The added value Problem.

That an idea or body of ideas can be tested
That ideas have ascendent consequences which may be tested
that connections between ideas can be ascribed the labels of either; necessary or probabilistic
that the test of one part can help determine the value of another under the assumption of the connection.




One of the key criticisms leveled against the type of world view I suggest is that of "scientism". Which is often associated with reductionism and a lack of appreciation for the arts and humanities. I trained as an artist and musician. I regularly attend events of this type, they are an important part of my life. (non sequitur you are making Phil)


The issue seems to be one of criticizing certain views as not reality based or not thorough. I want to narrow the focus and say that the test of an idea or body of knowledge is that of added values. What does the knowledge enhance? In he case of science there are many examples of improvements in hygiene and medicine. In communications and agriculture. This is not to say here are no drawbacks, no potential risk. Added value certainly exists. If we turn then to art and music we can see that it is emotionally enriching and has some function socially as well. Keep in mind that these are reasons of added value and not the thing themselves or an indication of objectives.

If we turn specifically to bodies of knowledge we can ask if they cross-pollinate. Critical thinking and doubt certainly do. What about post modernism? Or theology? Do they interface and enhance other ways of thinking at the basic level? Do they even add to the conversation they are supposedly engaged in?
How is it of added value to assume or assert the appeal to authority beyond what would be considered a tautology. We know that the thing is true (or seems to be) but we have no proof of a source. Why take this next jump into a fallacy why not do what you accuse me of and stop at a tautological point? This is not my actual belief but it is how you represent me. So what is wrong with it by your own argument.
My point is there are certain assumption that we make as can be considered pragmatically. And held as probably true but potentially not. We do not know that math, logic, physics, etc are universal but the pragmatic utility breaks down as we discard them. It may be that they are some function of the mind that we cannot escape but is not universal. A kind of perceptual event horizon.

It is interesting to engage in this type of discussion. And the questions demand that we seek answers. It might be that by their very nature these questions are meaningless or unanswerable. It might be that try have a real and definite solution. The important thing is to avoid a hand wave. A pretend answer. Be happy with the statement that we don't have enough information, rather than distracting from the search by offering an answer that will avoid empirical test or is so ill defined that it is a mask to there being a question at all.



When a god is offered as an answer. We must test to see if it is actually explanatory.
It becomes a question of enhancing he conversation. Does the assumption of a god really add anything?
If you want to say that morality exists because god wants it to. That doesn't actually tell you what to think about morality or what actions are permissible or required. It does open the door to seeking wisdom in ancient books that at best equal what we could come up with now. And more often are horrific and fail any modern moral test.

Does theology offer any serious ideas that increase knowledge of any other sort? It seems like it can't because it starts with some claims that are considered unimpeachable. They must never be tested or even examined instead all other things are examined in light of them. And these claims are not that reality exists and can be understood but that some specific revealed doctrine is true.
I suppose the counter argument is that we must assume something. But I think we are better off presuming the minimum and doing so pragmatically.




Utilization 2

A structure for comparison.

You can create a connection from one model to another, depending on the strength of the connection oh can measure the first one indirectly by testing the others.

If you find that these connections do not exist or that the do not lead to ideas that can be tested. Then the model can be said to add no value. This is not to debate if it is true or false onl if it is possible to determine if it is. We can dismiss these ideas on grounds of utility. Or judge them as interesting and aesthetic but meaningless in relation to all other things.

If you have such a model it is either gauge or detached. If it is gauge you can refine it until it is specific enough to test. If it is detached then no action can attach it excluding a completely new branch of thought which may attach it or render it merely vague.

The merits of this is that it can be done on a few assumptions. Ones that most do not wish to contest. Proving these assumptions may fail due to incompleteness theory.

We need to be clear of the difference between an assumption and an assertion. One is taking ideas as either pragmatically true or describing the degree of certainty with the degree of probability assumed. An assertion is a statement that is not only taken as a given but said to be necessarily true or maybe to be better phrased as a probability of 100%. This distinguishes it from the formal way of defining necessary truth.




The necessity of a fact or idea putting constraints on your expectation.  If it doesn't; you either don't believe it or don't understand it (in the operational sense)

Value of evidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk7jHJRSzhM

Sam Harris asks an interesting question. "If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that you should value it"

My personal opinion is that most people do value evidence, but only so far as it supports their world view. They will dismiss evidence that conflicts with their view*.  The key here is to shape the ideas to fit into their preconceptions or to forcibly annihilate those preconceptions. If you wish to offer an argument it seems like a good idea to start with premises that the other parties can accept. If they reject your premises they have no reason even to listen to your argument.  IFF they accept your premises and they reject your valid argument from those premises then you no longer need consider them a rational participant in the discussion.

Caution should be used here, and you should listen to the critiques that they offer of your argument. A refusal to listen to the critique or a disagreement over the consequences of certain ideas being true, is not a good reason for ending a discussion.  Accusations of irrationality can fly in heated debate, and it is important to remain calm and only make claims that are grounded in evidence. Making assessments of the other persons rationality, intelligence, or motives can border on personal attacks and should be avoided. It is only when they abandon the willingness to either commit to their own ideas and the outcomes of them, or listen to any offer of alternate explanation with either an equal or better fit to the facts at hand that you can say that they behave irrationally from evidence and not from personal feelings.



_____________________________________________________________________

*This isn't exactly valuing evidence it is succumbing to confirmation bias, but there is a wedge strategy that can be employed, and so I didn't want to distract from my next point.

Re: Arguments for the existance of god

Here is a collection and my responses to various arguments for deism or theism.  Often we are asked to not only disprove or refute the ideas being presented but are held to the requirement of offering some replacement explanation.  While I enjoy the challenge of coming up with a rational consistent worldview based on the facts at hand, this simply misses the point.  Atheism is by definition a null hypothesis, this means it is the assertion that the idea put forward is not true.  It need only demonstrate that sufficient evidence has not been presented to accept the arguments and their conclusions or that the arguments are fallacies.  That is what I seek to do here.  My own ideas about origin and purpose will have to wait, though they will likely be touched upon.

The Main Premises:

None of the claims are very good.  You cannot move from one claim to another via deduction or induction.  The claims are both independent (they do not reference each other) yet interdependent in the way they are thought to provide proof.  The claims all assume a definition (or definitions) of god without giving reasons for those definitions or explicitly stating them.

The Specific Arguments:

Please note that I am ignoring and young earth anti evolution arguments; they are not the point of this post nor as interesting philosophically as the ones I am choosing to discuss.  I would happily cover that subject in another post at some point, or possibly just direct people to other sources (more likely).

Cosmological- The Prime Mover

What happened before time?  Where was space before the big bang?  These questions and those like them cannot be answered with our current understanding of physics.  They may not have a sensible answer.  There is a point before which we can say or see nothing. I think it is safe to say "we don't know" and if you want to say "ah well I know..." and wink knowingly at Jesus or Thor, over the shoulders of ALL OF PHYSICS, then you are going to have to show your work.   The main argument is There is no thing which is un-caused, this assertion seems to make sense until you realize that it A) begs the question and B) relates to things in time and space rather than time and space itself.  Can the term "cause" have any meaning outside of the idea of time?



Teleological- the argument from design. Paley's watch.   Darwin starts our path here, after that we can begin to view another method.  I wont bother referencing poor design, or cruel or petty (there might be gods that fit that)   IMPORTANT  an over-arching order is not the same as god.

The second part  is the anthropic principle in reverse; Here is often employed even more physics references and a misunderstanding of certain probabilities. Of course the anthropic principle suggests the first proper answer to this idea.  If you want to talk about probabilities I will need you to show the numbers you are using as well as how you came by them and the equations.

Ontological - (not ornithological but there is a joke there somehow I'm sure)  Anslem's conception as I have heard it stated is a non sequitur.  "Imagine the most perfect being. It would be more perfect if it existed. Therefore it exists"

There also seems to be an inherent Platonism, with god as the ideal ideal,  which I question on more basic grounds.  This is often tied to an assertion that Math and Logic exceed the physical universe (and therefore precede it?) to which; for now one can only say "incompleteness theorem"

From Morality -  This is typically stated that without god there is no basis for morality.  The emphasis is on god as an idea and not a specific deity.   This argument is fallacious for a few reasons.  1 it is an Appeal to Authority  2 it posits that god is the source of morality which is part of the definition given (circular reasoning) 3 Basically the argument from evil in reverse without specific conception of god. (the argument from evil is only to rule out a specific type of god -loving, all knowing and all powerful)

From Faith - not really a relevant argument from evidence please stop it.

From Scripture - (revelation) Well this is the leap from theism to religion.It relies on specific texts to be true.  These are not as spurious as the from faith argument but are beyond the scope of this essay and will be addressed separately.

From History - This is always a specific idea to support a specific religion.  I plan to look specifically at the resurrection claims about Jesus as most of my sources are Christian apologists.  Any links to other historical claims are welcome)

My sources for the original pro arguments against which I argue.

Hitchens Vs Craig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

Hitches Vs Turek
http://vimeo.com/1904911

Hitchens Vs Boteach  (actually doesn't believe in evolution)  Mainly failing at the math and argument from incredulity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnMYL8sF7bQ

Hitchens Vs Mcgrath
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U1b7Xgyq-Y

Hitchens Vs D'Souza (some interesting ideas couched in logical fallacies)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8


Additional Sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God

Mentions Historical Resurrection (does not give actual sources they must be acquired)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpp37iJogFI&feature=related