Universe as a "Test of Faith"

We already know that unless we do either of those really carefully, then we can't. That's what formal science and logic are for.

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

What I meant is, how do we know that we can even in principle? Since you mention Less Wrong, let's consider the one principle that that crowd seems to hold in very high regard, Bayes' Theorem.

Now, the proof of that theorem is pretty trivial, and the axioms about probability on which it is based are applicable to a vast number of situations.*

Or at least, so seems to me. But what if that proof is just plain wrong, and some defect in my mind and in that of any other human being prevents us from noticing that? What if the very concept of probability is contradictory, in some way that human minds are not equipped for understanding?*

There is no way for us to be able to dismiss this possibility: any argument which we could possibly make against it would run against the fact that the very intellect which we used to formulate and evaluate it might be defective. We just assume that this is not the case because, well, otherwise it's not clear what we could do to begin with.

edited 26th Feb '12 10:11:37 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Rationalists trying to prove or disprove the existence of deities using their normal methods put me in mind of eyeless deep-sea fish arguing about the colour of the sky.

They simply don't have the tools necessary to find the answers due to their very nature.

It seems that very few humans can directly experience that aspect of the universe and everyone else can either believe or disbelieve what they tell of it according to their own wishes.

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

By the same token, its just as likely the ones directly experiencing it are deluding themselves.

Possible, but impossible to prove or disprove.

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

Yep. Either ways impossible to prove. Its why science doesnt try bothering.

A great many proponents of what they call 'science' (fundamentalist rationalists?) seem to forget that little nugget.

'Science' is a method, not a belief system.

edited 26th Feb '12 10:24:02 AM by InverurieJones

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

I would say that it's not even a method. It's a loose, perpetually evolving collection of techniques which have proven to be useful to make sense of experience, together with a quarreling community of overeducated people who try to do their best to keep the thing going.*

Trying to fit it into some neat little philosophical framework means, ultimately, crippling it. Scientists must be free to criticize each other's methodologies, and the very basic principles upon which they are based, to their hearts' contents.

This is the reason why, by the way, the "radical rationalism" (not sure how to call it?) crowd worries me far more for the effect that it could have on science than for the one they could have on religion.

Religion has been around for a long, long time. It's pretty resilient stuff. But science is young, and delicate, and easy to pervert. It's not impossible that a certain brand of "rationalism" might ultimately succeed of turning science into yet another religion (and a fairly poor one at that...)

edited 26th Feb '12 10:40:28 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

By the same token though, I'm sick of being told that because I prefer rational logic and cold evidence, that I'm simply denying god out of spite.

Agreed — spite does not necessarily enter in the equation, and I agree that it is generally rather rude to attribute motivations to people's opinions in that way (that goes for the "belief of belief" argument too, by the way).

I would take a bit of an exception to atheism being the "rational" position, at least for any generally useful notion of rationality; but that's something different, and a whole different debate.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Carciofus, you can reduce the chance of error by orders of magnitude if you have two computers verify each other, using two different methods. Once you've done that, the chances of the same error being present in both of the methods is so small as to be negligible.

I'm trying to imagine how this works, and the only thing I can think of is the Adeptus Mechanicus, which is presumably not what you're going for.

edited 26th Feb '12 10:57:31 AM by Yej

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

Ah, but who programmed the computer? If I did, it is easily possible that both proof methods, or any proof method I could come up with, have the same defect that I have — after all, whatever algorithm was implemented had to make sense to me, and if my understanding was wrong to begin with...

Are you familiar with Yudkowsky's beisutsukai series? That might be a good example of what I have in mind, perhaps. Jeffreyssai and company may know scientific results, and they may even discover new ones if they get lucky, but, ultimately, they are no scientists. They hoard secrets. They build a philosophy, and then bend their research around it. Not only that*

Everybody does that to a degree, obviously...

, but they hold that theirs is the only valid method of investigation — the One True Religion of Science, so to say.

This is an awful error, I believe. Yeah, if their philosophy is good enough, they might actually make quite a lot of progress... for a while. But ultimately, they will come to a point in which some of their philosophical foundations get in the way of understanding, and they will not be able to notice this.

Neither Reason nor Science have any need for "principles". They need freedom, and pluralism, and ease of communication. Nothing more — but nothing less, either.

edited 26th Feb '12 11:14:57 AM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Voluntary "tests of faith" from God make me feel like God is either a liar or a control freak, neither of which are worthy of worship.

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

Indeed.

To me, idea of being nothing but a science project or plaything for cosmic being that couldn't give rats ass to prove himself is more depressing that idea that God does not exist.

A whole lot more likely, really.

Why would some people have the ability to directly experience the true nature of reality when most cannot? If there's any particular advantage to this ability, why wouldn't it arise in more of the population? If there's no advantage, why would it arise in anyone? Why do people around the world with the ability to perceive spiritual reality directly not converge on an agreed upon spiritual doctrine?

That people engage in self deception by default is established beyond reasonable doubt. That anyone has the ability to experience some sort of spiritual reality that most people cannot is poorly evidenced and has an extremely low prior probability.

edited 27th Feb '12 11:05:51 AM by Desertopa

...eventually, we will reach a maximum entropy state where nobody has their own socks or underwear, or knows who to ask to get them back.

well, keep in mind, thats easy to explain from a evangelical religious mindset.

1: evolution doesnt exist, therefore selecting for positive or useful traits doesnt exist.

2: therefore, its because god "Chose" them, and people from other religions are either deluded or satan inspired.

edited 27th Feb '12 11:38:56 AM by Midgetsnowman

Which still means that assuming the religion is true, anyone brought up in it essentially lucked into it. It doesn't resolve the matter of the lack of evidence at all.

"Explaining" a proposition is one thing, rendering it probable is another.

...eventually, we will reach a maximum entropy state where nobody has their own socks or underwear, or knows who to ask to get them back.

It is logically impossible to have a god that is all knowing, all powerful, and all good.

It'd be like if a doll manufacturer made a doll that he knew he was only going to have to recall later and destroy because of a flaw he made them with to begin with.

You can pick two qualities and be logically found. For example Process theology has a god that is all good and all knowing, they are just not all powerful. They can only try and influence you to take their suggestion because it's for the greater good of all, but they can't make you.

If a god is all knowing and all powerful, then he is not all good because he allows such unneeded pain in the world. And I find it really horrible when some monotheists claim God allows pain because we need it to be better. Um, no we don't. Why does a child in Congo need to be placed to starve on his mother's chest while she's slowly bleeding out from the machete wound that removed her breasts after she was gang raped?

Under the dichotomy of the All-3 god, the woman (and the baby) have two choices. They can embrace martyrdom, pray that god has a plan for them and that they will be rewarded for their horrific suffering, or they can wonder what the hell did they do to deserve god to abandon them and allow such atrocity to afflict an innocent person.

If there is an All-3 god, they are not worthy of worship in my eyes.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Gabrael, you're conflating "all-powerful" with "all-acting" — "if he can, she would".

That ignores one of the things that most Christians believe: that God made humanity with free will, so that we could turn to them freely, of our own choice rather than because he makes us do so. Basically, while she is all-powerful, they have also set themselves boundaries on its interaction with us. Free will also means that we humans can choose to do evil things to each other and to ourselves. But just as we aren't forced to do good, we aren't being forced to do evil, either.

edited 27th Feb '12 8:36:17 PM by Madrugada

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Unless they're in one of the sects that believes in predestination. Or in one of the weird ones that believe both in free will and predestination.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

However, that doesn't mean that an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing/seeing god would have to allow natural disasters to occur. An earthquake occurring causes strife and does harm, yet preventing one would not infringe upon free will (or at least I can't see how stopping it from ever happening would infringe upon free will). Man is not the only cause of man's suffering, natural occurances (flooding, drought, malaria, etc.) cause plenty of suffering, and for what? Where is the good in that? How does it enable the end of free will? It is either evil by action or by inaction (or at least criminal negligence). Logically, if there were truly an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god that also feels that free will cannot be infringed upon, then all of humanity's problems should be directly and entirely traced to ourselves.

edited 27th Feb '12 8:53:09 PM by Balmung

@Balmug: I asked that question once, and my church pointed me to the book of Job.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

The story of Job doesn't answer my question. We can make plenty of suffering on our own, and the thing is, in the end Job got everything back 10 fold. If your house burns down and kills your whole family and takes all of your possessions with it, you don't eventually get it all back ten fold.

Really, all the book of Job tells me is that Yahweh is not good. Causing suffering is bad, no matter what you do to make up for it.

Slightly off-topic, but one reason I really dislike the idea of an all-good God is that it implies either that it's possible to be fully good according to all kinds of good, or that some of the kinds of good that contradict each other aren't really good. 'm not convinced a single true goodness can be privileged over others in some moral dilemmas.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I dunno. It's got something to do with God "testing" Job, and that's why bad things (natural disasters, accidents, etc) happen to people that don't deserve it.

edited 27th Feb '12 9:11:20 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian