er...I don't really see it as Dennett does. I do think, however, that the fact that we CAN add to "what others have done before" is rather meaningful in itself. For me meaning is understanding/comprehending--and fathoming what I'm actually a part of (in a very broad sense). It doesn't come from just "doing something," as he suggests.
It is true S knows that p if and only if p. There is a justification that is independent of experience that 2+2=4. Gödel formulated and defended mathematical Platonism, involving the view that mathematics is a descriptive science, and that the concept of mathematical truth is an objective one (rationalism not empiricsm).
Of course you need to deconstruct me. That is precisely the trick I will not accept. Why science have no need to go back over and over again to redefine completely its metaphysical foundations? Because such foundations are solid. Whatever science is looking for, it is finding. The fact you need to keep redefining your foundations, terms and concepts over and over again is already evidence that, whatever you are looking for, it is not there, and if it is there, it is not what you think it is.
The "bubble up" theory of meaning is consistent with critical realist and post-foundational religious thinking. The spell may be broken for theists, too, leading to a more rational, relational and honest faith. Man's relation to God cannot be reduced to divine command theory anymore - not since "God's killers" has been added to the list. We find meaning in the other, and while it might not be the other of fundamentalism, it might still be the "wholly other".
There's no trick in pointing out the metaphysical foundations. I purposely referred to articles by atheists so there would be no need for suspicion, and they point to something much more fluid. To say "science is always successful" is like saying "you always find something in the last place you look" - it's a truism. And a claim that science is the only way to discover truth would not itself be scientific, logical, or empirical. You're welcome to PM me if you want to take this further.
The FSM can do the Universe in any way he wants. Maybe that's the better way, but because you are not omnismart as the FSM, you can't understand why he did the universe this way.
Epistemology is the field of study where we talk about the subject and how to get the truth about the subject. As far as I can tell, you can barely define what you want know, not how to know it. You can point known limitations in anything. From this fact does not follow that you are in possession of an abstract tool that can overcome the limitations you are pointing. So, how to know god is real? I feel he is real, therefore he is real? That's the way it's done?
@ifzadra & @Johannes Richter. You both are trying to argue your positions from philosophy, metaphysics and epistemology. However, niether of you have shown that you are actually grounded in philosophy. For example Plato’s Theory of Forms, Neo-Platonism of Augustine, or epistemic foundationalism or reformed epistemology.
one principle that is accepted throughout science and everyday life is that we should not believe in entities for which we have no evidence: Let G = God exist. Let P = God has confirmed his existence to man with conclusive evidence. (G ⊃ P) Gods confirmation is invalid/unsound, therefore the contrapostive is (¬P ⊃ ¬G) ¬P Conclusion ¬G
You are walking on the street and see two guys named Fred colliding and disappearing into oblivion. Your options: 1) Fall on your knees and pray for Jesus. The end is near. 2) Cheat and rename them to positive Fred and negative Fred, so you can go home and keep your delusion that math and logic are a fundamental truths about the universe, and not merely symbolic languages we created to describe and measure the world.
What other methods of arriving at truth do you allow? If science can fail, its failure to verify God's existence does not mean faith is unwarranted. Believers also get things wrong - the history of faith is full of corrections. (Sceptics sometimes prefer to call these 'inconsistencies'). But through failure people learn and have an opportunity to become more reasonable, more human, and live more meaningful lives. Refining is not always the same as redefining.
Then you don't know what you're asking. Our difference lies in fundamental epistemic principles, not in methodologies (opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/reasons-for-reason/). Foundationalism (such as your own apparent rationalism) has known limitations, so any adequate discussion requires what Calvin Shrag calls 'transversal' reasoning. Surely you don't expect to find a satisfactory explanation in the comments section of youtube.
Faith as a substitute for knowledge is a caricature that does not apply here. A believer may depend on empirical tools for questions about nature like everyone else, while not believing reality only consists of what he can reproduce or justify that way. It is a rational position that has allowed many believers to be prolific contributors to science. Religion is in fact often deliberately counter-cultural - part of maintaining a distinct identity above the prevailing order. Some are irrational.
Spaggety as we know it might not appear in different conditions. But we can not really tell if some other spaghetti, maybe even a nooodlier spaghetti could emerge!!!
What allows believers to make prolific contributions to science is the scientific method. Several scientists believe in astrology. Newton is a famous example. What exactly their belief in astrology contributes to increase our capacity to separate facts from fantasy? [Some are irrational.] All religions are irrational. If they are not, please provide the rational method they use to make truth claims about their deities.
False dichotomy. How about the universe was created with no meaning, it will die with no meaning, it will have no meaning in between and that's what makes it so great.
Obviously you have never worked on a design project. You do not understand the first thing about designing a machine. When did god find out about gravity? How did god develop the theory of gravitation? What is the law of gravity, and how if it changed by a small amount effect pasta primavera?
Symbols do not contain meaning. Truth is produced with meaning, not with symbolic pointers to meaning alone. Even a symbol must be something you visualize somehow. The attributes of a light saber are self-consistent and logically valid. Where's my light saber? Math is an axiomatic system, a language. 1+1=2 is true because I say so. Please give me the sum of one particle plus one antiparticle. If you can't know this a priori, how do you know a priori the result of one particle + one particle?
"Math is an axiomatic system, a language. " No, it is neither. axiomatic systems came into vogue in the late 18th century. math predates them. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that math should not be equated with axiomatic systems.
Exactly. Dennett doesn't explain why we ought to be kind and compassionate to one another in an unfeeling uncaring reality. All he's saying that being kind and compassionate is based on that it just feels right and there's no further need to explain why it just feels right to be kind.
You need to take a class in epistemology. π (Pi) contains the meaning of 3.14159 Seven : 6+1, 3+4, 7, 111(binary) Everywhere we look in the universe 2+2= 4, it is not true by definition, it is a fact with certitude, therefore it is knowledge that is justified independent of experience.
I'm not asking you for an epistemology class. My methodology is well resolved, largely accepted and with massive results. I'm asking you to provide your method. What reliable technique you have to show that your god is not imaginary? None, of course.
You should take a class in formal logic, and learn symbolic language. The argument is valid: Mood and figure : AOO- 2 This argument is easily shown to be deductively valid in classical first order logic. All God’s attributes are self-consistent Some predicates (omniscience, omnipotent, etc) are not self-consistent Therefore, At least one predicate (omniscience) is not an attribute. Basically, the argument states from deduction that God is a logical impossibility. Is 2+2=4, a posteriori?
That implies a person who holds a rational belief also knows that the belief is a lie, or based on a lie. Which would be self-contradictory, because to knowingly believe a lie is not rational.
I hadn't heard of this book. Looking at the list of some of the people, who will contribute, I saw a lot of notable names, I was delighted by. It'd be pretty neat if Phil Zuckerman would be one of the people to contribute, given that he has done studies, and written a book (which I am reading), about joy and meaning, in godless societies ...and on that note, Daniel Everett, who became de-converted by being among the joyful Pirahã, whom he was supposed to convert to christianity as a missionary.
I would invite you to read the following article by Stuart Kaufmann: edge.org/conversation/breaking-the-galilean-spell While I think he goes too far (or not far enough) with his pantheism, it illustrates the problem any method has to deal with very well.
You mean a class in positivist epistemology, that even Bertrand Russel decided was the greatest failure of all Western Philosophy? Because, that's what you are describing (except how you're saying its justified independent of experience, which if you're pointing to the universe for validation I have no clue how you're claiming that's true). Gödel's incompleteness theorem says that we can't have absolute certitude in our mathematics (through math proof), and if we do then it is intuition.
[you claiming an objective way of knowing] What else can I do? Maybe are you suggesting that the moon is real for you but not for somebody else? [but that sword cuts both ways] Of course. And since I can show that people deny their own methods and their own reason to make supernatural claims, the evidence is that the sword is not cutting to my side. Even If I'm wrong, my position is rationally justified, while yours is the opposite of it.
Of coursed there's no trick in pointing out metaphysical foundations. The trick lies in the action of redefining ad nauseam over the centuries what are you talking about. Never said science is always successful. In fact, great part of the success of science is the capacity to say when science fails. You have no such capacity, you can't fail. Never claimed science is the only method to truth. This is not equal to admit that you have a method to truth.
I'm not dismissing the intellect of nobody. A high IQ or level culture in not a shield against human biases. That's why we have methods to compensate for these biases and make more accurate descriptions of reality. It is precisely such methods people must do deny in order to make supernatural claims. What's your standard of rationality? I don't know how to explain reality, therefore "god did it"? This is not a standard of reason, but a standard of ignorance.
Well said/done Mr. Dennett ★★★★★ I have seen/met three of the Four Horsemen(Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins) in person. Daniel Dennett is the only one I have yet meet/see in person. :O) Katalyzt
I posted the articles because we need a common vocabulary. You keep insisting that I justify my belief with an "epistemological methodology", a phrase loaded with unspoken premises that first have to be deconstructed. Otherwise you just end up with straw men. Knowledge is abstract. You don't have a physical chair in your head when you recall a real one. And I would have to describe my faith in the same way as introducing you to someone you have never met - incompletely and unsatisfactorily.
Applying Bayes Theorem, the hypothesis of God becomes not only improbable but virtually impossible. There is always a non-zero probability, however, the existence of God is highly unlikely and meaningless.
Aristotle made logic to do what, exactly? To know that "If P then Q, P, therefore Q"? What exactly are you going to do with this shit if you can't substitute the variables for things that you capture from your sensory input? If you never saw/feel any quantity of anything in your life, what's the point of numbers? Mental masturbation?
Again, I'm not asking you for a lesson on the history of epistemology. What I'm asking is: what is the epistemological method you use to decide if god is real or fantasy. You ask your dog? You read chinese biscuits? You have a magical rock that reveals the truth directly to you? If you have a magical rock that reveals all the truth, can I borrow the rock from you for a while?
The universe is 13.7E9 years old. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Modern man as been around for less that 100,000 years. How can you claim fine tuning when the purpose of gods creation has been absent from the creation for 99.9999 percent of the time? If a Goldilocks zone is the only requirement for gods creatures to exist, why are there 10 million galaxies in the universe?
And from where do you extract the idea of quantities to formulate the concept of 3? God reveals this to you before your birth? If 1+1=2 is allways true, why a particle with an antiparticle results in no particle at all? Are you saying that 1+1=2 but sometimes zero?
Adding to the goodness is fine, but I would state it as reducing the suffering. Suffering is real, "goodness" is illusory or simply a less negative state. That is to say, no matter how good it gets, it can always be better.
Again, only if you cling to the Enlightenment's concept of reason. If it is good science it is provisional, and this "standard" is now being revised by strict empiricists like Popper himself. It is ludicrous to call almost everyone before the 1800s irrational, and if you insist on doing so, you weaken any case against irrationality. There is nothing miraculous about people having scientific beliefs, either. I'm not talking about miraculous results, just meaningful ones.
Since YOU think it isn't... Or are you claiming an objective way of knowing? Have a look at the range of philosophers, scientists and rational thinkers throughout history whom you have just called ignorant and dishonest. It would seem highly irrational to dismiss them so easily. You left out another possibility: that they were mistaken - but that sword cuts both ways.
You just proved that my comment was true, you do not know anything about philosophy. Aristotle invented categorical syllogism's and logic is a discipline in philosophy and math. Logic is deductive and and inductive. A valid and sound deductive argument provides a true conclusion. Obviously you have not taken a formal course in logic.
(G ⋅ ~G) We know that G the logical conjunction not G is a contradiction, both cannot be true or false at the same time. Is there proof that God does not exist? Yes. All the arguments for God’s existence fail. From the law of non-contradiction, not proving the positive claim of God’s existence proves the negative.
Not only do we not have sufficient evidence to think that God is real, we don't even have a description of such a being that makes sense. Evidence is something that contributes to knowledge of what happened. Proof is evidence that is sufficient to demonstrate the certainty (or truth) of something. Evidence is something that may lead to proof. It may not.
I am with you on an objective reality. But dismissing the rational faculties and integrity of other equally reasonable people when they do not arrive at the same conclusions as you is something else. You are not the only rational being, and positivism is not the only standard of rationality. Same goes for believers, who will also have trouble distinguishing between fraudulent or superstitious claims and rational beliefs if they have no awareness of their own limitations and prejudices.
Without seeing something that you can use to fill a variable, how exactly can you produce the idea of an variable? Can you invent the dock for an iPhone before the iPhone? I'm pretty aware of a priori logic. And pretty aware that, without proper empiric support, it produces meaningless garbage only, a knowledge that, of course, can only occurs a posteriori, never a priori. (∃x)(Px ⋅ ~Ax) - You said nothing with this equation. A void logic statement has no result, therefore can't produce truth.
Because you are here having a conscious experience at ever moment. You can either choose to suffer in your nihilism, or you can live meaningfully. So what if everything is an illusion? You're still here on earth having a conscious human experience. There are ways to release positive emotion and create well-being, and there are ways to release negative emotion and create distress. Simply choose the path in life that entails the release of positive emotion and the emancipation of suffering. Why? Because that's better. Why? Because how you feel is all you have. It feels good to give to others, to conquer your goals, and to follow your conscience. So what if life is a game? It's the greatest game there is, so play along! So, help other people and do what makes you feel good!
I'm always surprised how easy it is for atheists to so casually say eternal good bye to loved ones. None of these atheists can know for sure whether God exists or not, they simply accept His non-existence is true for the purposes of being able to live their lives without regard to the shackles of love of God or love of "loved ones". But why do they need meaning/purpose at all? Why not live as an animal? It's because there is something in our human nature, in our unconscious minds, that demands that our life be worth living. Worth comes from fulfilling a purpose. So their conscious mind has to invent a purpose to convince their unconscious mind that they have a purpose. And suicide is watching at the end of the day to see the result.
A. Flew’s position is that in the absence of verifiable empirical evidence of the existence of God, the claim that “God exists” becomes meaningless. Because we do not have a description of God that makes sense or is coherent, the concept of God is meaningless, therefore does not exist. Flew’s “Presumption of Atheism” if equally applied to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Omni-God or Triune God leads to the denial of all such entities.
Meaning is a subset of reason, not reason itself. If this is not true, anything that is meaningful to me will be true. That's not the case, except for incorrigible beliefs, not to mention that truth can be meaningless. God is not an incorrigible belief, therefore, you can't invoke meaning alone to show he is not imaginary. Again, what method do you use to separate facts from fantasy? What you want to be true is true? This is a poor method. We have massive evidence it fails miserably.
There's nothing well resolved with the belief in god. It is irrationally accepted by most believers, and those who try to justify the believe rationally fail miserably. What results are you talking about? There is nothing miraculous about people having superstitious beliefs.
Of course God can lie. He can kill you and burn you forever if he wants. This means he is not bounded by the same obligations he gave you. If not, then he can lie to you. And all you can do is to be happy about it, because it is a holy lie.
I wish my thumbs wouldn't hit the post button accidentally...and I wish more people would buy his Breaking the Spell than Rick Warren's "Proselytiser-Driven Life."
The FSM is not imaginary. I know he is real because the Universe is fine tuned to make spaghetti. Change just a infinitesimal amount in any of the initial constants of the Universe and spaghetti will never appear. Repent now and accept the FSM as you savior before it is too late.
" How so That's obviously nonsense" Categorical Syllogism Symbolic predicate logic 1. All humans are mortals. (∀x)(Hx ⊃ Mx) 2. Socrates is a human. Hs (Universal Instantiation) 3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal ∴Ms (1, 2 M.P.) [Modus Ponens] Mood and figure: valid and sound. Obviously, you don’t have a clue about logic or any thing else.
There's no need to know about the truth of the proposition in order to be dishonest. The only requirement is to believe that the claim is rationally justified when it isn't. There are just two type of believers: those who can't understand why their beliefs are not rational, and those who know they are not rational but will lie to themselves and others about it. The former is ignorant, the latter, dishonest.
To say that other types of universes can generate any type of spaghetti is sheer speculation. As far as we know, spaguetti can only happen in our universe. FSM still rulez!
And? Belief in God was also "well resolved, largely accepted, yielding massive results". Whatever your (yet unnamed) methodology, it is no different than medieval religion if it leads to epistemological arrogance and dogmatism. Facts without value are meaningless.
It is called critical thinking. Again you have proved that you do not understand the difference between knowledge that is a priori and knowledge that is a posteriori. Categorical Syllogism 1. All God’s attributes are self-consistent. (∀x)(Ax ⊃ Cx) 2. Some predicates are not self-consistent (∃x)(Px ⋅ ~ Cx) ∴ 3. Some predicates are not God’s attributes (∃x)(Px ⋅ ~Ax)
The tools to discover the truth are always the same: logic, math, empirical verification. Divisions in knowledge are arbitrary. Science is a philosophy like any other. In fact, science is what a philosophy becomes when the epistemic certainty about a given field increases to the most high degree we can reach. If you don't have a God science yet, I already know what this means. In the God's case, such uncertainty is so high that we can dismiss it at once as sheer fantasy.
They are not arriving the same conclusions because they do not use the same methods I use. "I don't know how to explain, therefore god did it" is not a method to make truth claims, but merely a technique for self-delusion. We can show this is true. For any believer, superstition is how they call other's people religion. So we already know their method: to follow their cultural biases. Not very effective. And we can show this is true.
Okay, let’s saying a doctor’s feeling down-in-the-mouth. A sick child comes in with worried parents and suddenly you have meaning. That is, we have multiple meanings within life. 😊 🚵🏽♀️
What nonsense is that! To give meaning to life you have first to start identifying the purpose of life. Yet, if life has no purpose than life can have no true meaning.
er...I don't really see it as Dennett does. I do think, however, that the fact that we CAN add to "what others have done before" is rather meaningful in itself.
For me meaning is understanding/comprehending--and fathoming what I'm actually a part of (in a very broad sense). It doesn't come from just "doing something," as he suggests.
It is true S knows that p if and only if p. There is a justification that is independent of experience that 2+2=4.
Gödel formulated and defended mathematical Platonism, involving the view that mathematics is a descriptive science, and that the concept of mathematical truth is an objective one (rationalism not empiricsm).
Of course you need to deconstruct me. That is precisely the trick I will not accept. Why science have no need to go back over and over again to redefine completely its metaphysical foundations? Because such foundations are solid. Whatever science is looking for, it is finding.
The fact you need to keep redefining your foundations, terms and concepts over and over again is already evidence that, whatever you are looking for, it is not there, and if it is there, it is not what you think it is.
That's just it - I would like to ground the discussion in postfoundationalism, which was my starting point.
the stairwell is swept.
I didin't know that Santa Clauss was this wise.
How so?
The "bubble up" theory of meaning is consistent with critical realist and post-foundational religious thinking. The spell may be broken for theists, too, leading to a more rational, relational and honest faith. Man's relation to God cannot be reduced to divine command theory anymore - not since "God's killers" has been added to the list. We find meaning in the other, and while it might not be the other of fundamentalism, it might still be the "wholly other".
There's no trick in pointing out the metaphysical foundations. I purposely referred to articles by atheists so there would be no need for suspicion, and they point to something much more fluid.
To say "science is always successful" is like saying "you always find something in the last place you look" - it's a truism. And a claim that science is the only way to discover truth would not itself be scientific, logical, or empirical.
You're welcome to PM me if you want to take this further.
The best good life for the atheist is to avoid suicide.
The FSM can do the Universe in any way he wants. Maybe that's the better way, but because you are not omnismart as the FSM, you can't understand why he did the universe this way.
Epistemology is the field of study where we talk about the subject and how to get the truth about the subject. As far as I can tell, you can barely define what you want know, not how to know it.
You can point known limitations in anything. From this fact does not follow that you are in possession of an abstract tool that can overcome the limitations you are pointing. So, how to know god is real? I feel he is real, therefore he is real? That's the way it's done?
Yes ;O)
@ifzadra & @Johannes Richter.
You both are trying to argue your positions from philosophy, metaphysics and epistemology. However, niether of you have shown that you are actually grounded in philosophy. For example Plato’s Theory of Forms, Neo-Platonism of Augustine, or epistemic foundationalism or reformed epistemology.
one principle that is accepted throughout science and everyday life is that we should not believe in entities for which we have no evidence:
Let G = God exist.
Let P = God has confirmed his existence to man with conclusive evidence.
(G ⊃ P)
Gods confirmation is invalid/unsound, therefore the contrapostive is
(¬P ⊃ ¬G)
¬P
Conclusion ¬G
Dan is one smart dude
"we should not believe in entities for which we have no evidence"
Sounds good to me :)
You are walking on the street and see two guys named Fred colliding and disappearing into oblivion. Your options:
1) Fall on your knees and pray for Jesus. The end is near.
2) Cheat and rename them to positive Fred and negative Fred, so you can go home and keep your delusion that math and logic are a fundamental truths about the universe, and not merely symbolic languages we created to describe and measure the world.
What other methods of arriving at truth do you allow?
If science can fail, its failure to verify God's existence does not mean faith is unwarranted. Believers also get things wrong - the history of faith is full of corrections. (Sceptics sometimes prefer to call these 'inconsistencies'). But through failure people learn and have an opportunity to become more reasonable, more human, and live more meaningful lives.
Refining is not always the same as redefining.
Then you don't know what you're asking. Our difference lies in fundamental epistemic principles, not in methodologies (opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/reasons-for-reason/). Foundationalism (such as your own apparent rationalism) has known limitations, so any adequate discussion requires what Calvin Shrag calls 'transversal' reasoning.
Surely you don't expect to find a satisfactory explanation in the comments section of youtube.
Well friend, exactly what logical fallacy are you referring?
Faith as a substitute for knowledge is a caricature that does not apply here. A believer may depend on empirical tools for questions about nature like everyone else, while not believing reality only consists of what he can reproduce or justify that way. It is a rational position that has allowed many believers to be prolific contributors to science.
Religion is in fact often deliberately counter-cultural - part of maintaining a distinct identity above the prevailing order. Some are irrational.
Spaggety as we know it might not appear in different conditions. But we can not really tell if some other spaghetti, maybe even a nooodlier spaghetti could emerge!!!
Don't forget to mention string (spaghetti) theory :D
What allows believers to make prolific contributions to science is the scientific method. Several scientists believe in astrology. Newton is a famous example. What exactly their belief in astrology contributes to increase our capacity to separate facts from fantasy?
[Some are irrational.] All religions are irrational. If they are not, please provide the rational method they use to make truth claims about their deities.
Daniel Dennett looks like Santa Claus.
Where is the full interview
Like I'm going to look to the guy says we don't think foe "meaning" in my life.
False dichotomy.
How about the universe was created with no meaning, it will die with no meaning, it will have no meaning in between and that's what makes it so great.
Obviously you have never worked on a design project. You do not understand the first thing about designing a machine. When did god find out about gravity? How did god develop the theory of gravitation? What is the law of gravity, and how if it changed by a small amount effect pasta primavera?
Symbols do not contain meaning. Truth is produced with meaning, not with symbolic pointers to meaning alone. Even a symbol must be something you visualize somehow.
The attributes of a light saber are self-consistent and logically valid. Where's my light saber?
Math is an axiomatic system, a language. 1+1=2 is true because I say so. Please give me the sum of one particle plus one antiparticle. If you can't know this a priori, how do you know a priori the result of one particle + one particle?
"Math is an axiomatic system, a language. " No, it is neither. axiomatic systems came into vogue in the late 18th century. math predates them. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that math should not be equated with axiomatic systems.
All those words and all Dan essentially said was, "the meaning of life is kinda like whatever." But alas, that's pretty much what they all say.
Exactly. Dennett doesn't explain why we ought to be kind and compassionate to one another in an unfeeling uncaring reality. All he's saying that being kind and compassionate is based on that it just feels right and there's no further need to explain why it just feels right to be kind.
oldgordo61 I'm always wondering what answer people are looking for on this. Is there ever an answer that you just hear and say, yeah, he's got it?
I wish
You need to take a class in epistemology.
π (Pi) contains the meaning of 3.14159
Seven : 6+1, 3+4, 7, 111(binary)
Everywhere we look in the universe 2+2= 4, it is not true by definition, it is a fact with certitude, therefore it is knowledge that is justified independent of experience.
I'm not asking you for an epistemology class. My methodology is well resolved, largely accepted and with massive results. I'm asking you to provide your method. What reliable technique you have to show that your god is not imaginary? None, of course.
You should take a class in formal logic, and learn symbolic language. The argument is valid: Mood and figure : AOO- 2
This argument is easily shown to be deductively valid in classical first order logic.
All God’s attributes are self-consistent
Some predicates (omniscience, omnipotent, etc) are not self-consistent
Therefore, At least one predicate (omniscience) is not an attribute.
Basically, the argument states from deduction that God is a logical impossibility.
Is 2+2=4, a posteriori?
That implies a person who holds a rational belief also knows that the belief is a lie, or based on a lie. Which would be self-contradictory, because to knowingly believe a lie is not rational.
I hadn't heard of this book. Looking at the list of some of the people, who will contribute, I saw a lot of notable names, I was delighted by.
It'd be pretty neat if Phil Zuckerman would be one of the people to contribute, given that he has done studies, and written a book (which I am reading), about joy and meaning, in godless societies ...and on that note, Daniel Everett, who became de-converted by being among the joyful Pirahã, whom he was supposed to convert to christianity as a missionary.
I would invite you to read the following article by Stuart Kaufmann: edge.org/conversation/breaking-the-galilean-spell
While I think he goes too far (or not far enough) with his pantheism, it illustrates the problem any method has to deal with very well.
You mean a class in positivist epistemology, that even Bertrand Russel decided was the greatest failure of all Western Philosophy?
Because, that's what you are describing (except how you're saying its justified independent of experience, which if you're pointing to the universe for validation I have no clue how you're claiming that's true).
Gödel's incompleteness theorem says that we can't have absolute certitude in our mathematics (through math proof), and if we do then it is intuition.
[you claiming an objective way of knowing] What else can I do? Maybe are you suggesting that the moon is real for you but not for somebody else?
[but that sword cuts both ways] Of course. And since I can show that people deny their own methods and their own reason to make supernatural claims, the evidence is that the sword is not cutting to my side. Even If I'm wrong, my position is rationally justified, while yours is the opposite of it.
Of coursed there's no trick in pointing out metaphysical foundations. The trick lies in the action of redefining ad nauseam over the centuries what are you talking about.
Never said science is always successful. In fact, great part of the success of science is the capacity to say when science fails. You have no such capacity, you can't fail.
Never claimed science is the only method to truth. This is not equal to admit that you have a method to truth.
I'm not dismissing the intellect of nobody. A high IQ or level culture in not a shield against human biases. That's why we have methods to compensate for these biases and make more accurate descriptions of reality. It is precisely such methods people must do deny in order to make supernatural claims.
What's your standard of rationality? I don't know how to explain reality, therefore "god did it"? This is not a standard of reason, but a standard of ignorance.
Defend that statement with deductive logic.
Well said/done Mr. Dennett ★★★★★
I have seen/met three of the Four Horsemen(Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins) in person. Daniel Dennett is the only one I have yet meet/see in person. :O)
Katalyzt
I posted the articles because we need a common vocabulary. You keep insisting that I justify my belief with an "epistemological methodology", a phrase loaded with unspoken premises that first have to be deconstructed. Otherwise you just end up with straw men.
Knowledge is abstract. You don't have a physical chair in your head when you recall a real one. And I would have to describe my faith in the same way as introducing you to someone you have never met - incompletely and unsatisfactorily.
Applying Bayes Theorem, the hypothesis of God becomes not only improbable but virtually impossible. There is always a non-zero probability, however, the existence of God is highly unlikely and meaningless.
Aristotle made logic to do what, exactly? To know that "If P then Q, P, therefore Q"? What exactly are you going to do with this shit if you can't substitute the variables for things that you capture from your sensory input? If you never saw/feel any quantity of anything in your life, what's the point of numbers? Mental masturbation?
Again, I'm not asking you for a lesson on the history of epistemology. What I'm asking is: what is the epistemological method you use to decide if god is real or fantasy. You ask your dog? You read chinese biscuits? You have a magical rock that reveals the truth directly to you? If you have a magical rock that reveals all the truth, can I borrow the rock from you for a while?
The universe is 13.7E9 years old. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. Modern man as been around for less that 100,000 years. How can you claim fine tuning when the purpose of gods creation has been absent from the creation for 99.9999 percent of the time?
If a Goldilocks zone is the only requirement for gods creatures to exist, why are there 10 million galaxies in the universe?
And from where do you extract the idea of quantities to formulate the concept of 3? God reveals this to you before your birth?
If 1+1=2 is allways true, why a particle with an antiparticle results in no particle at all? Are you saying that 1+1=2 but sometimes zero?
No, 1+1=2 but destroying a particle with its anti-particle is not addition.
Adding to the goodness is fine, but I would state it as reducing the suffering. Suffering is real, "goodness" is illusory or simply a less negative state. That is to say, no matter how good it gets, it can always be better.
Again, only if you cling to the Enlightenment's concept of reason. If it is good science it is provisional, and this "standard" is now being revised by strict empiricists like Popper himself. It is ludicrous to call almost everyone before the 1800s irrational, and if you insist on doing so, you weaken any case against irrationality.
There is nothing miraculous about people having scientific beliefs, either. I'm not talking about miraculous results, just meaningful ones.
Since YOU think it isn't... Or are you claiming an objective way of knowing?
Have a look at the range of philosophers, scientists and rational thinkers throughout history whom you have just called ignorant and dishonest. It would seem highly irrational to dismiss them so easily. You left out another possibility: that they were mistaken - but that sword cuts both ways.
You just proved that my comment was true, you do not know anything about philosophy. Aristotle invented categorical syllogism's and logic is a discipline in philosophy and math. Logic is deductive and and inductive. A valid and sound deductive argument provides a true conclusion. Obviously you have not taken a formal course in logic.
Hello Big Slush,
No... It is more force of habit. :O)
Katalyzt
(G ⋅ ~G)
We know that G the logical conjunction not G is a contradiction, both cannot be true or false at the same time.
Is there proof that God does not exist? Yes. All the arguments for God’s existence fail. From the law of non-contradiction, not proving the positive claim of God’s existence proves the negative.
Not only do we not have sufficient evidence to think that God is real, we don't even have a description of such a being that makes sense.
Evidence is something that contributes to knowledge of what happened.
Proof is evidence that is sufficient to demonstrate the certainty (or truth) of something.
Evidence is something that may lead to proof. It may not.
1. (∀x)(Hx ⊃ Mx)
2. Hs
3. ∴Ms
what are you even talking about?
I am with you on an objective reality. But dismissing the rational faculties and integrity of other equally reasonable people when they do not arrive at the same conclusions as you is something else. You are not the only rational being, and positivism is not the only standard of rationality. Same goes for believers, who will also have trouble distinguishing between fraudulent or superstitious claims and rational beliefs if they have no awareness of their own limitations and prejudices.
Without seeing something that you can use to fill a variable, how exactly can you produce the idea of an variable? Can you invent the dock for an iPhone before the iPhone?
I'm pretty aware of a priori logic. And pretty aware that, without proper empiric support, it produces meaningless garbage only, a knowledge that, of course, can only occurs a posteriori, never a priori.
(∃x)(Px ⋅ ~Ax) - You said nothing with this equation. A void logic statement has no result, therefore can't produce truth.
looks a little like shrek with that jacket
What's the point if everything is an de-/ill-usion created by your mind? Even and especially the self.
Because you are here having a conscious experience at ever moment. You can either choose to suffer in your nihilism, or you can live meaningfully.
So what if everything is an illusion? You're still here on earth having a conscious human experience. There are ways to release positive emotion and create well-being, and there are ways to release negative emotion and create distress.
Simply choose the path in life that entails the release of positive emotion and the emancipation of suffering. Why? Because that's better. Why? Because how you feel is all you have.
It feels good to give to others, to conquer your goals, and to follow your conscience.
So what if life is a game? It's the greatest game there is, so play along!
So, help other people and do what makes you feel good!
@@TheAbsoluteSir thank you for these wise words. This really helped me to a get a new perspective on life
I'm always surprised how easy it is for atheists to so casually say eternal good bye to loved ones. None of these atheists can know for sure whether God exists or not, they simply accept His non-existence is true for the purposes of being able to live their lives without regard to the shackles of love of God or love of "loved ones". But why do they need meaning/purpose at all? Why not live as an animal? It's because there is something in our human nature, in our unconscious minds, that demands that our life be worth living. Worth comes from fulfilling a purpose. So their conscious mind has to invent a purpose to convince their unconscious mind that they have a purpose. And suicide is watching at the end of the day to see the result.
A. Flew’s position is that in the absence of verifiable empirical evidence of the existence of God, the claim that “God exists” becomes meaningless.
Because we do not have a description of God that makes sense or is coherent, the concept of God is meaningless, therefore does not exist.
Flew’s “Presumption of Atheism” if equally applied to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a Omni-God or Triune God leads to the denial of all such entities.
Meaning is a subset of reason, not reason itself. If this is not true, anything that is meaningful to me will be true. That's not the case, except for incorrigible beliefs, not to mention that truth can be meaningless. God is not an incorrigible belief, therefore, you can't invoke meaning alone to show he is not imaginary. Again, what method do you use to separate facts from fantasy? What you want to be true is true? This is a poor method. We have massive evidence it fails miserably.
There's nothing well resolved with the belief in god. It is irrationally accepted by most believers, and those who try to justify the believe rationally fail miserably.
What results are you talking about? There is nothing miraculous about people having superstitious beliefs.
Of course God can lie. He can kill you and burn you forever if he wants. This means he is not bounded by the same obligations he gave you. If not, then he can lie to you. And all you can do is to be happy about it, because it is a holy lie.
I wish my thumbs wouldn't hit the post button accidentally...and I wish more people would buy his Breaking the Spell than Rick Warren's "Proselytiser-Driven Life."
The FSM is not imaginary. I know he is real because the Universe is fine tuned to make spaghetti. Change just a infinitesimal amount in any of the initial constants of the Universe and spaghetti will never appear.
Repent now and accept the FSM as you savior before it is too late.
" How so That's obviously nonsense"
Categorical Syllogism Symbolic predicate logic
1. All humans are mortals. (∀x)(Hx ⊃ Mx)
2. Socrates is a human. Hs (Universal Instantiation)
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal ∴Ms (1, 2 M.P.) [Modus Ponens]
Mood and figure: valid and sound.
Obviously, you don’t have a clue about logic or any thing else.
There's no need to know about the truth of the proposition in order to be dishonest. The only requirement is to believe that the claim is rationally justified when it isn't. There are just two type of believers: those who can't understand why their beliefs are not rational, and those who know they are not rational but will lie to themselves and others about it. The former is ignorant, the latter, dishonest.
To say that other types of universes can generate any type of spaghetti is sheer speculation. As far as we know, spaguetti can only happen in our universe. FSM still rulez!
That little sticky out bit in his moustache was annoying me all the way through this video
And? Belief in God was also "well resolved, largely accepted, yielding massive results". Whatever your (yet unnamed) methodology, it is no different than medieval religion if it leads to epistemological arrogance and dogmatism. Facts without value are meaningless.
1 + (-1) = 0
It is called critical thinking. Again you have proved that you do not understand the difference between knowledge that is a priori and knowledge that is a posteriori.
Categorical Syllogism
1. All God’s attributes are self-consistent. (∀x)(Ax ⊃ Cx)
2. Some predicates are not self-consistent (∃x)(Px ⋅ ~ Cx)
∴ 3. Some predicates are not God’s attributes (∃x)(Px ⋅ ~Ax)
Science is based on observations, not beliefs. And religion is based on beliefs, not observations (not rigorously analyzed ones, anyway).
The tools to discover the truth are always the same: logic, math, empirical verification. Divisions in knowledge are arbitrary. Science is a philosophy like any other. In fact, science is what a philosophy becomes when the epistemic certainty about a given field increases to the most high degree we can reach. If you don't have a God science yet, I already know what this means. In the God's case, such uncertainty is so high that we can dismiss it at once as sheer fantasy.
"The tools to discover the truth are always the same: logic, math, empirical verification." Can you show that this is true using one of those tools?
Yes. It is the same as using the laws of physics to demonstrate the laws of physics.
Faith can be honest only if you are not much rational. I concede it can be rational, but only if you are not honest.
They are not arriving the same conclusions because they do not use the same methods I use. "I don't know how to explain, therefore god did it" is not a method to make truth claims, but merely a technique for self-delusion. We can show this is true.
For any believer, superstition is how they call other's people religion. So we already know their method: to follow their cultural biases. Not very effective. And we can show this is true.
Okay, let’s saying a doctor’s feeling down-in-the-mouth.
A sick child comes in with worried parents and suddenly you have meaning. That is, we have multiple meanings within life. 😊 🚵🏽♀️
Life has no purpose and it's a pain in the butt.
beyond delusional
Nice going, God/Jesus is just like the flying spaghetti monster. You can make up all kinds of shit about them because they are imaginary.
So your meaning of life is as much as human construct as you claim religion to be? You can delude yourself but theists can't? That's hypocrisy....
nope youve simply failed to grasp the depth of dennett's point. stay ignorant, pal.
What nonsense is that! To give meaning to life you have first to start identifying the purpose of life. Yet, if life has no purpose than life can have no true meaning.