Comments on: Fundamentalist Physicists and Religious Atheists

By: Melvin_H_Fox

Melvin_H_Fox — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:06:19 +0000

I understand that to the scientist “truth” is a statistical guess at what “Is”. The mean of observations(regression curve), first taken as a model for reality, becomes the practical reality. I agree this can be useful but it can also become a false reality as it has in the case of evolutionary theory.

In the love of Christ,
-Mel

By: Andi

Andi — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 02:35:42 +0000

Melvin,

I realy come to think that we mean different things when we use the word or concept of ‘Truth’. To me this seems to be more an ‘Absolute Truth’ vs, let me call it, ‘Practial Truth’ discussion. Of course we have learned to label things (assosiate words, thoughts, emotions with it), think and even experience in a particular way. And to question this ‘cultural impacts’ can lead to some great insights…..or sometimes to great confusion ;-).
But, you see, scientists are much more pracmatic. As far as I can see it, they use ‘Truth’ in another way, in a more conceptional sense. They want to build practical, ‘as simple as possible’, ‘thinkable’, falsifiable models, from which conclusions can be made. And of course this models should not be in conflict with observations and measurements. And bringing in some ‘undefined entity’ is not helpful at all. I can’t see where they want someone insult with something like ‘absolute truth’ (whatever this may be) anyway.

By: Melvin_H_Fox

Melvin_H_Fox — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:11:31 +0000

No, I do not. I don’t analyze the situation either.

F.Y.I. – Many women in labor, mostly first time pregnancies, are convinced they have to defecate. They do so even as the nurses explain, very compassionately, that it is just the baby coming. “But it feels like I have to take a crap!” they protest and insist on a trip to the toilet; so much for basing things on observation.

In the love of Christ,
-Mel

By: Ron Grubaugh

Ron Grubaugh — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:37:03 +0000

I hope you don’t wait for a revelation from God in order to find the men’s room.

By: Melvin_H_Fox

Melvin_H_Fox — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:31:03 +0000

Andi,
You are correct. A person does not have to believe in the counting routine to use it. Again, I would classify them in the camp of those who merely agree with it. These people do not have a clear and certain understanding of what “Is”. They have an understanding tossed in the wind. They have an understanding based on observation. They have an understanding full of contradiction.

You wrote: “If we start to mistrust our basic observations, we’ve created a huge problem: We simply can’t make any conclusions! Because how should we able to say what is true or not if we don’t agree that what we ‘observe’ is ‘True’, or at least take it for that?”

Of course I disagree. We MUST, to a degree, mistrust our observations. It is when we place too much trust in them that we create a huge problem. Why would you trust something completely that you knew for certain was in error? No, the only way we can make conclusions about what is True is to accept the revelation of God through intuition.

In the love of Christ,
-Mel

By: Melvin_H_Fox

Melvin_H_Fox — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:18:57 +0000

Ron,
Thank you for pointing out a source of confusion. And, I admit the fault is partly mine.

F.Y.I. I asked several of my students: Do you believe 2 + 2 = 4? Most of them said they did and it was because of a “fundamental” about numbers. A few of them said they did not believe it. I asked the ones who did not believe it: Do you agree with it? They said; “yea, I am forced to.”

I accept 2 + 2 = 4 as true. I accept that it is in adherence to what “Is” based on intuition (the existence of the abstract correspondence) and not on my ability to perform the correct mapping (observation). This belief is supported by the bulk of observations made by collective humanity and a few birds, monkeys, and bees. However, some of the observations made contradict the statement. If my belief was based on observation, then I would be forced to reject the statement because it is not always true for every observation. You can’t base (base - a thing from which a start is made) your reasoning on an unreliable foundation. If all knowledge of facts (facts - individual manifestations of what “Is”) depends upon observations, then we can’t have a clear and certain perception (knowledge) of what “Is”.

I would agree that observations shape everyone’s versions of things. I would also agree that many people base their beliefs on observations. Those persons would then, in all honesty, admit they do not believe 2 + 2 = 4; but rather, they agree with it.

Does this clear up my position?

In the love of Christ,
-Mel

By: Ron Grubaugh

Ron Grubaugh — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:38:45 +0000

I am confused. There seem to be a couple of ambiguities that make it very difficult for me to understand what is even at issue here. Mel introduced a definition of ‘belief,’ implicitly, as having to do with “taken without proof” or “reliance on faith.” Steven seemed to accept this definition and responded accordingly. The synonym section in my dictionary states, “belief, the term of broadest application in this comparison, implies mental acceptance of something as true, whether based on reasoning, prejudice, or the authority of the source.” That is what I have always understood. The discussion, if I understand it, has to do with “methodology,” how one arrives at belief. If that is truly the case, it might be better if we were explicit about the methods being discussed rather than relying upon a single word (in my view used incorrectly anyway) to carry the meat of the conversation. I wouldn’t even bring it up except that Mel has now switched definitions, explicitly this time, reverting to what I hold as the standard, “accept as true,” independent of methodological considerations. This allows him to ask the intended-to-be-embarrassing question, “So, you are telling me that you don’t accept 2 + 2 = 4 as true?” I am quite sure that Steve “believes” that 2 + 2 = 4 and that he would never say that he does not believe that 2 + 2 = 4.
Additionally, there is a fundamental categorical division of propositions themselves that is made universally within western philosophy. I do not mean to imply that it is never challenged, but those challenges have not had much effect on the fact. I also do not mean to imply that I am particularly enamored with western philosophy. I am not. But I do happen to agree with this and I don’t want anyone thinking this is my bright idea. Valid mathematical equations along with valid logical arguments are tautologies. Such statements are “true by definition” or true by virtue of reason. They require neither faith nor empirical verification (observation). They also tell us absolutely nothing about states of affairs in the world, matters of fact. As such, the example, a simple equation, does not properly represent the kind of propositions that are contained within the discussion that is the subject of the discussion. How there come to be different species is a matter of facts of the world. Intentionally or unintentionally, Mel has stacked the deck in his favor by focusing the discussion upon an example that has nothing to do with the methodological issue that Steve is concerned about.
Perhaps some further examples may be helpful. It is absolutely true (I’m only saying that to tease any relativists that may be “observing”), absolutely true that if pigs have wings, and all winged creatures fly, then pigs fly. The fact that both premises and the conclusion are false does not prevent the statement from being true, as the statement only expresses a logical relationship. Likewise, if pigs have wings, and winged creatures never fly, then pigs do not fly. Here not only is the statement true but, inadvertently, so is the conclusion, in spite of the premises being false. This is why tautologies tell us nothing about the world. Do you insist that ‘2 + 2 = 4’ tells us something about the world? It does so only because we already know it. Knowing that ‘4’ means exactly the same thing as (“=”) ‘2 + 2’ we don’t have to count two sets of things all over again. That comes in very handy when the numbers are much larger. But that usefulness does not prevent the conclusion from being utterly false. Assuming that I have two horns and Steven has two horns then between us we have four horns. You’ve just observed this “eternal verity” producing a false conclusion. That makes it false, right? Premises, what premises?
Of course, having the conversation make sense to me is not a necessity. I hope the above is helpful in some way. Now I’m going to enter this discussion of a discussion (as opposed to discussing the discussion of a discussion). I do not think that Mel escapes the necessity of observation regarding matters of fact that Steve is concerned about, even within his own (Mel’s) beliefs. It is possible that he has a purely rational reason for believing in a sentient creator and a conception of the properties of that Creator which directly contradicts any possible theory of evolution (including a divinely guided evolution), but I do not think that is the case. I’m not even sure that it is possible. It is more likely the case that he believes that God (whatever the basis of that belief) has chosen to give him (Mel) certain information (about how species came about) through a series of agents such as the authors of the bible, preachers, teachers, churches, whatever. That is for Mel to say not me. Another way of saying this is that he has accepted this information and chosen to believe it based upon an authority that he trusts to deliver communication from God and then, in turn, upon the authority of God. But how does God know this? I assume that, having been the one to create these life forms, God was in a very good position to OBSERVE what happened. You know, been there, done that! I suppose someone might claim that God is so powerful he did not need to watch what he was doing. Although that might explain a lot of things, it would require the postulation of some additional capacity. Although I am sure that God suffers from no shortage of capacities, it would be rather convoluted and inefficient to invent some alternative to awareness when awareness was already working so well. Since it would have to serve the same function as awareness it would be indistinguishable for our purposes. My points are:

All knowledge of the facts of the world depends upon observation.

The assumption that observation has taken place is present in everyone’s version of things, although you may have to look for it. They may not even realize it’s there.

We can and must depend upon observations that others have made, which means taking something upon their authority.

Faith is not just randomly believing in things without cause (it is odd that Mel would be the one to implicitly suggest that it is) but is a relationship with an authority.

That does not prevent faith from being a mistake.

By: sashen

sashen — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 21:54:12 +0000

I’m off to teach for the weekend so I’m not likely to come up with a cogent reply, Mel.

I’ll let Andi and/or anyone else take on the challenge.

Or, we could point out that if it’s THIS HARD to come to a conclusion on “Is 2+2=4 a belief statement?” then it’s probably no shock that people have trouble with “Atheists are fundamentalist about their lack of belief!”

By: Andi

Andi — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:28:43 +0000

Melvin,

But, but…an individual don’t have to believe in the counting routine. It can check if it worked. My guess is, that the thing that you want to point out is a very fundamental epistemological one. Of course an individual has to ‘believe’ or ‘trust’ that perceptions and the fundamental mental processes (thinking in entities, putting ‘things’ in order) aren’t totaly misleading when it comes to making conclusions and building up an practical(!) ‘model of the world’. If we start to mistrust our basic observerations, we’ve created a huge problem: We simply can’t make any conclusions! Because how should we able to say whats true or not if we dont agree that what we ‘observe’ is ‘True’, or at least take it for that?
Because english is not my native language it’s very hard for me to express such things ;-). But I hope you can understand what i mean.

By: Melvin_H_Fox

Melvin_H_Fox — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:19:02 +0000

Sashen,
I will confess to arguing against the counter assertion; mostly subconsciously but with some intent also. You are well disciplined to continue to point it out. I can tell you this is due in large part to my training; not at school but at home. My father was very intellectually and emotionally aggressive; always on the attack. I appreciate the correction. Hopefully, my previous post was more to the point.

It is less clear to me where I have conflated definitions. I start with the foundational acceptance of a perfect state of being I will call “Is”. I understand this is not a formal definition but one can’t make a formal definition of all terms.

True – adhering to what “Is”
Belief – accepted as true
Valid – logically consistent
Contradiction – logically inconsistent
Concept – internalization of an observation
Observation – perception of what “Is”

Now, if I have or if I do conflate these in any way, then you are welcome to point it out.
You have twice hinted to an end of the discussion. It is your blog. Simply make clear to me your desire to end and I will allow you the last word.
In the love of Christ,
-Mel