An imagined world--it's own thread

[dastardly stem]

Lots of people say they believe in God, but not so many assert it as a proven fact. Most religions I know acknowledge explicitly that their tenets are unproven. To speak of the religion I know best, mainstream Christians have recited their creeds in unison each week for centuries. The statement is, "I believe." Nobody would say that if the claim were really, "I know."

We may safely assume that almost anything may be only imaginary. Electrons might be fictitious. It's unlikely but possible, in brain-in-jar kind of scenarios if nothing else, so the assumption that it could be true is a safe one.

Whiskey costs money. If you want to advance a positive statement with more than "could-be" probability, you need definite positive evidence for it.

Is it really more likely that an imagined character that is found nowhere is purely imaginary? It depends on how narrowly the imagined character is defined, compared to the range of possibilities. Bigfoot is one example of an imagined entity; here's another.

Dark matter is unlikely to be any particular model that I can construct, but quite likely to be some kind of real something, which will turn out to have the minimal properties that I expect any kind of dark matter to have, even though we have no evidence (yet) for any particular form of dark matter.

In the same kind of way, the chance that some kind of ultimate being responsible for reality might exist is not so obviously low. Most people who believe in God don't claim to know exactly what God is like. They're believing in a wide class of possible Gods. I really find it unreasonable to say that the odds of that are a priori much less than 50/50.

I suppose you are right in suggesting probability often is not an easy thing to decide on, for any given notion. Electrons are highly probable. Dark matter has it's level of probability. COmpared to what? And how do we decide? Not really my point, though. As long as people are willing to decide we can only live by levels of probability, then I figure the point's been made.

But I don't see how those phenomena relate to the question of God. I would say, or agree, one of the problems with God is it's lacking definition. It is an everything and nothing all at the same time. Every conceivable measure one might put to it, is ruined before it starts because we have nothing but a contradicted mix of descriptions for what we're even looking for. "LEt's measure the effects of prayer", we might say. "Oh...God has deemed prayer only works sometimes and we can't possibly know what a working prayer means or why God might listen or help. And anyone who doesn't prayer could have every single same effect as anyone who does? So why are we proposing a god, a need to believe in him, and think there's good reason to think he's there?"

Is God lacking form, material, consciousness, temporality, emotion? Is it anything at all? If not, then what are we even proposing with the existence of God? At least with dark matter we have some theory of what to look for, and a reason to think it exists. But God? I mean he's both existing and non existing at all. He's both the source of good and the source of bad. He's hidden completely but knowable, by chance, to some few. He uses magic to heal on rare occasions but refuses to even listen most of the time. He's the only way we could possibly know he exists and he refuses to give us any observable, repeatable, explainable idea to find him. People imagine and poof! for them he's there. The rest of us imagine the same, and its simply imagination. He's not there. We're imagining.

Some might say all of the above is a description of his virtues. I can't see a reason at all to think it's anything at all. We can propose nothing as being responsible for reality just as much as we can propose a God, who if ever we try and define it seems to be not much more than nothing anyway. I get people think we need something supernatural in order to explain anything about nature, ultimately. I'm like so? That doesn't mean God, nor does it mean we have any clue what is supernatural. And if it uncovers god somehow, all we're uncovering is a nothing, or an invisible dragon, calling that god and that as is good as if its there as not there. I can't imagine how that falls into the category of 50/50 since there are an infinite number of things that could be explained the bottom half the the 50, god only being one of them.

[Rivendale]

Lots of people say they believe in God, but not so many assert it as a proven fact. Most religions I know acknowledge explicitly that their tenets are unproven. To speak of the religion I know best, mainstream Christians have recited their creeds in unison each week for centuries. The statement is, "I believe." Nobody would say that if the claim were really, "I know."

We may safely assume that almost anything may be only imaginary. Electrons might be fictitious. It's unlikely but possible, in brain-in-jar kind of scenarios if nothing else, so the assumption that it could be true is a safe one.

Whiskey costs money. If you want to advance a positive statement with more than "could-be" probability, you need definite positive evidence for it.

Is it really more likely that an imagined character that is found nowhere is purely imaginary? It depends on how narrowly the imagined character is defined, compared to the range of possibilities. Bigfoot is one example of an imagined entity; here's another.

Dark matter is unlikely to be any particular model that I can construct, but quite likely to be some kind of real something, which will turn out to have the minimal properties that I expect any kind of dark matter to have, even though we have no evidence (yet) for any particular form of dark matter.

In the same kind of way, the chance that some kind of ultimate being responsible for reality might exist is not so obviously low. Most people who believe in God don't claim to know exactly what God is like. They're believing in a wide class of possible Gods. I really find it unreasonable to say that the odds of that are a priori much less than 50/50.

I suppose you are right in suggesting probability often is not an easy thing to decide on, for any given notion. Electrons are highly probable. Dark matter has it's level of probability. COmpared to what? And how do we decide? Not really my point, though. As long as people are willing to decide we can only live by levels of probability, then I figure the point's been made.

But I don't see how those phenomena relate to the question of God. I would say, or agree, one of the problems with God is it's lacking definition. It is an everything and nothing all at the same time. Every conceivable measure one might put to it, is ruined before it starts because we have nothing but a contradicted mix of descriptions for what we're even looking for. "LEt's measure the effects of prayer", we might say. "Oh...God has deemed prayer only works sometimes and we can't possibly know what a working prayer means or why God might listen or help. And anyone who doesn't prayer could have every single same effect as anyone who does? So why are we proposing a god, a need to believe in him, and think there's good reason to think he's there?"

Is God lacking form, material, consciousness, temporality, emotion? Is it anything at all? If not, then what are we even proposing with the existence of God? At least with dark matter we have some theory of what to look for, and a reason to think it exists. But God? I mean he's both existing and non existing at all. He's both the source of good and the source of bad. He's hidden completely but knowable, by chance, to some few. He uses magic to heal on rare occasions but refuses to even listen most of the time. He's the only way we could possibly know he exists and he refuses to give us any observable, repeatable, explainable idea to find him. People imagine and poof! for them he's there. The rest of us imagine the same, and its simply imagination. He's not there. We're imagining.

Some might say all of the above is a description of his virtues. I can't see a reason at all to think it's anything at all. We can propose nothing as being responsible for reality just as much as we can propose a God, who if ever we try and define it seems to be not much more than nothing anyway. I get people think we need something supernatural in order to explain anything about nature, ultimately. I'm like so? That doesn't mean God, nor does it mean we have any clue what is supernatural. And if it uncovers god somehow, all we're uncovering is a nothing, or an invisible dragon, calling that god and that as is good as if its there as not there. I can't imagine how that falls into the category of 50/50 since there are an infinite number of things that could be explained the bottom half the the 50, god only being one of them.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think you ever made a positive assertion. You were only responding to people that were defending the possibility of a god using imagination as evidence. Using Occam's razor was just your strategy to analyze the positive claim. I don't think you were ever stating an absolute because I think we all agree absolute knowledge about anything is impossible. ( brain in a vat philosophical jargon) Sean Carroll had a conversation with Richard Dawkins (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmXOCIOkuuo) that seems to describe some of this threads comments. Sean asked Richard why he took a swipe at Philosophers when tweeting about Carroll's book The Grand Design. Richard responded with a story about how he was completely lost while attending a conference because of the jargon. Sean countered with the fact that science is full of jargon. But here is the rub. Richard claimed that the jargon of immunology is necessary for communication about things that manifest in the real world . Effective communication has to begin with defining one's terms . But going to a dictionary to define the jargon of philosophical terms left him with no way to verify them. Does this seem to describe these threads?

[dastardly stem]

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think you ever made a positive assertion. You were only responding to people that were defending the possibility of a god using imagination as evidence. Using Occam's razor was just your strategy to analyze the positive claim. I don't think you were ever stating an absolute because I think we all agree absolute knowledge about anything is impossible. ( brain in a vat philosophical jargon) Sean Carroll had a conversation with Richard Dawkins (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmXOCIOkuuo) that seems to describe some of this threads comments. Sean asked Richard why he took a swipe at Philosophers when tweeting about Carroll's book The Grand Design. Richard responded with a story about how he was completely lost while attending a conference because of the jargon. Sean countered with the fact that science is full of jargon. But here is the rub. Richard claimed that the jargon of immunology is necessary for communication about things that manifest in the real world . Effective communication has to begin with defining one's terms . But going to a dictionary to define the jargon of philosophical terms left him with no way to verify them. Does this seem to describe these threads?

I agree. I didn’t make the positive claim. But you know, why argue that at this point? If people offer imagination as evidence for god, that’s not my problem really. Every allusion to imaginative feelings, ideas, visions etc are best explained as internal happenings. It’s not 50/50, or I don’t see how. Thanks for the linked video. Love these two. And I can be quite sympathetic to Dawkins point here. If say god is only found as explained by David Bentley hart, we’re all in trouble.

[Kishkumen]

Why would we all be in trouble, stem? Personally, I think Dawkins is up in the night. So much of our understanding of being human comes from philosophy. This is a tradition that spawned his entire discipline, but now I suppose he is too good for it because he dislikes jargon that he is too lazy or too sophisticated to learn. Hey, not his cup of tea. Fine. But that is just plain ignorant as an attitude. The worst thing that happened to Dawkins is that he became a celebrity and started to pontificate about things he is ignorant about. He needs to go back and read Plato’s Apology of Socrates again.

[dastardly stem]

Why would we all be in trouble, stem?

According to Hart no one, save for perhaps very few, understand his grand intelligence anyway. And his position is the only possible rational one. You look at his explanation, and it's terrible, as far as I can see. And it appears his whole exercise is nothing but academic. He basically says he can't even argue for God or in defense of him. But it's unreasonable to think he doesn't exist, or something. I'm finding a convoluted mess in his work. But, I could be wrong.

Personally, I think Dawkins is up in the night. So much of our understanding of being human comes from philosophy. This is a tradition that spawned his entire discipline, but now I suppose he is too good for it because he dislikes jargon that he is too lazy or too sophisticated to learn. Hey, not his cup of tea. Fine. But that is just plain ignorant as an attitude. The worst thing that happened to Dawkins is that he became a celebrity and started to pontificate about things he is ignorant about. He needs to go back and read Plato’s Apology of Socrates again.

That feels a bit strawman-ish. Up in the night on what? He's not saying philosophy is useless or that he's too good for it, or that he's too lazy or sophisticated to learn it. His point is a pretty simply one. Do we really need to understand the whole of philosophical thought, the whole of philosophical history in order to think clearly? His point resonates to some because once you read Hart's book or many other works, you walk away wondering what kind of complicated mess do we think we really need to unfold in order to make sense of things? And, in Hart's case, I'd wonder if running in circles in thought, as he does, gets us anywhere near a thoughtful conclusion. I do think Dawkins has been pretty cheeky on philosophy because that's the discipline that most critiques his thoughts. And too often he responds with "so what?" instead of trying to understand it. So there's a point there to explore sure...but I don't think that puts him up in the night.

[Kishkumen]

According to Hart no one, save for perhaps very few, understand his grand intelligence anyway. And his position is the only possible rational one. You look at his explanation, and it's terrible, as far as I can see. And it appears his whole exercise is nothing but academic. He basically says he can't even argue for God or in defense of him. But it's unreasonable to think he doesn't exist, or something. I'm finding a convoluted mess in his work. But, I could be wrong.

LOL. OK, stem. Clearly you and I got very different things from reading that. I didn't find his arguments or explanations to be terrible at all.

That feels a bit strawman-ish. Up in the night on what? He's not saying philosophy is useless or that he's too good for it, or that he's too lazy or sophisticated to learn it. His point is a pretty simply one. Do we really need to understand the whole of philosophical thought, the whole of philosophical history in order to think clearly? His point resonates to some because once you read Hart's book or many other works, you walk away wondering what kind of complicated mess do we think we really need to unfold in order to make sense of things? And, in Hart's case, I'd wonder if running in circles in thought, as he does, gets us anywhere near a thoughtful conclusion. I do think Dawkins has been pretty cheeky on philosophy because that's the discipline that most critiques his thoughts. And too often he responds with "so what?" instead of trying to understand it. So there's a point there to explore sure...but I don't think that puts him up in the night.

Yeah, because he doesn't really care to know things that he doesn't know. OK. That does make him "up in the night," in my view. I think I understand the attraction here. Dawkins sounds very pragmatic? Is that it? What do I need to know to live a good life, and that's fine for me? What do humans really need to have a better society? I see. So Dawkins says science is the answer. I think it is an important part of it. I just don't think that the rest of it is frivolous fluff because it can't be quantified or used to produce clean water. What you call a complicated mess, I call fun, interesting, and beautiful. Maybe this is why I don't care for the Dawkinses of the world. They are real party-poopers.

I see that it's all fair. If people are going door to door to spread the good news about Jesus, why not have little Dawkins missionaries telling you that mythology is stupid, that theology is a waste of time, and that religion is a blight on the world? That's fair. And, I think I can sympathize with that view up to a point. But it seems to me to be so much adolescent complaining about the real world. The kind of intellectual depth we find in positive objectivism or other shallow "philosophies." Dawkins may be a competent scientist, but I don't get much from him beyond that. But that doesn't mean there aren't many other people who find him captivating for the way he trashes things that annoy him.

[dastardly stem]

According to Hart no one, save for perhaps very few, understand his grand intelligence anyway. And his position is the only possible rational one. You look at his explanation, and it's terrible, as far as I can see. And it appears his whole exercise is nothing but academic. He basically says he can't even argue for God or in defense of him. But it's unreasonable to think he doesn't exist, or something. I'm finding a convoluted mess in his work. But, I could be wrong.

LOL. OK, stem. Clearly you and I got very different things from reading that. I didn't find his arguments or explanations to be terrible at all.

That feels a bit strawman-ish. Up in the night on what? He's not saying philosophy is useless or that he's too good for it, or that he's too lazy or sophisticated to learn it. His point is a pretty simply one. Do we really need to understand the whole of philosophical thought, the whole of philosophical history in order to think clearly? His point resonates to some because once you read Hart's book or many other works, you walk away wondering what kind of complicated mess do we think we really need to unfold in order to make sense of things? And, in Hart's case, I'd wonder if running in circles in thought, as he does, gets us anywhere near a thoughtful conclusion. I do think Dawkins has been pretty cheeky on philosophy because that's the discipline that most critiques his thoughts. And too often he responds with "so what?" instead of trying to understand it. So there's a point there to explore sure...but I don't think that puts him up in the night.

Yeah, because he doesn't really care to know things that he doesn't know. OK. That does make him "up in the night," in my view. I think I understand the attraction here. Dawkins sounds very pragmatic? Is that it? What do I need to know to live a good life, and that's fine for me? What do humans really need to have a better society? I see. So Dawkins says science is the answer. I think it is an important part of it. I just don't think that the rest of it is frivolous fluff because it can't be quantified or used to produce clean water. What you call a complicated mess, I call fun, interesting, and beautiful. Maybe this is why I don't care for the Dawkinses of the world. They are real party-poopers.

I see that it's all fair. If people are going door to door to spread the good news about Jesus, why not have little Dawkins missionaries telling you that mythology is stupid, that theology is a waste of time, and that religion is a blight on the world? That's fair. And, I think I can sympathize with that view up to a point. But it seems to me to be so much adolescent complaining about the real world. The kind of intellectual depth we find in positive objectivism or other shallow "philosophies." Dawkins may be a competent scientist, but I don't get much from him beyond that. But that doesn't mean there aren't many other people who find him captivating for the way he trashes things that annoy him.

I'll probably finish Hart's book this weekend. I haven't seen much to call fun. Interesting? Sure. there is some interesting. Beautiful? I'm not sure what that'd be. Hart seems far more a party pooper than Dawkins to me. I guess it's a matter of perspective. And I still think you have Dawkins wrong. But I likely don't have a charitable view of Hart at this point either.

[Kishkumen]

One big difference between Hart and Dawkins is that Dawkins doesn’t know what he is talking about on the topic of religion.

[Marcus]

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think you ever made a positive assertion. You were only responding to people that were defending the possibility of a god using imagination as evidence. Using Occam's razor was just your strategy to analyze the positive claim. I don't think you were ever stating an absolute because I think we all agree absolute knowledge about anything is impossible. ( brain in a vat philosophical jargon) Sean Carroll had a conversation with Richard Dawkins (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmXOCIOkuuo) that seems to describe some of this threads comments. Sean asked Richard why he took a swipe at Philosophers when tweeting about Carroll's book The Grand Design. Richard responded with a story about how he was completely lost while attending a conference because of the jargon. Sean countered with the fact that science is full of jargon. But here is the rub. Richard claimed that the jargon of immunology is necessary for communication about things that manifest in the real world . Effective communication has to begin with defining one's terms . But going to a dictionary to define the jargon of philosophical terms left him with no way to verify them. Does this seem to describe these threads?

I agree. I didn’t make the positive claim. But you know, why argue that at this point? If people offer imagination as evidence for god, that’s not my problem really. Every allusion to imaginative feelings, ideas, visions etc are best explained as internal happenings….

This idea of internal happenings is still the best explanation for the phenomenon under discussion.

[dastardly stem]

I agree. I didn’t make the positive claim. But you know, why argue that at this point? If people offer imagination as evidence for god, that’s not my problem really. Every allusion to imaginative feelings, ideas, visions etc are best explained as internal happenings….

This idea of internal happenings is still the best explanation for the phenomenon under discussion.

Couldn’t agree more.