[Vision2020] Gary Larsen on one of today's headlines

[Art Deco]

R2P,

Your requested empirical observations for "...'tis folly to rely upon' ...":

All the wars, hatred, and hardships that religious belief has wrought today, yesterday, and through the ages.

Untestable (unverifiable) statement:  See Gödel's Proof, for one example.

Another:  The future will continue to resemble the past in predictable ways.

The above statement is relied upon us continually because, in practicality, we have no choice.  I do not think it can be proven without [1] assuming it in someway or [2] using other unprovable statements.  It is possible, however that this view will change in the future given new information, etc.

I certainly hope that the statement is true, at least in the short term, but I have no way of knowing that it is so and no method except to wait.

Here's another:  There are conscious beings besides myself.

Here's some more which most likely undemostratable by observation with any degree of reasonable probability:  Statements about minutiae which occurred in the past:  My great, great,...,great grandfather spit out a piece of walnut shell on the morning of the year end of 3400 BC.

The same can be said about much minutiae in the future.


Because of the nature of empirical demonstration, truth, rather probabilities, established by such means appears not certain.  There are always room for mistakes, ignorance, and methodology problems.  Even in logic, so-called eternal truths such as Aristotle's Method of Testing Syllogisms have upon closer investigation turned out to be in error.

As far as the truth of statements about a god go, I have pointed out below observations that would have probative value about the existence of god(s):

Even a periodic, straightforward, unequivocal, unmistakable demonstration of her/his/its existence/wishes/intentions would certainly be a more effective way to market its/his/her program. 

Even such a demonstration would not be completely probative.  Since, if such a being existed, her/he/its powers would most likely superior enough to ours that he/it/she could easily deceive us about its/hers/his nature and intentions.

The quasi-philosophical statements I make here (many in meta-language) are not certain.  Future events, information, and philosophical investigations may show them in error.  In the mean time, I will continue to believe them for heuristic reasons.  [See my remarks about going to the moon, etc. below.]

Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com






  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: R2Privacy 
  To: 'Art Deco' 
  Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 3:34 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Gary Larson on one of today's headlines


  Wayne,



  Could you please provide an example of an empirical test for your statement below?  And is there any TRUTH that is by its nature not testable?



  Thank you.



  R2P 



  "Whatever the meaning of any statement, except for esthetic/emotive purposes, if the statement cannot be understood in such a way that its truth, falsity, or probability can determined and applied, then 'tis folly to rely upon it,' whatever it means,."



  -----Original Message-----
  From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Art Deco
  Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 3:01 PM
  To: Vision 2020
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gary Larson on one of today's headlines



  Melynda,  Ron,



  Even statements like:



  "The square root of blue recrystalizes sodomy."



  can have emotional meaning and appear to have cognitive meaning and other kinds of meaning, if people use them often enough.



  To answer directly your question and request for an example:  common examples used daily like the one above, where people claim the statements are true, but can find no way to demonstrate their truth (or clearly explain their meaning without contradicting themselves and having to invoke the concept "mysteries"):



  "God is love."



  "Christ is God."





  However, the truth of statements like:



  "My house is located in Idaho."



  "Leather soles do not last forever."



  "The probably aren't any unicorns in Laird Park."



  "There exist many different infinite Abelian groups."



  are testable.



  So are almost all the claims in elementary physics books, for example.  We are successfully able to send persons to and retrieve them from the moon, find tumors with CAT scans, and establish property boundaries in Latah County by depending on the truth of these statements.  Therefore, those who are of the opinion of that the truth of certain kinds of statements are not testable by repeated observations are living in a fantasy world.



  Whatever the meaning of any statement, except for esthetic/emotive purposes, if the statement cannot be understood in such a way that its truth, falsity, or probability can determined and applied, then 'tis folly to rely upon it,' whatever it means, however comforting/reassuring it is, or whatever fantasies it helps to fulfill.  While you and I may share a set of ethical values, I do not need the unverifiable alleged approval/instruction of some alleged god(s) or other superstitious beings/forces to persuade me to act in ways I deem ethical.  Of course I have and do make ethical mistakes, but I try to find them and to correct them by observation, education, and reconsideration.



  Further, another test for the truth or falsity of a group of statements is logical consistency.  If a group of statements contain a contradiction (a falsity), then until I see an example of a true contradiction, I will continue to disbelieve/reject such combinations of statements.





  I repeat the dilemma for the thoughtful believer:  If our conduct and the attainment of an orgasmic eternal life is so important, if some alleged god(s) really love us and therefore want us to achieve/earn this alleged eternal life, then why the hell are the rules of achievement so fraught with contradictions, confusions, disagreements, disclarities, hatred/war generating elements, etc.



  Why is determining truth of the rules for behaving as some alleged god(s) desire toward our fellow creatures and thus attaining eternal bliss not as easy as determining the rules for building a bridge or successfully worming a dog (both of such actions would seem to be much less important than a attaining blissful eternal life), if some powerful, omnibenevolent god(s) are in charge?  You would expect this/these very powerful, beneficent god(s) would be able to write or cause to be written a clear Getting to Heaven for Dummies manual, instead of the raft of alleged, confusing, contradictory, fantastic, war/hatred generating holy books claiming to have the truth various people now believe.





  From an earlier post:



  Ron Smith says:



  "I say Christ is God. You say He is not. Christ being God is the cornerstone of my faith. By you saying He is not God, you are saying my faith is wrong. Don't feel bad about it. We can't all be right. That would be silly."



  Unintentionally perhaps, Ron has pointed to something that might be of significance to many of us:



  In Ron's faith and many other faiths, the only way to some alleged ecstatic, eternal life is by believing and affirming certain statements as true.



  My guess is that for many of the religious, an ecstatic, eternal life is the main event, allegedly infinitely paling anything and everything that occurs here on earth.  



  Isn't it a bit perplexing that an alleged omnipowerful, omnibeneficient God would present such difficult, confusing, yea contradictory instructions for achieving/earning such a coveted goal.  Wouldn't the hypothesis that this alleged God is either indifferent or diabolically sadistic be more consistent with the evidence at hand?



  Even a periodic, straightforward, unequivocal, unmistakable demonstration of her/his/its existence/wishes/intentions would certainly be a more effective way to market its/his/her program.  Instead we are left with a welter of confusing (the Virgin Mary allegedly appears on a grilled cheese sandwich), contradictory, indecipherable, intransigent, hate and war generating claims with not only rancorous disagreement, but worse yet, without no method, so far discoverable, to find the truth.  Again, this seems to support the hypotheses of either [1] an alleged god(s) of vastly different properties than those proclaimed by his/her/its earthly followers or [2] no god(s) at all.







  I am sorry my blunt statements offends you, because I believe that you and many other believers are thoughtful, ethical persons, but in the spirit of the citation from Mark previously given:  for me, good works are very important.  Conversely, I see giving demanded, slavish love to some alleged god(s) who is/are so weak that it/she/he/they cannot operate and judge objectively without that  "love as a ransom payment" as a pathetic, sick, (and grossly insulting to a powerful, beneficent god, if one  exists) belief.



  There whole thing sounds like a story made up by an ineffective/incompetent parent who can not earn love/respect but seeks to coerce it by lies, fairy tales, and brutal threats.



  Wayne



  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: "Melynda Huskey" <mghuskey at msn.com>

  To: <Vision2020 at moscow.com>

  Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 11:35 AM

  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gary Larson on one of today's headlines



  > In pursuance of Moffett's First Axiom, I'll wade in here (but I promise to 
  > keep it reasonably brief!).
  > 
  > Wayne writes:
  > 
  > "When searching for "the truth" it may be useful to understand that some 
  > statements are neither true nor false.  For example:
  > 
  > " 'The square root of blue recrystalizes sodomy.' "
  > 
  > "Just because words can be strung together in an apparently syntactically 
  > correct sentence doesn't mean the sentence has a comprehensible, literal, 
  > testable meaning."
  > 
  > This example demonstrates an interesting property of language:  it can be 
  > used to construct syntactically correct nonsense statements--thus allowing 
  > us to derive rules of syntax for individual languages, and even, 
  > potentially, basic principles about language itself.
  > 
  > Wayne goes on to say,
  > 
  > "In your quest for "the truth" you might watch out for these kind of 
  > assertions.  Religion, philosophy, politics, etc. are rife with such 
  > statements.  These assertions are generally recognizable by the practical 
  > impossibility of being neither unequivocally confirmable nor falsifiable or 
  > for the establishment of any significant probability of thier truth.  The 
  > latter two cases is often especially the case."
  > 
  > But here I believe you're drawing a false conclusion, Wayne.  There is a 
  > categorical difference between syntactically flawless nonsense sentences, 
  > which by their nature are not intended to contain meaning for speakers, and 
  > sentences which do not contain literal or testable meanings, but which have 
  > some contingent and deferred meaning for speakers.  Your implication, of 
  > course, is that such statements as "In the beginning was the Word" are 
  > simply nonsense, on a par with your "square root of blue," while other 
  > statements are verifiably true--say, "You just can't prove the existence of 
  > God."
  > 
  > As a student of post-modern French linguistics and theory, I have to smile 
  > at the notion that any language at all is literal or testable.  There is a 
  > certain naivete in the belief that some words are more literal than others.  
  > The free play of the signifier means that all meaning is contingent, 
  > endlessly dependent on a chain of connotations without any ultimate 
  > referents outside the system of language.  What seems quite demonstrably a 
  > fact contained in a literally true sentence to you is itself as subject to 
  > slippage, incoherence, and misprision as any prophetic utterance by Habbakuk 
  > or Nahum.
  > 
  > Secondarily, it seems to me quite dangerous to assert that language must be 
  > subject to tests of literality in order to be comprehensible.  Since there 
  > is no meaningful connection between a signifier and a signified, what can 
  > literality mean?  Inherent in the notion of literal, testable, language is 
  > the premise that some kinds of experience are more "real" than others, and 
  > that you or I can determine the reality of another person's experience by 
  > comparing it to our own.  I find both of these ideas nearly impossible to 
  > defend, owing to the circularity of the proof, "I experienced it, therefore 
  > it is real."
  > 
  > Hurrah for Derrida!
  > 
  > Melynda Huskey
  > 
  > 
  > _____________________________________________________
  > List services made available by First Step Internet, 
  > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
  >               http://www.fsr.net                       
  >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
  > 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050110/9b73ebc6/attachment-0001.htm