(February 6, 2018 at 5:47 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I'm not pushing fairytales or giving any gnostic position more credit than it's due. Simply saying that an unknown is an unknown.

I'd hardly consider the truth status of afterlife stories an unknown..so I'm not sure why it would matter that tautologies are true?

Quote:And just to use up the rest of my daily Socrates quote allotment, I will add that Socrates said "The only thing I know is I know nothing."

Then he doesn't know that's the only thing he knows, because he knows nothing.  Platitude.  

Quote:Obviously, Socrates knew something, but he kept his mind open--not to give fairytales consideration--but to ensure that he didn't cut himself off from the truth by forming prejudices.

All well and good, but I don't see anyone cutting themselves off from the truth by acknowledging it.  We do not survive our deaths (aren't tautologies still true, lol?), there is no afterlife. It's not an issue of likelihood or the unknown.

(February 6, 2018 at 5:39 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(February 6, 2018 at 5:27 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: I agree with the bold (my use of math and/or numbers was not the most accurate tool to demonstrate my point). I disagree with everything else, especially that certainty would be the most reasonable position, and here's why: agnosticism is where all investigations begin. I think you agree with this, right? You can't begin an investigation with a conclusion... a hypothesis, yes, but if you already have a conclusion, you won't investigate further. But after you find a reasonable conclusion, if you do not end with some degree of uncertainty, you cut yourself off from further discovery.

This "investigation" hasn't begun, it's been concluded.  Afterlives are fairy tales..explicitly, demonstrably..and self-establishingly so.  Nothing that we will one day learn will ever confirm those fairy tales because they were simply wrong...even if we are also, meaningfully, wrong...about something..not that you have any suggestions as to what that might be.  

Quote:Ptolemy had a model of the universe. Earth in the middle, sun circles around etc. etc.-- Then came along Copernicus who debunked the Ptolemaic model. But here's the thing: Copernicus was wrong. He thought the sun was the center of the universe. It's not. He thought all the stars revolved around the sun. They don't. Certainty in the Copernican model is not the most reasonable position, nor is complete certainty in any position ever advisable. I'm sure we all appreciate what Copernicus clarified for us. But the fact is, certainty in his assertion that the stars revolve around the sun would have inhibited further discovery. Even in cases where we have very good information/evidence, we need to be willing to subject our conclusions (however well-founded they may be) to further scrutiny.

If you'd like to consider fairy tales as legitimate as investigation into our universe be my guest.  At least there's a universe to look at and be wrong about.   I fear that we're no longer being even remotely rational in the comparison, even if we feel that we're being generous and ecumenical with knowledge and certainty, or that such an approach has utility when dealing with the afflicted.

In instances in which there is anything, or more of anything, to learn, for any of the things you reference above to be relevant...as true as they may be, you'd have to establish that this thing we're talking about is in that set.  

I think it's counterproductive and a-rational, at best.

I don't think you let fairy tales in the tent merely by answering I don't know to certain overly ambitious questions.  From the outside death looks like rot and ruin.  From the inside .. should we ask Rik?  (Please God, no.)  Maybe it feels like falling into a black hole, an admittedly useless comparison but just packed full of suggestiveness.  But if anyone wants to say "but you don't know what happens after you die firsthand".  I'm happy to admit I haven't crossed that river yet.  Doesn't mean I attach any probability greater than zero to the likelihood of the xtian version.  And it isn't like my claim to know the unknowable will make the least impression on the relentlessly gullible.

My worldview is that life is already harsh and unpleasant enough, so I don't intend to make it any moreso for other people if I can help it.

If I can make someone's day a little brighter by being nice, I try, in small ways.

Basically I think if you are causing significant harm to others, without justification, you are comitting an immoral act.

Particularly I find condemning people for behavior that doesn't cause harm to fall into this category. The guilt and repression can cause real harm. Completely unnecessary harm.

I think a worldview based in reality is necessary to make consistently moral decisions and that science gives us the best picture of reality.

I'm not saying you need to have an education in science to be moral, but when you have questions like: When is it ok to terminate a pregnancy? Is it ok to pollute the Earth? Is this sexual behavior a part of natural variation?

Science gives us or gets us closer to the correct answers.

(February 6, 2018 at 5:56 pm)Whateverist Wrote: I don't think you let fairy tales in the tent merely by answering I don't know to certain overly ambitious questions.

That's probably not the intent, but that is what happens.  Would it sound softer if I said that the religious take advantage of a persons willingness to negotiate with the truth?  Individually, yes, but more depressingly, collectively. In whats becoming a pattern, I don't see the notion of afterlives as an "ambitious question" anyway, so..meh.  They started and ended as nothing more or less than stories we tell.

Quote:From the outside death looks like rot and ruin.  From the inside .. should we ask Rik?  (Please God, no.)  Maybe it feels like falling into a black hole, an admittedly useless comparison but just packed full of suggestiveness.  But if anyone wants to say "but you don't know what happens after you die firsthand".  I'm happy to admit I haven't crossed that river yet.

There's no need to cross that river to be able to make factually binding pronouncements.  No more so than I need to gouge out my eyes to establish that this will make me blind, or smash my head with a rock to establish that this will make me see -nothing- regardless of the eyes still being in their sockets.

Quote:Doesn't mean I attach any probability greater than zero to the likelihood of the xtian version.  And it isn't like my claim to know the unknowable will make the least impression on the relentlessly gullible.

What unknowable? Your considering it, or even speaking of it in terms as the unknowable helps them to feel more comfortable in their gullibility or ignorance. Armed with that knowledge, they then feel justified, incidentally by you, to allow said ignorance to inform their actions in the living world, this life. None of the older, "sillier" fairy tales ever just died off. They only disappeared when they were treated with the contempt, derision, ridicule, and uncompromising acknowledgement of their complete vacuity...all of which they richly deserve..... that they ever went away and stopped fucking with people.

(February 6, 2018 at 6:06 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

I Wrote:Doesn't mean I attach any probability greater than zero to the likelihood of the xtian version.  And it isn't like my claim to know the unknowable will make the least impression on the relentlessly gullible.

What unknowable?

That I know what dying will be like from the inside.  I don't.  And am in know hurry to find out.  But you can bet when the time comes I'll be sitting up straight and paying attention.  You only take that ride once.

You;re talking about something that you don't know.  I'm not sure why that makes it the unknowable. I'd contend, that you never take that ride. There is no you to take it, in death. It's sort of amusing that way, since dying is taken to be like death when it;s more just the last few moments of life, eh? As far as that goes..I bet we'll find the last few moments of our life awfully familiar. Confusion, mild boredom, joint pain, and indigestion.

---

(February 6, 2018 at 5:40 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Besides, by owning our uncertainty we set a good example for the impressionable theists who may stop in.

Missed this one, but..pretty much a variation on the above on my end.  By all means, own your own uncertainty..but, ofc, it's -yours-, not "ours" unless you're limiting it to yourself and vulcan in context.

(February 6, 2018 at 5:51 pm)Khemikal Wrote: All well and good, but I don't see anyone cutting themselves off from the truth by acknowledging it.  We do not survive our deaths (aren't tautologies still true, lol?), there is no afterlife.  It's not an issue of likelihood or the unknown.

We have three moving parts here:

1) My dialectical/Socratic approach to a theist's query about the afterlife. By challenging a supposed gnostic assertion with an agnostic one, I attempted to make the case that an investigation is in order. I don't think you fault me on this at all. But if you do, say so. I can defend this approach.

2) My inherent skepticism about all things. Yes, I have a philosopher's hat. Yes, I put it on sometimes. Yes, I question things that most take for granted. It's a hobby. It's a pastime. It's something I like to do on the forums-- as do you. So I know you don't fault me on that.

3) My actual agnostic position on the afterlife. Here is where I think you find fault. Meh, I guess I can see where 100% certitude seems reasonable. As others have said (experientially speaking) death is probably no different than pre-birth. I hold this position to be the most plausible--you take it as certain. I in no way entertain fairytales by rejecting 100% certitude, however. But I do still have to admit a dark spot in my knowledge concerning this. To put it in perspective, I pretty much know my car is where I parked it last night. I didn't hear the alarm go off recently, so I have no reason to think somebody stole it. I have every reason to think that it is still parked in my driveway. If somebody were to call and invite me over, I wouldn't say "Wait a minute, let me check if my car is still in my driveway." I would simply assume it was still there. But if I were to ask myself, right now as I type this: "Can I say with 100% certainty that my car is still in the driveway?" I'd have to say no. It's not 100% until I look at it and see. Same with the afterlife. How plausible is heaven/hell to me? About as plausible as the possibility that right now my car is hovering ten feet above the ground with two members of the DC universe fucking in the backseat.

(February 6, 2018 at 6:36 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: 1) My dialectical/Socratic approach to a theist's query about the afterlife. By challenging a supposed gnostic assertion with an agnostic one, I attempted to make the case that an investigation is in order. I don't think you fault me on this at all. But if you do, say so. I can defend this approach.

Not at all, and theres no need for any defense of the approach, what's needed is the case for further investigation on the matter at hand.  Otherwise, we haven;t shown agnosticism, we've manufactured it by not following through where there may already be a conclusion.  

Quote:2) My inherent skepticism about all things. Yes, I have a philosopher's hat. Yes, I put it on sometimes. Yes, I question things that most take for granted. It's a hobby. It's a pastime. It's something I like to do on the forums-- as do you. So I know you don't fault me on that.

OFC not, ion fact, I;m questioning something you seemed to have taken for granted.  That there was room for agnosticism here, rationally.  

Quote:3) My actual agnostic position on the afterlife. Here is where I think you find fault.

I fault any logical inconsistency arising from floating claims of agnosticism.

Quote:Meh, I guess I can see where 100% certitude seems reasonable. As others have said (experientially speaking) death is probably no different than pre-birth. I hold this position to be the most plausible--you take it as certain. I in no way entertain fairytales by rejecting 100% certitude, however. But I do still have to admit a dark spot in my knowledge concerning this. To put it in perspective, I pretty much know my car is where I parked it last night. I didn't hear the alarm go off recently, so I have no reason to think somebody stole it. I have every reason to think that it is still parked in my driveway. If somebody were to call and invite me over, I wouldn't say "Wait a minute, let me check if my car is still in my driveway." I would simply assume it was still there.

So then, let's call that knowledge.  You know where your car is.  

Quote:But if I were to ask myself, right now as I type this: "Can I say with 100% certainty that my car is still in the driveway?" I'd have to say no. It's not 100% until I look at it and see.

-and that's where you begin to be a or irrational. You either knew before or you didn't.  There's no such thing as 99% knowing.  This is more math that you aren't going to be able to show me.  

Quote:Same with the afterlife. How plausible is heaven/hell to me? About as plausible as the possibility that right now my car is hovering ten feet above the ground with two members of the DC universe fucking in the backseat.

Is the process that leads you to whatever compels you to keep telling me about this rare non numerical probability the same process you use to determine whether or not your name is Vulcan and mine is Khem and whether or not there is an afterlife?  Is the quality of evidence used in that process of equal or greater value?  Because if it is, and you know the one...then you know the the other.

I look out my kitchen window and there's the world.

I say to it, "Hello, world".

But it tries to hide and won't talk to me.

(February 6, 2018 at 6:44 pm)Khemikal Wrote: -and that's where you begin to be a or irrational. You either knew before or you didn't.  There's no such thing as 99% knowing.  This is more math that you aren't going to be able to show me.  

This is where I'm going to challenge you. First let me say where I agree with you: "You either knew before or you didn't." That's true... concerning my car, the afterlife, or anything. The issue is more complicated with "There's no such thing as 99% knowing." Of course, I can't show any math, but estimates are a thing aren't they?

I just Googled: "What is the mass of Jupiter?" The answer I got was 1.898 X 10^27 kg. Now, of course this is an estimate. It's liable to be off by quite a bit. What we can be certain of is that it is at least OFF by 1 kg or more. I'm not saying I have math to prove this number is off (BTW I don't). But I can say with certainty that I'm uncertain of this number. It's not "99% knowledge" per se, but neither is it 100% certainty.

We can agree on this: there is an actual mass of Jupiter. There is. But do I know it? No. Does anybody know it? No.

Is 1.898 X 10^27 kg more correct than 3 kg? Yes, it is. And by this line of reasoning, 3 kg is more correct than 1 kg.

So here is the question: Am I irrational taking an "agnostic" position about the mass of Jupiter simply by acknowledging that I'm unsure of its precise mass?

My position is: I don't know the precise mass of Jupiter. The "theistic" position is "Jupiter is 1 kg." In this case I reject the theist's position, but in admitting that I DON'T KNOW... you have lumped me in with people who consider things like 1 kg. I acknowledge that it is not 1 kg. But at the same time I reject 1.898 X 10^27 kg.

As I type this, I can already hear your objection forming. "The mass of Jupiter is a numerical value-- the existence of an afterlife is binary." I can give a binary example, too. I just didn't think from the outset to make my example binary. But whatever, I'm not retyping, and I think I made my point okay with the Jupiter example.