h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"But, at the basis of maths is the process 'if this thing has these properties, then it also has these properties'. And you can't disprove that."

I think I can only say this one last time, and perhaps we can leave it at that unless you want to come up with an argument rather than an assertion.

(1) You can disprove that. It is possible that logic is inconsistent. What you cannot prove is that it is consistent.

(2) The process you describe is inaccurate. It is not 'if this thing has these properties, then it also has these properties' unless we interpret the symbols. We have (a) a system of rules phrased by humans for humans to follow, (b) an interpretation of these symbols. Neither (a) nor (b) can be described as independent of human minds.

"Neo just obeys a higher order of rules."

and

"But it would be statistically improbable. And if you continued your observations, the seeming 'pattern' would disappear."

Damnit, bad examples. OK, how about Descartes' malevolent demon instead? He creates a universe which seems to follow rules most of the time (he does this so that we are confused into thinking there are rules) but torments us by changing the universe in small ways which don't fit the rules.

PC:

QQ:

So the universe has attributes that are not measurable, not visible and not verifiable. It seems to me that you cannot demonstrate the existence of these attributes, only assert that it is so. Faith would appear necessary if one is to believe in them. This is religion, of a sort.

PC:

QQ:

This isn't scientific, it's mystical.

QQ:

Personally, no, but I was trying to keep my religious beliefs out of this discussion, out of respect for your (alleged) atheism. In the context of this discussion, yes, the universe can be fully described by its physical attributes.

Apparently, your universe has a distinct supernatural element ... congratulations! What will the Atheists Club say though?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

P-c: Look what you've done to me - F19585?thread=251627

I was mostly letting this current argument warm my brain and turn it into a fuzzy blur. Next thing you know, I find myself making the same arguments you are in another thread.

You don't think it's catching do you?

They may not fit the approximate rules we've worked out so far, but you can't be sure that they don't fit the rules as they actually are.

Of course the rules are abstractions, but so is the notion that the universe is not rule governed.

Noggin

BtM:



Can your reputation stand it, d'you think? A direct link with a theist!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"Kicking the Secularist Habit" by David Brooks (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/03/brooks.htm) describes an interesting reversal (if such it is). The rapid growth of religious belief across the world is a bit of a surprise to me; maybe to you too?

What does the panel think?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Some people will hi-jack anything and present it in a way that serves their own particular ends.

Fanaticism is not solely driven by faith. There are fanatics who have political, economic or social goals without requiring a religious motivation.

Personally I'm starting to wonder what the psychological viewpoint on fanaticism is. What makes a fanatic?

Interesting: what do you think has been hijacked, and what are the 'ends'?



An unbalanced concentration on one thing to the virtual exclusion of all else. Hey, that was definite, eh?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Umm... that strikes me as highly bizarre. Especially the way it assumes that only dogmatic religions will be growing (Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the only ones mentioned by name, what about Hinduism? Sikhism? Paganism, which is the fastest growing religion in the USA (apparently)?)

However, I probably only feel aggrieved by that because I'm a Pagan and we weren't mentioned. Despite growing fast we're still in considerable minority.

Oh, and the thing about the most fundamentalist and conservative stuff growing more - in some ways that applies to Paganism too, as the really new stuff, all this fluffy stuff, doesn't tend to gain adherents who stick around very long, but the older, more serious stuff does.

P-c: "Can your reputation stand it, d'you think? A direct link with a theist!"

My reputation has withstood a whole lot more damage than that. For instance, I wonder if I've mentioned before that I have a godson...

Y'mean there's a young man out there for whose spiritual welfare you are responsible?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Re: fundamentalism

Fundamentalist faiths feed on fear, and global fear is at its highest point since Glasnost. I'm not terribly surprised by the growth in religious fervor since 9/11. It coincides with a rise in nationalism, too. And since the Enemy identifies themselves as Muslim/Christian, becoming more radically Christian/Muslim is the easiest way to show personal defiance of the Enemy and personal solidarity with Us.

Re: Godson

Yep, little Jason is going on 3 this month, so there's nothing to teach him about spirituality just yet. Despite the fact that they know I'm an atheist, my friends were adamant about having me as the godfather... in fact, I think the dad is still mad at me for being far, far away when their first was born... they wanted me for their first boy's godfather instead.

Then I checked the literature on what it means to be a godfather. I knew about the part where I'm supposed to take care of him if something happens to his parents, because I was baptised Catholic and have godparents of my own. Then the other part said, "responsible for the child's spiritual growth."

They really shouldn't have left it so vague. I'll handle his spiritual growth, all right, but the direction of that growth may disappoint his dad.

I'm already a serious disappointment to *my* godmother...

Weelll you could just remain objective about spirituality, or something.

The maths discussion above got me thinking about rationality. Normally at this point I'd go and think about it for a few months and then write an essay, but I thought it might be more productive to discuss it with you lot. That is, if you find it interesting.

The problem is this: If we don't believe in an objective reason, or if we don't believe it's attainable which amounts to nearly the same thing, does rationality have any meaning and if so what?

As a starting point for this discussion here is Karl Popper's definition of rationality: "We could then say that rationalism is an attitude of readiness to listen to critical arguments and to learn from experience. It is fundamentally an attitude of admitting that 'I may be wrong and you may be right, and by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth.' ... the belief that in the search for truth we need co-operation, and that, with the help of argument, we can in time attain something like objectivity." (The Open Society and Its Enemies, Chapter 24)

Now, Popper has an agenda in this book (attacking Marx and Hegel, and promoting his own philosophy of science), but I think that, although he doesn't go far enough, Popper is on the right lines above. What he seems to be getting at is a somewhat social definition of rationality (although he would have hated that suggestion himself, as you can see he believes in the idea of objective truth).

If we forget about the idea of objective truth, the question arises - what is the purpose of rationality? Can we come up with and make useful a pragmatic definition of rationality (cf. William James' book Pragmatism)?

It seems to me that a social definition of rationality is plausible. Suppose two people want to come up with a rational argument for some proposition or other. What convinces one may not convince the other, and vice versa. To convince both requires, in some sense, a better argument than to convince either. This better argument might emerge from discussions between the two people, if they are co-operating. Does a definition of rationality along these lines reduce to Sophistry? Can it be made to not do so? What are the consequences and applications of a definition along these lines for mathematics (which is what got me started thinking about this), science, politics, ethics and morality?

I agree with most of what the man is writing, but I'm wondering where he intends "us" to end up following his steps. If I could agree with myself on morals and ethics I would bundle those up into a secular 'faith' and start missionarying. (Yeah, I know, not a word. ) When our morals and ethics are based on human thought you will always be compatible with someone agreeing with you, unlike religious faiths where you can agree all you want on the correctness of the act, but will have to argue also for the 'god' backing it up.
Passive secularism is not viable in a religious world, but that doesn't invalidate secularism as a whole.

Hi Blather .

Yes, fear of War feeds fundamentalism. People turn to the divine to deliver them from the fear and anxiety the threat of War brings.

However, the reality of War and its aftermath destroys faith, because God did not deliver. The First World War, for instance, broke the Anglican faith in Britain and it has never recovered.

Blessings,
Matholwch the Pacifist /|\.

Dogster

This is sort of where I was coming from with saying that the argument over semantics was obscuring the interesting bit.

I think I agree with the basics of Popper's definition. I would look at it as "consensus objectivity" - fundamentally the basis of the scientific method. If we all use our reason then we can as a group obtain something that while still subjective, is far less so than if we work alone.

However, I see rationality as a property of the mind.

In this sense it is an evolutionary trait. We have evolved to use our reason to survive better. We have furthermore (through the development of language) evolved to work co-operatively to achieve even better chances of survival and growth.

As such I find it difficult to ask "what is the purpose of rationality?" and arrive at any answer other than survival.

I totally agree , except with the use of the term "consensus objectivity". As many of you know by now, I consider the term 'objective' to be useless, except to describe an impractical intellectual curiosity. Never mind. Even - or especially - without objectivity, the approach you describe is surely the only rational way to proceed?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Matholwch: "the reality of War and its aftermath destroys faith, because God did not deliver." - That depends, I believe, on the war and its outcome. The Persian Gulf War, for instance, was a swift and decisive victory. Those who prayed for such would find that God delivered. The Afghanistan invasion was also low in casualties and highly successful.

I wonder how another conventional war that becomes a WWI-esque dragging man-eater is likely to occur in the modern era of warfare. With the speed of modern cavalry, victory turns almost immediately to rout... there is no regrouping in trenches 30 yards back and starting over, because you'll be surrounded and forced to surrender before you can fall back 30 feet.