ant wrote:
Why don't you use your standard line : "We don't know, but God didn't dun it!"

Since your idea of God seems to consist of absolutely no content whatsoever, it makes no difference whether you say he did anything or not.

I think this could go on forever.Ok heads God did it and tails Nothing did it. Hmmm. Tails! That was lucky!

Flann 5 wrote:At the same time Dexter,
You are attributing immense ordered complexity which is everywhere,in the universe,in our bodies in the genetic code,in the cell which is immensely complex and ordered, to dumb mindless matter and energy. Science doesn't know everything yet, but why imagine that dumb matter and energy could even be capable of such prodigious feats? That's naturalisms only possible explanation.
If unthinking matter and energy were really capable of creating themselves and everything else,that would be stunning, indeed miraculous.

Scientists may not have all the answers about the origin of life, but evolutionary theory has provided an explanation of how you can go from simple replicating organisms to all the complexity that we see in life. There is overwhelming evidence that it happened, and is not controversial among scientists.

Krauss' 'something from nothing' theory (if that's what Ant is talking about) isn't even a theory. It's one man's speculation about how the universe may have come from nothing. It's certainly nothing to get too excited about. Time will tell if the theory has any validity.

Science doesn't have any off limits just because some people are uncomfortable with materialistic explanations. Science, after all, is a materialistic pursuit, right? Do any of us know enough about quantum physics to say oh, this is not going to yield anything.

Experience evidence of a multiverse or the reality of a multiverse?



My argument here is that Carrier is essentially arguing against a theory of a multiverse.

Oh, experience the multiverse itself, the reality of it? According to the theory, you are experiencing it. You're living inside it. Not sure where you're going here...

How is that hypothesis testable?

I don't think Smolin's is testable, but I could be wrong. Chaotic inflation theory could be testable, depending on how it's structured. If our universe collides with another, for example. Regarding how this relates to the book, it's too much of a tangent. You're looking to apply scientific methods. But currently, only inferential methods go so far as all encompassing worldviews.

When you read through chapter 2, look again at the part where he lists methods in order of their trustworthiness. Logic is first, then science, then our own experience, then I forget(expert testimony/history?). At the bottom is inference, and in the section describing inference, he mentions that most ontologies deal with knowledge so distant to what we're able to attain, that it entirely rests upon inference. This includes the multiverse theories, and ideas regarding god.

Flann wrote:Is it reasonable to predict that what is beyond the known past horizon of our universe that different laws would apply there?

It is reasonable to predict that, if there is reason to predict it. There is reason to predict it - fine tuning.

The inference is to an intelligent mind being behind all this and not dumb matter itself.

Carrier gives a few good examples on how our universe is a moron. It's a stupid, blind machine.

Is your argument "We may be no better than you, but you are no better than us, therefore, we win" ?

The argument is that the only definition of god that makes any sense with the rest of our knowledge is a deity that created everything then went to sleep - a naturalistic deity. The reasons that even this belief fall behind multiverse theories in order of trustworthiness is that a god creates more post hoc assumptions.

Can you tell me what experience has been, uh, experienced, that has given us knowledge of a multiverse?

The accumulated convergence of multiple methods. From the more trustworthy methods, we know the universe is naturalistic. From there, it is an inference to conclude a multiverse. The experience includes knowledge that the natural laws appear fine tuned. You ask these questions as if they're a gotcha.

I think this could go on forever.Ok heads God did it and tails Nothing did it. Hmmm. Tails! That was lucky!

No, there are methods to select between them. See above.

Flann 5 wrote: http://www.booktalk.org/post131472.html#p131472 Philosophical naturalism does not explain the origin of life and the universe. It fails at the deepest level.....Should the creator appear it would show that the naturalistic explanation of life and origins is as inadequate as it looks, and in fact was fatally flawed.

All this debate about the multiverse goes back to this comment from Flann5 early in this thread. (I also alluded to this debate in my initial comment http://www.booktalk.org/post131437.html#p131437 where I pointed out that Carrier’s Introduction says his big questions include if God does not exist then what does, and can we make any sense of this universe.

Flann seems to argue here that science is incomplete, and therefore fails, and therefore must be augmented by nonsense so that we can have a coherent ability to sleep at night. That is a great example of religious thinking at work.

Interbane wrote: http://www.booktalk.org/post131607.html#p131607
So the ancients compiled observations of the stars over many millennia. What on Earth does this have to do with Singular universe vs Multiverse? You turned a right corner into weirdness here. The existing multiverse theories are not intended to explain the "cosmic context" of religion. Everything in our local region of the universe would be the same.

Sure, the question of how traditional societies explained the origin of the universe is weird. So is talking about other universes on the basis of evidence that is less than the smell of an oily rag. It is all about Carrier’s big questions. The multiverse hypothesis is a scientific answer to the religious question of turtles all the way down. (By the way, the turtle at the bottom of the universe is probably the Large Magellanic Cloud)

My view is that the ancients used their observation of the stars as a big slow clock, and there is a fascinating but little studied correlation between this clock and the Biblical cosmology of fall and redemption.

So it is relevant to the question of how we make sense of the universe. My view is that an original scientific astronomy became corrupted by supernatural mythology to produce the creation stories of the Bible, and this psychological process is central to how we understand cultural evolution. A simplified myth is used to explain a complex observation, and then the myth gets remembered while the observation that gave rise to it is forgotten.

I agree that Flann and ant are wrong in postulating God as a way to escape from the conundrum of something from nothing. Science can present possible explanations for the origin of the universe, even if these are not certain. There is a similar conundrum regarding how ancient creation myths evolved, and my view is that placing these within an astronomical framework is illuminating.

Sure, the question of how traditional societies explained the origin of the universe is weird. So is talking about other universes on the basis of evidence that is less than the smell of an oily rag.

The latter wierdness is the topic of the book. The first is good for a footnote, but we've since progressed.

So it is relevant to the question of how we make sense of the universe.

It isn't relevant unless the knowledge we gather from it is more accurate than what modern methods can produce.

My view is that an original scientific astronomy became corrupted by supernatural mythology to produce the creation stories of the Bible, and this psychological process is central to how we understand cultural evolution.

It might be a central specific example, but more central are the distilled general rules we gain from such examples, which are too numerous to list. You elevate this one because it's a personal passion of yours, and most of your efforts have been focused on it. But understanding cultural evolution comes from a convergence of understanding across many such examples.

I agree that Flann and ant are wrong in postulating God as a way to escape from the conundrum of something from nothing.

I agree. Although I would say that there may not ever have been 'nothing'. There may always have been something, if the thermodynamic arrow of time goes backwards infinitely, with the big bang only a punctuation point. It is ALL speculation regarding the frontiers of a worldview. But we can use methods to select between various speculative explanations. It's not as if speculative answers are free from selective scrutiny.

There is a smidgin of smugness in Richard Carrier’s claim in the Introduction to have “found myself with that coherent, sensible, complete, evidentially well-supported philosophy of life that I had been looking for.” It is in the nature of religious philosophy to claim to have a coherent meta-narrative that justifies your political prejudices. For Carrier to assert that his philosophy is complete looks to mean he thinks he should qualify to be king of the world, since all his prejudices are true. With true humility and modesty worthy of Stalin, Carrier admits he is always learning and correcting his errors, making “as good a try as anyone could”, and welcoming correction where he has goofed up.

Why he would say his unifying framework of Metaphysical Naturalism is “jargon not of my choosing” is surprising. If he did not choose it, why in the blazes did he put it in his book title? A key to the meaning of this piece of philosophical jargon appears with Carrier's explanation, having dispensed with God as incidental to his worldview, that we have no need of mystical secrets.

Taking Carrier’s request for interpretive charity seriously, it seems his proposed abolition of “mystical secrets” covers over some linguistic ambiguity, given that at a stroke it renders redundant the vast historical heritage of esoteric thought, standing in contradiction to the claims in books such as the Bible to convey allegorical meaning. Arrogant cannonades make for interesting reading, but do not really facilitate dialogue.

It is in the nature of religious philosophy to claim to have a coherent meta-narrative that justifies your political prejudices

He covers his political views near the end. I think they are justified by reason from the ground up, not by confidence in his worldview from the top down. Do you think there is any such thing as a mostly truthful worldview? We need not know everything to know where the larger pieces fit. Do you have a coherent worldview? Do you believe your coherent worldview justifies your political position? If not, why is that what you assume Carrier is implying?

For Carrier to assert that his philosophy is complete looks to mean he thinks he should qualify to be king of the world, since all his prejudices are true. With true humility and modesty worthy of Stalin, Carrier admits he is always learning and correcting his errors, making “as good a try as anyone could”, and welcoming correction where he has goofed up.

It doesn't follow that his prejudices are true. Having a complete worldview means that unknown territory has a delineated border. Just as you believe your worldview is acceptable without knowing anything prior to the big bang. Are you any more confident in your scientific worldview even though you don't know the origins of the universe? How is it any different, or any less or more complete? The reference to Stalin doesn't make sense to me. Was Stalin an advocate of humility and correcting his errors?

I sense ulterior motive here that's difficult to pinpoint. Does Carrier have a political position that you disagree with? Or is it his dismissal of useful facts from within the bible? Useful in the sense that they cannot be found in modern form.

Why he would say his unifying framework of Metaphysical Naturalism is “jargon not of my choosing” is surprising. If he did not choose it, why in the blazes did he put it in his book title?

You seem to be reading into his words against the grain Robert. I also did not choose the jargon, but I adopted it as my worldview.

Taking Carrier’s request for interpretive charity seriously, it seems his proposed abolition of “mystical secrets” covers over some linguistic ambiguity, given that at a stroke it renders redundant the vast historical heritage of esoteric thought, standing in contradiction to the claims in books such as the Bible to convey allegorical meaning.

Point to any allegorical meaning in the bible that is not repeated in a modern text with more clarity and wisdom. Unless the allegorical meaning you're looking for is, for example, reference to the number 12 and how it corresponds to the zodiac, or similar correspondences. Such facts are legion, and not necessary to convey a worldview. I challenge you to compare whatever set of ethics you distill from the bible to a modern form, such as virtue ethics or consequentialism. What sound epistemic grounding do you have for your set of ethics?

Interbane wrote:He covers his political views near the end. I think they are justified by reason from the ground up, not by confidence in his worldview from the top down.

I am simply suggesting that Carrier’s claim to have a “coherent, sensible, complete, evidentially well-supported philosophy of life” is overblown and does not leave enough room for him to engage respectfully with people who disagree with him.

As Flann noted, my views on Christ Mythicism align closely to Carrier’s, but I consider Carrier's disrespectful attitude towards views on astral and intercultural foundations of ancient religion to be completely unjustified. To be “coherent and complete” implies a logical connect between philosophy and politics, but I don’t think Carrier has demonstrated that to the extent he claims.

Interbane wrote: Do you think there is any such thing as a mostly truthful worldview? We need not know everything to know where the larger pieces fit.

Truth is primarily a property of facts, whereas our worldview is our considered assessment of what we consider to be important, unimportant, good and evil.

A worldview synthesises values. Truth, evidence and logic can be key values, enabling a worldview to be mostly truthful, but still, the idea that we can base our values on facts jars against the positivist faith that an ought cannot be derived from an is. Science is mostly truthful, but science only becomes a worldview when scientific facts and values are placed within a systematic philosophy, as Carrier attempts.

Interbane wrote:Do you have a coherent worldview?

That is certainly my goal, but I would not claim to have arrived at finality in the way Carrier does. I view the nature of religion as a far more complex and subtle problem for philosophy than is presented in simplistic atheism, which is often unaware of its historical antecedents and its unconscious political and emotional drivers.

Interbane wrote: Do you believe your coherent worldview justifies your political position?

I think the goal of philosophy should be to base values on facts, in order to define what is good. Coherence can be a dangerous thing in politics where it is used to justify intolerance. A political position entails views on economics and social policy, sciences that are not as amenable to exact knowledge as mathematics and physics, as I mentioned earlier with reference to Comte and positivism.

Interbane wrote:If not, why is that what you assume Carrier is implying?

Here I am mainly focussing on the infelicity of his claim to have arrived at a complete coherent philosophy, even with his caveat about being willing to learn. The implication of the ‘mission accomplished’ claim is that it suggests anyone who disagrees is just an ignorant fool, and I don’t think Carrier is justified in that sort of condescension.

Interbane wrote: It doesn't follow that his prejudices are true. Having a complete worldview means that unknown territory has a delineated border.

Delineation of boundaries is exactly where prejudice enters the picture. An interesting comparison here is with Freud and Jung. Freud maintained that his theory of infantile sexuality constituted a complete worldview, and he found Jung’s insistence on the spiritual content of psychology transgressed the neat orderly borders of his logical system.

A worldview is a frame that provides categories, methods and values. All these are highly susceptible to emotional and cultural prejudice which the holder is unaware of. Even though Jung had some crazy opinions, my view is that his more chaotic approach to archetypal spirituality provided more depth of insight into psychology and culture than Freud’s narrow hypothesis, which has since been heavily critiqued.

Interbane wrote: Just as you believe your worldview is acceptable without knowing anything prior to the big bang. Are you any more confident in your scientific worldview even though you don't know the origins of the universe?

No one knows anything prior to the big bang. Questions on that scale impinge on a worldview as they affect our views on research priorities and sound methods, and what we believe to be true. As a working axiom, uniformitarianism is a sound principle, excluding supernatural belief, justifying confidence in a scientific worldview.

Interbane wrote: How is it any different, or any less or more complete?

Big Bang cosmology affects worldviews by producing different perspectives on the importance of humanity, ranging from the Sagan ‘pale blue dot’ view that humans are insignificant to more traditional religious views that are anthropocentric.

Interbane wrote: The reference to Stalin doesn't make sense to me. Was Stalin an advocate of humility and correcting his errors?

Sorry, that was an obscure joke. Stalin carried on about how humble and modest he was, and about how communism was based on logic, when in fact he was a totalitarian megalomaniac driven by fixed ideological dogmas that conflicted rather severely with science. I was not comparing Carrier to Stalin beyond noting the irony inherent in asserting to have a complete and coherent philosophy while also claiming to be eager to correct mistakes. What I find interesting in Carrier’s work is the rather formidable challenge of laying bare any presuppositions in his ideas.

Interbane wrote: I sense ulterior motive here that's difficult to pinpoint. Does Carrier have a political position that you disagree with? Or is it his dismissal of useful facts from within the bible? Useful in the sense that they cannot be found in modern form.

I have very high respect for Carrier, and am interested in reading this book to understand his views in more detail. I disagree with his dismissal of astral interpretation of the Bible, and see that as a key topic for a scientific understanding of Christianity. Carrier’s atheism, in line with Dawkins and co, adopts an oppositional stance towards religion where I believe a more constructive and accurate approach is to see religion as needing reform to place it within a scientific worldview.

Interbane wrote: You seem to be reading into his words against the grain Robert. I also did not choose the jargon, but I adopted it as my worldview.

My point was that “metaphysics” is a hotly contested term, broadly rejected by the philosophy of science due to its religious associations. A review of The God Delusion at http://philosophynow.org/issues/62/The_ ... rd_Dawkins says by "rejecting metaphysics, Dawkins has no way of establishing or assessing the objective status of his science.”

This reminds me of Keynes’ comment that men of action often unknowingly base their views on earlier philosophy, with Dawkins adopting Comte’s positivism with its view of science as superseding metaphysics. Carrier seems to be in an awkward halfway house, recognising the need for metaphysics but presenting a modern scientific philosophy.

Interbane wrote: Point to any allegorical meaning in the bible that is not repeated in a modern text with more clarity and wisdom. Unless the allegorical meaning you're looking for is, for example, reference to the number 12 and how it corresponds to the zodiac, or similar correspondences. Such facts are legion, and not necessary to convey a worldview. I challenge you to compare whatever set of ethics you distill from the bible to a modern form, such as virtue ethics or consequentialism.

Christology is the study of how the incarnation of Jesus Christ connects history to eternity. My view is that Christology can be pursued within a scientific mythicist framework, in order to see how the myth of Christ presents an archetypal and central perspective on the place of humanity within the cosmos. Modern scientific thought has lost this sense of connectedness, and the underlying Christian vision of the need to overcome the lostness and alienation of existence.

Interbane wrote: What sound epistemic grounding do you have for your set of ethics?

The core of Christian ethics, in my view, is its critique of the arrogance of secular politics. The epistemic grounding here is the sense that the values of the world have to be inverted in order to align with cosmic order, but that the current dominant values of the world are inimical to this deep understanding. In placing love and solidarity at the core of ethics, the Christ Myth provides a dialectical basis to understand that people should use their talents to the full as a way to enable everyone to achieve their potential.

The core goal of Christianity as expressed in The Lord’s Prayer is that the will of God should be done on earth as it is in heaven. Recasting this prayer by recognising God as allegory for the anthropic order of the cosmos provides an epistemic basis for an ethic of effort to find and achieve a path of universal human flourishing.