Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, and Hinduism

[Catison]

Maybe you could explain why you think Ernie is wrong?

Give me a break.  What do you think I've been doing?

The problem with Ernie is not that he is stupid or ignorant.  His problem is that after countless trials, he refuses to see some basic philosophical ideas, as if they don't exist.  I have no problem with him being an atheist, but it would help if he were an atheist for the right reasons.  Like I said, this is Philosophy 101 stuff that Ernie just doesn't get yet, and I've tried, countless others have tried, and Elgarian is trying.  But so far....

[Elgarian]

It's the nasty way your opinion was delivered. I'm sure that Ernie doesn't mind, because he's used to it and things like this don't seem to affect him, but it's just unpleasant to read. Maybe you could explain why you think Ernie is wrong?

In defence of Catison - there are a couple of things you may not be aware of. First, this discussion is (absurdly) going on in several threads all at the same time, and Brett has in fact been arguing his case cogently and at length elsewhere. It's possible you might have missed some of that. But also, in one of those threads, Ernie recently spoke of the necessity of ridiculing alternative views (such as a religious one) that he considered misguided. I'm still hoping he'll retract that comment at some point; but it did rather invite a few bad-tempered responses, I think. Even the most rational among us aren't impervious to that sort of thing.

[Catison]

In defence of Catison - there are a couple of things you may not be aware of. First, this discussion is (absurdly) going on in several threads all at the same time, and Brett has in fact been arguing his case cogently and at length elsewhere. It's possible you might have missed some of that. But also, in one of those threads, Ernie recently spoke of the necessity of ridiculing alternative views (such as a religious one) that he considered misguided. I'm still hoping he'll retract that comment at some point; but it did rather invite a few bad-tempered responses, I think. Even the most rational among us aren't impervious to that sort of thing.

Yes, I see the point now.  I am sorry Guido for seeming rude, because I understand that my comments about Ernie seem that way.  But, if I am not mistaken, Ernie actually prides himself on his ignorance of philosophy.  If I may paraphrase, he says, "My philosophy is science."  I have a friend who, as an atheist, proudly claims he has no need for philosophy, or "I don't have a philosophy".  Philosophy is "worthless", as was quoted by Joe someplace else, because it is not based on evidence.  When I was an atheist, I also flaunted my ignorance of philosophy, because, like a lot of the atheists here and elsewhere, I only let evidence-based theories be considered as true.  No evidence, no enchilada.

Yet what I hope Ernie eventually understands is that picking only evidence-based theories is a philosophical statement itself.  And from the point of view of someone who took the time to educate himself in the basics of philosophy (again I'm an amateur), this particular evidence-based philosophy is a poor one.  Why?  Because no philosophical statement is evidence-based in the way Ernie wants it to be, and to demand evidence for everything also requires you to demand evidence of your philosophy.  But, of course, there isn't any evidence.  So such a philosophy is hopelessly inadequate because it annihilates itself a priori.

[drogulus]

     Elgarian, you don't like my approach because you don't think it's validity can be assumed. Something must tell you that what isn't known can be safely assumed to be just more detail as opposed to something more numinous or otherwise significant in a way beyond just more detail. I disagree. Nothing must tell you that and no assumption need be made. If something is extraordinary about a new discovery it's the discovery that will tell us. Nothing need be assumed except that there's more to be known, and the details can't be pre-sorted like the believers claim. They add nothing by claiming to know what they also claim not to know. I think they just don't know. Let new discoveries just be, and let curiosity and speculation take us where it can.

Yes, I see the point now.  I am sorry Guido for seeming rude, because I understand that my comments about Ernie seem that way.  But, if I am not mistaken, Ernie actually prides himself on his ignorance of philosophy.  If I may paraphrase, he says, "My philosophy is science."  I have a friend who, as an atheist, proudly claims he has no need for philosophy, or "I don't have a philosophy".  Philosophy is "worthless", as was quoted by Joe someplace else, because it is not based on evidence.  When I was an atheist, I also flaunted my ignorance of philosophy, because, like a lot of the atheists here and elsewhere, I only let evidence-based theories be considered as true.  No evidence, no enchilada.

    I understand the scientists position but I'm opposed to it. They are almost right, but wrong on an important point. They leave out too much that they need to explain themselves with. Science is philosophy, yes*, but philosophy must include the tools for making itself understood. This will take us far afield so I'd rather not pursue it in depth.

     _{* My version is, that is. You have to go back and see just how qualified my reasoning is on this point, if you're interested.}

[Elgarian]

     Elgarian, you don't like my approach because you don't think it's validity can be assumed.

Whether I like your approach is irrelevant. The vision you put forward is quite attractive in its way. Unfortunately I think it's demonstrably unsound. But the only way you'll discover its unsoundness is by considering the work of philosophers like Whitehead. But you refuse to consider that, and devise a position which excludes the need. There's nowhere to go after this, really. What can I say to a man with his hands over his ears?

[drogulus]

    Well, you could tell me what you think Whitehead gains by assuming something different. He may have a more interesting take on what he doesn't know than I do on what I don't know, depending on what you consider interesting. As for the part of philosophy concerned with what knowledge is, the part that interests me, nothing is affected. But if you want to tell me what you think these differences mean practically, go ahead. Maybe I've missed something. Since this concerns the unknown, maybe everyone has. However, assuming that the Unknown is a big fat something gives no advantage over not assuming that, or assuming nothing. This is the beef I have with believers generally, that their assumptions disguised as certainties give them only bogus advantages. Maybe bogus is better than none? I don't see that.

[drogulus]

     Working assumptions are only invalidated by not working. The metaphysical to and fro about how shortsighted it is to base a philosophical position around support for what works is besides the point. It should be obvious that you can't invalidate a "true because demonstrated and defined that way" with the same tired formula that it can't be demonstrated that something else isn't true instead. Of course something else might be true. And, it frequently is! And when the great hidden truth isn't hidden any more something else will be. As for which of these hidden truths validates the believers, it's probably over there behind that tree, or anywhere that's hidden from you and me. The only validation that you'll get from me is the derision properly reserved for ideas that are considered grand and earthshaking only for so long as they aren't known.

[drogulus]

Give me a break.  What do you think I've been doing?

The problem with Ernie is not that he is stupid or ignorant.  His problem is that after countless trials, he refuses to see some basic philosophical ideas, as if they don't exist.  

    It's worse than that. I refuse to see that any philosophical idea about the supposed greatness or importance of unknown things can have any merit without becoming an idea about something that is known. Ideas about the unknown are useful as hypotheticals only, which is important if you're investigating something. But philosophers will often use the unknown alternative as a club to beat what's known, so materialism is not true unless it's perfectly true and no alternative is even conceivable. This is ridiculous from an operational standpoint, and a comparison of the different approaches would lead you to think that something is seriously wrong with a method that forces you to say one thing is true while you act with perfect confidence that the opposite is true, Shouldn't it be possible to bring philosophy just a wee bit closer to conformance with working models? Yes, if you think that is desirable. That explains what I ignore and what I value.

   

[Homo Aestheticus]

Hi Sean, and welcome back... 

I'm a bit late but I just wanted to post this commentary by Noam Chomsky because it so nicely sums up how I feel about this topic:

"It should be obvious to everyone that by and large science reaches deep explanatory theories to the extent that it narrows its gaze. If a problem is too hard for physicists, they hand it over to chemists, and so on down the line until it ends with people who try to deal somehow with human affairs, where scientific understanding is very thin, and is likely to remain so, except in a few areas that can be abstracted for special studies.

On the ordinary problems of human life, science tells us very little, and scientists as people are surely no guide. In fact they are often the worst guide, because they often tend to focus, laser-like, on their professional interests and know very little about the world.

As for the various religions, there's no doubt that they are very meaningful to adherents, and allow them to delude themselves into thinking there is some meaning to their lives beyond what we agree is the case. I'd never try to talk them out of the delusions, which are necessary for them to live a life that makes some sense to them. These beliefs can provide a framework for deeds that are noble or savage, and anywhere in between, and there's every reason to focus attention on the deeds and the background for them, to the extent that we can grasp it. Doubtless more understanding can be gained, and is being gained (by anthropologist Scott Atran's work, for example). That's all to the good for trying to comprehend the strange animals we are — but I don't see any signs that such comprehension is likely to be very deep"

[Joe_Campbell]

That last paragraph was a condescending load of shit. It's so comforting to know that atheists/agnostics/whatevers like this man understand everything about religion and religious people.

[Elgarian]

I just wanted to post this commentary by Noam Chomsky because it so nicely sums up how I feel about this topic

Eric - I've abandoned this debate here, but I can't help suggesting a more critical reading of that passage. The degrees of muddle and misunderstanding in it are such that it would take many hours to unpack the confusion and expose it for the blather that I believe it mostly is.

[Sean]

Hi Eric. Well Chomsky seems to be saying neither science or religion are much use for morality, and indeed Hinduism prescribes no set of commandments. Best wishes.

[drogulus]

Hi Eric. Well Chomsky seems to be saying neither science or religion are much use for morality, and indeed Hinduism prescribes no set of commandments. Best wishes.

     Do you think that's what he's saying? I got the opposite from it. The ethical value of religious systems has always stood in for a presumed truth of the underlying propositions. This is the familiar "good for us" justification. I gather what he meant was that the comfort and guidance religion might offer was not a truth condition for the propositions. "Religion is good for you therefore a god exists" is what he rejects, and rightly so. It follows that the downstream argument that "my religion is good for you so my interpretation is valid" can't be an argument about anything. It only matters which god is right/true/good if there are gods. So we are left with the value of beliefs as they affect behavior which is certainly a legitimate subject, though we always have to guard against the tendency for the Undead "good for you" arguments to stagger out of their graves to plague us yet again. Keep your pointy sticks close by! 

     

[Sean]

Hi drogulus. I can see this sort of thing has your attention and I understand what you're saying, but Hinduism isn't a matter of doctrinal interpretation, nor does it worry in the least about which of its gods are right or true above others. Your position is a downstream argument (actually much further downstream of the pure source of the Ganges after hundreds of Hindu villages have washed in it) of the deep pervasive presupposition of principled Apollonian Western rationalization of the world. You need to soak your over-articulated brain in something stronger.

[71 dB]

How many Hindus do we have on this board?

[Homo Aestheticus]

Elgarian,

Eric - I've abandoned this debate here, but I can't help suggesting a more critical reading of that passage. The degrees of muddle and misunderstanding in it are such that it would take many hours to unpack the confusion and expose it for the blather that I believe it mostly is.

I don't agree but o.k...

By the way you have just dissed one of the great intellectuals of our day.

Anyway, other than Whitehead, who in your opinion is a model of philosophical maturity and insight when it comes to religion and the topic of God's existence ?

[Elgarian]

By the way you have just dissed one of the great intellectuals of our day.

No, I dismissed one of his paragraphs, which is not the same thing.

Anyway, other than Whitehead, who in your opinion is a model of philosophical maturity and insight when it comes to religion and the topic of God's existence ?

The reason I've tended to quote Whitehead so much is because he's particularly relevant when it comes to discussing the limitations of scientific enquiry. As for the rest - well I don't think a list of names is the point. The point is the experience of the philosophical journey itself: the retracing of that historical path through 2,500 years in order to discover how far rational thought can take us, and, more importantly, to discover where its limits lie.  But I don't think there are any short cuts; and when one gets to the end of the philosophical road, one is likely to realise that the journey hasn't really started yet. In that sense - if you put a gun to my head and demand a name -then Wittgenstein becomes very important, I'd say - insofar as I understand him. I'm not an expert; just a traveller.

What always dismays me about discussions such as these is the slam-bang certainties that are kicked around the playing field right from the start: 'this is the one true way'; 'that way is ridiculous', and so on. We devise all these systems - science, philosophy, the arts, religions - as sticking plasters to cover the wounds of our existential uncertainties; then we fall into the trap of mistaking the sticking plaster for the truth.

[DavidRoss]

No, I dismissed one of his paragraphs, which is not the same thing.

The reason I've tended to quote Whitehead so much is because he's particularly relevant when it comes to discussing the limitations of scientific enquiry. As for the rest - well I don't think a list of names is the point. The point is the experience of the philosophical journey itself: the retracing of that historical path through 2,500 years in order to discover how far rational thought can take us, and, more importantly, to discover where its limits lie.  But I don't think there are any short cuts; and when one gets to the end of the philosophical road, one is likely to realise that the journey hasn't really started yet. In that sense - if you put a gun to my head and demand a name -then Wittgenstein becomes very important, I'd say - insofar as I understand him. I'm not an expert; just a traveller.

What always dismays me about discussions such as these is the slam-bang certainties that are kicked around the playing field right from the start: 'this is the one true way'; 'that way is ridiculous', and so on. We devise all these systems - science, philosophy, the arts, religions - as sticking plasters to cover the wounds of our existential uncertainties; then we fall into the trap of mistaking the sticking plaster for the truth.

Having little patience with pompous sophomoric drivel, I rarely visit threads started by Sean (yes, there's a history), but was attracted to this one by notice of your recent post, quoted above.  Let me say again how much I admire the clarity of your thought...and of your understanding, evinced by the direct and succinct manner of expression, and by the poetic playfulness you invest in it.  Unfortunately, the simplicity of the profound makes it difficult to grasp for our intellectuals, who've a habit of holding their sticking plasters in place by pressing them down with the same fingers they've mistaken for the moon! 

Just yesterday in conversation with a new acquaintance, he said that he'd recently read something to the effect that the obscure is seldom as difficult to discover as the obvious.

[Elgarian]

our intellectuals, who've a habit of holding their sticking plasters in place by pressing them down with the same fingers they've mistaken for the moon!

You knew I'd splutter into my coffee at this image, didn't you?

Tell you what, David - it's a considerable relief to be understood at all, so rare is it, in this particular arena. Thank you.

[71 dB]

Science/rational thinking has it's limits???
Philisophy doesn't have limits???

What? 

What else is philosophy than rational thinking??

These threads with God in their name are so weird!