Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on August 20, 2017, 03:27:49 PM
-
The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.
You seem to be missing the words MUST and BECAUSE to suit, guys........................TUT, TUT.
-
Icontinent?
I had a week in Marbella once if that helps, Vlad?
-
Icontinent?
I had a week in Marbella once if that helps, Vlad?
Two weeks would have been better for all concerned.
-
The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.
You seem to be missing the words MUST and BECAUSE to suit, guys........................TUT, TUT.
Another liquid lunch, Vlad?
-
The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.
You seem to be missing the words MUST and BECAUSE to suit, guys........................TUT, TUT.
That's not what the NPF is.
It is where you argue that X is true with weak arguments, then challenge others to refute X.
The onus is on the person claiming X is true, to make the case, not others to show that X is not true.
-
Icontinent? Apple are getting in on anything now.
-
They'll be selling iknickers next, to deal with icontinence.
-
The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.
You seem to be missing the words MUST and BECAUSE to suit, guys........................TUT, TUT.
Wrong.
-
They'll be selling iknickers next, to deal with icontinence.
;D
-
Does Vlad suffer from verbal/written Icontinence?
-
Icontinent?
I had a week in Marbella once if that helps, Vlad?
:D As soon as I heard Synthetic Dave read that, I wondered hopelessly of course - if I could think of something witty to say!!
-
They'll be selling iknickers next, to deal with icontinence.
:D Thank you for the laugh! Especially as until a few minutes ago, I had been unable to get on this forum because it was 'This page can't be displayed' all day.
-
That's not what the NPF is.
It is where you argue that X is true with weak arguments, then challenge others to refute X.
The onus is on the person claiming X is true, to make the case, not others to show that X is not true.
What has the above statement got to do with ''No proof''?
A claim of x means inexorably also means a claim a supposed status quo perceived by others isn't true. The problem, for you is, In the God debate the status quo of the others is not the default. The agnostic position is more of the default.
-
Wrong.
What's right then or are you down to just typing it down?
-
What's right then or are you down to just typing it down?
Do your own homework.
-
Do your own homework.
I took a steer from Shaker not being able to find NPF even on an acronym site.
If NPF is negative or no proof fallacy Be Rational's understanding does not encompass negative or no proof and since you have not corrected his understanding I take it you share it.
Even under that definition you have an incorrect understanding where Burden of proof lies.
In the God debate people like yourself claim immunity from having to prove on the basis that you hold the default position. You don't since your position cannot establish itself as the default except arbitrarily.
You need to explain why your position deserves the title of default? Oh, that would involve a statement on what you think the default position actually is.
I shall let your dilemma sink in.
-
I took a steer from Shaker not being able to find NPF even on an acronym site.
Possibly because, as I recall, you said you looked for the 'no proof fallacy'. Given the NPF has a second home here I'm surprised you weren't familiar with it.
If NPF is negative or no proof fallacy Be Rational's understanding does not encompass negative or no proof and since you have not corrected his understanding I take it you share it.
As I recall BR also called you out on your use of the NPF: so don't be silly, and perhaps you should read up on it before proceeding further.
Even under that definition you have an incorrect understanding where Burden of proof lies.
The misunderstanding is all yours - I'd suggest you stop digging (and start reading).
In the God debate people like yourself claim immunity from having to prove on the basis that you hold the default position. You don't since your position cannot establish itself as the default except arbitrarily.
Smashing - except I'm not claiming anything: I'm just pointing out that; a) you use fallacies, and b) you still don't understand the implications of the NPF.
As I said earlier, you need to do some homework.
You need to explain why your position deserves the title of default? Oh, that would involve a statement on what you think the default position actually is.
What position? In this I'm just pointing out your use of the NPF (and I haven't got sucked into your attempts to digress).
I shall let your dilemma sink in.
I don't have one: the dilemma is all yours - do you read up on fallacies or continue to look ill-informed.
-
Possibly because, as I recall, you said you looked for the 'no proof fallacy'. Given the NPF has a second home here I'm surprised you weren't familiar with it.
As I recall BR also called you out on your use of the NPF: so don't be silly, and perhaps you should read up on it before proceeding further.
The misunderstanding is all yours - I'd suggest you stop digging (and start reading).
Smashing - except I'm not claiming anything: I'm just pointing out that; a) you use fallacies, and b) you still don't understand the implications of the NPF.
As I said earlier, you need to do some homework.
What position? In this I'm just pointing out your use of the NPF (and I haven't got sucked into your attempts to digress).
I don't have one: the dilemma is all yours - do you read up on fallacies or continue to look ill-informed.
Is NPF Argument from ignorance Gordon?.....if so I recommend you read the Wikipedia entry. Not Rationalwiki. That's where I suspect many get their pimped up, cut and shut definitions from.
If you can't say what NPF is what chance are you going to have explaining what the default position that has no burden of proof in the God debate is.
-
Is NPF Argument from ignorance Gordon?.....if so I recommend you read the Wikipedia entry. Not Rationalwiki. That's where I suspect many get their pimped up, cut and shut definitions from.
If you can't say what NPF is what chance are you going to have explaining what the default position that has no burden of proof in the God debate is.
Nice try, Vlad (I'll pass on the straw) - I'm not the one with the educational deficiency regarding fallacies: I suggest you get reading old chap.
-
#4
The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.
That's not what the NPF is.
It is where you argue that X is true with weak arguments, then challenge others to refute X.
The onus is on the person claiming X is true, to make the case, not others to show that X is not true.
Some points:
1. ‘weak arguments’ is subjective. As such, it allows the person claiming this to dismiss what is being said, without never having to give justification for their own position (the claim that the argument is ‘weak’). Such a stance can always be disarmed by using properties of truth.
2. I don’t think that anyone would disagree with your last statement in theory. Unfortunately what happens here in practice is not consistent with this. If one is using arguments to support X, then there is nothing wrong in interrogating counter-arguments to ensure that they are valid or applied correctly, particularly when they call into question the arguments for X. This is what some posters do, and it leads to an incorrect accusation against them of using the NPF. It is not done as an indirect way to try and claim that X is true.
-
#4
Some points:
1. ‘weak arguments’ is subjective. As such, it allows the person claiming this to dismiss what is being said, without never having to give justification for their own position (the claim that the argument is ‘weak’). Such a stance can always be disarmed by using properties of truth.
2. I don’t think that anyone would disagree with your last statement in theory. Unfortunately what happens here in practice is not consistent with this. If one is using arguments to support X, then there is nothing wrong in interrogating counter-arguments to ensure that they are valid or applied correctly, particularly when they call into question the arguments for X. This is what some posters do, and it leads to an incorrect accusation against them of using the NPF. It is not done as an indirect way to try and claim that X is true.
By weak I mean it has to be rebutted to show that there may be other explanations or perhaps
The argument contains fallacies,in which case it needs to be reworked.
-
By weak I mean it has to be rebutted to show that there may be other explanations or perhaps
The argument contains fallacies,in which case it needs to be reworked.
I feel that gussying up alternatives into having disproved counter proposals needs to be watched for.
-
I feel that gussying up alternatives into having disproved counter proposals needs to be watched for.
The argument stands or falls on its merits.if the argument is sound then the conclusion is sound.
An argument that says humans look designed,therefore god, is not sound.
It would have to be demonstrated that humans are in fact designed.
-
The argument stands or falls on its merits.if the argument is sound then the conclusion is sound.
An argument that says humans look designed,therefore god, is not sound.
It would have to be demonstrated that humans are in fact designed.
Of course.....and in this brave new world of simulated universe theory who's to say it was God and not some alien sub contractor who did the job.
-
The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.
You seem to be missing the words MUST and BECAUSE to suit, guys........................TUT, TUT.
Can you stop using acronyms please - what is NPF - I presume F is fallacy, but N and P?
-
Can you stop using acronyms please - what is NPF - I presume F is fallacy, but N and P?
You'll have to take that up with Gordon. I have asked him which fallacy NPF is and am awaiting an answer.
-
You'll have to take that up with Gordon. I have asked him which fallacy NPF is and am awaiting an answer.
But you have used it in your OP - why would you use an acronym when starting a thread if you don't know what it stands for.
Anyhow it doesn't really help if an acronym isn't defined, and I don't particular care why enlightens us - so, to anyone, please can someone tell me what NPF stands for and then perhaps I can engage in this discussion.
-
Negative Proof Fallacy - specifically, that being unable to show that god does not exist does not prove that he does exist.
-
Negative Proof Fallacy - specifically, that being unable to show that god does not exist does not prove that he does exist.
There you go then, all in favour?
-
Negative Proof Fallacy - specifically, that being unable to show that god does not exist does not prove that he does exist.
Thanks.
So this is the flip side of 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence'.
-
Thanks.
So this is the flip side of 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence'.
Yes. In fact i think that is Vlad's original point actually ... for anyone to be accused of use of the "NPF" they must be using it as a conclusive argument.
-
Yes. In fact i think that is Vlad's original point actually ... for anyone to be accused of use of the "NPF" they must be using it as a conclusive argument.
Ok - kind of makes sense.
Personally I think both the NPF and 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' are both correct. Which is why I describe myself as agnostic regarding knowledge or proof of the existence of god or gods. There is no evidence that they exist and they haven't been proved not to exist (which may be impossible anyhow) so we don't know that they exist or don't exist.
However the lack of evidence for their existence leads me to be an atheist - i.e. I do not believe in the existence of god or gods, and I therefore choose to live my life on an assumption that god or gods do not exist.
-
More fallacy-spotting nerdery. Do you fallacy-hunters get off on this crap?
-
More fallacy-spotting nerdery. Do you fallacy-hunters get off on this crap?
Not really - it is about adopting a robust and consistent approach.
If you don't accept NPF with regard to god (i.e. you think that there being no proof that god doesn't exist provides evidence that he/she/it does) then you are compelled, out of consistency, to apply the same standard to pixies, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible floating teapots and invisible pink unicorns etc.
-
More fallacy-spotting nerdery.
More anti-intellectual inferiority complex.
Do you fallacy-hunters get off on this crap?
I for one would much rather people didn't keep on churning out the same shitty arguments day in and day out, but if they insist on doing so (and they do) then I'm not going to wave them aside without comment. Why would I? That's saying poor reasoning and faulty thinking are things that get a free pass.
-
More fallacy-spotting nerdery. Do you fallacy-hunters get off on this crap?
I do ... fallacies, paradoxes, infinite regressions, recursion, self-reference ... Cretan liars, Spanish barbers, tortoises that can't be caught and arrows that cannot fly. Alice's pills and visions of Xanadu. Dragons, the double helix and snakes consuming themselves. Scales and towers that never start or end.
... Just a bit tiresome when people keep beating themselves with the same ones - hmm, maybe they are stuck in a loop?
-
More fallacy-spotting nerdery. Do you fallacy-hunters get off on this crap?
It's important because a fallacy - a falsehood - can't be debated. It has no substance.
-
Yes, it seems odd to overlook fake arguments. Why would I do that? It's also rather insulting to the other person, or even patronizing, and defeats the point of a discussion. If someone says 'I find X hard to believe, therefore God', am I supposed to grin manfully and move on?
-
More anti-intellectual inferiority complex.I for one would much rather people didn't keep on churning out the same shitty arguments day in and day out, but if they insist on doing so (and they do) then I'm not going to wave them aside without comment. Why would I? That's saying poor reasoning and faulty thinking are things that get a free pass.
I am perfectly capable of spotting dodgy logic, and do not have an inferiority complex. However, it is possible to counter a logically fallacious argument without showing off by spouting "petitio principii!", "No true Scotsman!", "Consequentialist fallacy!" "Post-hoc!", or whatever, which doesn't help, and just pisses off the poster you are replying to.
-
I am perfectly capable of spotting dodgy logic, and do not have an inferiority complex. However, it is possible to counter a logically fallacious argument without showing off by spouting "petitio principii!", "No true Scotsman!", "Consequentialist fallacy!" "Post-hoc!", or whatever, which doesn't help, and just pisses off the poster you are replying to.
Well, these are abbreviations. I could set out the details of the no true Scotsman fallacy at length, with copious examples, but the phrase is a handy bookmark.
-
Well, these are abbreviations. I could set out the details of the no true Scotsman fallacy at length, with copious examples, but the phrase is a handy bookmark.
Only if everyone likely to read the post understands what the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is. Since there are people on here who probably don't, you will need to explain it anyway, so naming it is just redundant, and looks like showing off.
-
I am perfectly capable of spotting dodgy logic, and do not have an inferiority complex. However, it is possible to counter a logically fallacious argument without showing off by spouting "petitio principii!", "No true Scotsman!", "Consequentialist fallacy!" "Post-hoc!", or whatever, which doesn't help
It should help though. It should be the case that when presented with the reasons why you've just advanced a fallacious arguments, reasonable people would say "OK, fair enough; I was in the wrong and I hold my hands up to it." That however relies on people being both reasonable and possessed of some level of intellectual humility, and they're not as prevalent as they ought to be.
and just pisses off the poster you are replying to.
That would be their problem, wouldn't it?
-
It should help though. It should be the case that when presented with the reasons why you've just advanced a fallacious arguments, reasonable people would say "OK, fair enough; I was in the wrong and I hold my hands up to it." That however relies on people being both reasonable and possessed of some level of intellectual humility, and they're not as prevalent as they ought to be.
That would be their problem, wouldn't it?
I meant the obsessive naming of the logical fallacies. You can show why the argument is fallacious without doing so. Read C.S.Lewis's popular works to see how it's done. You don't catch him writing "Circualr argument", "Appeal to consequences", etc. all the time, but he nails the fallacy effectively in his own words.
-
Only if everyone likely to read the post understands what the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is. Since there are people on here who probably don't, you will need to explain it anyway, so naming it is just redundant, and looks like showing off.
And this is why certain things you've posted look like anti-intellectualism and, yes, an inferiority complex. The terms you mentioned in #38 mean something. They refer to specific things. They're not just scenery or pleasant but useless verbiage - they serve a purpose in identifying particular things. Whether it's medicine or meteorology or engineering or carpentry or baking or whatever, particular disciplines have their own nomenclature to refer to relevant things within it. Do you accuse those of 'polysyllabic nerdery' as well?
-
Only if everyone likely to read the post understands what the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is. Since there are people on here who probably don't, you will need to explain it anyway, so naming it is just redundant, and looks like showing off.
Well, that works the first time. But on this forum, certain fake arguments such as Scotsman are trotted out again and again, and did I say, again. It's almost like an obsesssion with fake arguments, so of course, respondents tend to abbreviate their response. It would be barmy to give a full description of it every time. Maybe we need a glossary somewhere but then Wiki already does that.
-
And this is why certain things you've posted look like anti-intellectualism and, yes, an inferiority complex. The terms you mentioned in #38 mean something. They refer to specific things. They're not just scenery or pleasant but useless verbiage - they serve a purpose in identifying particular things. Whether it's medicine or meteorology or engineering or carpentry or baking or whatever, particular disciplines have their own nomenclature to refer to relevant things within it. Do you accuse those of 'polysyllabic nerdery' as well?
Yes, if they use arcane technical terms unnecessarily, when writing for a general audience.
-
Well, that works the first time. But on this forum, certain fake arguments such as Scotsman are trotted out again and again, and did I say, again. It's almost like an obsesssion with fake arguments, so of course, respondents tend to abbreviate their response. It would be barmy to give a full description of it every time. Maybe we need a glossary somewhere
I have considered a (hopefully stickied) thread to that very purpose, in fact. Doubt if it would actually achieve anything, though.
-
Only if everyone likely to read the post understands what the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is. Since there are people on here who probably don't, you will need to explain it anyway, so naming it is just redundant, and looks like showing off.
When I started posting here I didn't know what most of the terms you refer to meant, so I educated myself with a bit of googling. Why would anyone not want to do that and prefer something dumbed down? I don't always follow every argument. So what? My mind is being stretched.
-
Yes, if they use arcane technical terms unnecessarily, when writing for a general audience.
The ones in question aren't particularly arcane and certainly not unnecessary, though. As for this forum I don't think it's a particularly general audience - we're all here because we're interested in the same subjects, and if you're discussing religion in anything other than the most facile and superficial way you're going to run into philosophical and scientific concepts and therefore terminology.
-
When I started posting here I didn't know what most of the terms you refer to meant, so I educated myself with a bit of googling. Why would anyone not want to do that and prefer something dumbed down? I don't always follow every argument. So what? My mind is being stretched.
You see?
And she's a woman, so there's no excuse.
:D
-
When I started posting here I didn't know what most of the terms you refer to meant, so I educated myself with a bit of googling. Why would anyone not want to do that and prefer something dumbed down? I don't always follow every argument. So what? My mind is being stretched.
Because a few people on here are pretty thick.
-
Because a few people on here are pretty thick.
Where to begin ...
-
For Pete's sake, this forum has been going for 7 years, I think, and before that there was the BBC. Let's call it ten years that these duff arguments have been repeated endlessly. I get it that new members may not know what 'no true Scotsman' means, but they can google.
-
I meant the obsessive naming of the logical fallacies. You can show why the argument is fallacious without doing so. Read C.S.Lewis's popular works to see how it's done. You don't catch him writing "Circualr argument", "Appeal to consequences", etc. all the time, but he nails the fallacy effectively in his own words.
Whilst getting caught perpetrating some monstrous howlers of his own.
-
Yes, triple irony quoting Lewis on fallacies. Fake dichotomies abound in Lewis, e.g. lunatic, liar or lord. I think he also got into the impersonal/personal arguments, which usually fall off a cliff. For example, atoms are impersonal, therefore can't produce personality. Eh? Well, atoms aren't green, therefore can't end up in green things. Yeah, sure, would you like to give me your bank card pin?
-
Lewis's arguments about morality are really nightmarish. Because he can't imagine how morality can be arrived at naturally (incredulity), therefore (non sequitur), it must be supernatural (undefined term), and therefore (non sequitur), it's created by the Anglican Christian God. Funny, that.
If you google Lewis and fallacies there is an avalanche of them.
-
Ah well, I've got the bit between my teeth now. This is a famous piece from Lewis:
"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for certain physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, that gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if it is so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity.
This is just embarrassing, and the guy was a professor, wasn't he? 'Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought'. It's quite sad, I suppose, but also anti-science, and just stupid.
-
Ah well, I've got the bit between my teeth now. This is a famous piece from Lewis:
"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for certain physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, that gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if it is so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity.
This is just embarrassing, and the guy was a professor, wasn't he? 'Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought'. It's quite sad, I suppose, but also anti-science, and just stupid.
Wigginhall
You seem to be garnering enthusiasm for your idea that Lewis's reputation is in tatters because some of his trilemmas
should in fact be quadrilemmas. Isn't that the ''Oh I've just come up with another possibility.....therefore all others are negated'' fallacy?
I could not resist a smile when you were reminded Lewis's claim that Christianity must be the biggest con job in History you railed at that prospect. The smile was at the idea of you waxing so antilewis/Christian that you could not find it in yourself even to credit Christians with the biggest con job in history Ha Ha.
-
I think Lewis's reputation is in tatters, because he produces awful arguments like the above. He stuck to this one in various books and papers - nature cannot produce morality or thought, therefore God. As well as using analogies like the spilled milk one above, which are stupid, and not thought through.
-
I think Lewis's reputation is in tatters, because he produces awful arguments like the above. He stuck to this one in various books and papers - nature cannot produce morality or thought, therefore God. As well as using analogies like the spilled milk one above, which are stupid, and not thought through.
I haven't read Lewis recently but I think there has been some questionable accusations of people arguing conclusively when they are not or not in the way they are accused.
Claiming that something is a trilemma when someone argues it should be a quadrilemma seems pretty trivial to me.
Most of what is in the universe is amoral and there are those who argue that any consciousness is an illusion. I think Hillside would argue that morality is actually and effectively absent. Lewis here seems to be refuting that and I do not disagree with him.
In other words if the universe is amoral and unconscious from whence is morality and consciousness being conjured. But more to the point, where are and what are they spatially ?
I think we are still having these debates though and all you seem to be saying is that your preferred view has primacy
-
It's not about my preferred view, but Lewis's terrible arguments. He seems to be saying that evolution is random, as with the analogy with spilled milk. I don't know whether he really believed that biologists were saying that, or whether this is his own view, but obviously random evolution would not produce anything. Somebody doing GCSE biology could see that.
He also seems to forget that thought is often unreliable, and so is feeling and perception. That is one reason that we have collegiate systems in academic subjects. I might say something daft, but a colleague will probably correct me. So are such errors the fault of the devil?
-
Vlad the Strugglist,
The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.
You seem to be missing the words MUST and BECAUSE to suit, guys........................TUT, TUT.
Because it's not there. "Must" would be an argument from necessity; rather all the NPF claims is an "is" - as in, "you can't falsify my orbiting teapot conjecture, therefore my conjecture is true".
Incidentally, if you seriously think you don't use the NPF what point do you think you are making when you post comments like, "But you can't disprove it either"?
What is the "but" supposed to signify here?
-
Vlad the Strawmanist,
Most of what is in the universe is amoral…
No, “most of the universe" (so far as know) isn’t even a/morality apt.
…and there are those who argue that any consciousness is an illusion.
Who are these people? Consciousness is real enough. Our intuitive perceptions of what it entails on the other hand (the “free” of free will for example) are not.
I think Hillside would argue that morality is actually and effectively absent. Lewis here seems to be refuting that and I do not disagree with him.
Hillside would say no such thing. What Hillside would say though is that objective morality is absent.
In other words if the universe is amoral and unconscious from whence is morality and consciousness being conjured. But more to the point, where are and what are they spatially ?
The same place that aesthetics and language and….come from. They’re emergent properties of mind.
I think we are still having these debates though and all you seem to be saying is that your preferred view has primacy
No, we’re saying that the rational “has primacy” over the irrational.
-
I think Lewis's reputation is in tatters, because he produces awful arguments like the above. He stuck to this one in various books and papers - nature cannot produce morality or thought, therefore God. As well as using analogies like the spilled milk one above, which are stupid, and not thought through.
I tend to agree with you, Wiggs. I see him as a man of great imagination but no visionary. When faced with the intriguing scientific ideas in the realm of probabilities that quantum mechanics had to offer, for instance, he relegated them to the 'sub-natural'(whatever that may be) and made his rather biased and myopic response that:
Those who like myself have had a philosophical rather than a scientific education find it almost impossible to believe that the scientists really mean what they seem to be saying
Shades of AB's incredulity complex. :)
-
Claiming that something is a trilemma when someone argues it should be a quadrilemma seems pretty trivial to me.
Not when the 4th option is the most plausible explanation, but has been quietly ignored by the author because it doesn't fit with his 'pre-conceived' thesis that god exists.
And of course there are far more that just four (let alone three) explanations.
And, of course the reality is that the distinctions between mad and bad are far more complex and nuanced than Lewis allows - again because he want to force people to reject mad and bad and then accept god. Even if you reject mad and bad, the next option on the list (which Lewis ignores) is misrepresented/misinterpreted during retelling decades later.
And to demonstrate my point - Lewis gets misinterpreted and misrepresented decades after his writing - specifically there are some people who think his arguments are cogent and plausible ;)
-
Not when the 4th option is the most plausible explanation, but has been quietly ignored by the author because it doesn't fit with his 'pre-conceived' thesis that god exists.
And of course there are far more that just four (let alone three) explanations.
And, of course the reality is that the distinctions between mad and bad are far more complex and nuanced than Lewis allows - again because he want to force people to reject mad and bad and then accept god. Even if you reject mad and bad, the next option on the list (which Lewis ignores) is misrepresented/misinterpreted during retelling decades later.
And to demonstrate my point - Lewis gets misinterpreted and misrepresented decades after his writing - specifically there are some people who think his arguments are cogent and plausible ;)
You write as though the one that is missing is usually the most plausible.
That would rather suggest evasion of issues by Lewis rather than just missing them.
I don't find evasion in Lewis but in New Atheist argument which has a whole host of get outs and virtuous sounding playing field changes. Lewis tends to focus. Others tend to wooliness which is I guess why Wigginhall hates him so.
-
That would rather suggest evasion of issues by Lewis rather than just missing them.
Of course - unless Lewis was really stupid, which I don't think.
The notion that you would fail to recognise that records of an event, written decades after that event, might have misrepresented or misunderstood what actually happened is a pretty obvious explanation. That Lewis fails to offer that explanation in his 'trilemma' is likely evasion on his part as I cannot believe he didn't recognise it as a possibility.
But, of course, it didn't fit his agenda - mad, bad, god or misrepresented doesn't quite lead where he wants to guide the reader does it, on the basis that misrepresented seems the most obvious conclusion and one that doesn't require us to make any value judgement on Jesus at all.
All I can say is 'send three and fourpence, we are going to a dance'.
-
Vlad the Assertionist,
I don't find evasion in Lewis...
Then you're not looking properly.
...but in New Atheist argument which has a whole host of get outs and virtuous sounding playing field changes.
It's "atheist" (not "new" atheist) and presumably we'll just have to take your word for these assertions as you'll still be unable to produce actual examples of either.
Why bother?
Lewis tends to focus.
On finding reasons to believe the thing he's already decided he believes. It's called confirmation bias, supported by various fallacious arguments (some of which have been identified here already).
Others tend to wooliness...
Which "others", and what "woolliness" do they "tend to" in your mind?
The assertotron is in overdrive tonight eh?
...which is I guess why Wigginhall hates him so.
First Wiggs hasn't suggested that he "hates" him at all, so why misrepresent him like that? Second, what Wiggs has actually done is to falsify some of the arguments Lewis attempted.
If you insist on coming here to tell lies, could you at least try to be a bit less obvious about it? Ta.
-
You write as though the one that is missing is usually the most plausible.
That would rather suggest evasion of issues by Lewis rather than just missing them.
I don't find evasion in Lewis but in New Atheist argument which has a whole host of get outs and virtuous sounding playing field changes. Lewis tends to focus. Others tend to wooliness which is I guess why Wigginhall hates him so.
Lewis' arguments are for the playground. This is the actual wording of his trilemma point which is so laughably lacking in robustness to be almost sad:
'A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God'
To start with the basic premise can only be justified if it can be verified beyond doubt that the gospels are a completely accurate representation of what Jesus actually said - and there is no evidence to support this at all. So you don't even get off the starting blocks.
In reality Lewis' enduring reputation is based entirely on his Narnia books - had he not written those I doubt anyone would remember either his academic career, nor his weak Christian apologist writings.
-
Lewis' arguments are for the playground. This is the actual wording of his trilemma point which is so laughably lacking in robustness to be almost sad:
'A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God'
To start with the basic premise can only be justified if it can be verified beyond doubt that the gospels are a completely accurate representation of what Jesus actually said - and there is no evidence to support this at all. So you don't even get off the starting blocks.
In reality Lewis' enduring reputation is based entirely on his Narnia books - had he not written those I doubt anyone would remember either his academic career, nor his weak Christian apologist writings.
He certainly did not mess around with mealy mouth options such as Jesus was mistaken.I think he's spot on and the real underlining sentiment is that not only is Jesus mistaken but it is in the same category as someone who thinks they are Napolean. Lewis writes more for the man and woman in the street he gets there I'm afraid more than Dawkins who has never had as common a touch and has after all been in competition with apathetic atheism. I don't know how he compares with Pullman who has some great ideas and comments regarding English education but who I suspect is aided by Secular Humanist parents eager to set the next generation in the right direction.
-
He certainly did not mess around with mealy mouth options such as Jesus was mistaken.
On what grounds did he dismiss that possibility from consideration, please?
-
He certainly did not mess around with mealy mouth options such as Jesus was mistaken.I think he's spot on and the real underlining sentiment is that not only is Jesus mistaken but it is in the same category as someone who thinks they are Napolean.
But we have absolutely no idea what Jesus actually said, what he actually claimed or thought about himself. All we have are accounts written decades later which were written by people who had an agenda, specifically to try to perpetuate a belief amongst that group that Jesus was the son of god.
Interesting, of course, that the vast majority of people who were contemporaries of Jesus didn't believe a word of it - hence they continued to be Jewish, rejecting the notion that he was the son of god.
-
Of course - unless Lewis was really stupid, which I don't think.
The notion that you would fail to recognise that records of an event, written decades after that event, might have misrepresented or misunderstood what actually happened is a pretty obvious explanation. That Lewis fails to offer that explanation in his 'trilemma' is likely evasion on his part as I cannot believe he didn't recognise it as a possibility.
Perhaps he recognises it as a possibility in the same way Dawkins sees God as a possibility or Richard Carrier sees Jesus as a possibility.......I.e. Negligible and certainly not as you would have it the most likely.
That Jesus had it in his manifesto that he was who he said he was is, to Lewis as historical as Caligula manifesto making it known that he was emperor.
In other words you can introduce it as another lemma but your justification is debatable as is it being the most likely.It looks injected to give some kind of hope to some kind of folk.
In fact I push the boat out and would credit Lewis as the father superior of Dawkins here in getting those considering Jesus to be robust about where they stand.
-
Interesting, of course, that the vast majority of people who were contemporaries of Jesus didn't believe a word of it - hence they continued to be Jewish, rejecting the notion that he was the son of god.
Argumentum ad populum?
-
Argumentum ad populum?
No.
-
Lewis writes more for the man and woman in the street he gets there I'm afraid more than Dawkins who has never had as common a touch and has after all been in competition with apathetic atheism.
Much as you probably don't like the comparison there are big parallels between Lewis and Dawkins - both academics who chose to move out of their area of expertise and become (for want of a better term) apologists for christianity and atheism.
I'd have to take issue with your comment about the 'man and woman in the street' - demonstrably Dawkins has the common touch with the 'man and woman in the street', evidence being the huge number of copies of his books bought by exactly those people. I doubt any of Lewis' Christian apologist books have been best sellers and shifted millions of copies. And by bestseller list I mean just that - all books - not best seller list for Christian apologist books from Oxford academics.
-
Argumentum ad populum?
No - if you accept what is written in the bible thousands of people heard him, saw him etc - they weren't impressed - they chose not to believe the claim that he was son of god (whether he even made it). The point is that at the time when he was alive and teaching, he failed to convince all but a tiny minority of his most ardent fanatics.
Point is about the strength of his argument - or rather the lack thereof.
-
No.
How so?
-
Perhaps he recognises it as a possibility in the same way Dawkins sees God as a possibility or Richard Carrier sees Jesus as a possibility.......I.e. Negligible and certainly not as you would have it the most likely.
What Lewis does - which I think is somewhat dishonest (albeit easily seen through) is demand that we make a judgement about Jesus (which is, of course, ludicrous as none of us know him, have met him etc) rather than make a judgement about what we have been told in third party accounts about Jesus.
All we have are limited, partial (i.e. not neutral), non contemporary accounts that have been carefully selected centuries later to be the 'official' account to go on. In reality we can't make any kind of real judgement about Jesus as all we know is seen through a distorting prism - our judgement can only be about what we are told which may be a million miles from the reality.
-
What Lewis does - which I think is somewhat dishonest (albeit easily seen through) is demand that we make a judgement about Jesus (which is, of course, ludicrous as none of us know him, have met him etc) rather than make a judgement about what we have been told in third party accounts about Jesus.
All we have are limited, partial (i.e. not neutral), non contemporary accounts that have been carefully selected centuries later to be the 'official' account to go on. In reality we can't make any kind of real judgement about Jesus as all we know is seen through a distorting prism - our judgement can only be about what we are told which may be a million miles from the reality.
Yes he is pro focus but then I'm sure Lewis knows that many will go back to being atheist without God for no reason it seems.......unless you can provide reasons for being an atheist?
-
Vlad the Evasionist,
Yes he is pro focus but then I'm sure Lewis knows that many will go back to being atheist without God for no reason it seems.......unless you can provide reasons for being an atheist?
So just to be clear: you turn up here and tell a bunch of lies; you're called out on those lies; you just ignore the issue, and carry on with something else.
Is that how trolling 101 works then?
-
Ah well, I've got the bit between my teeth now. This is a famous piece from Lewis:
"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen for certain physical or chemical reasons to arrange themselves in a certain way, that gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But if it is so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way the splash arranges will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought; so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity.
This is just embarrassing, and the guy was a professor, wasn't he? 'Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought'. It's quite sad, I suppose, but also anti-science, and just stupid.
What's wrong with the argument?
-
Not really - it is about adopting a robust and consistent approach.
If you don't accept NPF with regard to god (i.e. you think that there being no proof that god doesn't exist provides evidence that he/she/it does) then you are compelled, out of consistency, to apply the same standard to pixies, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible floating teapots and invisible pink unicorns etc.
. . . and Fluffy Pink Dragons . . .
-
SteveH,
What's wrong with the argument?
Lots of things. Just for starters though, his question “But if it is so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?” is based on a false premise. It implies that there’s an absolute “true” to start with, and then posits a problem of how he could trust that he’d found it. Why though think either that there is an absolute true, or that our brains are sufficient to know what it would be in any case?
“True” is a probabilistic term – based on the logic, the evidence, our ability to reason etc we come up with truths that are just as true as we can establish them to be and no more – “true enough” if you will.
Thus 2+2=4 is “true enough” true but no more. Whether we’re just quants of data in a celestial kid’s computer game programmed to make us think that though is unknowable.
-
What's wrong with the argument?
Quite a few things. He treats evolution as random, hence the spilled milk analogy - but it isn't. So the brain is not some accidental product.
Trusting your own thinking is a practical thing, not decided by the origin of thinking. In fact, you could argue that cognition is to an extent unreliable, but we are able to use it as a good enough tool, which we learn to use by practice.
The idea that believing in God helps you trust thought is bizarre. Watch children gradually learning all kinds of cognitive tasks, they don't do this via belief in God, but trial and error, with some instruction. And of course, they make tons of mistakes, and learn from them.
'The arguments leading to atheism' - eh? Atheism is a lack of belief.
'It is merely that ...' is a give away, as with the use of the word 'just' by some people. Used as pejorative words. So, biology is some crummy kind of subject, whereas creationism is exalted and grand.
-
SteveH,
...
Thus 2+2=4 is “true enough” true but no more. Whether we’re just quants of data in a celestial kid’s computer game programmed to make us think that though is unknowable.
er.. "true enough"? No it's true whether or not we exist in some cosmic game .. because it is true in the game we have constructed.,. outside of that it is gibberish.
-
SteveH,
Lots of things. Just for starters though, his question “But if it is so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true?” is based on a false premise. It implies that there’s an absolute “true” to start with, and then posits a problem of how he could trust that he’d found it. Why though think either that there is an absolute true, or that our brains are sufficient to know what it would be in any case?
“True” is a probabilistic term – based on the logic, the evidence, our ability to reason etc we come up with truths that are just as true as we can establish them to be and no more – “true enough” if you will.
Thus 2+2=4 is “true enough” true but no more. Whether we’re just quants of data in a celestial kid’s computer game programmed to make us think that though is unknowable.
What a load of pseudo-intellectual, terminally confused bollocks.
-
What a load of pseudo-intellectual, terminally confused bollocks.
It would be useful and more constructive if you could say why you think so, but I'm not hopeful.
-
It would be useful and more constructive if you could say why you think so, but I'm not hopeful.
He was talking about epiphenominalism, the idea that out thoughts, beliefs, ideas and everthing else that form our consciousness are merely a by-product of electrical and chemical changes occurring in our brain, which evolved to help us survive, not to think accurately about abstract things. It is widely agreed that that is self-defeating, as it is an argument against the possibility of arguments: if our thoughts are no more than that, we have no reason to rely on them, including the thought that our thoughts are the by-product of electrical and chemical changes in our brain. All your guff about absolute truth is irrelevant. If our brains are nothing but evolved survival machines, and our thoughts merely a by-product of them, how do you know that "truth is probabilistic"?
-
He was talking about epiphenominalism, the idea that out thoughts, beliefs, ideas and everthing else that form our consciousness are merely a by-product of electrical and chemical changes occurring in our brain, which evolved to help us survive
Agree broadly so far (except for your dismissive word 'merely'). And actually our what we describe as thoughts aren't really a by-product (suggesting there is a 'main' product) - no ur thoughts are how we experience certain electrical and chemical stimuli - they are the product, not the by product.
not to think accurately about abstract things.
Nope - abstract thought is a by-product of the ability for higher conscious thought and likely to be involved in creative though which is fundamental to our survival. Indeed one of the main reasons why humans have been so successful in evolutionary terms is their ability to think creatively (driven from abstract thought) and to put that creativity in practice whether directly practically to solve problems or to cement society and culture.
It is widely agreed that that is self-defeating
Widely accepted? By whom, evidence please.
[/quote]
-
Re. your last question - by C.E.M.Joad, for one, and J.B.S.Haldane, for another: JBSH famously said "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
-
Abstract thought may be fundamental to our survival, as you suggest, but that doesn't guarantee its reliability. It may be advantageous to our survival to believe certain things which are not true; some argue that religion is an example of that.
-
Re. your last question - by C.E.M.Joad, for one, and J.B.S.Haldane, for another: JBSH famously said "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
So? This is the so-called evolutionary argument against naturalism - you know, the one that curiously omits evolution - and was wrong when Haldane stated it as it's wrong when Plantinga does nowadays.
-
Thus 2+2=4 is “true enough” true but no more.
This is obviously not the case; maths is absolutely true beyond a peradventure, because it is deductive, not inductive. However, I disagree with Udayana that maths is merely a game we have constructed: numbers are abstract, but they can refer to objects: apples, bicycles, etc. If I take two apples and add two more, I will always get four. It is inconceivable that any society has developed a number-system in which 2+2=5 (whatever symbols they use to represent "2" and "5"). Maths can be used to solve complex real-world problems, and to make predictions such as the date of the next total eclipse visible in the UK, so it can't be purely a human game.
-
So? This is the so-called evolutionary argument against naturalism - you know, the one that curiously omits evolution - and was wrong when Haldane stated it as it's wrong when Plantinga does nowadays.
Why?
Incidentally, I've corrected the typo in the thread title for this post, because it pisses me off every time I come here. Could the admin possibly alter it in the opening post, so that it appears correctly in the board index?
-
Why?
Because it simply ignores the most basic and obvious rebuttal. Nobody claims that our senses give us a 100% accurate depiction of reality 100% of the time, but sensory perception has to be broadly accurate most of the time or an organism will find itself an evolutionary dead end in very short order. Perception has to be mostly right most of the time to allow an organism to evade predators and avoid danger.
In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Douglas Adams invented the Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, a pair of shades whose lenses turn completely opaque in any dangerous situation, based on the (obviously false) principle that what you don't know can't hurt you - it doesn't stop the danger, you just can't see it. So if you're crossing the road and see a bus bearing down on you at speed, or a tiger leaps out of the undergrowth at you, your sunglasses turn totally black so you can't see yourself being creamed under a bus or turned into mince by a large felid.
The EAN proceeds on the basis that all organisms already wear the Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, in effect. They don't. It's cobblers.
-
Because it simply ignores the most basic and obvious rebuttal. Nobody claims that our senses give us a 100% accurate depiction of reality 100% of the time, but sensory perception has to be broadly accurate most of the time or an organism will find itself an evolutionary dead end in very short order. Perception has to be mostly right most of the time to allow an organism to evade predators and avoid danger.
In Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Douglas Adams invented the Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, a pair of shades whose lenses turn completely opaque in any dangerous situation, based on the (obviously false) principle that what you don't know can't hurt you - it doesn't stop the danger, you just can't see it. So if you're crossing the road and see a bus bearing down on you at speed, or a tiger leaps out of the undergrowth at you, your sunglasses turn totally black so you can't see yourself being creamed under a bus or turned into mince by a large felid.
The EAN proceeds on the basis that all organisms already wear the Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses, in effect. They don't. It's cobblers.
For everyday perception of the world around us, maybe, but it doesn't apply to more arcane stuff like advanced science or philosophy.
-
C.E.M.Joad, for one, and J.B.S.Haldane
Firstly the opinions of 2 people hardly justifies your claim that 'It is widely agreed that that is self-defeating'.
Secondly - Joad was a philosopher, Haldane was an evolutionary geneticist - we are discussing neuroscience and cognitive science - neither were experts in this field so their opinion in an area outside (Haldane) and massively outside (Joad) their area of expertise is rather irrelevant.
Thirdly both have been dead for more than 50 years - neuroscience has moved on massively just in the past 10 years and is unrecognisible from the middle of the 20th century. Therefore they cannot be acquainted with current knowledge and understanding of neurophysiology and its relationship to behaviour, cognition and psychology for the simple reason that they have been dead for during the period of the neuroscience revolution.
Finally, your quote from Haldane (famous you claim - I've never heard it before) is merely an opinion (and from 1927!), an assertion without any evidential base to support it. And actually the evidence does not support it as we know without a shadow of doubt that our thought etc can be faulty. So Haldane opines that:
'For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.'
And of course there is no reason to suppose that beliefs are true and often they can be demonstrated not to be true.
'And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.'
In which case what exactly is the brain composed of? If anything is 'widely accepted' I think it would be that our brains are composed of atoms.
-
Firstly the opinions of 2 people hardly justifies your claim that 'It is widely agreed that that is self-defeating'.
Secondly - Joad was a philosopher, Haldane was an evolutionary geneticist - we are discussing neuroscience and cognitive science - neither were experts in this field so their opinion in an area outside (Haldane) and massively outside (Joad) their area of expertise is rather irrelevant.
Thirdly both have been dead for more than 50 years - neuroscience has moved on massively just in the past 10 years and is unrecognisible from the middle of the 20th century. Therefore they cannot be acquainted with current knowledge and understanding of neurophysiology and its relationship to behaviour, cognition and psychology for the simple reason that they have been dead for during the period of the neuroscience revolution.
Finally, your quote from Haldane (famous you claim - I've never heard it before) is merely an opinion (and from 1927!), an assertion without any evidential base to support it. And actually the evidence does not support it as we know without a shadow of doubt that our thought etc can be faulty. So Haldane opines that:
'For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.'
And of course there is no reason to suppose that beliefs are true and often they can be demonstrated not to be true.
'And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.'
In which case what exactly is the brain composed of? If anything is 'widely accepted' I think it would be that our brains are composed of atoms.
You have obviously completely failed to understand what Haldane, Joad and Lewis were saying. I'm fed up with arguing with logorrhoeic idiots, so I'm off this thread (though I'll probably break that promise, going by past form).
-
You have obviously completely failed to understand what Haldane, Joad and Lewis were saying. I'm fed up with arguing with logorrhoeic idiots, so I'm off this thread (though I'll probably break that promise, going by past form).
No I disagree with them and in every case their views are understandably woefully ill informed as they cannot have taken account of the massive increase in knowledge over recent decades, for the simply reason that they have all been dead for over 50 years.
And I would suggest that you retract your claim that I (presumably you are aiming this at me) am a logorrheic idiot. You seem to take note of academics (Haldane, Joad, Lewis), well I too am a senior academic and while my own personal research isn't directly neuroscience my area is certainly closer to it than Lewis or Joad - arguable about Haldane. However I am also strategically responsible for all research in my area of my university (a prestigious one) and that area includes neuroscience, behavioural science, cognition science and psychology - which includes researchers working at the cutting edge of those fields based on knowledge in 2017, not in 1927.
-
You have obviously completely failed to understand what Haldane ... were saying.
Haldane, 90 years ago said:
'And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.'
Do you agree with him that the brain isn't composed of atoms? And if so what is it composed of.
-
Incidentally, I've corrected the typo in the thread title for this post, because it pisses me off every time I come here. Could the admin possibly alter it in the opening post, so that it appears correctly in the board index?
On almost every other occasion I would certainly agree with you, as I have to listen to every line. However, in this particular case, it is quite amusing to hear Synthetic Dave pronounce it as originally typed! :)
-
Prof D - Very interesting posts.
-
For everyday perception of the world around us, maybe, but it doesn't apply to more arcane stuff like advanced science or philosophy.
I must admit I'm lost now about what you are saying. Are you saying that cognitive tasks such as playing chess, building flying buttresses, or designing frocks, don't directly aid survival, and so cannot be accounted for by evolution? Does this mean that they are supernaturally aided?
And are you saying that you support Lewis's milk jug argument?
-
I must admit I'm lost now about what you are saying. Are you saying that cognitive tasks such as playing chess, building flying buttresses, or designing frocks, don't directly aid survival, and so cannot be accounted for by evolution? Does this mean that they are supernaturally aided?
I think you need to consider what it is that is key to evolutionary advantage as humans.
Is it that we are immensely strong - nope, we'd not come close to competing with a grisly bear
Is it that we are hugely fast - nope a cheetah is going to win on that one.
Nope our key evolutionary advantage as a species is our intelligence and our ability to solve complex problems creatively to aid survival. And to do that we need abstract creative thought, we need inquiry and innovation to problem solve. And secondly we do this as social animal - so we need all the complex societal and cultural elements that cement society and allow us to pass on knowledge (which isn't the kind of innate behaviour) so we creativity, language etc help support long term survival.
-
But it's quite possible that a false belief could aid our survival - some evolutionary scientists, including Dickie Dawkins I think, argue that religious belief offers evolutionary advantages, but all religious beliefs can't be true, because they contradict each other.
-
Haldane, 90 years ago said:
'And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.'
Do you agree with him that the brain isn't composed of atoms? And if so what is it composed of.
Of course the brain is composed of atoms, and Haldane thought so too. The point he was making was that if strict naturalism is true, and our consciousness is only the result of physical changes in our brains, we have no reason to suppose that the reasoning that led us to that conclusion is valid, and thus no reason for supposing our brains to be made of atoms.
-
But it's quite possible that a false belief could aid our survival - some evolutionary scientists, including Dickie Dawkins I think, argue that religious belief offers evolutionary advantages, but all religious beliefs can't be true, because they contradict each other.
Of course it could - religion being a good example. I can see how a belief in a religion might help cement cultural and societal links and norms which could convey evolutionary advantage. And you are of course correct that all religions cannot be correct (in an objectively true manner) although they could all be false.
-
Of course the brain is composed of atoms, and Haldane thought so too. The point he was making was that if strict naturalism is true, and our consciousness is only the result of physical changes in our brains, we have no reason to suppose that the reasoning that led us to that conclusion is valid, and thus no reason for supposing our brains to be made of atoms.
Muddled thinking - we might reason (correctly) that our brains are made of atoms, we might (falsely) reason that our brains are made of atom-free space gunk. It isn't the reasoning that is instrumental in concluding that our brains are made of atoms - it is the objective evidence.
Our brains are made of atoms and what was perceive and define as conscious thoughts are manifestations of complex electro-chemical interactions in our neural networks and that is the case regardless of whether our reasoning leads to that conclusion or not.
-
I think you need to consider what it is that is key to evolutionary advantage as humans.
Is it that we are immensely strong - nope, we'd not come close to competing with a grisly bear
Is it that we are hugely fast - nope a cheetah is going to win on that one.
Nope our key evolutionary advantage as a species is our intelligence and our ability to solve complex problems creatively to aid survival. And to do that we need abstract creative thought, we need inquiry and innovation to problem solve. And secondly we do this as social animal - so we need all the complex societal and cultural elements that cement society and allow us to pass on knowledge (which isn't the kind of innate behaviour) so we creativity, language etc help support long term survival.
Yes, I wasn't doubting that. I am curious as to what SteveH is saying about evolution, or for that matter, Lewis's milk jug.
-
Of course the brain is composed of atoms, and Haldane thought so too. The point he was making was that if strict naturalism is true, and our consciousness is only the result of physical changes in our brains, we have no reason to suppose that the reasoning that led us to that conclusion is valid, and thus no reason for supposing our brains to be made of atoms.
I don't get that. Why should we not suppose our reasoning is valid? Because it is constructed in the brain? But reasoning has its own system of laws and symbols. It sounds like another fallacy of composition - atoms don't think, therefore how can the brain? As I said before, atoms aren't green, so how come grass is?
-
#43
Only if everyone likely to read the post understands what the "No true Scotsman" fallacy is. Since there are people on here who probably don't, you will need to explain it anyway, so naming it is just redundant, and looks like showing off.
And this is why certain things you've posted look like anti-intellectualism and, yes, an inferiority complex. The terms you mentioned in #38 mean something. They refer to specific things. They're not just scenery or pleasant but useless verbiage - they serve a purpose in identifying particular things. Whether it's medicine or meteorology or engineering or carpentry or baking or whatever, particular disciplines have their own nomenclature to refer to relevant things within it. Do you accuse those of 'polysyllabic nerdery' as well?
The people in those professions tend to use the terms correctly.
SteveH said this in his #42 (emphasis mine)
You can show why the argument is fallacious without doing so. Read C.S.Lewis's popular works to see how it's done. You don't catch him writing "Circular argument", "Appeal to consequences", etc. all the time, but he nails the fallacy effectively in his own words.
In other words, show your working. So in my opinion, it’s not SteveH being anti-intellectualism, more asking for that intellectuallism to be demonstrated by showing from first principles what any alleged error is.
The problem with bandying around terms that it allows the person doing it to
1. Not have to back up their own position
2. Dismiss opposing arguments without reasoning
But then, perhaps that’s the intention? An illustration appears on this very thread, bluehillside’s #61 to Vlad
The NPF is where something MUST be BECAUSE it cannot be proved otherwise.
You seem to be missing the words MUST and BECAUSE to suit, guys........................TUT, TUT.
Because it's not there. "Must" would be an argument from necessity; rather all the NPF claims is an "is" - as in, "you can't falsify my orbiting teapot conjecture, therefore my conjecture is true".
But then goes on to say
Incidentally, if you seriously think you don't use the NPF what point do you think you are making when you post comments like, "But you can't disprove it either"?
So despite it being obviously clear that Vlad is not using the NPF, bluehillside still wants to accuse him of it via some back door. It’s a convenient way to dismiss what Vlad has said, whilst never having to back up the basis for his own reasoning.
-
#43
The people in those professions tend to use the terms correctly.
SteveH said this in his #42 (emphasis mine)In other words, show your working. So in my opinion, it’s not SteveH being anti-intellectualism, more asking for that intellectuallism to be demonstrated by showing from first principles what any alleged error is.
The problem with bandying around terms that it allows the person doing it to
1. Not have to back up their own position
2. Dismiss opposing arguments without reasoning
But then, perhaps that’s the intention? An illustration appears on this very thread, bluehillside’s #61 to Vlad
But then goes on to saySo despite it being obviously clear that Vlad is not using the NPF, bluehillside still wants to accuse him of it via some back door. It’s a convenient way to dismiss what Vlad has said, whilst never having to back up the basis for his own reasoning.
And when have you actually backed up the basis for your own reasoning with something substantial?
-
Re. your last question - by C.E.M.Joad, for one, and J.B.S.Haldane, for another: JBSH famously said "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
I first met this quote when reading C.S.Lewis's 'Miracles' as an argument to be used against the idea of naturalism.
My thoughts then, as now, are as follows:
1) We have a great deal of scientific evidence that the brain is composed of atoms. Hence, probabilistically this seems to be true, unless, of course, evidence to the contrary can be established.
2) There is a great deal of evidence that mental processes are the result of electrical activity associated with the brain. Hence, probabilistically this seems to be true, unless, of course, evidence to the contrary is forthcoming.
3) If I am to question whether any belief is true or not, all I have at my disposal are the contents and processes of my brain combined with the information gathering from my senses. As regards the problem set by Haldane here, my brain takes into account points one and two.
4) So Why then, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, should I not think that it is perfectly valid to reason that my brain is composed of atoms?
-
And when have you actually backed up the basis for your own reasoning with something substantial?
/well said Floo!
enki #113Very interesting.
-
Good post, enki. I think Haldane and others are hitting up against something real - the so-called hard problem of consciousness. This could be crudely paraphrased as the problem of a physical organ (the brain), producing abstract thought, feelings of subjectivity, and in fact, experience itself.
The short answer to that is that we don't know how the connection between physical and mental works, but the longer answer is that neuroscience is busy looking for solutions. The so-called 'mysterians' argue that we will never understand the connection between the physical events and the mental events in the brain, but that seems pessimistic.
However, Haldane and others seem to be saying that because there are physical events going on in the brain, which are linked somehow with the mental events, therefore the mental events come under suspicion. I must have a bit of my brain missing here, as I can't see the argument here.
Of course, strong evidence that there is a link is provided by damage to the brain, whether via disease or injury, when thinking, memory, emotions, and so on, can be impaired. I knew someone who couldn't remember who she was, but after medical treatment, recovered. Probably a mini-stroke.
Damn and blast, this is a repetition of stuff on the other thread. Ah well.
-
Damn and blast, this is a repetition of stuff on the other thread. Ah well.
Well,I am enjoying reading your posts on both threads! :)
-
Well,I am enjoying reading your posts on both threads! :)
Cheers. I wish someone would tell me why these people such as Haldane argue that because thinking has a neural basis, therefore it cannot be trusted. Does this mean that vision is also suspicious, because visual inputs are processed in the brain? I don't think anybody says that the senses and thinking are 100% reliable, but so what?
-
Lewis' arguments are for the playground. This is the actual wording of his trilemma point which is so laughably lacking in robustness to be almost sad:
'A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God'
To start with the basic premise can only be justified if it can be verified beyond doubt that the gospels are a completely accurate representation of what Jesus actually said - and there is no evidence to support this at all. So you don't even get off the starting blocks.
Prof
In fact there is nowhere in the gospels that he is even recorded as having said it - I think he is recorded as affirming that he was the Son of the Blessed once. Even in John's Gospel, which is the prime source for quotes about Christ's divinity, his statements are always allusive rather than direct affirmations, and even there he is quoted as saying "My Father is greater than I". His favourite moniker about himself seems to have been "The Son of Man" - and as Geza Vermes says, there are quite likely two ways of interpreting that.
But as you say, all this pales into insignificance against the obvious fact that we can't be sure that the gospels are a totally accurate account of what Jesus actually said - especially since they contradict each other on important points. I sometimes wonder whether Lewis actually sat down and read the gospels with attention at all.
-
Cheers. I wish someone would tell me why these people such as Haldane argue that because thinking has a neural basis, therefore it cannot be trusted. Does this mean that vision is also suspicious, because visual inputs are processed in the brain? I don't think anybody says that the senses and thinking are 100% reliable, but so what?
I think the issue is that, as humans, we perceive thoughts, perceptions and emotions as so critical to 'who we are' that we struggle with the concept of them being in fact merely how we perceive electrochemical reactions - massively complex networks of electro-chemical reactions admittedly, but electrochemical reactions nonetheless.
But that really is an issue of perspective and I suspect those that struggle with this concept also struggle with the notion that each of us, when considered on a cosmic scale is infinitely small and un-important in the great scheme of things and therefore likely to want to cling to the notion of a god 'who cares about us personally'.
But to my mind that is missing the point - that ours emotions, whether love, hate or joy are driven by electrochemistry doesn't diminish their importance to us as individual humans. And because our higher level consciousness (which is, in reality, the complexity of our electrochemical network) is critical to our evolutionary success as a species it makes absolute sense that the manifestations of the complexity of that network (thoughts, emotions etc) are perceived as being so important to us.
-
Cheers, Prof. Davey. That does make sense. I suppose it seems humiliating to think that my most noble thoughts and feelings are underpinned by neural activity, or if you like, are neural activity. Whereas the idea that I am made in God's image is quite flattering really! I just find the arguments about atoms in the brain hollowing out reason, baffling really. My legs are made of atoms, but it doesn't stop dancing being enjoyable.
-
Udayana,
er.. "true enough"? No it's true whether or not we exist in some cosmic game .. because it is true in the game we have constructed.,. outside of that it is gibberish.
You're saying the same thing as me. It's true enough within the constraint of whatever reality we can construct - but which tells you nothing about realities that may lie outside of that.
-
SteveH,
What a load of pseudo-intellectual, terminally confused bollocks.
Which part didn't you understand?
-
SteveH,
This is obviously not the case; maths is absolutely true beyond a peradventure, because it is deductive, not inductive. However, I disagree with Udayana that maths is merely a game we have constructed: numbers are abstract, but they can refer to objects: apples, bicycles, etc. If I take two apples and add two more, I will always get four. It is inconceivable that any society has developed a number-system in which 2+2=5 (whatever symbols they use to represent "2" and "5"). Maths can be used to solve complex real-world problems, and to make predictions such as the date of the next total eclipse visible in the UK, so it can't be purely a human game.
Nope. On what basis would you argue that anything is "absolutely true"? How would you eliminate the possibility at least of an unknown unknown that falsified any such truth?
However unlikely you may think it to be that we're just characters in a giant SIMS type game programmed to think that 2+2=4, improbable and impossible are not the same thing.
And that's the problem when you want to play on the turf of absolutes.
Shorthand version: absolutes are only possible with omniscience. Are you claiming that we're omniscient?
-
Prof
In fact there is nowhere in the gospels that he is even recorded as having said it - I think he is recorded as affirming that he was the Son of the Blessed once. Even in John's Gospel, which is the prime source for quotes about Christ's divinity, his statements are always allusive rather than direct affirmations, and even there he is quoted as saying "My Father is greater than I". His favourite moniker about himself seems to have been "The Son of Man" - and as Geza Vermes says, there are quite likely two ways of interpreting that.
But as you say, all this pales into insignificance against the obvious fact that we can't be sure that the gospels are a totally accurate account of what Jesus actually said - especially since they contradict each other on important points. I sometimes wonder whether Lewis actually sat down and read the gospels with attention at all.
Which rather emphasises my point that 'mistaken/misunderstood/misrepresented' needs (at the very least) to be added to mad, bad or god in Lewis non-sense trilemma.
For Lewis to fail to provide that as another option suggest that Lewis is really stupid as it is so obvious, overtly dishonest or so blinkered that he cannot see beyond his prejudice that what is written in the bible must be true.
I don't believe the first (he wasn't dumb) and I'll be charitable and go for the last option, although I suspect the middle option is it forces the reader to make a judgement about Jesus, rather than about those who ultimately wrote stuff about Jesus decades later.
-
Sword,
So despite it being obviously clear that Vlad is not using the NPF, bluehillside still wants to accuse him of it via some back door. It’s a convenient way to dismiss what Vlad has said, whilst never having to back up the basis for his own reasoning.
Wrong again. How is it clear that he isn't using the NPF when he says things like, "you can't disprove it either"? That he says he isn't using it and that he's not actually at least attempting it are not the same thing.
And, as Wiggs explained, terms like "argument from incredulity", "NPF" etc are merely a convenient shorthand way of identifying flaws in arguments. If someone says in reply, "why is a...fallacy" then it can be explained to him at greater length.
-
Muddled thinking - we might reason (correctly) that our brains are made of atoms, we might (falsely) reason that our brains are made of atom-free space gunk. It isn't the reasoning that is instrumental in concluding that our brains are made of atoms - it is the objective evidence.
And how do we evaluate the objective evidence?
-
Sword,
Wrong again. How is it clear that he isn't using the NPF when he says things like, "you can't disprove it either"? That he says he isn't using it and that he's not actually at least attempting it are not the same thing.
And, as Wiggs explained, terms like "argument from incredulity", "NPF" etc are merely a convenient shorthand way of identifying flaws in arguments. If someone says in reply, "why is a...fallacy" then it can be explained to him at greater length.
I stated earlier that I'd only seen one possible NPF around those parts and that was from an atheist.
Where were the fallacy hunters when the declaration of non existence due to no proof was made then?
Obviously working on new pseudofallacies such as "attempted fallacy" or my favourite "knocking on the door of NPF".
-
Where were the fallacy hunters when the declaration of non existence due to no proof was made then?
Round these here parts fallacies don't exactly need to be hunted; like dodos, they're just there, wandering around.
-
I stated earlier that I'd only seen one possible NPF around those parts and that was from an atheist.
Then you need to try opening your eyes next time.
Where were the fallacy hunters when the declaration of non existence due to no proof was made then?
By whom and where?
Obviously working on new pseudofallacies such as "attempted fallacy" or my favourite "knocking on the door of NPF".
No need, since the common or garden ones get such a regular work-out here (such as your army of straw men).
-
Then you need to try opening your eyes next time.
By whom and where?
Amnesia, Gordon?
-
Amnesia, Gordon?
Nope - whom and where?
-
Vlad the Distractionist,
I stated earlier that I'd only seen one possible NPF around those parts and that was from an atheist.
Where were the fallacy hunters when the declaration of non existence due to no proof was made then?
Obviously working on new pseudofallacies such as "attempted fallacy" or my favourite "knocking on the door of NPF".
So (yet again), what point did you think you were making when you said, "...but you can't disprove it either"?
Why so coy?
-
Vlad the Distractionist,
So (yet again), what point did you think you were making when you said, "...but you can't disprove it either"?
Why so coy?
Hillside I thought we had agreed that ''you can't disprove it either ' is not the full NPF and therefore not an NPF at all and also that 'knocking on the door of an NPF is mere speculative punt.
-
Vlad the Fantasist,
Hillside I thought we had agreed that ''you can't disprove it either ' is not the full NPF and therefore not an NPF at all and also that 'knocking on the door of an NPF is mere speculative punt.
When did we agree that? "You can't disprove it either" is not "the full NPF" only because you left off the "therefore..." to follow. That is, it's not the full NPF in the sense that a car with the wheels missing isn't a full car. Your "therefore" here is a non sequitur (proper meaning, not your misuse of the term).
Of course, if you did have an argument to show that it wasn't an attempted NPF all you'd have to do would be finally to answer the question I keep asking you and you keep ignoring: what did you think meant by it?
Look, I'll even put it capitals and a bigger font now so you can't pretend not to have seen it:
WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID, "BUT YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT EITHER"?
-
Vlad the Fantasist,
When did we agree that? "You can't disprove it either" is not "the full NPF" only because you left off the "therefore..." to follow. That is, it's not the full NPF in the sense that a car with the wheels missing isn't a full car. Your "therefore" here is a non sequitur (proper meaning, not your misuse of the term).
Of course, if you did have an argument to show that it wasn't an attempted NPF all you'd have to do would be finally to answer the question I keep asking you and you keep ignoring: what did you think meant by it?
Look, I'll even put it capitals and a bigger font now so you can't pretend not to have seen it:
WHAT DID YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAID, "BUT YOU CAN'T DISPROVE IT EITHER"?
It is a statement of fact, you can't! what it means is I can't prove God and you cannot disprove God. Nothing controversial there. Are you still hoping that people will still think that inability to prove God means God is disproved?
That is a fallacy.
What we do seem to have is people who, being in that position assume atheism or assume atheism because ofthat...or act as though God does not exist.
What warrant do they have for that kind of commitment?
As for the not NPF equals an NPF with bit's missing, I'm afraid a miss is as good as a mile and that just isn't true an NPF with bit's missing is not an NPF. A car with the wheels off is a car. There is nothing missing from the statements made, the are not incomplete NPF and even if there were you could not say whether it were wings or wheels which were missing from your car.
-
It is a statement of fact, you can't! what it means is I can't prove God and you cannot disprove God. Nothing controversial there. Are you still hoping that people will still think that inability to prove God means God is disproved?
That is a fallacy.
What we do seem to have is people who, being in that position assume atheism or assume atheism because ofthat...or act as though God does not exist.
What warrant do they have for that kind of commitment?
As for the not NPF equals an NPF with bit's missing, I'm afraid a miss is as good as a mile and that just isn't true an NPF with bit's missing is not an NPF. A car with the wheels off is a car. There is nothing missing from the statements made, the are not incomplete NPF and even if there were you could not say whether it were wings or wheels which were missing from your car.
In my case it's simply a total absence of commitment.
-
.....act as though God does not exist.
Do people do that?
How do they manage to live?
It must be really difficult.
-
Vlad the Irrationalist,
It is a statement of fact, you can't! what it means is I can't prove God and you cannot disprove God. Nothing controversial there.
Yes, and if I was asserting “true for you too” leprechauns”, you challenged me on the claim, and I replied, “You can’t disprove them either though” presumably you’d infer that I was trying to make a point of some kind wouldn’t you?
I merely ask what point you thought you were making if not for an incomplete NPF. If your answer is, “I refuse to answer that” then just say so instead of indulging in all the diversionary stuff.
Are you still hoping that people will still think that inability to prove God means God is disproved?
That is a fallacy.
So is a straw man Why bother with the lie?
What we do seem to have is people who, being in that position assume atheism or assume atheism because ofthat...or act as though God does not exist.
What warrant do they have for that kind of commitment?
The “warrant” as you put it is that neither you nor anyone else so far as atheists are aware have managed a cogent reason to think there are gods, and it requires no more “commitment” to live accordingly than you require a commitment to live on the assumption that there are no leprechauns.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
As for the not NPF equals an NPF with bit's missing, I'm afraid a miss is as good as a mile and that just isn't true an NPF with bit's missing is not an NPF. A car with the wheels off is a car. There is nothing missing from the statements made, the are not incomplete NPF and even if there were you could not say whether it were wings or wheels which were missing from your car.
Stop lying. The bit missing – and still missing – is the explanation for what you intended when you wrote, “but you can’t disprove it either”. If you want to keep it a secret that’s up to you, but you must expect to be judged accordingly.