I assure you that I take your kind consideration in the spirit it is given.
Your children are not your property. They have their own rights independent of yours which the US governmemnt is bound to protect. One of those rights is to a sound education. You do not have the right to deprive them of that fundamental right any more than you have a right to deprive them of food or shelter.
I didn’t say anything about any of that. My children are none of your business. And you have no business telling me what is sound and what is not sound in education.
I am not ‘tapdancing’. I never made the definition that you are questioning, and up till now you’ve only hinted and “unambiguously stated” things. I’ve been asking for clarification for the last few posts between us. And finally you make (some of) your premises and questions explicit. So if either of us could be accused of ‘tapdancing’…
Now, if you are asking me what my definition of ‘an idiot’ is, I suppose I don’t have one. It’s rough and ready, mostly it’s a slur, something to be used as short hand for “I believe this person is stupid.”
You’re too kind.
A limited, rule governed pattern: If a set S of numbers contains zero and also the successor of every number in S.
In other words the set starts with zero, the sucessive number is 1, the next sucessive number is 2, etc…
In other words, this limited, rule governed pattern is ‘take the last number, add one.’
This limited, rule governed pattern results in the limitless and unquantifiable result of an infinite set. A mathamatical infinite is beyond limit, and cannot be quantified
Me.
There are varying means of ensuring proper academic rigor is present in homeschooling curriculum.
I was suggesting that “I, for one, would have no problem with college admissions officers making sure that chldren who were home schooled are fully proficient in all aspects of modern biology.”
Your abilities will not nullify the fact that, I said: “…as long as you aren’t concerned about colleges judging the curriculum of a particular homeschooled child lacking.”
I’m sure there are enough loopholes in various state laws that one could get away with an almost entirely ‘faith based’ homeschooling curriculum.
Accountability, partially, comes in at the college level.
And if you are concerned about how your homeschooled children will be viewed by admissions officers, I suggest that your abilities are not up to the challenge of clouding men’s minds.
Being that I’ve not called you an idiot
Your resentment is pretty damn lame.
Finn Again, if I may jump into your conversation with continuity error, I think the piece that’s missing is the explicit assertion that
No proof something is not the same as disproving something.
Given that God, by definition, is all-knowing and all-powerful, it’s impossible to disprove it. God could do anything to hide, be outside existence, plant ideas in your head, etc. So continuity error expects to remain agnostic forever.
)