Do many (a)theists unjustly ignore philosophical arguments?

[harvey1]

I realize that there's many (a)theists that accept philosophical arguments, but there's many here who seem very distrustful of philosophical arguments. Indeed, there's some (a)theists who give me the impression that they would never change their philosophy based on a philosophical argument. My question is how highly do you think most (a)theists rate the importance of philosophy in establishing what they believe with regard to God's existence. Is philosophy unimportant to most (a)theists--is that the right policy? Or, do many or most (a)theists unjustly ignore philosophical arguments because they are distrustful of any beliefs that are not established directly by science(/faith)?

[Bugmaster]

Wasn't Newton doing experiments with alchemy? It seems to me that alchemy was pseudoscience.

Yeah, and I don't respect Newton's alchemical achievements at all, whatever they may be. All that time he wasted on it would've been better spent on releasing Principia Mathematica just a bit early. No wonder we're using Leibnitz's notation :-)

Philosophy has a means of verification based on the power of logical argument.

Right, but it has no external, objective standard of verification. For example, I could start out with the assumption that gods exist, and they are the Aesir, and construct a perfectly self-consistent worldview based on that. In philosophy, that worldview is no less and no more true than your worldview that Jesus exists.

[harvey1]

Right, but it has no external, objective standard of verification.

I disagree. If you came upon a philosophy that opened up a new science (e.g., connectionism), then you would be the founder of that scientific movement even though you were just practicing philosophy and mentioning some observables purely on a philosophical level (e.g., relationists predict that a theory of everything will be background independent).

[Bugmaster]

If you came upon a philosophy that opened up a new science (e.g., connectionism), then you would be the founder of that scientific movement even though you were just practicing philosophy and mentioning some observables purely on a philosophical level (e.g., relationists predict that a theory of everything will be background independent).

This is akin to saying, "if you were an apple farmer, and one of your apples fell on Newton's head, you started Newtonian Mechanics, even though Newton did all the work".

[harvey1]

This is akin to saying, "if you were an apple farmer, and one of your apples fell on Newton's head, you started Newtonian Mechanics, even though Newton did all the work".

Do you have any evidence that philosophy is "no work" when it comes to formulating scientific understanding?

[Grumpy]

harvey1

Do you have any evidence that philosophy is "no work" when it comes to formulating scientific understanding?

It is not that philosophy has NO place in the sciences, but it is a tool not the science itself. Philosophy without a grounding or boundary of solid evidence soon goes astray and, just as with math, can "prove" all sorts of things that have nothing to do with reality.

Science without philosophy is more difficult but still possible.

Philosophy without science is pure fantasy, having no congruence with reality.

Grumpy

[harvey1]

Philosophy without science is pure fantasy, having no congruence with reality.

And, why should that be so? Philosophers often take their argument and put it in propositional calculus. So, why should the world violate logical arguments anymore than it should violate any other mathematical branch of reasoning?

[Grumpy]

harvey1

And, why should that be so? Philosophers often take their argument and put it in propositional calculus. So, why should the world violate logical arguments anymore than it should violate any other mathematical branch of reasoning?

As I said, you can posit just about anything , build whole worlds of philosophical speculation that are internally self-consistent, but unless it is grounded in facts(congruent with reality) it may or may not have anything to do with reality. That was the problem you were having with your contention that somebody's CA rules somehow showed that the universe must have a "creator". Without more information about those early conditions(to bring your philosophizing into congruence with reality) you were not justified in your conclusions. Putting arguement into propositional calculus is all well and good for the organization of your arguement, but if it is not based on the reality of the situation being philosophized about, will not yeild any better results.

Utopian Philosophizers often have this same problem, though it is often a self-imposed "blindness" to the reality that is human nature. Aristotle may have given us the philosophy of science, but if he had just bothered to count the number of teeth a horse actually has, he would not be considered such a bumblehead by real scientists.

Grumpy

[harvey1]

As I said, you can posit just about anything , build whole worlds of philosophical speculation that are internally self-consistent, but unless it is grounded in facts(congruent with reality) it may or may not have anything to do with reality. That was the problem you were having with your contention that somebody's CA rules somehow showed that the universe must have a "creator". Without more information about those early conditions(to bring your philosophizing into congruence with reality) you were not justified in your conclusions. Putting arguement into propositional calculus is all well and good for the organization of your arguement, but if it is not based on the reality of the situation being philosophized about, will not yeild any better results.

I agree with you to a certain extent as to speculating beyond our ability to know. However, I think there are two important issues that you are not considering: logical impossibility and logical improbability. An example of logical impossibility is that science cannot ever discover that we don't exist, right? The answer is obvious. An example of logical improbability is that science is very unlikely to discover that life did not evolve. The reason is not that its physically impossible that life didn't evolve, rather its physically unlikely. However, "physically unlikely" just means that we have what we believe to be some very good logical assumptions about the world, and logically it does not follow that those logical implications that stem from those assumptions are false.

What philosophy tries to do is think conceptually about the issues of what is logically impossible, and also what is logically improbable. Philosophers question our assumptions, and they question the reasoning that lead us to deem something as impossible or as improbable. As a result, there is an opening for metaphysics to make solid progress on the possibilities as well as the likeliness of the world to be a certain way versus another way.

The danger comes in by making hidden assumptions that aren't necessarily true or maybe even false, or by not having certain information as you pointed out. In the case of the latter, we can conceive of many different possibilities, and that's how we can eliminate their likelihood by considering the implications of those conceptual possibilities. If those conceptual possibilities lead to absurdities, then we have good reason to reject the conceptual possibility (e.g., an atheistic beginning).

Sometimes, though, in this debate, I think the atheist wants to have it both ways. They want to stand on the side of agnosticism when it comes to the claims of theists, but then they suddenly seem to have acquired keen philosophical abilities when it comes to rejecting agnosticism. You simply can't have it both ways. If you want to claim ignorance about philosophical matters, then be a strong agnostic as was Thomas Huxley. On the other hand, if you think this position is untenable, then don't cry agnosticism when confronted with metaphysical arguments.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

You did alright in your last post up until this paragraph.

The danger comes in by making hidden assumptions that aren't necessarily true or maybe even false, or by not having certain information as you pointed out. In the case of the latter, we can conceive of many different possibilities, and that's how we can eliminate their likelihood by considering the implications of those conceptual possibilities. If those conceptual possibilities lead to absurdities, then we have good reason to reject the conceptual possibility (e.g., an atheistic beginning).

The above in bold is where your logical train derailed and fell off a cliff. If our assumtions are based on assumptions WE CAN NEVER ELIMINATE ANY POSSIBILITIES until further information is obtained. Therefore you making a statement that you can eliminate the possibility of an atheistic begining is a classic case of GIGO. The absudities are a result of your unsupported assumtions not of the reality of the situation itself.(of which you have no info at all). No, you do not have good reason, you have a longer and longer chain of assumptions with no real world confirmation or redirection as necessary(IE NAVELGAZEING). This is exactly the situation I was talking about where Philosophy can construct whole worlds which are self-consistent, but if it is not consistent with the real world it has the same relationship to reality that numerology has to math, An entertaining excersize having no real world truth.

Grumpy

[harvey1]

...WE CAN NEVER ELIMINATE ANY POSSIBILITIES until further information is obtained. Therefore you making a statement that you can eliminate the possibility of an atheistic begining is a classic case of GIGO. The absudities are a result of your unsupported assumtions not of the reality of the situation itself.(of which you have no info at all).

Sure we can eliminate possibilities. We can do this by utilizing mathematical and logical implications that lead to contradictions or absurdities. For example, let's take the idea that the universe creates itself. This leads to the absurdity that every event in the universe is uncaused and without reason. However, such an idea is absurd since its quite obvious that we do have reason for certain events occurring. Typing this post in response to your post, and you responding to my post is an example of this. So, here's just one example of an metaphysical depiction that we can pretty much eliminate and not consider further.