You have diverted this into a side issue about Aristotle's understanding of causation. I never claimed that modern science's understanding of causation is the same as Aristotle's, so you're really not arguing with me, but with yourself. — John

Have you forgotten you wrote this?

The natural sciences and engineering are mostly modeled in terms of mechanistic (or in Aristotelian terms, efficient causation). — John

So science mostly models in terms of mechanistic [causes] (or in Aristotelian terms, efficient causation). This sentence means and implies that mechanistic [causes] = Aristotelian efficient causation

The ideas of formal and final cause are ideas of 'why'. Modern science does not concern itself with those kinds of questions, for modern science there is no 'why' in nature. — John

Wrong. Formal cause is still "how". The atom's structure is its formal cause, and it is part of the how with regards to radioactive decay. Your notions are very muddled up, as I've said before.

Okay, but as you seem to note, this means that the 99.9% are always shut out from the real gears of technological, social, and aesthetic change or appreciation. — schopenhauer1

Sure - the gods have not given everyone winning cards. Why should they? The challenge is how to play your cards well, not how to win :)

Thanks. — schopenhauer1

Haha it's a joke from a good movie I've seen :P

But philosophers are still unable to determine whether life is worth living or not. — lambda

Well, as I have proven to you that philosophers have actually answered definitely your skeptical problems, I am now skeptical of your skepticism on other matters ;)

@jamalrob ?

Excellent topic! One of the best I've seen lately on TPF in fact!

And it's an important problem because everyone would like to do great things, and yet most of those who would like to do great things always fail. And as we all know, it's not worth always trying if you always fail ;)

But in today's world we live, or are taught to live by having goals, and then doing everything to achieve them now (or as soon as possible). This of course presupposes that the goals we have could also be achieved now (or even in the future), and that such achievement depends on us. But this may not be the case. In fact, trying to achieve a certain goal now, may get us involved in a series of events which will keep us busy, and hence unable to actually pounce on the opportunity to actually achieve our goal when it shows up in the future.

Say someone wants to start their own car manufacturing business, and revolutionise the auto industry. They'd be told, typically, ah, it's a very expensive business and very technical, isn't it better first to go work for another car manufacturer, gather knowledge about business, the clients and so forth? Then later on you can actually fulfil your goal. Most people would go get a job for a car manufacturer at this point. But I think this is just about the worst thing you can do. It would be better to get a job serving ina restaurant than in the field you're interested in. Instead start studying it by yourself, gather knowledge over many years. Create your own projects, build your own car from scratch, etc. From the inside, you can never see what's outside. From the inside, you can never change anything. I know a girl who worked for Elon Musk at Tesla as an engineer. Very smart and capable person. She was fired at one point after working for quite a long time there, and wanted to start on her own. All her connections, all her knowledge, and everything else couldn't help her. Why? Because people don't help you because they know you. Making connections is mostly useless. Having experience is also useless. In fact, connections and experience are quite likely to be unhelpful, rather than helpful. People who need help are never helped, and those who don't need help, everyone wants to help them. Because those who don't need help have a pie, and everyone wants a share of it. Those who need help, they want a pie, and no one wants to share their pie with them. She's still trying, but I doubt she'll be very successful. That's the pity - we're told that it all depends on us, that we can make it happen.

The Ancients knew this. They knew that the stars have to align.

Have you studied Chinese history? Chinese history is full of sages who live unremarkable lives, until suddenly they do something great. The idea of "sleeping dragon" which is popular in China refers exactly to this. They are sleeping dragons - they seemingly, from the perspective of others, waste their lives, doing nothing of note (such as reading, studying, menial jobs, no job (if they can afford) etc.), and yet they harbour great ambition. They realise one thing, that for their great ambition to be fulfilled, the stars have to align, and they have to be ready to pounce, but only once the stars are aligned, and the stars don't align very often. So until then, they are quiet, and they keep themselves away from society. They are like a sheathed sword - no one knows how sharp the blade is. But in this quiet time they sharpen the blade. Saying no is always much more important and relevant than saying yes. And these people are fine with the idea that they will never achieve their ambitions - because the stars may never align. They never depend on fulfilment of their goals to live a content, and otherwise meaningless life. In other words, they put it all on the line - either they will fulfil their ambition, or they will be nothing at all - no middle ground.

If you look at Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Elon Musk, etc. you'll see the same thing playing itself. Jack Ma, the Chinese billionaire is a great example. English professor, failed almost at everything he did. Lived a completely unremarkable life. Until he founded Alibaba. Never wrote a line of code, and yet owns China's equivalent to Amazon. Think about it - someone who knew 0 of programming, founded the biggest internet company in China that billions of people use and are helped by. But to do something great, the circumstance has to align, and you have to be ready for it once it aligns. For example, we each have different strengths and weaknesses. Someone has strengths in the sense that he knows a lot of people, another has strengths in that he is very knowledgeable, and so forth. Your environment must align with your strengths and cover your weaknesses. For example, someone who knows a lot of people, but is quite dumb himself, such a person needs a wise man to come along and guide him. Someone who is highly knowledgeable, and yet lacks resources - he needs to wait for the moment the rich man suddenly befriends him accidentally. Things like going to where there are rich people in the hopes of befriending them - that never works. It has to be bestowed by fate for it to work. Someone who is introverted and doesn't like to mingle with people, but is very technically capable - that person needs to wait till he meets the person who isn't technically capable, but is extroverted and easily mingles with others and can sell his invention. But remember, from insignificance, to major world contributions, isn't further than a single step, once the stars have aligned.

You are conflating its proper purpose with how it is actually (instrumentally) employed in most cases. My suggestion is that enhancing the material well-being of all people is the ideal for which all engineers should strive, from an ethical standpoint. — aletheist

There is no question of purpose here. There is a question of what is its final cause - what is it directed towards. The question isn't what SHOULD it be directed towards, but what is it actually directed towards, in both the ethical and the unethical cases? Final causality is objective, not subjective.

I should add that nothing in physics could ever falsify a metaphysical principle. Metaphysics is simply what has to be the case for ANY kind of physics to even be possible/coherent.

But I've just given an example of a fundamental theory, which is a theory of abstractions and emergence, that cannot be reduced - the hallmark of a FUNDAMENTAL theory — tom

It cannot yet be reduced, but according to the scientific worldview it is in principle reducible.

Why can't the laws of biology determine the laws of physics? — tom

Because physics studies the building blocks of the world. Physics was there before biology, and physics gave rise to biology. Thus causality must go from physics towards biology, not the other way around. Something that isn't in the cause cannot be in the effect.

The Free Will Theorem falsifies the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The behaviour of the particles has no cause. — tom

No it doesn't. You're making the same mistake of assuming that a cause has to be deterministic to be a cause at all. But what about non-deterministic causes? Are they not also causes? Is it not part of the particle's nature, and the nature of our measurements, that their behaviour cannot be predicted deterministically?

Being uncaused means more than randomness — tom

Yes most definitely. There's also conceptual problems regarding how something that is uncaused can even be conceived to begin with. When most people think of uncaused, they think of a certain empty scene followed by the empty scene holding some object N which popped into existence there. But this train of imagination could equally describe a situation of something which popped there with an unknown cause, or something which popped there after having been transported there, or something which popped there after having been created there by something. How can such scenarios be differentiated? And if they can't, to what extent is it possible to even imagine something coming into being uncaused?

In Aristotelian science there is only one uncaused cause - the Prime Mover. And uncaused in this case simply means eternal and unchangeable. Not something which pops into being, but something which cannot be conceived as non-existent.

And interestingly enough, when theists say God exists, they don't really understand what God exists means - negative theology. What they really mean by God exists is that God cannot be conceived of as non-existent.

Sure, in order to understand that evolution happens, one doesn't have to understand the genetic mechanism underlying it. So the what and the why can be known without knowledge of the how.

In fact, to understand that evolution happens, one only needs an inquisitive mind and knowledge of the existence of inheritance. If inheritance exists - features are transmitted to offspring - and if the environment favours the survival of individuals with certain traits - then the species, over time, will be formed solely of those who hold those traits, because in the long-run, only they will survive and reproduce, and hence pass those traits on. It's almost something you don't even need to prove...

However, John has a point that, ultimately, according to the scientific worldview, biology and chemistry have to be reducible to physics, and hence to quantification and mathematical description.

CAUSATION is entirely outside the realm of science. Even immediate causation can only be stated in terms of "we see this, and then we see that. it seems to always happen in this order." — taylordonbarrett

Look at this John. See - the view I'm talking about as the scientific view. Causation as applied to events, not things. A pattern of events governed by a set of laws. This is not the Aristotelian idea of EFFICIENT causality in any sense of it.

Address what I have actually said if you want a response. — John

I did. You said:

The natural sciences and engineering are mostly modeled in terms of mechanistic (or in Aristotelian terms, efficient causation). — John

So I addressed it. It's not efficient causation in the manner the Aristotelian conceives it. So there is no "or in Aristotelian terms, efficient causation".

You said:

Efficient causality is understood in terms of forces, mechanical, chemical and electrical actions. — John

In order to counter the point that efficient causality requires final causality to be understood. So I addressed it, and showed that merely positing forces, mechanical, chemical or otherwise does nothing to change the fact that efficient causality requires final causality to be understood.

And so forth. So don't hide.

I advocate viewing the final cause of engineering as enhancing the material well-being of all people — aletheist

This doesn't follow because engineering isn't in the business of enhancing the material well-being of people. If it was, then why doesn't it also engage in actions such as giving food, giving vaccines, etc? So the final cause of engineering is building things. Someone who builds a tank for example, which is aimed at killing people, is still doing engineering.

that is what it should be, its proper purpose from an ethical standpoint. — aletheist

The final cause of ethics is well-being. So ethical engineering aims at building in order to enhance well-being.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Pragmatism is a perfectly respectable school of philosophy. :D — aletheist

Not at all - I spoke of pragmatic not necessarily in the philosophical sense, but in the practical one.

I haven't suggested that the natural sciences operate in an Aristotelian paradigm — John

:-} No, you have just said that the natural sciences are mostly modelled in terms of mechanistic (Aristotelian efficient causation) - which is false in more than one way. Firstly, no they're not modelled in mechanistic terms. Secondly, their understanding of efficient causation isn't Aristotelian, precisely because they don't admit of final causes. This means that they don't have the same conception as Aristotle, because Aristotle showed, that given his conception, final causes are necessary to make sense of efficient causes.

Modern science is atomistic, efficient causation is understood in terms of particular action: the action of chemical elements and compound on cells, the actions of molecules, the actions of atoms; in general the action of particles, and the accumulations of those actions to form mineral and organic wholes. — John

This is again false. The behaviour of gas isn't understood in atomistic ways, but rather the gas laws are statistic. Again you impose your own prejudices of the way science functions.

Efficient causality is understood in terms of forces, mechanical, chemical and electrical actions — John

>:O And those forces aren't directed towards producing certain kinds of effects? If they are, then efficient causality is understood via final causality, although they, like you, won't admit to it. And if they aren't, then how come they consistently produce the specific kinds of effects they do? Chance, is this random, they magically produce such effects for no reason at all?

Science generally denies that there is any final causation (telos) — John

Denies it but uses it all the time.

efficient causation — John

Your notion of efficient causality is muddled up. Aristotle showed that efficient causality cannot be understood without final causality, which is what I'm showing you.

I am not denying that science might posit that there are events at subatomic scales that are not brought about by the efficient actions of any agent, but are uncaused (truly random) events. Such events cannot be modeled; they remain incomprehensible, unless they are modeled statistically, which is what I originally said — John

Something being uncaused means it is random... Great. That's a new one. Radioactive decay and other subatomic phenomena are uncaused... That too is a new one. Radioactive decay can be understood very simply once we apply Aristotelian notions to it. It has

1. Material cause - the constituents the atom is made of
2. Formal cause - the structure given by the atom's constituents
3. Efficient cause - whatever process/thing creates the unstable atom in the first place
4. And final cause - decay.

Radioactive decay DOES have a cause. It's not a deterministic cause, but causes don't need to be deterministic in order to be causes - that's only a prejudice. Neither is it a random cause - but rather a probabilistic one. What happens is that given its formal cause - in other words its nature - the atom has a certain probability of decay. It's simply what being that kind of atom is - having a certain probability of decay. So the phenomenon is far from being incomprehensible and impossible to model. Furthermore, given N atoms, we can predict how many of them will be left off after time t very accurately. It seems our understanding is quite good and solid.

First I never said that, you said it, and secondly, I use physics in a philosophical sense - it includes biology, chemistry, etc, hence my example of evolution.

I simply said religion isn't interested in this life so much as it is interested in the life of the soul which doesn't end with this life. So religion does have a place in telling facts to people in metaphysics, ethics, psychology, and natural theology.

Religion has to do with metaphysics and ethics primarily. Religion should understand it has no place in the business of physics. And physics should understand it has no business in metaphysics and ethics. Whenever physics attempts to suggest ethical or metaphysical ramifications, they are overstepping their bounds. So yes, I agree. Religion should have no place in the physics class - shouldn't fight against evolution etc, and neither should physics have any place in metaphysics.

>:O

Yes of course it works. Science was created to dominate and control the natural world - so man would become its master. I would be very surprised if it failed to work after so many years aimed at doing precisely that. However, what you discredit, namely mysticism and religion, they were never aimed at controlling the natural world. They were always aimed at preparing oneself for the afterlife - spiritual development. They didn't care (much) about this life. So to say that science has defeated religion is vacuous - that's only according to the criteria that science itself has imposed - namely worldly success. But religion never aimed to win based on this criteria. So the comparison is vacuous and stupid.

Slow and steady wins the race - that's what Jeb Bush told his supporters after he gifted them with a turtle when he was losing >:O

The natural sciences and engineering are mostly modeled in terms of mechanistic (or in Aristotelian terms, efficient causation) — John

Natural sciences, the way they have developed, unfortunately, do not have an Aristotelian understanding of efficient causality. Aristotle understood efficient causation as being applied to things, which bring about the motion (change) of another thing's potency to actuality. Natural science understands efficient causality to be applied to events - event one being followed by event two in time according to the dictates of law X.

So Aristotle understands ingested opium as the efficient cause of induced sleep. Notice that efficient and final cause are inseparable to Aristotle - all efficient causes are directed towards the final cause. This explains why ingesting opium always induces sleep - because it is directed towards that final cause. Hence, there is no problem of induction on the Aristotelian worldview, since all efficient causes are directed towards final causes. Furthermore - since it's a thing that is the efficient cause - in this case the opium - there is no case of the cause and the effect being loose and separate. Rather the cause and its effect are simultaneous on the Aristotelian worldview, and hence there is no gap that Hume needs in order to run his problem of induction. Ingested opium is a state of sleep - just like an artist moving his pencil on paper is the line drawn. There is no gap between the efficient cause and the effect, and hence no room for Hume's doubts.

Can you give an explanation of how any causal process works (of its mechanism) without giving it in terms of efficient causation? — John

The way science understands efficient causality is muddled up. Science thinks that event one, ingesting opium, is followed by event two, feeling sleepy, in time, according to some set of laws. And therefore science is under the confusion that there is no necessary link between event one and event two, since they are separated in time, and it is conceivable, because of such separation, that event one could be followed by feeling energised (for example), instead of feeling sleepy in some possible world.

To give an example of how the causal process works, then you need all four causes. You need the material cause - what the thing that changes is made of (the nature of the material), you need the formal cause - what the nature of the thing that changes is (the nature of its structure), you need the efficient cause - the external mover which brings about the required motion (change), and you need the final cause - the end towards which the causal process is directed. If you remove any of these, you cannot explain anything.

The need of the human mind to reduce elements of causal processes to discrete units in order to grasp them is exemplified by the use of calculus to model change. — John

One has doubts that the mind can grasp infinitesimals, which are infinitely small, and yet non-zero discrete units.

but how are the 'operations' of those understandable to the human mind — John

The operation of final causality isn't understood via efficient causality - it's the other way around, efficient causality is understood via final causality.

Furthermore, natural sciences are not - in practice, not in theory - mechanistic. Biological systems aren't mechanistic. Evolution isn't mechanistic. Quantum Mechanics isn't mechanistic. Newtonian science is mechanistic - but that's about it I'm afraid. That's what I mean when I say that you're stuck in Descartes' age. Science has changed a lot since then.

I remember watching a cartoon as a kid about the conflict between science and religion. Some people on these boards remind me of that cartoon. Some of you still live thinking about mechanistic science, and non-mechanistic religion, and other stuff like that. That stuff is long gone. Nobody believes that anymore.

engineering — John

Engineering is purely pragmatic. It's modelled based on what works, it doesn't care at all about why it works, except in-so-far as why it works may help to ensure that it works. Understanding isn't the final cause of engineering - building is ;)

It's modeled in mathematical (statistical) terms, no? — John

Yes what's the "mechanistic causal process" needed for? Science has no addiction to mechanistic causal processes at all. Do you live in Descartes' time? :P

Radioactive decay is a nondeterministic (hence non-mechanical) causal process. The mechanistic part of the definition is irrelevant because it doesn't matter for science today anymore. It's about quantification and mathematical description, that is its essence.

If you can precisely model it in terms of mathematics or mechanistic causal process then you have something that is a matter for science. Anything that cannot be so modeled falls outside its ambit. However, that seemingly obvious fact doesn't seem to penetrate the minds of the wide-eyed, ever-hopeful scientists (in the sense of 'proponents of scientism') or prevent them from issuing an endless stream of futile promissory notes. — John

False. Radioactive decay isn't a mechanistic causal process.

There's nothing new in this though. When all else fails, brute force will make a way. Always been like this, always will be like this. And I respect the military by and large. Honour is better than hedonism for sure. Best is reason, but honor (Timocracy) is second best - and I agree with Plato's comments.

The scientific method, in order to be successful, necessarily abstracts away from reality everything that cannot be tackled by its mathematical and quantitative method of analysis. This doesn't mean that such aspects of reality don't exist - as scientism holds - merely that they cannot be handled by the methods of science.

I highly doubt that any social system organised around "the corporation" will ever be good. I am a follower of distributism - lots of small, independent economic producers, focused on the production of necessary goods, and life revolving away from consumerism and economic activity, and more around family and culture. I am an enemy of both socialism and corporatism (which is the outgrowth of capitalism) - which really are one and the same. Corporatism is a form of socialism, except that the corporation replaces government. Socialism is merely capitalism with a human face.

I think Fredric Jameson is correct in saying we are in last stages of capitalism. He suggests that we consider possible Utopias as models. — Cavacava

Yeah, capitalism will morph into corporatism - that's no good as far as I'm concerned. And if that doesn't happen, and instead the corporation will end - then there will be a massive war, and whoever emerges out of it unscathed will be a huge victor.

I don't think a mature society needs to control its population, in the same way we have to had to control our population — Cavacava

This is utopian and simply impossible considering human nature. Men left to their own devices - in other words the removal of discipline - will always lead towards social chaos. This has nothing to do with maturity. Maturity applies to individuals. A mature individual doesn't need external discipline anymore. Think analogically to gas molecules. Gas will always spread evenly in the container, even though each molecule doesn't aim for this. So too, human society will move towards chaos if there is no restraint. Not because there is something wrong with individuals (or because they aim for this), but rather because the probabilities are crooked, at a social, not at an individual level.

And think about it. One mistake counts more than one success. That's the asymmetry that skews the probabilities.

This is falsely dichotomous, it seems to me. Are you really saying that all atheists, or Buddhists or Taoists for that matter, worship Mammon in some way? — Thorongil

Where am I saying that? One always has faith - that's my point. And the faith is either in God or Mammon. Now the faith doesn't have to be conscious. One can be an atheist and yet have faith in the true God, just as one can have his eyes set worshipping an idol, and yet in truth he would be worshipping the one true God.

I hope not; is it an evil emoticon? Oh, perhaps I see, the eyes are not merely open, but diabolically open on that one? O:)

Remember now, my tendency towards Asperger's renders me a poor reader ( and by extension, user) of emoticons. ;) — John

>:O LOL! Yes I remember!

Merry Christmas Agustino X-) — John

Hmm that emoticon seems quite dubious haha - have you sent me an evil present? >:O

Merry Christmas to all. — John

Merry Christmas! :D

Thanks about the hermits — Cavacava

No problem, you're welcome.

Well in the case of the last election here in the states, 279 votes were all that counted, HRC received 2.8 million more popular votes than Trump, but she lost. The GOP out strategized the DEMS, no doubt about it. The majority supposedly picks the candidates, but as we saw last election here in the US (that bastion of Democracy) the primary process can/was fixed in favor of HRC. I like Italy's M5S decision to have its primary on line for its 137K members to vote, this seems fairer, if it can control the process. — Cavacava

Yes but the absolute majority doesn't make sense to me to begin with in a country as large as America. It seems to me as representation of the country by geographical area has to be taken into account, otherwise a few urban regions like New York will swallow up most people (as they have already done) and then this majority would rule tyrannically and uncaringly over all other smaller regions, draining resources and people all to themselves - and forcing everyone to become like them and adopt their values. The United Kingdom has this problem, where London, Manchester and other such large cities are drawing all the resources and sucking up all the population, thus leaving the other regions forgotten. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote merely because of the progressive landslides from California, New York and so forth. But the republicans represent America much better than the Democrats do considering the geographical area that voted. I think the Republican victory is fair - fairer than Democracy as usually understood. Anyway, I think with Plato that democracy is quite possibly the worst form of government if we exclude tyranny and dictatorship.

Those who are most ardent about their religion tend to show up and they voice their feelings — Cavacava

Maybe - but they are generally kept at bay and isolated by the majority.

I think society deep down realizes that it is better off with religion than without it, in my opinion. — Cavacava

Either this, or the 80% simply use such tactics - putting in God We Trust on money etc. in order to contain the 20%. Just like in the old PF, where atheists dominated by and large, they had a philosophy of religion section, to quote SLX if I remember correctly, in order to keep God topics contained, so they don't spill over in other sections. In other words, it was better for them pragmatically speaking to have a section than to have no section at all.

Or at least society does not seem to have matured to the point where it can operate in an orderly fashion for any extended period of time without Religious normative values — Cavacava

Why do you assume that a mature society wouldn't need religious normative values to operate in an orderly fashion?

Hey, I never met a hermit, have you? If you have literally met a hermit and he made sense to you, then clearly I am wrong, but in everything I've read, they all seem off a bit to me. — Cavacava

I've gone to visit the Eastern Orthodox monks for a short time on Mount Athos, and I have visited and discussed with hermits there, including some monks who had returned from being hermits to living at the monasteries. There's absolutely nothing wrong or off with these people. Modern psychological theory, for social reasons, has transformed the desire to be alone or the desire for seclusion into a sort of mental illness. Many other ideas are associated with mental illness as well - for example chastity. But many of these people actually seem quite strong mentally, and they are very kind and otherwise can be very sociable and compassionate. I was actually impressed at their compassion and understanding of subtle social issues and cues...

Also there's a question of whether any kind of companionship is worth it. I have distanced myself from most of my old-time friends for example, because their values and things they like to do have become very different from mine. It's not that I don't like companionship, I do desire it, but it's simply that I cannot find the kind of companionship I desire in most people I get the chance to meet. So therefore it is better to be without companionship than to be with the wrong kind of companionship. So although I meet a lot of people in my work life, I have few close friends at the moment.

80% pay lip service to their faith, but 20% are ardent, in absolute numbers that's a lot of ardent people — Cavacava

Yes, but in a democracy, the 80% control the nation's future.

It's a strange situation. The atheist can find no rational basis in the belief in a god, and the believer accepts faith as a gift. — Cavacava

Stranger still... Not only can they find no rational basis for the belief in God, they demand that one is given, and if one doesn't give it then:

Live and let live is one thing, but that is not written into any doctine of these theistic notions. As I see it there is much to be discussed because if not there may be no discussion allowed in the name of this sort of totalitarian invisible proxy of constraint and censure

Combined with all the allusions to North Korea, totalitarianism and the like. This goes to show one thing - namely that the problem most atheists have with theism isn't an intellectual one (does God exist or not?) but rather an emotional and a political one - a problem of the will as Pascal would say. If there is a God - then certain things which they don't like follow. Not giving them a reason for your own belief in God will merely lead to them unmasking themselves. They're not asking for a reason because honestly they want to consider the question of is there or is there not a God - no - they want a reason to tear it down. If you give them reasons, they can fight back - but if you don't give them reasons, suddenly they are left powerless, and in that desperation will reveal that it's not intellect that is driving them, but the will - it's really about the ramifications of theism - the emotional and political ones especially.

The problem with God for them, is really the morality that comes attached with it. They're not so outraged at the existence or inexistence of God. They're outraged that homosexual sex is immoral (for example) if God exists - that's the North Korea authoritarianism for them. But they can't attack that ground, because they figured the morality/immorality of that depends on the underlying metaphysics. So the metaphysics therefore must be attacked - they say strike at the root, that is their strategy. But if someone doesn't want to debate the metaphysics with them, suddenly they don't know what to do! This guy is a theist and refuses to give reasons for his belief! Outrageous! And thus, their political concerns, which motivated them all along, but which until then they would cleverly hide, inevitably come to the front. They want to attack theism because of its consequences. And showing this is sufficient to discredit them intellectually - in truth the strategy enables them to discredit themselves. That combined with taking every chance to show their intellectual dishonesty at their many attempts to provoke one to offer reasons for belief in God certainly more than suffices. The theist wins best on the defensive, not on the offensive. Hence apologetics - defending the faith.

And the fact that these motivations of the will show themselves openly enables them to be unmasked and shown to be irrational. For example, their hatred of authority becomes evident - evident from the false association of authority with authoritarianism. But the truth is that authoritarianism undermines the very authority it claims to so love, because it removes the very reasons one has for obeying authority - namely that it makes sense, it is rational. In authoritarianism, the authority decrees whatever is to its liking, without regard to whether the decree is rational or not. But because it does so, it undermines its very authority which previously provided reasons for following. Now that it's not rational anymore, what's the reason for following it? Authority becomes transformed into irrational tyranny, which destroys all respect for it. So this is their clever ploy - in order to discredit authority, conflate it and the love of authority, with authoritarianism. That's how we go from Heaven to North Korea!

The theist position pervades western culture right down to its foundations, insurance clauses specifically preclude god's interference from their liability, he is on US capitol tender. — Cavacava

Is that really so? I don't think so at all - I think quite the opposite in fact. If we look at how things are, we see that people pay lip-service to God, by putting, for example "In God we Trust" on their money. But do they really trust in God? Doesn't seem like it to me at all. Do they put insurance clauses specifically precluding God's interference from liability because they want a reason to save money and to look good or because they really believe in God's interference? Do people call themselves Christians because they really follow the teachings and morality given in the Bible, or because they want to be seen and thought about well? In fact, I'd go as far as say that the world (really meaning the Western world) has never been farther from God than it is today, and it's never been close to God for most of its history either.

Beyond the physical indications of mass belief there is its effect on what, how, even when we think, which I don't think any of us can fully escape (hermits go nuts, always been that way) the way it has affected our system of valuation, and valuation I think goes to the core/origin of rationality. — Cavacava

What are these indications of mass belief that you see? And what's the evidence that hermits go nuts? Some monks are hermits for very long periods of time - years upon years. And they are perfectly sane.

I personally don't think man can live without some sort of religion, even if that is a hallowed routine, that one faithfully practices. — Cavacava

I agree. Either God or Mammon, but it has to be one of them.

God is more interested how men live their life — Cavacava

Most likely.

Maybe being in troth with your own beliefs is more important than what is believed. — Cavacava

If one who lives in a Christian culture goes up to God’s house, the house of the true God, with a true conception of God, with knowledge of God and prays—but prays in a false spirit; and one who lives in a idolatrous land prays with the total passion of the infinite, although his eyes rest on the image of an idol; where is there most truth? The one prays in truth to God, although he worships an idol. The other prays in untruth to the true God and therefore really worships an idol — Soren Kierkegaard

Oh, and Merry Christmas everyone! :D — 0 thru 9

Why is everyone saying Merry Christmas today? :P It's the 24th, not the 25th no (unless you are from Japan?) ? And as far as I know Christmas is 25th, 24th is merely Christmas Eve.

I'd play somemore, but the rationality of this converstation just went bye bye. — Mayor of Simpleton

The cat leaves with the tail between its legs ;)

One is an emprical test to see if there is an actual beneficial application to the cure disease and the other is the actual practice employing tested medicine for the curing of disease. — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes and the empirical test concludes that there is actual benefit in its application to cure disease. It follows then that it should be employed in the practice.

No offense here, but if I'm on my deathbed I'd prefer that the doctors use empirically tested medicines rather than use me as a test subject to see what happens to happen. — Mayor of Simpleton

You're thinking too black and white. You may be on your deathbed and no "empirically tested" medicine is able to cure you for certain, however, some yet untried medicine (which by the way isn't the equivalent of the placebo, because the placebo has been tried before) may be able to give you a small chance. Would you go for the empirically tested medicine in that case?

Give me one example of a theistic god that is knowable; that which can be perceived directly — Mayor of Simpleton

To be knowable to you means to be perceived directly using the five senses. That's not necessarily what being knowable is in the first place. The theorem of Pythagoras cannot be perceived directly for example. There is no physical theorem for you to touch or see. It is an object of the intellect. But this doesn't mean that the theorem doesn't exist either.

As for an example of a theistic God that is/was directly knowable. The resurrected Jesus Christ.

No...

... unknowable means cannot be known. — Mayor of Simpleton

Ok so? I fail to see anything that follows out of this. Does it follow that incomprehensible is unknowable? No, because what is incomprehensible today, may be comprehensible tomorrow - and thus can be known.

Medical trials is laymans terms for clinical trials. — Mayor of Simpleton

Ok, even so, what does that have to do with anything? First you make an unsubstantiated distinction between a placebo in a medical trial, and a placebo in a medical intervention - what reason do you even have to suppose there may be such a distinction? That's just the same level as thinking that eating grass might cure cancer, and we need to go out and test it - investigate it, as you love to say - to see if it really does. No we don't. Nobody does science like that. We have no reason to think eating grass cures cancer, and thus we have no reason to test it.

It's evident that you're just trying to wiggle out of the truth in order to have reality fit with your preconceived worldview.

I don't think this is a wish of mine, but rather an observation. — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes, the theist will say likewise.

My not believing in a theistic deity subsequently eliminates this "eye in the sky" authoritarian surveillance with the ability and licence for eternal judgement; thus no reason to fear. — Mayor of Simpleton

As the theist does not believe that death is the end, he has no reason to fear it. Quite simple. Don't you see how stupid all of this is? You caricature the theist, the theist can just as easily caricature you.

This is not me criticising the notions of theistic beliefs as much as I am simply describing the beliefs. — Mayor of Simpleton

Yeah, describing them in a way that no theist would agree to them. I guess we should take that as clearly a fair description.

If this were the case, why don't these theistic individuals all wish to die? — Mayor of Simpleton

Because it's not up to them to decide when to leave the world. It's also immoral to desire to die sooner than your time, because it is disobeying God's will. Furthermore, you could add that since death is inevitable and its time is decided by God, there is no reason to wish for it, since whether you wish it, or you don't, it will come at its allotted time anyway.

Why do they cry at a funeral? — Mayor of Simpleton

Because, at least until death, they will be separated from the loved one? They cry more for themselves than for the person who has died. Only the atheist is under the delusion that he's crying for the person who has died ;)

my take is that it is a holy celestial North Korea — Mayor of Simpleton

How quaint that no theist describes Heaven in these terms, don't you think so? It seems quite evident to me that your dislike for authority is one of the main reasons behind your atheism - and yes, an emotional, not a rational reason, exactly as I have claimed before.

The definition of a medical trial (or clnical trial) — Mayor of Simpleton

Yes, moving from medical trial to clinical trial is called moving goal posts.

Personally I would rather have a medical professional practice medicine if I were hanging on to life by a thread rather than conduct a medical (clinical) trial. — Mayor of Simpleton

Medicine isn't so "clear-cut" that someone can just "practice medicine".

Every bit of theistic doctrine presents a god beyond comprehension (aka "unknowable") — Mayor of Simpleton

No, being beyond comprehension does not mean unknowable, it simply means being (currently) unknown. The theists draw a distinction here and say that God is entirely intelligible, however, not entirely intelligible for finite human intellects. Definitely they don't claim God is incomprehensible in an ontological sense - only partly incomprehensible for the finite human intellect - the same way a black hole is incomprehensible.

unknowable creatures — Mayor of Simpleton

How uninformed this is. Unknowable creature(s) with reference to God >:O . God is creator, not creature. That is a fundamental tenet of theism, how peculiar that your attacks merely show your ignorance of that which you want to attack.

Then these people of faith should finally have the good taste and stop arguing. — Mayor of Simpleton

And who are you to issue warrants regarding what should be done and what shouldn't be done? The moral authority itself? Have you killed God to put yourself on the throne? See, that's the problem with your kind of atheism - you can't even issue moral injunctions. Once you undermine any and all authority, you undermine even your own self.

Why insist there must be an organizing force for the sake of making one feel better? — Mayor of Simpleton

It's not for the sake of making one feel better, it's simply because this appears evidently true to some. You can wake up and look at the splendor of the world and say "just happened by chance", not everyone can.

Why dumb down investigation for the sake of having an answer to be consistant with a preconception bias? — Mayor of Simpleton

Yeah, I wish to ask you the same thing.

"We constantly create false positives. We touch wood for luck, we see faces in toasted cheese, fortunes in tea leaves. These provide a comforting illusion of meaning. This is the human condition in our bewildering and complex world. (and) In the irrational mindset, if you believe in the mystical pattern you have imposed on reality you call yourself 'spiritual'." — Mayor of Simpleton

Just because Mr. Dawkins cannot reach up to the grapes does not mean they are sour.

The problem as I see it is that many of the theistic notions lead to rather totalitarian forces that place an end to investigation. — Mayor of Simpleton

How do they place an end to investigation? Investigation, ie experiment, is what deals with the empirical realm. Theism deals with metaphysics. What does investigation have to do with metaphysics? Nothing. Metaphysics cannot stop any investigation, neither can any investigation change metaphysics. The two are independent.

Indeed, if you start with the answer prior to the investigation, then you have a bias that is unavoidable and will in the end be defended at all costs. — Mayor of Simpleton

We always start with presuppositions which are not proven. Furthermore, there is no investigation (experiment) in metaphysics the way there is investigation in physics.

It has an extreme arrogance of certainity without ever making an effort to investigate. — Mayor of Simpleton

What is there to investigate, in the sense of experiment? This is the wrong-headed approach from the very beginning. One needs to think through metaphysics, and identify the principles that are required to be accepted in order to make sense of ANY KIND of physics whatsoever. Then one needs to draw whatever conclusions there are to draw out of such principles. As for arrogance, the atheist is quite arrogant himself when, for example, he thinks the universe should be under some compulsion to follow its laws such that miracles are impossible.

Live and let live is one thing, but that is not written into any doctine of these theistic notions. — Mayor of Simpleton

Right. The governance of society is a different subject than the attitude one is to have to other individuals. Live and let live is simply an attitude individuals should have with respect to one another - because there's nothing else they can do about each other. But I quite possibly believe that the good governance of society involves setting up a strong culture which enforces the virtues and religious practices which have always been essential for human communities through means such as education, social pressure, and so forth.

Faith in Hitler is still faith. I wasn't discussing who and what one should have faith in (the ethics of faith) but rather the nature of faith.

In the context of belief in God, this would merely mean you choose not to follow God. You would just marry some other belief instead. This is why it's particularly rehtorical-- you are demanding faith in God to get people to follow God. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Your faith isn't just following God, it's your commitment to God. It's this commitment and the actions that follow from it that are the fruits.