What I find odd is that right after Hume talks about how induction is unjustified he seems to go on and use it. — Purple Pond

Isn't he saying that, although induction is unjustified and unjustifiable, we use it anyway because we have no choice? When there's nothing better available, we use induction, Occam's Razor, and all manner of other rules of thumb (guesswork). Is there an alternative? :chin:

Of course it is mind dependent [...] unless you are a brain dead sheeple. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yes, as I said. Why phrase it as though I was claiming it to be mind-independent? :chin:

They were obviously deeply mired in the heresy of scientism and clearly beyond salvation ... — alcontali

I'm a strict traditionalist in this. Burn the witches!!! :up:

<like>

The old jokes are still the best ones, eh? :up: :smile:

The term "verify" is common language, and therefore, highly ambiguous. In my opinion, it is not suitable as a technical term. — alcontali

"Verify" is no more common or uncommon than "falsify". :chin: :chin: :chin:

Why do you think philosophy majors are so enamored with socialism? — Wallows

For a start, socialism accords with most major religions. That should garner considerable support for it. And that's just for starters. Alternative political systems - so-called right-wing systems - are based on selfishness and greed. These are difficult (for me, at least) to justify in moral terms. So I gravitate toward socialism. Not state-dictatorship, socialism. Surely many others feel likewise, hence this topic?

Dawkings is honest, surmising a one in a quadrillion chance for there to be 'God'; he goes by probability, — PoeticUniverse


He may be honest about the fact that he believes that, but it's a ludicrous claim. I can only assume he meant to mean something like, extremely unlikely. — Coben

Quite so. There is no statistical technique (that I know of) that will allow any numerical value to be placed on a hypothetical probability such as this. If Dawkins was truly a scientist, he would say as much: there is no way to quantify the probability of God existing (or not). If we want to guess, that's fine. But we should state that we're guessing, to fulfil our responsibility to our audience: not to mislead or deceive. :up:

Probabilities such as God existing cannot be quantified; no value can be placed upon them.

I take the view that "good" is vague because the concept it labels is a vague one. "Good" is relative to who or what the thing is good for/to. I see no problems with that. It allows for the co-existence of (good-for-humans) and NOT(good-for-mosquitoes), which reflects the RL situation of fighting malaria with insecticides. It's only when someone mistakes "good" for an absolute thing that problems arise. Problems such as the famous misunderstanding that is the 'Problem of Evil', which this topic addresses (at least partly). Good is demonstrably not absolute; why do we continue to use it as if it was? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

I've been thinking about this. "Good" seems to be some kind of special case. Yes, it's relative, in the sense that it isn't absolute, or 'mind-independent', but this seems to miss the important bit. "Good" requires contextual qualification before it becomes usefully meaningful. OK, as philosophers, we know that the context of any event that takes place in the universe is ... the universe. All of it. But we can relax that somewhat pedantic constraint a bit here, I think.

"Good" requires qualification of what it applies to, so that the intended meaning becomes clear. E.g. "good-for-mosquitoes", as above. Without that qualification, "good" is useless. It is meaningless to say "God is good" just as it is meaningless to say "The cat sat on the". Both statements are meaningless because they're incomplete, not because they're wrong.

Context is all is a well-known saying, but in this case, it's critical and fundamental. Yes? :chin:

All of the above, and probably much more too? :up: For me: philosophy is a learning opportunity, and an opportunity to share that learning. Perhaps the sharing is the best bit? :chin:

New Age as a "field of study"? Hmm. I would think "personal path" is the more suitable of your two suggestions. I'm not convinced that any view of religion as a "field of study" has ever - or will ever - result in anything useful.

Thoughts on this, anyone? :chin:

Isn't 'meaning' simply something that humans recognise? Isn't it a concept we invented to describe things we believe to hold some sort of significance? Nothing to do with language directly; more to do with being human, no?

How do you "reach an understanding"? — Harry Hindu

By learning, but not by use. You can't use something until you have it there to be used.

How do you understand something you use, if not by using it? — Harry Hindu

I think that you must reach that understanding first, then you are able to use that understanding.

The story of the tortoise only seems paradoxical because, with each observation of the hare's position, we allow half the time interval since the last observation. The hare isn't speeding up or slowing down, we are taking more and more observations in shorter and shorter intervals. And assuming that time isn't quantised ("Planck time" has been mentioned earlier), we can carry on ad infinitum. But there's no paradox, or even confusion. Just a strangely set up story (which Zeno did deliberately, I assume :chin:).

I will bet that you moral sense, like mine, begins with some kind or reciprocity rule. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

First, let's be clear what we're discussing. "Good" is not an absolute term, as I've already said. But "moral sense" is something else again. For myself, my 'moral sense' is a lot like the conscience that Roman Catholics explained to me as they brought me up. It's telling right from wrong, in simple terms. I don't know how I do it. I have no conscious rule(s) or scheme(s) that I apply. But I find I can tell right from wrong ... to my own satisfaction, at least. I'm just not consciously aware of the myriad details that contribute to a judgement of that kind.

I find "good" to be a term of limited use. When I do use it, I choose to use it in the everyday sense, with an intentionally broad and vague definition. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Again, fair point. I would ask if you have a suggestions for a more useful term or definition — WerMaat

No, I don't. I take the view that "good" is vague because the concept it labels is a vague one. "Good" is relative to who or what the thing is good for/to. I see no problems with that. It allows for the co-existence of (good-for-humans) and NOT(good-for-mosquitoes), which reflects the RL situation of fighting malaria with insecticides. It's only when someone mistakes "good" for an absolute thing that problems arise. Problems such as the famous misunderstanding that is the 'Problem of Evil', which this topic addresses (at least partly). Good is demonstrably not absolute; why do we continue to use it as if it was? :chin:

I would ask if you have a suggestions for a more useful term or definition — WerMaat

No, I think "good" and "evil" are fine. We just need to avoid the pit-trap of assuming they're absolute, not relative.

A sort of philosophical apartheid, is that what you're getting at?

<like>

Like people best put in several universes are here mixed. — Coben

Sorry, my meaning extraction process failed utterly with this. :chin:

You seem to define "good" as "profitable or pleasurable"? — WerMaat

No, not really. I find "good" to be a term of limited use. When I do use it, I choose to use it in the everyday sense, with an intentionally broad and vague definition. :wink:

I define "good" as "in accordance with Maat" — WerMaat

If Maat is who I understand Her to be, I find your definition at least as good as any other! :up:

[deleted]

On reflection, what I had to say is not on-topic. :blush:

What good is a good god, when people want an evil god? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Same observation as ever from me: "good" and "evil" are relative terms. To indulge in such descriptions without being so misleading as to be plain wrong, we must ask questions like "Is God good to/for me?" Or, if not me, then anyone else: "Is God good to/for the people of Paris?" And so on.

God cannot be good or evil to/for everyone, because what's good for me might be evil for you.

Sounds right! :smile:

a description of what ethics is isn't itself ethics. — Terrapin Station

No, of course not. But when we wish to *apply* ethics, we need to understand what it is that we're applying, and such a description is (at the least) a handy first step toward understanding.

I don't really look at ethics as a "tool" (or set of tools), by the way. I look at it as phenomena to be described. — Terrapin Station

Yes, and don't we then follow on by using that description as a tool of understanding?

My interest is in correctly identifying and describing what is. — Terrapin Station

A worthy aspiration! :smile: ... :chin:

Yes, thank you. But this (below) is still the relevant bit of what I posted:

...but to limit ourselves to just one tool, when there are others available that might also prove useful? Not me. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

OK, try this.

You refer to (good) and NOT(good). But "good" is a relative term, so your references are incomplete, and in this case, the incompleteness makes them incorrect. In your example, you should be referring to the simultaneous existence of (good-for-country-A) and NOT(good-for-country-B). Now we can see that there is no contradiction. OK?

Then surely ethics is not a tool, but a collection of tools? My sentiment still applies, I think.

...but to limit ourselves to just one tool, when there are others available that might also prove useful? Not me. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

That (above) was the useful and meaningful bit. :up:

How would you define contradiction, Pattern-chaser? "Paul is tall. Paul is not tall." Wouldn't you say that's a contradiction? — god must be atheist

Yes, the two statements contradict one another. Is it relevant to note here that contradiction is relative (each statement contradicts the other)?

I maintain there is a contradiction, at the same time that I agree with you that "good" is a relative term. I say this because "good" even as a relative term can't be taken as "not good". Something that is not itself at the same time IS a contradiction. — god must be atheist

You're neglecting context, I think. If X is good for me, but NOT(good) for you, there is no contradiction. There is no simultaneous (good) and NOT(good), there is simultaneous good-for-me and NOT(good-for-you). Good-for-me is an entirely different thing than good-for-you. If we had good-for-me and NOT(good-for-me) simultaneously applying in the same context, then we would have a contradiction. I wish I could word this better. Do you see what I'm getting at?

The getting that something for MY country is good for ME, but it's devastatingly BAD for YOU and YOUR country. This is a contradiction, not just a lack of uniformity. — god must be atheist

No, there is no contradiction. Any apparent problems are resolved when we explicitly acknowledge that "good" is a relative term. So the situation you describe is good for you, but NOT(good) for your neighbour.

OK, you know best. I retire from this skirmish.

I have already quoted from the Wikipedia entry myself. It isn't great, as regards the particular use to which science puts the term "axiom", but it's a good start. However, what you seem to need is something more like this:

Here is a summary of what you should take from this chapter and into the next. They are, I hope, a fair summary of the structure of modern mathematical logic as a system capable of examining itself and embracing modern physics and mathematics:

[...]

Axioms are not self-evident truths in any sort of rational system, they are unprovable assumptions whose truth or falsehood should always be mentally prefaced with an implicit ``If we assume that...''. Remembering that ultimately ``assume'' can make an ass out of u and me, as my wife (a physician, which is a very empirical and untrusting profession) is wont to say. They are really just assertions or propositions to which we give a special primal status and exempt from the necessity of independent proof.

Taken from here.

Any premise you assume as a basis for logical/mathematical deductions counts as an axiom. — Devans99

No, it doesn't. I suggest you check this out for yourself, since you won't take my word for it. Just as a dividend is something quite specific in arithmetic, so axiom has a specific meaning for science and scientists. This is so whether you believe it or not, or whether you think it should be so. Sorry, but that's how it is.

I think you're mistaken. That the speed of light is constant is not an axiom. An axiom, in science, is formally defined, and it refers exclusively to things like the axiom of equality. The speed of light is a universal constant (to the extent that it is constant), not an axiom.

Science then takes things a step further by testing the axioms and the provisional conclusions against reality. — Devans99

No, it doesn't. That's the purpose of axioms. They are accepted as being true without inquiry or investigation. Axioms are not tested, by science or by anything else. That's what axioms are, and it's what they are for.

An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'

The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question. As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning. — Wikipedia

’Nothing takes place without a sufficient reason’ - Leibniz — Devans99

Isn't this just a restatement of the axiom of causality? Does Leibniz offer any reason why he believes this, or is it just an assertion of causality?

now we can have existing outside of time/causality a truly uncaused being that is the ultimate cause of everything. — Devans99

Isn't this the core of your topic, another attempt to prove the existence of God? :chin: