LESSWRONG
LW

All of theflyingfrogfish's Comments + Replies

Semantic Stopsigns
theflyingfrogfish20

The test I was referring to was dying - if the afterlife is as a religion says it is, then it can probably be accepted that the rest of the religion's doctrine is correct - at least the essentials. Or if not, you could ask the Supreme Being what IS correct.

Conversely, if there is no afterlife, then if can be accepted that the religion is incorrect.

Obviously this does not apply to all religions, but server the purpose here, I believe.

Reply
5TheOtherDave
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. Sure, I agree: if, upon my death, I find myself in an afterlife consistent with religion X's teachings about the afterlife, and/or able to ask questions of some entity who claims to be the Supreme Being, I should update my beliefs about the likelihood of such an afterlife/Being.
Semantic Stopsigns
theflyingfrogfish10

Do you find it any more objectionable than your implication that we should all be theists -- that is, that we should "accept the explanation that God created the universe"?

I did not intend to imply anything of the sort - as I said above, I was more challenging the general attitude and querying my understanding of rationality than attempting to directly challenge anyone's theism or lack of same.

I don't agree with your implication that I am actually forced to choose between "God created the universe" and "the Big Bang happened&q

... (read more)
Reply
4TheOtherDave
OK, fair enough. For future reference, phrasings like "should you not, as an X, do Y?" will frequently be interpreted by native English speakers as implying that Xes should do Y. (In this case, that rationalists should accept "God created the universe" as an explanation.) Ah. Thanks for clarifying that. For my own part, I have no clear idea why or how the Big Bang happened. Neither am I very clear about why and how stars were formed, or why and how the state borders of Louisiana were established, or why and how the Connecticut state constitution was ratified. So I suppose you could say that I have a "worldview" that has no explanation for these things. It's hard to know for sure, since I'm not quite sure what "my worldview" refers to. I certainly believe that there is an explanation for how and why those things happened (several explanations, actually), if that clarifies anything. But in none of these cases does my ignorance of why and how that thing happened strike me as particularly compelling evidence for anything particularly significant, and it certainly doesn't seem to be evidence that God created the universe, or the stars, or the state of Louisiana, or the Connecticut state constitution. Now you've just confused me. Can you describe more concretely the test you have in mind, and what I should expect to experience after performing that test if God created the universe, and what I should expect to experience if the universe came into being some other way? Again, I'm unsure what you mean. Can you be clearer about what event most religions predict that will definitely happen, and how that prediction serves as evidence about how and why the universe came into being?
Semantic Stopsigns
theflyingfrogfish00

  1. An interesting point - all my learning in astrophysics up to now had basically said that 'we don't know how it can have happened given that the laws of entropy and thermodynamics seem to prevent it'. Although the universe as a whole seems to obey at least some physical laws, e.g. expanding at a constant rate, etc. I happen to believe that there is a scientific explanation to be found for the Big Bang - I doubt that God will have created a perfectly cohesive set of scientific laws until you get to a certain point where he says 'Oh, all right, you got me

... (read more)
Reply
4Plasmon
I agree Those are predictions about the past, not about the future. If you accept this as evidence, have you studied a large amount of other religions to see if they make similar claims? And if you had lived before the events of the new testament, would you have been able to distinguish the (supposedly true) "old testament" predictions from the (false) predictions made by thousands of other prophets of thousands other religions/sects? First, radio-active decay is uncaused (or so it appears, to the extent that quantum mechanics is correct). But that is not the point I was trying to make. In (special) relativity, "causality" basically refers to "all observers agree about light cones" or "if information flows from space-time point a to space-time point b, all observers will agree that the information went from a to b instead of vice versa", or simply "No one observes information travelling to the past". No notion of "all effects have a cause" or anything like that. In mechanics, say the description of a billiard table, (naive) causality seems obvious: why did this ball change its direction? Because it was hit by another ball! all the way back to a player hitting the first ball. But, there is the principle of least action (the related principle of least time is better known but describes light only). The principle of least action says that the trajectory of all those billiard balls is a stationary point of some functional (the action). In this view, there is nothing special about ball collisions. We ask "why did the ball change its direction (when it was hit by another ball or by the wall)" but we might as well ask "why didn't the ball change its direction (when it wasn't hit by another ball or by the wall)" and the first question is no more natural than the second. And the answer to both questions is the same: "because that path is a stationary point of the action functional". The naive notion of causality requires a known "natural" or "unperturbed" state. Only if
Semantic Stopsigns
theflyingfrogfish00

Care to explain my error? I'm somewhat new to this - why is a theory that has no explanation of the facts be placed above that which does?

Reply
4Plasmon
1) The universe itself is also not something that exists inside the universe. Hence, if you think causality doesn't apply to your god, you shouldn't think causality applies to the universe as a whole either. (thus, your characterization of the big bang as a "theory that has no explanation of the facts" vs. theism as a theory which does explain the facts, is wrong) 2) You claim your religion predicts the future ("makes predictions about the future (even if you do not believe that the results can be observed)"). Presumably you refer to various afterlife-scenarios. The big bang theory predicts far more things which can be observed. Hence there is no reason for your theory (theism) to rise to the status of a hypothesis in the first place. Read Privileging the Hypothesis 3) The notion of "causality" in physics has changed a lot since the days of classical physics. It no longer corresponds to the naive notion of causality that might naively seem to require an uncaused cause.
Semantic Stopsigns
theflyingfrogfish-40

I must say I resent the allegation that all readers of this blog must be atheist - is it not permitted for me to be interested in rationality just because I am one of these 'obviously deluded' religious types.

And should you not, as a rationalist, accept the explanation that God created the universe, which is an explanation that fits the facts, and makes predictions about the future (even if you do not believe that the results can be observed), than accept that something happened (the Big Bang) which your worldview has no explanation for?

And why is God creating the universe paradoxical? Outside of this universe, with the physical laws that require causality, why does He require a beginning?

Reply
5TheOtherDave
Of course it's permitted. We couldn't prevent your interest in rationality even if we wanted to, which we don't. Nor could we prevent your reading the blog, even if we wanted to, which we don't. Whether theism is permitted is an uninteresting question. I can understand why you would resent that. Do you find it any more objectionable than your implication that we should all be theists -- that is, that we should "accept the explanation that God created the universe"? I agree that "as a rationalist" I should, in general, prefer to accept an explanation for an event that fits the facts rather than accept the existence of an event that has no explanation. I don't agree with your implication that I am actually forced to choose between "God created the universe" and "the Big Bang happened" (indeed, I know many theists who believe both), nor with your assertion that my "worldview" has no explanation for the Big Bang happening. Observing the results really ought to count for a lot... that's not something to casually throw away. I mean, think about it: if I propose a theory that predicts certain results to certain tests, and you go out and perform those tests and you don't observe those results, what conclusion would you come to about that theory?
2wedrifid
No. Basically not. You lost all your righteous momentum here and started sounding nutty.