I suppose if one felt a compelling need to subscribe to a Christian-flavored religion, one could do worse than the Unitarians. At least the Unitarians don't require knowledge of a hierarchy of secret handshakes which are necessary to gain access to those decreasing-diameter inner circles of the club. Unlike certain other, unnamed religions.
--Doug On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:11 AM, John Kennison <[email protected]> wrote: > Sometimes religious leaders like to point out that intellectually, we need > starting points, such as induction. So, faith in God, for example, is just > one possible starting point. Other religious leaders say that faith is not > an intellectual starting point, but an attitude that helps us be happy. > Consider a belief in the existence of the physical universe. It's > philosophically respectable to not hold this belief, but even philosophers > might need something like it in order to drive their cars effectively > Another example of the difference, consider two people, A and B, who > belong to the same fundamentalist church and both believe in God and the > inerrancy of the bible. But A's faith means that she wakes up each morning > feeling like she lives in the palm of God's hand just as surely as she > feels that she is surrounded by world of physical objects. B's faith is > intellectual. He feels that his church places nearly intolerable > restrictions on his freedom, but it's best to go along with them to avoid > spending eternity in hell instead of heaven. A's faith makes her happy just > as B's faith makes him unhappy. (I didn't decide to make A female and B > male, until I noticed how I was using the pronouns.) > > One (of many) Unitarian-Universalist views of the problem can be found in > the following. I don't know if I agree with every detail, but basically I > like it: > > http://clf.uua.org/quest/2010/10/morales.html > > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Douglas Roberts [[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 4:54 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way > > Thanks, Nick, you describe an interesting way of establishing a life-view. > > Not quite sure how to answer, except to say that if I have faith in > anything, it is in evidence. If I have accrued a sufficient pile of > evidence that supports a conclusion about some observation, then I'll > probably believe it. > > If my collected evidence is such that the inescapable conclusion is that > nothing is constant, then I suppose I'd eventually come around to believe > that, so long as I had a constant framework from which to corroborate and > verify the inconsistencies. Otherwise, I'd continue to look for the > missing pieces of the puzzle (a reference to the cosmological artifacts I > sent you earlier). > > As to religion: for me it's a big "No thank you" to any cult mindthink > that requires brainless acceptance of a supernatural homo-centric > benevolent/malevolent boogyman. And that goes double for one particular > cult whose belief system is predicated upon "hieroglyph"-inscribed > disappearing golden tablets. Oh, and I guess that goes triple for any cult > that attempts to dictate what kind of skivies I must wear to become a > member of the club. I guess you could say that it would take a miracle to > get me to assent to becoming a member of any of the existing flocks of > theist-following sheep out there. > > In retrospect, I suppose I do have faith in one other fairly immutable > quality -- the accuracy of my bullshit detector. > > --Doug > > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Nicholas Thompson < > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Dear Doug, > > I am afraid that the black hole example is already too technologically > dense for me, so I am going to punt on the project of luring you inside my > walls and slaughtering you there, and just out-right tell you what I think > . > The argument began with my detecting in you (perhaps wrongly) the belief > that you, unlike the religious, can get along without some sort of faith in > your life. Most people I have known in the past who have reached this > conclusion have done so through their confidence in induction. “What do I > need with faith if I can just collect the evidence and act on it?’ And the > answer is that without faith of some sort, there is no foundation for > induction. > > The argument for this position is famously from Hume. A version of it is > colorfully laid out by Nelson Goodman in his The New Riddle of Induction. > So let’s say, I want to learn if grass is green. My religious buddy says, > “Look in the Bible. I am sure it’s in there somewhere.’ My atheist buddy > says, “nonsense, go out and look at the grass.” I’m an atheist, so I go > out and start collecting samples of grass. I collect a hundred samples and > I bring them back in announce that I am satisfied that all grass is green. > At which point my religious buddy says, No, No, you have no evidence there > that Grass is green. “All you have is evidence that grass is grue.” > “Grue!?” I say. “What’s Grue?” > > Charitably forgoing the opportunity to ask, “I dunno. What’s Grue with > you?” my religious buddy simply says, “It’s the property of being Green > until your last measurement, and Blue thereafter. “ > > “Nonsense,” I reply. “What kind of a property is THAT? Nature doesn’t > HAVE properties like that. > > “Perhaps that’s been true”, he replies, but only up till now!” > > In other words, our belief in induction is based on our plausible but > unfounded belief in induction, i.e., faith. > > Nick > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto: > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of > glen e. p. ropella > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 11:40 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Just as a bye-the-way > > > > > > This is a red herring. The argument for dark matter/energy need not be > inductive. The inductive form is: > > > > o we've defined the set based on the laws of physics we've observed o > everything is in this set o gravity seems stronger/weaker than predicted in > some contexts > > .: there are unobserved members of the set: dark matter and energy. > > > > A non-inductive argument for dark matter/energy is just as valid: > > > > o the model we've induced is not completely consistent with the data o the > laws characterize everything we've encountered so far > > .: there must be something we haven't encountered that will refine the > laws. > > > > No induction is necessary to motivate a hypothesis for some form of matter > that's imprecisely or inaccurately described by the laws we've, so far, > induced. But parsimony suggests that a theory that assumes it's complete > is more testable than a theory with metaphysical holes in it. > > So, the argument for dark matter _seems_ inductive, even though it's not. > Only someone who assumes our laws are complete (fully refined) would think > the argument is inductive. My sample is small. But I don't know of any > physicists or cosmologists who think our laws cannot be modified. > > > > I.e. it's naive to assume identity between a scientific theory and the > reasoning surrounding the pursuit of a scientific theory. > > > > > > Douglas Roberts wrote at 03/24/2012 03:08 PM: > > > There's also an interesting "dark matter" inference that has found its > > > way into grudging cosmological acceptance. This time the role of the > > > inferred substance is to keep galaxies from flying apart, as it has > > > recently been observed that based on the amount of their measurable, > > > observable mass and rotational velocities, they should flung their > > > stars off ages ago. > > > > > > --Doug > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > I feel that I am being drawn in to an enemy encampment, but: > > > > > > Developing a proof would be far better than choosing to rely > > > on inference, if the goal is to develop a larger-scale understanding > > > of a system. > > > > > > Take "dark energy" as an example. Its presence is inferred from > > > having observed that the rate of expansion of the observable > > > universe began to accelerate relatively recently, on a cosmological > > > time scale. In response to this, the cosmologists have inferred the > > > existence of a mysterious energy with magical gravitational > > > repulsive properties as a means to explain away an otherwise > > > inexplicable observation. A much more satisfying approach will be > > > to develop a sufficient understanding of the underlying physics of > > > our universe from which a rigorous proof of the phenomenon could be > > > derived. > > > > > > But, without that understanding, we are left with cosmological > > > "magic dust", instead of a real understanding of the observed > dynamics. > > > > > > --Doug > > > > > > -- > > glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095<tel:971-222-9095>, > http://tempusdictum.com > > > > > >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
