7 ms·

For context, Parfit died a few days ago, he was a brilliant man and I read some of his papers as a philosophy undergraduate. As far as the essay itself goes, it

by dvt 10y ago

For context, Parfit died a few days ago, he was a brilliant man and I read some of his papers as a philosophy undergraduate. As far as the essay itself goes, it's pretty much typical run-of-the-mill anti-theist cosmology with the same arguments that have become status quo for the past 20 years or so. Even as a Christian, I find both cosmological arguments (theist and anti-theist) wholly unconvincing. For example, if I was a non-believer, I would find it equally hard to believe in a multi-verse or a God. Not only that, but to make these kinds of arguments, we need to make all kinds of pretty serious assumptions: that we know how causality works in a multiverse, that laws of physics are invariant even at the beginning of universes (whatever that might mean), and so on. But here's where I completely disagree with the position so many philosophers have (a field which I love): > As these remarks suggest, there is no clear boundary here between philosophy and science. If there is such a highest law governing reality, this law is of the same kind as those that physicists are trying to discover. As much as I respect Parfit (and many other philosophers of science), I think they're just dead wrong. What philosophers do is very different than what physicists do. This view absolutely permeates academic philosophy: that philosophy of science is, you know, basically science. It's not. I always recommend Barry Dainton's Time and Space[1] for budding philosophers of science, but don't kid yourself: it's merely a very high-level introduction to the physics of space and time. Until you really get down and dirty with the intricacies of (at first) Galilean spacetime and (eventually) Minkowski spacetime, you really won't "get it" -- but alas, many philosophy undergraduates and grad students think they do. And I'm sure that hubris follows them in their postgraduate careers. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Time-Space-Barry-Francis-Dainton/dp/0773537473 https://www.amazon.com/Time-Space-Barry-Francis-Dainton/dp/0...

ozy 10y ago
My I ask why you are a Christian? Personally I think the question of a god has only one answer: we cannot know. But the question of the christian god, with the bible and traits like loving, good. That is easily disproven. Killing 100,000 innocent Egyptian kids? Genocide and more promise of genocide? Stoning? Hating homosexuals? Sending good people to hell? None of these things are loving or good. Or just try Mark 16:17-18, a simple test, but I have never seen it demonstrated. Those are my reasons to not belief, and see it as bronze/iron age people writing down their myths and beliefs. Would you mind expanding on what convinces you? If not the cosmological argument?
- dvt 10y ago
  > My I ask why you are a Christian? Sure, I believe that man is essentially fallen and we were redeemed by the grace of God through his son Jesus. If the question "why" is meant to be more analytical, I can't be of much help. I profoundly believe that believing in God is by definition non-analytical. That is, you can't "prove" it, nor can you "logic" your way into it. I have some arguments I find convincing and that I like, but when push comes to shove, it's a personal (and wholly non-rational) choice someone makes. > But the question of the christian god, with the bible and traits like loving, good. That is easily disproven. Killing 100,000 innocent Egyptian kids? Genocide and more promise of genocide? Stoning? Hating homosexuals? Sending good people to hell? None of these things are loving or good. Or just try Mark 16:17-18, a simple test, but I have never seen it demonstrated. You're severely oversimplifying here. I think if you work towards understanding the fundamental difference between the Old and New Testament (e.g. Judaism and Christianity), it should become obvious why the OT seems violent and filled with a "just" and "vengeful" God, whereas in the NT, we find a more "merciful" and "forgiving" God. This, theologically speaking, happens because we believe Jesus Christ was kind of a big deal that changed the moral workings of the universe. As far as the homosexual issue, etc., these are very complicated and are hotly debated both in a political and social context, as well as in theological circles. I'm not sure if homosexuality is a sin or not (to me, it doesn't seem that way), but I just do my best to treat everyone as Jesus would: with love and respect. > Would you mind expanding on what convinces you? If not the cosmological argument? As I mentioned, nothing truly "convinces" me -- I think the belief is at its very essence not a rational one. It's sort of like appreciating a beautiful piece of art or listening to Beethoven's 5th; there's no science or math here. However, I will say my favorite argument is the moral one: I think that there are some cases where we can trivially say "X is morally good" or "X is morally bad". Let's focus on the latter for now. For example, I think most people can agree that it's trivially morally bad to cause pain for no good reason. I think this intuition points to some sort of "realness" of the idea of good, e.g. some "ideal" of good. I think that this is, in some sense, a whiff of God. We "get" that there's good things and bad things (irrespective of laws), so I think that's indicative that God is a real thing. Now, some people are complete moral relativists. I think that's wrong and it throws out the baby with the bathwater.
  - 10y ago
sethrin 10y ago
I think you're mischaracterizing the relationship between science and philosophy. The philosophy of science is philosophy, and science is more like the applied philosophy of empiricism. God, so far, is not a subject for empirical debate. I am also not sure that your dismissal of the argument as "run-of-the-mill anti-theist cosmology". This seems like a discussion of cosmology from an empirical perspective, and I can't see how theism is particularly useful there. If you'll pardon me for a blunt characterization, you seem to have an axe to grind about theism. I'm not sure that is either warranted or particularly topical. Parfit may be "dead wrong" but suggesting that this has anything to do with your personal religious beliefs rather detracts from your argument, in my opinion.
- dvt 10y ago
  > I am also not sure that your dismissal of the argument as "run-of-the-mill anti-theist cosmology". I didn't mean to be dismissive, just to point out that the article is old (1998) and that most of HN's more learned readers would've already seen these arguments in one form or another. > If you'll pardon me for a blunt characterization, you seem to have an axe to grind about theism. Parfit's agenda is pretty clearly anti-theist, I think I'm pretty on-topic. If anything, I have an axe to grind with philosophy of science.
  - sethrin 10y ago
    Okay, well then assuming it is intended to be anti-theist, why is that a problem? Is the cosmology he describes not empirical?
- maverick_iceman 10y ago
  Why is God not a subject for empirical debate? If the miracles described in Bible happened regularly I would consider that as strong empirical evidence for God. Given that no such miracles are forthcoming it reduces the likelihood that God exists.
  - sethrin 10y ago
    Because there's no evidence either way. It's valid philosophically to consider the unknown or unprovable statement to be false, but the philosophers of science have pretty soundly rejected logical positivism[0] Generally speaking the problem is that we can't treat empirical truths as some sort of strictly binary, completely true or completely false statements. Error is inherent to observation, so every scientific truth is a little bit false (or at least potentially so). The less rational part of me does consider that chocolate tapdancing unicorns are unlikely enough to be entirely discounted, but as a general philosophical rule it's more consistent to be a little more humble about what is known and can be known. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Critics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Critics
naasking 10y ago
> Not only that, but to make these kinds of arguments, we need to make all kinds of pretty serious assumptions: that we know how causality works in a multiverse, that laws of physics are invariant even at the beginning of universes (whatever that might mean), and so on. 1. If laws aren't immutable, then either some function governs their changes over time, which makes them immutable when you consider that function, or the laws are entirely random, in which case all science is impossible anyway, and so we shouldn't concern ourselves with this case. 2. The difference is that there is evidence of a multiverse in quantum mechanics, the most well-tested scientific theory of all time. The Many-Worlds interpretation is the most reasonable explanation of QM phenomena.
- mannykannot 10y ago
  1. What if, for example, it is functions all the way down? 2. I think reasonableness is still in the eye of the beholder, or has Deutsch convinced everyone who counts?
  - automatwon 10y ago
    1. What if there was a function like the Y-Combinator that returns a fixed point?
  - naasking 10y ago
    > What if, for example, it is functions all the way down? What, an infinite hierarchy of functions? Since that's not very parsimonious, it's a very unlikely option. > I think reasonableness is still in the eye of the beholder, or has Deutsch convinced everyone who counts? Sure, there are other possibilities, but the point that there is plenty of evidence that makes many worlds a reasonable conclusion, so the original claim isn't accurate.
    - mannykannot 10y ago
      That looks to me rather like axiarchism, with parsimony as the specific form of goodness.

by dvt 10y ago

ozy 10y ago

My I ask why you are a Christian? Personally I think the question of a god has only one answer: we cannot know. But the question of the christian god, with the bible and traits like loving, good. That is easily disproven. Killing 100,000 innocent Egyptian kids? Genocide and more promise of genocide? Stoning? Hating homosexuals? Sending good people to hell? None of these things are loving or good. Or just try Mark 16:17-18, a simple test, but I have never seen it demonstrated. Those are my reasons to not belief, and see it as bronze/iron age people writing down their myths and beliefs. Would you mind expanding on what convinces you? If not the cosmological argument?

dvt 10y ago
> My I ask why you are a Christian? Sure, I believe that man is essentially fallen and we were redeemed by the grace of God through his son Jesus. If the question "why" is meant to be more analytical, I can't be of much help. I profoundly believe that believing in God is by definition non-analytical. That is, you can't "prove" it, nor can you "logic" your way into it. I have some arguments I find convincing and that I like, but when push comes to shove, it's a personal (and wholly non-rational) choice someone makes. > But the question of the christian god, with the bible and traits like loving, good. That is easily disproven. Killing 100,000 innocent Egyptian kids? Genocide and more promise of genocide? Stoning? Hating homosexuals? Sending good people to hell? None of these things are loving or good. Or just try Mark 16:17-18, a simple test, but I have never seen it demonstrated. You're severely oversimplifying here. I think if you work towards understanding the fundamental difference between the Old and New Testament (e.g. Judaism and Christianity), it should become obvious why the OT seems violent and filled with a "just" and "vengeful" God, whereas in the NT, we find a more "merciful" and "forgiving" God. This, theologically speaking, happens because we believe Jesus Christ was kind of a big deal that changed the moral workings of the universe. As far as the homosexual issue, etc., these are very complicated and are hotly debated both in a political and social context, as well as in theological circles. I'm not sure if homosexuality is a sin or not (to me, it doesn't seem that way), but I just do my best to treat everyone as Jesus would: with love and respect. > Would you mind expanding on what convinces you? If not the cosmological argument? As I mentioned, nothing truly "convinces" me -- I think the belief is at its very essence not a rational one. It's sort of like appreciating a beautiful piece of art or listening to Beethoven's 5th; there's no science or math here. However, I will say my favorite argument is the moral one: I think that there are some cases where we can trivially say "X is morally good" or "X is morally bad". Let's focus on the latter for now. For example, I think most people can agree that it's trivially morally bad to cause pain for no good reason. I think this intuition points to some sort of "realness" of the idea of good, e.g. some "ideal" of good. I think that this is, in some sense, a whiff of God. We "get" that there's good things and bad things (irrespective of laws), so I think that's indicative that God is a real thing. Now, some people are complete moral relativists. I think that's wrong and it throws out the baby with the bathwater.
- 10y ago

sethrin 10y ago

I think you're mischaracterizing the relationship between science and philosophy. The philosophy of science is philosophy, and science is more like the applied philosophy of empiricism. God, so far, is not a subject for empirical debate. I am also not sure that your dismissal of the argument as "run-of-the-mill anti-theist cosmology". This seems like a discussion of cosmology from an empirical perspective, and I can't see how theism is particularly useful there. If you'll pardon me for a blunt characterization, you seem to have an axe to grind about theism. I'm not sure that is either warranted or particularly topical. Parfit may be "dead wrong" but suggesting that this has anything to do with your personal religious beliefs rather detracts from your argument, in my opinion.

dvt 10y ago
> I am also not sure that your dismissal of the argument as "run-of-the-mill anti-theist cosmology". I didn't mean to be dismissive, just to point out that the article is old (1998) and that most of HN's more learned readers would've already seen these arguments in one form or another. > If you'll pardon me for a blunt characterization, you seem to have an axe to grind about theism. Parfit's agenda is pretty clearly anti-theist, I think I'm pretty on-topic. If anything, I have an axe to grind with philosophy of science.
- sethrin 10y ago
  Okay, well then assuming it is intended to be anti-theist, why is that a problem? Is the cosmology he describes not empirical?
maverick_iceman 10y ago
Why is God not a subject for empirical debate? If the miracles described in Bible happened regularly I would consider that as strong empirical evidence for God. Given that no such miracles are forthcoming it reduces the likelihood that God exists.
- sethrin 10y ago
  Because there's no evidence either way. It's valid philosophically to consider the unknown or unprovable statement to be false, but the philosophers of science have pretty soundly rejected logical positivism[0] Generally speaking the problem is that we can't treat empirical truths as some sort of strictly binary, completely true or completely false statements. Error is inherent to observation, so every scientific truth is a little bit false (or at least potentially so). The less rational part of me does consider that chocolate tapdancing unicorns are unlikely enough to be entirely discounted, but as a general philosophical rule it's more consistent to be a little more humble about what is known and can be known. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Critics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Critics

naasking 10y ago

> Not only that, but to make these kinds of arguments, we need to make all kinds of pretty serious assumptions: that we know how causality works in a multiverse, that laws of physics are invariant even at the beginning of universes (whatever that might mean), and so on. 1. If laws aren't immutable, then either some function governs their changes over time, which makes them immutable when you consider that function, or the laws are entirely random, in which case all science is impossible anyway, and so we shouldn't concern ourselves with this case. 2. The difference is that there is evidence of a multiverse in quantum mechanics, the most well-tested scientific theory of all time. The Many-Worlds interpretation is the most reasonable explanation of QM phenomena.

mannykannot 10y ago
1. What if, for example, it is functions all the way down? 2. I think reasonableness is still in the eye of the beholder, or has Deutsch convinced everyone who counts?
- automatwon 10y ago
  1. What if there was a function like the Y-Combinator that returns a fixed point?
- naasking 10y ago
  > What if, for example, it is functions all the way down? What, an infinite hierarchy of functions? Since that's not very parsimonious, it's a very unlikely option. > I think reasonableness is still in the eye of the beholder, or has Deutsch convinced everyone who counts? Sure, there are other possibilities, but the point that there is plenty of evidence that makes many worlds a reasonable conclusion, so the original claim isn't accurate.
  - mannykannot 10y ago
    That looks to me rather like axiarchism, with parsimony as the specific form of goodness.