The BIG FAT THEORY of BIG FAT FANTASY

[ironchef texmex]

Was this the definition you were referring to, Texmex? If so, I'm not sure it really addresses the differences between faith-based and science-based theories.

It wasn't meant to. Definitions are very poor at proving things. They were given for context, nothing more.

And as for your list I'm sure that you could, in fact, go on and on, but it would probably be a waste of your time. The most that you would ever get me to acquiesce to is that none of the major world religions stem from ancient texts that also attempted to be science books. There is no picture of a frog's internal organs in the Ti Pitaka, there are no derivatives in the Quran, etc. You think that that puts them on a lower plane of thought? I don't.

No Dog, I spend a considerable amount of time in court and I have never seen a scientist or a priest called as an expert witness. They call psychologists, and I'm with Archen on this one, I don't think psychology is a science. If you want to claim it, you can, but you'd have six immediate problems since each of your criticisms of religion/philosophy, could just as easily (if not moreso) be leveled at psychology.

Oh, and about regress enders, I take it back. After nine years in my current line of work I never use the terms rational and society in the same sentence anymore.


"In philosophy, for instance, Plato is almost as relevant today as he was thousands of years ago. We feel comfortable chuckling over Aristotle's 'scientific' theories, but we still take his philosophical points very seriously."


Of the four major world religions only one is really considered quaint in terms of its world views. Islam makes off-handed references to wave motion, and a number of other "good guesses". The Old Testament calls the world "a sphere", and once you realize that the word typically translated as 'days' in Genesis just means a period of time, then you have to admit getting the order right: plants, atmosphere, fish, birds, mammmals, people, is pretty good guesswork for a bunch of 14th century BC. camel jockeys.

I'll try to find the list of books. I think it was in the review section of an issue of Scientific America, but I'm not at home at the moment to go digging.

Oh, and Archen, don't hold your breath waiting for two more towns to "spontaniously combust." It'll never happen... because it never happened the first time.

 

[Scott Bakker]

"Are you saying that 'faith' and 'knowledge' are one and the same thing? If not, then what do you think distinguishes the two?" No, I said they were different and then gave working definitions for each. If you take exception to the definitions, just let me know what your issues are.

This gives the impression you thought your definition covers the distinction, doesn't it? But now, regarding the distinction, you say,

It wasn't meant to [demonstrate the distinction]. Definitions are very poor at proving things. They were given for context, nothing more.

So in other words, I've spent three posts trying to figure out your understanding of the distinction between scientific theories and religious theories for no reason? You really got me scratching my head now, Texmex!

And as for your list I'm sure that you could, in fact, go on and on, but it would probably be a waste of your time. The most that you would ever get me to acquiesce to is that none of the major world religions stem from ancient texts that also attempted to be science books.

I'm not so sure you want to say this, since it suggests you're only interested in rationalizing the conclusions you already have, rather than engaging in any real critical examination of them. For my own part, I sincerely want you to show me where I've gone wrong, because it means I'll have a better position in the end.

There is no picture of a frog's internal organs in the Ti Pitaka, there are no derivatives in the Quran, etc. You think that that puts them on a lower plane of thought? I don't.

The latter part of this is just foot-stomping. I already know you don't think this; it's your reasons why I'm looking for, and you've consistently avoided giving much of anything in this regard. Otherwise, if 'lower plane of thought' is taken to mean comparatively unreliable, uninformative, impracticable, irresolvable theoretical truth-claims, then yes, I agree.

I largely agree with you about psychology, by the way, which is why they make for problematic expert witnesses. Otherwise, what do you call forensic specialists: nonscientists? If so, then it's simply a semantic quibble, and I'll gladly redefine my terms accordingly.

Nobody knows whether there's a God, or an afterlife, or miracles, or truth to scriptural tales - and it seems an act of embarrassing hubris to claim otherwise. I think this is pretty obvious (but once again, I'm open to all arguments to the contrary). People have hopes. People have 'gut feelings' (which tend to vary depending on one's cultural background), but none of this is knowledge (which is why we use the word faith (which is typically defined in its most general sense, by the way, as belief without justification)). And it's no coincidence, I think, that innocents start to die when people confuse these beliefs with knowledge. It's the all important difference between 'facts for me' and 'facts for everyone.' For better or worse, science gives us the latter, and that's a remarkable difference from what faith gives us...

Lastly, this,

After nine years in my current line of work I never use the terms rational and society in the same sentence anymore.

gave me the hiccoughs I laughed so hard! But doesn't it underscore the larger point I'm trying to make? Absolute certainty, which we humans have a manifest weakness for, short-circuits rationality, and puts rationalization in its place. If you start from inviolable conclusions, then all you can do is scurry around looking for justifications after the fact: this is the opposite of reason, where you use the evidence to determine your conclusions.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Despite the disclaimers, No Dog, you seem to be the defender of science over philosophy/religion on this forum, so please tell me what your definition of 'efficacious' is, if you truly believe that science is efficacious and philosopy/religion is not?

How secure really are the premises of science? Don't scientists have to begin somewhere? The conclusions follow from, rather than precede the justifications? What about the premises? What about the initial basis of its certainty? What does that follow from?

Scientific theories posses explanatory power? Yes, to an extent, they do. Do they really explain thought? Do they really explain emotion? Do they explain more than mechanics? How efficacious or satisfying, for that matter, is it to know what generates brain waves? How could science ever explain the spontaneous generation of novel ideas?

Again, No Dog, I seem to be missing your point. When I try to understand what you are saying, I am left with an unsatisfying feeling, a kind of empty 'so what?' echoing in my brain, and those feelings just don't go away. Are you dismayed by the effects that science's advances have had upon the human spirit, or are you resigned to them? Possibly inured to them? Science has made so much possible and has helped us in many many ways. But it cannot explain what is not cognitive. It can tell us perhaps what is going on in the background that allows for emotion. But there is more to life and more to spirit than scientific explanation can exhaust.

 

[Erfael]

I would just put in that no matter how many "facts" science can throw at us, most scientists agree that it can never answer the deeper questions of "Why?" We can look at things and say that in our experiments things happen a certain way over and over again, but it can't even begin to approach the question of why they work that way. Not saying that this is necessarily proof for the theological side of things to be correct, but the science only goes so far.

Some of the higher level science at this point also expresses pretty clearly that things may work as in experiments only a certain proportion of the time, that proportion being an extremely large one -- if an experiment was done repeatedly from now until the end of conceivable (i.e. a finite amount, albeit very large) time, it would always produce the effects that we would expect. But newer science seems to imply that things don't have to happen that way. The way that the laws of quantum mechanics and such work, it is technically possible to walk through a wall, however small the chance.

Maybe I'm just rambling......

 

[Scott Bakker]

Despite the disclaimers, No Dog, you seem to be the defender of science over philosophy/religion on this forum

Well keep in mind that philosophy is my bread and butter - it's my own gig I'm raining on here. For instance, I consider my own theory regarding fantasy as a response to incipient nihilism to be comparatively unreliable, impractible, and irresolvable. But that's just the cost of doing speculative business - it certainly doesn't mean that philosophizing or theologizing are worthless, only that you need to be careful to qualify - that, and to never dismiss others outright.

Secondly, I think strawman arguments are an anathema; knocking down or dismissing caricatures demonstrates nothing. You gotta give the devil her due.

By 'efficacious,' I mean that science tends to allow us to successfully intervene in the world.

How secure really are the premises of science? Don't scientists have to begin somewhere? The conclusions follow from, rather than precede the justifications? What about the premises? What about the initial basis of its certainty? What does that follow from?

This is the standard philosophical 'attack' on science, and I used to beat its war-drums all the time, particularly in my Heideggerean days. Certainly science is as rife with assumptions and presuppositions as any other human institution, and these should be critically examined from a variety of viewpoints. It does not follow, however, that this places science on the same cognitive footing as say, philosophy or religion. This is the hidden inference that I used to buy into: science has presuppositions that only philosophy can adequately examine, therefore in some cognitive sense, philosophy must come before science. But this simply doesn't follow, and it certainly doesn't trump the fact that science tends to regularly produce reliable, efficacious, resolvable theoretical truth-claims, whereas philosophy does not. It would be like trusting a felon over a nun because the felon happens to know the nun's mother.

Scientific theories posses explanatory power? Yes, to an extent, they do. Do they really explain thought? Do they really explain emotion? Do they explain more than mechanics? How efficacious or satisfying, for that matter, is it to know what generates brain waves? How could science ever explain the spontaneous generation of novel ideas?

But science has already roughed the outlines of such an explanation, and the details are coming in at a terrifying pace. Are the explanations efficacious? Ask anyone taking SSRI's for depression. There's no doubt. Are they satisfying? Heavens no! And that's the crux of the problem. Just in the past few years we've seen the inability to concentrate (ADD) removed from the realm of character and responsibility and turned into a disability - which is to say, made into something physiological over which we have no control. Mark my words, within a couple decades we'll be talking about things like 'EFD,' or 'executive function disorder,' and it'll no longer be cricket to call someone a lazy ass because he or she can't help it, because of the way the command and control centres of his or her brain are wired.

And this is the problem: it ALL seems to come down to neurophysiology. You think you make choices? Hold on, because low-field high resolution MRI scans will be able to tell you what your choice is before you're even aware of making it.

I know this sounds extreme, and maybe I should be dismissed as an alarmist, but I really think we're witnessing a kind of science and technology driven apocalypse of the soul. We already have computer programs writing pop songs for heaven's sake! Everywhere science turns it roots out meaning and agency, replacing them with function and process - why should our brains, which are as much a part of the world as anything else, prove any different?

The one thing science can't seem to sink its claws into, the one thing that gives me hope for the possibility of rational belief in 'something more,' is consciousness. Are you familiar with the 'Knowledge Argument'?

That empty feeling, Gemquest, is precisely what I'm on about.

 

[ironchef texmex]

So in other words, I've spent three posts trying to figure out your understanding of the distinction between scientific theories and religious theories for no reason? You really got me scratching my head now, Texmex!

No Dog, if you want to continue this discussion would you do me the great favor of not inserting your own words into a quote box with my name on it. The distinction I was talking about was that of faith and knowledge, not faith-based theories and science-based theories. When you drew the synonym between knowledge and science-based theories you put in my mouth the exact thing I have been trying to argue against.

Another request is that you lay off the name calling. So far you have called my statements red herrrings, foot-stompings, embarrasing hubris, and laughable. I try to keep my posts light-hearted, but I'm having a difficult time staying good-humored at this point. Whether or not you find them constructive, the fact is that at the point I made them each argument was as completely thought out, insightful, and clear as I could make them. Devolving into name calling is a sign of weakness in a debate, No Dog. Not strength.

So far most of my arguments have come in the form of bringing into question the domain of science. The reason for this is simple; it's somewhat difficult for me to argue in the affirmative of a particular religion (namely mine, of course) when this site has rules against religious discourse. I try to be respectful of the policy by staying as vague on the topic as possible. But if, as you make it sound, the specifics would just be comic fodder for you anyway, then I suppose it's just as well.

You accuse me of not debating the given point, but at the same time you repeat questions that I've already given an answer to without ever challenging my answer.

"And it's no coincidence, I think, that innocents start to die when people confuse these beliefs with knowledge."

So Aldarion says as well. And I answered him with my statement that the notion of Absolutists being a short step away from murder seems odd if the 'absolutes' that are believed in are visiting old folks homes and giving alms to the poor. I would think the only danger could come with dangerous absolutes, not holding something to be absolute truth.

You certainly say that you want more than a 'scientific' way of looking at the world, but you seem adamant that there cannot be one. Your earlier comment on neuroscience strikes me in this regard:

"no one has come up with an argument even approaching the clarity and force of the case against intentionality (meaning)"

To be honest I'm sure you're far better read on this topic than I. I have always sort of dismissed it out of hand, purely for the reason that I gave earlier. Any argument on constructs in nature always seems to regress into begging the question, ie: The universe expanded from a single point, thus proving that there is no God. The universe expanded from a single point, thus proving the existence of God. The human genone uses lengths of DNA that are repeated throughout nature, thus proving that there is no God. The human genome uses lengths of DNA that are repeated throughout nature.....

In every instance the author betrays his or her own bias. Either there is or there isn't, and nature simply reflects that reality. What about your bias? You say that you believe that science is the problem. I don't think science is the problem at all. Science begins with a hypothesis and then attempts to prove it. If the evidence proves it, fine. If it doesn't, then you usually are left with the foundation for another hypothesis. Whether or not you believe this, one can do the very same thing with something like a belief in God.

Of course the tests and measures will all be different. It won't be anything you can measure with a ruler or observe through a microscope. But then the results will be far more germane to the realities of daily living. Science can tell you the coefficient of friction for two given materials, but it can't tell you how to resolve friction with your spouse.

Oh, and about the forensics people, we don't have any forensic techs at my department that actually have a degree in science (but they sure look like they all have one on CSI, don't they). So no, I don't call them scientists.

 

[Gary Wassner]

You know, as I read all of the posts and consider all of the arguments, it makes me realize even more profoundly that the universe is just so much bigger than we are!! Talk about God and about science, about relativism and absolutism, about good and evil, are all just attempts at understanding our place in this universe as best as we are able to. Science, though perhaps more efficacious on a practical level, is just one means of creating order out of the chaos, meaning out of the meaninglessness of our tiny moments of existence in the face of limitless space and eternal time. But so is religion and so is philosophy. Come to think of it, so is playing sports or becoming a nun, or running for president of the US! And, guess what everybody? SO IS READING EPIC FANTASY.

 

[Scott Bakker]

When you drew the synonym between knowledge and science-based theories you put in my mouth the exact thing I have been trying to argue against.

If that's the case then we've been arguing at cross purposes all along. Truth be told, though, I haven't a clue as to where you argue this distinction. The reason I used square brackets was to mark my interpolation. The only reason I put them in at all was to show you how I was reading your remark, so you could tell me if I was reading you wrong. They worked

Another request is that you lay off the name calling. So far you have called my statements red herrrings, foot-stompings, embarrasing hubris, and laughable.

Believe it or not, but 'red-herring' and 'foot-stomping' are actually quasi-technical terms (I use them all the time in my informal reasoning classes, which has likely deadened my ear to their other senses). They're meant to be descriptive, not derogatory. I apologize for any insult they might have caused. As far as 'embarrassing hubris,' if I remember correctly I was referring to people who pretend to have actual knowledge of the list I gave - not to you, Texmex (you asserted it was a matter of reasoned faith, and you've acknowledged they're different - you just won't tell me how! )

I have no idea where I refer to anything you say as laughable.

I've been having a blast debating these issues, Texmex! Please believe me. And please give me the benefit of the doubt when you think I might be slandering you! In fact I'm quite dismayed and bewildered that things have come to such a pass! You'll find no bigger opponent of ad hominem attacks than me!

That said, I do realize that I've been thoroughly 'institutionalized,' and that the norms that govern polite critical interactions between philosophers are not the same as the norms that govern like interactions between nonphilosophers. When something sparks my interest - as this exchange has - I know from past experience that I tend to fall back into the former mode. I am sorry, Texmex.

You accuse me of not debating the given point, but at the same time you repeat questions that I've already given an answer to without ever challenging my answer.

I need examples. It seems to me that I've been quoting and replying to large tracts of your posts, and that you seem to be shifting gears everytime. I mean, I still have no idea where you address the cognitive difference between knowledge and faith, scientific theories and religious theories. I'm willing to accept this is an oversight on my part. Just show me where, and I'll respond.

Any argument on constructs in nature always seems to regress into begging the question, ie: The universe expanded from a single point, thus proving that there is no God. The universe expanded from a single point, thus proving the existence of God. The human genone uses lengths of DNA that are repeated throughout nature, thus proving that there is no God. The human genome uses lengths of DNA that are repeated throughout nature.

Actually, all this demonstrates is that none of these things warrants any inference to the existence or non-existence of God (question-begging is different). But then this is yet another example of my global point. He or she stands beyond the pale of knowledge or 'facts for everyone.'

Science begins with a hypothesis and then attempts to prove it. If the evidence proves it, fine. If it doesn't, then you usually are left with the foundation for another hypothesis. Whether or not you believe this, one can do the very same thing with something like a belief in God.

I'm so pessemistic I don't think we can even do something like this with a belief in morality, let alone God. (And I blame science for that too! )

Even still, I'll bite: How would a hypothetico-deductive method demonstrating the existence of God work? And if it does indeed work, then why does it seem to lead only to facts of 'for me' variety rather than the 'for everyone' variety like, say, physics or genetics?

 

[Scott Bakker]

You know, as I read all of the posts and consider all of the arguments, it makes me realize even more profoundly that the universe is just so much bigger than we are!! Talk about God and about science, about relativism and absolutism, about good and evil, are all just attempts at understanding our place in this universe as best as we are able to. Science, though perhaps more efficacious on a practical level, is just one means of creating order out of the chaos, meaning out of the meaninglessness of our tiny moments of existence in the face of limitless space and eternal time. But so is religion and so is philosophy. Come to think of it, so is playing sports or becoming a nun, or running for president of the US! And, guess what everybody? SO IS READING EPIC FANTASY.

Here-here! The bottomline is that we don't have a bloody clue, but still we muddle along and make the best of all the tools we have. It just seems that some of them can't seem to turn any screws, and the one that does, appears to be building a coffin...

 

[Larry]

Here-here! The bottomline is that we don't have a bloody clue, but still we muddle along and make the best of all the tools we have. It just seems that some of them can't seem to turn any screws, and the one that does, appears to be building a coffin...

I still think you're more pessimistic about this than I am, but then again, what do you expect from a guy who finds discontinuities and collapses of world orders to be a positive step toward a new cultural creation?

 

[Gary Wassner]

You have been institutionalized, No Dog. But that's not as bad as you make it sound. You function in your world as you should, no doubt, and you use the vocabulary and the 'clinical' perspective that you need to use. It's just a bit different from what people who are not immersed in academic pursuits on a daily basis might utilize. I was also a Philosophy teacher. In fact, while I was working on my doctorate I taught Phenomonology as well as Medical Ethics! Nice combination, right? That's why I said I was a bit schizophrenic before. But 19th century continental philosophy was my area of choice. I could barely speak with anyone outside of my department after a while. When I found that I couldn't even speak to them any longer, I left academics.....

Take a look at these. Maybe one of them would fit in to your hypothetico-deductive proof: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm (LOL)

Or, try this one for a more serious attempt at a teleological proof:

The probability of the origin of life by accident is beyond all reason. To illustrate probability, we may line up two objects, "A" and "B" in two orders, AB or BA. Three objects may be lined up in six different orders. (The formula for calculating the number of ways n objects can be arranged is 1×2×3×4 … ×n, called n factorial or n!.) For four objects, the number of ways is thus 24, for 5 objects it is 120 ways, for 10 it is 3,628,800, and for 15 it is a little over one trillion (1 followed by 12 zeroes, or 1012), for 20 it is a little more than 1018. Now, what is the point? A cellular enzyme molecule in a modern cell consists of a chain of some 100 to 500 amino acids, of which there are 20 or so kinds in living systems. Calculating the probability of a functional enzyme happening by chance out of the supposed "prebiotic soup" of randomly-occurring organic chemicals is more complicated than the n! used in the examples above (which assumes n kinds of items arranged n at a time), because in an enzyme there can be repeated amino acids and there are more than 20 places in the chain to put the 20 amino acids. Molecular biologist, Michael Denton, generously estimates that there is one chance in 1020 for amino acids to just happen to join up in the right order to form a simple enzyme molecule.8 Even if this did happen, we still would not have life, only a tiny part of a complete set of enzymes and DNA for a living cell.

Now calculate the chances of this one enzyme molecule somehow coming together with some 100 other required different but similarly improbable enzymes at the same time and somehow being enclosed by a membrane in order to hold them all together to form a living cell: the probability is less than one in (1020)100, or one in 102000. Compare this number (102000) with the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe. Now this must be a really a mind-boggling number! It is "only" 1080, cosmologists estimate.9 So one chance in 102000 is too infinitesimally small to be imagined!

Critics say "but there are billions and billions of planets out there!" Scientists are now finding that the universe is not as habitable as once thought, and that a life-friendly planet like the earth is rare indeed.10 But let us suppose for the sake of comparison that every atom in the universe is a life-friendly planet. Then the probability of life arising by chance on at least one of them is 1080 times as large, or one chance in 101920 (that is, 1 in 102000/1080). Is one chance in 101920 any more imaginable?

But the critics say, "You don't calculate the probability right!" They suppose that there would be billions of simultaneous trials going on all the time, and in their theory you only have to get one molecule that self-replicates (self-replicators do exist).11 You must not base your calculation on sequential trials, they say. However, because these long-chain protein molecules do not last long unprotected, abiogenesis requires the occurrence by accident of all 100 or so enzymes, plus matching DNA or RNA (the "blueprint" molecules which contain the code for assembling the necessary enzymes), all at once, in one place, within a very complicated membrane. Therefore we believe that the probability calculation stands.


Or, how about the 'first cause' or 'prime mover' argument?

 

[Bond]

Since I'm on vacation I haven't put too much effort into reading everything here but from what I've been able to skim through I'm not really sure where the argument lies. Is it simply the old hackneyed knowledge/science faith/religion divide? Then why not just refer to the basic canned arguements?

No-Dog what think you of Pascal's wager? I've heard someone say it is flawed but was never convinced by the so-called refutation. I presume most of you are also familiar with the famous debate between C.S. Lewis and Elizabeth something or other that kind of put a stop to Lewis's rational apologetics. I'm not that familiar with it myself so maybe someone here who is could review it and apply the results to this discussion and educate us all.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Hackneyed maybe, but it certainly stirs up the embers all the time. It does relate to this thread nevertheless, as we are forever trying to figure out what there is about Epic Fantasy that creates such ardent and passionate fans.

 

[Davis Ashura]

There are supposed to be at least 100,000 different proteins producible in the human body. Not all of them are produced at the same time or in the same quantities over time. But, these proteins constantly interact with one another and strange aberrations in them are found all the time . If there were a computer system complex enough to take 100,000 variables and interpret their exact position and action in relation to one another, what would be the difference between such a system a God?

 

[ironchef texmex]

I have no idea where I refer to anything you say as laughable.

Then I guess the hiccups went away pretty quickly. Good, those can be a real nuisance.

I need examples. It seems to me that I've been quoting and replying to large tracts of your posts, and that you seem to be shifting gears everytime. I mean, I still have no idea where you address the cognitive difference between knowledge and faith, scientific theories and religious theories. I'm willing to accept this is an oversight on my part. Just show me where, and I'll respond.

I thought you might need an example. That's why I included one directly below the statement... the thing about absolutism leading to fascist death squads. Feel free to respond at your leisure.

As for the part about my distinctions between science theory and religious theory, I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over on this topic, but since you don't see it that way, here goes: Knowledge is things known, and I'm saying that knowledge is intrinsic to both scientific and religious theories (mine anyway, as for third-world witch doctors, let them write their own posts). Science is different in that it attempts to understand the physical -- not the metaphysical. One can believe everything that is replicable in science and still hold religious beliefs. The two do not necessarily conflict. In practice I compare religious theory to the theories of medical science or biopsychology and say that the complicated nature, the inability to test and replicate under tight controls, has to do with the human element.

Actually, all this demonstrates is that none of these things warrants any inference to the existence or non-existence of God (question-begging is different). But then this is yet another example of my global point. He or she stands beyond the pale of knowledge or 'facts for everyone.'

No, it illustrates that some people can't write a book on the subject without inserting their own views. It doesn't mean that it can't be done. And while on the subject, I'm at home now so here's that list:

FOR A MATERIALIST VIEW
Consciousness: A User's Guide - Adam Zeman
The Quest for Consciousness - Cristof Koch
Wider than the sky, The Phenomenal Gift of Consciousness - Geral Edelman

AGAINST...
A Mind So Rare - Merlin Donald
Exploring Consciousness - Rita Carter

UNBIASED
Consciousness: An Introduction

Notice the last one.

Even still, I'll bite: How would a hypothetico-deductive method demonstrating the existence of God work? And if it does indeed work, then why does it seem to lead only to facts of 'for me' variety rather than the 'for everyone' variety like, say, physics or genetics?

It would look like alot like a blindman going flatline, and floating around the hospital until the doctors got his heart restarted, then being able to recount in detail, the appearance of the doctors and the hospital rooms as well as conversations in his room and others. It would look like people all over the world being successfully resuscitated and saying the exact same thing. Then here's the really fun part, It would look like... oh, I'll let them say it:
"Everyone of them reported seeing, usually at a distance, a person that they described as a religious "figure". This was true even for athiests."

Dr. Kubler-Ross ended her speech with this - "We now have factual support, replicated again and again, in hundreds of cases by different people. For me, there is no longer a shadow of doubt. I used to say 'I believe in life after death', now I know."

There's that knowledge word again.

And here's the really neat thing about this particular hypothico... you're going to get to take part one day. All of us will. You're going to float up out of your body and move toward a light. You're going to see a religious "figure"... no matter what you believe. If you go first, say hello for me. Oh, and have your questions ready. Maybe the "figure" is better at explaining than I am.

As to the last part of how can a fact be true for one person and not true for another, this again falls under the heading of requiring too much religious detail to be appropriate for the site, so I'll leave you with this - IT CAN'T. A fact is either a fact or it isn't. If two people disagree on something and it's clearly a thing that is either one way or another, then at least one of them is wrong. They can't both be right.

 

[Scott Bakker]

Gemquest: Arguments referencing the anthropic principle leave me scratching my head (though I openly admit, this isn't familiar territory for me). The odds (and note we have the same problem of interpretative underdetermination, here - you literally could argue the 'true odds' until the end of time) could be ten times, a hundred times, more unlikely, and they still wouldn't warrant any inference to any creator. For the holder of the winning lottery ticket, it's always tempting to think there must be a reason they had won - we're hard-wired to think in exceptionalist terms, remember. (I think this has a lot to do with epic fantasy's appeal, btw). Arguments like these simply appeal to our cognitive shortcomings, and really don't possess any logical force.

Remember Hume's dismantling of the Argument from Design, the seemingly straightforward inference from the watch to the watchmaker. Even if you concede the objectivity of 'design,' even if you concede the analogy between human artifacts and the universe, there's nothing to warrant the inference to an intentional super-entity. It could be the universe was created on a divine assembly line!

The problem is the same as that Kant faces with his transcendental deduction. The conditions of possibility that you come up with depends upon your prior (necessarily underdetermined) interpretation of what those conditions make possible.

For my own part, since we humans have such a long history of deluding ourselves with flattering, self-serving beliefs, I'm more inclined to trust the ugly and troubling answers, such as the earth is not the center of the universe, humans are not the pinnacle and point of creation. We are rationalizing machines - you only need watch the evening news five minutes to realize that.

But 19th century continental philosophy was my area of choice. I could barely speak with anyone outside of my department after a while. When I found that I couldn't even speak to them any longer, I left academics...

Was that a day-pass?

You did say 19th Century Continental!!!

 

[Scott Bakker]

No-Dog what think you of Pascal's wager? I've heard someone say it is flawed but was never convinced by the so-called refutation.

The problem is that it's evidence and not self-interest that warrants factual beliefs.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Yes, Hegel to Nietzsche. And no, that was not a day pass! It was a permanent divorce. I never went back. To be honest, it's hard for me to even think the way I used to any longer. When you leave a discipline that requires a specific form of critical thinking and analysis for a long period of time, it's very difficult to go back. I feel almost like and outsider when I read your posts, and though it's disconcerting sometimes, I am trying to make the best of it. I also used to speak and read German and French fluently, as it was necessary. Now, when I travel to Europe I am almost embarassed to begin speaking, I have forgotten so much. The vocabulary is the hardest to remember, and the vocabulary of philosophy is no easier. I have forgotten much of that as well. Sometimes now it really seems like another language.

 

[Larry]

I've been doing a bit more thinking on the issue of connecting fantasy (and especially in its epic form) to historical trends and events. I thought I'd start with a few proposals to see what you all think:

1) Fantasy is deeply intertwined with historical trends. It cannot exist in a vacuum, but instead tends to be a reflection of a society's attitudes toward its times and the events that have taken place.

2) There are two main fantasy traditions: oral and written. The differences between the two are key to understanding future developments.

3) What we call "fantasy" today did not exist as such until the 17th century at the earliest. The earlier world-views/orders tended to allow for more allegorical stories to be viewed as being as much "true" as anything else discovered by trial and error.

4) Despite its flaws, a modified Hegelian/Marxist model of clashing (and converging) entities might be the best approach for examining epic fantasy in a historical/cultural manner.

5) The forms of epic fantasy have stayed relatively stable, but the intents and interpretations have altered over the millenia.

6) When examining an epic fantasy, the readers' vantage points must be considered, from those who first heard the tales of Gilgamesh to those today who read it.

7) There is a big difference between hearing and reading a story, which can affect how we interpret its possible meanings.

8) Story meanings are fluid and in some cases are meant to be.

9) If one examines a story in a historical context, the possibility of "reading" the story/fantasy as being a social commentary increases.

10) Throughout times and places, the basic elements of what we now call epic fantasy have been repeated and/or reconstituted in a way that harmonizes itself to the tunes and patterns of the then-current age.

11) Epic fantasies tend to focus on the human condition in many various and subtle ways, many of which have been emphasized/de-emphasized over the millenia.


And that's enough for starter points for a discussion, yes? Some, if not all, of these will likely end up in my paper in some form or fashion. Needless to say, I didn't explain a lot of my reasoning behind choosing these, but that's in large part because I want to get people thinking and interpreting and writing their own answers/retorts to these.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Interesting thesis statements. I particularly am curious to read what you will write on #4. #6 is going to be very hard to adequately complete. How will you ever understand the perspectives of people from ages ago without specific written accounts to work from? 9, 10 and 11 are also very interesting to me.
What exactly do you see as so compelling in the oral/written distinction? I brought it up previously simply because today's youth approaches things so differently than in ages past (even decades past) by virtue of the flood of visual media that has supplanted other forms, to the extent that even music is a multimedia experience. But, what aspects of it do you see as important? How different is it really to read or to be read to, unless of course, as in ages past, most people couldn't read? Does this issue have the same level of importance as the others you have listed?

This is a much bigger subject than I think anyone here realized when we started discussing the issues.