[PassedOut]

helene_t, on Feb 6 2009, 04:39 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 5 2009, 09:27 PM, said:

To make things concrete, let's say that someone's worldview holds that only humans have self-awareness

hmmmm ... I thought "worldview" was a rather big word. Should such details be included in a "worldview"? Who cares if mice are self-aware? Heck, ethology is a hobby of mine and I can get excited about many ethological issues, but this one leaves me cold. But maybe that's just me.

Yes, but I'm trying to get a better sense of what Jimmy's idea of a worldview really is and why holds the views he does. I gather that he does consider his worldview to function at a very detailed level, as he made clear in this exchange:

luke warm, on Feb 5 2009, 09:34 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 4 2009, 09:04 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 4 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

Quote

When the most primitive self-awareness started, I have no way of knowing. Neither do you.

as for the "neither do you," my worldview does answer that

I do understand that you rely on your "worldview" to supply a particular set of beliefs. But believing is not the same as knowing.

oh really? our worldview encompasses our take on reality...

I can grasp what other posters say even when I disagree completely, but I often have a hard time following Jimmy's arguments. I'd like to do better.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 6 2009, 01:41 AM, said:

Quote

and here is where some a- and/or non-theists have difficulty - if their worldview reduces to absurdity through inconsistency, others must be attacked

Sorry, but I simply don't follow this. Who is to say that their worldview reduces to absurdity?

have you ever taken part in, or even witnessed, a debate over (for example) the existence of God? (and i mean by two knowledgeable men or women, not necessarily people like us ) when i use the word 'absurdity' i probably use it in a narrower sense than you do... i mean by it that if a person cannot argue a subject in a manner that maintains an internal cohesiveness, the argument itself reduces to absurdity

Quote

Quote

i can account for things like ethics and morality (and many other abstracts, such as laws) from within my worldview... the materialist can't...

You obviously have great knowledge in the area of metaphysics where I certainly do not - but again simply the wording throws me off. "I can account for things like ethics - materialists can't".

I don't think that is accurate. I think that the method that materialists use doesn't make sense to you - as a metaphysical explanation doesn't make sense to others.
It doesn't mean the materialist can't - but perhaps it is true he cannot do so to your satisfaction.

ok then, take morality for instance... how do you, from within your worldview, account for it?

Quote

Quote

the materialist will say things like "you can only account for those by invoking God" while saying "i might not be able to account for those things but at least i don't have to believe in God to not account for them"... hardly a convincing endorsement

You are right, there. I don't see either argument at all convincing.

neither has to be convincing... but to be sound, one (not both, impossible where two opposing worldviews are concerned) needs to be able to show where their existence is consistent with the view

[Al_U_Card]

PassedOut, on Feb 5 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

But believing is not the same as knowing.

You cannot know something that is unknowable, but you can believe it nevertheless.

Knowing the unknowable is knowing something about it; therefore...

ie to define or describe something unknowable is best left to our divine spark

[Winstonm]

Quote

have you ever taken part in, or even witnessed, a debate over (for example) the existence of God?

No. But you have to understand that I have no problems with a concept of a god, but my concepts of an entity that sparked the Big Bang is that if that did occur then everything thereafter was strictly hands off. For this reason it makes little sense to me to concern myself other than intellectual gratification on whether morality is a product of a god entity or whether it evolved. It doesn't matter to me because I am not trying to prove a binary worldview.

Here is my worldview in a nutshell: the only thing anyone has any power over is his ability to alter his own thoughts and actions, and thus serenity lies in continual adaption of self and acceptance of the external environment.

Quote

if their worldview reduces to absurdity through inconsistency

Quote

if a person cannot argue a subject in a manner that maintains an internal cohesiveness, the argument itself reduces to absurdity

Cannot an argument be internally consistent AND be wrong at the same time?

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

Cannot an argument be internally consistent AND be wrong at the same time?

Yes.

[Winstonm]

PassedOut, on Feb 7 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

Cannot an argument be internally consistent AND be wrong at the same time?

Yes.

Thanks.

Then it seems to me that to say, "A worldview is valid because its argument is internally consistent" would be an example of begging the question, would it not?

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 01:42 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 7 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

Cannot an argument be internally consistent AND be wrong at the same time?

Yes.

Thanks.

Then it seems to me that to say, "A worldview is valid because its argument is internally consistent" would be an example of begging the question, would it not?

Sure. A valid argument produces the correct conclusion only if the premisses are true. There are all kinds of ways that folks justify the premisses that produce the worldview they prefer to hold.

For example, one might say, "Only a fool would disagree with this premiss," discouraging others from disagreeing. Or one might say, "Accepting this premiss is warranted or justified for this reason that I find compelling."

[Winstonm]

Quote

ok then, take morality for instance... how do you, from within your worldview, account for it?

I gave you my worldview. It is fairly simple. The answer to your question is that I have no answer - but neither does anyone else - even with an internally consistent argument.

It is really unclear to me whether or not the entire concept of morality isn't a human adaption of a greater universal Law of Actions and Consequences - morality being a term or concept invented by humans to grasp and deal with what is really a natural occurence, the results of actions/consequences.

(As a side note, notice how actions/consquences is not a binary concept as is morality's right/wrong. A determination of right/wrong requires a judgement of the person, whereas actions/consequences is based solely on actions taken, hence no judgement.)

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Feb 7 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

Cannot an argument be internally consistent AND be wrong at the same time?

Yes.

i didn't say it couldn't be wrong, but it wouldn't be wrong because it is absurd

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 02:22 PM, said:

Quote

ok then, take morality for instance... how do you, from within your worldview, account for it?

I gave you my worldview. It is fairly simple. The answer to your question is that I have no answer - but neither does anyone else - even with an internally consistent argument.

assuming you're saying that you can't account for morality from within your worldview, this statement is obviously incorrect (the "but neither does [can] anyone else" part) - i *can* account for it... i realize now that it doesn't matter to you that you believe something and do not care that you don't know why you believe it

[Winstonm]

Quote

assuming you're saying that you can't account for morality from within your worldview, this statement is obviously incorrect (the "but neither does [can] anyone else" part) - i *can* account for it... i realize now that it doesn't matter to you that you believe something and do not care that you don't know why you believe it

Again, I did not say what you claim I said.

What I said is that it is irrelevant to my worldview - my worldview may or may not be able to account for it BECAUSE my worldview is flexible and adaptable.

You say you "can" account for it - but at the same time you agree that a consistent internal argument can be wrong. So the "account for it" part of your worldview sounds simply like a semantic game to validate to yourself that you are right.

If your argument can be internally consistent but still Wrong, then IMHO nothing has been "accounted for" - it would be like saying I can "account for" the quarter under my pillow and the missing tooth I left there by introducing the concept of the tooth fairy.

Quote

i realize now that it doesn't matter to you that you believe something and do not care that you don't know why you believe it

Well, Jimmy, we certainly have trouble talking to one another on this subject (but that is OK) as what I am arguing is the reason I think irrelevant what to you is critical as logical proof.

It is not that I believe and don't care but I don't believe because I admit to myself how little I know - I only know for sure that my thoughts and actions alone are all that is within my control. All else - even with internal consistency - is speculation.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 05:39 PM, said:

Quote

assuming you're saying that you can't account for morality from within your worldview, this statement is obviously incorrect (the "but neither does [can] anyone else" part) - i *can* account for it... i realize now that it doesn't matter to you that you believe something and do not care that you don't know why you believe it

Again, I did not say what you claim I said.

What I said is that it is irrelevant to my worldview - my worldview may or may not be able to account for it BECAUSE my worldview is flexible and adaptable.

You say you "can" account for it - but at the same time you agree that a consistent internal argument can be wrong. So the "account for it" part of your worldview sounds simply like a semantic game to validate to yourself that you are right.

If your argument can be internally consistent but still Wrong, then IMHO nothing has been "accounted for" - it would be like saying I can "account for" the quarter under my pillow and the missing tooth I left there by introducing the concept of the tooth fairy.

Quote

i realize now that it doesn't matter to you that you believe something and do not care that you don't know why you believe it

Well, Jimmy, we certainly have trouble talking to one another on this subject (but that is OK) as what I am arguing is the reason I think irrelevant what to you is critical as logical proof.

It is not that I believe and don't care but I don't believe because I admit to myself how little I know - I only know for sure that my thoughts and actions alone are all that is within my control. All else - even with internal consistency - is speculation.

i guess we are speaking different languages here, because i'm not talking about 'right' or 'wrong', i'm talking about valid and invalid arguments... put another way, whether or not what i believe is true (which is a function of my premises), a valid argument makes it at least possible... see? so if i can make an argument that is valid and you can't (i said "if), mine can possibly be true while yours can't

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Feb 7 2009, 04:24 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Feb 7 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 7 2009, 01:29 PM, said:

Cannot an argument be internally consistent AND be wrong at the same time?

Yes.

i didn't say it couldn't be wrong, but it wouldn't be wrong because it is absurd

Yes. If an argument itself is not valid, you can save yourself the trouble of examining the premisses.

[Winstonm]

Quote

guess we are speaking different languages here, because i'm not talking about 'right' or 'wrong', i'm talking about valid and invalid arguments... put another way, whether or not what i believe is true (which is a function of my premises), a valid argument makes it at least possible... see? so if i can make an argument that is valid and you can't (i said "if), mine can possibly be true while yours can't

OK, thanks, Jimmy. That helps. I get confused a little between this thread and some others as in our conversations we tend to introduce the metaphysical quite often. And that is fine, btw.

Here is where I have a disagreement with your statement - and I may have posted something similar on the other thread - but my position is that concerning something such as objective morality, it cannot be validated by a subjective concept or premise.

An argument such as: [My belief is that] God is comprised of absolutes in the form of perfect justness, perfect love, perfect morality, etc. shows that morality is an absolute and therefore objective.

This to me looks flawed. A subjective (God) proving an objective (which is open to debate as possible being subjective).

It may even be simplified to: My belief proves my belief.

BTW, I agree with this:

Quote

"if i can make an argument that is valid and you can't (i said "if), mine can possibly be true while yours can't "

I am questioning the validity of your argument.

[kenberg]

A quick note on logic.

Valid arguments are easy to come by

Eg

If God exists, the world wouldn't suck
The world sucks
Therefore there is no God.

QED.

But it does not prove much.


The lack of a valid argument definitely does not prove much.

For example it is conjectured that all positive even integers are the sum of two primes (including 1 as a prime):
12=5+7, 42=19+23 and so on.

There is no valid proof known.

The statement may be true, it may be false.

Interestingly, it may be true but unprovable.
There's some metaphysics for you!

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on Feb 7 2009, 06:39 PM, said:

A quick note on logic.

Valid arguments are easy to come by

Eg

If God exists, the world wouldn't suck
The world sucks
Therefore there is no God.

QED.

But it does not prove much.


The lack of a valid argument definitely does not prove much.

For example it is conjectured that all positive even integers are the sum of two primes (including 1 as a prime):
12=5+7, 42=19+23  and so on.

There is no valid proof known.

The statement may be true, it may be false.

Interestingly, it may be true but unprovable.
There's some metaphysics for you!

Thanks, Ken,

This is what I suspected - my lack of formal knowledge of this subject makes it difficult for me to communicate precisely.

Quote

Interestingly, it may be true but unprovable.
There's some metaphysics for you!

Well, if you believe it that is part of knowledge, right? So if you believe it then it may half-ass be provable, I would say.

[Winstonm]

This quote concerns teaching of ID - Harris was defending the idea that it should be taught.

Quote

On a proper epistemology, an argument has to follow an objective method (logic), and account for all known facts. If someone raises objections to your argument, he has to show either that you failed to follow logic, or you failed to account for some known fact(s). If he can't do that, the debate is over.

This is why Harris is so desperate to wipe out any concept of "reality independent from consciousness" (properly denoted by the word "fact"). If a debate is not bound by the need to stay in contact with reality by means of continual reference to evidence, it can go on as long as there is disagreement – irrespective of the basis for that disagreement.

Agree or disagree and why so?

[luke warm]

if i understood it, i disagree with parts... this, to me, is a good example of what we were talking about earlier when i said that there are people who deny the existence of metaphysical entities... they must do so...

notice this portion from your quote, "... "reality independent from consciousness" (properly denoted by the word "fact") ..." examine that for a moment and tell me what he really means

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Feb 8 2009, 10:10 AM, said:

if i understood it, i disagree with parts... this, to me, is a good example of what we were talking about earlier when i said that there are people who deny the existence of metaphysical entities... they must do so...

notice this portion from your quote, "... "reality independent from consciousness" (properly denoted by the word "fact") ..." examine that for a moment and tell me what he really means

I think he is showing that he believes Harris is trying to move the debate outside the area of facts. By the author's definition, if an argument is valid - i.e., if it is logical and accounts for all known facts - the debate ends. Harris does not want the debate to end, so he is claiming there are no facts, that all of consciousness has the same degree of "factuality". I think Harris is claiming that if you do not acccept a fact, i.e., if you refuse to believe a fact, then it is not so. That facts are actually conventions.

I do not hold to that view.

The sum of 2+2 is 4 regardless of whether we wish to accept it or not, and it was such before our consciousness was aware that numbers existed and still holds true if our consciousness denies it.

Gravity kept the dinosaurs from floating off into space, yet I am confident their consciousness was not aware of the Law of Gravity. This to me is what is meant by fact, reality independent of consciousness.

I found this quotation enlightening as to motivation and to the issue of facts as convention. It is about changes to Lousiana laws:

Quote

"Everyone wants to construe this as a religious vote, but it wasn't," Bayard said. "The whole purpose is to allow teachers to teach more science."

The legislation, authored by state Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, with the support of the Louisiana Family Forum, began as a way to teach scientific design. But it was amended during the 2008 legislative process to encourage "critical thinking" in science classes and although teaching the textbook, allow supplemental materials that discuss alternatives.

To "teach more science" by introducing a "non-scientific" idea is an example of non-identification of "fact", that facts are whatever we decide they should be and that scientific "facts" carry no more weight than philosophical "facts".

If you can get this idea to fly, the debate becomes endless as the reality itself becomes convention.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 8 2009, 10:44 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 8 2009, 10:10 AM, said:

if i understood it, i disagree with parts... this, to me, is a good example of what we were talking about earlier when i said that there are people who deny the existence of metaphysical entities... they must do so...

notice this portion from your quote, "... "reality independent from consciousness" (properly denoted by the word "fact") ..." examine that for a moment and tell me what he really means

I think he is showing that he believes Harris is trying to move the debate outside the area of facts.

so that i understand, does this rule out abstract truths?

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Feb 8 2009, 04:25 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 8 2009, 10:44 AM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 8 2009, 10:10 AM, said:

if i understood it, i disagree with parts... this, to me, is a good example of what we were talking about earlier when i said that there are people who deny the existence of metaphysical entities... they must do so...

notice this portion from your quote, "... "reality independent from consciousness" (properly denoted by the word "fact") ..." examine that for a moment and tell me what he really means

I think he is showing that he believes Harris is trying to move the debate outside the area of facts.

so that i understand, does this rule out abstract truths?

It is a good question, Jimmy, and I cannot speak for the author but only give my view of what he meant. Fair enough?

I would think he would be ruling out abstract truths - as the truth of an abstact is a convention, is it not? (Or is that debatable?) My understanding of what he means is that which does not rely on convention to be factual.