"Do atheists hate the God...?"

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
“La plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas."

"The devil's finest trick is to persuade you that he does not exist."
―Charles Baudelaire, Paris Spleen
_________________

Thought Question for Suzianne and Ghost of a Duke: Does the devil exist?

The most recent version of your quote comes from The Usual Suspects, 1995, in which Kevin Spacey's character says: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."


Yes, of course the devil exists.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
If i don't believe in Superman old chap, it can be assumed that i don't believe in Lex Luthor.

Thanks, GD. Did you see Suzianne's reply on page 11?

Originally posted by Suzianne
The most recent version of your quote comes from The Usual Suspects, 1995, in which Kevin Spacey's character says: "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."


Yes, of course the devil exists.

That's a nice self reinforcing delusion/catch 22.

Either someone thinks the devil does exist, in which case the devil has failed to convince
them that it doesn't exist.
Or they think the devil doesn't exist, in which case they have been fooled by the devil.

In other words anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe has been deceived and
is deluded. And as you don't believe in evidence based beliefs this means your beliefs are
totally beyond challenge by anyone or anything because anything that anyone says or that
any evidence implies is disregarded as being delusional or a trick.

This is why you disregard the mountains of evidence that exist that show that eyewitness evidence
and personal experience are unreliable and useless as evidence for extraordinary claims such
as those for the supernatural. Even for those who have such experiences.


The truth is that the ONLY valid means of forming beliefs about the nature of reality is to use
the methods of science relying on evidence to build our theoretical models of reality that are
always temporary approximations and always under revisement and iterative improvement.

And of course, there is no evidence for either your god, or the devil.

So of course nobody should believe that they exist.

To do so is completely irrational.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
“La plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas."

"The devil's finest trick is to persuade you that he does not exist."
―Charles Baudelaire, Paris Spleen
_________________

Thought Question for Suzianne and Ghost of a Duke: Does the devil exist?

It's a pithy quote.

Of course if both god and the devil did actually in fact exist, then surely the finest trick
the devil pulled off is convincing the world that god does not exist.

Only a minority of the worlds 7 billion people believe in the Christian god after all.

And even then, that minority is split into thousands of factions with differing beliefs about
that god, and fighting each other over them.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That's a nice self reinforcing delusion/catch 22.

Either someone thinks the devil does exist, in which case the devil has failed to convince
them that it doesn't exist.
Or they think the devil doesn't exist, in which case they have been fooled by the devil.

In other words anyone who doesn't believe exactly what you believe has been deceived and ...[text shortened]... il.

So of course nobody should believe that they exist.

To do so is completely irrational.

Are you a logical positivist? I'm responding to the sentence "The only valid means of forming beliefs about the nature of reality ...".

Regarding the post following the one I've replied to, I'm not aware of any religious wars between Christians, over points of doctrine, for about three centuries.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Are you a logical positivist? I'm responding to the sentence "The only valid means of forming beliefs about the nature of reality ...".

Regarding the post following the one I've replied to, I'm not aware of any religious wars between Christians, over points of doctrine, for about three centuries.

Are you a logical positivist? I'm responding to the sentence "The only valid means of forming beliefs about the nature of reality ...".

After reading the wiki on logical positivism I would say no.

EDIT: if you feel like disputing that statement I would ask that you provide an example of a valid rational method
for forming beliefs about the nature of reality that does not rely on evidence and 'the scientific method'.
I argue that there are none.

Regarding the post following the one I've replied to, I'm not aware of any religious wars between Christians, over points of doctrine, for about three centuries.

Yes, because wars are the only kind of conflict, and the only possible meaning of the word fighting. 🙄

Originally posted by googlefudge
It's a pithy quote.

Of course if both god and the devil did actually in fact exist, then surely the finest trick
the devil pulled off is convincing the world that god does not exist.

Only a minority of the worlds 7 billion people believe in the Christian god after all.

And even then, that minority is split into thousands of factions with differing beliefs about
that god, and fighting each other over them.

Originally posted by googlefudge
"Of course if both god and the devil did actually in fact exist, then surely the finest trick
the devil pulled off is convincing the world that god does not exist."
__________________

Thanks for an objectively focused premise and rational conclusion based on logic. There's been an angelic conflict raging since time began within a garden
populated by one man and one woman: she was deceived while he made a conscious/willful decision to violate the only prohibition mandated by the person
who created them in this pristine environment. Why? To test his volition in keeping with a promise to the leader of the fallen angels in eternity past.

Eternity Past) --------------------------------------------------------- [time/human history] ---------------------------------------------------------- (Eternity Future........

Originally posted by googlefudge

Are you a logical positivist? I'm responding to the sentence "The only valid means of forming beliefs about the nature of reality ...".

After reading the wiki on logical positivism I would say no.

[i]EDIT: if you feel like disputing that statement I would ask that you provide an example of a valid rational method
for formin ...[text shortened]... cause wars are the only kind of conflict, and the only possible meaning of the word fighting. 🙄

Suppose someone makes a claim about the world on a matter that you hadn't thought about before. Their claim is P. On the basis of that claim you are able to derive a contradiction by purely deductive means. You then know ¬P without recourse to evidence. Although offhand I can't think of a good example of that.

Hawking said something about logical positivism being the "only true philosophy" recently, so I wondered if it had become popular. I imagine that either he intended to spark a debate, or is simply confused about what logical positivism is as Popper called his system "Critical Rationalism" and is normally described as a post-positivist.

Disagreement is not the same as conflict. If you use the word fighting in a group context I am entitled to interpret that in a military sense.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Are you a logical positivist? I'm responding to the sentence "The only valid means of forming beliefs about the nature of reality ...".

Regarding the post following the one I've replied to, I'm not aware of any religious wars between Christians, over points of doctrine, for about three centuries.

Logical positivism fails, at least in part, because its stated criteria for meaningful statements did not meet its stated criteria for meaningful statements. Googlefudge’s statement that you allude to seems an example of just that—

“The truth is that the ONLY valid means of forming beliefs about the nature of reality is to use
the methods of science relying on evidence to build our theoretical models of reality that are
always temporary approximations and always under revisement and iterative improvement. “

Is “the methods of science relying on evidence” the valid means here of forming belief about the valid means of forming belief about the nature of reality? Wherein lies "the truth" of this statement? Is it analytic or synthetic/empirical (surely it can't be analytic)? And, as we are not separate from the nature of that reality, neither, one could argue, are our methods of belief formation.

However, I suspect Google is just arguing for basic empiricism as the best (if imperfect) means of understanding the nature of reality.

But we again seem to revisit, if obliquely, the question of the knowable versus the true. That is, there may well be true propositions (about the nature of reality) that are (in this case, nomologically, not logically) unknowable.

Originally posted by vistesd
However, I suspect Google is just arguing for basic empiricism as the best (if imperfect) means of understanding the nature of reality.

Actually I think he is arguing that it is the only means of understanding the nature of reality. Where there may be some confusion is what constitutes 'the nature of reality'. I don't think he is arguing that empiricism can lead you to learn maths, or how to understand logic or even how to understand and practice the scientific method, or even to understand why the scientific method is useful.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually I think he is arguing that it is the only means of understanding the nature of reality. Where there may be some confusion is what constitutes 'the nature of reality'. I don't think he is arguing that empiricism can lead you to learn maths, or how to understand logic or even how to understand and practice the scientific method, or even to understand why the scientific method is useful.

Well, you might be right. But I would say that how we form beliefs about “the nature of reality” is also part of the nature of reality, and so his claim should apply to that as well. If that is an exception, what is the nature of the exception, for example? (Is it just pragmatic to exclude issues of self-reference, for example?)

He made a truth claim about “the only valid means of forming beliefs about the nature of reality”. What is the basis for such a truth claim, other than that very empiricism (as carried out via scientific method)? It does not appear to be a claim of logical necessity. So, if such a truth claim (and its justification for belief) is an exception—perhaps, as you might be suggesting, because it is not really within what he intended by “the nature of reality”—then what is the basis for the truth claim?

Once again, I want to paraphrase Niels Bohr: Whatever I might seem to be arguing should be taken as a question.

Logical positivism (at least in a strong form) held that a statement is only meaningful if it is either (a) verified strictly according to its terms (analytic), or (b) verifiable empirically. Popper showed that verificationism fails: simply, no matter how strongly the evidence points to the belief that “all swans are white”, there is still a nonzero probability that there can be a (as yet unobserved) non-white swan—the so-called “black swan” problem.

But, what I was after is that that strong claim itself is not meaningful according to its own criteria for verifiability (either analytic or empirical). That’s what I was reminded of by DT’s question to Google about whether or not he is a logical positivist. His claim seems similar to me.

But I might misunderstand what he was saying—and I did just take that post out of context for the sake of addressing just that point.

_________________________________________

EDIT: Upon reflection, I think I am focusing more on that word "valid" (especially with the strong "only" attached to it.) And by the criteria of falsification, the fact that I (or anyone else) cannot think of one, is not enough to validly support that strong claim.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, you might be right. But I would say that how we form beliefs about “the nature of reality” is also part of the nature of reality, and so his claim should apply to that as well.

I agree that how we form beliefs can reasonably be called part of the nature of reality. I disagree that his claim must apply to it. His claim need only apply to what he was referring to which isn't quite the same 'nature of reality'. I think a more reasonable approach would be to first clarify what he really meant, and then, if I am right, find some other appropriate words / descriptions for what is being described.

But I might misunderstand what he was saying—and I did just take that post out of context for the sake of addressing just that point.
I cannot speak on his behalf so let me make my own claims.
I believe that we are capable of understanding logic and able to reason. How we know this is not all that important to me, I just take it as obvious.
I believe that when investigating reality as in the structure of the universe, the laws of physics, how things work etc the only method that can be expected to work is the scientific method. Note that I am not including in this 'learning French' or 'studying logic' or even explaining why I think the scientific method works. I am referring to physical reality, and things that are to all intents and purposes unknown or arbitrary or random until we investigate and test.
I realize I am getting a little close to saying 'experimentation works on things that require experimentation', but lets run with that. Suppose you have a box, and you don't know what is inside it. No amount of reasoning or logic will tell you what is in the box. You are going to have to look. Now one possible alternative method would be to find out who made the box and ask them, but assuming that is not possible only the scientific method (look in side) is going to work.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I agree that how we form beliefs can reasonably be called part of the nature of reality. I disagree that his claim must apply to it. His claim need only apply to what he was referring to which isn't quite the same 'nature of reality'. I think a more reasonable approach would be to first clarify what he really meant, and then, if I am right, find some othe ...[text shortened]... m, but assuming that is not possible only the scientific method (look in side) is going to work.

Sorry, I made a late edit—but I don’t think it applies to your comments.

At first blush, I think I have no argument about your remarks re physical reality.

I often fail to be clear myself. But I think it is not wrong to challenge what seems to be a fairly clear truth claim as to its justification. I always do so with the possibility that I might be wrong, or misunderstand—and sometimes I neglect to add something like “If I understand you correctly . . .”. But that is not uncommon in the kind of non-formal discourse we engage in on here.

___________________________________

EDIT:

I disagree that his claim must apply to it. [My italics] I don't think that that "must" was anywhere in my post.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, you might be right. But I would say that how we form beliefs about “the nature of reality” is also part of the nature of reality, and so his claim should apply to that as well. If that is an exception, what is the nature of the exception, for example? (Is it just pragmatic to exclude issues of self-reference, for example?)

He made a truth claim a ...[text shortened]... that I (or anyone else) cannot think of one, is not enough to validly support that strong claim.

You correctly identified the reason I asked the question. It's the problem with that kind of statement. The other thing that Popper sensibly did was replace the term "meaningful" with "scientific", since his argument isn't actually empirically falsifiable. Not being scientific isn't a problem for philosophy of science since it's philosophy.

There's a bootstrap problem (the Munchausen trilemma from the other thread) with the claim that we can know anything at all (and I'm including knowledge how and acquaintance here) without empiricism, we have to learn to walk which requires interaction with the outside world and learn to talk, which means being talked to. So to gain the ability to make an innate knowledge claim we need to interact with the world. Baby giraffes can run within half an hour of being born, which means that they must have innate knowledge of how to run. One can see the survival advantage, so clearly innate knowledge is possible. But evolved innate knowledge still requires the interaction of the ancestors with the world (pace arguments about the age of the world), so even that is arguably empirical.

Even with logic there is the problem that we really don't know that that is the right thing to be doing. After all, it's all based on grammar. There's a formal language with a collection of axioms, which can and are disputed (c.f. intuitionistic logic), that give one rules for making deductions. However it is unclear to me what the justification is that the resultant conclusions provide us with truths about the world - I accept that they do, it's just not clear to me what the justification is.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Suppose someone makes a claim about the world on a matter that you hadn't thought about before. Their claim is P. On the basis of that claim you are able to derive a contradiction by purely deductive means. You then know ¬P without recourse to evidence. Although offhand I can't think of a good example of that.

Hawking said something about logical ...[text shortened]... ou use the word fighting in a group context I am entitled to interpret that in a military sense.

I have more to say but it's very late and this deserves more brain power than I can currently muster.
[although I will note that Twhitehead seems to get what I am saying pretty much, I like vistesd's posts
as well {as ever}]

But I want to post this response...

To know ¬P [I prefer ~P] requires that I know that the universe is logically sound.
Any logical argument that the universe must be logical is and must be circular because any such
argument must be based in logic.
The only way I could 'know' [inductively and probabilistically] that the universe is logical is to test it.
Thus the foundation of any claim that the universe is logical is an empirical claim, made by analysing
evidence and weighing up probability. [and there is the pragmatic choice that we can only make sense of a
logical universe and thus any attempt to make sense of the universe must first assume that it's logical.]

However, I suspect Google is just arguing for basic empiricism as the best (if imperfect) means of understanding the nature of reality.

Close enough for government work 😉


Also... Popper's falsification is a special case of Bayesian inference, A falsification represents strong evidence
against that proposed explanation. But you can still reasonably have evidence for or against a hypothesis absent
falsification. In other words Popper is too limited, and is superseded by Bayesian inference.