Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

That describes Jesus Christ.

There's a big difference between a hatch and a human.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's a big difference between a hatch and a human.

Ain't you heard of metaphor?

[jeremyp]

Ain't you heard of metaphor?

Yes, I was pointing out that it is an absurd one.

[Enki]

You seem to be putting your empiricism against my faith. Empiricism is a belief or faith because the tenet of this is the only way to make decisions and have knowledge about the universe i.e. the only game in town cannot be established by science or methodological empiricism. I enjoy methodological empiricism too, recognise that it is reliable as you.

So there we are then you have a kind of hybrid empiricism as your belief and modus vivendi and methodological empiricism and I have christianity as my belief and methodological empiricism.

The LHC has a hatch into which you may enter if it is running to get the full effect and to partake in the reactions, similarly God has a hatch which you have referred to as ''the possibility of God.''

On the contrary, all I'm saying is that you can't expect me to believe in some god or other based upon what seems to me to be little more than your personal faith. As I can't find any reliable evidence, either empirical or historical, that suggests that any god is real and as I don't consider the idea of a god to be necessary or even useful(as in the first cause or design arguments, for instance), I consider that there is no reason to believe in any god. I suggest that is a rational approach. I would add to that, that the idea of a god has had little relevance for me, I have had no intuitive feelings for the presence of a god and no emotional attachment to a god(whether it be real or imagined), so why on earth shouldn't I treat a god as simply a possibility, and no more? Whatever you wish to believe is your own affair. All I'm saying is that you have never given any convincing justification for your belief as far as I am concerned, only that it is true for you.

To convince me, you would have to produce something a darned sight more reliable than you have so far. Failing that, the status quo prevails.

As far as your last paragraph is concerned, I was a member of a Methodist church for a number of years, being quite involved at the time in its youth fellowship, for instance, but never from the stance of a believer. I saw the reactions of those who did believe however, and was not particularly impressed. As that was such a long time ago, I decided several years ago to enrol in two Alpha course(one alone, one with my wife) in case I wasn't giving the Christian side a fair crack of the whip, so to speak. The result was, as far as I was concerned, complete disallusionment with the Christians involved including the message that they were purveying and a realization that for most of those involved it was little more than a social club.

At the start of this encounter, you asked two questions. I answered them honestly and directly, countered your objections and gave reasons for my attitudes. Obviously, as I expected, nothing has changed, you remain just as secure in your faith as before, I still have no belief in any god, including yours. I appreciate the time you have given, but, as far as I am concerned, there is little to be gained by continuing this particular exchange of views.

[Outrider]

Empiricism is a belief or faith because the tenet of this is the only way to make decisions and have knowledge about the universe i.e. the only game in town cannot be established by science or methodological empiricism.

Empiricism CAN be a philosophical position - and you could then start to investigate whether or not it's a faith position - but it can equally just be a pragmatic approach in world with few, if any, certainties.

Empiricism has a proven track record in a way that other methodologies and philosophies don't, and to accept that - provisionally - and operate on a day-to-day basis as though it were the case whilst being open to challenge is not a 'faith position', as it's not really a position on anything deeper than 'what's working currently.'

The LHC has a hatch into which you may enter if it is running to get the full effect and to partake in the reactions, similarly God has a hatch which you have referred to as ''the possibility of God.''

'Partaking in the reactions' of the LHC achieves nothing useful, noting the various outputs of the carefully crafted and calibrated sensors of the LHC can achieve something useful...

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Empiricism CAN be a philosophical position - and you could then start to investigate whether or not it's a faith position - but it can equally just be a pragmatic approach in world with few, if any, certainties.

Empiricism has a proven track record in a way that other methodologies and philosophies don't, and to accept that - provisionally - and operate on a day-to-day basis as though it were the case whilst being open to challenge is not a 'faith position', as it's not really a position on anything deeper than 'what's working currently.'

'Partaking in the reactions' of the LHC achieves nothing useful, noting the various outputs of the carefully crafted and calibrated sensors of the LHC can achieve something useful...

O.

As a philosophy Empiricism is not established by the empirical method and is basically self refuting because of it.

Your hybrid pragmatic philosophy is just using empiricism where it looks like it suits and effectively abandoning the idea when it fails to convince.

[ProfessorDavey]

As a philosophy Empiricism is not established by the empirical method and is basically self refuting because of it.

What a load of non-sense. A philosophy doesn't have to be established using its own methodological basis to have validity.

The Kantian categorical imperative isn't established by categorical impericism.

Utilitarianism isn't established by a utilitarian method.

That doesn't make them any less worthy as philosophical theories.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What a load of non-sense. A philosophy doesn't have to be established using its own methodological basis to have validity.

The Kantian categorical imperative isn't established by categorical empericism.

Utilitarianism isn't established by a utilitarian method.

That doesn't make them any less worthy as philosophical theories.

Well lets try it.
In Empiricism something is only meaningful if it can be established empirically. That statement isn't and cannot be established empirically. I am surprised you need reminding of the enormity of the problem empiricism faces.

What makes empiricism worthy?

[ProfessorDavey]

On the contrary, all I'm saying is that you can't expect me to believe in some god or other based upon what seems to me to be little more than your personal faith. As I can't find any reliable evidence, either empirical or historical, that suggests that any god is real and as I don't consider the idea of a god to be necessary or even useful(as in the first cause or design arguments, for instance), I consider that there is no reason to believe in any god. I suggest that is a rational approach. I would add to that, that the idea of a god has had little relevance for me, I have had no intuitive feelings for the presence of a god and no emotional attachment to a god(whether it be real or imagined), so why on earth shouldn't I treat a god as simply a possibility, and no more? Whatever you wish to believe is your own affair. All I'm saying is that you have never given any convincing justification for your belief as far as I am concerned, only that it is true for you.

I agree with pretty well everything you've said Enki.

I would add, however, that although I accept the possibility that a god could exist (hence I am agnostic in terms of knowledge about the existence of god, but atheist in terms of my lack of belief in the existence of god) this notion of the possible existence of god has no impact in my day to day life. In terms of my day to day decisions, my ethical standpoint, my values etc the notion that there could be a god never blips on my radar.

[ProfessorDavey]

In Empiricism something is only meaningful if it can be established empirically. That statement isn't and cannot be established empirically. I am surprised you need reminding of the enormity of the problem empiricism faces.

Category error.

Empiricism suggests that knowledge best derives from observation of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

Philosophy isn't knowledge per se but an approach to gaining knowledge - so empiricism as a philosophy and its approach to deriving knowledge aren't incompatible at all. Empiricism doesn't need to be derived though empiricism as it isn't knowledge but it is a method for obtaining knowledge.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Category error.

Empiricism suggests that knowledge best derives from observation of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

Philosophy isn't knowledge per se but an approach to gaining knowledge - so empiricism as a philosophy and its approach to deriving knowledge aren't incompatible at all. Empiricism doesn't need to be derived though empiricism as it isn't knowledge but it is a method for obtaining knowledge.

I would call your suggestion that empiricism merely suggests the best way of obtaining knowledge into question. Observation is part of the methodology anyway not the Philosophy. You are trying to diminish the problem that the methodology refutes the philosophy by linguistic chicanery IMHO.

[ProfessorDavey]

I would call your suggestion that empiricism merely suggests the best way of obtaining knowledge into question. Observation is part of the methodology anyway not the Philosophy. You are trying to diminish the problem that the methodology refutes the philosophy by linguistic chicanery IMHO.

No I'm not. You are confusing philosophy with knowledge - they aren't the same thing. Philosophy is an approach, a method, a means to study - it isn't per se knowledge, although it may be applied in the development of knowledge.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I'm not. You are confusing philosophy with knowledge - they aren't the same thing. Philosophy is an approach, a method, a means to study - it isn't per se knowledge, although it may be applied in the development of knowledge.

Quite the contrary. In this post and the last post you are trying to combine the method with the philosophy. To blur the distinction. I said observation is not part of the philosophy. Nowhere have I equated knowledge with philosophy indeed I have separated the observation, from which knowledge comes, from the philosophy.

[ProfessorDavey]

Quite the contrary. In this post and the last post you are trying to combine the method with the philosophy. To blur the distinction. I said observation is not part of the philosophy. Nowhere have I equated knowledge with philosophy indeed I have separated the observation from which knowledge comes from the philosophy.

You are all over the place Vlad - but if you do understand the separation between the philosophy and the knowledge then you'd have no issue with a philosophy that suggests the best way to determine knowledge is via observation of the natural world, without that philosophy having been derived through observation of the natural world.

But as I've said - you are all over the place Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are all over the place Vlad - but if you do understand the separation between the philosophy and the knowledge then you'd have no issue with a philosophy that suggests the best way to determine knowledge is via observation of the natural world, without that philosophy having been derived through observation of the natural world.

But as I've said - you are all over the place Vlad.

I would wish for your reasons for suggesting the best way to determine knowledge is via observation of the natural world. Your statement seems to be premised on naturalism, another philosophy.

[ProfessorDavey]

I would wish for your reasons for suggesting the best way to determine knowledge is via observation of the natural world. Your statement seems to be premised on naturalism, another philosophy.

My argument isn't about whether I agree or don't agree with empiricism - that is irrelevant to my argument. My point is that a philosophy (i.e. an approach to the derivation of knowledge) that suggests that the best approach is through observation of the natural world doesn't need to be derived using that method (as the philosophy isn't the knowledge that the philosophy provides a method to determine).

[Udayana]

My argument isn't about whether I agree or don't agree with empiricism - that is irrelevant to my argument. My point is that a philosophy (i.e. an approach to the derivation of knowledge) that suggests that the best approach is through observation of the natural world doesn't need to be derived using that method (as the philosophy isn't the knowledge that the philosophy provides a method to determine).

This is true and all very well.

What it does not address is that what knowledge is or is not is defined by the epistemology being examined and the definition then influences the subsequent inquiry. The idea of what knowledge is and the method used to determine it are not independent.

These arguments are like a möbius strip, you can get on anywhere but are then doomed to continue forever - you might think you are choosing between sides but there is only one.

[Outrider]

As a philosophy Empiricism is not established by the empirical method and is basically self refuting because of it.

Your hybrid pragmatic philosophy is just using empiricism where it looks like it suits and effectively abandoning the idea when it fails to convince.

The 'using it where it looks like it suits' is the 'pragmatic' bit - if we waited for a validated philosophy of everything we'd all still be sat in wet caves only eating what foolishly wandered in front of us. Pragmatism is, itself, a philosophy, and one that leads to Empiricism (because it works).

What doesn't work isn't definitively wrong, but it has to be considered of questionable worth.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

The 'using it where it looks like it suits' is the 'pragmatic' bit - if we waited for a validated philosophy of everything we'd all still be sat in wet caves only eating what foolishly wandered in front of us. Pragmatism is, itself, a philosophy, and one that leads to Empiricism (because it works).

What doesn't work isn't definitively wrong, but it has to be considered of questionable worth.

O.

I think pretty all of us use some kind of hybrid pragmatic philosophy to support our decision making all the time. I doubt many of us are 'pure' utilitarians, or 'pure' golden-rulers, or 'pure' christian philosophers etc in any kind of practical sense. We have a messy but pragmatic set of 'values' that are driven by our background culture/upbringing and our life experiences.

Philosophy as a sterile theory is all very well but of questionable worth. Philosophy as a practical tool in our day to day lives is what is really important - and, of course, we won't necessarily recognise this as 'philosophy' at all, just stuff that informs our decision making.

[jeremyp]

I would wish for your reasons for suggesting the best way to determine knowledge is via observation of the natural world.

Why do you need any other reason than "because it works"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why do you need any other reason than "because it works"?

What evidence is there that it is the 'best' way of gaining all knowledge?

[Sebastian Toe]

What evidence is there that it is the 'best' way of gaining all knowledge?

Has anyone made that claim?

[jeremyp]

What evidence is there that it is the 'best' way of gaining all knowledge?

Leaving aside the fact that we will never gain "all knowledge", it's been remarkably successful so far. Have you got an alternative that's been even a fraction as effective?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Leaving aside the fact that we will never gain "all knowledge", it's been remarkably successful so far. Have you got an alternative that's been even a fraction as effective?

How do you ''know''? When you say knowledge are you not talking about all knowledge or only a particular class of knowledge...in which case it is a mistake in claiming it's best for gaining knowledge.

[Sebastian Toe]

How do you ''know''? When you say knowledge are you not talking about all knowledge or only a particular class of knowledge...in which case it is a mistake in claiming it's best for gaining knowledge.

Perhaps it seems to be the best that we are aware of?
Until a seemingly better method is available.
Do you have any contenders for the latter?