a literal "god" in a metaphorical interpretation of the religion?

i'm sorry i haven't replied in a while. i've been busy.

i would like to return once more to the idea of false negatives/positives. i don't think it's fair to say that it is something only scientists do. we are always doing it. if we had to consider every possibility we would be unable to speak. it's just not practical. when you make assumptions, you are bound to make errors some times. and when we do, we adjust our assumptions.

i can see how "god" theories can be seen as an alternative when assumptions aren't working. as is the case in unavailable medication. however, the thing is that assumptions don't usually have to be adjusted that much. the assumptions that would lead to available medication are probably a slight variation of assumptions. "god" theories is such a departure from this ("god" theories is more like "improbable" cause). that in my opinion would need quite a strong justification. so statements like:

don't give much confidence. there may be quite a few more advances efforts in "god" theories were instead focussed on more realistic theories.


when i said:

i was responding to:

i did not suggest either-or. i had not mentioned anything about science in the discussion until you did.

 

Certainly it's not something only scientists do, but scientists specialize in it. Errors can be made either way.

I don't see what's so unrealistic about God. And "give much confidence" to whom? I find our existence, our consciousness, the universe we live in, etc., to be highly improbable. Yet here we are--either as a result of a fluke or series of flukes, or as a result of something wonderful we don't understand. It's all the flukes that seem to me to require strong justification.

i had not mentioned anything about science in the discussion until you did.[/QUOTE]You were talking about predictions. Science does that well.

 

if they specialize in making predictions then wouldn't you expect less error?

to me. but it should not give much confidence to anyone (rationally).

i tend to agree with the assumption that unknown causes have a low probability of existing, as a method of operation at-least. but, it looks like you already have the assumption that "god" is in a special category that does not require justification. "god" is bigger a fluke. it requires more assumptions (Occam's Razor). i am suggesting that, the only way to get around justifying "god", is to completely trivialize it. (ex: "god" = good, "god" = everything, etc)

i was just talking about making predictions. and you seem to want to attach science as an institution, as baggage.

 

How is everything trivial? Something is not everything but everything is something. The something of everything I think you miss.

 

i did not say that everything is trivial. i said that "god" being everything, is trivial.

 

Everything being god is not trivial, you miss the something of everything.

 

Type I error, yes; Type 2 error, no. Fewer false postives. More false negatives

That's where we differ. God is big in many respects, but as an explanatory hypothesis (S)he isn't obviously more improbable than an astronomical number of flukes. As Davies explains, our natural universe "is not just any old concoction of entities and forces but an amazinbly integrated "unified mathematical scheme." Astrophysicists Brandon Carter, Bernard Carr, and Martin Rees have compiled a long list of "lucky" accidents or coincidences that led scientists like astronomer Fred Hoyle to conclude that the universe looks like a "put-up job." I don't think Occam would find it more objectionable to accept all the flukes as amazing brute facts of nature than to posit intelligent agency.

God doesn't need to be justified. I think our bets should not be contrary to the available evidence and should be supported by substantial evidence amounting at least to reasonable suspicion. In my estimation (which is the one that counts for me), I've just done that.

Not at all. Science is a wonderful institution, and the best we can do in acquiring reliable knowledge. I was just pointing out its boundaries.

 

you seem to have trouble accepting the possibility of trivial relationships between non-trivial things.

 

this sounds very ambiguous/meaningless

is there really any reason to discuss any further? you have just shown your closed-mindedness. if you are not making justifications for your point of view, then just what are you doing?

so first you say scientists specialize in making predictions, and now you turn around and start complaining. anyway... you are basicly saying that your "god" theories have less false negatives than science does, and that you specialize more. what about false positives in "god" theories? you have so far only mentioned the "results" of scientists. where are your own? what good are theories that don't require justification. this seems childish. false positives and false negatives are just 2 sides of the same coin called reliability. those invloved with "god" theories simply put less effort into mitigating errors. how often do "god" theories directly resulted in medication improved medication?

even so. there is a difference between the existance of rules governing the universe and the existance of intelligence governing the universe.

intelligent agency requires more assumptions than brute facts of nature.

the lack of evidence of one assertion does not make another true (excluding trivial cases).

again, why bother talking to me then?

with other words, your "god" theories are doing a lesser job in obtaining reliable knowledge.

 

You seem to care, more or less.

 

I hope I'm not one of those trivial things

 

Personally, I prefer facts and verifiable evidence to metaphors, hearsay, and books written by unknown authors.

 

Fact is a metaphor. What is gleaned from books is the labor of the reader.
Verifiable means seen for yourself. As far as hearsay, no one moves my diaphragm but me.

 

From my dictionary:
FACT:
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.

METAPHOR:
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

VERIFIABLE:
1. to prove the truth of, confirm; substantiate: Events verified his prediction.
2. to ascertain the truth or correctness of, as by examination, research, or comparison: to verify a spelling.
3. to act as ultimate proof or evidence of; serve to confirm.

HEARSAY:
1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge.
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor.

I was under the assumption this is what those terms meant. Sorry.

 

Possibly, but it came from you. You said that God was bigger than flukes so (S)he required greater proof. I was responding to that, so I used your term in the lead in.

Explaining it.

Who's complaining? Science does what it does well. It's not "complaining" to point out that it can't do everything. False positives and false negatives are staples of statistics. If you insist on rigorous evidence before accepting anything as valid, you risk not accepting something that could save your life. God theories don't result in medication, but believers think they're good medicine--and they do seem to be correlated with better health. Not that that would be a reason to think they're "true". What do you think about history? There are those who agree with Henry Ford that "history is bunk" and certainly when we're dealing with antiquity sources are shaky. Virtually every Greco-Roman document is problematic. Did Socrates exist? Our best source is Plato, who is also our source for the Lost Continent of Atlantis. and we don't have a single original manuscript of Plato's--only copies of copies of copies of copies. Aristotle's greatest ethical writing, the Nichomachean Ethics, is based on his son's lecture notes. Do we then cease talking about what ancient figures thought? If you hold up the standard of scientific proof, the answer would seem to be yes.

And how much can we really rely on empirical knowledge? In The Problems of Philosophy, Bertrand Russell asks whether or not we can be sure of the existence of an external world:
"for if we cannot be sure of the independent existence of objects, we cannot be sure of the independent existence of other people's bodies, and therefore still less of other people's minds, since we have no grounds for believing in their minds except such as are derived from observing their bodies. Thus if we cannot be sure of the independent existence of objects, we shall be left alone in the desert--it may be that the whole outer world is nothing but a dream, and that we alone exist." And he concludes;"although it cannot strictly be proved false, there is not the slightest reason to suppose that it's true."(Italics added) Now there's a false positive problem for you! Santayana solves it by what he calls "animal faith", and I think that's the best we can do. You could be a figment of my imagination, but I believe in you, guy!

Right. But given the fine tuning involved with the rules, one is not unreasonable in suspecting intelligence, since it's the closest analogy we can find in our experience. Note the phrasing: "not unreasonable in suspecting."

I don't think so. If I came across a house that seemed to be architecturally well-designed, I'd be more inclined to think that an intelligent agent, even an alien from outer space, built it than that it developed by blind natural processes over gazillions of years involving tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, blizzards,rain, accretion, etc.; or that in parallel universes these forces produced some really shitty structures, but in this one, this structure happened to be the lucky exception. I could be wrong, but just saying. Hoyle gave the analogy of a tornado in a junk yard producing a 747 jet. Of course Dawkins pointed out that the "blind watchmaker" of natural selection can produce some pretty fancy stuff, which it can. But this isn't evolution of living things we're talking about. It's the laws of science themselves. Maybe something like natural selection or something just as cool that we don't know about yet is responsible. But we don't know that.

Who said it did? I don't know which assertion is "true", only which one I'm prepared to bet on.

Good question. I post to clarify my own thoughts, exchange ideas and get feedback which might be useful in revising them. And its no bother at all. I enjoy it. Why do you bother talking to me?.

I don't think any god theory produces reliable information, but I rely on mine to get by in the absence of a better alternative. As explained, for all its accomplishments, I don't think science is likely to fill the knowledge gap in the same areas god theories do, although there are intriguing developments in MRI studies in "neuro-theology" by scientists such as Dr. Anthony Newton at the Thomas Jefferson Hospital.

 

Not at all. That is what those words mean, by themselves.

The facts of a holy scripture are necessarily stated in metaphor because the phenomena they deal with are abstract in nature.

It is no matter that a books author be anonymous as it speaks to the reader regardless.

I prefer understanding the relevance of fact for we are never upset by a fact but the interpretation of fact.

Of course it is legitimate that you have preferences. I agree that hearsay
is no substitute for experience. And as far as verifiable, what satisfies some may not satisfy you. You are the final and first arbiter of what you count as true.