Intergalactic Summit

Whatever happened to obscurantism?

Cpt. Scherezad,

thank you for your insightful post: I think you didn't get the real point of my argument. The problem I point out for the one claiming that the base axioms of theism "provide no usable explanation or insight into the workings of the universe" and that thus they "can be and should be ignored" that they did assess the explanatory value of theistic base axioms by the use of logical reasoning or the use of the scientific method. And that this poses the problem, that those methods would then need to be applied to all basic axioms - including the base axioms of the scientific methods and logical reasoning. The latter leads into a paradox though.

Therefore, the assessment that theistic axioms provide no usable explanation or insight is based on a category mistake: They treat base axioms as if they would be the kind of things evaluated by logical reasoning and/or the scientific method, while this is not the case - base axioms are the starting points of logical reasoning and/or the scientific method.
The paradoxes I bring up are entirely avoidable, if one avoids this category mistake.

I hope that made my point more clear.

Faithfully,
N. Mithra

Religion is always a choice.

If it is not, as is the case in 'some' situations, the ones who are forced to accept it are only faux religious as their true beliefs have never been changed, only surpressed. In this i am confused that many religious folk (especially the ones with golden boats, you know who you are) seem convinced that merely telling someone to believe something makes it so.

Faith can only come through true commitment to it.

What does a religious person care if someone else does not believe him, or rather, will not be convinced by his arguments? He may pray that he will see the light at some point, but what is the point in trying to forcibly convert someone to his views when this kind of conversion will never be sincere, especially in the eyes of God?


Conversely, science cannot prove that faith is irrelevant or that God does not exist. It, by itself, cannot give an explanation on why we exist, why we are here and what purpose our lives have. However, it can show us how we came to be and how things work, in essence helping us understand God but in a completely different way.


Having faith is what enables us to live, in whatever way that is. that faith has to be sincere and true, one cannot force it upon another, whether it is religion forcing it on science or the other way around.

Religion often invokes fear in it's effort to convert 'lower lifeforms' to its views, though as i explained before, this faith can never be sincere. In fact, one will comply with religion because of fear, effectively delegating it back to a lower lifeform as fear is the primary emotion for survival, whereas faith is an entirely different emotional motivation, one that corresponds with what most would call a higher lifeform. Isn't it hypocritical of any religion to force fear on anyone who doesn't comply to their views?

Science often cites a lack of intelligence or a refusal to be convinced by their theories or methods. However, science is based on the fact that nothing is ever 100% certain, any good scientist will have to concede the possibility that there is no actual science, noly a system laid down by a deity or a similar entity. In fact, one might call this the scientific version of hell? Hence, scientists will refuse to acknowledge this since by and large they refuse to admit that religion might have certain points where it is right.

Both religion and science ultimately seek the truth, both ultimately give their supporters a reason to live beyond the basic instinct of fear of death, which is something to be commended.


The only thing that would have to be said here is that religion usually tends to try and halt science, while centuries later happily making use of scientific discoveries to promote itself.


Personally i just see religion as why and science as how... As it ought to be. Conflict between either is completely unnecessary, not to mention entirely unproductive.


I'm saying this as an Ammatar, by the way.

In a lot of ways they are, but not entirely no.

I really should be avoiding this thread, but wahey.


If whether or not the real world data reflects a proposed axiom is insufficient evidence for support or failure to support that axiom, then you have no real way of determining what you believe in. Essentially what you are saying in a roundabout way is "I can believe whatever I want." Please don't try to deny or twist that, because if you deny a way to select axioms through nonrandom, or not arbitrary means, then you are opening the door to anyone being able to claim anything they want. The Law of Parsimony prevents this, but it also devalues the theistic axioms quite handily. If the theistic axioms, and non-theistic axioms, result in the exact same observed behaviour of then according to parsimony, the theistic axioms must be discarded as they add complexity to the system without increasing explanatory power.

It is absolutely a scientific criterion. You have just summarized the scientific method in fact. Productivity, IE: explanatory power, resulting from a hypothesis, is indicative of the validness of that hypothesis. Nuclear theory wouldn't have meant much of Nuclear reactors ended up not working. Spacial relativity is actualized through the warp drive, if it didn't work, that would be evidence of the incorrectness of the theory. Science must conform to reality. It is by its very nature and design productive.

And here is where you try to surreptitiously drop in your belief in the subjective nature of reality.
You are essentially saying here, that it is impossible to prove or test reality, and therefore completely arbitrary means must be employed to determine which axioms have value. You are denying the objective nature of reality, writing it out by a process of definition in order to justify not eliminating your axioms. But even if we look through the eyes of a solipist, and suppose your argument has merit and reality is subjective in this fashion, then it is not only your religion that has potential truth but all religions. By opening that door you assert that anyone can believe anything they want.


These axioms can actually be tested in the same way any can using science. The idea of objective morality may seem foreign but it is possible. That is not to say things are ever objectively black and white, as a utilitarian I believe specific actions taken don't matter as long as the net outcome moves you closer to your end goal then other possible actions.

In closing: parsimony in axioms is good because it prevents ones beliefs from spinning off into la-la land. Parsimony in writing posts is good because it prevents eye-rending text walls.

The law's statement that "simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones" is amenable to empirical testing. The procedure to test this hypothesis would compare the track records of simple and comparatively complex explanations. The validity of the law of parsimony as a tool would then have to be rejected if the more complex explanations were more often correct than the less complex ones. This not being the case, the law stands validated. As has already been stated, and as you have attempted to weasel out of, parsimony is a valid axiom because it works. Because it produces real results in the real world.

It is in fact dangerous to try to discredit the law of Parsimony. Consider that, for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect alternatives. This is so because one can always burden failing explanations with ad-hoc hypotheses. Ad-hoc hypotheses are justifications that prevent theories from being falsified. Even other empirical criteria like consilience can never truly eliminate such explanations as competition. Each true explanation, then, may have had many alternatives that were simpler and false, but also an infinite number of alternatives that were more complex and false. The odds side with the simpler answer.

Put another way, any new, and even more complex theory can still possibly be true. For example: If an individual makes supernatural claims that Demons were responsible for breaking a vase, the simpler explanation would be that he is mistaken, but ongoing ad-hoc justifications (e.g. "And, that's not me on film, they tampered with that too") successfully prevent outright falsification. This endless supply of elaborate competing explanations cannot be ruled out – but by using the Law of Parsimony. Without it, you can literally claim anything, without any way of discerning the truth. There is no satisfying alternative to granting the premise it presents. Though one may claim that the law is invalid as a premise helping to regulate theories, putting this doubt into practice would mean doubting whether every step forward will result in locomotion or a nuclear explosion. You are proposing we throw out the entire scientific method, since it says things you don't like. And lets be honest with ourselves Mithra, this entire debate is basically you saying "I don't like rationality," and you claim its because of these 'underlying issues' but its pretty obvious that your problem with rationality is that it says something you don't want to hear. Well its great that you don't like it, but we don't have a better alternative. It works, it produces results. What would you possibly replace it with to determine the value of one axiom over another?

Thus we come back to what I stated previously:

That being, your philosophical model relies on the nature of reality being subjective to function. You are essentially saying here, that it is impossible to prove or test reality, that a more complex answer of equal explanatory power is just as valid as a simple one, thereby allowing for any explanation you like to have weight, including the existence of your Deity. By doing this you are denying any and all ability to determine the objective nature of reality, writing it out by a process of definition in order to justify not changing your mind.

Your entire argument hinges on what the real world showing to be true not mattering. You are making a solipsist's argument, and you are denying all of the objective world because you don't want to admit that you might be wrong.

As for your other point. Adding God at all adds complexity to a system that functions perfectly fine without God. God does not make warp drives or shields or stargates or airlocks work. God is not required in the workings of anything, at this point, and since it adds nothing, while increasing complexity parsimony snips it out, along with all the other infinite possible wrong answers.

That something is empirically testable does not by any means imply that it is reflected in the real word. Also your justificatio - or your account why it works, to put it in simpler words - is not really that it "works because it works". If you want to justify it, you have to account for why it works. If I may quote from the same - not really reliable - source as you did in your quest for "popular science": "To understand why, consider that, for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect alternatives. This is so because one can always burden failing explanations with ad-hoc hypotheses." Something you hinted at yourself.

Thus it reflects not the real world, but is reflective of the situation in the abstract, non-physical mathematical realm, as you surely don't want to say that all the "possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect alternatives" are existing in the "real" world - that is, that possibilities are things that exists, rather than things that might exist?


That you think that this is what I'm saying just shows that you didn't understand what I was saying.


Well, see, that is one way thinking about it, but it presupposes that the assumption of God adds nothing - which is, really, begging the question. Your circular reasoning and your ability to set up straw men is quite good.

...what? God adds nothing. That is not an assumption, that is a matter of mere observation. What has your God given to the world? Nothing; that which does not exist cannot give. The human beings who worship this God, however, have done and given plenty of things. However you want to twist it, it was always the human being who did an act, even if "in divine inspiration".



Forgive me again for being unfamiliar with the terms and the like, but are you suggesting rationality and scientific thought cannot prove the existence of a God or gods? I was under the impression this was a well-known fact..

First, let me start with a humility clause similar to Streya's : I'm neither a philosoph or a mathematician, and probably not the sharpest tool on the bench. But I am willing to toy with your proposal : let's examine what does the God hypothesis add.

What kind of existence does God have ?

If we're talking about a pantheist God, Deus Sive Natura where the universe and God are ultimately the same thing -well, I'll admit it conveys a certain poetry in the pursuit of knowledge : by trying to decipher the laws of nature, one is actually looking into god's soul. Is it useful for said pursuit of knowledge ? Nope. The pantheist and atheist scientists will work exactly the same way. And I know many an atheist scientist who doesn't need to think the universe is godly to find poetry and beauty into what he is studying.
On a side note : pantheism works great when you're contemplating the magnificence of stars, seas, mountains and such : "How great ! How magnificent ! How worthy of devotion !". Thing is, it means my ashtray filled with half-smoked cigarettes or the worms who found my bowels a comfy place when I was younger are godly too -makes the whole hypothesis rather funny.

The deist conception of god's existence assume that the universe was created by a demiurge, an overpowered artisan, who set up balanced laws of nature, put the whole thing in motion and didn't give a **** after that. It makes the universe an artefact, a flabbergastingly complex clockwork. Rather than saying "The universe is", the deist says "the universe was created" -but from a practical point of view, the deist will use the same tools in his daily life than the atheist : his personnal vision of god doesn't provide him a moral compass, meaning to his existence, or a better understanding of nature's laws.

And now the juicy part.
Theism. Amarr theism, of course : I'm sure we can find somewhere in this cluster other monotheist religions where the Only God is depicted with slightly different attributes. Heh, he may even be a nice guy in some of them.

And, oh my, does this hypothesis add. Several tons of scriptures. More tons of theological debates.
Justifications for cultural murder with the Reclaming. Justification for slavery, and while we're at it, vitoxin (Do you know how this thing kills ? Amarrs weren't satisfied with a simple mind-controlling poison : they made sure the death it provides is gruesome and painful).
A purpose to the universe and the puny humans inhabiting it : to rejoice under Amarr heels. It's okay, don't worry, just smile : it is God's will. It is written.

You're right, Nicoletta. Assuming your God exists adds a lot of things. None of them pleasant. Let's face it : Amarr religion is just nanite-free Sansha.
And come to think of it, nanites are the lesser of two evils compared to vitoxin.

Claiming that your religion is rationnal is its fundations -or that it stands proudly beyond the reach of reason- is a insult to common sense and decency. And if your God exists, his hands are dripping with blood. We're not talking about some harmless metaphysical entity.



This thought occured to me while writing this : if a god created the universe, created all that is and exists -then wouldn't it be safe to assume that god stands beyond the categories of "being" and "existing" ?
Propositions as "God exists" and "God doesn't exist" should both be pointed as equally irrelevant, then. And any attempt to talk about god's intents or will -attempts to apply our human understanding on an entity totally outside our boundaries- should be laughed at.

Heh.