Are we contending that if God were to exist, it would have to be a default sceptic? Otherwise I'm not quite sure I get this one. As to me it appears it would favour a creationist over that of an atheist. It seems to be of the view of the likes of David Hume regarding knowledge and perception, or perhaps a Socratic paradox. In which case both the creationist and the atheist would be at a stalemate and have to concede that neither knows, and both positions are reliant on belief only, which is close to the standard position of a creationist anyway, no?
I think it has more to do with infinite regress. I don't think it favours either atheist or theist. It is most unlikely to favour creationism given that creationists dogmatically insist that they know the answer. Atheism seems less about insisting on what they know, rather that they do not believe in a deity.
I'd have to agree with you, if indeed that is the held position of both the atheist and the creationist as you say. In which case the creationist should then have to concede that they believe rather than know. Whether or not any of them would concede is another matter, I'm certainly aware that many of them would not. It still holds though that both positions are one of belief rather than knowing. As for the idea of infinite regress, it would certainly pose a question to many of the attributes some creationist attach to their own particular belief systems, but I don't see it as a particular problem specifically to the idea of a creator in itself.
There is a willingness on the part of many atheists to say they don't know and a lack of that willingness on the part of creationists. I'm distinguishing, as I presume you are, between creationists and theists. My own personal position is physicalism. The metaphysical I don't bother with. Infinite regress I think does pose a problem for the creator idea which is what seems to be suggested in the above meme. It seems the obvious question to ask and the answer is invariably arbitrary.
I'm not sure a distinction between theist and creationist is necessary, as whatever distinctions could be made between the two I don't think is relevant to the point that they should have to concede to not knowing. I agree the question regards the meme may seem an obvious one, and an answer can be invariably arbitrary, but I still don't see the problem. If it turned out to be true, the creationist could be content in their position of having a creator, and simply not care about anything beyond that. Regards my own personal position, perhaps you've gathered from my comments on other posts, with my familiar line of holding "I don't know" over "I believe". I find many philosophical musings to be of interest, and science too.
The theist can be more open to ideas without citing Scripture. They can be less insistent on claiming access to an inerrant truth. They strike me as coming closer to the 'I believe' rather than the 'I know' position. That is the problem - the creationist not just being content but dogmatic with their position, rejecting evolution and geology, and then demanding that young earth creationism and special human creation be taught in science classes. Infinite regress does not cause a problem for a creationist but it is likely to for anybody thinking about it. There are lots of things we don't know just as there are lots of things we believe. Where I believe I try to say it and where I don't know I try to say that too. I like both philosophy and science.
Haha, I suppose the very concepts of infinity and paradoxes can be rather difficult for humans to wrap their head around.
I certainly would have no problem opposing the teaching in schools of religious dogma as factual, I hope at the very least that much has been clear of me.
The position of the sceptic as mentioned in my initial comment might serve as a feedback loop or a bookend here. I do enjoy these little memes though, and I enjoyed the discussion too. Cheers the now Anthony.
Yes indeed Anthony, no doubt, although I was suggesting only that some may struggle with the concepts of infinites and paradoxes, for example, Schroedinger's cat is confusing to some, whether this is a true paradox however is debateable. Others may also find it incomprehensible that there are infinites that can be infinitely larger than other infinites. The proof is there, yet the comprehension can remain difficult for some, even though whether someone finding it incomprehensible does nothing to detract from the proof.
Regards faith, I think it's an interesting concept, problematic, but interesting nonetheless. However, if I were to use your definition of a creationist for clarity so we're both on the same point of reference here, the dogmatic flying in the face of reason is certainly rather frustrating to say the least. Whereas someone that happens to be flexible whilst still posing a theoretical possibility of a creator, is something I can engage with more readily.
Regards proof, I'm reminiscent of Russell's teapot, but I did comment on another post about other problems in this respect. Perhaps you saw that comment already and no need for me to be repetitive.
Matt, for me, Schroedinger's cat is probably best answered (insofar as quantum physics can ever be answered) by Sabina Hossenfelder, responding to a student she shared a taxi with and who was wanting to know if his Grandmother could still be alive although dead some years. There was either a Creator or there wasn't. So the theist who believes in one is fine by me. I just don't know of anyone alive who knows the slightest thing about the supposed creator. They might know about this book or that but nothing more. Theology is only of interest to me if it is philosophical. A priest once told me that he can prove that god exists theologically but cannot do so philosophically. Think he had a point. Astrologically he might do the same but not astronomically!
At this point I can't remember the other comment you refer to.
I'm not familiar with that particular explanation from Sabine H, but I am familiar with Sabine. I think she does a decent job of giving explanations, in her own words - "as simple as possible, but not any simpler". The current generation I think are quite lucky to have such a variety of online resources for learning should they be so inclined and with the capacity to do so. I can't say personally whether I think her explanation is the best having not seen it, but there are quite a few others that in my opinion are very good in providing a basic understanding, and should be manageable enough for anyone, again provided they have the inclination and capacity.
My comment from a previous post regarding proof:
"I suppose in order to prove the existence either for or against, one would first need to precisely define "God" to begin with. Then I suppose the question would be, exactly what constitutes acceptable proof? Would it be as supposedly used in court, that it must be beyond any reasonable doubt? Which after that still leaves open, that even with an accepted definition of God for the sake of the argument, whether proof beyond any reasonable doubt is indeed at all possible, and also that the lack of proof for either argument does not have any bearing on what is actually true".
Matt - that is a good rule of thumb - as simple as possible but not any simpler. For people like me who have no background in science other than school, the simpler the better. I recall your comment now that you have provided it again. I go along with Hitchens: incredible claims require incredible proof.
Haha, should I go back to scepticism and infinite regress. For anyone following the discussion, for well-known visual references, themes about knowing, belief and reality are explored in films like the Matrix, Inception and The Thirteenth Floor among many others. For those complex themes, I'm content enough to say, I don't know. Hitchens though makes sense enough to me Anthony, although the sceptic can pose that there can be no definite proof, nor certainty of knowledge or reality, and whilst it's interesting to contemplate, I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to doubt reality to the point of not paying their bills, or taking to a skydive without a parachute and not expect to hit the ground hard. I think it's sensible enough to go along with reality as it's commonly perceived and experienced.
Matrix and that type of thing leans into Simulation theory. Yet another way to try to find some higher power. I let it drift on by.
For me there is nothing out there and until something is scientifically revealed rather than divinely (which I regard as a nonsense) I'll carry on regardless!!
Are we contending that if God were to exist, it would have to be a default sceptic? Otherwise I'm not quite sure I get this one. As to me it appears it would favour a creationist over that of an atheist. It seems to be of the view of the likes of David Hume regarding knowledge and perception, or perhaps a Socratic paradox. In which case both the creationist and the atheist would be at a stalemate and have to concede that neither knows, and both positions are reliant on belief only, which is close to the standard position of a creationist anyway, no?
ReplyDeleteI think it has more to do with infinite regress.
DeleteI don't think it favours either atheist or theist. It is most unlikely to favour creationism given that creationists dogmatically insist that they know the answer. Atheism seems less about insisting on what they know, rather that they do not believe in a deity.
I'd have to agree with you, if indeed that is the held position of both the atheist and the creationist as you say. In which case the creationist should then have to concede that they believe rather than know. Whether or not any of them would concede is another matter, I'm certainly aware that many of them would not. It still holds though that both positions are one of belief rather than knowing. As for the idea of infinite regress, it would certainly pose a question to many of the attributes some creationist attach to their own particular belief systems, but I don't see it as a particular problem specifically to the idea of a creator in itself.
DeleteThere is a willingness on the part of many atheists to say they don't know and a lack of that willingness on the part of creationists. I'm distinguishing, as I presume you are, between creationists and theists.
DeleteMy own personal position is physicalism. The metaphysical I don't bother with.
Infinite regress I think does pose a problem for the creator idea which is what seems to be suggested in the above meme. It seems the obvious question to ask and the answer is invariably arbitrary.
I'm not sure a distinction between theist and creationist is necessary, as whatever distinctions could be made between the two I don't think is relevant to the point that they should have to concede to not knowing. I agree the question regards the meme may seem an obvious one, and an answer can be invariably arbitrary, but I still don't see the problem. If it turned out to be true, the creationist could be content in their position of having a creator, and simply not care about anything beyond that. Regards my own personal position, perhaps you've gathered from my comments on other posts, with my familiar line of holding "I don't know" over "I believe". I find many philosophical musings to be of interest, and science too.
DeleteThe theist can be more open to ideas without citing Scripture. They can be less insistent on claiming access to an inerrant truth. They strike me as coming closer to the 'I believe' rather than the 'I know' position.
DeleteThat is the problem - the creationist not just being content but dogmatic with their position, rejecting evolution and geology, and then demanding that young earth creationism and special human creation be taught in science classes.
Infinite regress does not cause a problem for a creationist but it is likely to for anybody thinking about it.
There are lots of things we don't know just as there are lots of things we believe. Where I believe I try to say it and where I don't know I try to say that too.
I like both philosophy and science.
Haha, I suppose the very concepts of infinity and paradoxes can be rather difficult for humans to wrap their head around.
DeleteI certainly would have no problem opposing the teaching in schools of religious dogma as factual, I hope at the very least that much has been clear of me.
The position of the sceptic as mentioned in my initial comment might serve as a feedback loop or a bookend here. I do enjoy these little memes though, and I enjoyed the discussion too. Cheers the now Anthony.
I don't know Matt.
DeleteWe meet paradoxes throughout our lives.
Numbers are infinite, and physics is math.
The true believer can buy into an infinite being on the basis of faith. Others see no evidence of such a being.
You have never come across as a creationist otherwise there would be little point in discussing the matter with you!!!
Yes indeed Anthony, no doubt, although I was suggesting only that some may struggle with the concepts of infinites and paradoxes, for example, Schroedinger's cat is confusing to some, whether this is a true paradox however is debateable. Others may also find it incomprehensible that there are infinites that can be infinitely larger than other infinites. The proof is there, yet the comprehension can remain difficult for some, even though whether someone finding it incomprehensible does nothing to detract from the proof.
DeleteRegards faith, I think it's an interesting concept, problematic, but interesting nonetheless. However, if I were to use your definition of a creationist for clarity so we're both on the same point of reference here, the dogmatic flying in the face of reason is certainly rather frustrating to say the least. Whereas someone that happens to be flexible whilst still posing a theoretical possibility of a creator, is something I can engage with more readily.
Regards proof, I'm reminiscent of Russell's teapot, but I did comment on another post about other problems in this respect. Perhaps you saw that comment already and no need for me to be repetitive.
Matt, for me, Schroedinger's cat is probably best answered (insofar as quantum physics can ever be answered) by Sabina Hossenfelder, responding to a student she shared a taxi with and who was wanting to know if his Grandmother could still be alive although dead some years.
DeleteThere was either a Creator or there wasn't. So the theist who believes in one is fine by me. I just don't know of anyone alive who knows the slightest thing about the supposed creator. They might know about this book or that but nothing more. Theology is only of interest to me if it is philosophical. A priest once told me that he can prove that god exists
theologically but cannot do so philosophically. Think he had a point. Astrologically he might do the same but not astronomically!
At this point I can't remember the other comment you refer to.
I'm not familiar with that particular explanation from Sabine H, but I am familiar with Sabine. I think she does a decent job of giving explanations, in her own words - "as simple as possible, but not any simpler". The current generation I think are quite lucky to have such a variety of online resources for learning should they be so inclined and with the capacity to do so. I can't say personally whether I think her explanation is the best having not seen it, but there are quite a few others that in my opinion are very good in providing a basic understanding, and should be manageable enough for anyone, again provided they have the inclination and capacity.
DeleteMy comment from a previous post regarding proof:
"I suppose in order to prove the existence either for or against, one would first need to precisely define "God" to begin with. Then I suppose the question would be, exactly what constitutes acceptable proof? Would it be as supposedly used in court, that it must be beyond any reasonable doubt? Which after that still leaves open, that even with an accepted definition of God for the sake of the argument, whether proof beyond any reasonable doubt is indeed at all possible, and also that the lack of proof for either argument does not have any bearing on what is actually true".
Matt - that is a good rule of thumb - as simple as possible but not any simpler.
DeleteFor people like me who have no background in science other than school, the simpler the better.
I recall your comment now that you have provided it again.
I go along with Hitchens: incredible claims require incredible proof.
Haha, should I go back to scepticism and infinite regress. For anyone following the discussion, for well-known visual references, themes about knowing, belief and reality are explored in films like the Matrix, Inception and The Thirteenth Floor among many others. For those complex themes, I'm content enough to say, I don't know. Hitchens though makes sense enough to me Anthony, although the sceptic can pose that there can be no definite proof, nor certainty of knowledge or reality, and whilst it's interesting to contemplate, I certainly wouldn't advise anyone to doubt reality to the point of not paying their bills, or taking to a skydive without a parachute and not expect to hit the ground hard. I think it's sensible enough to go along with reality as it's commonly perceived and experienced.
ReplyDeleteMatrix and that type of thing leans into Simulation theory. Yet another way to try to find some higher power. I let it drift on by.
DeleteFor me there is nothing out there and until something is scientifically revealed rather than divinely (which I regard as a nonsense) I'll carry on regardless!!
The skydiving one is a good take on reality!!