4 ms·

A good argument is enough. I'm a mathematician and I have not read any of the original papers of Euler, Gauss, etc. but understand and accept their results full

by robertk 15y ago

A good argument is enough. I'm a mathematician and I have not read any of the original papers of Euler, Gauss, etc. but understand and accept their results fully. To me, philosophical and theological reasoning are not fundamental as they may be to you, because I have accepted they are an outcome of a particular brain architecture with its own tendencies and biases, itself an outcome of a more general process. This argument is convincing to me because it seems a natural progression to our realizations that humanity is not fundamental (which, coming from antiquity, is counterintuitive), and a natural extension of the shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric point of view. Understanding our reasoning capacities as the outcome of a natural physical process leads to my agreement with Dawkins's claim that any philosophical result prior to 1859 can be disregarded. We have a limited amount of time. I was a faithful, practicing Catholic who scoffed at atheist ideas because I didn't understand them. I remember the precise position I sat while reading the God Delusion when my brain was shocked into realizing "Wait a second, I'm agreeing with this." I took a few more months to verify the ideas were sensible, and what I got was much more; a worldview with more coherence and explanatory power than anything I'd yet seen. So for me, I don't spend my time on reading further theological / atheist philosophy for the same reason I am not proofchecking Deligne's demonstration of the Weil conjectures, even though I accept and use his result.

loup-vaillant 15y ago
> A good argument is enough. I'm a mathematician and I have not read any of the original papers of Euler, Gauss, etc. but understand and accept their results fully. Here what would answer one of my friends. He happen believe atheism is true, but more importantly, he's a literary person. So: "To understand [such and such author]'s ideas and concepts, you have to impregnate yourself with their original thoughts. That is, you must read their original works. Secondary sources just won't do." I tried to reply that I didn't need to read Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica to understand Newtonian physics, but he seems to think that philosophy is different. (But then, where to that "Philosophiæ" comes from? Oh yeah, he meant literary philosophy, of the kind that somehow cannot be true nor false.) I think the root of the problem is something akin to dualism. Many people (including some atheists) postulate that between the laws of physics and the human soul, there is something that is not only unexplained (true), but actually unexplainable. In other words, "Poof Magic", though they won't ever use that ridiculous wording. So, below the "Poof Magic" threshold, we have the lowly matters that you can indeed explain. Above it, the very notion of truth is muddled. As you may guess, "science" is placed below the threshold, and "philosophy" is placed above. The first is about facts we can check, about theories that can be improved or disproved. The second is more about schools of thought, which are neither right nor wrong, neither true nor false, they just "are" (this way, no one can claim his own school of thought is better than any other). Another key difference between "science" and "philosophy" is the treatment of secondary sources. They can be wonderful for "science", but they are worthless for "philosophy". To understand a philosopher's ideas, you must "impregnate yourself with his thoughts", that is, read his original works. And of course you are not allowed to judge the veracity of those works. Now here is the killer argument: theology is to be placed above the "Poof Magic" threshold. Therefore, (i) you have to read them all before you claim anything about them, and (ii) you cannot say they were false anyway, it's just a school of though, that is "by definition" no worse nor better than any other. I have never defeated the killer argument. I need to get rid of the "Poof Magic" nonsense first, and the burden of proof is always on my shoulders. Even If I manage shake it, the real reason why people make the killer argument is because its comfortable. They can never be wrong with it, and it avoids arguments. But, you know, if we disagree, at least one of us must be mistaken, right? Wouldn't it be interesting to know who?
- robertk 15y ago
  Oh, no doubt. I have long ago realized that from a psychological point of view, it is purely axiomatic whether to "have faith" or not, and is primarily a factor of one's upbringing. Unlike formal systems, the brain has no need for internal logical consistency. (And it could be argued that many religious systems are internally consistent given you accept their axioms; in which case there is absolutely no hope of resolving the argument without appealing to Bayesian inference and noting that my choice of axioms is a better fit for the evidence, but this is a very subtle point to grasp. For example, read the story of Luke Muehlhauser, who read mountains of philosophy and theology and in the end was only convinced by the dissonance in historical evidence for Jesus, an implicitly Bayesian argument: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?page_id=3 http://commonsenseatheism.com/?page_id=3) Another nice argument is by Occam's razor, that the scientific choice of axioms has less complexity and is devoid of localization, whereas systems like Catholicism have strong focus on arbitrary notions like Jerusalem or sacristy. These arbitrary notions are explained on-the-nose by evolutionary thinking (our ancestors made up stories because of their psychology), whereas they are inexplicable in Catholic thinking. (Why did Jesus choose to come alive when did? He just picked a time and place at random.) Of course, Occam's razor is only an aesthetic choice that agrees with evidence, again a Bayesian argument. It's difficult to base one's life philosophy on an aesthetic choice, so naturally a religious upbringing overwhelms. EDIT: I should point out that the Bayesian argument is locally uncontrollable. My mother claims to have had a sensory experience--when facing doubts about divorcing my father--complete with vivid sounds and imagery, of Jesus appearing to her and telling her she must stay with him. I admit if I had such sensory evidence, the scientific axioms would be hard to swallow, and the Catholic system would be a strong contender (Bayesionally speaking). Thence stems the problem of faith.
- pradocchia 15y ago
  But, you know, if we disagree, at least one of us must be mistaken, right? Wouldn't it be interesting to know who? Chances are, both of you. Put another way, you are both right in ways you wouldn't suspect, and wrong in the same fashion. The unknown unknowns of epistemology, so to speak.
  - loup-vaillant 15y ago
davesims 15y ago
"Understanding our reasoning capacities as the outcome of a natural physical process leads to my agreement with Dawkins's claim that any philosophical result prior to 1859 can be disregarded." I'm sorry my friend, but...no. I'm open to a lot of ideas and directions that a discussion may take but this is just a non-starter, a laughable example of exactly the sort of benighted, willful ignorance that dooms fruitful discussion. This is the kind of statement you can only make if you haven't read philosophy written before 1859. I mean, of course, _The Origin of Species_ was a watershed to be sure, but there's certain philosophical freight even Darwin can't carry. I think underneath this is a problem of false analogy. Philosophical insight is not the same species as math, and doesn't "build" the same way, in a scaffold of proofs and deductive confidence towards an inevitable conclusion that, once reached, can be accepted on its own terms without understanding of the prior movements. I'd suggest reading a bit further and broaden your engagement. As a mathematician, you might appreciate Pierre Duhem's views on religion and history, Whitehead's ideas on the history of science, and in particular I'd say check out Hans Jonas' "Is God a Mathematician?". All of those pass the 1859 smell test as well, so, bonus!
- davesims 15y ago
  Ok, let me apologize. "Laughable" and "benighted" are the kinds of uncharitable language I'm arguing against using. The charitable read of this statement would have acknowledged its substance -- the idea that after Darwin there was a 'clearing of the decks' so to speak, and to some degree that's true although not to the extent Dawkins claims. From a philosophical standpoint, certainly Teleology was seen to have been dealt a death blow, at least the kind of teleology advocated by folks like Paley, and that was a massive turn. I'm unaware of any serious philosopher or historian of ideas that would suggest it's wise to dismiss all prior developments out of hand, though. If that's not laughable, it's certainly dangerous.
  - robertk 15y ago
    I don't see why. Without mechanical tools and rudimentary physics, progress on flying machines was nil until the Wright brothers. Without better tools to study brains, there is no reason to expect we have produced any valuable answers to the sorts of "big questions" brains ask about themselves.
phuff 15y ago
"Understanding our reasoning capacities as the outcome of a natural physical process leads to my agreement with Dawkins's claim that any philosophical result prior to 1859 can be disregarded" On a side note: Of _course_ _Dawkins_ would say that, being an evolutionary biologist... :)

by robertk 15y ago

loup-vaillant 15y ago

> A good argument is enough. I'm a mathematician and I have not read any of the original papers of Euler, Gauss, etc. but understand and accept their results fully. Here what would answer one of my friends. He happen believe atheism is true, but more importantly, he's a literary person. So: "To understand [such and such author]'s ideas and concepts, you have to impregnate yourself with their original thoughts. That is, you must read their original works. Secondary sources just won't do." I tried to reply that I didn't need to read Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica to understand Newtonian physics, but he seems to think that philosophy is different. (But then, where to that "Philosophiæ" comes from? Oh yeah, he meant literary philosophy, of the kind that somehow cannot be true nor false.) I think the root of the problem is something akin to dualism. Many people (including some atheists) postulate that between the laws of physics and the human soul, there is something that is not only unexplained (true), but actually unexplainable. In other words, "Poof Magic", though they won't ever use that ridiculous wording. So, below the "Poof Magic" threshold, we have the lowly matters that you can indeed explain. Above it, the very notion of truth is muddled. As you may guess, "science" is placed below the threshold, and "philosophy" is placed above. The first is about facts we can check, about theories that can be improved or disproved. The second is more about schools of thought, which are neither right nor wrong, neither true nor false, they just "are" (this way, no one can claim his own school of thought is better than any other). Another key difference between "science" and "philosophy" is the treatment of secondary sources. They can be wonderful for "science", but they are worthless for "philosophy". To understand a philosopher's ideas, you must "impregnate yourself with his thoughts", that is, read his original works. And of course you are not allowed to judge the veracity of those works. Now here is the killer argument: theology is to be placed above the "Poof Magic" threshold. Therefore, (i) you have to read them all before you claim anything about them, and (ii) you cannot say they were false anyway, it's just a school of though, that is "by definition" no worse nor better than any other. I have never defeated the killer argument. I need to get rid of the "Poof Magic" nonsense first, and the burden of proof is always on my shoulders. Even If I manage shake it, the real reason why people make the killer argument is because its comfortable. They can never be wrong with it, and it avoids arguments. But, you know, if we disagree, at least one of us must be mistaken, right? Wouldn't it be interesting to know who?

robertk 15y ago
Oh, no doubt. I have long ago realized that from a psychological point of view, it is purely axiomatic whether to "have faith" or not, and is primarily a factor of one's upbringing. Unlike formal systems, the brain has no need for internal logical consistency. (And it could be argued that many religious systems are internally consistent given you accept their axioms; in which case there is absolutely no hope of resolving the argument without appealing to Bayesian inference and noting that my choice of axioms is a better fit for the evidence, but this is a very subtle point to grasp. For example, read the story of Luke Muehlhauser, who read mountains of philosophy and theology and in the end was only convinced by the dissonance in historical evidence for Jesus, an implicitly Bayesian argument: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?page_id=3 http://commonsenseatheism.com/?page_id=3) Another nice argument is by Occam's razor, that the scientific choice of axioms has less complexity and is devoid of localization, whereas systems like Catholicism have strong focus on arbitrary notions like Jerusalem or sacristy. These arbitrary notions are explained on-the-nose by evolutionary thinking (our ancestors made up stories because of their psychology), whereas they are inexplicable in Catholic thinking. (Why did Jesus choose to come alive when did? He just picked a time and place at random.) Of course, Occam's razor is only an aesthetic choice that agrees with evidence, again a Bayesian argument. It's difficult to base one's life philosophy on an aesthetic choice, so naturally a religious upbringing overwhelms. EDIT: I should point out that the Bayesian argument is locally uncontrollable. My mother claims to have had a sensory experience--when facing doubts about divorcing my father--complete with vivid sounds and imagery, of Jesus appearing to her and telling her she must stay with him. I admit if I had such sensory evidence, the scientific axioms would be hard to swallow, and the Catholic system would be a strong contender (Bayesionally speaking). Thence stems the problem of faith.
pradocchia 15y ago
But, you know, if we disagree, at least one of us must be mistaken, right? Wouldn't it be interesting to know who? Chances are, both of you. Put another way, you are both right in ways you wouldn't suspect, and wrong in the same fashion. The unknown unknowns of epistemology, so to speak.
- loup-vaillant 15y ago

davesims 15y ago

"Understanding our reasoning capacities as the outcome of a natural physical process leads to my agreement with Dawkins's claim that any philosophical result prior to 1859 can be disregarded." I'm sorry my friend, but...no. I'm open to a lot of ideas and directions that a discussion may take but this is just a non-starter, a laughable example of exactly the sort of benighted, willful ignorance that dooms fruitful discussion. This is the kind of statement you can only make if you haven't read philosophy written before 1859. I mean, of course, _The Origin of Species_ was a watershed to be sure, but there's certain philosophical freight even Darwin can't carry. I think underneath this is a problem of false analogy. Philosophical insight is not the same species as math, and doesn't "build" the same way, in a scaffold of proofs and deductive confidence towards an inevitable conclusion that, once reached, can be accepted on its own terms without understanding of the prior movements. I'd suggest reading a bit further and broaden your engagement. As a mathematician, you might appreciate Pierre Duhem's views on religion and history, Whitehead's ideas on the history of science, and in particular I'd say check out Hans Jonas' "Is God a Mathematician?". All of those pass the 1859 smell test as well, so, bonus!

davesims 15y ago
Ok, let me apologize. "Laughable" and "benighted" are the kinds of uncharitable language I'm arguing against using. The charitable read of this statement would have acknowledged its substance -- the idea that after Darwin there was a 'clearing of the decks' so to speak, and to some degree that's true although not to the extent Dawkins claims. From a philosophical standpoint, certainly Teleology was seen to have been dealt a death blow, at least the kind of teleology advocated by folks like Paley, and that was a massive turn. I'm unaware of any serious philosopher or historian of ideas that would suggest it's wise to dismiss all prior developments out of hand, though. If that's not laughable, it's certainly dangerous.
- robertk 15y ago
  I don't see why. Without mechanical tools and rudimentary physics, progress on flying machines was nil until the Wright brothers. Without better tools to study brains, there is no reason to expect we have produced any valuable answers to the sorts of "big questions" brains ask about themselves.

phuff 15y ago