tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post1053476352910267893..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: On Coyne, Harris, and PZ (with thanks to Dennett)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38037105513480593842014-03-06T19:15:17.035-05:002014-03-06T19:15:17.035-05:00Massimo,
Some fascinating reading and analysis in...Massimo,<br /><br />Some fascinating reading and analysis in your post, and in various linked articles – your “conceptual analysis and criticism of the NA movement” in particular. Relative to which, since it seems a serious “bone of contention” as well as the source of some amusement, I wonder what you would consider as the essential element of “science” itself, its <i>sine qua non</i>. Relative to which, the British scientist and Nobel Laureate P.B. Medawar, in his <i>Two Conceptions of Science</i> essay in his <i>The Art of the Soluble</i>, argued:<br /><br /><i>” … but the activity that is characteristically scientific begins with an explanatory conjecture which at once becomes the subject of an energetic critical analysis. It is an instance of a far more general stratagem that underlies every enlargement of a general understanding and every new solution of the problem of finding our way about the world.” [pgs 153-154]</i><br /><br />And, arguably, that process seems characteristic of virtually all human cogitation across a great many disciplines and behaviours, from science itself to literature to philosophy – why, even to plumbing. But what actually undergirds that “hypothetico-deductive scheme” is maybe moot – although the phrase itself suggests that it is comprised of both inductive and deductive reasoning, with the former encompassing intuition, and constitutes the major part of our common human “toolkit” with many diverse applications. As for what, in turn, undergirds each of those processes, it would seem that we’re obliged to change our focus from the external to the internal, i.e., to neuroscience; <i>The Cerebral Code</i> by the neuroscientist William H. Calvin I’ve found to be a fascinating exposition of what is largely the digital logic behind much of our perceptions and cognitive abilities. Although how that manifests consciousness is, of course, an entirely different kettle of fish.<br /><br />But, as a case in point, you argued that “we do not use science, or any kind of empirical evidence at all, to arrive at agreement about such [facts as the sum of angles in a triangle]”. Yet it seems to me that this YouTube video (1) of the proof of that rather clearly depends on inductive and deductive reasoning, and on “observation and experience” – i.e., “empirical evidence”.<br /><br />However, I will agree that there are notable differences in many disciplines, many of which are due to different emphases, and different subject matter – as with the differences between, say, physics and chemistry. But I think it important to try to emphasize and elucidate what we share in common rather than what separates us – including the methodologies and principles that undergird our differing professions.<br /><br />----<br />1) “_http://www.khanacademy.org/math/geometry/parallel-and-perpendicular-lines/triang_prop_tut/v/proof---sum-of-measures-of-angles-in-a-triangle-are-180”;<br />Steersmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472826917686907104noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37255922279724896072014-02-13T09:49:05.963-05:002014-02-13T09:49:05.963-05:00"it’s more accurate — neuropsychologically sp..."it’s more accurate — neuropsychologically speaking — that we proportion the evidence to our beliefs — consequently the New Atheist rabble errs when it invokes evidentiary considerations where purely logical arguments suffice."<br /><br />I'm going to use this quote :D .... if it's ok with you.<br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02467793406608705828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3431848259704126982014-02-12T00:14:50.451-05:002014-02-12T00:14:50.451-05:00"I simply meant the Humean test of proportion..."I simply meant the Humean test of proportioning one’s beliefs to the evidence"<br /><br />Massimo dotes on this mantra but actually it’s more accurate — neuropsychologically speaking — that we proportion the evidence to our beliefs — consequently the New Atheist rabble errs when it invokes evidentiary considerations where purely logical arguments suffice.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84796405824058265412014-02-11T15:24:45.474-05:002014-02-11T15:24:45.474-05:00Well, my biased view says otherwise.
So if are vie...<i>Well, my biased view says otherwise.</i><br />So if are views are biased and there is no evidence either way, wouldnt you either a) be charitable or b) reserve judgement?<br /><i> No matter what scientific explanation we arrive at for those questions, a religionist can always tack on it: “and that’s how god does it,”</i><br />I did say you need a little bit of philosophy too:). By this token though , no claim is ever scientific!. Any scientific claim (e.g. the age of the earth) cannot be refuted if someone tacks on "but it was made this way by a mysterious entity in mysterious ways for mysterious reasons" - and in that sense science cannot make any conclusion about anything - not just religious claims - trivially true but practically speaking that is not the way humans talk or behave - and we even bet our lives on it.Deepak Shettyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04324456947895848248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-16219275674217122932014-02-10T09:13:58.872-05:002014-02-10T09:13:58.872-05:00I wish to disagree with you on the impossibility o...I wish to disagree with you on the impossibility of knowledge as a unified category.<br />A good framework to organize and understand various kinds of knowledge is Aristotle's four causes : material, efficient, formal and final. While the first two seem to belong mostly to the 'hard sciences' ,the humanities are mostly concerned with the others.Consider a tiger. It's 'final cause' could be self-preservation. While the tiger itself depends on the laws of physics for its constitution, its 'final cause'-aspect is independent of them .We could not deduce the appearance of such an 'end' from the laws of physics. If the laws of physics were different, the tiger 'as an end' could still exist, only made of different materials to conform to those laws of physics (I use the same argument to those who say doing math is reducible to the laws of physics. As a concrete process, it is dependent on them, but could happen under other laws of physics) .Symmetrically, knowledge of the 'ends' of a tiger does not give you knowledge of the laws of physics. These two types of knowledge are complementary to one another, though people tend to be focused solely on one of the two. Both underdetermine things, but trough their combination, underdetermination is reduced and new knowledge arises. Basing knowledge as a combination of complementary principles may be a solution to epistemic reductionism. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02467793406608705828noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43117532221725432062014-02-10T04:49:55.262-05:002014-02-10T04:49:55.262-05:00Out of all the so-called new atheists, it's Ha...Out of all the so-called new atheists, it's Harris' popularity I've found the most baffling. His pronouncements on politics are bad enough, but I'm a lawyer by trade, and I fail to see how anything about his Grand Project to make science the determinant of moral values would have any impact in a practical sense. It might be easy to do a brain scan of someone and determine how much dopamine is released at a given point. But so what? <br /><br />This might be a case of me defending my own turf, but it seems to me that we already have a way of using reason to arrive at decisions about practical moral problems, and it's called law. It's obviously possible to use science to inform the outcomes of a decision, but how would you use science to arrive at, say, sentencing guidelines in order to make punishment a deterrent, or whether or not a crime should be one of strict or vicarious liability? What about international laws regarding state sovereignty? Superior responsibility for war crimes? <br /><br />Harris' assertion is that everything that contributes to 'the well-being of concious creatures' is morally good, but that just seems to me to be vague and tautological - "what is good is good". Moreover, there are values besides pure hedonism which we might and often do choose to value as conducive to not just human but societal well-being. How would you use science (understanding the natural world by way of the natural world) to determine concepts like justice, liberty, fairness, equity, the right to democratic consultation? It just seems to me that Harris' project is too vague and all-encompassing to be anything of great interest to anyone besides a dilletante. <br /><br />It should also be noted that, in my opinion, Harris has shown himself to be in favour of a whole swathe of actions which are pretty much universally considered incompatible with the well-being of concious creatures. Stuff like his garbled and nonsensical defense-that-isn't-a-defense-except-when-it-is of torture, or his support of racial profiling. Alex Harrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01748563487600793151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29064591341259483942014-02-09T23:12:50.847-05:002014-02-09T23:12:50.847-05:00My further thoughts on this are to wonder if the G...My further thoughts on this are to wonder if the God Hypothesis were to be considered a scientific hypothesis to be tested using the methods of science I wonder then if the Naturalism Hypothesis should be treated in a similar fashion and if it would be any less "...semi-incoherent ensemble of contradictory statements easily failing the test of reason and evidence"?<br /><br />Could the Naturalism Hypothesis be stated as clearly as I have stated the God Hypothesis?Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015911138886238144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45957064952398550452014-02-09T19:03:06.719-05:002014-02-09T19:03:06.719-05:00As far as Dennett v Harris is concerned, Harris ju...As far as Dennett v Harris is concerned, Harris just gives a presentation based on prior neural processing, which has been done to death, and Dennett didn't deal with it directly in his reply. Since when was anything known without processing after the relevant event? Libet himself, who started that storm in a teacup, had subjects who only "felt" by processing after an event that was inevitably prior to the experience because the experience requires processing. Processing stands between anatomical event (skin touch) and experience. We are aware of events after they happen, inevitably, but we also plan for events and make them happen to be aware of them as well.<br /><br />In a sequence of events done and to be done in a day we can think through them using free will and make adjustable decisions. Processing is of anatomical events that have already happened (and we plan to happen) but of which we are unaware until processing is done. They are ex post and not prior to anatomical events (proprioception included) that create them, and all we have in an evitable delay for processing. It just means awareness is not immediate - it delays for processing, and that has no bearing on free will in adjusting from moment to moment using free will to deal with events.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12115337703424786486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42076891597438915772014-02-09T13:23:16.226-05:002014-02-09T13:23:16.226-05:00I don't get it, and I read the paper you publi...I don't get it, and I read the paper you published as well. Your analysis is more then apt; and what is wrong with being passionate about your field of expertise, which is so generally disregarded by NA's founding fathers to begin with?<br /><br />And what is the crime in calling Christopher Hitchens a polemicist? He was one, and a bloody good one at that. I say this with admiration, his gift for language and rhetoric was inspiring. Even if one doesn't agree with all he has said and done, one can admit his talent and guts.FBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14146881636937508659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31090527941999099442014-02-09T02:33:37.144-05:002014-02-09T02:33:37.144-05:00Massimo,
>GH is not just a bad hypothesis, it ...Massimo,<br /><br />>GH is not just a bad hypothesis, it isn’t a (scientific) hypothesis at all. It is not even wrong<<br /><br />There are versions of GH that are more nebulous/inespecific than others, your assertion applies to many, but not all of them. And the GH take can be applied to very specific postulates of the religious: take for example, "prayer works": I don't like the experimental praying approach ("God wouldn't participate in such mockery"), but instead we could do a posterior survey on people that had relatives or friends treated in hospitals. If reported level of praying doesn't correlate to the relative getting well, there you have it: at least one notion of god's power gets refuted. Some fundamentalist may say god foresaw this, but many moderates may not buy that, because it implies God screwed up people that didn't mean to "mock him" by responding to a survey they didn't know its purpose.<br /><br />>I disagree. Dawkins is very explicit that he thinks *science* can refute the god hypothesis. If all he were doing were to rehash the old (philosophical) arguments against the existence of god, then one would wonder what exactly his novel contribution to the debate would be<<br /><br />We could ask him! Thinking again, Dawkins may be serious about GH, but he's clear in that only more concrete GH are treatable as such (i.e. not the God of the Deist, he discards science application to that with straightforward, but valid, philosophy). As I said above, he also talks about specific claims from the religious (for example, Creationism). We can disprove creationism scientifically, and even if the most hard-headed fundamentalists give a made up response (the devil wants to deceive us/God is testing our faith with false evidence), the moderate may not buy it. And many haven't! More on that below.<br /><br />>But it isn’t. There is *nothing* commonsensical about much modern science, its methods and its results. Just think quantum mechanics and the Hadron Collider.<<br /><br />I have read the article you recommended in your Picks. Besides quantum mechanics, and those Physics that deal with the very "fabric of reality" so to speak, what other science branch has lost "common sense"? Isn't saying that they lost it a bit harsh? I see them proposing multiverses and stuff, but they treat those things as suggestions from the mathematics that arise from their observations... don't they?<br /><br />>Do we have any non anecdotal evidence for that claim? I’m not saying you are wrong, I just don’t know.<<br /><br />Sadly, not that I'm aware of, just the claims of NA like Coyne and Dawkins that they receive letters from deconverts from time to time. Dawkins' site has a letter section from "converts", which shows a sizeable collection that adds constantly (most recent are from January). http://www.richarddawkins.net/letters?category=Converts&page=1<br /><br />>They are whenever they enter into philosophical territory, which with atheism happens immediately, since it is a metaphysical / epistemological position.<<br /><br />The existence of a being that interacts with the universe is anything but metaphysical methinks.<br /><br />I agree that anyone that dares to do philosophy should do their homework, but at least in the God Delusion I don't see were it is misapplying it.buttheadrulesagainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17019750986423516925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89519405625103754422014-02-08T15:28:00.016-05:002014-02-08T15:28:00.016-05:00I look forward to your clarification then!I look forward to your clarification then!Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87586456917340814592014-02-08T15:21:41.022-05:002014-02-08T15:21:41.022-05:00Hi DM , I actually thought of a problem with my ar...Hi DM , I actually thought of a problem with my argument that you didn' argument that you didn't bring up and I.can only claim that the DD problem applies to CUH but more of that later.Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015911138886238144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25325564407783600192014-02-08T15:11:09.485-05:002014-02-08T15:11:09.485-05:00But yes, there is a digital demigod problem with M...But yes, there is a digital demigod problem with MUHRobinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015911138886238144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91207855738670191642014-02-08T15:09:51.283-05:002014-02-08T15:09:51.283-05:00I have looked and you don't even appear to.und...I have looked and you don't even appear to.understand what I mean by a digital demigod. Perhaps I will have time later to.respond in detailRobinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015911138886238144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75931393638479732212014-02-08T10:06:41.260-05:002014-02-08T10:06:41.260-05:00I answered your digital demigod problem on the oth...I answered your digital demigod problem on the other thread. There is no digital demigod problem.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-57406282482173624612014-02-08T05:02:23.405-05:002014-02-08T05:02:23.405-05:00Hi DM,
I agree that it would be impossible to pro...Hi DM,<br /><br />I agree that it would be impossible to prove the impossibility of building a sentient computer.<br /><br />But I am not concerned with sentience in either case, only external behaviour.<br /><br />If the brain is reverse engineered with sufficient accuracy and a computer of sufficient power to model it becomes available then it should be fairly obvious at some stage that there is something missing.<br /><br />That missing thing need not be "mind" as I am defining it, but the fact of something missing from the physical picture would certainly count as evidence.Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015911138886238144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45971525121918456712014-02-08T04:58:29.255-05:002014-02-08T04:58:29.255-05:00And finally, on the Mind and Mathematics thing, I ...And finally, on the Mind and Mathematics thing, I fear that the scientific world may have unwittingly given it respectability by giving MUH respectability.<br /><br />Tegmark says that MUH is a consequence of the External Reality Hypothesis.<br /><br />So if this is to be treated as a scientific argument then we have to accept that his argument might be correct but that MUH might be false which would also falsify ERH.<br /><br />I would love to know what Tegmark would say to the digital demigod problem.Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015911138886238144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12756145934779779722014-02-08T04:54:40.168-05:002014-02-08T04:54:40.168-05:00In any case if they want to treat God as a hypothe...In any case if they want to treat God as a hypothesis I do wish they would take some care to get it right.<br /><br />In The God Delusion, Dawkins argues against the existence of a contingent god.<br /><br />That is trivially easy but who is he arguing against, hardly anybody believes in the existence of a contingent god.<br /><br />Kind of made the book a wasted opportunity.Robinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015911138886238144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10056502704203613322014-02-08T00:46:24.432-05:002014-02-08T00:46:24.432-05:00Personally, I used to find this whole debate hilar...Personally, I used to find this whole debate hilarious. But now it has turned ugly and it's not very funny anymore.<br /><br />Most of this debate is about talking past each other, and trying to define a word. I mean if Coyne wants to a plumber is a scientist, and you don't want to, can't you say the plumber is a scientist-C, but he's not a scientist-M, and move on? <br /><br />Anyway, I think I haven't read God Hypothesis, but wasn't his target the Yahweh/Christian God who created the universe in seven days rather than an abstract idea of a god? You can always come up with trivial arguments like maybe god created the universe 6000 years ago and made it look like we evolved (he also made it look like we need oxygen, even though we really don't), but that is a sufficiently specific idea that can be considered a hypothesis that was falsified.<br /><br />If we found one day that all the living beings suddenly appeared 6000 years ago, and it was found that all the things described in the Bible actually happened (the flood, the ark, the apple, the talking snake etc.) I would take the idea of a Christian God much more seriously than I do, which couldn't happen if it wasn't a hypothesis on which evidence had some effect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39572689177074126812014-02-07T21:46:23.178-05:002014-02-07T21:46:23.178-05:00Massimo,
But take, for instance, the standard obj...Massimo,<br /><br /><i>But take, for instance, the standard objection that to declare god to be all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing amounts to incoherence in a world faced by evil. Yes, I know there are counter-arguments to that, but they are barely more than special pleading on the part of theologians.</i><br /><br />There's not just counter-arguments to that, but conceptions of God where He is either not all-powerful, or not all-knowing, or even not all-good. The last one in particular is its own can of worms, since I'm willing to bet what you call 'good' and what theists call 'good' differs drastically. At which point you're going to need incoherency between what they call good and what they say of God - good luck with that.<br /><br />What's more - it's not just theologians who disagree with you, but philosophers. They give their own arguments and reasoning, instead of appealing to revelation, etc.<br /><br /><i>Or take more specific Christian notions, such as that of the Trinity, or of transubstantiation. All of these things, especially when cobbled together, do make it to the level of semi-incoherence, I think.</i><br /><br />What's incoherent about transubstantiation? Maybe if you tried to turn it into a rapt scientific claim - but then you'd be guilty of the very thing you're accusing atheists of, at least insofar as you'd be trying to call something 'scientific!' when it really isn't.<br /><br />Worse, you say 'to take more specific Christian notions' - but by doing that you're just further narrowing the odds of your claim having much application, even if it turned out to be right. As it stands I think you're obviously wrong on transubstantiation, and (not as obviously) wrong on the trinity. <br /><br />Even by your own standards, you'd have to concede that there's nothing incoherent about Anthony Flew's deism and a host of other theisms. I think you made a mistake here in going for 'incoherent' as a response to God. Disagreement, thinking they're wrong, is a far easier charge to make and sustain than flat out incoherence, and when the charge you lead with amounts to a charge about morality (which would have to be an internal inconsistency), I don't think you're in good shape.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64696917805056968462014-02-07T21:04:13.300-05:002014-02-07T21:04:13.300-05:00"Second, I don’t actually think the cleaning ..."Second, I don’t actually think the cleaning up you suggest can be done, but by all means, I’m not against someone giving it a try. Third, I very much suspect that any such cleaning up would be rejected by religionists on the grounds that that’s really not what they meant to begin with."<br />I'm not sure it can be done either, and my experience would validate your suspicions. But I'm also not sure whether I'm obligated to at least try to make sense of the claims. In particular, that we use science to understand how the world works, and that theists claim an influence of God in nature, suggests to me that eventually there's going to have to be some sort of coherence made of the statement.<br /><br />One of the issues, as far as I can tell, is the very notion of trying to ally statements about God in nature with our understanding of nature is taken to be misguided - an example of scientism, though a scientism quite different to what your article is talking about. It would seem in those cases that the real issue is that one isn't looking to the traditional arguments for God, that God is a "metaphysical" proposition, and as such arguments like the ontological argument and the moral argument are where the real battleground is. And I must admit I cannot make sense of how they could say that at the same time as claiming God answers their prayers or that God intervenes in the world. They seem like empirical problems to me, and no amount of musing over whether existence is a predicate or what the nature of the first cause is will make much of a difference to the validity of such statements. From my layman perspective, it really feels like there is a bait-and-switch going on, where people talk about God <i>as if</i> God is a part of our world, but defend God as a neo-platonic abstraction which can only be assessed <i>a priori</i> through philosophical reflection. None of which is to deny the value of philosophical arguments, but surely I'm not the only one who has noticed a disconnect between the way people talk about God and the way God is rigorously defended. It just seems to me that at one point theists are going to have to front up about what precisely God is and how God works in order to make meaningful their statements about what God does. This is my take of what Michael Martin means when he talks about the gap in theistic arguments.<br /><br />So at least in principle, I see the value of reaching for a "scientific hypothesis" purely on the virtue that it's the only way to make sense of certain claims theists make. The difficulty, as you suspect, is getting any theist to see it that way. It's easy just to claim that miracles are beyond science, God deals in miracles, so there is no conflict. But what I suspect is the appeal to the miraculous mean they are equating God with ignorance, and I further suspect that their invocation of miracles make their claims empty. If they don't know what they mean, is that sufficient reason to dismiss the whole enterprise? Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67506030303475485142014-02-07T15:35:29.554-05:002014-02-07T15:35:29.554-05:00I read DDI some years ago and frankly I don't ...I read DDI some years ago and frankly I don't remember the book as an attack on Gould. Gould obviously felt the whole book was about him. What do you make of Dennett's response? He claims to have met with Gould and tried to work with him - do you think Dennett is fudging this? Or is this just two egos on parade? I never compared Gould to Dawkins, but was thinking of Gould against the field of evolutionary biologists as a whole.michael fugatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01762576964110603209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24423718318265432512014-02-07T14:03:36.323-05:002014-02-07T14:03:36.323-05:00>If this proves impossible then his counts as e...<br />>If this proves impossible then his counts as evidence for the "mind and mathematics" hypothesis.<<br /><br />What I meant to say was that the evidence for the "mind and mathematics" hypothesis will not be forthcoming because I doubt that it can ever be proved impossible to build a sentient computer, even if it is in fact impossible.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19449296196767018752014-02-07T11:55:05.343-05:002014-02-07T11:55:05.343-05:00Hi Robin,
I haven't read the God Delusion alt...Hi Robin,<br /><br />I haven't read the God Delusion although I've read and heard about it. From what I gathered he mainly addresses ID. I think vestigiality is evidence against a designer. I'm not saying all of God's purported characteristics are amenable to scientific inquiry but some definitely are. That's what I mean by The God Hypothesis. I disagree with the notion that God in general is a hypothesis. <br /><br />Crude I'm not proposing God be formalized as a scientific hypothesis. I think it's a rhetorical tactic. And that's why I disagree with Massimo about this. He seems to want to academize public debate. I think that's priggish. Some God claims are empirical, some aren't. Treat them accordingly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09993148116270015124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62232602178815434982014-02-07T11:44:20.110-05:002014-02-07T11:44:20.110-05:00There is, in my mind, neither evidence nor a prior...<i>There is, in my mind, neither evidence nor a priori reason to believe in god, so I don’t.</i><br /><br />The way this sentence is structured would imply that if existed evidence OR a priori reason, then you would consider believing in god. Let's forget the evidence part of that equation and focus on what you mean by 'a priori reason'... I know you said that no such thing exists, but if it did what would it look like?<br /><br />I guess I'm trying to understand your usage of the term 'a priori reason' in that sentence. What would this look like if it *did* exist?<br /><br />According to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem the foundational axioms of logic and mathematics can not be proved within the framework they define. You have to *believe* these axioms for some other reason than logic or evidence. I think most mathematicians would say that these axioms are practical - in the sense that they open up a universe of ideas for exploration - and that they jibe with their own intuition. Others would say aesthetics compels them. And so on.<br /><br />The question of God in my mind is very similar to these axioms. Whether you believe in it or not is a determination that is arrived at not by evidence or logic, but by other reasons like aesthetics etc.manyosohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12384195364005229109noreply@blogger.com