OT - Scientific proof that there is no afterlife!

[deccan]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:
What do you mean by that statement? It is one thing to say that God exists, philosophically and logically. It is quite another to say "Why is [fill in the blank] happening in my life? And what does God have to do with it, if anything?" The actions of persons, at times, (and if theists are correct, God is a person) is not quantifiable by scientific means.

Um, sorry I don't quite catch your point here. My point about the Carl Sagan statement is that often some theists (especially creationists) like to claim that their beliefs are supported with either empirical evidence or logical arguments that are comparable in quality to that of conventional scientific theories.

However the cost of bearing the scientific Cachet is that you have to be prepared to defend your arguments on a variety of fronts, i.e. the quality of your data, whether or not arguments are logically sound etc.

From personal experience, I've simply found that many theists who do make the claim that their arguments are logically and perhaps scientifically sound, when pressed, often fall back to the line that their beliefs simply don't have to be held to the same standard as the rest of science because they're based on faith.

May I ask a question - nothing personal intended, just trying to make a point. Have you ever taken a philosophy class? Like colllege level Phil 101 or the equivalent?

No, I've never taken a Philosophy 101. I've always meant to, but it isn't easy for me. I'm Malaysian and currently live in the Solomon Islands.

Last year, while on holiday, I'd met a fellow Malaysian who had done her Bachelor's degree in China and majored in philosophy. I tend to seek out people (especially females ) who are interested in philosophy to make friends with them. However, I was none too impressed with her aptitude.

Currently, I'm corresponding with a friend (female too ) who is doing a masters degree in Chinese Studies, with a heavy tilt towards philosophy at the National University of Singapore (which incidentally is considered a VERY good school). I'm not too impressed with what they teach her too.

I do read philosophy books. My standard reference on Western philosophy is Frederik Copleston's "A History of Western Philosophy", which I believe is still the most authoritative reference even today. I'm also a great fan of Daniel C. Dennett and I regularly read new entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I also greatly admire the articles on The Proceedings of the Friesian School. If you're interested, my own website is Calltoreason.org but I haven't bothered to update it in like forever. Too lazy I guess.

I ask this because the way you keep coming back to "unambiguous" categories. Lots of things, even in scientific discourse, are "ambiguous". What, for example, *is* 'time'?

Actually, what I meant was that when people use terms, especially terms that are so common and have so many varied meanings that they are prone to abuse, such as "love", "good", "soul" etc., they ought to define precisely and unambiguously what they mean when they are using that term. The fact that certain concepts may be innately ambiguous or fuzzy doesn't, in my opinion, exonerate one from that responsibility.

[ August 20, 2003, 11:52: Message edited by: deccan ]

[deccan]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
I think the point he's making is that it's actually two things to say that God exists, philosophically and logically:
Number one is to say it exists philosophically (ie faith-based belief) and number two is to say that it exists logically (ie scientific proof-based belief).

I don't agree with the use of the word "philosophy" here. Sorry dogscoff. To put it another way, let's say that I greatly enjoy music by Britney Spears.

In the first instance, I could say that I greatly enjoy music by Spears as a matter of purely personal taste. I simply like to hear her music, it makes me feel good to hear her music, and I don't care to justify why I feel this way to anyone.

In the second instance, I could say that I've come to enjoy music by Spears as a result of a long, tortuous and comprehensive study into many different musical styles by many different artistes that lead through a series of impeccably logical steps to the inescapable conclusion that Spears' music is superior to any other type of music. And I'm convinced that if anyone else bothers to go through the same process, they must inevitably and logically end up just like me and enjoy music by Spears.

Again, I don't have a single objection to the situation described in the first instance but I do have grave reservations and objections to the second situation.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by deccan:
Um, sorry I don't quite catch your point here. My point about the Carl Sagan statement is that often some theists (especially creationists) like to claim that their beliefs are supported with either empirical evidence or logical arguments that are comparable in quality to that of conventional scientific theories.

That is their goal, yes. Whether they attain it or not is entirely up to the quality of those arguments and evidences. But the question here is, as I understand it, about the very existence of God and/or supernatural dimensions to the universe, and these questions are dealt with more on a philosophical basis than determining how old rocks and starlight are. Note I say "more", not "entirely".

However the cost of bearing the scientific Cachet is that you have to be prepared to defend your arguments on a variety of fronts, i.e. the quality of your data, whether or not arguments are logically sound etc.

I would agree.

From personal experience, I've simply found that many theists who do make the claim that their arguments are logically and perhaps scientifically sound, when pressed, often fall back to the line that their beliefs simply don't have to be held to the same standard as the rest of science because they're based on faith.

I'd have to see the particular arguments being made to judge whether or not they would really be a "cop-out". That's what I was trying to get at in my prior reply to you - I have found that many agnostics/atheists base their doubts about God more on "Well, if God does exist, why doesn't He do this or that?" But questions of what God should be doing (in ones' opinion) are separate from whether or not He actually exists.

I do read philosophy books. My standard reference on Western philosophy is Frederik Copleston's "A History of Western Philosophy", which I believe is still the most authoritative reference even today. I'm also a great fan of Daniel C. Dennett and I regularly read new entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I also greatly admire the articles on The Proceedings of the Friesian School. If you're interested, my own website is Calltoreason.org but I haven't bothered to update it in like forever. Too lazy I guess.

Copelston and Dennett certainly cover the bases (Copelston the Catholic, Dennett the agnostic [if I'm thinking of the same Dennett you are).

Actually, what I meant was that when people use terms, especially terms that are so common and have so many varied meanings that they are prone to abuse, such as "love", "good", "soul" etc., they ought to define precisely and unambiguously what they mean when they are using that term. The fact that certain concepts may be innately ambiguous or fuzzy doesn't, in my opinion, exonerate one from that responsibility.

OK. Put this way, I would agree (cf my post to Dogscoff earlier).

[dogscoff]

I don't agree with the use of the word "philosophy" here. Sorry dogscoff. To put it another way, let's say that I greatly enjoy music by Britney Spears.

I only used that word becasue GW did. I think I'll relurk and let you two slug it out.

Before I go though- I've not met many atheists myself who use the "Why doesn't God solve X problem/ why does God let Y happen" argument.

Personally I look at the history of religion, the way it has evolved, the way it has been manipulated and adjusted and applied throughout the ages, and I came to the conclusion that it's either an entirely human invention (or more likely, misinterpretation- see my post earlier about souls as memes), or at the very least it has very little to do with what any real God wants/ wanted.

EDIT: Just had to comment on this-

questions of what God should be doing (in ones' opinion) are separate from whether or not He actually exists.

That's true, except where you dispute whether or not God is actually doing anything. After all, a universe where God never does anything at all is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as a universe where there is no God.

[ August 20, 2003, 14:36: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Slick: I think we are in agreement, we just don't realize it

[geoschmo]

Deccan, the attitude expressed by Mr. Sagan and held by you is that unless the creationist can prove the exsistance of God, a proof that few creationists will attempt and most acknowledge is impossible to do, that any alternative theories regarding the specific mechanics of life are invalid. The reason they fail your litmus test is not due to lack of support to their arguments. It's becuase you attempt to apply a specific argument to cover a general set of circumstances.

It is not neccesary for a creationists to be able to scientifically prove the exsistance of God to study creation any more then it is neccesary for an evolutionist to pinpoint the exact mechanism of evolution to study and believe the theory as a whole.

There are things that you and I are not able to understand about the universe despite our theories and hypotheses. Mr. Sagan on the other hand has found the answers, for better or for worse.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
That's true, except where you dispute whether or not God is actually doing anything. After all, a universe where God never does anything at all is to all intents and purposes exactly the same as a universe where there is no God.

Well, that's the whole question, isn't it?

And that is what the cosmological and teleological arguments for God's existence covered. Until Kantianism and naturalism ruled the whole discussion out of bounds from square one...