Hawking says there are no gods

[Steve]

OK, let's forget science completely for the scope of a quick philosophical exercise.

WHICH god should I take seriously? Because their tenets are WILDLY all over the place.
.

(Much detail snipped)

According to the "philosophers" in this thread you should take seriously a non-interracting, undefined, outside of the universe god. Gods that people actually believe in are not to be taken seriously.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah now let's not be introducing some crazy fringe idea like a "God who actually does something."

 

[David Mo]

I think you have a valid point -but based on, perhaps, a miscommunication. I mean, you are right, I doubt you will find a hidden trove of secret science that studies the direct question of God. But that isn’t the point and I don’t think anyone here has said such. Only that not all science is published in journals -which is also true.

But put all that aside. Science does not care about answering the God question. It doesn’t need to address the god question in order to do its work. All it needs to do is make observations, create testable hypotheses, carry out those tests and draw conclusions. Rinse, repeat. Through that process, many real phenomena that were once attributed to God have been shown to be the result of natural processes with no god needed. At the same time, many god-attributed phenomena have been shown not to exist. But science never needed to talk about god in order for all that to happen.

But the theme of "hidden science" has no relevance to our theme, which is whether science demonstrates the non-existence of gods. A hidden science does not serve us to know it, although it exists.

I have sometimes used an argument similar to yours. It seems to me that it has strength, but it is not scientific, but philosophical. If it were a scientific it could become an experiment that would decide the question. That is not the case.

Moreover, a believer can say that he does not feel concerned by that argument because it would only attack religions that believe that gods can be touched and seen. And that this kind of religion always existed in different forms. What could our response be?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

(Much detail snipped)

According to the "philosophers" in this thread you should take seriously a non-interracting, undefined, outside of the universe god. Gods that people actually believe in are not to be taken seriously.

Well, I was doing philosophy there myself. In fact, bog standard epistemology: by what method do I get to know WHICH such god or gods, what do they want from me, what are the rewards, and are they worth the extra effort?

Philosophy isn't a dirty word, really. Just, well, some people aren't very good at doing it past the Butthead level of navel-gazing about why is it called taking a dump, if you're not taking it anywhere. Or worse yet, aren't even actually doing it. They're just quoting what some other smart cookie said. But then they're not doing philosophy, they're just a walking index to other people who did.

But anyway, if I can't possibly know what such a god wants from me, then there is no reason for me to even think about it, is it? There is no information for me to base any decision or action on, so for all practical purposes, I can just act as if there were none.

I suppose one could make up a god which truly doesn't matter, because he doesn't even want anything from me, doesn't play post-mortem Santa, and so on, so there's nothing important to know about him. But in that case that's just it: he truly doesn't matter. Then there's the universe, that's the exact same as without a god, and then there's an extraneous entity which really has no reason to come into any model, be it about the physical world or my code of ethics.

Essentially then it's like if you wanted to make a decision about buying a house, and I told you that, yeah, but there's a Lich King in World Of Warcraft. The relevance to any decision you might make is exactly zero, so there's no point in even acknowledging it in your model.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

David, let me give you a quick problem: if a train leaves from New York towards Pittsburgh at 11:00 AM, it has 53 passengers and it's painted blue, and another train leaves from Pittsburgh towards New York at 10:15, and it has 10 cars, and the engineer's wife is cheating on him, at what time should I have remembered to take my medication?

The point is that there's information that you need in your model for a particular purpose, and then there's information that you shouldn't include in your model at all, because it's irrelevant at best. If the train's colour makes no difference, then you should for all practical purposes treat it as if it has none. Muddying things up with pondering "but what if the first train was yellow?" or "but what if it was the engineer cheating on his wife instead of the other way around?" isn't even philosophy, it's just wasting time.

The same applies to gods. If for ANY particular purpose the difference between the universe with a god and the universe without a god is nothing at all, then there is no reason to have gods in your model. It's that simple.

 

[David Mo]

David, let me give you a quick problem: if a train leaves from New York towards Pittsburgh at 11:00 AM, it has 53 passengers and it's painted blue, and another train leaves from Pittsburgh towards New York at 10:15, and it has 10 cars, and the engineer's wife is cheating on him, at what time should I have remembered to take my medication?

The point is that there's information that you need in your model for a particular purpose, and then there's information that you shouldn't include in your model at all, because it's irrelevant at best. If the train's colour makes no difference, then you should for all practical purposes treat it as if it has none. Muddying things up with pondering "but what if the first train was yellow?" or "but what if it was the engineer cheating on his wife instead of the other way around?" isn't even philosophy, it's just wasting time.

The same applies to gods. If for ANY particular purpose the difference between the universe with a god and the universe without a god is nothing at all, then there is no reason to have gods in your model. It's that simple.

Let's distinguish two things. What is simple for me and what can be established as simple in a debate with someone who thinks differently than I do. The latter is my problem.

How do you argue with a person who tells you that rational data is not the only valid data? What do you say to one who claims there are truths of heart or faith? (Under the assumption that those truths are valid as long as they do not clash with science).

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let's distinguish two things. What is simple for me and what can be established as simple in a debate with someone who thinks differently than I do. The latter is my problem.

What would be the purpose of debating with someone who does think like you?

How do you argue with a person who tells you that rational data is not the only valid data? What do you say to one who claims there are truths of heart or faith? (Under the assumption that those truths are valid as long as they do not clash with science).

Truths of "heart and faith" do provide rational data. The faith itself may not be rational, but if you are dealing with someone that holds a strong faith of some kind, the knowledge of that is rational data, because it is going to influence your interactions.

Also, 'data' is never rational in itself. It is only (potentially) rational when you can decode it.

Hans

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

How do you argue with a person who tells you that rational data is not the only valid data? What do you say to one who claims there are truths of heart or faith? (Under the assumption that those truths are valid as long as they do not clash with science).

I would point out that they themselves have no problem rejecting "truths of heart or faith" from other people. As I have indeed before. E.g., Christians have no trouble rejecting the faith "truths" of Hindus, or viceversa. Or of shintoism, ancient Egyptian faith, etc. So they have already laid the foundation for me to do the same thing about THEIR unsupported claims.

But ultimately I have no problem with them holding on to those, as long as they understand that nobody else has to take them seriously, as long as they're just someone's unsupported faith. As I keep saying, I take a "don't ask don't tell" approach to religion. I'm not gonna ask anyone what theirs is, and I'll be thankful if they don't tell me. And I don't mind them keeping believing in Jebus, or in the ghosts trying to get into their nose, or in the contrail conspiracy, as long as they keep it to themselves. I don't knock on people's doors to tell them the good news that they can sleep late on sunday. I don't go try to convince people on religious boards. Etc.

But if they do come over to debate that they're right, I see no real requirement to do more than ask for a SOUND argument for their god. And it isn't, as long as it's only supported by faith.

 

[JayUtah]

But the theme of "hidden science" has no relevance to our theme, which is whether science demonstrates the non-existence of gods.

Your standard for rejecting the science that did that was shown, by your ignorance of how science is actually done, to be a narrow personal standard.

 

[JoeMorgue]

David Mo thinks "science" is casting a net with 6 inch spaces between the webbing into the ocean and declaring that no sea animal exists that is smaller than 6 inches.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I would point out that they themselves have no problem rejecting "truths of heart or faith" from other people.

Because if you think about it at the end of the day "Faith" isn't arguing for a lack of evidence per se, it's arguing for a special magical kind of completely internal evidence that only you are privy to and everybody else has to accept on your say so.

 

[David Mo]

I would point out that they themselves have no problem rejecting "truths of heart or faith" from other people. As I have indeed before. E.g., Christians have no trouble rejecting the faith "truths" of Hindus, or viceversa. Or of shintoism, ancient Egyptian faith, etc. So they have already laid the foundation for me to do the same thing about THEIR unsupported claims.

But ultimately I have no problem with them holding on to those, as long as they understand that nobody else has to take them seriously, as long as they're just someone's unsupported faith. As I keep saying, I take a "don't ask don't tell" approach to religion. I'm not gonna ask anyone what theirs is, and I'll be thankful if they don't tell me. And I don't mind them keeping believing in Jebus, or in the ghosts trying to get into their nose, or in the contrail conspiracy, as long as they keep it to themselves. I don't knock on people's doors to tell them the good news that they can sleep late on sunday. I don't go try to convince people on religious boards. Etc.

But if they do come over to debate that they're right, I see no real requirement to do more than ask for a SOUND argument for their god. And it isn't, as long as it's only supported by faith.

I like your answer. I suppose that you understand that it is not science.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

@JoeMorgue
Actually, I think you're overcomplicating things. Faith doesn't mean magical internal evidence, it literally means "belief that is not based on proof." Cf: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith

So yeah, when someone says they have faith, they just told you up front that it's without evidence.


That said, and to also continue addressing David's point in the process, even if they do believe in some internal woowoo support for their faith, as long as it's at the level of "I believe X", the problem there is that it's an intensional context. Any time you add "X believes", "X thinks", "it is generally thought", etc, it automatically becomes intensional.

For those who don't know wth I'm talking about, an extensional context is one where extension works. E.g.,

P1: Clark Kent is Superman.
P2: Clark Kent works as a reporter.
therefore
C: Superman works as a reporter.

An intensional context is simply anything that isn't extensional, by relying on what someone thinks, believes, knows, etc, and which is really only about their own mental state rather than a general fact about the world. E.g.

P1: Lois Lane knows who Clark Kent is.
P2: Clark Kent is Superman.
therefore
C: Lois Lane knows who Superman is.

That doesn't work because P2 is not something that Lois knows.

This also doesn't work in the other direction, namely from intensional to extensional. The masked man fallacy for example is also known as the intensional fallacy, because that's really what it is. It's trying to mix intensional and extensional, to basically break out from the intensional context into the wide extensional world.

And that's the problem with supporting anything with "truths of the heart or faith." Those "truths" are in an intensional context. You cannot argue from there into the extensional context of the outside world. Hell, you can't even mix them with someone else's intensional context.

Which is why such internal "truths of heart or faith" are dead ends. As long as they aren't already shared across context borders, you can't break them out of their intensional prison.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I like your answer. I suppose that you understand that it is not science.

Sure, it's really just logic and some very elementary philosophy. See the answer above for a more formalized version of it. It just happens to be in line with the scientific METHOD, though.

 

[David Mo]

Your standard for rejecting the science that did that was shown, by your ignorance of how science is actually done, to be a narrow personal standard.

My standard of what science is is resumed in the hypotetico-deductive method. Another thing is the criterion to know if some issue has been scientifically studied. See my comment 3950.

I am waiting for a long time your criteria to know if an issue has been scientifically studied.

 

[Belz...]

@JoeMorgue
Actually, I think you're overcomplicating things. Faith doesn't mean magical internal evidence, it literally means "belief that is not based on proof." Cf: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/faith

So yeah, when someone says they have faith, they just told you up front that it's without evidence.


That said, and to also continue addressing David's point in the process, even if they do believe in some internal woowoo support for their faith, as long as it's at the level of "I believe X", the problem there is that it's an intensional context. Any time you add "X believes", "X thinks", "it is generally thought", etc, it automatically becomes intensional.

For those who don't know wth I'm talking about, an extensional context is one where extension works. E.g.,

P1: Clark Kent is Superman.
P2: Clark Kent works as a reporter.
therefore
C: Superman works as a reporter.

An intensional context is simply anything that isn't extensional, by relying on what someone thinks, believes, knows, etc, and which is really only about their own mental state rather than a general fact about the world. E.g.

P1: Lois Lane knows who Clark Kent is.
P2: Clark Kent is Superman.
therefore
C: Lois Lane knows who Superman is.

That doesn't work because P2 is not something that Lois knows.

This also doesn't work in the other direction, namely from intensional to extensional. The masked man fallacy for example is also known as the intensional fallacy, because that's really what it is. It's trying to mix intensional and extensional, to basically break out from the intensional context into the wide extensional world.

And that's the problem with supporting anything with "truths of the heart or faith." Those "truths" are in an intensional context. You cannot argue from there into the extensional context of the outside world. Hell, you can't even mix them with someone else's intensional context.

Which is why such internal "truths of heart or faith" are dead ends. As long as they aren't already shared across context borders, you can't break them out of their intensional prison.

Huh. Thanks for the information, Hans.

 

[David Mo]

Sure, it's really just logic and some very elementary philosophy. See the answer above for a more formalized version of it. It just happens to be in line with the scientific METHOD, though.

In line why?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Deleted.

 

[JayUtah]

My standard of what science is is resumed in the hypotetico-deductive method.

No, that was not the standard you applied. The standard you applied was whether the conclusion as worded appeared in a public scientific journal. You made no mention at the time of the means used to arrive at the conclusion.

Another thing is the criterion to know if some issue has been scientifically studied.

You proposed a standard for this that no scientist agrees with.

I am waiting for a long time your criteria to know if an issue has been scientifically studied.

You mistake me for someone who's interested in trying to educate you.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

In line why?

Mostly Occam's Razor, really. As long as they can't present a phenomenon outside their imagination that needs God as an explanation, there is no reason to assume a God in MY model.