© Chris Port, 23rd May 2011
The following comment was posted yesterday on Blog #246: Avowed Atheism versus Deputized Deism: God, whatever He is (or isn't) is certainly a sense of humour...
"God(?), I hate philosophy. You've focused on a helpful, yet ambiguous label like 'atheism' and amplified it into a debate about belief, science, and chairs.
I look at the word 'atheism' and see nothing but a negation of 'theism'. It's as much a belief as any null hypothesis."
* * * * * * * *
I have today posted the following reply:
Thanks for your comment Adam. It exemplifies much of the sloppy thinking going on in the atheist camp which does the cause of science (which I share) no favours. For this reason, I’ve used it as a case study and publicized a brief (by my standards) reply as below:
Philosophy is “love of wisdom”. So when you say “I hate philosophy” what you’re actually saying is “I hate wisdom”. That much is evident. Why do you think that this prejudice is of any interest or relevance?
I’m guessing that you’re a reductionist. Wittgenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein) initially asserted that all philosophical problems arise because of a misuse of language. In his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus) he claimed that the world is the sum of ‘facts’, that thoughts are an attempt to picture the atomic world, and that language is an attempt to express this picture. All else is nonsense. “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”. Bertrand Russell described Wittgenstein as the most perfect example of genius.
Wittgenstein then completely changed his mind (see Philosophical Investigations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations). He realized that (unlike maths) language is not fixed. I would caricature his later position as “Language is as language does”. This means that communication is always context-specific, and the real task of philosophy is to analyze and clarify the ‘language game’ being played.
For example, do you understand what is going on here?
“There is no language where a double positive can form a negative.”
“Yeah, right.”
If you wish to reduce semantics to a null hypothesis (inadvisable, but you’re welcome to try) then which particular hypothesis are you trying to falsify? Which phenomena are you measuring, what type of data are you using, and what relationship are you considering? Hence a chair…
The language of science is good for doing science. It’s not good for talking about good and evil, and has nothing to say about meaning. If you blunder into a language game using the wrong language, you’re going to look foolish. I’m sure that you’re more intelligent than your comments suggest.
Put more simply, do you know what you are talking about? (The answer, by the way, is “No”). I suggest you do some reading and thinking. Come back when you know what you’re talking about.
Some useful reading:
The 'Meaning' of Life (Emergent Properties)
Can Science Answer Moral Questions?
Some Notes on Schrödinger’s Cat
Beware 'Common Sense'...
Marty Solves One of the Problems of the Universe
Epistemological Debate Map - Probability, Statistics and Bikinis
Two parting thoughts to take with you.
1) Wittgenstein claimed to view the world from a religious perspective, while being non-committal about religion itself. (“Make sure that your religion is a matter between you and God only”.) I think it probable that he experienced a ‘crisis of faith’ from which he never really recovered. His solution to the ‘problems of life’ was that the problems disappear when we die. What meaning you wish to take from this is up to you.
2) Wittgenstein claimed that “A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes.” If you can come up with a good joke, I may take your opinions more seriously.
Here’s a good joke about religion…
I saw a man about to jump off a bridge.
"Stop!" I called. "Don't do it. There's so much to live for."
"Like what?" he asked.
"Well... are you religious?"
"Yes."
"Me too! Christian or Buddhist?"
"Christian."
"Me too! Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too! Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Me too! Original or Reformed?"
"Reformed."
"Me too! Reformation of 1879 or 1915?"
"1915."
So I said "DIE HERETIC SCUM!" and pushed him off...
Put more simply, it's not really about "Yes" or "No", is it? ;)
Mitchell and Webb: Does God Exist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUbjpwyesk0
Mitchell and Webb: Does God Exist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUbjpwyesk0
See also:
ReplyDeleteThe ‘God’ Measurement. “It doesn’t really matter, does it? I think we’re both talking about the same thing…”
http://martygull.blogspot.com/2011/05/chris-port-blog-259-god-measurement-it.html
Were the scope of your definition of 'Philosophy' not erroneous, it could still not be said that I hate "wisdom", only that I hate "love of wisdom". Even this is a more reasonable position than the strawman you've erected, since love is irrelevant to the importance of wisdom. However, I would reject this definition as an etymological fallacy.
ReplyDeleteThe null hypothesis to which I refer would attempt to falsify any positive claim regarding the influence of a god over natural phenomena. In the absence of evidence for such a claim, all we're left with is an atheistic position. This requires no affirmative belief.
P.S If you wish to sit down, a chair CAN just be a chair.
Thanks for your follow-up comments Adam. I suspect from your tone that this is not so much a Platonic dialogue as the law of diminishing returns, so please take note of my request for a decent joke…
ReplyDeleteIn response to your criticisms:
(Instalment 1 of 2)
‘Scope of definition’ and ‘erroneousness’
There are many working definitions for philosophy. Etymological origins are often a useful place to start, but not an interesting place to finish. My own favourite working definition of philosophy is ‘thinking about thinking’. I like this definition because it clarifies a common misconception. Philosophy is not so much a SUBJECT for study as an ACTIVITY in its own right. Philosophy is something we DO. It is not the study of wisdom but the act of becoming wise.
The extent to which a philosopher ‘acquires’ wisdom (a profoundly arguable and, I would argue, UNMEASURABLE concept) depends upon the extent to which they engage with the activity. That is why I regard scientific reductionism as unwise when applied to the wrong ‘language game’.
A good scientist is a sceptic, plodding methodically towards a ‘Promised Land’ of positivist certainty. They view semantics with suspicion as quicksand.
A good philosopher knows that this ‘Promised Land’ is a myth. The journey never ends (and even if it did we would only find more quicksand there). Thinking always brings its own quicksand.
Leaping with surreal quickness from the ‘desert of the real’ to the sea of politics, philosophers are the ultimate boat-rockers. That is why people in sinking boats are so intolerant of thinkers. This metaphor has some worrying implications. The more people shout down sophists (in the pre-Socratic sense) as specious (in the post-Socratic sense) the more likely it is that we’re in trouble…
‘Hating wisdom’ and hating ‘love of wisdom’
Is there any meaningful difference here?
If we replace ‘wisdom’ with ‘money’, then yes there is. I would ‘love’ (be very pleased) to have money to do ‘good’ things in the world. So I do not hate money.
However, many of the ‘bad’ things in the world seem to be attributable to some people valuing money over human beings. I ‘hate’ (am deeply unhappy and angry with) this state of affairs.
So it would be correct to say that I do not hate money but that I do hate the LOVE of money. In this language game, the two phrasings are not equivalent.
Returning now to wisdom (deep understanding) is it possible to hate the ‘love’ of wisdom while not hating wisdom? I think not.
Clearly wisdom is not the same as money (although the pre-Socratic sophists would argue otherwise). Money has no inherent moral worth. It can be put to good use or bad use. It is a means to an end.
The ‘love’ of money is valuing the means ABOVE the end and is thus a ‘bad’ thing. That is why people tend to envy wealth but despise misers.
However, in the case of wisdom, the means IS the end. Deep understanding may be put to good use, but it is also regarded as inherently valuable in its own right.
Therefore, I would claim that the two phrases ARE equivalent. It would be contradictory to say that one hated the ‘love of wisdom’ while ‘loving’ wisdom itself. Philosophy is the ACTIVITY of becoming wise, not the POSSESSION of wisdom.
Therefore, if you say that you hate philosophy, you are claiming to hate the activity of becoming wise. Since the activity is the wisdom, this is equivalent to saying that you hate wisdom. I stand by my abbreviation.
Wisdom and money (or whatever other term you may wish to substitute) are different language games. The rules of grammar and logic may be pseudo-fixed or repetitive (although they do evolve) but meanings can change in an instant depending on the context.
(Instalment 2 of 2)
ReplyDelete‘Love is irrelevant to the importance of wisdom’
This statement is so stupefyingly crass that I think I’ll just quote Richard Feynman then leave you to find out a bit more about life…
“Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is.” (Richard Feynman)
“Tell your son to stop trying to fill your head with science - for to fill your heart with love is enough.” (Feynman)
“Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don't think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn't stop you from doing anything at all.” (Richard Feynman)
‘Straw man’
Abbreviation of pedantry and unfair caricature are not the same thing. On the grounds of the above elaborations, I reject the ‘straw man’ accusation and hold his mirror up to your own scant critique.
‘If you wish to sit down, a chair CAN just be a chair.’
A chair is a chair is a chair. But is it JUST a chair? Look at it more closely, and the ‘chair’ disappears. It’s ‘just’ atoms. Look at atoms closely… and you’re looking at a very different ‘reality’…
A chair may be used in various ways, but is primarily designed to be sat upon. Is this the same as claiming that design, utility and ontology are equivalent? Be careful here. This line of argument can get you into philosophical quicksand quicker than ‘God’.
If a chair is used for another purpose (e.g. standing on to change a light bulb) is it still a chair? I would say yes because I still recognize it and label it as such. So does that now mean that a chair isn’t defined by its use but by its FORM? This can also get you into all kinds of philosophical difficulties.
The real focus of the ‘chair’ example is not the chair itself, or the various uses to which we can put it, but the ‘truth’ of the chair - in particular whether ‘truth’ is consistent (like maths) or context-specific (like language).
Chairs are a bit like language games here. Sometimes we just USE ‘the truth’ without thinking. Sometimes we think of different PURPOSES for it.
“The truth of any statement depends upon its purpose.” (Bertolt Brecht)
“There is no such thing as a fact. There are only stories. Choose different facts, and you get a different story...” (Marty Gull)
Beware of taking analogies too literally. It’s the THINKING that’s important, not the bloody chair. You can sit on the ground for all I care (although it wasn’t intelligently designed for this purpose…)
The ‘Null Hypothesis’ and the ‘Atheistic Position’
As I’ve said before, I’m guessing you’re a reductionist. Reductionism makes for good science but lousy philosophy.
See ‘category errors’ and God’s Null Hypothesis: The Banana Skin on the Pavement…
http://martygull.blogspot.com/2011/05/chris-port-blog-261-gods-null.html
As I’ve also said before, going by the reductionist pedantry of your observations, I don’t think you actually know what you’re talking about. In essence your language games are context-vague and boring. If I was a pre-Socratic sophist, I would charge you a fortune for some of the wise activities I’ve suggested. I would again suggest that you do the reading and thinking that I’ve indicated, then come back with some context-specific language games. Or at least come back with a decent joke ;)
From the The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (Official) Facebook page. A classic example of how empiricists can get themselves into trouble without metaphysical perspective...
ReplyDelete[Original post]: "I have just had a thought that may bear some examination and may be a problem for theists, though they will have a facile way out. It has just occurred to me that Mathematics is something that exists in effect outside of the universe and simply is. Completely immutable, absolute, existent before time or the big bang, defining everything there after, and built upon rock solid axioms. Like “god” Mathematics is eternal and self existent though sadly has offered no opinion as to how Noah should have built the ark."
[My reply]: The word ‘exist’ may be leading you astray here. Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change. It is overwhelmingly probable that these phenomena exist independently of our minds. However, mathematics is the study of the phenomena, not the phenomena themselves. Mathematics is the attribution of consistency in the mind. The universe itself is as indifferent to mathematics as it is to beauty. Without consciousness, mathematics would not exist.
[My response to a subsequent post that "the universe is mathematics made function"...]
ReplyDeleteI think that you may be falling into a classic teleological trap (getting things back to front).
Teleology is the supposition that there is purpose or direction in natural processes. To say that “the universe is mathematics made function” is to infer that mathematics preceded the universe, and that the ‘purpose’ of the universe is to give mathematics physical form.
I would argue that in reality it is completely the other way around. The universe came first. Mathematics is our expression of patterns that we observe in it. These patterns are relationships attributed by our minds, not inherent properties. The only inherent properties of the universe are the four basic force charges and the ways in which they interact with each other. Everything else in the universe is an ‘emergent property’ rather than an expression of function.
"... as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." ~ Albert Einstein.
ReplyDelete[Subsequent post: “Nice Google. Now, please explain how, if we are [individually] [making] mathematical truths, subjectively, how they are united into a coherent [objective] system."]
ReplyDelete[My response]: Because that's what we've designed the system to do. If it's not consistent, its not maths. You're starting to slip into Wittgenstein's 'category errors'.
Mathematics (unlike language) is specifically designed to be consistent and coherent. The universe, by existing, is coherent. The ‘laws’ of physics are consistent and (quantum theory of gravity aside) mostly coherent down to the Planck scale. To map a coherent system onto a coherent universe, then claim that the universe is somehow a manifestation of the system, is to confuse two different categories of coherence. They are physically unrelated. They just look similar. Fortunately, the consistency and coherence of our mathematical system enables us to make testable predictions about the consistency and coherence of physical systems. There is a ‘family resemblance’ concept at work here. But they are not the same thing at all.
[Subsequent post: “You didn't answer the question, my friend;)"]
ReplyDelete[My response]: I have answered it. I've just not answered it on the terms you've suggested ;)
Coherence gets more ‘fuzzy’ at the quantum scale. Quantum mechanics is the most consistently accurate scientific theory ever devised. Heisenberg was dismissive of attempts to understand what was ‘physically’ going on. As far as he was concerned, all that could be claimed about quantum mechanics was that the maths worked. The uncertainty principle, and the strange interference of measurement and even consciousness on quantum level 'events'/probability waveforms, are still profoundly incomprehensible to us. As a lyricist physicist, I derive a wry satisfaction from this. Maths is designed to be ‘perfect’, yet the universe (so far) eludes perfect notation. There is, of course, no such thing as an objective system.
[Subsequent post: “Great! Can't answer, so you pull the old QM card....gotta love it!"]
ReplyDelete[My response]: All roads lead to foam...
Although (strictly speaking) non-sequiturs, you may find the following 'family resemblance' posts amusing when pondering some of the discrepancies between numbers and 'reality'...
Marty Gull - Targets
http://martygull.blogspot.com/2011/03/chris-port-blog-130-marty-gull-targets.html
Monkey Dust - Government School Targets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLvDKI1T14Q&feature=related
One of my all time favourite slippery uses of philosophy. The Mob adapts the ‘Valjean Defence’ from Les Misérables (From The Simpsons - Bart the Murderer)…
ReplyDeleteBART: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
FAT TONY: Bart, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
BART: No.
FAT TONY: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
BART: Uh uh.
FAT TONY: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like... cigarettes?
BART: I guess that's okay.
FAT TONY: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
BART: Hell, no.
On the 'redefinition' of God...
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/MartyGull/posts/427795530610561