Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:32 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God" 
Author Message
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
ant wrote:
Science does not tell us God exists or does not exist.


if we apply science to a specific God's text it may tell us "this book is not to be taken literally".

if we apply science to specific claims made about a specific God, for example that He answers prayer, we may get an indication if the evidence backs up this assertion.

ie. do the children of believers suffer less physical injuries as a result of all that prayer constantly being offered, or another idea, do the children raised in a specific tradition suffer injury less thus indicating that one god seems to answer prayer more often than another perhaps indicating that one particular god exists more than another, when it comes to answering prayer.



Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:27 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7059
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1076
Thanked: 2074 times in 1663 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Quote:
A giraffe might seem more efficient with a short neck nerve, but evolution provided no path to enable such a radical mutation, so it has a nerve that goes right down its neck and back up, iirc. Similarly with morality, we may be able to invent a theoretical morality that is ideal, but we have no path to achieve such a morality socially, because it is not grounded in precedent


This is like saying that in order to evolve further, a giraffe must first devolve. Going forward in time, there is no need for the giraffe to pay homage to his evolutionary lineage. The analogy doesn't hold. The giraffe's current form can still be said to be grounded in precedent, because his is a product of precedent, though not needing to devolve in order to move forward.

Quote:
The great example of a failed moral promise is communism, which presented itself as an ideal morality, but in practice produced terror, stagnation and tyranny. Incremental adaptation from existing moral systems, such as Christianity, should be seen as a more viable method to achieve moral progress than construction of a rational philosophy severed from its context.


Pointing to a failed political system does not mean Christianity or any other religion offers the best alternative, through incremental adaptation or otherwise. This is a false dichotomy of sorts, ignoring the existence of more modern moral systems that have neither the failings of Christianity nor the failings of Communism. The context of such morals systems may be required by the scholars that develop them, but not by the general populace that follows them.

Quote:
Within the scientific framework, fine-tuning is actually omnipotent and omnipresent and effectively infinite and eternal, traditionally core attributes of God.


You said that if something is not within the finely-tuned laws of physics, it simply will not happen. Therefore fine tuning is omnipresent. But that's a bald assertion that ignores the possibility of a multiverse. How could fine tuning be omnipresent if it isn't realized in all parts of the multiverse? To maintain this position, you need to fully reject the idea of a multiverse. I agree that we may not live in a multiverse, but this position is not the same as saying the multiverse theories are definitely false.

Quote:
My view is that Christianity is all about how humanity has lost contact with this natural intentional structure of the anthropic direction of reality.


Modern moral systems rest on the axiom that we should promote human flourishing. They are no different from the ideals you champion - the "anthropic direction of reality". If we have lost contact with this wisdom in modern times, we've done so with Christianity as the dominant belief system. Apparently, something isn't working. Forming one more denomination amongst the tens of thousands that already exist will do no good.

Quote:
But the magical dream of bells and smells transports believers to an imaginary heaven in church, and this perceived psychological benefit of the fantasy of transubstantiation completely outweighs any scientific critique of what is actually happening, when you are inside the faith structure.


Scientific critique understands the benefit of ritual and sanctified belief, as shown in psychology. If you want peaceful minds and healthy psychology, distill what has worked within buddhism, since it is so much more effective at achieving the ends. Secular group meditation and the sanctification of humanity as a whole is a demonstrably suitable replacement for superstitious ritual. Its effects are profound, but it is not popular because it is not as sticky a meme as Christianity. Christianity is sticky for all the wrong reasons, and the sticky parts will cling to whatever denomination you try to create. It's the evolutionary algorithm applied to information. What you hope to achieve won't spread beyond a few people without the unseemly sticky superstitious beliefs that give Christianity its survival power.

Quote:
My view is that there is a deeply accurate cosmology within Christianity that provides an unconscious driver for its popularity.


In order to be an unconscious driver, the person must first already possess the knowledge within his unconscious. Meaning, something that has already been learned in his or her lifetime. Most people know nothing of the concepts that dwell hidden in Christian texts, so the knowledge can't be unconscious. You first have to understand cosmology, then turn around and study the bible for it to stir up hidden connections. Not only that, but the cosmology must be specifically related to the instances where Christianity may or may not refer to it, which is specialized education.

Quote:
Deconstructing and analysing this cosmology, for example in the symbolism of the chi rho cross, provides a path to rebase faith in reason.


I don't see how attaching meaning to a symbol is a way to ground anything in reason. Unless it's already universally understood what the symbol means. Take words or math, for example. Unless you hope to re-educate the entire world on what esoteric symbols in Christianity should mean, you're left with what they do mean. In other words, what most people take them to mean. See Carrier's chapter on the use of words to see what I mean.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:19 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 704 times in 604 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
youkrst wrote:
if we apply science to a specific God's text it may tell us "this book is not to be taken literally".

if we apply science to specific claims made about a specific God, for example that He answers prayer, we may get an indication if the evidence backs up this assertion.

ie. do the children of believers suffer less physical injuries as a result of all that prayer constantly being offered, or another idea, do the children raised in a specific tradition suffer injury less thus indicating that one god seems to answer prayer more often than another perhaps indicating that one particular god exists more than another, when it comes to answering prayer.

The ways and degrees to which varying Christians interpret the bible is one issue here.
I don't need science to tell me that not everything there is literal.I can demonstrate myself that it's not all to be taken that way.One obvious example; the book of Revelation is saturated with symbolic imagery, rooted in the old testament and not pagan myth incidentally. Do I then interpret the "lake of fire" image there, literally? Of course not. But it does represent something or the image is meaningless.
So my approach is determined by context. So what is poetry, narrative history and biography and what is metaphor or literal or symbolism are indicated by various structures of literary norms.
If you reject the supernatural you are indicating an apriori naturalist assumption and worldview.My worldview is Christian theism.

I think you go to the an extreme Youkrst in simply categorising it all as myth.We've had this discussion before and frankly I don't think the pagan parallels view which you and Richard Carrier espouse is one that can be justified when examined by it's critics.
It is the overwhelming view of mainstream ancient historians that an historical person Jesus Christ existed and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
Carrier is out on a limb here.
On science and prayer;
Carrier debated David Marshall. Marshall provided plenty of examples of answers to prayer.I gave the example of Hudson Taylor.These are prima facie natural coincidences so a scientist could interpret them in this way and rule them out on this basis. How explanatory this would actually be is highly questionable in terms of probability and likelihood.
Apart from that,it is clear that guaranteed freedom from sickness,disease and death in this life is categorically excluded in any fair and extensive reading on this subject in scripture, though the possibility of healing is included.

In debating Marshall, Carrier basically attacked Christianity on the basis of what he would do if he were a divine person in Jesus' shoes at the time. Richard is a nice guy,unlike Jesus.
The problem of evil and suffering and how it relates to God is not something that can be glibly decided in a brief debate.

I personally, am very happy that world renowned author and speaker Carrier is not a divine person, as his hostility to Christianity is a troubling aspect of his psyche, and one wonders what he might do given omnipotence.



Last edited by Flann 5 on Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:20 am, edited 2 times in total.



Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:01 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7059
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1076
Thanked: 2074 times in 1663 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Quote:
Do I then interpret the "lake of fire" image there, literally? Of course not. But it does represent something or the image is meaningless.


What do you use to interpret the passage?

Quote:
Carrier debated David Marshall. Marshall provided plenty of examples of answers to prayer.I gave the example of Hudson Taylor.These are prima facie natural coincidences so a scientist could interpret them in this way and rule them out on this basis. How explanatory this would actually be is highly questionable in terms of probability and likelihood.


Such coincidences are guaranteed under naturalism. You can appeal to something supernatural if you wish, but that'd ad hoc, unnecessary. This is the fifth or sixth time I'm going to ask. What method would you use to determine whether a prayer was naturalistic coincidence, or supernatural intervention? This is at the heart of the matter.

Quote:
It is the overwhelming view of mainstream ancient historians that an historical person Jesus Christ existed and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.


Given the armor that Christianity has against any contrary questioning or theses, we should expect most scholars to agree that an historical Christ was real. But that fact should also make us wonder if the consensus is based on truth or on status quo. Until relatively recently, to question Christianity would mark you as a heretic and outcast, especially the heart of Christianity, the historicity of Jesus. Given the social environment, even if I had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, I'd hesitate to bring it to the fore. Not in fear of people such as yourself, but the extremists lurk in the shadows.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:20 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 704 times in 604 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Hi Interbane. They are naturalistic events which can be "explained" by theories of possiblity, and probability of extraordinary multiple coincidence or by divine providential working by God as one would expect based on scripture and find experientially in reality.
Given Carrier's, machine gun analogy I infer design from the bullet hole less silhouette.I infer providential design from extremely improbable coincidental events tailored to specific prayer requests.
It doesn't convince you. It convinces me.
"Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire" You tell me if I should interpret this literally or not.

There is a scientific establishment too, and dissenters from neo Darwinism have lost jobs for not toeing the party line.I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but certainly I hear of such cases.Well ,Tacitus must have been in on the conspiracy.
It doesn't seem to have done Carrier's career and fortunes much harm,except maybe in terms of credibility.The same might apply to his scientific musings.



Last edited by Flann 5 on Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:22 am, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:57 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7059
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1076
Thanked: 2074 times in 1663 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Quote:
It doesn't convince you. It convinces me.


This is still dancing circles around the heart of the matter. It isn't whether or not it convinces or fails to convince. It's about the method or reason it convinces or fails to convince. We both recognize the profound bias we each have. How do we overcome that to establish the truth of our convictions? Yes, you believe. I'm asking how you justify that belief.

Most common appeals that we think justify our beliefs in fact don't. It is harder to justify belief than most people realize - thus people believe in all sorts of weird stuff. The spectrum of cultish, esoteric, satanist, alienish, transpermic, hollow earth weirdness in our world is all believed with utter certainty by large groups of people. They all make appeals to this or that or the other thing. The vast majority of those appeals are fallacious, which is obvious due to the things most people believe. How do you know your beliefs are truthful? How do you justify them? Are you sure the unconscious appeals(support) you have for your beliefs are not fallacious?

Quote:
"Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire" You tell me if I should interpret this literally or not.


What is your hermeneutical approach? Do you seek to combine the passages with modern understanding to harmonize them? Or do you attempt to understand the intent of the original biblical authors? Did they believe that the passage they wrote is a true accounting of Death and Hades? It's very possible they did believe it. In this case, that is what your interpretation should be, if you're to stand by your belief that the bible was divinely inspired. How could the authors have been divinely inspired, have written something they believed to be true, but also be wrong about it? This is contradictory.

There is nothing you can appeal to in order to show that the original authors did not believe this passage was literal(and vice versa, to be fair). This is the issue with hermeneutics. It's all ad hoc harmonizing of the bible with no justification.

Quote:
There is a scientific establishment too, and dissenters from neo Darwinism have lost jobs for not toeing the party line.I'm not trying to be inflammatory here, but certainly I hear of such cases.Well ,Tacitus must have been in on the conspiracy.
It's not a game, Interbane.


I fully understand it's not a game. I'm sure the fear of losing your job may motivate some people to toe the line. Still, it's a molehill compared to the motivational mountain of an eternity burning in hellfire. Imagine the impact such a belief would have on historical scholars who had even the slightest belief in the bible.

For those that have been fired for not toeing the line, were they fired because of ulterior motive? Were they fired because they failed to adhere to proper method? Were they being objective in their pursuit of knowledge? They could always find work at thinktanks more amenable to their beliefs. The Templeton foundation gives out grants and funds such people.

There is no conspiracy. Scientists search for the truth no matter where it hides. The truth comes out in time if we use proper method to attenuate and dampen our biases, and shows a universe that is naturalistic. Scientists who enter the establishment with ulterior motive - prior belief that the entire system is rigged - will ultimately fail to follow proper method. Their bias will contaminate their findings. This is also true of scientists trying to disprove Christianity. Peer review is neutral, a review of method but not ulterior motive. Ulterior motive is discovered through examination of adherence to method.

If you follow proper method, you come to the same conclusion as the vast majority of scientists. It is only by deviating from proper method that you come to supernatural conclusions.

Are we then to criticize proper method? Which part of the scientific method is faulty? Or logical method? We shouldn't generalize here. Provide a link to an example of someone who was fired for not "toeing the line". I'll do some research and try to suss out the cause.

Or read through Carrier's section regarding method, and point to where you think it fails to provide the best bet we have to pursue knowledge.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:49 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Quote:
This is still dancing circles around the heart of the matter. It isn't whether or not it convinces or fails to convince. It's about the method or reason it convinces or fails to convince. We both recognize the profound bias we each have. How do we overcome that to establish the truth of our convictions? Yes, you believe. I'm asking how you justify that belief.


How do you justify a belief in a scientific hypothesis like a multiverse?


Section 1.1.5 "Distinguishing Fact from Theory"
(my emphasis)

Quote:
Another surprise is revealed in confusion between facts and theories. In scientific jargo, facts are what have been carefully observed to be the case. Theories are explanations of those facts, This differs from colloquial and philosophical jargon where fact are 'whatever is established' and theories 'whatever is speculated'. But to scientists fact is observation, theory is explanation.


How is belief justified when the facts related to an infinite sea of multiveres - (a "scientific" hypothesis Carrier introduces as nearing fact ) - are unobservable, and therefore inexplicable?


The proposition "The multiverse exists" most certainly can not be verified as either strong or weak:

Quote:
"A proposition is said to be verifiable, in the strong sense of the term, if, and only if, its truth could be conclusively established by experience", but is verifiable in the weak sense "if it is possible for experience to render it probable"
. - Ayer


If a proposition is "a picture of reality" (Wittgenstein), by scientific criteria it must be a depiction or near depiction of our reality that is observable or possibly observable.
What is the abstract concept (be it math or logic) that predicts this is possible?

Personally I think there's a lot of glossing over and dancing that metaphysical naturalist perform when asked to justify belief in hypotheses that are introduced as a "naturalistic" explanation to replace something that must be ruled out as unjustified belief (ie God). - "The Math proves it is possible a multiverse is all there is and is all there ever has been"

EDITED:

Ps

Math, I think, is synthetic a priori propositions:

Quote:
Analytic propositions are true by virtue of their meaning, while synthetic propositions are true by how their meaning relates to the world
wiki

If so, how does mathematics relate to multiple universes if they are not directly related to our world?
Mathematical models are models of our world, right?



Last edited by ant on Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
Flann 5
Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:09 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 704 times in 604 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Hi Interbane,
Do you want me go into an elaborate study of the book of Revelation?
I'll just say a few things.
On it's own term someone called John has supernatural visions.
Most involve strange images,composite beasts etc.In the narrative an angel provides interpretations of many though not all of these images.
For instance talking about one of these beast images,the angel says, "The ten horns which you saw are ten kings which have received no kingdom as yet," and "The waters which you saw,where the harlot sits,are peoples,multitudes,nations and tongues." So symbols,with real equivalents in the material world; people,kings,kingdoms etc.
Much symbolic imagery has roots in narrative history accounts in the old Testament.
Babylon for example.
Symbolic use of numbers, 12 tribes of Israel,12 apostles. I44 thousand followers.Dimensions 144 cubits etc.
Images are presented which are seen to be symbolic (if you hadn't guessed!) through internal interpretive keys such as what the angel does in explaining and against the backdrop of the old testament narrative.
When it comes to the lake of fire,consistency in following the clear pattern of the book makes literalism completely out of sync with the rest.The devil is cast into the lake of fire.This is literally incoherent. A spirit in a literal fire.
I have never studied hermeneutics. Most of my life I have worked as a care assistant in a nursing home.
I recognize literary forms in much the same way as everyone else does.

I don't see why I should be expected to interpret this literally. The book of revelation uses a genre of symbolism.It's not typical of what's in a great deal of the rest of the bible, but the rest is by no means all literal either.



Last edited by Flann 5 on Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.



The following user would like to thank Flann 5 for this post:
Interbane
Thu Aug 28, 2014 1:20 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7059
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1076
Thanked: 2074 times in 1663 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Flann wrote:
I don't see why I should be expected to interpret this literally. The book of revelation uses a genre of symbolism.It's not typical of what's in a great deal of the rest of the bible, but the rest is by no means all literal either.


I'm not saying that you should interpret it literally. What I'm saying is that every interpretation is by definition ad hoc unless and until it's verified. Only by going back in time and interviewing the authors can you verify any given interpretation.

At least, that is the case if you are looking for truth in your interpretation. But there is also a case to be made for finding meaning in interpretation, which is not the same thing as finding truth.

-meaningful interpretation
-truthful interpretation
-truthful reference

Truth of interpretation would be reverse engineering what the authors intended. Truth of reference would be correlating what they wrote to facts. For example, they say Jesus existed. What do we have that corroborates that?(don't answer this, it's just an example). They say there are 12 disciples. Truth of interpretation would be that they believed there were 12 disciples. Truth of reference would be that the number 12 came to them through cultural evolution from the signs of the zodiac.

Compare this to meaningful interpretation. You can interpret the 12 disciples to mean anything you wish. This does not mean you've located a truthful interpretation, let alone a truthful reference.

There are varying facets of interpretation. Most people mistakenly believe their meaningful interpretations are also truthful interpretations or even truthful references. If you believe the bible is truthful, rather than merely meaningful, then your interpretations need verification by method.

Sorry if I came across heated. I've had this same conversation a dozen times over the years, and after a while I wonder if people truly understand what it means to justify what they believe before criticizing contrary beliefs.

Let's move on from this, shall we?


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Thu Aug 28, 2014 2:52 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7059
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1076
Thanked: 2074 times in 1663 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Quote:
How do you justify a belief in a scientific hypothesis like a multiverse?

I don’t know that it is currently scientific, and I highly doubt it can be justified in the strong sense. I wish I had the book to quote from, but I do remember Carrier using soft language. “It is the best bet going”, or something of that nature. Until we have a better bet, the multiverse is it.

What could a better bet look like?
See:
http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/ ... -of-scale/

Quote:
How is belief justified when the facts related to an infinite sea of multiveres - (a "scientific" hypothesis Carrier introduces as nearing fact ) - are unobservable, and therefore inexplicable?

Through inference. We see the apparently fine-tuned nature of the universe and infer an evolutionary algorithm. You’ll have to quote Carrier referring to the multiverse as a near fact. This sounds stronger than I remember. If he did, then I disagree with him.

Quote:
If a proposition is "a picture of reality" (Wittgenstein), by scientific criteria it must be a depiction or near depiction of our reality that is observable or possibly observable.
What is the abstract concept (be it math or logic) that predicts this is possible?

We could see another universe at the edge of our own in the process of colliding with ours. It is possibly observable.

Quote:
Math, I think, is synthetic a priori propositions:

That’s mathematical Platonism(I think). I disagree that math is synthetic a priori, although it is analytic a priori, true by definition.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Thu Aug 28, 2014 3:02 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 704 times in 604 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
No problem Interbane, You are more patient than most.



Thu Aug 28, 2014 3:47 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5481
Thanks: 1302
Thanked: 889 times in 763 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Quote:
I don’t know that it is currently scientific, and I highly doubt it can be justified in the strong sense. I wish I had the book to quote from, but I do remember Carrier using soft language. “It is the best bet going”, or something of that nature. Until we have a better bet, the multiverse is it.


No, his language in his manifesto isn't "soft" ..,
particularly when he introduces the multiverse as a "theory" - a reasonable theory, on more than one occasion.
He also says dimensions have been proven to exist. Really, which hypothesis has proven dimensions to exist?

Carrier states that a theory in science must be "extensively tested or confirmed - and it must continue to survive attempts to disconfirm its predictions in order to win and keep its title"

Tell me how the a mutliverse "THEORY" like Lee Smolin's has been extensively tested and confirmed. Tested against what?
Confirmed empirically how? Inferential speculation is not what makes a theory a theory to Carrier.

Also, I'd note for your attention that Carrier seems to approve of falsification ("disconfirm" being the operative word) but says nothing about how science would go about falsifying one of his favorite multiverse theories. What evidence and how much of it would falsify the Smolin theory?

Carrier states that we have enough of an understanding about how symmetry could be broken and from this "they can predict all the different universes that might arise"
That seems like an ad hoc assumption as well.
If our understanding of symmetry is "enough" (how he's determined what "enough" is was not stated) how is it that we are in a position to infer that other dimensions are a reasonable inference to make?
.

Let's be real about this - you can say "inference" is our evidence here, but it really boils down to your faith (call it justified , or rational, or whatever) that this is science, as glorified by Carrier as scientism, which is really a philosophy that defines theory and fact in an entirely different manner than hard science does.

Also, there is an issue of the inadequacy of our language with all this multiverse confirmation theory talk:
our language and how we are speaking to ourselves prior to formulating a descriptive hypothesis modeling an aspect of nature we have not experienced at all.
Is our language adequate enough to model a multiverse theory?
WHY?



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
Interbane
Thu Aug 28, 2014 6:25 pm
Profile Email
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
One with Books

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2751
Thanks: 2298
Thanked: 731 times in 626 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Flann wrote:
and one wonders what he might do given omnipotence.


yes he might wipe out nearly the whole population of the earth :-D perish, the thought.



Thu Aug 28, 2014 6:57 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4382
Location: NC
Thanks: 1861
Thanked: 1930 times in 1445 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
I'm still reading this section, but I would say that Carrier makes it very clear that there are several plausible possibilities to the beginning of the universe, each far more plausible than the God "theory." I continue to find it strange that Carrier actually talks about the God "theory" at all, let alone give it so much space in his book. Because God is never on equal footing with science and it seems to me that pitting the two against each other must be a fallacy of some sort. (False dichotomy?) Obviously Carrier does have an axe to grind when it comes to religion.

And, yet, Carrier makes it very clear that science doesn't have definite answers to the big questions. He states this several times. Here's the first paragraph of 3. The Nature and Origin of the Universe:

Carrier wrote:
Where did the universe come from? Why does it exist at all? Why is it the particular way it is? These are some of the Big Questions, which scientists are now attempting to answer. But no one really knows the answers yet. We have too little information, and too many possibilities. Any explanation that anyone can offer, including “God did it,” would only be hypothetical at this point. But our worldview must suggest some answers, it must make predictions, or else it won’t be sound. No one can claim scientific certainty yet. But our answers can still be plausible, a good metaphysical inference from all the facts at hand—maybe even the most plausible, the best inference yet.


What follows is an exceptionally well written section on what makes a plausible hypothesis. And why the "Goddidit" response always causes many more problems than it answers. Carrier then discusses two theories in partiicular—Chaotic Inflation and Smolin’s ‘selection theory’, explaining the strengths and weaknesses of each. The state of Cosmology is clearly very speculative. Here's why Carrier personally favors Smolin's theory.

Carrier wrote:
While Chaotic Inflation theory was primarily developed by Andrei Linde in the 1980’s, and it has gained wide support today, another theory was developed by Lee Smolin in the 1990’s, which most scientists agree has some merit, too. Unlike Chaotic Inflation, Smolin’s ‘selection theory’ requires one completely ad hoc assumption: a new physical law. This is still fewer than the many ad hoc assumptions required for a god theory, involving numerous new laws governing his many amazing powers and properties, and countless maneuverings to explain, or explain away, all the strange evidence we actually have. So even if Smolin Selection is less plausible than Chaotic Inflation, it is still more plausible than a god. However, unlike Chaotic Inflation again (and very much unlike any god theory), Smolin’s theory actually has some evidence that supports it over all contenders. And for that reason I think it is, at present, the strongest candidate, the best prediction yet.


When Carrier says that Smolin's theory is "at present, the strongest candidate, the best prediction yet" he is very obviously ready to relinquish it as new evidence comes in. You would be pretty foolish to get too attached to theories that are obviously in a constant state of flux.


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Interbane
Thu Aug 28, 2014 7:27 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7059
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1076
Thanked: 2074 times in 1663 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: II. How We Know - "Sense and Goodness Without God"
Quote:
No, his language in his manifesto isn't "soft" ..,
particularly when he introduces the multiverse as a "theory" - a reasonable theory, on more than one occasion.


His language in the book is soft, see Geo's quotes. Regarding the use of the word "theory", he also says the idea of a god is a "theory". What connotation of the word is he using?

Quote:
Let's be real about this - you can say "inference" is our evidence here, but it really boils down to your faith


Hmm. I don't believe the multiverse theories are true. I believe they are possibly true. You forget I'm in this game for the truth, not to take sides and win points. The multiverse theories are speculative at best, but they do arise from inference. A convergence of data "suggests" them. Not to say there is any evidence for them. To infer something is have a reason for it.

You're looking for a hard stance in either direction, and we simply don't have enough information for that. The best bet going doesn't mean we put all our chips on the table. Here's an interesting read on the conclusions some had over bicep2's gravity wave discovery:

http://www.nature.com/news/gravitationa ... cs-1.14910

"the findings would agree remarkably well with ‘chaotic inflation’, a simple version of inflation Linde developed 30 years ago. In Linde's model, inflation never completely ends, stopping only in limited pockets of space, while continuing with its exponential expansion elsewhere. Chaotic inflation would produce not just our Universe but a multiverse containing many pocket universes, each with its own laws of physics, an idea that critics say would be untestable."


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:43 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Great resource pages are coming!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
How To Promote Your Book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank