Indiana Jones and the Temple of Rationality

So I heard the other day that “Rational thought is the best/only way to find truth.” For most college students, I’ll wager that statement is so uncontroversial as to almost be cliché. We college students love the reasonable. It’s the foundation of a liberal arts education. What is critical inquiry but the act of exposing the logic of justification behind a particular statement? Yet I think that our righteous love of logic and reason goes too far sometimes.

That love – firmly ingrained in college culture – occasionally leads us to try and exorcise religion entirely. What else could you call Richard Dawkins’ crusade against religion (which of course is particularly ironic given his appeals to teleology)? Usually, at best college culture views religion as a quaint anachronism and at worst as a perverted ideology, inextricably tied to hate.

It’s as if religion is a cancer that needs to be cured. And the cure is simple. All we have to do is take our scalpel of rationality, make a logical incision, and then reasonably pluck the religious beliefs out. Presto! Belief be gone! So simple even the kids could use it.

I think this is wrong – both intellectually and morally. Religion is an inescapable facet of human existence. Consider an ATM, that magic moneybox we all know and love. How does that thing actually work? Anyone know precisely? Yet we all entrust it with our most valuable possessions on the reg. Sure I’m not an idiot, I could figure out how ATMs work. Maybe I could even figure out how the financial system works so that my money is safe. But I have only finite time and there are physical constraints to my intelligence. There will always be another set of interactions that affect my life for me to understand – the political process, dating, the spirit of piracy – and yet I will only have a limited amount of intellectual resources with which to understand them. So unless I want to live with my head in the sand, I have to take a few things on faith.

I think here Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is illustrative. Besides being an all around badass film (and explicating the spirit of adventure so crucial to a worthwhile life), the film really gets at the core of the religious experience. The film beautifully intertwines Indy’s tenuous relationship with his father, Henry Jones, with the search for the Holy Grail, skillfully creating an extended metaphor for the tribulations associated with faith. In the opening scene, Indiana Jones’ father is so immersed in his Biblical exegesis that he doesn’t realize his son’s predicament; he even asks Indy to state his request in Greek. Similarly, when his Dad goes missing, Indy is just as confused why his Dad sent his Grail Diary to him as by the search for the cup of Christ itself.

Indy’s relationship with his father and his skepticism toward the grail comes to a head after Indiana rescues his father. As they sit at the fork in the road between Venice and Berlin, Indy – exasperated at his father’s academic obsession with the grail – says the Lord’s name in vain. Sean Connery as Henry responds in typical badass fashion:

“That’s for blasphemy. The quest for the Grail is not archaeology. It’s a race against evil. If it is captured by the Nazis, the armies of darkness will march over the face of the earth. Do you understand me?”

Indy replies that he never understood his Dad’s quest, and in his emotional rage, he says that his dead mother didn’t either. Indy just can’t understand why his Dad would spend his entire life – at the detriment to his parenting – in the pursuit of the mere specter of an idea.

It takes the dramatic event of his father being shot for Indy to realize his unconditional love for his father and reexamine his faith. He now is forced to get the grail in order to save his Dad’s life. Indiana has to pass three tests, which cut to the heart of the religious experience, to fulfill the ultimate crusade. First, he must prove his penitence and kneel before God. That is he must his prove humility before God – accept the validity of appeals to the one, to objectivity, i.e. a religious framework. Next he must pass “The word of God.” He must walk across a floor of letters, of which only those in the name of God are safe. Religion requires familiarity with the issues at hand, a certain amount of introspection. Lastly, Indiana Jones is faced with a bottomless chasm, whose other side is way too far to jump. The cries of his dying father in the background, Indy steps decidedly out to certain death. Only by abandoning completely his rational hesitation does he take the leap faith and step on solid ground, the path to the Holy Grail.

This all may seem silly or trite to some – the intellectual whimsy of a guy with too much time on his hands. The question, though, is fundamental: “The quest for the Holy Grail is the search for the divine in all of us.” So fundamental and so intractable in fact that it would be absurd not to ask it. I think Marcus, the bumbling academic puts it best: “if you want facts, Indy, I have none to give you. At my age, I’m prepared to take a few things on faith.”

Patrick Atwater

Patrick Atwater is a senior at Claremont McKenna College, pursuing a dual degree in Mathematics and Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE). When not playing football or slaving away at the Rose, he spends his time theorizing about the California Dream, which Abhi is foolish enough to pay him for. He enjoys theoretical politics, skiing, Russian literature, genuine people, not swimming back, happiness, the outdoors, Michael Bay movies, trying new things, island paradises, the works of Amartya Sen, traveling, and making gross overgeneralizations.

great article

This was excellent. Religion is by far the most underrated aspect of any education. Understanding religion is key to understanding any foreign culture. Any IR major who thinks they can understand IR without taking into consideration is lost.

Osama bin Laden didn’t organize 9/11 because he didn’t like America. He did it because of his religious beliefs.
great article

This was excellent. Religion is by far the most underrated aspect of any education. Understanding religion is key to understanding any foreign culture. Any IR major who thinks they can understand IR without taking into consideration is lost.

Osama bin Laden didn’t organize 9/11 because he didn’t like America. He did it because of his religious beliefs.
Free Thinker

Thanks for finally shedding some good light on religion. Not too bad for an intellectual, head-in-the-clouds liberal. A little more respect for religion and traditional ways might lead to a little more sacrifice and discipline amongst our students. And it might even lead to a little less debauchery from the hedonistic deviants that run around campus.
Free Thinker

Thanks for finally shedding some good light on religion. Not too bad for an intellectual, head-in-the-clouds liberal. A little more respect for religion and traditional ways might lead to a little more sacrifice and discipline amongst our students. And it might even lead to a little less debauchery from the hedonistic deviants that run around campus.
Peggy Noonan

“So unless I want to live with my head in the sand, I have to take a few things on faith.”

Patrick, thanks for this lovely article. You speak to a deep truth about the mystery that runs through our lives. The mystery of what we know we don’t want to know. There are some things left best unsaid and unknown. Let’s not worry about it. Whatever the excesses, indignities, and barbarities of religion, since we both have a limited amount of intellectual resources, let’s not worry about it. Let’s walk on.

Some cheap hacks try to ask hard questions–moral and religious questions–and strive to find answers. I say no. I’m glad you agree.

Keep your head out of the sand so you can continue to see the light.

Yours Fervently,
Pegs
Peggy Noonan

“So unless I want to live with my head in the sand, I have to take a few things on faith.”

Patrick, thanks for this lovely article. You speak to a deep truth about the mystery that runs through our lives. The mystery of what we know we don’t want to know. There are some things left best unsaid and unknown. Let’s not worry about it. Whatever the excesses, indignities, and barbarities of religion, since we both have a limited amount of intellectual resources, let’s not worry about it. Let’s walk on.

Some cheap hacks try to ask hard questions–moral and religious questions–and strive to find answers. I say no. I’m glad you agree.

Keep your head out of the sand so you can continue to see the light.

Yours Fervently,
Pegs
Free Thinker

Peggy,

Some of us do have a limited amount of resources, one of which is time. Unfortunately, those of us who work do not have the luxury of living off the welfare state like those of you on the left, so we are unable to explore all intellectual curiosities.

For example, I have heard that HIV/AIDS was sent by God to discourage the rampant homosexual sodomy that is tearing the fabric of society (not literally tearing…but…well you get the picture). Now, I don’t have the time to prove or disprove this theory, and since science cannot explain it, I default to religion. Makes sense. Can science disprove this?
Free Thinker

Peggy,

Some of us do have a limited amount of resources, one of which is time. Unfortunately, those of us who work do not have the luxury of living off the welfare state like those of you on the left, so we are unable to explore all intellectual curiosities.

For example, I have heard that HIV/AIDS was sent by God to discourage the rampant homosexual sodomy that is tearing the fabric of society (not literally tearing…but…well you get the picture). Now, I don’t have the time to prove or disprove this theory, and since science cannot explain it, I default to religion. Makes sense. Can science disprove this?
Patrick Atwater

Dearest “Peggy”,

I’m impressed. Not only have you managed to shove words in my mouth, but you’ve managed to be a bit witty about it. Bravo!

I’m being sincere. Your comment – understood properly – really is rather eloquent second order reinforcement of my point. You obviously take certain things on faith: for example, that religion/faith is bad and leads to justifications of things like torture. So ironically, as you attack my article from a sarcastic liberal perspective, you actually reinforce my thesis – a rather nifty move.

I worry though that this was not the underlying impetus behind your point – that you simply do not understand the distinction being religion as an organized system of beliefs with which to deal with the world and the organized religions we all know and love. I don’t mean to impute motive, but sometimes I can’t help but feel pity.

Best,

Patrick
Kevin

I’m not sure that religious belief is irrational, or that many people conclude that it’s irrational to believe in a religion or God.
Kevin

I’m not sure that religious belief is irrational, or that many people conclude that it’s irrational to believe in a religion or God.
http://kburke.org Kevin

For one, consider the signaling effects of religion (or nonbelief)

Brendan

Sure, it might feel nice to believe something without evidence– sometimes it might even be in your self-interest. But if you care about being right, if you’re interested in learning the truth, you should examine evidence. You should think rationally.

I agree with “Great Article” that it’s important to study religions because they play a powerful role in societies. But just because a lot of people around the world believe things without any rational basis does not mean it’s a good idea. Sept. 11 actually shows why we should shy away from irrational beliefs– they can lead people to do crazy and horrible things.

Let’s look at the ATM example. Sure, I don’t know exactly how an ATM works. I certainly couldn’t build one from scratch. But I believe that I can go to one and withdraw money from it. Why am I justified in this belief? Because I’ve gone to plenty of ATMs in the past, and every time, I’ve been able to withdraw money from it. That’s not faith– that’s a rational belief based on past experiences.

You’re right that I don’t know how the ATM works, and I probably will not spend the effort to find out. That doesn’t mean I get to make up my own explanation. I don’t get to decide that little elves live in ATMs, and they run around gathering $20 bills for people. Since I don’t know how the ATM works, I can’t disprove this idea, but I certainly have no evidence to believe that it is true. In the absence of evidence, the only thing I can do is admit that I don’t know how it works. Just like I have to admit that I don’t know how the universe works…

I’ll be honest, I didn’t really follow the Indiana Jones example. But let’s be clear: whether irrational beliefs can sometimes have good consequences is a separate issue from whether they’re a good way of finding out the truth. So just because Indiana Jones saved Sean Connery or whatever does not show that we are justified in believing things without evidence.

Also, the picture is of The Temple of Doom, but the article talks about The Last Crusade…

http://kburke.org Kevin

For one, consider the signaling effects of religion (or nonbelief)

Brendan

Sure, it might feel nice to believe something without evidence– sometimes it might even be in your self-interest. But if you care about being right, if you’re interested in learning the truth, you should examine evidence. You should think rationally.

I agree with “Great Article” that it’s important to study religions because they play a powerful role in societies. But just because a lot of people around the world believe things without any rational basis does not mean it’s a good idea. Sept. 11 actually shows why we should shy away from irrational beliefs– they can lead people to do crazy and horrible things.

Let’s look at the ATM example. Sure, I don’t know exactly how an ATM works. I certainly couldn’t build one from scratch. But I believe that I can go to one and withdraw money from it. Why am I justified in this belief? Because I’ve gone to plenty of ATMs in the past, and every time, I’ve been able to withdraw money from it. That’s not faith– that’s a rational belief based on past experiences.

You’re right that I don’t know how the ATM works, and I probably will not spend the effort to find out. That doesn’t mean I get to make up my own explanation. I don’t get to decide that little elves live in ATMs, and they run around gathering $20 bills for people. Since I don’t know how the ATM works, I can’t disprove this idea, but I certainly have no evidence to believe that it is true. In the absence of evidence, the only thing I can do is admit that I don’t know how it works. Just like I have to admit that I don’t know how the universe works…

I’ll be honest, I didn’t really follow the Indiana Jones example. But let’s be clear: whether irrational beliefs can sometimes have good consequences is a separate issue from whether they’re a good way of finding out the truth. So just because Indiana Jones saved Sean Connery or whatever does not show that we are justified in believing things without evidence.

Also, the picture is of The Temple of Doom, but the article talks about The Last Crusade…

Patrick Atwater

Brendan I appreciate your response. I think you articulate the “rational” position quite well. Yet I think you’re view is fundamentally wrong. Religion is not merely something that gives us pleasure; it provides people a way to find meaning in their lives and cope with the fundamental questions of existence. And it is intractable.

I think your discussion of the ATM example is illustrative. Yes we do have good reasons to trust the ATM (I would hope we wouldn’t use it otherwise). ATMs have always worked; it’s operated by a reputable institution, one that’s stood the test of time; our friends and family use it. Yet if we operation within a purely logical (i.e. rational) framework, those facts are not proof that an ATM will work the next time we try to use it. N cases – no matter how arbitrarily large or intuitively satisfying – do not imply the N+1 case. There is no proof that the ATM will work this time, but we act anyway. So we need a little faith – not that it works by “magic” or by the operation of little green men – but that it will work again. You don’t have to believe in these unfalsifiable assertions, but that’s not my point. My point was that this type of faith is an inextricable part of existence. The way we incorporate these faiths into our worldview, the system we organize them into, is our religion.

And to tie up a few other loose ends: The Indiana Jones example was an attempt to flesh out the religious experience. The pictures were not of my choosing.

Hope that helps.
Patrick Atwater

Brendan I appreciate your response. I think you articulate the “rational” position quite well. Yet I think you’re view is fundamentally wrong. Religion is not merely something that gives us pleasure; it provides people a way to find meaning in their lives and cope with the fundamental questions of existence. And it is intractable.

I think your discussion of the ATM example is illustrative. Yes we do have good reasons to trust the ATM (I would hope we wouldn’t use it otherwise). ATMs have always worked; it’s operated by a reputable institution, one that’s stood the test of time; our friends and family use it. Yet if we operation within a purely logical (i.e. rational) framework, those facts are not proof that an ATM will work the next time we try to use it. N cases – no matter how arbitrarily large or intuitively satisfying – do not imply the N+1 case. There is no proof that the ATM will work this time, but we act anyway. So we need a little faith – not that it works by “magic” or by the operation of little green men – but that it will work again. You don’t have to believe in these unfalsifiable assertions, but that’s not my point. My point was that this type of faith is an inextricable part of existence. The way we incorporate these faiths into our worldview, the system we organize them into, is our religion.

And to tie up a few other loose ends: The Indiana Jones example was an attempt to flesh out the religious experience. The pictures were not of my choosing.

Hope that helps.
Charlie Sprague

Patrick,
You can’t just use Hume’s problem of induction to dismiss the “rational” position. I’m also not convinced the problem of induction is as serious as we usually treat it. The most basic definition of knowledge is a “justified true belief”. I believe we can get JTF while still acknowledging the theoretical trap of the problem of induction. Also, I think Patrick that you paint to stark a contrast between the “rational” perspective and the “faith” perspective. Most people frequently use both in their daily lives. I’m a rationalist when it comes to writing term papers, but I take it on faith that I should love and honor my family without submitting that belief to rational critique.

Spencer Kline

Charlie you don’t respect your family based on faith, you respect your family because, one, it makes you feel good, and, two, it makes you look good. Religion too has rational underpinnings. It makes people feel more secure and safe in a crazy haphazard world. Most importantly it gives purpose and meaning to an otherwise cold universe.

The problem with faith is not that it is irrational, its rather the lack of intellectual curiosity that it indicates. Out of the thousands of religions out there, people need to ask themselves if it isn’t too much of coincidence that one true God happens to be embodied by the religion that they were admitted (read indoctrinated) into as a child. Every religious text claims that it is the one true faith. So why should you accept the one that by chance alone you happened to be born without any further investigation? There is no problem with religion, in fact I find it infinitely interesting on a cultural and psychological level, but I just wonder how people don’t ask themselves that question.
Spencer Kline

Charlie you don’t respect your family based on faith, you respect your family because, one, it makes you feel good, and, two, it makes you look good. Religion too has rational underpinnings. It makes people feel more secure and safe in a crazy haphazard world. Most importantly it gives purpose and meaning to an otherwise cold universe. I wish I could be religious, because I would be happier if I was. In some sense this makes religion far more “rational” when it comes to someone’s self-interest than atheism.

The problem with faith is not that it is irrational, its rather the lack of intellectual curiosity that it indicates. Out of the thousands of religions out there, people need to ask themselves if it isn’t too much of coincidence that one true God happens to be embodied by the religion that they were admitted (read indoctrinated) into as a child. Every religious text claims that it is the one true faith. So why should you accept the one that by chance alone you happened to be born without any further investigation? There is no problem with religion, in fact I find it infinitely interesting on a cultural and psychological level, but I just wonder how people don’t ask themselves that question.

Spencer Kline

Charlie you don’t respect your family based on faith, you respect your family because, one, it makes you feel good, and, two, it makes you look good. Religion too has rational underpinnings. It makes people feel more secure and safe in a crazy haphazard world. Most importantly it gives purpose and meaning to an otherwise cold universe.

The problem with faith is not that it is irrational, its rather the lack of intellectual curiosity that it indicates. Out of the thousands of religions out there, people need to ask themselves if it isn’t too much of coincidence that one true God happens to be embodied by the religion that they were admitted (read indoctrinated) into as a child. Every religious text claims that it is the one true faith. So why should you accept the one that by chance alone you happened to be born without any further investigation? There is no problem with religion, in fact I find it infinitely interesting on a cultural and psychological level, but I just wonder how people don’t ask themselves that question.
Spencer Kline

Charlie you don’t respect your family based on faith, you respect your family because, one, it makes you feel good, and, two, it makes you look good. Religion too has rational underpinnings. It makes people feel more secure and safe in a crazy haphazard world. Most importantly it gives purpose and meaning to an otherwise cold universe. I wish I could be religious, because I would be happier if I was. In some sense this makes religion far more “rational” when it comes to someone’s self-interest than atheism.

The problem with faith is not that it is irrational, its rather the lack of intellectual curiosity that it indicates. Out of the thousands of religions out there, people need to ask themselves if it isn’t too much of coincidence that one true God happens to be embodied by the religion that they were admitted (read indoctrinated) into as a child. Every religious text claims that it is the one true faith. So why should you accept the one that by chance alone you happened to be born without any further investigation? There is no problem with religion, in fact I find it infinitely interesting on a cultural and psychological level, but I just wonder how people don’t ask themselves that question.
Patrick Atwater

Charlie I’m not dismissing the rational position. I simply tried to demonstrate that if it cannot exclude faith entirely. You are right that there are gradations in real life: we accept certain things on varying degrees of faith. But we cannot exclude faith entirely. For a narrow example, think of Descartes Evil God. Or for some more general ones, read any Lacanian psychoanalyst like Zizeck.
Patrick Atwater

Charlie I’m not dismissing the rational position. I simply tried to demonstrate that if it cannot exclude faith entirely. You are right that there are gradations in real life: we accept certain things on varying degrees of faith. But we cannot exclude faith entirely. For a narrow example, think of Descartes Evil God. Or for some more general ones, read any Lacanian psychoanalyst like Zizeck.
Cory

Just for the record, Descartes thought he might be being deceived by an evil demon. These sorts of definitions always depend on who you ask, but it seems like gods are higher on the supernatural scale.

Anyway, as has been pointed out “justified true belief” does not require certainty. We would have to get serious about defining justified, but I think it’s fair to say that certainty is not the right standard to use. I think we’d agree that I’m justified in believing that my macroeconomics final will include questions about macroeconomics, but there’s no way I could be certain about that (before seeing the final at least. Some might argue it’s true even after.)

A final thought: Spencer, I’m not sure why you insist on rejecting the simplest explanation for Charlie loving his family: it’s just part of the human experience to feel a certain way under certain circumstances. I get that you _can_ reduce everything to pleasure and pain if you try hard enough, but I’m not sure why you’re convinced that it’s right to do so.
Cory

Just for the record, Descartes thought he might be being deceived by an evil demon. These sorts of definitions always depend on who you ask, but it seems like gods are higher on the supernatural scale.

Anyway, as has been pointed out “justified true belief” does not require certainty. We would have to get serious about defining justified, but I think it’s fair to say that certainty is not the right standard to use. I think we’d agree that I’m justified in believing that my macroeconomics final will include questions about macroeconomics, but there’s no way I could be certain about that (before seeing the final at least. Some might argue it’s true even after.)

A final thought: Spencer, I’m not sure why you insist on rejecting the simplest explanation for Charlie loving his family: it’s just part of the human experience to feel a certain way under certain circumstances. I get that you _can_ reduce everything to pleasure and pain if you try hard enough, but I’m not sure why you’re convinced that it’s right to do so.
Patrick Atwater

1) Cory stop interfering with my name-dropping. Why can’t you be more like Charlie and label my arguments (which in all seriousness I appreciate b/c I was just using my knowledge of mathematical induction) so you can categorically reject them?

2) Call it “justified true belief”, “nonsensical foo foo”, or what have you, my point remains. Belief/faith will always remain a component of what we consider that we know. Certainty is not the standard I think we should judge knowledge by, but it does serve as a vehicle for understanding that belief/faith is always going to be a component of knowledge.

So yes, you probably are justified in believing that the questions on your macroeconomic final relate to macroeconomics (you have good reasons; I mean the topics are fucking the same), but you still need a little faith to have that belief.
Patrick Atwater

1) Cory stop interfering with my name-dropping. Why can’t you be more like Charlie and label my arguments (which in all seriousness I appreciate b/c I was just using my knowledge of mathematical induction) so you can categorically reject them?

2) Call it “justified true belief”, “nonsensical foo foo”, or what have you, my point remains. Belief/faith will always remain a component of what we consider that we know. Certainty is not the standard I think we should judge knowledge by, but it does serve as a vehicle for understanding that belief/faith is always going to be a component of knowledge.

So yes, you probably are justified in believing that the questions on your macroeconomic final relate to macroeconomics (you have good reasons; I mean the topics are fucking the same), but you still need a little faith to have that belief.
Cory

Sorry, I’ll try to be more respectful of rhetorical flourishes. Honestly, I was worried you’d come back with a translation I hadn’t read and been like “Ha, see, it was an evil god. Everything you say is therefore discredited.”

Regardless, I don’t see how faith is necessary for my belief about my macro final. Currently, I’m justified (for the reasons you zealously cite) in believing certain things about the content of the exam. I’m also aware that a small degree of uncertainty exists about this, and so I could be wrong (for example, maybe my professor is planning a cruel joke). Why do I need to use faith to fill in the uncertainty? Can’t I just say that I’m uncertain (but, mind you, pretty sure) and leave it at that?

Admittedly, there are questions for which accepting uncertainty might make one profoundly uncomfortable. It would be uncomfortable to say, for example, that we’re not sure how best to spend our lives. Nonetheless, I don’t see why this makes faith _necessary_.
Cory

Sorry, I’ll try to be more respectful of rhetorical flourishes. Honestly, I was worried you’d come back with a translation I hadn’t read and been like “Ha, see, it was an evil god. Everything you say is therefore discredited.”

Regardless, I don’t see how faith is necessary for my belief about my macro final. Currently, I’m justified (for the reasons you zealously cite) in believing certain things about the content of the exam. I’m also aware that a small degree of uncertainty exists about this, and so I could be wrong (for example, maybe my professor is planning a cruel joke). Why do I need to use faith to fill in the uncertainty? Can’t I just say that I’m uncertain (but, mind you, pretty sure) and leave it at that?

Admittedly, there are questions for which accepting uncertainty might make one profoundly uncomfortable. It would be uncomfortable to say, for example, that we’re not sure how best to spend our lives. Nonetheless, I don’t see why this makes faith _necessary_.
Patrick Atwater

Ah but Cory, faith is necessary to inform even your uncertain belief. Your belief that your Macro final will contain Macro questions is a question of content (which is in part based on the faith that questions will be Macro related – necessarily in part on faith because of the problem of induction charlie so casually dismisses [and the excesses of reality from which the symbolic process begins - but that's another matter]), not degree of certitude.

Anyway, Cory this is why you need to jump on the continental, poststructural, anti(sur)foranalytical bandwagon. Honestly, I barely know where it’s going, but man is it a ride.
Patrick Atwater

Ah but Cory, faith is necessary to inform even your uncertain belief. Your belief that your Macro final will contain Macro questions is a question of content (which is in part based on the faith that questions will be Macro related – necessarily in part on faith because of the problem of induction charlie so casually dismisses [and the excesses of reality from which the symbolic process begins - but that's another matter]), not degree of certitude.

Anyway, Cory this is why you need to jump on the continental, poststructural, anti(sur)foranalytical bandwagon. Honestly, I barely know where it’s going, but man is it a ride.
Cory

No. Saying that faith is necessary is different from saying that it is common or useful or interesting.

Let’s go over the macro example one more time. You’ve said yourself that I had good reasons for believing that there would be macro on the macro final (as it turns out, that was true). So, you must think that good reasons are not sufficient for belief. I’m not sure why that would be.

It seems like your answer is something like the the induction problem. So, okay, let’s look at that. It’s definitely true that even though tests have included content relevant to their subject in the past, I can’t be 100% sure that they will in the future (again, perhaps the professor was planning a trick of some sort). That’s the induction problem. However, I can be somewhat sure, or think it’s likely that they will. So, when I say “I’m pretty sure that the macro test will have macro on it” I am stating something that I can be justified in believing based solely on my observation of tests in the past. The only reason I would need faith is to get to “I’m certain the macro test will have macro on it” which would be based on faith that the pattern would hold.

Now you’re going to say “But, you need faith in order to believe that your observations are not misleading.” No, I can just invoke uncertainty again. I’m pretty sure that my senses are reliable because they’ve done a good job so far. Yeah, I might be being tricked by an evil demon, but I’m pretty sure that’s not true. I’d need faith for certainty, but I don’t need it for probability, even noting the induction problem. The induction problem is a problem with certainty, not with justification in general…or “nonsensical foo foo” in your terms.

Look, I’m not saying that this is actually how people live their lives, but the point is that they could. You’re the one that started with the claim that faith was necessary rather than convenient. I’ve given you what I take to be a counterexample, and you’ve repeated your assertion. So, get back to me when you have an argument.

As for bandwagons, I prefer driving them to riding.
Cory

No. Saying that faith is necessary is different from saying that it is common or useful or interesting.

Let’s go over the macro example one more time. You’ve said yourself that I had good reasons for believing that there would be macro on the macro final (as it turns out, that was true). So, you must think that good reasons are not sufficient for belief. I’m not sure why that would be.

It seems like your answer is something like the the induction problem. So, okay, let’s look at that. It’s definitely true that even though tests have included content relevant to their subject in the past, I can’t be 100% sure that they will in the future (again, perhaps the professor was planning a trick of some sort). That’s the induction problem. However, I can be somewhat sure, or think it’s likely that they will. So, when I say “I’m pretty sure that the macro test will have macro on it” I am stating something that I can be justified in believing based solely on my observation of tests in the past. The only reason I would need faith is to get to “I’m certain the macro test will have macro on it” which would be based on faith that the pattern would hold.

Now you’re going to say “But, you need faith in order to believe that your observations are not misleading.” No, I can just invoke uncertainty again. I’m pretty sure that my senses are reliable because they’ve done a good job so far. Yeah, I might be being tricked by an evil demon, but I’m pretty sure that’s not true. I’d need faith for certainty, but I don’t need it for probability, even noting the induction problem. The induction problem is a problem with certainty, not with justification in general…or “nonsensical foo foo” in your terms.

Look, I’m not saying that this is actually how people live their lives, but the point is that they could. You’re the one that started with the claim that faith was necessary rather than convenient. I’ve given you what I take to be a counterexample, and you’ve repeated your assertion. So, get back to me when you have an argument.

As for bandwagons, I prefer driving them to riding.
Constantine

Great article! Faith is necessary for human kind.
Constantine

Great article! Faith is necessary for human kind.
Patrick Atwater

Ah Cory, the problem of induction/Descarte’s Evil God (I/D) is only the starting point. Perhaps I needed to make the intervening steps more clear.

I think that your logic is fundamentally and irrevocably bound to the failed framework of an underlying reality, above which occurs all accidents of perception. So you concede, yes, I cannot get to an objective understanding of the fundamental reality, but you can easily lump that discrepancy into uncertainty and trot along. Sure.

But these I/D problems are “not the direct encounter of the hard core of the Real, but precisely its mis-encounter. Rather than a ‘thump’ against the wall of experience’s limits (the hard boundary of the cave that conceals True reality), the absurd (mis)confrontation is a terrible series of ‘whoosing throughs’ in which one can’t find the origin because it’s always been missing.” This “true” picture is a world in flux, of constantly relations, lets us cast of this correspondence theory of truth. In a sense, this has been the philosophic project of the 20th century. Thus, from these I/D/etc. problems, comes the impossible relation between the subject and the other: the fundamental lack or void that defines our existence. This stultifying gap necessitates some third party, an intermediary to permit a sort of “minimally ‘stressful’ symbolic interaction. This is the communal necessity of the socio-symbolic order (Lacan’s big Other): it serves to properly ‘gentrify’ the unknowable kernel that persists in the human Other, my fellow neighbor, into an amiable image.” (Akin, “Love your Wound”)

Hence, our usage of statements such as “my macro final is about macro” and our implicit trust in the ATM without qualification (a la Indiana Jones stepping boldly out over the abyss) is based on an article of faith subsumed with this Big Other, our personal permutation of which is our very own religion. Faith thus is necessary for any life because the only alternative is capitulation in the face of Camus’ interrogative: symbolic suicide. Religion really is an immutable facet of life.

It’s rough; I know. We’re constrained by countervailing assumptions in the very language of this discourse. Consider: the real / simulation distinction for example presupposes that we can discern the difference. But, hey, nihilistic freedom sure is liberating.
Patrick Atwater

Ah Cory, the problem of induction/Descarte’s Evil God (I/D) is only the starting point. Perhaps I needed to make the intervening steps more clear.

I think that your logic is fundamentally and irrevocably bound to the failed framework of an underlying reality, above which occurs all accidents of perception. So you concede, yes, I cannot get to an objective understanding of the fundamental reality, but you can easily lump that discrepancy into uncertainty and trot along. Sure.

But these I/D problems are “not the direct encounter of the hard core of the Real, but precisely its mis-encounter. Rather than a ‘thump’ against the wall of experience’s limits (the hard boundary of the cave that conceals True reality), the absurd (mis)confrontation is a terrible series of ‘whoosing throughs’ in which one can’t find the origin because it’s always been missing.” This “true” picture is a world in flux, of constantly relations, lets us cast of this correspondence theory of truth. In a sense, this has been the philosophic project of the 20th century. Thus, from these I/D/etc. problems, comes the impossible relation between the subject and the other: the fundamental lack or void that defines our existence. This stultifying gap necessitates some third party, an intermediary to permit a sort of “minimally ‘stressful’ symbolic interaction. This is the communal necessity of the socio-symbolic order (Lacan’s big Other): it serves to properly ‘gentrify’ the unknowable kernel that persists in the human Other, my fellow neighbor, into an amiable image.” (Akin, “Love your Wound”)

Hence, our usage of statements such as “my macro final is about macro” and our implicit trust in the ATM without qualification (a la Indiana Jones stepping boldly out over the abyss) is based on an article of faith subsumed with this Big Other, our personal permutation of which is our very own religion. Faith thus is necessary for any life because the only alternative is capitulation in the face of Camus’ interrogative: symbolic suicide. Religion really is an immutable facet of life.

It’s rough; I know. We’re constrained by countervailing assumptions in the very language of this discourse. Consider: the real / simulation distinction for example presupposes that we can discern the difference. But, hey, nihilistic freedom sure is liberating.
Cory

I’ll make this one short: if you could express why accepting uncertainty is insufficient for avoiding faith in accessible terms, you would have. Instead you retreated to onomatopoeia and arbitrary capitalization.
Cory

I’ll make this one short: if you could express why accepting uncertainty is insufficient for avoiding faith in accessible terms, you would have. Instead you retreated to onomatopoeia and arbitrary capitalization.
Patrick Atwater

Well, yes, you’re right I would have. I enjoy simplicity as much as the next man – the calm of a short clause, the pulse of a digestible predicate – but sometimes that’s just not possible Cory. I mean, surely, you don’t think we can cognize all of existence in a way that’s easily accessible (a few propositional logic statements here, a few examples there: presto existence!). Hence the necessity of my post being “inaccessible” and elliptical at points.

Basically, if you want to live life uncertain of the ground you walk on and afraid to make unqualified statements, then go ahead, side with Cory. But if you want to live life as a beast (cough Indiana Jones cough), well then…
Patrick Atwater

Well, yes, you’re right I would have. I enjoy simplicity as much as the next man – the calm of a short clause, the pulse of a digestible predicate – but sometimes that’s just not possible Cory. I mean, surely, you don’t think we can cognize all of existence in a way that’s easily accessible (a few propositional logic statements here, a few examples there: presto existence!). Hence the necessity of my post being “inaccessible” and elliptical at points.

Basically, if you want to live life uncertain of the ground you walk on and afraid to make unqualified statements, then go ahead, side with Cory. But if you want to live life as a beast (cough Indiana Jones cough), well then…
Brendan

I’m with Cory on this one. Patrick, you’re right that I can only be 99.9% sure that an ATM will give me money– but isn’t that enough? Why do we have to be 100% sure? There’s nothing wrong with having a bit of uncertainty in life. It’s not like the .01% chance of the ATM not working is enough to prevent me from trying to use it.

Sure, I have to admit that there is some infinitesimal chance that the world is all just a creation of Descartes’ demon, but that doesn’t exactly leave me paralyzed. The chance of that being true is too small for me to change any of my actions.

Admitting that there’s a small chance that you might be wrong is better than arbitrarily believing things without evidence.
Brendan

I’m with Cory on this one. Patrick, you’re right that I can only be 99.9% sure that an ATM will give me money– but isn’t that enough? Why do we have to be 100% sure? There’s nothing wrong with having a bit of uncertainty in life. It’s not like the .01% chance of the ATM not working is enough to prevent me from trying to use it.

Sure, I have to admit that there is some infinitesimal chance that the world is all just a creation of Descartes’ demon, but that doesn’t exactly leave me paralyzed. The chance of that being true is too small for me to change any of my actions.

Admitting that there’s a small chance that you might be wrong is better than arbitrarily believing things without evidence.
Cory

I think Pat’s last two posts make a very nice illustration of what I’ve heard Susan Neiman (author of Moral Clarity) describe as “intimidating forms of non-argument.”

A couple posts back, I pointed to a counterexample, and asked for an argument that addresses it. Pat responded with a slew of undefined terms and mysticism (see “whoosing throughs” and “void that defines our existence”). Then, when I pointed that out, he followed up with ad hominem attacks (“afraid to make an unqualified statement”) and hero worship.

None of this, of course, is a substitute for argument. I guess we’re just supposed to have faith that faith is necessary.

One more note: if we have to resort to debating which position constitutes living as a beast– well, I guess I’d say that accepting and facing the limits of one’s knowledge sounds cooler to me than making stuff up and pretending those limits don’t exist. But, I’m a nerd, so, I’m not good at judging that sort of thing.
Cory

I think Pat’s last two posts make a very nice illustration of what I’ve heard Susan Neiman (author of Moral Clarity) describe as “intimidating forms of non-argument.”

A couple posts back, I pointed to a counterexample, and asked for an argument that addresses it. Pat responded with a slew of undefined terms and mysticism (see “whoosing throughs” and “void that defines our existence”). Then, when I pointed that out, he followed up with ad hominem attacks (“afraid to make an unqualified statement”) and hero worship.

None of this, of course, is a substitute for argument. I guess we’re just supposed to have faith that faith is necessary.

One more note: if we have to resort to debating which position constitutes living as a beast– well, I guess I’d say that accepting and facing the limits of one’s knowledge sounds cooler to me than making stuff up and pretending those limits don’t exist. But, I’m a nerd, so, I’m not good at judging that sort of thing.
Patrick Atwater

SIRs-

Well Brendan, there is actually an equally likely “probability” that you wrote to me on a computer as you are a floating brain in a vat thinking you wrote to me on a computer. The issue is a priori and the whole point is that you fundamentally can’t discriminate between the two. And it’s not arbitrary to believe that you’re wrote to me on a computer. You have good, pragmatic reasons for that belief.

And Cory if you’re going to quote Susan Neiman, I mean I might as well declare victory right now. Seriously, though, I made an appeal to a more general circumstance (all of human existence for Christ sake) which included your particular example. So I did deal with your example. You, on the other hand, have yet to deal with my argument other than dismiss it as “unacessible” mysticism that was a retreat to “onomatopoeia and arbitrary capitalization.” Perhaps we should put the shoe on the other foot, eh Cory?

Also, Cory that clearly wasn’t an ad hominem attack. It was a statement about the what someone would be implicitly accepting by siding with you on this argument.
Cory

Well, I guess we should take these one point at a time.

1) Brendan and probability

Just because two things are both possible does not mean they are equally likely. Look, you can’t have it both ways. If Brendan has good reasons for believing he is not a brain in a vat, then he does not need faith to be reasonably sure he is not a brain in a vat and to avoid the self-rending existential dread that you seem to be worried will befall us if we don’t have faith.

2) Susan Neiman

I haven’t read Moral Clarity and I don’t mean to appeal to it substantively here. She used the phrase during a talk to our philosophy department and I thought it was clever.

3) Responding to your argument

I haven’t responded to your argument because you haven’t provided one. What you did was go on about whoosing through, stultifying gaps, and what is Real (arbitrary capitalization preserved) without remotely trying to address anything concretely. What you’ve said is that we are limited in our ability to access/understand reality. It seems to me that that’s right; it doesn’t seem to me that anything about the necessity of faith follows from it. So, what I did was call your lack of a well-defined argument what it was: a retreat and an obfuscation. Maybe I was unclear before, so I’ll ask again: why is it that accepting uncertainty is not a viable option compared to faith? To show that faith is necessary, you’d need to show that there are no other viable options.

4) Ad hominem

Finally: let’s break down “a statement about what someone would be implicitly accepting by siding with you.” So, you’re saying one would have to have a certain characteristic if they accept my argument. You must know that I accept my argument. It seems to me fairly straightforward to conclude that you’re saying I have the characteristic. Look, it’s fine to distract from the debate by trying to figure out who is more of a beast, but let’s agree that that has nothing to do with who is right.
Cory

Well, I guess we should take these one point at a time.

1) Brendan and probability

Just because two things are both possible does not mean they are equally likely. Look, you can’t have it both ways. If Brendan has good reasons for believing he is not a brain in a vat, then he does not need faith to be reasonably sure he is not a brain in a vat and to avoid the self-rending existential dread that you seem to be worried will befall us if we don’t have faith.

2) Susan Neiman

I haven’t read Moral Clarity and I don’t mean to appeal to it substantively here. She used the phrase during a talk to our philosophy department and I thought it was clever.

3) Responding to your argument

I haven’t responded to your argument because you haven’t provided one. What you did was go on about whoosing through, stultifying gaps, and what is Real (arbitrary capitalization preserved) without remotely trying to address anything concretely. What you’ve said is that we are limited in our ability to access/understand reality. It seems to me that that’s right; it doesn’t seem to me that anything about the necessity of faith follows from it. So, what I did was call your lack of a well-defined argument what it was: a retreat and an obfuscation. Maybe I was unclear before, so I’ll ask again: why is it that accepting uncertainty is not a viable option compared to faith? To show that faith is necessary, you’d need to show that there are no other viable options.

4) Ad hominem

Finally: let’s break down “a statement about what someone would be implicitly accepting by siding with you.” So, you’re saying one would have to have a certain characteristic if they accept my argument. You must know that I accept my argument. It seems to me fairly straightforward to conclude that you’re saying I have the characteristic. Look, it’s fine to distract from the debate by trying to figure out who is more of a beast, but let’s agree that that has nothing to do with who is right.
Patrick Atwater

Well I’ll deal with these all together because they’re really all one issue. We. Can’t. Fundamentally. Discriminate. Between. The. Possibility. Of. The. Real. World. Being. “True”. And. Us. Being. A. Brain. In. A. Vat. It’s not like there’s different likelihoods or probabilities associated with each. We can’t test a hundred universes and see how many come up each way. So let’s agree to abandon this absurd notion that one is more “likely” or “probable” than the other a priori. I’m not having it both ways though because the good reasons behind Brendan’s faith (that he’s not a faith in the vat) are a posteriori. I you can’t live your entire life worried that you’re a brain in the vat. You’re going to have a better life if you make certain assumption (based on faith) about the world. Like reality is what we commonly take it to be.

Since you’ve proved unwilling to actually deal with my argument (saying the argument is unclear or inaccessible or you don’t understand it is not the same as saying it’s not an argument), I’ll try to paint a picture as to what the world would look like under your uncertainty notion. You wake up, uncertain whether you’ve actually woken up or really just fallen asleep (or maybe neither is right – that demon might be awfully tricksy). You roll over, throw on some cloths (which may or may not exist), and go to class. Walking through North Quad, you see a friend and he says hi. You don’t say anything, accepting that it is equally possible he is just an electrical impulse running through your brain, in which case it would be absurd to respond. He might be real, but who really cares. That’s just one absurd possibility among infinity.

I hope you see the problem. The uncertainty is paralyzing, so total – the gay between us, the subject, and the other is wide to the point of stultification – that we’ve removed any meaningful ability for you to interact with the world. Life is pointless, a gaping hole in meaning. You’ve committed symbolic suicide. This brings us to the last point in your neat little foursome: the ad hominim charges laid against me. You see I know that while you think you accept your argument, you don’t actually live life that way. My point was about people who actually go all in and live life according to your position (or at least that’s what I was trying to say).
Cory

So, now that you’ve presented the argument directly (and angrily, but I’ll forgive that, since it’s as much my fault as yours), I’ll go ahead and respond. See, you really didn’t need any of that postmodern posturing.

I know you hate it when I break things down, but there are two things that are important here, so I’m going to separate them out.

First: you can be reasonable in accepting one explanation of an event over another, even when both explanations are equally supported by the evidence. Suppose I’m considering two explanations for what makes the grass grow in North Quad: one is photosynthesis, another is that there are invisible gnomes that orchestrate the photosynthesis. Both explanations are equally supported by my observation: I don’t see any gnomes. But, it is perfectly reasonable for me to accept the first explanation; the second introduces more complexity and is therefore less likely. So, you’re right, I can’t tell via my senses whether I’m a brain in a vat or not, but this does not entail that I can’t use reasons to decide which explanation to accept.

Second: accepting that one is not certain about things does not have to result in existential panic and “symbolic suicide.” Here’s what I do when I see friends: I talk to them and enjoy their company because, as best as I can tell, they’re real. And, even if they weren’t (or I wasn’t) real, I would still have the experience of enjoying their company. Moreover, the “man, I wonder what’s the right thing to do with my life” question that can actually be paralyzing does not go away even if you do have faith that the world is as you perceive it. Ask any seniors that are looking for jobs.

So, we’re left with a situation like this. For your argument to work, you need it to be true that “the world is more or less how it seems” and “I’m a brain in a vat” are equally reasonable to accept, when in fact they are not. One is less likely because it is less parsimonious. Second, you need it to be true that accepting uncertainty is the source of a host of psychological problems so severe that no one could ever enjoy a well-adjusted life without using faith to avoid them, when in fact accepting uncertainty does no such thing. It might– in some people– but it does not have to. And, I will remind you, you’re arguing that faith is necessary, not just common or useful.
Cory

So, now that you’ve presented the argument directly (and angrily, but I’ll forgive that, since it’s as much my fault as yours), I’ll go ahead and respond. See, you really didn’t need any of that postmodern posturing.

I know you hate it when I break things down, but there are two things that are important here, so I’m going to separate them out.

First: you can be reasonable in accepting one explanation of an event over another, even when both explanations are equally supported by the evidence. Suppose I’m considering two explanations for what makes the grass grow in North Quad: one is photosynthesis, another is that there are invisible gnomes that orchestrate the photosynthesis. Both explanations are equally supported by my observation: I don’t see any gnomes. But, it is perfectly reasonable for me to accept the first explanation; the second introduces more complexity and is therefore less likely. So, you’re right, I can’t tell via my senses whether I’m a brain in a vat or not, but this does not entail that I can’t use reasons to decide which explanation to accept.

Second: accepting that one is not certain about things does not have to result in existential panic and “symbolic suicide.” Here’s what I do when I see friends: I talk to them and enjoy their company because, as best as I can tell, they’re real. And, even if they weren’t (or I wasn’t) real, I would still have the experience of enjoying their company. Moreover, the “man, I wonder what’s the right thing to do with my life” question that can actually be paralyzing does not go away even if you do have faith that the world is as you perceive it. Ask any seniors that are looking for jobs.

So, we’re left with a situation like this. For your argument to work, you need it to be true that “the world is more or less how it seems” and “I’m a brain in a vat” are equally reasonable to accept, when in fact they are not. One is less likely because it is less parsimonious. Second, you need it to be true that accepting uncertainty is the source of a host of psychological problems so severe that no one could ever enjoy a well-adjusted life without using faith to avoid them, when in fact accepting uncertainty does no such thing. It might– in some people– but it does not have to. And, I will remind you, you’re arguing that faith is necessary, not just common or useful.
Brendan

Occam’s razor shows why it is more likely that I am sitting at my computer typing this post than I am a brain floating in a vat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occums_razor

The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. It is simpler to say that I have experiences because they’re real than to say that they’re all an elaborate illusion. That doesn’t mean I can rule out the possibility that I’m a brain in a vat, but because it’s so unlikely, it’s reasonable for me to act as if it’s not true. I don’t need faith to avoid committing “symbolic suicide.”

And suppose that you could show (which I don’t think you can) that faith is necessary. How could you possibly decide what we should have faith in? Should we have faith in unicorns and fairies and flying spaghetti monsters? What criteria do you use to distinguish between things we should believe without evidence and things we shouldn’t?

Also, “the gay between us”– what are you trying to say…?

Parsimony

Let’s not get into Occam’s razor or these a priori arguments. If simplicity was truly the best way to gauge god’s existence, then there must be a creator. What are the odds that the universe came out the way it did w/o a creator? What are the odds life developed on earth, w/o a creator? What are the odds? If there are a one in 6.66 * 10^666 chance of things occuring as they are randomly, Occam’s razor shows us that we should believe in god.

Nobody has brought up Pascal’s wager either.

The point I am trying to make is that all of these inductive arguments, whether science based, math based, or philosophy based, don’t work. Induction tells us a likelihood whether or not something exists given assumptions. Induction cannot give us absolutes. While induction gives man a lot of benefits across many fields of study, it cannot be used to prove or disprove an existence of god and as a framework, Occam’s razor does not work here as the probabilities we are dealing with are so “complex”. If anything, I’d use chaos theory to show how our current world can be deterministic, yet evolve over time, so a god is not neccesary even if there were a heaven and hell and predetermined outcomes.

Personally, I am a godless heathen, but science as we know it, cannot disprove god. It comes down to faith.

Brendan

Occam’s razor shows why it is more likely that I am sitting at my computer typing this post than I am a brain floating in a vat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occums_razor

The simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. It is simpler to say that I have experiences because they’re real than to say that they’re all an elaborate illusion. That doesn’t mean I can rule out the possibility that I’m a brain in a vat, but because it’s so unlikely, it’s reasonable for me to act as if it’s not true. I don’t need faith to avoid committing “symbolic suicide.”

And suppose that you could show (which I don’t think you can) that faith is necessary. How could you possibly decide what we should have faith in? Should we have faith in unicorns and fairies and flying spaghetti monsters? What criteria do you use to distinguish between things we should believe without evidence and things we shouldn’t?

Also, “the gay between us”– what are you trying to say…?

Parsimony

Let’s not get into Occam’s razor or these a priori arguments. If simplicity was truly the best way to gauge god’s existence, then there must be a creator. What are the odds that the universe came out the way it did w/o a creator? What are the odds life developed on earth, w/o a creator? What are the odds? If there are a one in 6.66 * 10^666 chance of things occuring as they are randomly, Occam’s razor shows us that we should believe in god.

Nobody has brought up Pascal’s wager either.

The point I am trying to make is that all of these inductive arguments, whether science based, math based, or philosophy based, don’t work. Induction tells us a likelihood whether or not something exists given assumptions. Induction cannot give us absolutes. While induction gives man a lot of benefits across many fields of study, it cannot be used to prove or disprove an existence of god and as a framework, Occam’s razor does not work here as the probabilities we are dealing with are so “complex”. If anything, I’d use chaos theory to show how our current world can be deterministic, yet evolve over time, so a god is not neccesary even if there were a heaven and hell and predetermined outcomes.

Personally, I am a godless heathen, but science as we know it, cannot disprove god. It comes down to faith.

Cory

I should have clarified this earlier, but Parsimony’s post brings it up, so I’ll do it now.

Parsimony is right to point out that when using Occam’s Razor, Brendan and I need to be clear about what simplicity is being referred to, because, obviously, the world is very complex and “God did it” seems like a very simple answer. So, let me specify: when I say simplicity or parsimony, I’m talking about the number of concepts one would need to deploy to fully describe the situation. Let’s call that number n. In the “the world is more or less how it seems” explanation, we may need a very large n. But, in evil demon or brain in a vat case, we’d need n+1, where all of n are proceeded with “it seems like…” and the 1 extra is “an evil demon is tricking me.”

So, unless the things are not equally supported by the evidence (that is, unless we come across something that just cannot be explained any other way) the “God did it” answer is always going to be less conceptually parsimonious, and therefore going to fail the Occam’s Razor test.

Parsimony is also right that science cannot disprove god– you don’t need any math or philosophy to show that, just the observation that the believer can always say “well, god made it that way” is sufficient. However, this point is irrelevant to what Patrick is arguing here. He says faith is necessary, quite different than saying “science won’t disprove faith.”

Parsimony

If I can add one more thing, as I’m currently high and this argument blows my mind…

Even if we can show that you, or I, are an actual human being and not a brain in a vat, can’t everyone else just be mindless zombies, or robots, etc. How does proving an individual being real help disconfirm that idea that maybe, everyone else is just “in the matrix”…

This is called the problem of other minds, wiki it if you want, but I figured I’d share it. Often we assume humans are real but to date, there is no argument I have come across which bypasses this problem without having to declare an a priori framework such as utility or occam’s razor, etc.

Cory

I should have clarified this earlier, but Parsimony’s post brings it up, so I’ll do it now.

Parsimony is right to point out that when using Occam’s Razor, Brendan and I need to be clear about what simplicity is being referred to, because, obviously, the world is very complex and “God did it” seems like a very simple answer. So, let me specify: when I say simplicity or parsimony, I’m talking about the number of concepts one would need to deploy to fully describe the situation. Let’s call that number n. In the “the world is more or less how it seems” explanation, we may need a very large n. But, in evil demon or brain in a vat case, we’d need n+1, where all of n are proceeded with “it seems like…” and the 1 extra is “an evil demon is tricking me.”

So, unless the things are not equally supported by the evidence (that is, unless we come across something that just cannot be explained any other way) the “God did it” answer is always going to be less conceptually parsimonious, and therefore going to fail the Occam’s Razor test.

Parsimony is also right that science cannot disprove god– you don’t need any math or philosophy to show that, just the observation that the believer can always say “well, god made it that way” is sufficient. However, this point is irrelevant to what Patrick is arguing here. He says faith is necessary, quite different than saying “science won’t disprove faith.”

Parsimony

If I can add one more thing, as I’m currently high and this argument blows my mind…

Even if we can show that you, or I, are an actual human being and not a brain in a vat, can’t everyone else just be mindless zombies, or robots, etc. How does proving an individual being real help disconfirm that idea that maybe, everyone else is just “in the matrix”…

This is called the problem of other minds, wiki it if you want, but I figured I’d share it. Often we assume humans are real but to date, there is no argument I have come across which bypasses this problem without having to declare an a priori framework such as utility or occam’s razor, etc.

simulacric_bro

“The simulacrum is never what hides the truth—it is truth that hides the fact that there is none.
The simulacrum is true.”
Ecclesiastes

You’re all wrong.
simulacric_bro

“The simulacrum is never what hides the truth—it is truth that hides the fact that there is none.
The simulacrum is true.”
Ecclesiastes

You’re all wrong.
B

After this thread, is there really any question about the abject irreferentiality of abstraction? The symbolic process here unfolds beautifully: P and C each try to synthesize each others within their own “true” thesis, to move the discussion onto the “right” ground. But all this street intellectualism will inevitably flounder – just as two gangs will never cede the superiority of “their” turf. All this blather about parsimony and I/D/etc. (combined reasonably of course with the pragmatic understanding that we won’t really act on that) merely serves to recycle the pretense of principle and the objective. To offer us a glimmer of reality so that the explosion of simulation is somewhat palatable. Yet these neatly formulated – damn near parsimonious in fact – witticisms have the resulting virtue of being neatly categoricalizable. These ideologies through the pretense of C’s logico-rationalist rhetoric or P’s slippery panegyrics try to break the corrupted orbit of ideology. To escape the inescapable gravity of the interplay of signs; neglecting (despite P’s ever more desperate cries) that they fundamentally break from reality – at best faded copies of a copy. No suture, no matter how elliptically nifty will heal the void. So the blind faith in good reasons (not to mention in parsimony and the false triad of induction, evil gods, and miscellaneous etcetera) perversely prevails in the fetishization of its own destruction. Whose explosion merely serves to hide that in the shadow of these ever more towering pinnacles of intellectual hot air, the discussion’s false idol was hidden all along.
B

After this thread, is there really any question about the abject irreferentiality of abstraction? The symbolic process here unfolds beautifully: P and C each try to synthesize each others within their own “true” thesis, to move the discussion onto the “right” ground. But all this street intellectualism will inevitably flounder – just as two gangs will never cede the superiority of “their” turf. All this blather about parsimony and I/D/etc. (combined reasonably of course with the pragmatic understanding that we won’t really act on that) merely serves to recycle the pretense of principle and the objective. To offer us a glimmer of reality so that the explosion of simulation is somewhat palatable. Yet these neatly formulated – damn near parsimonious in fact – witticisms have the resulting virtue of being neatly categoricalizable. These ideologies through the pretense of C’s logico-rationalist rhetoric or P’s slippery panegyrics try to break the corrupted orbit of ideology. To escape the inescapable gravity of the interplay of signs; neglecting (despite P’s ever more desperate cries) that they fundamentally break from reality – at best faded copies of a copy. No suture, no matter how elliptically nifty will heal the void. So the blind faith in good reasons (not to mention in parsimony and the false triad of induction, evil gods, and miscellaneous etcetera) perversely prevails in the fetishization of its own destruction. Whose explosion merely serves to hide that in the shadow of these ever more towering pinnacles of intellectual hot air, the discussion’s false idol was hidden all along.

Photos
Videos
Activity
Tweets

Follow @cmcforum

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Rationality

More posts by Patrick Atwater »

Patrick Atwater