Religion: Just a Form of Brain Washing?

pat · June 22, 2008, 2:50pm

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
i’ll have to get back to you on the cosmological argument. i don’t want to speak without reviewing the details myself.

in general though, i do know that it is widely accepted that the cosmological, teleological, and ontological arguments are invalid.

There is something quite interesting about the ontological argument though. For a long time this was considered a ridiculous argument–both in terms of common sense and in terms of it being logically invalid. What is funny though is that with the advent of modern modal logic, the ontological argument is shown to actually be valid in the standard modal systems (i mean the systems of modal logic which logicans agree capture how we normally talk… not some trivial system in which all formulas are true). There are of course objections to this, but it is interesting to see how the argument runs in a standard modal system.

i’ll try to get back to you on the cosmological stuff soon.

[/quote]

The ontological argument had the fatal flaw that it could not make the jump for having the ability to be conceived to actually existing…I haven’t seen the revision. I’d love to though if you can present a condensed version.

pat · June 22, 2008, 3:03pm

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
pat,

on the cosmological argument, i don’t really have much to say. I am sure you and mbm have probably covered most of the details that i possibly could.

I do have two points though. The one is kinda a trivial point, the other more interesting.

First, though the argument is quite simple in form, its quite complex. Evaluating the argument requires 2 things that mankind does not have: (1) a satisfactory account of causation, and (2) a definitive metaphysics. Since i have neither of these, i don’t really know what to think of the argument, other then that it’s interesting to say the least. also, the argument makes a dubious assumption. it assumes that an understanding of space/time and causation that works on a human scale applies in all other scales. (which we know is incorrect).

Second (and more interesting), the argument turns on the idea that infinite regresses are impossible. The idea is that everything we know of in the universe is caused, and thus since a causal chain cannot extend back forever (by definition), there must have been a first cause. It is possible though that this is incorrect. the thing is that we have merely defined causation in such a way that a causal chain, on our definition, cannot involve infinite regress. Perhaps it is possible to have such an infinite causal chain. Perhaps under a better definition or understanding of causation such a chain will appear possible.

“infinite regresses” have caused problems for many subjects (the formal concept of justification in epistemology is one such place). for a long time it was always thought that infinite regress was impossible. Now though there are those who argue that we need to look more seriously at infinite regress, and consider it. it actually is possible to explain and use infinite regress in some current theories. so… it is possible that the answer to the cosmological “problem” is by simply accepting infinite regress and coming up with a good model for it. (which, there is no reason to think can’t be done)

[/quote]

I am running out of time. But I’ll address this briefly, but not with due justice. In a temporal sense, it seems almost possible, but not in a contingent sense. Take temporal/ spatial elements out of it and you are left with something as simple as things exist and they came from something or some where. Unfortunately, language itself is limiting here, but I hope you understand what I mean by “something” and “somewhere”. To do some more dead people name dropping, this is more along with what Liebinez, and Bacons take. I am dropping their names so you can look it up if you want to…Even Kant had interesting things to say about the cosmological argument, but it’s been a while I’d have to refamiliarize myself with what he said.

mbm693 · June 23, 2008, 1:03am

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:

Again, this is a view which needs to be substantiated. also, your view is not the standard view in math or philosophy–actually, all the “evidence” seems to suggest otherwise, that math is not merely a human construct. i don’t really have time to go into all the details, but, suffice to say you would have a very hard time defending this point.
[/quote]

I feel pretty good about this one. I’ve googled and I haven’t been able to find any discussion of whether number are real or not (Plato’s forms was as close as I got). Do you have some resources you can point me towards or a more specified argument?

mbm693 · June 23, 2008, 1:15am

[quote]pat wrote:

It is a series of steps. To get “there” you have to first get to a point where you eliminate all invalid point and get to a point that is agreed upon. From there you can start debating the unknowns and agreed to points. Preferably with out calling me a huge pussy all the time.

Now think about all the properties an uncaused cause, must have. Two obvious properties, is that it must exist eternally and it cannot be created or destroyed. I refer to this “thing” as God. This doesn’t define God, it just merely states that this is a couple of properties a “God”, must have.

Now if you can, with out calling me a coward, with out “owning” me or calling me a huge pussy, preferably, debate whether or not you think it’s true.[/quote]

I’d hesitate to assign any properties to it other than the fact that it was uncaused. Going any further than that seems like guess work in this case.

Still, I’m interesting in where you’re going with this. Are you trying to get from here to a personal god that is interested in humans? If I agreed to your conditions concerning an uncaused event, what would your next line of reasoning be?

mbm693 · June 23, 2008, 1:21am

[quote]wirewound wrote:

How do you know? How CAN you know? What I’m saying is that, strictly speaking, a materialist viewpoint can only tell you that two thought-patterns are DIFFERENT. It cannot say which is ‘better’. ‘Better’ is a subjective decision, not an objective one - and if everything is ‘objects out there’ (even your brain is ‘out there’ in that it’s objectively visible), then one can only measure quantity - not quality. Quality is a subjective and inter-subjective judgment.
[/quote]

I only concern myself with ‘better’ for the purposes of my opinion. For instance, Oreo Blizzards are better than plain ice cream in my opinion. For facts, I try to stick to differentiating between thought patterns that are accurate (ie reflect the world around me) and those that are not.

Am I in the right ball park?

wirewound · June 23, 2008, 7:29am

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
wirewound wrote:

How do you know? How CAN you know? What I’m saying is that, strictly speaking, a materialist viewpoint can only tell you that two thought-patterns are DIFFERENT. It cannot say which is ‘better’. ‘Better’ is a subjective decision, not an objective one - and if everything is ‘objects out there’ (even your brain is ‘out there’ in that it’s objectively visible), then one can only measure quantity - not quality. Quality is a subjective and inter-subjective judgment.

I only concern myself with ‘better’ for the purposes of my opinion. For instance, Oreo Blizzards are better than plain ice cream in my opinion. For facts, I try to stick to differentiating between thought patterns that are accurate (ie reflect the world around me) and those that are not.

Am I in the right ball park?[/quote]

How can you gauge what is accurate? For hundreds of years, the opinion that the world was flat was an ‘accurate’ opinion.

My point is that without relying on subjective value judgments, you cannot gauge that which is more accurate. Hence, determinism runs into the performative contradiction. Your argument would be no more valid than any other, in that they would all be the results of mechanical processes and chemical reactions. A mechanical action or chemical process cannot be ‘right’ in any sense of the term as a gauge of accuracy. ‘Combustion’ is not right or wrong. An apple falling from a tree is not right or wrong. It just is. The millions of microscopic explosions and falling apples that lead you to your conclusion do not differ QUALITATIVELY from the ones that lead to mine. Hence, if what you say is true, it is false, and so it is false.

pat · June 23, 2008, 3:23pm

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
pat wrote:

It is a series of steps. To get “there” you have to first get to a point where you eliminate all invalid point and get to a point that is agreed upon. From there you can start debating the unknowns and agreed to points. Preferably with out calling me a huge pussy all the time.

Now think about all the properties an uncaused cause, must have. Two obvious properties, is that it must exist eternally and it cannot be created or destroyed. I refer to this “thing” as God. This doesn’t define God, it just merely states that this is a couple of properties a “God”, must have.

Now if you can, with out calling me a coward, with out “owning” me or calling me a huge pussy, preferably, debate whether or not you think it’s true.

I’d hesitate to assign any properties to it other than the fact that it was uncaused. Going any further than that seems like guess work in this case.

Still, I’m interesting in where you’re going with this. Are you trying to get from here to a personal god that is interested in humans? If I agreed to your conditions concerning an uncaused event, what would your next line of reasoning be?[/quote]

There are gaps, that’s the problem…You start getting into “probably” and “likely”, vs. a strait line deduction. However, there are certain properties an uncaused-cause must have to fit the definition. Those properties, such as eternal existance, are “God” like. From there, you would go to stuff like, “if the uncaused-cause is eternal and caused all “things” to exist, then it is certainly plausible that “it” is also all powerful”. Also, for something to initially cause, without being subject to cause or effect itself, “IT” must have had to to will things into existance…From here, having a will has huge connotations. For something to be a deliberate act, something like a “mind” has to be involved…
If you follow along, you can see that once you accept the uncaused-cause argument for existance. What an uncaused-cause has to be to fit the definition has “God-like” properties.

Now what that doesn’t mean is that one religion is right and others are wrong, that religion is even necessary…It doesn’t mean that we can communicate with Him or sin exists or does not exist…Those things are very much a matter of faith. Faith is not fact.

pat · June 23, 2008, 3:35pm

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
wirewound wrote:
mbm693
I tend to see ethics as a non-starter all the way around. Right/wrong, good/evil seem to me to be entirely man-made constructs used to justify one set of actions or behaviors over others. The preponderance of evidence suggests to me that free will(without which ethics would never be considered) is just an illusion and that humans (like everything else) are just chemical reactions.

And here we run into the performative contradiction. If it’s all just chemical reactions, yours is no more meaningful on the truth-scale. Which is to say, if what you say is true, then it’s false (chemical reactions that lead to different conclusions regarding reality are not different, values-wise. How can one chemical reaction be more ‘valid’ than another?), and so it is false.

while I do not agree with mbm693’s stance on human cognition, this makes no sense. First, not even die-hard physicalists and determinists argue that our thoughts are synonymous with any one particular “chemical reaction” in the brain. Even these people take the much more reasonable position that human thought (which is what makes claims that have truth-values) is a higher order process that arises out of the mechanical processes of the brain. So they may contend that while human thought is dependent on mechanical processes, that that human thought is not part and parcel the mechanical processes. even from an intuitive perspective, such a position is made–obviously, chemical reactions are different then though.

Thus, even on the most deterministic, physical accounts of human cognition, one thought can be more true then another. What it comes down to is not individual chemical reactions, but the sum total of all reactions. these sum totals lead to different thought processes, some of which just happen to be better then others.

[/quote]

In addition to the fact that a thought, memory, idea, etc. in there own rights are not chemicals. They are in fact forms…They are metaphysical objects of our own creation and interaction. No scientist would ever be able to take the sum of all the chemicals in my brain and it electrostatic status and tell me what I am thinking. Two people could have the same chemicals and and electronics going on and be thinking completely different things.

beebuddy · June 23, 2008, 7:01pm

kaaleppi · June 23, 2008, 9:56pm

[quote]pat wrote:
Also, for something to initially cause, without being subject to cause or effect itself, “IT” must have had to to will things into existance…From here, having a will has huge connotations. For something to be a deliberate act, something like a “mind” has to be involved…[/quote]

Just out of interest, Jacob Boehme (1575 ï¿½?? 1624) is a christian philosopher/mystic who wrote about the importance of will. It may be slightly out of thouch with the discussion going on today and on to this board, but it is nevertheless thought provoking. Will is the fire that drives creation.

kaaleppi · June 23, 2008, 10:01pm

[quote]beebuddy wrote:
The Blade [/quote]

Great idea. I have been praying at the pump many times.

stokedporcupine · June 23, 2008, 10:14pm

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:

Again, this is a view which needs to be substantiated. also, your view is not the standard view in math or philosophy–actually, all the “evidence” seems to suggest otherwise, that math is not merely a human construct. i don’t really have time to go into all the details, but, suffice to say you would have a very hard time defending this point.

I feel pretty good about this one. I’ve googled and I haven’t been able to find any discussion of whether number are real or not (Plato’s forms was as close as I got). Do you have some resources you can point me towards or a more specified argument?
[/quote]

This isn’t really something you “google”–there isn’t really much by way of non-technical discussion on philosophy of math or the foundations of arithmetic. (whichever you’d like to call it) You are right though in assuming that Plato’s theory of forms is somewhat connected to the subject. Plato and Aristotle actually have fairly sophisticated mathematical views, although they are generally not easily accessible. It takes quite a bit of digging and cross referencing to piece together their views on mathematics. (this is also because the general view of numbers held by the Greeks was different then our own.)

As far as sources, I can give you both ancient and modern stuff. On the ancient stuff, you can search amazon for books on Plato’s “late ontology”. Mathematics generally play a key role on what’s considered Plato’s mature or late theory of forms. If you have access to philosophy journals, do a search for the same thing. If you do the amazon search, i recommend you look for stuff by Sayre, he’s quite good. (generally, the people with backgrounds in math and logic are a better source for ancient number theory then people with backgrounds in classics).

The ancient stuff, though interesting, is fairly impoverished compared to the modern stuff. Modern interest in the foundation of arithmetic arguably started with Frege. He’s book “The foundations of Arithmetic” is a classic on the subject (though his thesis is mostly rejected by modern scholars). Another good source, which is somewhat more accesssable then Frege, is Bertrand Russell. His book “the principles of mathematics” is another classic on the subject, though again still a bit outdated.

Contemporary authors on the subject include those like Kit Fine and Stewart Shapiro (amazon searches should turn up quite a few books by them, some very technical, others not). There are many others, but, these are some of the bigger names in the field.

Like i said though, the only problem is that most of the material on the subject assumes the reader has a detailed background in formal logic, set theory, boolean algebra, etc… just read the descriptions carefully, you can find non-technical books.

I’m not sure about wikipedia, i never looked at any of the pages on the subject.

hope that helps.

Edit:
I won’t try to summarize anything here, as i don’t know your background at all. But, I’ll say this.

Mathematicians themselves generally say that they are not “inventing” anything per say, but rather discovering things. The notion that mathematical knowledge is objectively true, and universal, is well accepted. this is born out even in every day experience–the mathematical systems developed by different cultures have always been compatible–ie, when the Indians added 2 and 2, they got 4 too, just like the Greeks and the Egyptians. this suggests that mathematics is not mere invention, but something much more.

there is of course always the debate over whether mathematics can be reduced to pure logic, or whether it is its own separate field. those like Russell and Frege tried to prove the former. David Hilbert himself at first thought the same thing. After Godel’s work, most people reject that mathematics were completely reducable to logic.

Basically, there are two central questions to the philosophy of mathematics: What are the objects of study in mathematics? and what is the nature of mathematical operation. Answering your question of whether mathematics is “real” involves answering these two questions.

kaaleppi · June 23, 2008, 10:25pm

[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote: