Kevin's Watch

Hey, thanks Av.

Tjol wrote:Lastly, one of the things that I think is useful about phenomenology as a way of looking things... combined with a theology that suggests that God values free will... is that it in my opinion explains how atheists can exist with a near certianty of God's non-existence in the very same world where a believer can exist with a near certianty of God's existence.

I think I've asked you before to explain your use of "phenomenology." Anytime someone mentions it, my personal interest radar goes off like crazy. It's one of the most complex philosophical methods I've ever studied. I'm just amazed that other people have even heard of it. But I'm confused by your use of it here. Again, can you explain what you mean?

About the certainty of atheists . . . I've never considered myself an atheist, because I've thought it was at least as dogmatic as theism (which you seem to imply here). But Richard Dawkins makes a very compelling case against "pure agnosticism" in his book The God Delusion.

Dawkins sees two types of agnosticism: Temporary Agnosticism in Practice (TAP) and Permanent Agnosticism in Principle (PAP). The former is legitimate fence-sitting where there is a definite answer that we can reasonably discover, but we don't know it yet. The latter, PAP, can never be answered no matter how much evidence is gathered because the idea of evidence is not applicable. For example, whether the red you see is the same as the red I see. While we may both consistently lable red the same, there's no way science can ever tell us if the qualitative essence of this experience is the same for both of us.

Agnostics try to say that God's existence is PAP, but Dawkins says this ignores the issue of probability. He say: "The fact that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of something does not put existence and non-existence on an even footing." [p.49] The two hypotheses--"God exists" and "God doesn't exist"--do not have equal probability, he claims. Thus, he thinks the spectrum of theism-agnosticism-atheism is a continuum of beliefs about the probability of God's existence. His own position on a scale of 1 to 7 is: "6--Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very improbable and I live my life on the assumption that he's not there." He thinks there are very few people who are 7's (absolutely certain God doesn't exist), while there are millions of people who are 1's (absolutely certain God does exist). In this scenary, an agnostic is a 4--exact 50/50 chance either way. He thinks this kind of fence-sitting with complete impartiality isn't realistic.

My problem with Dawkins is that I have no idea how to assign a probability. While I live my life as if there were no God, I honestly don't know how to fit myself in his scale. I can't pick a number because I'm agnostic about my own agnosticism. I'm not certain that God's existence is a 50/50 affair, but I still don't know which side of the probability divide to choose. In addition, I don't think God's existence is a scientific hypothesis which can be proven in principle with physical evidence.

[I sense a thread-split coming . . .]

Malik wrote:"My problem with Dawkins is that I have no idea how to assign a probability. While I live my life as if there were no God, I honestly don't know how to fit myself in his scale. I can't pick a number because I'm agnostic about my own agnosticism. I'm not certain that God's existence is a 50/50 affair, but I still don't know which side of the probability divide to choose. In addition, I don't think God's existence is a scientific hypothesis which can be proven in principle with physical evidence."

I used to be much the same way, but a number of things have happened in my life that nearly require the existence of some sort of higher power guiding me. Call it God, call it Squirrel McNutty if you want to, but IMO somethin' is out there and it loves us.

Case in point. (The Readers Digest Version) My brother and I are adopted kids..as infants. In about 1999, I decided out of the blue that it was time to find the biological parents. I executed a search that was wrought with the sort of undbridled luckand intuititive reach so as to reduce a process that normally takes YEARS to a matter of literally a few weeks. I indeed found bouth my bio-parents.

It turned out, however, that my maternal grandmother was on her deathbed. She had suffered for years clinging to the notion that one day 'the boys" would come back. She even refused to sell the family home for many years saying "how will they find us"? Anyway a mere days before I contacted my Mother, the grandmother said that her only regret or sadness was that she had not lived long enough to see the day the "boys" came back. I was able to send her pictures and a letter hours before she died.

She was given a great gift. Her lifelong suffering was released just as she was released from the corporeal world.

How does this proove anything? Cripes. You ladies here in the tank all know me. I am not that smart nor that intuitive that I would be able to beat the entire state of FL beaucarcy. Also, I hadn't even considered looking for years and just woke up one day determined. Something whispered in my ear fellas, and guided me. I'll swear to it.

Guns, that's a wonderful story. I hate to sound insensitive or callous by saying anything negative about it whatsoever. If I'm out of line, please say so. However, since you chose to use it as evidence for your belief, I assume that you won't mind if others treat it as evidence: i.e. something to examine.

Wouldn't that "being who loved us" have done a much better job at guiding you if He led you to your mother before it was nearly too late? Wouldn't an actual relationship with her while she was still healthy have been a much greater "gift?"

I've had experiences myself that make me think (sometimes) that there is a Higher Being who loves us. Love is a good word. I felt an outpouring of Love like I'd never felt. It was like something supernatural. If it wasn't God, then I'd swear it was psychic alien communication with extremely friendly aliens. But then again, I was tripping balls on shrooms. So, anyone can dismiss my evidence as easily (and without as much guilt ) as yours. But if this was a hallucination, then it was more real than any real experience I've ever had. It was amazing.

But even with this experience, intellectually, I can't accept that there's an all-powerful God who loves us and yet still lets children in Africa die of AIDS. I don't care how "mysterious" are His ways . . . you will never convince me that anything Good comes from children dying horrible, preventable deaths.

Malik23 wrote:Guns, that's a wonderful story. I hate to sound insensitive or callous by saying anything negative about it whatsoever. If I'm out of line, please say so. However, since you chose to use it as evidence for your belief, I assume that you won't mind if others treat it as evidence: i.e. something to examine.

Wouldn't that "being who loved us" have done a much better job at guiding you if He led you to your mother before it was nearly too late? Wouldn't an actual relationship with her while she was still healthy have been a much greater "gift?"

I've had experiences myself that make me think (sometimes) that there is a Higher Being who loves us. Love is a good word. I felt an outpouring of Love like I'd never felt. It was like something supernatural. If it wasn't God, then I'd swear it was psychic alien communication with extremely friendly aliens. But then again, I was tripping balls on shrooms. So, anyone can dismiss my evidence as easily (and without as much guilt ) as yours. But if this was a hallucination, then it was more real than any real experience I've ever had. It was amazing.

But even with this experience, I can't accept that there's an all-powerful God who loves us and yet still lets children in Africa die of AIDS. I don't care how "mysterious" are His ways . . . you will never convince me that anything Good comes from children dying horrible, preventable deaths.

No offense taken.

That is the mystery and the paradox of faith...of any stripe or flavor.

I believe that unfortunately some of us are put here to suffer, yes, but more importantly to give the rest of us an opportunity to show our mercy and magic by helping and healing those who ARE suffering. It is hard work..but shouldn't it be? Should we not be required to sacrifice to help those of us who are in a lesser situation than we?

Look, I am not going to say what IS...all I have here is my feelings on the matter based on the magic and wonder of a couple of experiences I had. Something tapped me into the universe on that day.

Why at the end? Who knows. Perhaps her need for anguish was that great. Perhaps I was deaf to the call for years...who knows. All I know is that was able to pass in peace. We all should be so lucky.

Malik23 wrote:Hey, thanks Av.

Tjol wrote:Lastly, one of the things that I think is useful about phenomenology as a way of looking things... combined with a theology that suggests that God values free will... is that it in my opinion explains how atheists can exist with a near certianty of God's non-existence in the very same world where a believer can exist with a near certianty of God's existence.

I think I've asked you before to explain your use of "phenomenology." Anytime someone mentions it, my personal interest radar goes off like crazy. It's one of the most complex philosophical methods I've ever studied. I'm just amazed that other people have even heard of it. But I'm confused by your use of it here. Again, can you explain what you mean?

To try to put it simply, I think phenomenology is a philosophical perspective that suggests that our experiences in life shape our future experiences in life (which shape future experiences....). I think it's different from relatavist perspectives in that it doesn't suggest reality changes from person to person and viewpoint to viewpoint. It only talks about experience and events and how past experiences can dictate our future experiences.

I'm only exposed to phenomenology, because it's a useful perspective for architectural students in contemplating what their design is about. Besides metaphors of time, movement, and music; creating experiences with the design was a good way to sophisticate the design. I've only read a little bit of Hegel and Heidegger(sp?).

So, if you consider a God who values free will, and combine that with a philosophical perspective that our experiences shape each other, it could be suggested that at any point in a person's life they can choose one conclusion or the other, and find that God would create for them a universe with or without the presence of a God, simply by creating the experiences that would go with that individual's conclusion.

I think phenomenology actually allows you to excuse God from the equation. Most atheists, and most theists, can point to experiences or events that have informed their beliefs, not from simple superstition or assumption, but by an actual experience or sequence of experiences that planted a certianty within their mind.

I mention near certianty for theists and atheists, because theists will occasionally come to moments where they, through disappointment in some series of events, may come to doubt for a little while. I imagine that atheists also, will occasionally come to moments where they, through something they see or experience, may come to question the accuracy of their atheism for a little while.

About the certainty of atheists . . . I've never considered myself an atheist, because I've thought it was at least as dogmatic as theism (which you seem to imply here). But Richard Dawkins makes a very compelling case against "pure agnosticism" in his book The God Delusion.

Interesting, I didn't know that his book explored what guides atheism and agnosticism.

My problem with Dawkins is that I have no idea how to assign a probability. While I live my life as if there were no God, I honestly don't know how to fit myself in his scale. I can't pick a number because I'm agnostic about my own agnosticism. I'm not certain that God's existence is a 50/50 affair, but I still don't know which side of the probability divide to choose. In addition, I don't think God's existence is a scientific hypothesis which can be proven in principle with physical evidence.

[I sense a thread-split coming . . .]

Metaphysical questions are always tricky to pin down, while a person could point to things as evidence of the effect of God, I think it would be hard to recreate even the effect of God through any scientific experiment in such a way as to prove God. I think things in our surroundings can give us enough to hypothesise, but I think faith or lack of faith is an experiential <thing> which makes it difficult to examine in anything but metaphysical terms.

I agree, a thread split is likely on the way...

p.s. I called in sick today, so I can kill this cold, hence the unusual posting time...

Tjol, I had no idea that phenomenology affected architecture! Then I looked it up, and sure enough, there is a movement out there of phenomenological architecture. Wow.

The word definitely has several meanings. I usually associate it with Husserl, with a bit of Heidegger thrown in. There is definitely an important temporal componant to Heidegger's analysis, as he made clear in Being and Time. I don't think this can be interpretted as against freewill, however. Sartre--another existential phenomenologist--was certainly famous for his belief in freewill.

Phenomenology is a descriptive method of making explicit how conscious beings actually exist, rather than a distinct school of thought or doctrine. It is about approaching the question of Being without presuppositions or assumptions, by examining phenomena or beings directly.

What's important about Husserl, in my opinion, is that he satisfactorily bridged the subject/object divide, the consciousness/world divide, the "inner"/"outer" divide. He achieved what Kant set out to achieve, but which Kant ultimately failed to do: he effectively ended the classic conflict between empiricism and rationalism as it appeared in the works of Descartes, Liebniz, Berkely, Hume, etc.

You all must be prophets...thread split.

I call myself a practical atheist. I guess I'd fit at 6 on that scale too. In fact, I could have written that description. I consider it highly probable that there is no god, and I conduct my life as though there weren't. Hell, I believe that there isn't. But, I accept that I could be wrong due to the impossibility so far of proving it.

And if they did prove it, I'd want a lot of explanation before I'd be willing to worship it.

Tjol wrote:To try to put it simply, I think phenomenology is a philosophical perspective that suggests that our experiences in life shape our future experiences in life (which shape future experiences....). I think it's different from relatavist perspectives in that it doesn't suggest reality changes from person to person and viewpoint to viewpoint. It only talks about experience and events and how past experiences can dictate our future experiences.

I'm a relativist. I believe that reality and truth are different from person to person. If that last line concerned past experiences dictating (or rather, affecting) the way we react to future experiences, I'd be all behind that statement. The idea that they will dictate the experiences themselves smacks a little too much of determinism to me.

Although, that said, I can see a way in which it can be true in terms of the experiences that arise from the circumstances that previous experiences have left you in, but that's about as far as it goes.

My atheism doesn't stem from an experience, so much as it stems from a thought process. I never felt failed by god and therefore stopped believing, I just subjected the question to what logic I could summon alongside what evidence I could see, and the obvious result was, as I said, that it was extremely improbable that there was such a thing as god.

(I've been effectively an atheist since I was 15 years old (so thats 15 years). I'm much more open-minded about it now though...used to be one of those fanatics about it. Gotten over that now though. )

Malik wrote:Phenomenology is a descriptive method of making explicit how conscious beings actually exist, rather than a distinct school of thought or doctrine. It is about approaching the question of Being without presuppositions or assumptions, by examining phenomena or beings directly.

And an example of that would be...?

Never read Husserl, never liked Kant, and haven't read him (as much for his writing as for his argument) or any of the others you mentioned since university.

When you mention the conflict between empiricism and rationalism, do you mean the fact that reason doesn't always produce the result of experience?

--A

Well, empiricism and rationalism were two basic approaches to epistemology, attempts to define how we have certain knowledge of the world. Rationalists stressed how senses could be wrong, and that only pure reason could reveal the truth about the world because it was separate from fallible senses and illusion.

Empiricists stressed how pure reason doesn't really give us knowledge of the world, because a priori logic was nothing more than tautologies. They claim that all knowledge about reality comes from experience, and that we don't have any a priori knowledge of the world.

Hume is usually studied with the empiricists, but he takes empiricism to the extreme to show that neither senses nor reason can give us certain knowledge of the world (skepticism). He made a distinction between relations of ideas (logic, a priori reasoning) and matters of fact. Matters of fact are contingent upon other facts, and cannot be deduced from one another with logic. But matters of fact are what we're trying to gain knowledge of: the world. Thus, logic is useless as a means to gain useful knowledge beyond mere definitions of terms (e.g. "all bachelors are unmarried men").

Disturbed by the power of Hume's skeptical arguments, Kant tried to bridge this gap between reason and the real world by inventing something called an "a priori synthetic proposition" in order to get beyond the tautological limit of a priori logic, but still root it firmly in a realm that isn't dependent upon contingent experience. He also discussed a priori categories of thought, through which knowledge of the world is possible in the first place. Since these categories were necessary preconditions to know the world at all, they weren't dependent upon experience. Thus, he was able to build a structure of knowledge beyond mere definitions.

But his project is largely viewed as a failure.

Husserl, in my opinion, found another route to what Kant was looking for, a way to ground knowledge of the world beyond the contingency of facts, and beyond the tautological limits of a priori reasoning. It's complicated, and I've forgotten much. I've probably even screwed up this summary. If you want to go into more detail, I'll have to refresh myself a bit in order to not get it wrong.

An example of describing our existence as it actually is, rather than through a filter of metaphysics, would be Heidegger's methodology in Being in Time. He claimed that Being was primary, and that we are already-always in the world. Our Being is being-in-the-world, and that this is primary. It takes a reflective attitude to step back and analyse this being conceptually, and that's where most of our philosophical problems come from; we fail to recognize that we're already in-the-world, and that our "stepping back reflectively" is part of what creates the problem of transcendence.

So rather than describing Being as an abstract realm, the most general genus, he said it's not a category or concept at all. It is something we know through living it, being-in it. It's an existential confrontation with being, rather than a conceptual or logical examination.

Avatar wrote:You all must be prophets...thread split.

I call myself a practical atheist. I guess I'd fit at 6 on that scale too. In fact, I could have written that description. I consider it highly probable that there is no god, and I conduct my life as though there weren't. Hell, I believe that there isn't. But, I accept that I could be wrong due to the impossibility so far of proving it.

And if they did prove it, I'd want a lot of explanation before I'd be willing to worship it.

Tjol wrote:To try to put it simply, I think phenomenology is a philosophical perspective that suggests that our experiences in life shape our future experiences in life (which shape future experiences....). I think it's different from relatavist perspectives in that it doesn't suggest reality changes from person to person and viewpoint to viewpoint. It only talks about experience and events and how past experiences can dictate our future experiences.

I'm a relativist. I believe that reality and truth are different from person to person. If that last line concerned past experiences dictating (or rather, affecting) the way we react to future experiences, I'd be all behind that statement. The idea that they will dictate the experiences themselves smacks a little too much of determinism to me.

The way I'd put it, is that phenomenology talks about experience, and mreso how we perceive our experiences. It isn't a linear causality, that one experience inevitably has a specific effect on every following experience.

It just means that, for example, a person who is familiar with Bible verses might see a manger scene and be reminded of Mary and Joseph, whereas someone who was not familiar with the same might think a manger scene simply represented the nostalgia for agrarian pasts by people living in a post industrial revolution world. Granted phenomenology would never make predictions, but would rather try to trace the influences of previous experiences upon a present experience. Something like 'Why does this mean something to me?'

My atheism doesn't stem from an experience, so much as it stems from a thought process. I never felt failed by god and therefore stopped believing, I just subjected the question to what logic I could summon alongside what evidence I could see, and the obvious result was, as I said, that it was extremely improbable that there was such a thing as god.

It is my personal perogative that human beings feel something first, then attempt a rational explanation, and then challenge that explanation for their feeling until the feeling changes, or until they feel their feelings have been rationally justified.

When I suggest experience as the source point for belief or disbelief, it is based on that personal perogative.... which is to say, I don't mean to dismiss the rationality of belief or disbelief by suggesting that they are born in an experience.

Malik wrote:Phenomenology is a descriptive method of making explicit how conscious beings actually exist, rather than a distinct school of thought or doctrine. It is about approaching the question of Being without presuppositions or assumptions, by examining phenomena or beings directly.

And an example of that would be...?

Never read Husserl, never liked Kant, and haven't read him (as much for his writing as for his argument) or any of the others you mentioned since university.

When you mention the conflict between empiricism and rationalism, do you mean the fact that reason doesn't always produce the result of experience?

--A

I too think that phenomenology is a way of examining a question/curiosity rather than a way of producing an absolute answer/resolution.... Malik puts it in much better words.... I never thought of it that way, but phenomenology does attempt to bridge qualitative and quantitative examinations of our reality... I'm actually having a few 'I see' moments here looking through his descriptions, because I've never taken the time to examine phenomenology itself, what the point of it was.

It's easy enough to see what philosophy is about when looking at it's recorded origins, but to look at modern philosophy and give description to all the moving parts is as tricky to get a handle on as semiotics.

Thanks for the posts guys. Sorry I didn't get to these yesterday.

Malik23 wrote:Well, empiricism and rationalism were two basic approaches to epistemology, attempts to define how we have certain knowledge of the world. Rationalists stressed how senses could be wrong, and that only pure reason could reveal the truth about the world because it was separate from fallible senses and illusion.

Empiricists stressed how pure reason doesn't really give us knowledge of the world, because a priori logic was nothing more than tautologies. They claim that all knowledge about reality comes from experience, and that we don't have any a priori knowledge of the world.

Hume is usually studied with the empiricists, but he takes empiricism to the extreme to show that neither senses nor reason can give us certain knowledge of the world (skepticism). He made a distinction between relations of ideas (logic, a priori reasoning) and matters of fact. Matters of fact are contingent upon other facts, and cannot be deduced from one another with logic. But matters of fact are what we're trying to gain knowledge of: the world. Thus, logic is useless as a means to gain useful knowledge beyond mere definitions of terms (e.g. "all bachelors are unmarried men").

I tend to sympathise with Humes view. At least he draws the distinction (even if by inferrence) between subjective and objective truth. The truth conferred by experience is as real as the truth discover by pure reason. To the person who had the experience anyway. (Hmmm...interesting correlation to Tjol's post maybe?)

Malik23 wrote:Disturbed by the power of Hume's skeptical arguments, Kant tried to bridge this gap between reason and the real world by inventing something called an "a priori synthetic proposition" in order to get beyond the tautological limit of a priori logic, but still root it firmly in a realm that isn't dependent upon contingent experience...But his project is largely viewed as a failure.

Husserl, in my opinion, found another route to what Kant was looking for, a way to ground knowledge of the world beyond the contingency of facts, and beyond the tautological limits of a priori reasoning. It's complicated, and I've forgotten much. I've probably even screwed up this summary. If you want to go into more detail, I'll have to refresh myself a bit in order to not get it wrong.

Nah, no need to get too detailed...I'm lazy, even intellectually. A basic idea suits me fine, as long as you don't mind me arguing from only that basic idea.

Malik23 wrote:An example of describing our existence as it actually is, rather than through a filter of metaphysics, would be Heidegger's methodology in Being in Time. He claimed that Being was primary, and that we are already-always in the world. Our Being is being-in-the-world, and that this is primary. It takes a reflective attitude to step back and analyse this being conceptually, and that's where most of our philosophical problems come from; we fail to recognize that we're already in-the-world, and that our "stepping back reflectively" is part of what creates the problem of transcendence.

You mean we cannot be objective about it, because our objectivity is rendered subjective by our very existence?

Malik23 wrote:So rather than describing Being as an abstract realm, the most general genus, he said it's not a category or concept at all. It is something we know through living it, being-in it. It's an existential confrontation with being, rather than a conceptual or logical examination.

The very fact that we exist means...?

Tjol wrote:

Avatar wrote:The idea that they will dictate the experiences themselves smacks a little too much of determinism to me.

The way I'd put it, is that phenomenology talks about experience, and mreso how we perceive our experiences. It isn't a linear causality, that one experience inevitably has a specific effect on every following experience.

Ah, an effect on every following experience I can understand. Especially if you mean an effect on the way in which we experience events, or percieve experiences. In other owrds, an effect on our perceptions.

Tjol wrote:It just means that, for example, a person who is familiar with Bible verses might see a manger scene and be reminded of Mary and Joseph, whereas someone who was not familiar with the same might think a manger scene simply represented the nostalgia for agrarian pasts by people living in a post industrial revolution world. Granted phenomenology would never make predictions, but would rather try to trace the influences of previous experiences upon a present experience. Something like 'Why does this mean something to me?'

Ok, that all sounds pretty good to me. Pretty relativistic actually. The reason the anger scene makes you feel whatever is because of your previous experience with manger scenes and the symbolism behind it, based on your social and cultural norms etc.

Tjol wrote:It is my personal perogative that human beings feel something first, then attempt a rational explanation, and then challenge that explanation for their feeling until the feeling changes, or until they feel their feelings have been rationally justified.

When I suggest experience as the source point for belief or disbelief, it is based on that personal perogative.... which is to say, I don't mean to dismiss the rationality of belief or disbelief by suggesting that they are born in an experience.

OK, basic misunderstanding here...what do you mean by perogative (prerogative?)...as far as I'm concerned, it means exclusive right, but that doesn't make sense in the context of your first use. It does in the second though. Anyway, that said, yes, people do try and rationally justofy their feelings. And if they believe that they succeed, then it is the same as if it were justified, even if only to them (Have I said this before? )

Tjol wrote:... Malik puts it in much better words.... I never thought of it that way, but phenomenology does attempt to bridge qualitative and quantitative examinations of our reality...

Sounds very interesting. Will have to look into it I guess. Me, I think there is scant difference between them. For any given person at least.

--A

Malik wrote:I've never considered myself an atheist, because I've thought it was at least as dogmatic as theism

I agree as long as the term God remains undefined. Because how can you renounce the existence of something that you have not defined?

However, if you actually define (a) God, atheism becomes a more tangible and less dogmatic concept. Suddenly the agnostic concept (we can't prove there's no god) becomes falsifiable. i.e. it becomes possible to disprove the defined god's existence.

Of course all religions are very careful NOT to define god in any precise way, making atheists look like a bunch of gits.

So, in the grand scheme I am agnostic, but against any defined religion, I know of, I risk 'gitness' and define myself as an atheist.

Well, it's kind of a beneficial side effect of faith. I do not know if it's deliberate that most religions try to avoid specific definitions of God. I think the avoidance of attempting to create specific definitions follows directly from the understanding of the heirarchical relationship between a creator and the created.

It creates as many problems as it avoids in truth as well. If God only does this and that, and is only of this and that quality, a lot of the typical challenges that an atheist or agnostic would bring in a philosophical argument with a theist or polytheist would no longer even need to be humored or answered.