Explaining Reality

[rez]

I wanted to share a list with you guys that a poster on this messageboard has developed.

I find it to be extremely indisputable and quite simple to understand. It seems as though many of the theists don't really comprehend any of the atheists arguments, so I think it is time to change that. I think the best approach is to take baby steps and talk about "explanations."

It is a simple fact that religion attempts to explain reality. It is a simple fact that science tries to explain reality. And it is a simple fact that both explanations are in conflict with each other.

I would like to hear some intellectual theists try to take a stab at how science attempts to explain reality, and how and why religion does a better job at it. Answer questions 4 and 5 if you dare.

1) There is a universe.
2) We want to explain it.
3) There are many competing and conflicting explanations.
4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another?
5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

[Technosoul]

Here is one explaination.

YouTube - Prickles & Goo: Alan Watts Trey Parker Matt Stone South Park

Therefore, reality as the universe, is both spiritual and natural, mixed together.

Both explainable and mysteriously magical.

If you pick one and not both, at least you will be half way right.

[ryanatau]

What criterion should we use to prefer one criterion over another?

Inevitably all arguments can be analyzed to a core set of axioms that can only be accepted through an appeal to authority. So how do we judge which starting place is best?

[rez]

Technosoul it is bothersome that you don't even attempt to answer the two questions. Why is that? What is your malfunction?

I know you want to take both types of explanations into account, but the post was not really about that. It was about answering the very simple questions I presented to you.

[rez]

Quote by: ryanatau What criterion should we use to prefer one criterion over another? Inevitably all arguments can be analyzed to a core set of axioms that can only be accepted through an appeal to authority. So how do we judge which starting place is best?

There were two questions. Please respond to both of them, so that you don't repeat anything already said here. Perhaps if you answered question number 5 you would have never asked this question you presented.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: rez There were two questions. Please respond to both of them, so that you don't repeat anything already said here. Perhaps if you answered question number 5 you would have never asked this question you presented.

Four is as is above.

Question 5 depends on a normative argument. Whatever "should" is it will be defined by an answer to 4. The principle to tell us what we should do and whether our explanations should change depends on what we said we should do. Since I didn't give a real answer to 4, instead saying that the principles that we depend on have no provable being, I cannot answer 5. In other words, 5 depends on an answer to 4.

[rez]

Quote by: ryanatau Four is as is above. Question 5 depends on a normative argument. Whatever "should" is it will be defined by an answer to 4. The principle to tell us what we should do and whether our explanations should change depends on what we said we should do. Since I didn't give a real answer to 4, instead saying that the principles that we depend on have no provable being, I cannot answer 5. In other words, 5 depends on an answer to 4.

Whether or not something is "provable" has no bearing. This is about coming up with explanations that actually explain how reality works.


Something either works or it does not work. Just because it is not provable does not mean it can not work.

As a human being you are inclined to be a detective by using the clues around you, so you can make a sound and valid investigation. The investigation can lead to results or new discoveries that were previously unknown before the detective work. The investigation can also lead to no results and discoveries.

4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another?
5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

[ryanatau]

Quote by: rez Whether or not something is "provable" has no bearing. This is about coming up with explanations that actually explain how reality works. Something either works or it does not work. Just because it is not provable does not mean it can not work. As a human being you are inclined to be a detective by using the clues around you, so you can make a sound and valid investigation. The investigation can lead to results or new discoveries that were previously unknown before the detective work. The investigation can also lead to no results and discoveries. 4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another? 5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

I agree with you that "knowledge" is what works. I thin we agree, discovery though is not discovery of truth but of what works. Then the answer to four is the criterion we use it what works. And 5 is we should stick with it until it does not work or a theory that works better is found.

Though I believe what I wrote just now, it does not mean it is the only way to view the world or inquiry. For me the point of inquiry is to find a workable belief. However, there are other ways to view the problem and I do not think my view is the only one. There are many other judges other than workability because there is no way to judge the judge.

Here is a quote of what I am trying to say I think we actually agree: "one opinion can be better than another, though it cannot be truer."

[rez]

Quote by: ryanatau However, there are other ways to view the problem and I do not think my view is the only one. There are many other judges other than workability because there is no way to judge the judge.

What exactly does this mean?

[ryanatau]

Quote by: rez What exactly does this mean?

Sorry:

I mean workability is not the only way to judge an explanation. And there is no way to judge what we choose as the criterion for a good explanation (there is no way to say one way of judging explanations is better than another without using another way of judging and). So there is no way to judge the judge without creating another judge to judge. Basically, at some point we just have to say this way of choosing explanations is the best way because I think so.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: rez 4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another? 5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

I assume the point of the thread is mostly linked with these two questions.

The answer your trying to move everyone to is the acceptance of natural causes for everything as the standard accepted answer in every case. The result would be all people assuming everything has a perfectly natural non divine cause.

There can't be a standard explanation for everything because any type of explanation is dependent on the person making the call.

[Jack]

4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another?

The explanation that best answers the questions you have is the one you'll find most satisfying.

5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

As long as it continues to answer your questions the best. If another explanation comes along that provides more satisfying answers, I see no benefit in clinging to the old, inadequate explanation.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rez Technosoul it is bothersome that you don't even attempt to answer the two questions. Why is that? What is your malfunction? I know you want to take both types of explanations into account, but the post was not really about that. It was about answering the very simple questions I presented to you.

The malfunction is in how you asked the question. I do not hold the title of an intellectural theist who takes stabs at things. So why should I answer the two questions directly?

I will let the theist take their own stabs. No one asked me to do it.

Plus your question is somewhat dishonest, the question you are really asking here is "which theist wants to let me make a fool out of him/her by answering the question the way that I posted it". You think you have set a neat trap. Ha. I took the cheese but did not set off the trap. How about that?

Next time build a better mouse trap

If you wish to ask me some questions then do so, but remember that I am not a theist.

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime The answer your trying to move everyone to is the acceptance of natural causes for everything as the standard accepted answer in every case.

I am trying to get a theist to critically think. How does one solve a problem? How does one play detective? How does one use the clues? How does one investigate?

Quote by: HelioPrime The result would be all people assuming everything has a perfectly natural non divine cause.

There is no result. It is learning how to investigate. It is learning how to explain how things work and using that information to explain more unknown events.

Quote by: HelioPrime There can't be a standard explanation for everything because any type of explanation is dependent on the person making the call.

That is how it works in religious circles, but not scientific ones.

Here is how science works...

The preferable explanation should be explained with constructs that can either be directly or indirectly observed.

How else would one come up with an explanation?

The preferable explanation should predict as much of what we have observe as possible.

This is a tough one. Predictions must be made. And once they are made, do they turn out to be correct?

The preferable explanation should lead to the discovery of new phenomena

Well if the explanation is suppose to be fruitful, then it is suppose to yield results. You don't say this car can fly without showing people the car can fly, right? What good is a claimed fruitful explanation that does not provide any evdience that it is a fruitful explanation?

The preferable explanation should be consistent with other preferred explanations.

This is simple logic. You don't build a house with 5 different blue print instructions. Consistency and simplicity are the ways processes get accomplished.

And of course....

All of this should be done with as much honesty as the participants can muster.

Because what kind of mongoloid would want to be steered in the wrong direction? Why would people want to study information that does not actually provide results? Why would people want to study made up information?

[rez]

Quote by: Technosoul Plus your question is somewhat dishonest, the question you are really asking here is "which theist wants to let me make a fool out of him/her by answering the question the way that I posted it". You think you have set a neat trap. Ha. I took the cheese but did not set off the trap. How about that? Next time build a better mouse trap If you wish to ask me some questions then do so, but remember that I am not a theist.

LOL. I guess this would be an example of falling for the trap.
Can you or can you not problem solve? If you can problem solve, then please establish how you do so.

You can't figure out what makes a person a good detective and a bad detective? Please articulate your thoughts and answer the questions provided.

EDIT TO ADD: How are my questions dishonest?

1) There is a universe.

Fact.

2) We want to explain it.

Fact.

3) There are many competing and conflicting explanations.

Fact.

4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another?

There has to be a decision made at some point. If we never made a decision, we would of never landed on the moon, or designed the internet. There were conflicting explanations on how to land on the moon, but one explanation rose to the top. How?

5) When we have chosen an explanation should we stick with it?

Considering we landed on the moon a while ago, we have new methods now. Better ways of getting there. Pretty cool huh?

[rez]

Quote by: Isherwood The explanation that best answers the questions you have is the one you'll find most satisfying.

This is not about satisfying oneself. This is about answering the question, working out the predictions, and coming up with a solid explanation that explains a certain event.

The FBI detective would love to find the most satisfying answer, but he/she knows it doesn't work like that. He or she has to look at the clues regardless of what he or she wants to happen. Of course, he or she does not have to look at the clues and can infact make them up. But who on earth follows false clues? Who on earth likes getting the wrong answer and knowing it is the wrong answer?

P.S. Oh and, remember, there are other investigators on the case, just to make sure you don't make any slip ups.

[rez]

Quote by: ryanatau Sorry: I mean workability is not the only way to judge an explanation.

Well it either does or does not work. What would be the point in trying to explain something if the goal was NOT to explain something?

And there is no way to judge what we choose as the criterion for a good explanation (there is no way to say one way of judging explanations is better than another without using another way of judging and). So there is no way to judge the judge without creating another judge to judge. Basically, at some point we just have to say this way of choosing explanations is the best way because I think so.

"I think so" is not an action. There must be thought as well as action. That is the kicker. What good is thought without action.

If you think something, and you think that something is legit, then go and make it happen. Go and discover it, and show everybody.

[Domino]

My religion does not attempt to explain reality.

[rez]

Quote by: Domino My religion does not attempt to explain reality.

Your personal hopes and wishes have no place in this thread.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: rez Well it either does or does not work. What would be the point in trying to explain something if the goal was NOT to explain something?

The point is you might not see the value of one system over your but that is only because you believe it. Our beliefs create our standpoint to the world but our standpoint creates our beliefs. I cannot look at the world as if I were you because I am me. If you say it only makes sense to judge to explanations by their usefulness then that means that the set of you beliefs creates that viewpoint of the world. And further, that viewpoint makes it so you cannot understand any beliefs that do not fit it.

For me all I can do is trust that that is how you perceive the value of the world. That there is one good answer to number 4. I see many good answers to number 4 and yours is just one among many. All you can do is trust that I see the world from a different standpoint. Which of these standpoints is more valid is unanswerable because it requires a standpoint to judge a standpoint. However, once you have a standpoint your is always best.

"I think so" is not an action. There must be thought as well as action. That is the kicker. What good is thought without action. If you think something, and you think that something is legit, then go and make it happen. Go and discover it, and show everybody.

What good is that thought? It depends on what you want from an answer. If you want a definition and I say a kick is defined as that then that is a good answer. To say that thought is useless without action presupposes that the person thinks that a propositions usefulness is the utility is provides. I can say the best knowledge is the knowledge that serves no art (as Aristotle did in Metaphysics. I believe it is in part on if you want to check).

So there are different ways to look at the world. Different perspectives and aspects of the world. All of these perspective might well lead to an identity but that identity might very well depend on how you order you beliefs.