Tal's epistemology (and DCP's)

[_Tarski]

Are Science and Religion even comparable?.

In that they both make claims about the real universe and what exists in the universe.
If belief in God is like belief in quagles and if the Holy Ghost provides us with no better warrant to believe than dreams or hallucinations then what point is there in believing?
I'm not sure I am catching your drift.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Tojohndillonesq,

It took me a long time to figure out the quote feature on this site. For a while, a moderator followed me around fixing my quotes. I don't know who it was, but I thank them mightily!

To quote a particular sentence, just highlight the portion of text you wish to quote and then hit the "Quote" tab at the top of the reply page. Then hit enter a time or two and compose your response to the quote. Be sure to delete any portion of the text to which you do not wish to reply and your response should be more readable.

It's good to include the original name of the poster to whom you're responding, or type their name in the "Re:" section of the reply. Then everyone will know to whom you're speaking.

Keep trying. I still mess up a lot. Another tip is to preview your post before hitting submit. Then you can make corrections. Also, when you're all ready to submit your post, FIRST highlight and copy it. That way you've still got it if for some reason your reply is lost upon hitting "submit".

Good luck,

KA

[_Tarski]

I am going to lay my cards on the table and I encourge others to do the same.

1. (on science) I think that I have a feel for, and actual experience with, how science works and I have a certain pragmatic and personal commitment to it. It "works for me" on many levels. I am impressed by what I learn in science texts and in seminal scientific papers. I feel enlightened.
I do not feel so enlightened by traditional western religious thinking.

However, I don't think that science has been given a philosophical foundation although many important ideas have emerged in the attempt. Perhaps it can't be given such.

The most I can say is that is appears that science is an endeaver that succeeds (imperfectly) by placing value on concrete evidence and theoretical cogency, and falsifiablity etc. None of these values seems to provide an absolute foundation or master principle. None are entirely without problems.
I simply see that scientists endeaver to construct arguments and experiments that have the power to predict and also the power to convince others by methods that I admire.

It all seems untroubling until one digs below the surface and grapples with the underlying philosophical issues. Then a queasiness sets in and I must admit that I am uncertain. Thinking philosophically about these things is like an altered state that is characterized by a hightened ability to question.
Like an altered state I come out of it and get on under my working assumptions about the value of science.

I am neither satisfied with the thoughts of the major philosophers nor am I able to dismiss them entirely.

2. (on Mormonism and epistemology) One of the weakest notions in Mormonism is that of a spiritual witness. On the other hand, I don't not see that Mormonism is necessarily entirely commited to some naïve epistemology and I don't think that tis angle provides a slam dunk against Mormonism. After all, we have seen that science also does not exactly have its epistemology in perfect order. (Though, on the face of it, it does seem far closer though).

3. (on DCP) I do not think that DCP's statements about knowledge (I at least the ones I am aware of) stand out as making him hypocritical or particularly nutty. He does not seem to me to lean toward the relativist/postmodern side. The accusation of "blowing po mo fog" doesn't seem to fit him particularly well though it might fit some apologists quite well. At worst what he does is use rhetorical devices to undermine the claim to rational superiority and certainty of his secular critics. Whether he succeeds in this is a matter of opinion.
On the face of it Mormonism is a weird religion that defies common sense. It is always surprising that there are educated intelligent people like DCP that believe it anyway.

4. (An intersting question) I said above that I tend to reject the notion of subjective/interior private evidence. However, many skeptics and critics seem to hold to the common idea that at least one's own consciousness cannot be doubted. For me, consciousness in the sense that most people intuit and that is defended by Chalmers and challenged by Dennett can indeed be doubted. We can't just "look and see".
This is the kind of consciousness that we think that robots can't have since they are just machines or if they do it is becuase something extra appears as an epiphenomemon. I certainly do not think that I can just check inside myself and see that I possess this mysterious thing called consciousness. I do intuit it and it does seem obviousm most of the time but that isn't enough and no better than a Mormon testimony resting as it does on a sheer ineffable feeling of obviousness or intuition.

Are those think that the existence of ones own mind as separate ontological category is indubitable really hypocrits if they say that nevertheless spiritual witness cannot provide certainty?

[_tojohndillonesq]

The ability to explain the physical process behind all events (and I do believe this is scientifically possible given enough time) does not preclude them from being miraculous by definition of the believer. It is not physically impossible to bounce a nickel off the table and have it come to rest on its edge. Nor would it be physically impossible to do that with another nickel and have it come to rest on the first nickel so that they are standing on edge, one above the other. Then do the same with a third nickel and so on. This is an example of something that does not defy physical law, but has essentially zero chance of occurring. Is there room in the world of science for this; the event that could happen but will not happen? Or does science insist it is ALWAYS a mistake of some kind (an error in math, observation, method, etc.?)

It seems like circular reasoning to say; 1) all events are scientifically explainable, 2) if an "impossible" event occurs it proves only that my observation was wrong or that my understanding of science was too limited.

This type of reasoning does more to define the term “scientific” than it does to define “reality.”

Anybody know of an entertaining book on the subject?

P.S. Scientifically speaking, ridicule and condescension have been conclusively debunked as effective methods of teaching or convincing. When discussing the existence of God, there is always someone as smart as you, as honest as you, and as knowledgeable on the subject as you, who will disagree with you. (Perhaps false for one or two people) Nobel Prize laureates and Oxford scholars can be found on both sides of every argument. Calling the opposing position “stupid” is… uhhh…. Stupid? (Logical fallacy called Argumentum ad Hominem). Further, the rules of logic actually put the burden on the critic. The inability of someone to state their position clearly does not make their position invalid. One must assume the strongest form of the argument.

[_marg]

I think it possible you may not have a good grasp of just what science offers. The reason I think this is mainly because of your statement to me earlier on in this thread when you said you didn't mind if science let in religion a little. I believe if you truly understood science you'd not make such a statement.

I never said I didn't mind if science let in religion a little. I never, ever said that.

Ok let's look at what you wrote:


"I think there is a lot of worry by atheists that we need to seal all possible entrance ways to keep religion out, leading to fairly naïve views on what science is. I'm simply interested in what it is at face value and don't care if some room is left for religion to sneak in since I think religion is such a pathetic joke that it in actuality poses no threat.

I asked you: How is science supposed to have room to let religion sneak in and if so what sort of religious claims are you referring to?

You replied: "If I knew what science was at face value, I'd probably be famous. So it's a passing interest that I explore now and then. And if the answers turn out to not straightforwardly shut the door on religion, I don't care. "

When I refer to religion I'm referring to the supernatural, that's what sets religion apart from non religious beliefs. Can you give an example or explain how science will ever use the "supernatural" for an explanation. Once something is is within the domain of science it's not supernatural any longer. I just can not fathom your statement. Science doesn't single out religion and shut it out, it's just that the supernatural is not a part of any scientific explanation unless it could help to explain or predict.

As far as your comment on Descartes and I should take a course, I have taken an intro philosophy course about 5 years ago. I vaguely remember Descartes and some sort of proof for the existence of God, I'd have to pull the book out. Conceptually I understand Descartes wanted to find or establish absolute knowledge via deductive reasoning and started with the only thing he could be certain of, the basic axiom, that because he can think he must exist. I'll look at the rest of your note tomorrow.

[_tojohndillonesq]

I am going to lay my cards on the table and I encourage others to do the same.

The search for truth rather than victory or self-congratulations!

I’ll try to do the same.

I believe in both God and Science.

I think that the history of science gives us good reason to expect that we will someday understand the processes behind the origins of the universe and the origins of life (two topics addressed by all religions). I also believe the scientific method has an absolutely necessary place in the examination of religious claims made about historic events, things, people, etc. (A place where the Book of Mormon falls apart so completely that no serious scholar can even discuss the "evidence.")

I do not believe that science explains all things. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

And yes I doubt. The argument that all real things have a material existence is not easy to refute. Nor can one easily dismiss the argument that religious experiences are chemical. "You may be an undigested bit of beef" as Scrooge says. God is no easy thing for an educated, intelligent person to accept.

I do not feel so enlightened by traditional western religious thinking.

I just wanted to note that you did not include eastern thinking. I would contend that 1) Christianity is an Eastern religion that has taken on Western trappings; 2) It is these trappings people dislike, not the thought. The only thing wrong with Christianity is Christians. I also note that Alan Watts, famed expositor of eastern religion, says that Buddhist priests are often considered to be close-minded dogmatists in the East, just as a Christian priest might be perceived here.

It all seems untroubling until one digs below the surface and grapples with the underlying philosophical issues. Then a queasiness sets in and I must admit that I am uncertain. Thinking philosophically about these things is like an altered state that is characterized by a heightened ability to question.
Like an altered state I come out of it and get on under my working assumptions about the value of science.

Well said. Stepping across into a mindset that accepts God puts an entirely new light on everything you experience. The measurable piece of the experience does not change, but your reaction to it does.. I am not speaking of those who falsely claim the experience, but those who choose it.

I am neither satisfied with the thoughts of the major philosophers nor am I able to dismiss them entirely.

Nor am I satisfied with the philosophies of the major Christian religious leaders and teachers. I find only a handful even remotely acceptable (C.S. Lewis, Phillip Yancey), and even they are not without grave problems.

On the face of it Mormonism is a weird religion that defies common sense. It is always surprising that there are educated intelligent people like DCP that believe it anyway.

Mormonism is not remotely defensible. They will not even explain what they believe (because it is “too sacred to be revealed to non-believers”), much less demonstrate how their beliefs are consistent with their sacred texts, or how the texts are consistent with each other, or how they are consistent with archeological facts. It is SO hard to reject the religion taught you by your parents, without rejecting all religion. Not many can do it.

I certainly do not think that I can just check inside myself and see that I possess this mysterious thing called consciousness. I do intuit it and it does seem obvious most of the time but that isn't enough and no better than a Mormon testimony resting as it does on a sheer ineffable feeling of obviousness or intuition.

<Next sentence edited by tojohn to clarify typos>. Are those who think that the existence of one’s own mind as a separate ontological category is indubitable, really hypocrites if they say that nevertheless spiritual witness cannot provide certainty?

My internal experiences inform my beliefs, but they are not a valid form of argument - even in the realm of faith. If I can’t present the four steps of apologetics, I have no business contending for my beliefs.

My reading leads me to believe that Christianity is the only religion that offers serious answers to tough questions. Other faiths dodge the tough issues, or take the path of relativism (if it is true for me etc.), or merely claim to be “metaphorical truth,” or resort to mystery (secrecy), or other forms of non-answer.

And I believe those who do not admit to doubt are simply tied up with fear. They shout more loudly and with more anger in order to protect themselves from the need to face arguments that they fear will force them to relinquish their beliefs.

[_Gadianton]

I'm game for Tarski's call...

1) I think science is probably the greatest thing mankind has achieved. I don't think we can explicate exactly what science is at this time and I'm uncertain whether we ever will be able to. And that has mostly to do with deeper philosophical questions, thinking about science became a chance to explore the same old problems in new ways. I think the very most interesting question specifically in regard to the philosophy of science is whether or not it matters for the progress of science. Usually I think no, but Paul Newall makes some good arguments to the contrary. I'll do better later. I respect Tal's guts to put his ideas on the table when he knew he'd be challenged. I have a partial philosophy of science, and in the coming days I'll do a post and spell it out and y'all can take me to the cleaners.

2) I'll admit I do think Mormonism is commited to a naïve epistemology. Heh. To make revelation accessible to the massess in some way that a bystander can go from heathen to life-blood committed saint within hours, days, or weeks is key. It requires a conversion experience, even if you want to say that doesn't have to be a single 5 minute HG sesssion, it still generally happens very fast. For a person to go from nothing to a fully committed warrior for the almighty, they learn things about the world, independent of their mental abilities, at lightning speeds when compared to a determined heathen who is brilliant yet who will never discover a single cryptic matter of eternity on his own over the course of an entire life. In order for a saint to know so much so quickly, enough to justify a lifetime, no turning back commitment, the saint must be getting this knowledge on the cheap and within the context of a baffoonish epistemology. I just don't see any other possibility.

3) DCP. he don't done use radical skepticism, or skepticism of any kind in order to even the playing field for religion. In my experience, he goes the opposite route and thinks apologetics lives up to the highest standards of exacting, rigorous inquiry.

4) I'll have to give this one more thought. But Descarte's phenomenological demonstration of his existence as a mind is suspect, to say the least, intractable as it would seem to overturn at first blush. Part of the problem would be defining consciousness in the first place not to mention the "I" in "Cogito ergo sum". What is consciousness such that it is self-evident? And who are you, anyway? There are positions not as extreme as Dennett's that also would find this kind of introspective demonstration lacking.

I think Tarski is on to something in the bold. but it's too late for me to say more i need sleep.

[_Gadianton]

ugh..real quick. Marg, I knew what comment you were refering to. Let me distinquish between two things:

1) the practice of science.

2) the philosophical understanding of what science is.

In the quote, I'm talking about athiests who worry too much about philosophically preventing religion from getting a foothold in the realm of science and thereby becoming overzealous to solve deep problems in philosophy just to be sure science is on sure ground, and that religion stays put in its place. Forget about religion and just try to figure out science without worrying about the consequences. So if a philosophy of science leaves open some route for a religious philosopher to sneak in, who cares. They'll do that no matter what. There are religionists who hate Nietzche, there are some who love him, some love Kierkegaard, others hate him, some try to be dogmatic realists and absolutists, others try for a backdoor in postmodernism. My point was, just try to nail science, because no matter what you do, some God fearing Christian is grabbing your coatstrings for the ride.

What I don't believe in would be actually allowing religion into the practice of science. i'm not sure how this could happen anyway, but the best example I can think of is intelligent design. It would be a real shame for ID to get research funding and things like that and continue as if it's a legitimate branch of "research".

[_Tal Bachman]

Well well well...let the horn be unveiled :P

I just watched the entire speech by this Jeff Hawkins guy, who Renegade posted a link to, and what do you know? I said a couple of pages back:

Our brains make estimates of probabilities constantly. Even walking to the front door involves numerous such estimates based on what our brains have logged - that is, based precisely on estimates about the unobserved from the already observed. Those inferences are not infallible, of course; but fortuntately, each prediction which we make, even unconsciously, which does not come true, is accounted for and serves in healthy minds to improve the calibration of our cognitive prediction mechanisms. That is what the best research indicates, anyway.

Hawkins actually uses something an example which he calls the "altered door" to illustrate his contention that our minds are continually making predictions, and then refining its capacity to do so in light of the results of each prediction. (AND he states - as I also suggested - that this feature exists in animals). This process of course would be entirely impossible without a log kept by the brain, a tracking memory. But my point in mentioning that was that this is not compatible with a view of psychological operation which denies any existence to inductive reasoning. Popper denies that existence. It is nice that he gets trial and error, conjecture and refutation, right, but his philosophy cannot account for probabilistic reasoning - that is, a fluctuating assignment of truth probability to certain propositions, and indeed, every component and sub-component part of a proposition - based on a vast amount of stored, cross-collated sensory information, incoming sensory information, and a priori judgement.

[_Tarski]

2) I'll admit I do think Mormonism is commited to a naïve epistemology. Heh. To make revelation accessible to the massess in some way that a bystander can go from heathen to life-blood committed saint within hours, days, or weeks is key. It requires a conversion experience, even if you want to say that doesn't have to be a single 5 minute HG sesssion, it still generally happens very fast. For a person to go from nothing to a fully committed warrior for the almighty, they learn things about the world, independent of their mental abilities, at lightning speeds when compared to a determined heathen who is brilliant yet who will never discover a single cryptic matter of eternity on his own over the course of an entire life. In order for a saint to know so much so quickly, enough to justify a lifetime, no turning back commitment, the saint must be getting this knowledge on the cheap and within the context of a baffoonish epistemology. I just don't see any other possibility.

How about that they are just making a fast change of gestalt where one acquires, not new absolute knowledge, but new beliefs. People convert to things all the time in short order if some experience can serve as a catalyst. A sophisticated defender of Mormonism need only say that the catalyst was an experience granted by God but that it does not constitute perfect knowledge. The admission that ordinary fallibility still holds for humans, even converted ones, doesn't seem to be the death knell for Mormonism. I never thought that the Holy Ghost experience provided knowledge that couldn't be doubted even in principle. Was I alone? Aren't notions of needing faith and "seeing through a glass darkly" just as common in Mormonism as the "shadow of a doubt" nonsense?
Of course, baffoonish epistemology is what almost everbody has who isn't of a scientific or philosophical bent.

How does one analyze quick conversions away from Mormonism which can be described as a light bulb moment catalyzed by the discovery that Joseph Smith didn't really translate Egyptian?