Comments on: Last Western Heretic http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/ The Bloggery of Damian Peterson Fri, 30 Dec 2011 03:02:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Ken http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-485 Ken Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:47:26 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-485 BC, you are playing with definitions - your "agnostic" could describe my beliefs but my definition of agnostic is very different to yours and I would never use it to describe my beliefs. It perhaps indicates that such terms are not really very helpful - it's best to deal with the <b>asserted</b> beliefs of individuals rather than assuming them because of a label (especially one which seems to be emotionally charged for many). I accept your point about philosophical beliefs colouring our interpretation of objective reality and the data we receive from it. I understand that as inherent to our perceptions. We evolved to survive and reproduce, not to discover the truth about the universe. But amazingly, our species can make progress in this. An essential element in this is the social nature of humanity's investigation. The critical peer review and competition of ideas in science has been essential to this. Without this we would never have made such progress (It is this aspect which is lacking in "intelligent design" and this makes it unscientific). I have never thought of scientific ideas as "just-so" but sure, I agree that individuals scientists will see these ideas with the colouring of their philosophy. But the great thing about science is that it is possible for people of all sorts of philosophical or religious beliefs to work alongside each other, use the same methodologies, discuss the same ideas, etc., without any conflict. The conflict only comes when attempts are made to impose philosophical biases onto the science. This happened with Lysenkoism in the USSR under Stalin and is happening now with "intelligent design" and the false "controversy" the Wedge activists are promoting. It is sad that so many Christians today effectively fall into the God-of-the-gaps trap. There seems to be a strong desire to find scientific justification for their beliefs. However, by doing this they expose their beliefs to humiliation when science fills in the gap they have used. The minute a Christian makes a religion-based claim about the natural world and its origins they make a noose for their beliefs. If I were a Christian I would keep well away from such temptations. I would embrace science and its findings (as I do now) but would keep my religious beliefs completely separate. BC, you are playing with definitions – your “agnostic” could describe my beliefs but my definition of agnostic is very different to yours and I would never use it to describe my beliefs. It perhaps indicates that such terms are not really very helpful – it’s best to deal with the asserted beliefs of individuals rather than assuming them because of a label (especially one which seems to be emotionally charged for many).

I accept your point about philosophical beliefs colouring our interpretation of objective reality and the data we receive from it. I understand that as inherent to our perceptions. We evolved to survive and reproduce, not to discover the truth about the universe. But amazingly, our species can make progress in this. An essential element in this is the social nature of humanity’s investigation. The critical peer review and competition of ideas in science has been essential to this. Without this we would never have made such progress (It is this aspect which is lacking in “intelligent design” and this makes it unscientific).

I have never thought of scientific ideas as “just-so” but sure, I agree that individuals scientists will see these ideas with the colouring of their philosophy. But the great thing about science is that it is possible for people of all sorts of philosophical or religious beliefs to work alongside each other, use the same methodologies, discuss the same ideas, etc., without any conflict. The conflict only comes when attempts are made to impose philosophical biases onto the science. This happened with Lysenkoism in the USSR under Stalin and is happening now with “intelligent design” and the false “controversy” the Wedge activists are promoting.

It is sad that so many Christians today effectively fall into the God-of-the-gaps trap. There seems to be a strong desire to find scientific justification for their beliefs. However, by doing this they expose their beliefs to humiliation when science fills in the gap they have used. The minute a Christian makes a religion-based claim about the natural world and its origins they make a noose for their beliefs. If I were a Christian I would keep well away from such temptations. I would embrace science and its findings (as I do now) but would keep my religious beliefs completely separate.

]]> By: BC http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-484 BC Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:50:08 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-484 Hey Ken, what's a non-belief? Maybe it's something that has yet to be perceived, or thought of? Surely, atheists have a belief there is no god. Therefore, they also have no belief in god (for god, for them, does not exist). Otherwise non-belief in a god sounds like they have never come across the concept of god or ignored the question of god's existence altogether. Agnostics also have no belief in god, but they also hold to the possibility of yet coming to believe in a god. Isn't it that atheists have been presented with evidence of god's existence, but because that evidence doesn't fit a philosophically formed means of examining reality, i.e. the scientific method, they dismiss that as unscientific evidence, concluding that there is no god? Philosophical descriptions run beneath the why of the method adopted for whatever we are doing. We may not consider them too deeply they're there. All the machines developed for observing so-called 'raw data', are in themselves extensions of our mind and therefore our philosophy, which determines a modus operandi. The data these machines produce are then interpreted, naturally through the same philosophical lens. Observation does not, necessarily, undermine the independence of physical reality of the universe. God can not be used as a gap-filler, because for the Christian, God is the underpinning, creator of all things. The things so far explained by science don't in any way rule out God's existence. For the scientist without faith in any god, scientific ideas are just-so, for the scientist who is a Christian, they may or may not be able to be understood as pointing to God as the creator. Hey Ken, what’s a non-belief?
Maybe it’s something that has yet to be perceived, or thought of?
Surely, atheists have a belief there is no god. Therefore, they also have no belief in god (for god, for them, does not exist).
Otherwise non-belief in a god sounds like they have never come across the concept of god or ignored the question of god’s existence altogether.
Agnostics also have no belief in god, but they also hold to the possibility of yet coming to believe in a god.
Isn’t it that atheists have been presented with evidence of god’s existence, but because that evidence doesn’t fit a philosophically formed means of examining reality, i.e. the scientific method, they dismiss that as unscientific evidence, concluding that there is no god?
Philosophical descriptions run beneath the why of the method adopted for whatever we are doing. We may not consider them too deeply they’re there. All the machines developed for observing so-called ‘raw data’, are in themselves extensions of our mind and therefore our philosophy, which determines a modus operandi. The data these machines produce are then interpreted, naturally through the same philosophical lens.
Observation does not, necessarily, undermine the independence of physical reality of the universe.
God can not be used as a gap-filler, because for the Christian, God is the underpinning, creator of all things. The things so far explained by science don’t in any way rule out God’s existence. For the scientist without faith in any god, scientific ideas are just-so, for the scientist who is a Christian, they may or may not be able to be understood as pointing to God as the creator.

]]> By: Dale Campbell http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-483 Dale Campbell Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:52:51 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-483 Yes totally guys. I'm certainly not trying to argue for a gap-filler god. Monotheistic tradition has always been that the Creator was 'seen' through Creation (hence 'Creational' Monotheism). In that sense, every bit of data, evidence, matter, thoughts, philosophy, perceptions, hardware, software and anything else that is a part of 'reality' is said (by Creational Monotheists) to point to the Creator; regardless of whether these things are placed in the 'understood' box or the 'not understood fully (yet)' box... -d- Yes totally guys.

I’m certainly not trying to argue for a gap-filler god. Monotheistic tradition has always been that the Creator was ‘seen’ through Creation (hence ‘Creational’ Monotheism). In that sense, every bit of data, evidence, matter, thoughts, philosophy, perceptions, hardware, software and anything else that is a part of ‘reality’ is said (by Creational Monotheists) to point to the Creator; regardless of whether these things are placed in the ‘understood’ box or the ‘not understood fully (yet)’ box…

-d-

]]> By: Ken http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-482 Ken Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:15:11 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-482 Philosophical ideas (and religious ideas, etc) can be considered as evidence, raw data, and hence be studied. I classify them as material phenomena (we've had this discussion before). But let's not confuse them with hard data about the universe, reality existing independently of anyone's mind. When we do we allow for all sorts of distortions which get in the way of genuine investigation. (And I think for some people this is where their god comes from). Philosophical ideas (and religious ideas, etc) can be considered as evidence, raw data, and hence be studied. I classify them as material phenomena (we’ve had this discussion before). But let’s not confuse them with hard data about the universe, reality existing independently of anyone’s mind. When we do we allow for all sorts of distortions which get in the way of genuine investigation. (And I think for some people this is where their god comes from).

]]> By: Damian http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-481 Damian Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:25:06 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-481 Dale, I agree that post modern philosophy is of no practical use at all and that we have to allow for glitches in these machines we call our minds when making observations about the real world. I have a very weak grasp on philosophy but I suspect you can still be a good positivist and make allowances for these glitches of perception. Feel free to call me out on that one though. The problem I see is that wherever there is a gap in evidence or, in your case, some room left on the error bars for perception faults, there always seems to be someone frantically trying to stuff God into the equation. No, we don't know how life started but that display of humility doesn't mean that we should insert God and we know that there are limits to our ability to make complete observations about the universe we live in but, once again, this allowance for error doesn't mean we should be inserting God. The concept of God is an extremely complex answer to what is usually a relatively simple problem in the end. The danger of the God of the Gaps argument or the (to coin a phrase?) God of the Error Bars is that the only people who stand to lose are those that placed God into a gap that is subsequently filled by evidence or into a perception error allowance when empirical testing narrows the margins. If science ever creates machine consciousness then many people's concepts of 'God' will die on that day. Actually, it could also either undergo a rapid reformation to include these new 'souls' or make more amendments to what it means to be a human and, therefore, eligible for eternal life. I would think that if I held to a belief in some complex creator of the universe it would be safer to keep it out of those gaps and margins of error in science in the long run. Like I say, I'm compelled by the idea that everything is physical and that it's looking likely that these illusions of the 'self' and everything that goes with that may well turn out to be just that; illusions caused by software of our experiences running on the hardware of our brains. Dale, I agree that post modern philosophy is of no practical use at all and that we have to allow for glitches in these machines we call our minds when making observations about the real world.

I have a very weak grasp on philosophy but I suspect you can still be a good positivist and make allowances for these glitches of perception. Feel free to call me out on that one though.

The problem I see is that wherever there is a gap in evidence or, in your case, some room left on the error bars for perception faults, there always seems to be someone frantically trying to stuff God into the equation.

No, we don’t know how life started but that display of humility doesn’t mean that we should insert God and we know that there are limits to our ability to make complete observations about the universe we live in but, once again, this allowance for error doesn’t mean we should be inserting God.

The concept of God is an extremely complex answer to what is usually a relatively simple problem in the end. The danger of the God of the Gaps argument or the (to coin a phrase?) God of the Error Bars is that the only people who stand to lose are those that placed God into a gap that is subsequently filled by evidence or into a perception error allowance when empirical testing narrows the margins.

If science ever creates machine consciousness then many people’s concepts of ‘God’ will die on that day. Actually, it could also either undergo a rapid reformation to include these new ‘souls’ or make more amendments to what it means to be a human and, therefore, eligible for eternal life.

I would think that if I held to a belief in some complex creator of the universe it would be safer to keep it out of those gaps and margins of error in science in the long run.

Like I say, I’m compelled by the idea that everything is physical and that it’s looking likely that these illusions of the ‘self’ and everything that goes with that may well turn out to be just that; illusions caused by software of our experiences running on the hardware of our brains.

]]> By: Dale Campbell http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-479 Dale Campbell Tue, 22 Jan 2008 09:49:18 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-479 But Ken, that's just the point... Your talk of only considering raw data or 'evidence' <i>rather</i> than philosophical ideas has --I think-- problems. Whatever processes are at work in thinking about, defining or investigating this complex thing we call 'reality' (and whether they involve brain cells, souls, spirits, gods or all of these - or not), the very act of 'considering' evidence is at the same time both a scientific act and a philosophical act. Yes, the extreme 'we might not really be here' post modern philosophers go too far (phenomenonalists), but the other philosophical extreme (positivists) under estimates what Merleau-Ponty might call the 'phenomenology of perception'... And with that, I've used enough multi-syllabic words to have fully impressed both myself and anyone I might possibly have fooled into thinking I completely grasp these concepts... :) -d- But Ken, that’s just the point…

Your talk of only considering raw data or ‘evidence’ rather than philosophical ideas has –I think– problems.

Whatever processes are at work in thinking about, defining or investigating this complex thing we call ‘reality’ (and whether they involve brain cells, souls, spirits, gods or all of these – or not), the very act of ‘considering’ evidence is at the same time both a scientific act and a philosophical act. Yes, the extreme ‘we might not really be here’ post modern philosophers go too far (phenomenonalists), but the other philosophical extreme (positivists) under estimates what Merleau-Ponty might call the ‘phenomenology of perception’…

And with that, I’ve used enough multi-syllabic words to have fully impressed both myself and anyone I might possibly have fooled into thinking I completely grasp these concepts… :)

-d-

]]> By: Ken http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-475 Ken Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:42:25 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-475 Of course the mind is part of reality - one can differentiate an observing mind from an observed mind. It may create some philosophical problems, but in practice we usually have no problem with understand and independently existing reality (it doesn't go a way if we drop dead or our brain dies) Reality is more than physical things. The only thing 'atheists' have is a non-belief in a god. The word doesn't define anything else. We can use some philosophical words to describe attitudes to brain/mind/consciousness but in my experience its best to consider evidence rather than impose philosophical descriptions. Of course the mind is part of reality – one can differentiate an observing mind from an observed mind. It may create some philosophical problems, but in practice we usually have no problem with understand and independently existing reality (it doesn’t go a way if we drop dead or our brain dies)

Reality is more than physical things.

The only thing ‘atheists’ have is a non-belief in a god. The word doesn’t define anything else. We can use some philosophical words to describe attitudes to brain/mind/consciousness but in my experience its best to consider evidence rather than impose philosophical descriptions.

]]> By: Damian http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-474 Damian Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:01:19 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-474 If the mind holds a physical representation of reality (in much the same way that a photo can be stored on your computer) it is not reality in and of itself - it can be flawed. The flower that the photo is of exists outside of the photo in what we call 'reality'. The photo is a physical (even when being sent by email) representation of reality. That opens a whole other can of worms though. No one really understands how the mind works but I'm putting my money on it being merely a set of physical 'switches' or 'states' that, if complex enough, can provide the illusion of the homunculus inside our heads. If the mind holds a physical representation of reality (in much the same way that a photo can be stored on your computer) it is not reality in and of itself – it can be flawed. The flower that the photo is of exists outside of the photo in what we call ‘reality’. The photo is a physical (even when being sent by email) representation of reality.

That opens a whole other can of worms though. No one really understands how the mind works but I’m putting my money on it being merely a set of physical ‘switches’ or ‘states’ that, if complex enough, can provide the illusion of the homunculus inside our heads.

]]> By: Dale Campbell http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-473 Dale Campbell Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:48:41 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-473 <i>"I think the problem is what we understand by reality. To me it is objectively existing (independent of our minds) reality."</i> What, then, is the 'mind'? Is not the mind a part of reality? A physical thing? Aren't atheists supposed to firmly hold 'mind' and 'brain' firmly together? :) -d- “I think the problem is what we understand by reality. To me it is objectively existing (independent of our minds) reality.”

What, then, is the ‘mind’? Is not the mind a part of reality? A physical thing? Aren’t atheists supposed to firmly hold ‘mind’ and ‘brain’ firmly together? :)

-d-

]]> By: Ken http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-470 Ken Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:06:51 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/07/last-western-heretic/#comment-470 I think the problem is what we understand by reality. To me it is objectively existing (independent of our minds) reality. It's easy to understand the scientifically. I guess there is a "popular" usage which actually means the opposite - everyone hgas their own "reality." Of course they don't, although we all have our own model (reflection) of reality in our heads. We've had this discussion before, Dale. I don't imply mapping against reality is simple. It's not. We didn't evolve as a species to discover truth (or reality). But we can do it - its hard work, expensive and a social activity. I agree, BC, that we all have our own moral code that we act on. But this is not the objective morality which seems to be advance by some theists (obviously not all) as an argument for a god. I think the problem is what we understand by reality. To me it is objectively existing (independent of our minds) reality. It’s easy to understand the scientifically. I guess there is a “popular” usage which actually means the opposite – everyone hgas their own “reality.” Of course they don’t, although we all have our own model (reflection) of reality in our heads.

We’ve had this discussion before, Dale. I don’t imply mapping against reality is simple. It’s not. We didn’t evolve as a species to discover truth (or reality). But we can do it – its hard work, expensive and a social activity.

I agree, BC, that we all have our own moral code that we act on. But this is not the objective morality which seems to be advance by some theists (obviously not all) as an argument for a god.

]]>