Of course, I should say we aren't ancient Greeks and have science with such as crucial experiments. Evidence is not something we treat as direct observation language and spins with theory. We are not simple empiricists, recognising evidence hits world-view or research programme networks. I would say we are both 'tropical fish realists' and deeper 'structural realists'. In the first, if we want to keep tropical fish we find out how to do this from people who know (or follow textbook recipes). In the second, we analyse how we construct theories and how these relate to how we treat evidence, measurement and approximations in choice of mathematical systems.
What we can believe is difficult. Is it big bang, little whimper, M-theory (several universes of brane form), multiverse (various), string theory (various) or two universes with one running 'time backwards' (called the multiple future idea)? Could it all be more biocentric than this, as Molly reminded us recently? It all might still come down to a world created in 4004 BC complete with fossil record and memories. We tend though, not to like evidence from ancient people likely to be convinced by stories involving talking serpents and need instruments of torture to convince others. Evolution makes much more sense to me, though it has plenty of metaphors to challenge. This is not the end of the story. I have seen Molly say much of this in her own way. There are also prudential reasons for belief and I can still believe in god (and do). I deeply resent 'scientist atheists' (look up Rebecca Watson) who shout 'look at the evidence' at people who don't know how in our terms, and usually turn out not to know the difficulties of our own position. This doesn't stop me being appalled by those who would teach kids creationism instead of biology. On Friday, February 20, 2015 at 1:25:36 AM UTC, archytas wrote: > > It isn't possible to write the full opus here Tony. You say 'always', yet > the shamans went out to the hunt and shared the ordinary work. I suppose > we look for evidence of clergy economic rent on society and what, if > anything, is received in return. Original claims involved special > connections with the divine The solution in every chiefdom and early state > society - from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, Polynesian Hawaii to the > Incas was to proclaim an organised religion with the chief or king related > to the gods - then various very similar control of resources, public works, > storehouses, work organisation, armies and education form. > > The evidence we look at is human development and organisation. > Differences between gods look rather unimportant in this context of > historical and anthropological evidence. Underlying the search is some > kind of faith that truth can lead to a new form of consciousness and living > together. We don't know what this faith is. Skepticism is very hard to > ground and one needs faith to believe there can be knowledge or devote > oneself to a life of inquiry. > > This is hardly new. The pre-Socratics noted gods were suspiciously > anthropomorphic (a culture's gods looked like the culture) and Socrates > said something like; > Socrates raises the challenge that it might be truly bad (for one's life, > for the state of one's soul, and so on) to base one's actions on unexamined > beliefs. For all one knows, these beliefs could be false, and without > investigation, one does not even aim to rid oneself of false belief, which > is admittedly a bad thing for one's soul. Only an examined life is worth > living. Once we take this challenge seriously, as the ancient skeptics do, > we embark on a kind of investigation that is seen as directly relevant to > our lives. Our beliefs are assumed, at this pre-skeptical phase, to be > guiding our actions. Confidence in unexamined views seems misplaced. Others > regularly disagree with us. With respect to even the most basic questions, > such as whether there is movement, or whether there are good and bad > things, we face conflicting views. In favor of each view, some arguments > can be adduced, some practices invoked, some experiences cited. These > conflicting arguments, practices and experiences need to be examined. But > that just raises further views that are in conflict. As a consequence, > suspension of judgment on every such question looks rationally mandatory. > But it is also rational to persist in investigation. The skeptic is > committed to a search for the truth, on virtually all questions, even if > this search repeatedly and predictably leads to suspension of judgment. > > Faith can look like the opposite of evidence-based action. I don't > believe this. Something emergent comes from inquiry, there is feedback and > faith to act from suspended judgement. This is not the kind of faith that > can lead one to be indistinguishable from a zealot moron. > > On Thursday, 19 February 2015 23:57:16 UTC, facilitator wrote: >> >> "Atheism is an evidence-based faith." >> >> Evidence of what? >> >> "In this we reject the comforting aspects of religion, seeing them as >> materially achievable." >> >> Opulence and status of Clergy vs laity has always been problematic. >> >> >> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
