Re: Natural Order Belief
Dear list: this was the last post I received (I think I am subscribed) Have I been (or the list?) terminated? John Mikes - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:27 AM Subject: Re: Natural Order Belief John, You are right, I was wrong. Those deeds are not contingent. They probably appears automatically when one give a name to God. Perhaps, God could be defined by this: it is the one which is such that once you give it a name or a definition trouble appears. Obviously such a sentence should not be taken to much literally (if we do we are led to an obvious inconsistency). So, from now on, each time I use the word God it will means the impersonal big unnameable 0-person point of view, that is Plotinus' ONE, and/or some of its possible arithmetical (set theoretical) interpretation(s), that is arithmetical truth (resp. set theoretical truth). I will recall the theory in my reply to Tom Caylor. Bruno Le 20-nov.-06, à 18:03, John M a écrit : Bruno: How far Occident? Quetzealcoatle was not much better. Orientals? did they care at all? they were occupied with their lovers. Germanics and Scandinavians? no better, not to spek about Maori, African, Hawaiian etc. requiring virgins to be thrown into the Volcano. The priests of the smarter ones ate them. Did you notice the Catholic homophag rite: Take it and eat it: it is my body. Drink it: it is my blood. And literary thousands of protestant rites follow suit. Muslims cleaned that up, they concentrate on heavennly sex (hueis). Sorry if I hurt feelings. John --- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 18-nov.-06, à 21:49, John M a écrit : Why do the religions (almost all of them) depict a god after the worst human characters: jealous, flatterable, requiring praise and blind obedience, vengeful, irate, picking favorites, even sadistic and not caring? Why does he punish for deeds done exactly as he created the sinner? I disagree with the (almost all of them). True, since a long time, in Occident, the main religions are based on such a God, probably because he looks like the terrifying father, very useful to manipulate people by fear and terror. But this is contingent, and eventually I take that sad contingent truth as a supplementary motivation to come back on serious theology, by which I mean 3-person sharable theology (even if such a theology does talk about first person unsharable notion). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.11/543 - Release Date: 11/20/2006 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Natural Order Belief
Dear John, This is ancient history judging from the post date. Just the same - I saw a post from you some time ago with the single word in the subject line unsubscribe. I'm not dreaming - I saw it. Did you lean on the big, bright yellow unsubscribe button by mistake? Kim Jones On 16/12/2006, at 8:53 AM, John M wrote: Dear list: this was the last post I received (I think I am subscribed) Have I been (or the list?) terminated? John Mikes - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:27 AM Subject: Re: Natural Order Belief John, You are right, I was wrong. Those deeds are not contingent. They probably appears automatically when one give a name to God. Perhaps, God could be defined by this: it is the one which is such that once you give it a name or a definition trouble appears. Obviously such a sentence should not be taken to much literally (if we do we are led to an obvious inconsistency). So, from now on, each time I use the word God it will means the impersonal big unnameable 0-person point of view, that is Plotinus' ONE, and/or some of its possible arithmetical (set theoretical) interpretation(s), that is arithmetical truth (resp. set theoretical truth). I will recall the theory in my reply to Tom Caylor. Bruno Le 20-nov.-06, à 18:03, John M a écrit : Bruno: How far Occident? Quetzealcoatle was not much better. Orientals? did they care at all? they were occupied with their lovers. Germanics and Scandinavians? no better, not to spek about Maori, African, Hawaiian etc. requiring virgins to be thrown into the Volcano. The priests of the smarter ones ate them. Did you notice the Catholic homophag rite: Take it and eat it: it is my body. Drink it: it is my blood. And literary thousands of protestant rites follow suit. Muslims cleaned that up, they concentrate on heavennly sex (hueis). Sorry if I hurt feelings. John --- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 18-nov.-06, à 21:49, John M a écrit : Why do the religions (almost all of them) depict a god after the worst human characters: jealous, flatterable, requiring praise and blind obedience, vengeful, irate, picking favorites, even sadistic and not caring? Why does he punish for deeds done exactly as he created the sinner? I disagree with the (almost all of them). True, since a long time, in Occident, the main religions are based on such a God, probably because he looks like the terrifying father, very useful to manipulate people by fear and terror. But this is contingent, and eventually I take that sad contingent truth as a supplementary motivation to come back on serious theology, by which I mean 3-person sharable theology (even if such a theology does talk about first person unsharable notion). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.11/543 - Release Date: 11/20/2006 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Natural Order Belief
Sorry, John. I set your subscription to no email thinking you wanted to unsubscribe. I've changed it back now. For future reference you can check your subscription status at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/subscribe. - Original Message - From: Kim Jones To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 8:19 AM Subject: Re: Natural Order Belief Dear John, This is ancient history judging from the post date. Just the same - I saw a post from you some time ago with the single word in the subject line unsubscribe. I'm not dreaming - I saw it. Did you lean on the big, bright yellow unsubscribe button by mistake? Kim Jones On 16/12/2006, at 8:53 AM, John M wrote: Dear list: this was the last post I received (I think I am subscribed) Have I been (or the list?) terminated? John Mikes - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 5:27 AM Subject: Re: Natural Order Belief John, You are right, I was wrong. Those deeds are not contingent. They probably appears automatically when one give a name to God. Perhaps, God could be defined by this: it is the one which is such that once you give it a name or a definition trouble appears. Obviously such a sentence should not be taken to much literally (if we do we are led to an obvious inconsistency). So, from now on, each time I use the word God it will means the impersonal big unnameable 0-person point of view, that is Plotinus' ONE, and/or some of its possible arithmetical (set theoretical) interpretation(s), that is arithmetical truth (resp. set theoretical truth). I will recall the theory in my reply to Tom Caylor. Bruno Le 20-nov.-06, à 18:03, John M a écrit : Bruno: How far Occident? Quetzealcoatle was not much better. Orientals? did they care at all? they were occupied with their lovers. Germanics and Scandinavians? no better, not to spek about Maori, African, Hawaiian etc. requiring virgins to be thrown into the Volcano. The priests of the smarter ones ate them. Did you notice the Catholic homophag rite: Take it and eat it: it is my body. Drink it: it is my blood. And literary thousands of protestant rites follow suit. Muslims cleaned that up, they concentrate on heavennly sex (hueis). Sorry if I hurt feelings. John --- Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le 18-nov.-06, à 21:49, John M a écrit : Why do the religions (almost all of them) depict a god after the worst human characters: jealous, flatterable, requiring praise and blind obedience, vengeful, irate, picking favorites, even sadistic and not caring? Why does he punish for deeds done exactly as he created the sinner? I disagree with the (almost all of them). True, since a long time, in Occident, the main religions are based on such a God, probably because he looks like the terrifying father, very useful to manipulate people by fear and terror. But this is contingent, and eventually I take that sad contingent truth as a supplementary motivation to come back on serious theology, by which I mean 3-person sharable theology (even if such a theology does talk about first person unsharable notion). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.11/543 - Release Date: 11/20/2006 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Natural Order Belief
John, I apologise if you thought I was referring to you in any way: I was just trying to make a general point about how we come to accept some beliefs and reject others. Perhaps I should not have used the pejorative terms, but I think it is a fair question: how do we know if a belief is crazy or stupid? Nature does not care about epistemology, only about utility, and brains have evolved to process evidence and arrive at conclusions because it assists survival. Psychotic illness disrupts the normal reasoning process and leads to delusions. The most important feature of these is not that they are false, but that they occur as a result of a pathological process which leads to morbidity and sometimes mortality. You make an interesting point about fixed *true* beliefs, not covered by the definition I gave below: it is actually possible to be right but still be delusional. For example, a patient believes with utter conviction that his wife was having an affair with his neighbour because the neighbour painted his fence green and green is her favourite colour. The patient is treated with antipsychotic medication and after a few weeks realises that it was crazy to come to the conclusion that he did and apologises to his wife and the neighbour, whom he had confronted prior to treatment. Months later, his wife leaves him for the neighbour: it turns out that they had been having an affair all along! Nevertheless, the patient had still been delusional because (a) most reasonable people would see the conclusion he drew from the green fence, and the conviction with which he held it, as very dubious, and (b) he himself saw the conclusion as dubious after treatment with antipsychotic medication. Stathis Papaioannou Stathis: thanks for the psichiatry class. You brought in a new questionmark: crazy. As George Levy has proven, we all are crazy - my contention was: in that case such (general) craziness is the norm, eo ipso we all are normal. Is normalcy composed of delusions? Then why the (p)scientific identification of the delusion- n -psychiatry, which, - btw - is not that impressive to those who are not standing on the shoulders of psychiatry. You successfully wiped out the validity of that definition (one by one). [you left out the case, if someone has a 'fixed' belief, which, however is NOT false (in unidentified opinions) - is also no delusion. ] So: delusion (which I have not involved) is not applicable. If one thinks: it is, it is not valid (i.e. not applicable again?). The only solution to your post I can find is in the last par., if it refers to me. I value your right to tell your opinion and also value your opinion, but question the term 'stupid'. In who's terms? by what (cultural?) norm? Stupid seems to me a negative connotation, just could not formulate in general applicability the 'positive' features against which the deficiency would constitue stupidity. I would easily fall into a series similarly to your series about 'delusion' - invalidating every aspect one by one, by the rest. Yet: I believe in stupidity, just cannot identify it beyond my personal feelings. I even feel a difference between a stujpid bum and a stupid ass, - could not express it scientifically. Thanks for your thought provoking reflections. John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 5:25 AM Subject: RE: Natural Order Belief John, Some people believe crazy things... literally crazy things, and they require treatment for it. The definition of a delusion in psychiatry is: A fixed, false belief which is not in keeping with the patient's cultural background. So someone may have a belief that is false, but not fixed, i.e. he will revise his belief in response to contrary evidence, and that isn't a delusion. Or someone may have a belief that is both false and fixed, but it is shared by the cultural group to which he belongs, and that isn't a delusion either. This latter provision was put in mainly to exclude religious beliefs. Usually there are other markers of mental illness as well as the delusion allowing one to make a diagnosis and decide on treatment: hallucinations, sleep and appetite disturbance, personality changes and so on. Very rarely, these other signs are absent, and you are faced with deciding whether the patient is mentally ill or just has weird beliefs. The only investigation which is of help in these cases is a trial of antipsychotic medication: this has a false negative rate, in that in a minority of cases clearly psychotic symptoms do not respond to medication, but a negligible false positive rate, i.e. if the beliefs go away with antipsychotic medication and return on cessation of medication then they are definitely psychotic. Religious and other cultural
Re: Natural Order Belief
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: John, I apologise if you thought I was referring to you in any way: I was just trying to make a general point about how we come to accept some beliefs and reject others. Perhaps I should not have used the pejorative terms, but I think it is a fair question: how do we know if a belief is crazy or stupid? Nature does not care about epistemology, only about utility, and brains have evolved to process evidence and arrive at conclusions because it assists survival. Psychotic illness disrupts the normal reasoning process and leads to delusions. The most important feature of these is not that they are false, but that they occur as a result of a pathological process which leads to morbidity and sometimes mortality. You make an interesting point about fixed *true* beliefs, not covered by the definition I gave below: it is actually possible to be right but still be delusional. For example, a patient believes with utter conviction that his wife was having an affair with his neighbour because the neighbour painted his fence green and green is her favourite colour. The patient is treated with antipsychotic medication and after a few weeks realises that it was crazy to come to the conclusion that he did and apologises to his wife and the neighbour, whom he had confronted prior to treatment. Months later, his wife leaves him for the neighbour: it turns out that they had been having an affair all along! Nevertheless, the patient had still been delusional because (a) most reasonable people would see the conclusion he drew from the green fence, and the conviction with which he held it, as very dubious, and (b) he himself saw the conclusion as dubious after treatment with antipsychotic medication. Stathis Papaioannou This is an example of Edmund Gettier's theory of epistemology. He pointed out that a true belief can't be knowledge unless it has a causal relation to the thing believed. His example was a man who thought his coworker had bought a new car because he saw him drive a new one to work. In fact the man was trying out his son's car, but coincidentally he had bought a new car. He just didn't drive it to work. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Natural Order Belief
Stathis: thanks for the psichiatry class. You brought in a new questionmark: crazy. As George Levy has proven, we all are crazy - my contention was: in that case such (general) craziness is the norm, eo ipso we all are normal. Is normalcy composed of delusions? Then why the (p)scientific identification of the delusion- n -psychiatry, which, - btw - is not that impressive to those who are not standing on the shoulders of psychiatry. You successfully wiped out the validity of that definition (one by one). [you left out the case, if someone has a 'fixed' belief, which, however is NOT false (in unidentified opinions) - is also no delusion. ] So: delusion (which I have not involved) is not applicable. If one thinks: it is, it is not valid (i.e. not applicable again?). The only solution to your post I can find is in the last par., if it refers to me. I value your right to tell your opinion and also value your opinion, but question the term 'stupid'. In who's terms? by what (cultural?) norm? Stupid seems to me a negative connotation, just could not formulate in general applicability the 'positive' features against which the deficiency would constitue stupidity. I would easily fall into a series similarly to your series about 'delusion' - invalidating every aspect one by one, by the rest. Yet: I believe in stupidity, just cannot identify it beyond my personal feelings. I even feel a difference between a stujpid bum and a stupid ass, - could not express it scientifically. Thanks for your thought provoking reflections. John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 5:25 AM Subject: RE: Natural Order Belief John, Some people believe crazy things... literally crazy things, and they require treatment for it. The definition of a delusion in psychiatry is: A fixed, false belief which is not in keeping with the patient's cultural background. So someone may have a belief that is false, but not fixed, i.e. he will revise his belief in response to contrary evidence, and that isn't a delusion. Or someone may have a belief that is both false and fixed, but it is shared by the cultural group to which he belongs, and that isn't a delusion either. This latter provision was put in mainly to exclude religious beliefs. Usually there are other markers of mental illness as well as the delusion allowing one to make a diagnosis and decide on treatment: hallucinations, sleep and appetite disturbance, personality changes and so on. Very rarely, these other signs are absent, and you are faced with deciding whether the patient is mentally ill or just has weird beliefs. The only investigation which is of help in these cases is a trial of antipsychotic medication: this has a false negative rate, in that in a minority of cases clearly psychotic symptoms do not respond to medication, but a negligible false positive rate, i.e. if the beliefs go away with antipsychotic medication and return on cessation of medication then they are definitely psychotic. Religious and other cultural beliefs do not change with medication. In other words, it is usually possible to know if someone is crazy, but more difficult to know if they are just stupid. Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Natural Order Belief Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:19:04 -0500 Stathis, no need to argue with me about my 'funny' supposition (just for the fun of it) - HOWEVER: 1. absolutely certain you can be in whatever is in your mind (i.e.in your belief system) because that is what you call it so. Colin's (weak?) solipsism assignes the world -(all of its input- content in your mind), the 'reality', whatever, - to YOUR mind-content as the way YOU interpret whatever you think of (incl.: experience, feel, what you get notion of, even imagine). 2. ...we may not be able to attain absolute certainty about any empirical belief, ... I was not talking about 'empirical', however our belief may be empirical: even if somebody said so and we empirically experience the content of such communication. It all depends how one restricts the 'empiria'. Some go as short as only to instrumental readings, others include OWN sensorial input, some limit it to one's logicallimitations, but a wider view (e.g. in science-educationG) may accept also the communication of (reliable?) 3rd-s. (Like e.g. religionG) We talk as we think. We think as we feel. we don't KNOW. 3. ...we can bet that some beliefs are much more likely to be true than others. Sais who? true to whom? To ME, for sure, but do I have a monopoly to the right understanding? Is there 'truth'? I just wanted to include a wider horizon (as: funny?). Not even the last thing I want to do is to argue FOR fundamentalist creationism. I don't like
RE: Natural Order Belief
John, I think the trap is to look for absolute certainty. Can I be absolutely certain that most dogs have four legs? No: there may have been a conspiracy to keep from me the fact that most dogs have six legs. Can I be absolutely certain that God did not create the world 6000 years ago? No: God may have done just that and planted evidence to make it look as if the world is much older in order to test our faith. Does this then mean that these two beliefs, that most dogs have four legs and that God created the world 6000 years ago are equally valid? No: we may not be able to attain absolute certainty about any empirical belief, but we can bet that some beliefs are much more likely to be true than others. Stathis Papaioannou Stathis: I try a 'funny' aspect. Not in Tom's rather utilitarian point (whether it is good or bad, making a person happy or inspired) but upon your questioning the 'truth' in (among others) religious stories. Consider 'numbers' as religion. How many of us (you?) had a 'revelation' about numbers per se? Mostly accepted the bible of Plato and the teachings of math-teacher priests. It became a belief-system - no argument. Is it true? Does it 'exist' in the universality? Of course, the idea lives in minds so it exists. There is no postulate that an 'existing' idea has to be matter-physics based. The 'mental world is part of the 'demental' (as you know from your professionG). Religion lives in minds, ergo the 'facts' included are true. It can be read in script and inventive people say they have revelations just like what Newton's apple brought up. We have a belief system that religion is 'not true', others: that 'religion is true'. I don't believe in AR: does it make it 'untrue'? We formulate our mindset upon stories figmented by primitive observations of what ancestors saw and speculated. So do religious people on other wavelengths. Can you ask Zeus upon Athenae? I asked Bruno upon numbers. Many people do not share MY belief ystem of the wholeness. Does it make it untrue? In who's terms? Everybody has a certain level of 'faith' in HIS OWN belief. Even the 'utilitarian' aspect is personal. The smallpox virus instigated the social structural renovation of the western world. We judge within our momentary personal interests. Maybe the demise of humankind is a good thing for the biosphere. Opimistically yours John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 7:20 AM Subject: RE: Natural Order Belief Tom Caylor writes: (skip) SP: The problem with religious beliefs is not that they are bizarre (after all, many scientific theories at first glance are just as bizarre) but that there is no reasonable basis for deciding whether they are true. People usually choose religious beliefs because they would like them to be true or because their parents brought them up that way. It may be interesting to know if a religious belief makes a person happy, has inpired good deeds or great art, and so on, but the specific question I want answered is whether it is true. For example, it is true that the smallpox virus causes a severe illness which has killed million of people over the centuries, and this is true regardless of whether it is good, bad, interesting or whatever. I would like to know whether it is the case that Jesus rose from his tomb after being crucified or Athena sprang from Zeus' head after Hephaestus struck it with an axe, and I would like to know this independently of whether it makes an interesting or inspiring story. Stathis Papaioannou (TC - skipped) SP: When I am confident about some empirical belief, I am confident that a perfectly fair, disinterested observer given the same evidence that I have will come to the same conclusion that I do, or at least entertain it as a serious possibility. For example, if I am confident that the Quran was written in Arabic in the 7th century, then I am confident that any reasonable person who went to the trouble to investigate the matter would agree with me. If I am a Muslim, I may be as certain about the evidence supporting that the Quran is the word of God as I am about the evidence supporting that the Quran was written in Arabic in the 7th century. However, while as a Muslim I may be just as confident that a reasonable and disinterested observer would agree about when the Quran was written, I would be far less confident that he would agree about its divine origin (and perhaps be converted to Islam). This presents a problem: I can't say that both my beliefs about the divine origin of the Quran and when it was written are epistemologically equivalent and empirically equally well founded, but hold that a disinterested observer would likely accept one
Re: Natural Order Belief
Stathis, no need to argue with me about my 'funny' supposition (just for the fun of it) - HOWEVER: 1. absolutely certain you can be in whatever is in your mind (i.e.in your belief system) because that is what you call it so. Colin's (weak?) solipsism assignes the world -(all of its input- content in your mind), the 'reality', whatever, - to YOUR mind-content as the way YOU interpret whatever you think of (incl.: experience, feel, what you get notion of, even imagine). 2. ...we may not be able to attain absolute certainty about any empirical belief, ... I was not talking about 'empirical', however our belief may be empirical: even if somebody said so and we empirically experience the content of such communication. It all depends how one restricts the 'empiria'. Some go as short as only to instrumental readings, others include OWN sensorial input, some limit it to one's logicallimitations, but a wider view (e.g. in science-educationG) may accept also the communication of (reliable?) 3rd-s. (Like e.g. religionG) We talk as we think. We think as we feel. we don't KNOW. 3. ...we can bet that some beliefs are much more likely to be true than others. Sais who? true to whom? To ME, for sure, but do I have a monopoly to the right understanding? Is there 'truth'? I just wanted to include a wider horizon (as: funny?). Not even the last thing I want to do is to argue FOR fundamentalist creationism. I don't like it is the utmost I go along with. But I would like a dog with 6 feet. John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 4:41 AM Subject: RE: Natural Order Belief John, I think the trap is to look for absolute certainty. Can I be absolutely certain that most dogs have four legs? No: there may have been a conspiracy to keep from me the fact that most dogs have six legs. Can I be absolutely certain that God did not create the world 6000 years ago? No: God may have done just that and planted evidence to make it look as if the world is much older in order to test our faith. Does this then mean that these two beliefs, that most dogs have four legs and that God created the world 6000 years ago are equally valid? No: we may not be able to attain absolute certainty about any empirical belief, but we can bet that some beliefs are much more likely to be true than others. Stathis Papaioannou Stathis: I try a 'funny' aspect. Not in Tom's rather utilitarian point (whether it is good or bad, making a person happy or inspired) but upon your questioning the 'truth' in (among others) religious stories. Consider 'numbers' as religion. How many of us (you?) had a 'revelation' about numbers per se? Mostly accepted the bible of Plato and the teachings of math-teacher priests. It became a belief-system - no argument. Is it true? Does it 'exist' in the universality? Of course, the idea lives in minds so it exists. There is no postulate that an 'existing' idea has to be matter-physics based. The 'mental world is part of the 'demental' (as you know from your professionG). Religion lives in minds, ergo the 'facts' included are true. It can be read in script and inventive people say they have revelations just like what Newton's apple brought up. We have a belief system that religion is 'not true', others: that 'religion is true'. I don't believe in AR: does it make it 'untrue'? We formulate our mindset upon stories figmented by primitive observations of what ancestors saw and speculated. So do religious people on other wavelengths. Can you ask Zeus upon Athenae? I asked Bruno upon numbers. Many people do not share MY belief ystem of the wholeness. Does it make it untrue? In who's terms? Everybody has a certain level of 'faith' in HIS OWN belief. Even the 'utilitarian' aspect is personal. The smallpox virus instigated the social structural renovation of the western world. We judge within our momentary personal interests. Maybe the demise of humankind is a good thing for the biosphere. Opimistically yours John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 7:20 AM Subject: RE: Natural Order Belief Tom Caylor writes: (skip) SP: The problem with religious beliefs is not that they are bizarre (after all, many scientific theories at first glance are just as bizarre) but that there is no reasonable basis for deciding whether they are true. People usually choose religious beliefs because they would like them to be true or because their parents brought them up that way. It may be interesting to know if a religious belief makes a person happy, has inpired good deeds or great art, and so on, but the specific question I want answered is whether it is true. For example, it is true that the smallpox
RE: Natural Order Belief
I'm curious: how many people on this list are theists? Stathis Papaioannou I don't believe in any theistic garbage. As a scientist the truth or otherwise of the proposition X = There is a god and he did this sits forever perched on the verge of disproof through lack of evidence in the most Popperian of highwire acts that forces a scientist into perpetual agnosticismand remains as tricky as X = I believe the laws of nature are invoked by the purple balloon people of the Horsehead Nebula. A sort of Un-Ockham, minimal parsimony delusion. The american evangelistic bent makes me cringe... including the latest thing in rebadged creationist mumbo jumbo - 'the design argument'...but it does not have me hiding under the bed like certain islamic and other fundamentalist movements...that appear to be seriously psychologically disturbed. I don't need religion to be pretty damned impressed by the universe as a naturally occuring wonder of complexity. Dawkins and Douglas Adams have given us permission to stop pussyfooting around the delicate sensibilities of this stuff, right? I for one am fed up with the bollocks perpetuated in the name of religion. It's time we all grew up. The benefit and the costs are not balancing really well. If someone/thing is simulating us it has a really good sense of irony, thoughThat something could be a child and we could be that child's school project in another universe...a proposition is just as well founded as any religion. :-) Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Natural Order Belief
Le 16-nov.-06, à 06:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : I'm curious: how many people on this list are theists? CF: A theist God (as opposed to a deist God) is one who intervenes in the natural order, i.e. does miracles. Stenger will readily admit that his argument does not apply to a deist God. Brent Meeker It will all depend by what you mean by God, natural order, miracles, which today have vague meaninsg based on a long non scientific tradition in the religious and theological matter. So, if by God you refer to the big unameable 0-person pov (like in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus where the ONE of the arithmetical machine is interpreted by the truth about that machine, or like the taoist tao, ...) then I am theist, or open to theism in the sense that arithmetical truth (the ONE 0-person hypostase) arguably intervenes in the natural order (in the fourth and fifth hypostases: intelligible and sensible matter). Concerning the term miracles I cannot find a meaning for it, except perhaps by rare and unexplainable facts, but unexplainable is a relative notion, and it is not hard to figure out that no consistent/correct machine can ever distinguish a very hard to explain phenomenon and some unexplainable one (which can be shown to exist ... but only relatively to any precise machine). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Natural Order Belief
Bruno, I suspect you can talk about God in this way when the subject of atheism comes up because you live in post-Enlightenment Europe. But if you lived in a certain large English-speaking country where a substantial proportion of the population believe that God created Adam and Eve 6000 years ago and the dinosaurs died out because they didn't fit on Noah's ark, you might be less keen to suggest anything that might be construed as supporting theism. Stathis Papaioannou Le 16-nov.-06, à 06:58, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : I'm curious: how many people on this list are theists? CF: A theist God (as opposed to a deist God) is one who intervenes in the natural order, i.e. does miracles. Stenger will readily admit that his argument does not apply to a deist God. Brent Meeker It will all depend by what you mean by God, natural order, miracles, which today have vague meaninsg based on a long non scientific tradition in the religious and theological matter. So, if by God you refer to the big unameable 0-person pov (like in the arithmetical interpretation of Plotinus where the ONE of the arithmetical machine is interpreted by the truth about that machine, or like the taoist tao, ...) then I am theist, or open to theism in the sense that arithmetical truth (the ONE 0-person hypostase) arguably intervenes in the natural order (in the fourth and fifth hypostases: intelligible and sensible matter). Concerning the term miracles I cannot find a meaning for it, except perhaps by rare and unexplainable facts, but unexplainable is a relative notion, and it is not hard to figure out that no consistent/correct machine can ever distinguish a very hard to explain phenomenon and some unexplainable one (which can be shown to exist ... but only relatively to any precise machine). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Natural Order Belief
Le 16-nov.-06, à 13:59, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Bruno, I suspect you can talk about God in this way when the subject of atheism comes up because you live in post-Enlightenment Europe. It is a difficult subject, perhaps a bit out of topics or premature, but I do not believe so much in the enlightenment in Europe. It has been a very partial enlightenment ... But if you lived in a certain large English-speaking country where a substantial proportion of the population believe that God created Adam and Eve 6000 years ago and the dinosaurs died out because they didn't fit on Noah's ark, you might be less keen to suggest anything that might be construed as supporting theism. I live in one of the most catholic country in the world, with some island of atheism, but both catholics and atheists believe agnosticism (which is imo the best scientist methodology) is a mental disease. Actually atheists are even far more dogmatic than educated christians, but, ok, indeed few people here would take Adam and Eve for real history. But now, I do believe that if today so many people here and there believe seriously in religious legends or dogma, this is due to the fact that the scientific attitude in theology has been successfully banished from the academy since a long time. It is because theology is no more taken seriously that obscurity and superstition develop itself in the religious realm. Under the (neo)platonist, you have to pass exams in advanced mathematics, astronomy, music before entering the theology field. If we continue to forbid or discourage the rationalist attitude in theology, then unfounded theology and superstition will continue to reign, and ... many will use this to say we have to continue to forbid rationalism in it. I think we should cut that loop. If we don't, it is because naturalism or physicalism or materialism is the new (fake) religion with new Gods like the physical universe (a concept which does not explain a lot, and which is not clear at all once you take the fundamental question seriously, this should be clear with the UDA and any serious reasoning on the mind body problem). An honest scientist should admit that we are still very ignorant on most fundamental questions. Today it is politically correct to be open minded toward any religion and belief system. I think we should on the contrary be more demanding in rigor, in all inquiry fields. My father (who was working in the law) told me once that it is much more important to be rigorous in the human science than in exact science. Indeed, an error in the exact science leads quickly to a catastrophe (from the rejected paper, to the explosion of the laboratory ...) so that you learn quickly. An error in the human science could lead to millenaries of useless suffering if not longer. Do you see what I am trying to say? I understand Colin's feeling of being fed up with religion, I am too. But I react differently because I think that the widespread superstitions really are due to the fact that we are not taking seriously enough the fundamental matters. Recall that for me SCIENCE = DOUBT. When I say we should be serious in theology, it means we should develop and encourage that doubting attitude in theology. This is not incompatible with faith. But it is incompatible with any form of blind faith, brainwashings, etc. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Natural Order Belief
Bruno: a beautiful position statement. Very sage and humane. Thanks John PS: unfortunately the overwhelming majority of humankind is within some kind of religious belief system and this makes a very lucrative political stock to crooks (oops: politicians, as contrasted to 'statesmen). Some thousand thinking sould cannot change the fear-based mindset of 6 billion. J - Original Message - From: Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 10:23 AM Subject: Re: Natural Order Belief Le 16-nov.-06, à 13:59, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Bruno, I suspect you can talk about God in this way when the subject of atheism comes up because you live in post-Enlightenment Europe. It is a difficult subject, perhaps a bit out of topics or premature, but I do not believe so much in the enlightenment in Europe. It has been a very partial enlightenment ... But if you lived in a certain large English-speaking country where a substantial proportion of the population believe that God created Adam and Eve 6000 years ago and the dinosaurs died out because they didn't fit on Noah's ark, you might be less keen to suggest anything that might be construed as supporting theism. I live in one of the most catholic country in the world, with some island of atheism, but both catholics and atheists believe agnosticism (which is imo the best scientist methodology) is a mental disease. Actually atheists are even far more dogmatic than educated christians, but, ok, indeed few people here would take Adam and Eve for real history. But now, I do believe that if today so many people here and there believe seriously in religious legends or dogma, this is due to the fact that the scientific attitude in theology has been successfully banished from the academy since a long time. It is because theology is no more taken seriously that obscurity and superstition develop itself in the religious realm. Under the (neo)platonist, you have to pass exams in advanced mathematics, astronomy, music before entering the theology field. If we continue to forbid or discourage the rationalist attitude in theology, then unfounded theology and superstition will continue to reign, and ... many will use this to say we have to continue to forbid rationalism in it. I think we should cut that loop. If we don't, it is because naturalism or physicalism or materialism is the new (fake) religion with new Gods like the physical universe (a concept which does not explain a lot, and which is not clear at all once you take the fundamental question seriously, this should be clear with the UDA and any serious reasoning on the mind body problem). An honest scientist should admit that we are still very ignorant on most fundamental questions. Today it is politically correct to be open minded toward any religion and belief system. I think we should on the contrary be more demanding in rigor, in all inquiry fields. My father (who was working in the law) told me once that it is much more important to be rigorous in the human science than in exact science. Indeed, an error in the exact science leads quickly to a catastrophe (from the rejected paper, to the explosion of the laboratory ...) so that you learn quickly. An error in the human science could lead to millenaries of useless suffering if not longer. Do you see what I am trying to say? I understand Colin's feeling of being fed up with religion, I am too. But I react differently because I think that the widespread superstitions really are due to the fact that we are not taking seriously enough the fundamental matters. Recall that for me SCIENCE = DOUBT. When I say we should be serious in theology, it means we should develop and encourage that doubting attitude in theology. This is not incompatible with faith. But it is incompatible with any form of blind faith, brainwashings, etc. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.5/534 - Release Date: 11/14/2006 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Natural Order Belief
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 16-nov.-06, à 13:59, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : Bruno, I suspect you can talk about God in this way when the subject of atheism comes up because you live in post-Enlightenment Europe. It is a difficult subject, perhaps a bit out of topics or premature, but I do not believe so much in the enlightenment in Europe. It has been a very partial enlightenment ... But if you lived in a certain large English-speaking country where a substantial proportion of the population believe that God created Adam and Eve 6000 years ago and the dinosaurs died out because they didn't fit on Noah's ark, you might be less keen to suggest anything that might be construed as supporting theism. I live in one of the most catholic country in the world, with some island of atheism, but both catholics and atheists believe agnosticism (which is imo the best scientist methodology) is a mental disease. Actually atheists are even far more dogmatic than educated christians, but, ok, indeed few people here would take Adam and Eve for real history. But now, I do believe that if today so many people here and there believe seriously in religious legends or dogma, this is due to the fact that the scientific attitude in theology has been successfully banished from the academy since a long time. It is because theology is no more taken seriously that obscurity and superstition develop itself in the religious realm. Under the (neo)platonist, you have to pass exams in advanced mathematics, astronomy, music before entering the theology field. If we continue to forbid or discourage the rationalist attitude in theology, then unfounded theology and superstition will continue to reign, and ... many will use this to say we have to continue to forbid rationalism in it. I think we should cut that loop. If we don't, it is because naturalism or physicalism or materialism is the new (fake) religion with new Gods like the physical universe (a concept which does not explain a lot, and which is not clear at all once you take the fundamental question seriously, this should be clear with the UDA and any serious reasoning on the mind body problem). An honest scientist should admit that we are still very ignorant on most fundamental questions. Today it is politically correct to be open minded toward any religion and belief system. I think we should on the contrary be more demanding in rigor, in all inquiry fields. My father (who was working in the law) told me once that it is much more important to be rigorous in the human science than in exact science. Indeed, an error in the exact science leads quickly to a catastrophe (from the rejected paper, to the explosion of the laboratory ...) so that you learn quickly. An error in the human science could lead to millenaries of useless suffering if not longer. Do you see what I am trying to say? I understand Colin's feeling of being fed up with religion, I am too. But I react differently because I think that the widespread superstitions really are due to the fact that we are not taking seriously enough the fundamental matters. Recall that for me SCIENCE = DOUBT. When I say we should be serious in theology, it means we should develop and encourage that doubting attitude in theology. This is not incompatible with faith. But it is incompatible with any form of blind faith, brainwashings, etc. Bruno I think the difference in attitude is because you take theology to mean a study of the metaphysical basis of the world. This is a very broad interpretation of the word. The theo refers to a God, an immortal person of great power and theism refers to belief that such a person exists and should be worshipped and answers prayers. I think you will agree that this is so improbable as not to be seriously entertained. Stretching the meaning to encompass all study of fundamental metaphysics strikes me as intellectually dishonest; mere appeasement of the religious powers that be. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Natural Order Belief
I'm curious: how many people on this list are theists? Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Natural Order Belief Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:52:22 -0800 Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put it very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L mailing list. You can check out the list here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ Although Victor Stenger doesn't use the word anti-natural, the following equation is what he is assuming in his atheistic arguments: supernatural = anti-natural. Therefore he thinks that a proof of theism would amount to finding a violation of natural law. Since he finds no such violation (which I would argue is a circular argument based on the definition of natural) he claim this proves atheism beyond a reasonable doubt (what is the measure of certainty/uncertainty?). In terms of Bruno's provability, this is akin to saying that a proof of the existence of a non-trivial G*/G can be obtained by finding an inconsistency in G. This does not make sense. This is like saying the only god that can exist is an inconsistent god. A theist God (as opposed to a deist God) is one who intervenes in the natural order, i.e. does miracles. Stenger will readily admit that his argument does not apply to a deist God. Brent Meeker The problem (or challenge :) is that the meaning of natural order is open to much debate, especially here on the Everything List. Everything is up for grabs, so much so that it can be a challenge to figure out where any order comes from, resulting in problems such as white rabbits. When we start with Everything, the problem is not just How can anything interesting happen (like life, not to mention our stereotypical 'miracles'? (the something-from-nothing question), but also How can any order be birthed out of the plenitudinous sea of disorder? So in this Everything context, not having the whole picture of what the natural order is implies a lack of knowledge of what it would be to intervene on the natural order. Of course if we're talking about theism, then the nature of intervention is limited by certain parameters related to whatever god is supposedly intervening. These parameters are a function of contingent aspects, such as, in the case of the biblical God's universe, the presence of evil and sacrificial love. But such facts are probably considered too contingent for a List like this, where Everything is supposed to be impersonal. (Is it?) Unfortunately, as Blaise Pascal noted, if the solution to the problem of evil is based on contingent facts, then staying at a general metaphysical (Everything) level is not going to get us in contact with the solution.One possible insight that we can get from Everything-level discussion, if the thinker is willing to accept it, is to realize that a solution based on contingent facts in history is not ruled out by general philosophical thought about Everything. Another insight is to realize that there is no solution to the problem of evil (or the mind-body problem...) at the (non-contingent) Everything level. And if there's no solution to a problem that is part of the universe, then perhaps the (impersonal) Everything approach is not sufficient for dealing with everything. Getting back to the more impersonal question, as has been observed on this List multiple times, there is a problem with discerning the source of order in the universe. Where does this natural order come from that we can make laws about it, and predict nature's actions fairly accurately, at least for our purposes? Why is it that we aren't destroyed by savage white rabbits out of nowhere? Proposed explanations include the use of ideas such as the Anthropic Principle, Occam's Razor, some kind of measure, numbers, local order at the expense of disorder somewhere else far away, etc. So again, in the light of this lack of understanding, it seems pretty presumptuous for us to say that there must not be interventions in the natural order simply because we don't see any as we've defined them. (Then we trap ourselves even more when we attach the label natural order to Everything we observe, whether we can explain it naturally or not.) Perhaps the following analogy will help to open up the possibilities (not probabilities!) in our brains. This is from C.S. Lewis as he put it in his book Miracles. Tom Let us suppose a race of people whose peculiar mental limitation compels them to regard a painting as something made up of little coloured dots which have been put together like a mosaic. Studying the brushwork of a great painting through their magnifying glasses, they discover more and more complicated relations
RE: Natural Order Belief
Tom Caylor writes: But it's not a mistake to assume a magical Daddy in the sky who'll torture you in hell if you don't flatter him? Lewis must have enjoyed this arrogant view of his own perception that could point to the mistakes of strawmen he invented for the purpose. I don't know the names of the fallacies. My brother has a law degree, but my mathematical mind can at least recognize a fallacy when I smell one. So here's an analogy. The laws of physics etc. that we deduce from empirical data give us models with which we can predict the behavior of nature (being defined by that which we can predict). It is like we deduce that all of nature is like rolling hills of grass. Perhaps we aren't able to predict the grass down at the blade-by-blade level, but we've come up with probabilitistic models that predict the statistics of the blades (a la quantum mechanics). Now we can imagine, and we've been told stories, that there is such a thing as a forest, made up of trees. Based on our grass behavior models, we conclude that such a thing is impossible, and therefore does not exist. Why, a pine tree going up instantaneously 100 feet just defies all of our grass behavior models, producing impossible singularities. But then someone comes along and says, let's have an open mind and admit that it's possible that our grass models don't fit the entire reality, and it's a mistake to forever be decided otherwise. Perhaps every once in a while there really is a forest, even though we can't predict where these forests are. Perhaps people in the past have actually seen these forests and passed on the word that they exist. Then your torturing magical Daddy argument would be like saying, But surely there can't be forests, because it would be a mistake to assume the existence of a torturing magical Daddy unicorn tree. Tom The problem with religious beliefs is not that they are bizarre (after all, many scientific theories at first glance are just as bizarre) but that there is no reasonable basis for deciding whether they are true. People usually choose religious beliefs because they would like them to be true or because their parents brought them up that way. It may be interesting to know if a religious belief makes a person happy, has inpired good deeds or great art, and so on, but the specific question I want answered is whether it is true. For example, it is true that the smallpox virus causes a severe illness which has killed million of people over the centuries, and this is true regardless of whether it is good, bad, interesting or whatever. I would like to know whether it is the case that Jesus rose from his tomb after being crucified or Athena sprang from Zeus' head after Hephaestus struck it with an axe, and I would like to know this independently of whether it makes an interesting or inspiring story. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Natural Order Belief
Le 14-nov.-06, à 07:52, Tom Caylor a écrit : Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put it very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L mailing list. You can check out the list here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ Although Victor Stenger doesn't use the word anti-natural, the following equation is what he is assuming in his atheistic arguments: supernatural = anti-natural. Therefore he thinks that a proof of theism would amount to finding a violation of natural law. Since he finds no such violation (which I would argue is a circular argument based on the definition of natural) he claim this proves atheism beyond a reasonable doubt (what is the measure of certainty/uncertainty?). In terms of Bruno's provability, this is akin to saying that a proof of the existence of a non-trivial G*/G can be obtained by finding an inconsistency in G. This does not make sense. This is like saying the only god that can exist is an inconsistent god. A theist God (as opposed to a deist God) is one who intervenes in the natural order, i.e. does miracles. Stenger will readily admit that his argument does not apply to a deist God. Brent Meeker The problem (or challenge :) is that the meaning of natural order is open to much debate, especially here on the Everything List. Everything is up for grabs, so much so that it can be a challenge to figure out where any order comes from, resulting in problems such as white rabbits. When we start with Everything, the problem is not just How can anything interesting happen (like life, not to mention our stereotypical 'miracles'? (the something-from-nothing question), but also How can any order be birthed out of the plenitudinous sea of disorder? So in this Everything context, not having the whole picture of what the natural order is implies a lack of knowledge of what it would be to intervene on the natural order. Of course if we're talking about theism, then the nature of intervention is limited by certain parameters related to whatever god is supposedly intervening. These parameters are a function of contingent aspects, such as, in the case of the biblical God's universe, the presence of evil and sacrificial love. But such facts are probably considered too contingent for a List like this, where Everything is supposed to be impersonal. (Is it?) 0-personal, yes. I can argue we got that idea from Plotinus and his followers (the neoplatonist christians and non christians). The one is not a thinker, nor even a person. That was clear earlier for many among the Chinese philosophers. Unfortunately, as Blaise Pascal noted, if the solution to the problem of evil is based on contingent facts, then staying at a general metaphysical (Everything) level is not going to get us in contact with the solution.One possible insight that we can get from Everything-level discussion, if the thinker is willing to accept it, is to realize that a solution based on contingent facts in history is not ruled out by general philosophical thought about Everything. Another insight is to realize that there is no solution to the problem of evil (or the mind-body problem...) at the (non-contingent) Everything level. Of course I disagree. With the comp hyp, the mind-body problem is partially reduced into a measure problem with respect to n-person points of view. The evil problem, by many aspects is simpler, and related to incompleteness. It would be long to develop this here, but a remark by André Weyl, the french mathematician, could be relevant here: God exists because Mathematics is consistent, and the devil exists because we cannot prove it. (Quoted in Benacerraf paper God, the Devil and Gödel ref in my thesis). And if there's no solution to a problem that is part of the universe, then perhaps the (impersonal) Everything approach is not sufficient for dealing with everything. The impersonal feature is not related with our everything approach. It is related with any scientific approach. Science *is* third personal. But this does not mean that science cannot study first person matter. It is enough to provide a third person approach to first person notion. Getting back to the more impersonal question, as has been observed on this List multiple times, there is a problem with discerning the source of order in the universe. In which universe? (physical, mathematical, computer-theoretical, arithmetical ...). The word universe is worst than the word god in the sense that many people, since about 1500 years, take for granted that there is a primitively physical universe. But such an assumption is no more an explanation than the dishonest use of God during centuries. Where does this natural order come from that we can make laws about it, and predict nature's actions
Re: Natural Order Belief
Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put it very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L mailing list. You can check out the list here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ Although Victor Stenger doesn't use the word anti-natural, the following equation is what he is assuming in his atheistic arguments: supernatural = anti-natural. Therefore he thinks that a proof of theism would amount to finding a violation of natural law. Since he finds no such violation (which I would argue is a circular argument based on the definition of natural) he claim this proves atheism beyond a reasonable doubt (what is the measure of certainty/uncertainty?). In terms of Bruno's provability, this is akin to saying that a proof of the existence of a non-trivial G*/G can be obtained by finding an inconsistency in G. This does not make sense. This is like saying the only god that can exist is an inconsistent god. A theist God (as opposed to a deist God) is one who intervenes in the natural order, i.e. does miracles. Stenger will readily admit that his argument does not apply to a deist God. Brent Meeker The problem (or challenge :) is that the meaning of natural order is open to much debate, especially here on the Everything List. I'd say it's almost only on the Everything List that it is much debated. Which of course because once you postulate that everything (in some sense or another) happens, you are then faced with the question of why what actually happens is so regular. This is one of the reasons why I like the Everything List. I think that in this context it is easier to discuss and reveal the deep assumptions that have about reality and belief. This is the level at which C.S.Lewis was talking in his book. Everything is up for grabs, so much so that it can be a challenge to figure out where any order comes from, resulting in problems such as white rabbits. When we start with Everything, the problem is not just How can anything interesting happen (like life, not to mention our stereotypical 'miracles'? (the something-from-nothing question), but also How can any order be birthed out of the plenitudinous sea of disorder? So in this Everything context, not having the whole picture of what the natural order is implies a lack of knowledge of what it would be to intervene on the natural order. Of course if we're talking about theism, then the nature of intervention is limited by certain parameters related to whatever god is supposedly intervening. These parameters are a function of contingent aspects, such as, in the case of the biblical God's universe, the presence of evil and sacrificial love. But such facts are probably considered too contingent for a List like this, where Everything is supposed to be impersonal. (Is it?) Unfortunately, as Blaise Pascal noted, if the solution to the problem of evil is based on contingent facts, then staying at a general metaphysical (Everything) level is not going to get us in contact with the solution.One possible insight that we can get from Everything-level discussion, if the thinker is willing to accept it, is to realize that a solution based on contingent facts in history is not ruled out by general philosophical thought about Everything. There is a very simple and widely accepted solution to the problem of evil - there is no omnipotent, benevolent God. The existence of evil by itself, even without a God, is a problem. But again, this is probably more suited for a discussion on religion elsewhere. Another insight is to realize that there is no solution to the problem of evil (or the mind-body problem...) at the (non-contingent) Everything level. And if there's no solution to a problem that is part of the universe, then perhaps the (impersonal) Everything approach is not sufficient for dealing with everything. Getting back to the more impersonal question, as has been observed on this List multiple times, there is a problem with discerning the source of order in the universe. Actually Vic has just published a book on the subject, The Comprehensible Cosmos. I recommend it. Where does this natural order come from that we can make laws about it, and predict nature's actions fairly accurately, at least for our purposes? Why is it that we aren't destroyed by savage white rabbits out of nowhere? Proposed explanations include the use of ideas such as the Anthropic Principle, Occam's Razor, some kind of measure, numbers, local order at the expense of disorder somewhere else far away, etc. So again, in the light of this lack of understanding, it seems pretty presumptuous for us to say that there must not be interventions in the natural
Re: Natural Order Belief
Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: Tom Caylor wrote: Brent Meeker wrote: An excellent essay. I agree with almost everything you wrote; and you put it very well. Would you mind if I cross posted it to Vic Stenger's AVOID-L mailing list. You can check out the list here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/ Although Victor Stenger doesn't use the word anti-natural, the following equation is what he is assuming in his atheistic arguments: supernatural = anti-natural. Therefore he thinks that a proof of theism would amount to finding a violation of natural law. Since he finds no such violation (which I would argue is a circular argument based on the definition of natural) he claim this proves atheism beyond a reasonable doubt (what is the measure of certainty/uncertainty?). In terms of Bruno's provability, this is akin to saying that a proof of the existence of a non-trivial G*/G can be obtained by finding an inconsistency in G. This does not make sense. This is like saying the only god that can exist is an inconsistent god. A theist God (as opposed to a deist God) is one who intervenes in the natural order, i.e. does miracles. Stenger will readily admit that his argument does not apply to a deist God. Brent Meeker The problem (or challenge :) is that the meaning of natural order is open to much debate, especially here on the Everything List. I'd say it's almost only on the Everything List that it is much debated. Which of course because once you postulate that everything (in some sense or another) happens, you are then faced with the question of why what actually happens is so regular. Everything is up for grabs, so much so that it can be a challenge to figure out where any order comes from, resulting in problems such as white rabbits. When we start with Everything, the problem is not just How can anything interesting happen (like life, not to mention our stereotypical 'miracles'? (the something-from-nothing question), but also How can any order be birthed out of the plenitudinous sea of disorder? So in this Everything context, not having the whole picture of what the natural order is implies a lack of knowledge of what it would be to intervene on the natural order. Of course if we're talking about theism, then the nature of intervention is limited by certain parameters related to whatever god is supposedly intervening. These parameters are a function of contingent aspects, such as, in the case of the biblical God's universe, the presence of evil and sacrificial love. But such facts are probably considered too contingent for a List like this, where Everything is supposed to be impersonal. (Is it?) Unfortunately, as Blaise Pascal noted, if the solution to the problem of evil is based on contingent facts, then staying at a general metaphysical (Everything) level is not going to get us in contact with the solution.One possible insight that we can get from Everything-level discussion, if the thinker is willing to accept it, is to realize that a solution based on contingent facts in history is not ruled out by general philosophical thought about Everything. There is a very simple and widely accepted solution to the problem of evil - there is no omnipotent, benevolent God. Another insight is to realize that there is no solution to the problem of evil (or the mind-body problem...) at the (non-contingent) Everything level. And if there's no solution to a problem that is part of the universe, then perhaps the (impersonal) Everything approach is not sufficient for dealing with everything. Getting back to the more impersonal question, as has been observed on this List multiple times, there is a problem with discerning the source of order in the universe. Actually Vic has just published a book on the subject, The Comprehensible Cosmos. I recommend it. Where does this natural order come from that we can make laws about it, and predict nature's actions fairly accurately, at least for our purposes? Why is it that we aren't destroyed by savage white rabbits out of nowhere? Proposed explanations include the use of ideas such as the Anthropic Principle, Occam's Razor, some kind of measure, numbers, local order at the expense of disorder somewhere else far away, etc. So again, in the light of this lack of understanding, it seems pretty presumptuous for us to say that there must not be interventions in the natural order simply because we don't see any as we've defined them. (Then we trap ourselves even more when we attach the label natural order to Everything we observe, whether we can explain it naturally or not.) Perhaps the following analogy will help to open up the possibilities (not probabilities!) in our brains. This is from C.S. Lewis as he put it in his book Miracles. Tom Let us suppose a race of people whose peculiar mental limitation compels them to regard a painting as
