The Omnipotent Deceiver vs. Astronomers

[wisefool]

I've been away from this playground for a while, so there is much to comment on. I'll keep my comments general, as some ideas overlap different respondents.<br /><br />Classical agnosticism is an intellectual dead end, I contend. But it does have heuristic value as a contrast to both extremes of belief and disbelief. The opposite of a theist is not the atheist, but the agnostic. Both the theist and the atheist hold unprovable, unscientific positions about absolute reality. Only the agnostic accepts the limitations.<br /><br />In the 1930s a school of philosophy called Logical Positivism advanced the idea that unprovable positions were "meaningless," and therefore not worthy of further consideration, because they were ultimately metaphysical to us. That school collapsed as an intellectual force when it was pointed out that the foundations of Logical Positivism are also metaphysical, thus creating a tautology.<br /><br />Early in the last century Kurt Godel's theorem proved that ALL closed mathematical systems are tautologies. So where is truth?<br /><br />Too often scientists, all very human, have rushed to "conclusions" that were unjustified. They have short-cut the scientific method, which is our only defense against the Absurd. I am advancing the idea that HONEST inquiry involves a dose of humility. I am not suggesting that we modify the scientific method, just respect it very deeply.<br /><br />As for the alleged blind alley of agnosticism, it was Blaise Pascal's Wager that showed the way out, along with Hans Vaihinger's "as-if." Using these two tools we can construct what I have called a Theological Ethics of Hope.<br /><br />Note that Hope is a possibilistic concept, whereas Belief at best is a probabilistic concept. Again, finitude cannot put a probability number onto infinitude. As long as something is logically possible, meaning that it does not self-contradict, then we cannot eliminate that possibility.<br /><br />Now, I am NOT suggesting that all theories i

 

[mental_avenger]

Quite a lot of fancy dialog to say that nothing is impossible. Well, we all knew that already. Most people who hold a staunch view on a particular subject, do so with the knowlege that there is always the incredibly minute possibiliby that they are wrong. However, in order to deal rationally with the world we find ourselves in, we must make certain concessions to the improbable. Therefore, in dealing with the Universe as we know it to be, we must (in order to keep our sanity) place reasonable limits on what we are to consider the “real world”, and what we are to relegate to the hopelessly improbable. If we do not, then our list of “possibilities” becomes too cumbersome to manage.<br /><br />In the end, we are left to deal with the world we find ourselves in. We must find a way to sift through the immense pile of, sometimes, contradictory evidence, and make some meaningful determinations. While we may never know the truth (or may not know that we know the truth), we will no doubt forge ahead on a relatively relevant path <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>

 

[wisefool]

You are almost there. The real problem is with the concept of "hopelessly improbable." To make ANY statement of probability one must have a reliable statistical universe from which probability statements are made. This ASSUMES prior knowledge of that about which a probability statement is to be reliably made. The problem with a universal perspective is that we cannot with certainty make any probability statements, only possibility statements. Therefore, we are left with manipulating that part of the universe at hand, and HOPING that we are correct in our hypotheses. I still say proceed with high level science, but always with the clear knowledge that we may be totally wrong, and never know it. Intellectual honesty at the highest level in the image of god, not hopeless probability.

 

[mooware]

What do you get when you cross a lawyer with a demon from hell?<br /><br /><br />Another lawyer. <br /><br />Sorry, couldn't resist..<br /><br /><br />

 

[mooware]

Very well put Steve.

 

[wisefool]

Steve, we are mostly in agreement regarding the empirical aspects of science. My comments have never been about the methodology of science, nor about the "logical positivism" you propose to be its foundation. My comments are, in essence, philosophical and, by implication, essential. This means that the existential world of science is not separated from the essential world of ethics, morality, and theology. Nor do they overlap entirely.<br /><br />Your suggestion that agnostics are actually polite atheists may be true of some individuals who have held "agnostic" positions. This criticism does not apply to pure agnosticism itself, becaused agnosticism is opposed to both atheism and theism. What I have attempted to do is bridge the gap between agnosticism and theism, establishing an intellectually honest source of morality. Randomness and scientific method are, as your correctly point out, insufficient to establish a moral hedge against the worst aspects of human nature.<br /><br />I take some issue with your idea that science has nothing to say about morality. Physics does not; but systems theory does. <br /><br />Your attempt to refute Godel by modifying theorems will not work, because his theorem applies to all theorems within all closed systems, however modified.<br /><br />Nihilism (literally, nothing-ism) is not a logical outcome of advanced agnosticism. Nihilism is more an attitude than anything else.<br /><br />Overall, you have done well with your comments. You are more enlightened than 99.9999999% of all humans. Most of the others don't care, since they "know" their opinions are right. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[wisefool]

Mr. Avenger, it is easy to agree with everything in your last post. However, you are still making a fundamental error in not seriously considering the difference between possibility and probability. Actually, this is one of the most overlooked areas of philosophy to date.<br /><br />Yes, we all in our lucid moments admit that our knowledge is not Knowledge. We must proceed anyway with science and action, for to do otherwise would be totally absurd.<br /><br />You made this statement as a fact: "...we must (in order to keep our sanity) place reasonable limits on what we are to consider the “real world”, and what we are to relegate to the hopelessly improbable. If we do not, then our list of “possibilities” becomes too cumbersome to manage."<br /><br />This works well if you are willing to build from the second floor only. Very precise castles in the air can be constructed, if only we ignore the foundations of knowledge. We cannot assume that our experiments add up to knowledge, because any number of finite data points are still "zero" when put up against the infinite number of potential data points. A probability of zero is not going to build confidence.<br /><br />I do NOT believe that science is ultimately self-defeating, even when the ultimate test of truth yields absurdity. Nor do I believe that mathematics in self-contained systems is a waste of time. These are all tools to see into the darkness. We must move forward in full knowledge that we may not even be moving "forward," but that this is our BEST GUESS about what is going on. A best guess is not a probability statement in the pure sense, but it is one in the heuristic sense.<br /><br />Let's turn to the perspective of omniscience. It is logically possible for there to be an omniscient god, perhaps not exactly as portrayed in Earth's holy books, but omniscient nevertheless. Maybe that god appears to us as an omnipotent deceiver, when that omniscient deceiver appears to itself only as being what it is. Ma

 

[wisefool]

Solar System Steve, I do appreciate the passion from which you write. You have made your case well. There is a common ground for honest theology and Biblical moral codes. That common ground comes from the simple fact that we must CHOOSE how to live our lives, and also assume that we have the power to direct destinies to some degree. In other words, we are not puppets of an omnipotent deceiver or any other type of predestination.<br /><br />The rich traditions of religion provide for us templates. If we are open to some ideas beyond those our parents and culture give us, then we can choose from among many different moral universes. Even if we take the path of least resistance, as long as we accept that our moral universe is one of choice, and that we are living in that universe AS IF it were THE moral universe, then we are "honest with god." That tiny bit of honesty puts us at a high level of integrity, and keeps us "in the image of god."

 

[the_id]

The perception of science as a religion lies with that “religion’s” laity; not with its priests.

 

[wisefool]

Very well spoken! The "priests" at their best are so evolved that they choose to express concepts in terms accessible to everyday consciousness. Buddhism is an excellent example of how images and ideas coexist. <br /><br />At the same time, there are always clues made available to those seeking higher awareness. In Zen there are koans that challenge the mind by freezing out the easy solutions. One classic example is: "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" The answer is there is no answer. From this position we must go back to "beginner's mind" where we are open to all aspects of truth.<br /><br />In this sense the most highly evolved priests are highly evolved scientists.

 

[kmarinas86]

<font color="yellow"> "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"</font><br /><br />Simply take your 5 fingers and clap them on your palm. It's a very quiet and ZEN-LIKE clap.

 

[newtonian]

Calli - Hi!<br /><br />On an Omnipotent Deceiver- I agree with you.<br /><br />However, some creationists would have God deceiving us by making Andromeda 'appear' to be at least millions of years old by creating the path of photons as well as the galaxy some 6,000 years ago or so.<br /><br />That would be an omnipotent deceiver. However, I agree with you that God would not do that.<br /><br />The hypothesis is testable, both by scientific observation and Biblical research, btw.<br /><br />[There are many deceivers, btw]<br /><br />As for the similarity of my religion and science, note my signature below which is a Bible quote - King James Version (AV).