Science vs. Faith

[_MrStakhanovite]

Not only this, but I think that the whole idea of the hierarchy of infinite sets with different cardinalities also seems to pose problems to this notion, as I noted in one of my earliest posts on this forum.

Suppose that a god exists with some sort of knowledge set that is infinite in scope. What I argued in my post (and what I believe can be easily shown) is that there exists a super set that can be constructed from this original set (assuming the axiom of choice) that has a higher cardinality than the original set (and thus can not be mapped onto the original set with a one-to-one correspondence).

I am sure that Tarski could probably talk in more depth about these types of theoretical mathematical topics than I could, but the very idea of an omniscient god existing is for me problematic on a philosophical and mathematical level.

That was a cool thread by the way, I forget if this was answered, but couldn't one define God's knowledge as the set of all sets?

[_Sethbag]

That's just it though, there is no point where you no one species begins and one ends. The taxonomers have to argue and fight about it, and then make a decision. This follows from the fact that every single living thing is of the same species as its parents, yet multiple species may emerge out of that lineage.

Whoa Seth, did you intend to say that species are something that neither begins nor ends, and that, that there can be no specie changes from parent to child? Right or wrong, that is some serious metaphysical assumptions.

Yes. A species doesn't end in a physical sense, but rather the dividing line between species is a decision that humans make for our own reasons. This is hidden, in practical application, by the fact that most such decisions are easy: a bear is obviously a different species than a house cat. It is in the really tough decisions that this weakness in the very idea of "species" becomes evident.

For the sake of argument, say that modern homo sapiens has its most recent ancestor species 200,000 years ago. That just means that 200,000 years ago examples of that species would be different enough from homo sapiens of today that we'd judge them to be of a different species. Where would the dividing line fall? At which parent/child generation in the unbroken lineage from then to now would you say you'd crossed the line? Given how infinitesimal the differences between that parent and child would be, what would be the meaning of saying they were two different species?

[_mfbukowski]

This is oversimplified to the point of being almost sloganistic, but I will post it anyway, since I have been roundly criticized for posting "walls of text" which no one reads. I don't want to exceed the collective attention span of the audience.

We have heard it said here that taxonomy, arguably, is a "useful fiction"

I have posted on another thread that morality, arguably, is a "useful fiction"

I have posted that Susskind's view of the description of physics is, arguably, a "useful fiction"

Many anti-realists hold to the view that all there is to talk about is talk itself, and that we cannot "get down" to any "reality" outside of descriptions of our experience, not what is "real" in any other sense.

Yet it seems no one here can view religion also as a "useful fiction" as much as science or any other discipline is.

Why is that?

Please don't criticize this for being overly simplistic- I know that already. That is the point of the post. You want a wall of text, I can give it to you complete with references.

[_Tarski]

This is oversimplified to the point of being almost sloganistic, but I will post it anyway, since I have been roundly criticized for posting "walls of text" which no one reads. I don't want to exceed the collective attention span of the audience.

We have heard it said here that taxonomy, arguably, is a "useful fiction"

I have posted on another thread that morality, arguably, is a "useful fiction"

I have posted that Susskind's view of the description of physics is, arguably, a "useful fiction"

Many anti-realists hold to the view that all there is to talk about is talk itself, and that we cannot "get down" to any "reality" outside of descriptions of our experience, not what is "real" in any other sense.

Yet it seems no one here can view religion also as a "useful fiction" as much as science or any other discipline is.

Why is that?

Please don't criticize this for being overly simplistic- I know that already. That is the point of the post. You want a wall of text, I can give it to you complete with references.

If everything ends up being fiction (some useful and some not) then how does the word fiction retain any sense? Fiction is fiction by virtue of being opposed to what?

[_Drifting]

This is oversimplified to the point of being almost sloganistic, but I will post it anyway, since I have been roundly criticized for posting "walls of text" which no one reads. I don't want to exceed the collective attention span of the audience.

We have heard it said here that taxonomy, arguably, is a "useful fiction"

I have posted on another thread that morality, arguably, is a "useful fiction"

I have posted that Susskind's view of the description of physics is, arguably, a "useful fiction"

Many anti-realists hold to the view that all there is to talk about is talk itself, and that we cannot "get down" to any "reality" outside of descriptions of our experience, not what is "real" in any other sense.

Yet it seems no one here can view religion also as a "useful fiction" as much as science or any other discipline is.

Why is that?

I've underlined the problem word....

[_beefcalf]

Yet it seems no one here can view religion also as a "useful fiction" as much as science or any other discipline is.

Why is that?

For me, it's the inclusion of the word 'useful'. Useful for what purpose? And within that purpose, how effective is it?

In the case of 'species', 99.9% of all cases where we attempt to determine if two organisms can interbreed, the concept of species is a strongly accurate predictor of the outcome. Hence, 'species' is very useful.

For what is religion useful? For the FP & Q12, it is extremely useful for keeping a steady stream of tithing dollars flowing into Salt Lake. For me, and my family, it was useful as strong anchor for our self-identity. It meant that we had instant friends nearly anywhere we might move. It was useful as a strong social safety net.

As a means of acquiring hard-to-obtain (or previously unobtainable) data, it seems to me that religion, despite its strong claims to the contrary, has no ability whatsoever to deliver.

Prophets and Apostles claim to have the gift of revelation. They claim that the truth of all things is available to those who will but humble themselves and ask. They claim that no category of knowledge is beyond their grasp. Yet, where are the cures for cancer? Why do we still have lupus, multiple sclerosis, ALS, polio and malaria? Why did Joseph Smith's Zion's Camp suffer so terribly from cholera? Did Smith's God not understand how cholera spreads? Or was it that Smith just didn't think to ask for a cure? In any case where one might objectively measure the success rate of revelation, revelation appears to have the same success rate as the magic 8-ball.

Religion is a fiction. Is it a 'useful fiction'? Depends on what you want to use it for.

[_mfbukowski]

This is oversimplified to the point of being almost sloganistic, but I will post it anyway, since I have been roundly criticized for posting "walls of text" which no one reads. I don't want to exceed the collective attention span of the audience.

We have heard it said here that taxonomy, arguably, is a "useful fiction"

I have posted on another thread that morality, arguably, is a "useful fiction"

I have posted that Susskind's view of the description of physics is, arguably, a "useful fiction"

Many anti-realists hold to the view that all there is to talk about is talk itself, and that we cannot "get down" to any "reality" outside of descriptions of our experience, not what is "real" in any other sense.

Yet it seems no one here can view religion also as a "useful fiction" as much as science or any other discipline is.

Why is that?

Please don't criticize this for being overly simplistic- I know that already. That is the point of the post. You want a wall of text, I can give it to you complete with references.

If everything ends up being fiction (some useful and some not) then how does the word fiction retain any sense? Fiction is fiction by virtue of being opposed to what?

That is exactly precisely right. That's why Pragmatists find the notion of "truth" rather useless.

I only used that word "fiction" to bring home the fact that we cannot get "outside" of linguistic description to "reality"

No description is any closer to reality than any other

There are no effects there are only interpretations- Some are more useful than others

There is no distinction between reality and appearances

These are phrases from this video which I use a lot simply because it captures it all in so few words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

And yes, I know Rorty is an atheist. That is not relevant to my point

[_mfbukowski]

I've underlined the problem word....

It works for some, and not for others.

It works to give meaning to the lives of millions, just as music and poetry and art does, as does philosophy and debating metaphysics as we do here. Where does this activity lead that we do here? What use is it?

I believe it goes far beyond that as well, but this is where "faith" fits, and this is not where one discusses what one accepts on faith. Let's just call it "non-falsifiable metaphysical speculation" for the purposes of this board.

A lot of people cannot live without music and art.

[_mfbukowski]

For me, it's the inclusion of the word 'useful'. Useful for what purpose? And within that purpose, how effective is it?

In the case of 'species', 99.9% of all cases where we attempt to determine if two organisms can interbreed, the concept of species is a strongly accurate predictor of the outcome. Hence, 'species' is very useful.

For what is religion useful? For the FP & Q12, it is extremely useful for keeping a steady stream of tithing dollars flowing into Salt Lake. For me, and my family, it was useful as strong anchor for our self-identity. It meant that we had instant friends nearly anywhere we might move. It was useful as a strong social safety net.

As a means of acquiring hard-to-obtain (or previously unobtainable) data, it seems to me that religion, despite its strong claims to the contrary, has no ability whatsoever to deliver.

Prophets and Apostles claim to have the gift of revelation. They claim that the truth of all things is available to those who will but humble themselves and ask. They claim that no category of knowledge is beyond their grasp. Yet, where are the cures for cancer? Why do we still have lupus, multiple sclerosis, ALS, polio and malaria? Why did Joseph Smith's Zion's Camp suffer so terribly from cholera? Did Smith's God not understand how cholera spreads? Or was it that Smith just didn't think to ask for a cure? In any case where one might objectively measure the success rate of revelation, revelation appears to have the same success rate as the magic 8-ball.

Religion is a fiction. Is it a 'useful fiction'? Depends on what you want to use it for.

Note that I am not saying science is NOT "useful"- I am just denying it tells us much which is useful about anything outside of its utilitarian purview.

Because it is ultimately descriptive, it cannot get "beyond" language to some kind of "reality" beyond human experience.

[_mfbukowski]

Religion is a fiction. Is it a 'useful fiction'? Depends on what you want to use it for.

Note that I used that term to make a point.

It is just as "valid" for linguistic descriptions of religious beliefs as linguistic descriptions of scientific beliefs are for science. They are two different contexts for human expression, neither of which can get "outside" of language. They are two different "language games"

That is the point.