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

I think there's a fundamental ideological problem with this 'We can't know obejective reality' malarkey.

What it seems to be saying is that there's always a get-out clause for unevidenced belief systems. No matter how little evidence one might have for creation vs evolution or pink fairies vs...something sensible, since we can't examine the entire universe, and since Heisenberg's principle prevents us looking beyond a certain level of detail, we can't, ultimately, be certain. So anything goes. The flufies might be right. The fundies might be right. The Flying Spaghetti Monter might be tampering with the evidence with His Great Noodly Appendage. To quote the title of a particularly vapid film hit, 'What The Do I Know?' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/

Pshaw! Down with it, I say.

Hi Ed!

That thar's fightin' talk, boy! In the same style (and spirit ):



No, it's a call to logic and to rational thought! Instead of pretending we can be sure when we can't, this 'malarkey' is the only intellectually honest approach I know of. Because the Real World we live in *is* one of uncertainty, as far as we are concerned, I should turn what you say on its head. With no 'malarkey' to guide you, you start leaping to (unjustified) conclusions left right and centre.

The reason you can't just discard the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that you have no valid refutation of it. It is not sufficient to say 'this is pedantry/nit-picking/etc', this is rational, and even logical. And, yes, all rational humans agree () that there are some pretty unlikely things we can't actually refute, and so we set them aside as 'possible but pretty unlikely' and ignore them most of the time.



Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

P-C,
As well as the category of 'possible but pretty unlikely', there's also the category of 'doesn't say anything concrete and unambiguous enough about reality to be meaningful'.

If I say 'The universe is made of cheese, or possibly it isn't', an attempt to compare that statement against reality would show that it is true in one abstract sense, but also useless to the point of not really being *about* reality in any meaningful sense.

Likewise, 'My deity can heal his followers, but sometimes lets them die as part of a greater plan' isn't about reality in a predictive way in individual cases, since the healing/letting die judgement can likely only be made after the fact - the idea explains, but doesn't predict, and an explanation that can fit any outcome isn't really *about* reality in a useful way.
If a religion claimed that its followers tended to get healed much more often than infidels did, it would be more or less easy to look and see if that was the case, assuming a fair comparison were made including various lifestyle/genetic factors.

If I said I had a way of explaining from someone's birth-date if they were short or tall, but only after I knew their height, few people would consider my way to add anything to the sum of human *knowledge*, which is the purpose of ideas *about* reality.

Similarly, I know the odd geologist who is excellent at explaining why particular caves are where they are after they have been found "It's because of *that* fault system, the lie of the land, the weaker beds in *that* formation, etc".
However, *if* they were unable to tell me in advance where a new cave might be found in a way that was more accurate than a non-geologist, I'd have to consider their ideas as not really adding to knowledge about how the world *can be expected to be*, but only about how it is *already known to be*.

Their ideas 'about' the world would lack the *kind* of 'aboutness' that makes them meaningful, though they might still be useful to someone who *likes to think* they understand the world better, who finds ideas 'about' the world which are only 'about' in the weaker sense of the word to be preferable to doubts.

I'm quite capable of hosting willing temporary delusions, such as when antropomorphising difficult-to-fix machines, but I know the ideas are 'only for personal use'. I don't *really* believe the machines have personalities, though I may suspend disbelief to the extent that I temporarily *do* 'believe-in-practice'.

It seems to me that the two are one, but this doesn't influence the point I'm making one little bit, as far as I can see. It's easy to create silly examples that make it look as though my point is trivial or insignificant, but it isn't. Most of the time, as explained in previous notes, it doesn't matter for everyday purposes, but sometimes it does.

Without the point I'm making, people actually come to believe it is correct to discount things that can't be refuted, when the correct action is to recognise their improbability (an attribute that exists in the real world, that we can estimate if not evaluate accurately) and set them aside.

There are even people who will claim that God is a human invention, that does not exist in the Real World, and not even realise that their assertion is no more justified or justifiable than a believer saying the opposite.

These are the sort of unsavoury intellectual habits that we *can* develop if we're not careful with our intellectual hygiene!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>>"It seems to me that the two are one,"

There may well be overlap, but ideas things are clearly forever going to be ambiguous, whilst others are simply not provable at the moment.

If I said in 1920 that there were mile-high letters on Titan spelling out the Bible, that could be admitted as 'possible but unlikely', but potentially amenable to further checking, disproving, etc.
If I had said 'Saturn may have one or more moons we haven't yet discovered', that would be true, but of not in and of itself any use.

If I said "Someone finding money in the street would hand it in if they are feeling honest or are in God's grace, or keep it if not feeling honest or are influenced by the Devil.", all I have done is defined terms to use descriptively about someone *after the event* of observing their actions.
I haven't made a useful statement *about* reality, merely given labels to use once all the information about a situation is known.

Hi P-C

Here's the point you are making (correct me if I'm wrong): "Refuting the existence of God is impossible therefore you cannot say he does not exist." [aside: is this really enough for *you* to believe in God - that's the impression I'm getting?]

Are you then claiming this is as equally rational as saying "there is no evidence for God existing therefore I conclude He does not"?



I think a lot disagreement on this thread is because for many of us the idea of God is as silly (and equivalent) to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and flying pink space unicorns and any other sort of un-disprovable imaginary creature you can think of. Why on Earth would you concoct such an unnecessary being in the first place?

To then turn around and claim validity of your pink unicorn based on its undisprovability is bizarre enough, but then to claim it is equivalent in some way to people saying it doesn't exist is simply ridiculous. It won't wash. Things do not exist simply because you cannot say they don't.

I have a feeling that if we swapped out the word "God" for something like "pink unicorn" then continued this conversation, it's true colours would become apparent. We are all, to some extent, tolerant of religions and the word "God" is given a lot of respect and reverence. Substituting a word that allows us to discuss the subject of imaginary, non-existent beings without prejudice would be beneficial.



Ste

First: I wouldn't say that "refuting the existence of God is impossible", I would say only that I know of no way to do that, nor of any evidence that anyone else has done it.

With that caveat out of the way, I would respond thus: No, I'm saying that the first is rational and correct (if not very useful), and the second is irrational and its correctness is indeterminate.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

There's also the other question of *which* 'god[s]'.

Since two believers in incompatible faiths can honestly believe each other is wrong about what 'god' is, it seems valid to ask "Why do you believe in *your* god[s]?", and draw conclusions based on the answers.

Well I've said before that the purpose of religion, as I see it, is the purpose it gives to believers. A particular faith will include certain aims and other things-considered-desirable. A God, if there is one, might be seen as the ultimate role model. [Or not. ]

For example: my own beliefs nudge me in the direction of being what Jeremy Clarkson calls an 'eco-mentalist'. [They nudge me in other directions too.]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

But..there comes a point where we have to be grown up and say: 'No! Not all views are valid!'

I'm not just talking about evaluating things like fluffie eco-mentalism (on the one hand) or fundie madness (on the other). Even on purely practical things, we have to trust in empiricism. If I sit down in a chair, what evidence do I have that it will hold me up? Well - on the balance of evidence, assuming the chair is properly made and in sound condition, it will. I have no evidence of the molecules of chairs suddenly flying apart on contact with buttocks. Ah! But they *might*. That's an equally valid viewpoint, albeit one which a) stops me having a nice sit down and b) is utterly WRONG!

As Davey Hume said of the coal on the fire 'Tis possible it may not burn.'

There's a guy running towards me screaming that he's just been bitten by a snake. Ah! But it would be equally valid to say it was a stick. No need to get him to hospital, then. And when he dies, no grounds for criticism of a valid opinion.

(See also Tony Blair 'It's what I believed.')

Stuff and nonsense.

Dammit!

Re-read this correction then pretend it existed in my last post and respond.

"Refuting the existence of God is impossible therefore you cannot say he does not exist."

Becomes

"Refuting the NON-existence of God is impossible therefore you cannot say he does not exist."

Sorry

Ste

>>"Well I've said before that the purpose of religion, as I see it, is the purpose it gives to believers.

I'm not sure that the 'purpose' argument puts religions in any different class from other social/political organisations such as a grouping of vegetarians, skinheads, liberals or feminists.
If someone suggests that their religion is somehow 'more' than just a group of people, the pure opinion amongst believers that it *is* isn't evidence in any meaningful sense of the word 'evidence' that I can see.

>>"A particular faith will include certain aims and other things-considered-desirable."

As do numerous non-religious organisations.

PC: <>

And yet there are those who say, ad nauseum, that we have no access to objective reality.

The difference is that I can produce strong examples of various gods and their invention by the human imagination (Spaghetti Monster, Scientology, the Book of Mormon), yet you can't even give a single example of this lack of access to reality.

Now, you could say, "objective reality is an absolute goal which one cannot reach," and many here have assumed you have said such a thing. But you're not saying we can't reach 100% access... you're saying we have 0% access.

It's this concept of "objective reality" that's causing the problem, I think, so I want to try a little thought experiment. I'm going to imagine, for the sake of argument, that there is, in fact, nothing outside of myself, and that the contents of my mind is everything there is. I'm not going to try and convince you that this is true or false, I'm just going to try and analyse "objective reality" in this context. (It is, of course, "possible" that this is actually the case, in which case these are not my musings, but your own, presented to you *as if* they were those of another.)

The first thing to note is that I still have a concept of objective reality, and more importantly, that it plays a crucial, and as far as I can tell, reasonably consistent, role in my life/experience. I ascribe certain of the contents of my mind as being attributable to an external reality, and others as not being so attributable. In practice the dividing line is blurred, and there are attributions that have to do with such things as degrees of certainty, as well as "subjective reality" and "imaginary" to make matters more complex.

The most important feature of those things that I attribute to an external reality is the fact that I experience them as such. These experiences I call perceptions. Although I can manipulate the things perceived, I have no direct control over them. They appear to move, change, and develop according to their own nature, not mine, outside of my supervision.

Do I need anything else for my concept to be meaningful?

Noggin

, BtM< you're gonna have to help me out here.



It looks like you are asking for examples of human perception falling short of objectivity. The shortcomings of our perception are, as I understand it, widely understood and accepted.



No access to reality means (I think) living entirely inside your own imagination, and that what you 'perceive' has no connection at all to reality. Although this can't be disproved, as the solipsist argument so frustratingly points out to us, this is way too far out for me. Who *is* your imaginary friend, who believes this is so?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<>

This doesn't seem contentious. But to have a connection to reality (without which the *actual* existence of an external reality is irrelevant), seems to require that reality (including ourselves as part of reality) has certain features that enable that reality to be interconnected. These interconnections give us our access, but not the type of access that P-c means by Objective. But it's agreed by all that we don't have that sort of access. So is the disagreement, at least initially, just one of semantics?

Noggin

'Imagination' isn't the right word.

In my imagination I can do anything I want; I can lift a mountain or walk on the moon. In my solipsistic 'imaginary' reality I can only do things which are allowed by a set of, seemingly imaginary, 'physical' rules which I admit I don't even fully understand. This is either objective reality, however inaccurately I perceive it, or it is some kind of virtual reality simulation of objective reality. Either way it looks unlikely that I am the architect of my own 'imaginary' universe. Of course I can't prove that I cannot defy the laws of physics but then in my imaginary reality who would there be to prove it to?

Reasoning suggests the following:

I think, therefore I think.

What I think falls into two camps - I can think about *imagining* things where there are no rules and I can think about *doing* things where there clearly are rules which are strictly enforced.

Something other than my own imagination has devised and enforces those rules.

Conclusion: there is at least something beyond my own imagination.

This 'something' I will call objective reality; although I realise that the true nature of this reality is currently (and may always be) indeterminate. It is my opinion that the rules governing this objective reality are sufficient to explain its existence and present condition without the introduction of any 'autonomous special system' able to defy those rules. Such a special system would commonly be called 'God'. I am of this opinion because, while there is self consistency of the universal application of the rules of my objective reality, the existence of such a special system would introduce a singular inconsistency. This inconsistency is not observed within my objective reality.

Whether or not there really is an objective reality is irrelevent. I (and you) perceive something which looks a lot like it, have access to a great deal of the detail of it and can recognise major inconsistencies within it. The existence of God would be a serious inconsistency. Point out some evidence for this inconsistency and I will be impressed. If there is no such evidence then it is logical to assume there is also no such inconsistency.

F

<...I can think about *doing* things where there clearly are rules which are strictly enforced. Something other than my own imagination has devised and enforces those rules. Conclusion: there is at least something beyond my own imagination.>

, Fathom, but this seems to me to closely resemble the Intelligent Design argument. The justification for both arguments seems comparable to me.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Noggin:

I would assume so. I am not aware of saying anything contentious.

Oh, BTW, when I said "The shortcomings of our perception are, as I understand it, widely understood and accepted" I was getting carried away. I should've restricted myself to this: "The shortcomings of our perception are, as I understand it, widely accepted". Sadly we don't really know how or why, which is what "understanding" is about.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

>>"Fathom, but this seems to me to closely resemble the Intelligent Design argument. The justification for both arguments seems comparable to me."

Really?
All Fathom was saying was that there appeared to be something 'outside' which constrained what appears to be possible in reality. Imagining one can fly is all well and good, but people who try it seem likely to find out they were just inagining it. Belief that a Ghost Shirt will protect you from bullets is likely to be sustainable right up to the point when you actually try it out.

The word 'devised' may be taken to imply an intelligence, but in the context it was used in, I'm not sure who would seriously take it that way
'Given rise to' or 'ownership of' would be replacements for 'devised' which might help avoid confusing the easily confused or exciting the needlessly pedantic.