Skip to content

Author Archive for ChristianPage 2 of 4

Commission ascribes dignity to spinach

Published

by

on April 21, 2008

.

spinach

A federal ethics commission issues a paper, declaring that spinach has a dignity, and therefore certain behaviours against spinach should be regarded as morally not acceptable. A spinach-hating child, for instance, is not allowed to tear out spinach plants in mother's garden wantonly. The reason, according to the commission, is not the damage of this vandalizing act to the gardening mother, but the dignity of the spinach plants. In contrast, tearing out spinach plants for eating them does not hurt their dignity. The commission does not comment on the influence of cooking versus eating as salad on the dignity of spinach plants.

Does this sound like a joke? Maybe, but it really happened last week in Switzerland. Our Federal Ethics Commission is a panel of reputed philosophers, theologians, biologists and physicians. And it came, unanimously, to the conclusion that plants have a dignity that is to be respected. The spinach example is mine, not theirs, but I derived it from their own examples because I find spinach more fun than, say, beautiful flowers by the wayside. Dignity must not depend on beauty, in my view.

It seems that the philosophers and theologians have been the leading spokespersons in these discussions and that the natural science fraction has not managed to keep things down to earth.

Our leading weekend TV satire show has tried to apply the plant dignity guidelines in everyday situations. It was a real fun. For instance, the show introduced a papa tomato and a mama tomato, together with a couple of cherry tomatoes, as a family. After some heart-warming, humanizing talk, one of the anchormen outed himself as a cruel child eater. And his fellow, after peeling an onion, broke out in tears, stating that he knows now why we all weep when violating the dignity of these veggie beings.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/snowriderguy/250623239/

Commission ascribes dignity to spinach

Published

by

on April 21, 2008

.

spinach

A federal ethics commission issues a paper, declaring that spinach has a dignity, and therefore certain behaviours against spinach should be regarded as morally not acceptable. A spinach-hating child, for instance, is not allowed to tear out spinach plants in mother's garden wantonly. The reason, according to the commission, is not the damage of this vandalizing act to the gardening mother, but the dignity of the spinach plants. In contrast, tearing out spinach plants for eating them does not hurt their dignity. The commission does not comment on the influence of cooking versus eating as salad on the dignity of spinach plants.

Does this sound like a joke? Maybe, but it really happened last week in Switzerland. Our Federal Ethics Commission is a panel of reputed philosophers, theologians, biologists and physicians. And it came, unanimously, to the conclusion that plants have a dignity that is to be respected. The spinach example is mine, not theirs, but I derived it from their own examples because I find spinach more fun than, say, beautiful flowers by the wayside. Dignity must not depend on beauty, in my view.

It seems that the philosophers and theologians have been the leading spokespersons in these discussions and that the natural science fraction has not managed to keep things down to earth.

Our leading weekend TV satire show has tried to apply the plant dignity guidelines in everyday situations. It was a real fun. For instance, the show introduced a papa tomato and a mama tomato, together with a couple of cherry tomatoes, as a family. After some heart-warming, humanizing talk, one of the anchormen outed himself as a cruel child eater. And his fellow, after peeling an onion, broke out in tears, stating that he knows now why we all weep when violating the dignity of these veggie beings.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/snowriderguy/250623239/

One god less does work

Published

by

on April 18, 2008

.

wedding couple

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Of all atheistic statements, this is one of my favourites. It has been widely quoted, in many versions from many authors, Dawkins included (his version can be found here). Stephen F. Roberts claims to be the original author, back in 1995. He brings some of my own thoughts to the point, and I have posted my own version of the theme in How to talk with theists.

Some recent theist reviews of my blogging have led me to visit their sites and those sending me traffic, and in one of them I have come across an alleged "refutation" of the "one god less" statement, using the analogy of marriage. Vigilante, over at TheologyWeb Campus, quotes a woman from a radio show, saying that "a Christian being an atheist to other gods is like saying a husband is a bachelor to other women".

Lack of humor is the problem here

Theists are sooo serious, especially when it comes to their religion. They cling to words and their earnest usage and seem to have no sense of witty wordplay. It certainly is not usual to say "I am married and a bachelor to all other women", but all the same, this statement remains true. Not all unusual statements are necessarily false. The statement "you as a Christian are atheist to all other gods" is of the same kind, unusual but undeniably true. Humor, intended to be an eye-opener, obviously does not work with many theists.

History of Christian atheism

In the early days of Christianity, Christians have been accused of atheism by the state authorities of the Roman Empire. Justin, one of the accused and later executed, has tried to plead not guilty, addressing the Emperor himself, stating: "Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God."

Thus, the "one god less" argument, also known as the plurality criticism, is not an invention of modern atheists but has its origin in the inner circle of early Christianity.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/matthiasorfield/1177025218/

One god less does work

Published

by

on April 18, 2008

.

wedding couple

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." Of all atheistic statements, this is one of my favourites. It has been widely quoted, in many versions from many authors, Dawkins included (his version can be found here). Stephen F. Roberts claims to be the original author, back in 1995. He brings some of my own thoughts to the point, and I have posted my own version of the theme in How to talk with theists.

Some recent theist reviews of my blogging have led me to visit their sites and those sending me traffic, and in one of them I have come across an alleged "refutation" of the "one god less" statement, using the analogy of marriage. Vigilante, over at TheologyWeb Campus, quotes a woman from a radio show, saying that "a Christian being an atheist to other gods is like saying a husband is a bachelor to other women".

Lack of humor is the problem here

Theists are sooo serious, especially when it comes to their religion. They cling to words and their earnest usage and seem to have no sense of witty wordplay. It certainly is not usual to say "I am married and a bachelor to all other women", but all the same, this statement remains true. Not all unusual statements are necessarily false. The statement "you as a Christian are atheist to all other gods" is of the same kind, unusual but undeniably true. Humor, intended to be an eye-opener, obviously does not work with many theists.

History of Christian atheism

In the early days of Christianity, Christians have been accused of atheism by the state authorities of the Roman Empire. Justin, one of the accused and later executed, has tried to plead not guilty, addressing the Emperor himself, stating: "Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God."

Thus, the "one god less" argument, also known as the plurality criticism, is not an invention of modern atheists but has its origin in the inner circle of early Christianity.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/matthiasorfield/1177025218/

The skeptics of the other side

Published

by

on April 17, 2008

.

tug-of-war

In the worldview tug-of-war, the position of skeptics always has been clear to me, until recently. I consider myself a skeptic, and I have found myself together with the group of natural scientists, materialists or physicalists, evolutionists, and atheists - as opposed to believers, idealists, creationists, and theists. Until recently, I said.

Until I have dealt with the question of idealism vs. physicalism which is the theme of the 67th Philosophers' Carnival, hosted by Kenny Pearce, a self-declared idealist.

You can read much cloud-headed stuff there, which is my main criticism of this debate. Of course, thoughts are free, and as a self-declared freethinker I am the last one to impose borders to thoughts. I only doubt whether it is wise to start the whole philosophy of the world with the statement "I think, therefore ideas do exist, but everything else may be subject to doubt, even matter." This position, called radical skepticism, is one of the main lines defending idealism. Briefly put: Idealists believe that ideas are the basic essence of all things, and that matter is just sort of an illusion.

And here we have them, the skeptics of the other side: They doubt almost everything, even the existence of matter. Is this a sound position? I guess that skepticism itself should not be excluded from a skeptic view. A real skeptic should always ask himself: Is my skepticism justified?

In the last consequence, a radical, borderless skepticism must lead to a position known as solipsism, that is, I only can be sure that I exist, and all other things and living beings may just be an illusion. This is weird. Of course, we may do philosophy, applying logic in a radical way without accepting borders, and looking where this may bring us. Nothing against that. But when we arrive at a consequence that contradicts every experience of our life and is completely opposed to common sense, we have to decide which of these two possibilities may be more plausible: Either the world in which we live is a complete illusion, or there is something wrong with the reasoning. I take the latter position, definitely.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/lizandcormac/386382427/

The skeptics of the other side

Published

by

on April 17, 2008

.

tug-of-war

In the worldview tug-of-war, the position of skeptics always has been clear to me, until recently. I consider myself a skeptic, and I have found myself together with the group of natural scientists, materialists or physicalists, evolutionists, and atheists - as opposed to believers, idealists, creationists, and theists. Until recently, I said.

Until I have dealt with the question of idealism vs. physicalism which is the theme of the 67th Philosophers' Carnival, hosted by Kenny Pearce, a self-declared idealist.

You can read much cloud-headed stuff there, which is my main criticism of this debate. Of course, thoughts are free, and as a self-declared freethinker I am the last one to impose borders to thoughts. I only doubt whether it is wise to start the whole philosophy of the world with the statement "I think, therefore ideas do exist, but everything else may be subject to doubt, even matter." This position, called radical skepticism, is one of the main lines defending idealism. Briefly put: Idealists believe that ideas are the basic essence of all things, and that matter is just sort of an illusion.

And here we have them, the skeptics of the other side: They doubt almost everything, even the existence of matter. Is this a sound position? I guess that skepticism itself should not be excluded from a skeptic view. A real skeptic should always ask himself: Is my skepticism justified?

In the last consequence, a radical, borderless skepticism must lead to a position known as solipsism, that is, I only can be sure that I exist, and all other things and living beings may just be an illusion. This is weird. Of course, we may do philosophy, applying logic in a radical way without accepting borders, and looking where this may bring us. Nothing against that. But when we arrive at a consequence that contradicts every experience of our life and is completely opposed to common sense, we have to decide which of these two possibilities may be more plausible: Either the world in which we live is a complete illusion, or there is something wrong with the reasoning. I take the latter position, definitely.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/lizandcormac/386382427/

Surprise: Jesus himself has backed my view

Published

by

on April 16, 2008

.

Jesus

My remarks about the Ten Commandments, stating that atheism is compatible with them, have provoked a detailed reply by the Christian theology student Cory Tucholski at the Josiah Concept Blog, in two parts covering 1-4 and 6-10. I am going to review these replies in more detail later.

It's very interesting that even Cory, as a hard-boiled theist, agrees with me in four out of ten points. Hard-boiled means that he believes the Ten Commandments to be set up by God himself, and that violations of these Commandments are not mere offenses against humans but offenses against God: "They were designed to be absolute rules." (emphasis mine)

His reasoning is mostly consistent, as far as I can tell; the main point is that I cannot share his premises and he cannot share mine. Many arguments that he brings forward base upon theologic background and quotes of the Bible other than the Ten Commandments. I, for my part, have looked at the text of the commandments as it has been carved in stone, and nothing else. This is one major source of disagreement between us.

Jesus: "It is just the Golden Rule" (Matthew 7:12)

In my remarks about the Ten Commandments, I have come to the conclusion that their real content can be summarized as "Treat others as you would like to be treated by them", also known as the Golden Rule. Jesus, as quoted in Matthew 7:12, has put it like this: "Always treat others as you would like them to treat you, this is the law and the prophets." By the way, "law and prophets" means not only the Ten Commandments but all the holy scriptures of the Jews at that time.

Surprise, surprise. Was Jesus a freethinker? In the eyes of the Pharisees, he certainly was. Now compare his "law and prophets" statement with Cory's claim of the Ten Commandments as God's absolute rules that have to be followed word by word. He seems to contradict his own master in this respect.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/ultimorollo/166876408/

Surprise: Jesus himself has backed my view

Published

by

on April 16, 2008

.

Jesus

My remarks about the Ten Commandments, stating that atheism is compatible with them, have provoked a detailed reply by the Christian theology student Cory Tucholski at the Josiah Concept Blog, in two parts covering 1-4 and 6-10. I am going to review these replies in more detail later.

It's very interesting that even Cory, as a hard-boiled theist, agrees with me in four out of ten points. Hard-boiled means that he believes the Ten Commandments to be set up by God himself, and that violations of these Commandments are not mere offenses against humans but offenses against God: "They were designed to be absolute rules." (emphasis mine)

His reasoning is mostly consistent, as far as I can tell; the main point is that I cannot share his premises and he cannot share mine. Many arguments that he brings forward base upon theologic background and quotes of the Bible other than the Ten Commandments. I, for my part, have looked at the text of the commandments as it has been carved in stone, and nothing else. This is one major source of disagreement between us.

Jesus: "It is just the Golden Rule" (Matthew 7:12)

In my remarks about the Ten Commandments, I have come to the conclusion that their real content can be summarized as "Treat others as you would like to be treated by them", also known as the Golden Rule. Jesus, as quoted in Matthew 7:12, has put it like this: "Always treat others as you would like them to treat you, this is the law and the prophets." By the way, "law and prophets" means not only the Ten Commandments but all the holy scriptures of the Jews at that time.

Surprise, surprise. Was Jesus a freethinker? In the eyes of the Pharisees, he certainly was. Now compare his "law and prophets" statement with Cory's claim of the Ten Commandments as God's absolute rules that have to be followed word by word. He seems to contradict his own master in this respect.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/ultimorollo/166876408/

An atheo-skeptic look at blogs

Published

by

on April 15, 2008

.

tomb

The 84th Meeting of the Skeptics' Circle is up at Archaeoporn, presenting a wide scope of skeptical contributions in the fields of science, medicine, theism and atheism, woo, and the media. I am always fascinated by the similarity of thought flaws in quackery medicine and in religions.

kelly

The Carnival of the Godless #89 is hosted by Kelly at the Rational Response Squad, and I like very much what she says about me, and other contributors of this carnival, being a bad representative of atheism. Yes, well spoken, Kelly: We are no adepts of a religion, and we differ in many particular viewpoints. That's one of the reasons making this carnival so interesting. Many good posts here, but my favourite piece is Adrian's 101 Atheist Quotes, and if you ask me to quote one and only one of them, I take this one: “I believe in God, only I spell it Nature. Frank Lloyd Wright"

An atheo-skeptic look at blogs

Published

by

on April 15, 2008

.

tomb

The 84th Meeting of the Skeptics' Circle is up at Archaeoporn, presenting a wide scope of skeptical contributions in the fields of science, medicine, theism and atheism, woo, and the media. I am always fascinated by the similarity of thought flaws in quackery medicine and in religions.

kelly

The Carnival of the Godless #89 is hosted by Kelly at the Rational Response Squad, and I like very much what she says about me, and other contributors of this carnival, being a bad representative of atheism. Yes, well spoken, Kelly: We are no adepts of a religion, and we differ in many particular viewpoints. That's one of the reasons making this carnival so interesting. Many good posts here, but my favourite piece is Adrian's 101 Atheist Quotes, and if you ask me to quote one and only one of them, I take this one: “I believe in God, only I spell it Nature. Frank Lloyd Wright"

No basic need for a creation

Published

by

on April 14, 2008

.

spiral galaxy

It seems that dumb documentary films are booming these days. There has been the ineffable Fitna in the Netherlands. And there is the ineffable Expelled in the United States. The latter is about the Intelligent Design (ID) debate that I have been following from distance for a while. It leaves me puzzled, somehow, and I ask myself where all those guys have left their brains.

What they describe as intelligent design, the creation of life without making use of an evolution, is misnamed in my view. It should be called dumb design. A really intelligent designer never would bother with detailed construction plans of sea urchins, worms, birds and primates. He would design quarks that have the potential to aggregate to atoms which have the potential to aggregate to molecules and then to compound structures that replicate and cluster to form more and more complex beings, simple living organisms, then higher ones, even primates and humans. An intelligent designer would make use of automatic evolution rather than bothering himself with dull detail construction work. Are the ID promoters really so disrespectful of their Greatest Being (which they refuse to call God in order to circumvent the secularity rule)? I am disappointed. Shame on them!

This said, I am ready to deal with the question whether a really intelligent concept of creation might be worth being discussed. Shouldn't we forget about the ridicule ideas of flat-earthers, six-day-creationists and ID adepts? Shouldn't we go back to the very basic questions?

The basic formula of creation

The cosmologists, those guys dealing with the very beginning of the Universe, have a bunch of theories and models that are disputed all the time. Some think that the Universe is pulsating in cycles of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. Some think that our Universe will end in a Big Rip. Some postulate dark matter and dark energy, others reject this notion. Some even don't exclude the possibility of multiverses.

Be it as it may, all these concepts can be summarized as "there is something rather than nothing". Every creationist, going back to the very basics, must come to this question: Why is something? Possible (but questionable) answer: From an initial state of nothingness, an agent (creator) acted, and as a result there has been something.

But nothingness cannot be

"Sorry, there is nothing left." Such a statement makes sense in everyday life, in situations where the focus is on certain things that are lacking. A poor guy may say that he has nothing, meaning that there is no money left, because he badly needs some money. These things are not the issue here.

But it may be useful to keep them in mind when looking at the concept of nothingness. No thing is the absence of some thing. This definition needs a thing that can be absent. Nothingness cannot be a stand-alone concept. It needs things.

When we try to figure out what absolute nothingness would mean, we inevitably come to statements such as "there is not even one single photon or electron or other elementary particle around in the whole Universe" or "there is no such thing as a Universe". It is not possible to make such a statement without using terms of things such as photons or electrons or the Universe.

In other words: The concept of nothingness is a paradox. It is just as impossible as a person being in New York and in Paris at the same time. Simply put: There is something, as we all can see, therefore nothingness is impossible. You may try to imagine nothingness, if you are not frightened by mental vertigo. But I guess you won't succeed.

No escape left

I am fully aware that our mind is not capable of grasping everything. There are things beyond human imagination, such as multi-dimensional spaces. This is not the point. Imagination is not needed here. Even things that cannot be imagined are still things. Therefore, even for a hypothetical supermind, nothingness must remain inconceivable. And without nothingness, there is no room left for a basic creation that made something out of nothing.

Photo credit: HubbleSite

No basic need for a creation

Published

by

on April 14, 2008

.

spiral galaxy

It seems that dumb documentary films are booming these days. There has been the ineffable Fitna in the Netherlands. And there is the ineffable Expelled in the United States. The latter is about the Intelligent Design (ID) debate that I have been following from distance for a while. It leaves me puzzled, somehow, and I ask myself where all those guys have left their brains.

What they describe as intelligent design, the creation of life without making use of an evolution, is misnamed in my view. It should be called dumb design. A really intelligent designer never would bother with detailed construction plans of sea urchins, worms, birds and primates. He would design quarks that have the potential to aggregate to atoms which have the potential to aggregate to molecules and then to compound structures that replicate and cluster to form more and more complex beings, simple living organisms, then higher ones, even primates and humans. An intelligent designer would make use of automatic evolution rather than bothering himself with dull detail construction work. Are the ID promoters really so disrespectful of their Greatest Being (which they refuse to call God in order to circumvent the secularity rule)? I am disappointed. Shame on them!

This said, I am ready to deal with the question whether a really intelligent concept of creation might be worth being discussed. Shouldn't we forget about the ridicule ideas of flat-earthers, six-day-creationists and ID adepts? Shouldn't we go back to the very basic questions?

The basic formula of creation

The cosmologists, those guys dealing with the very beginning of the Universe, have a bunch of theories and models that are disputed all the time. Some think that the Universe is pulsating in cycles of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. Some think that our Universe will end in a Big Rip. Some postulate dark matter and dark energy, others reject this notion. Some even don't exclude the possibility of multiverses.

Be it as it may, all these concepts can be summarized as "there is something rather than nothing". Every creationist, going back to the very basics, must come to this question: Why is something? Possible (but questionable) answer: From an initial state of nothingness, an agent (creator) acted, and as a result there has been something.

But nothingness cannot be

"Sorry, there is nothing left." Such a statement makes sense in everyday life, in situations where the focus is on certain things that are lacking. A poor guy may say that he has nothing, meaning that there is no money left, because he badly needs some money. These things are not the issue here.

But it may be useful to keep them in mind when looking at the concept of nothingness. No thing is the absence of some thing. This definition needs a thing that can be absent. Nothingness cannot be a stand-alone concept. It needs things.

When we try to figure out what absolute nothingness would mean, we inevitably come to statements such as "there is not even one single photon or electron or other elementary particle around in the whole Universe" or "there is no such thing as a Universe". It is not possible to make such a statement without using terms of things such as photons or electrons or the Universe.

In other words: The concept of nothingness is a paradox. It is just as impossible as a person being in New York and in Paris at the same time. Simply put: There is something, as we all can see, therefore nothingness is impossible. You may try to imagine nothingness, if you are not frightened by mental vertigo. But I guess you won't succeed.

No escape left

I am fully aware that our mind is not capable of grasping everything. There are things beyond human imagination, such as multi-dimensional spaces. This is not the point. Imagination is not needed here. Even things that cannot be imagined are still things. Therefore, even for a hypothetical supermind, nothingness must remain inconceivable. And without nothingness, there is no room left for a basic creation that made something out of nothing.

Photo credit: HubbleSite

The peek-a-boo of physicalism

Published

by

on April 11, 2008

.

carnival of venice

I am not yet fully satisfied with my yesterday's post about unmasked idealism, for two reasons. Firstly, I want to show a beautiful half-mask, coming back to the philosophical implications of the Venice Carnival. And secondly, I think I have missed an important point against idealism: its violation of common sense. Thus, I am going to show that physicalism is common sense and that idealism violates it.

Why is this important? In a strict sense, neither idealism nor physicalism may be falsified, let alone proven because both make a priori assumptions that must be taken for granted. The right or wrong discussion, the true or false dispute is most likely a pointless one. Rather should we argue about what is sound or unsound. If two theories exist and neither of them can be proven true or false, we should prefer the theory that fits common sense.

Babies, peek-a-boo and innate physicalism

I only can recall a few things from my earliest childhood. One is the view of my tiny shoes and the woollen socks bulging over their rim, and I remember their tight fit and how hard they were to put on. And another thing is the peek-a-boo game.

I don't know exactly what makes this game so exciting for babies and toddlers. It may be the experience of a reality that continues to be real even when hidden, and the sudden release of tension when the visible reality merges with the previously hidden one.

Just recently, an experiment at the Baby Cognition Lab at the University of British Columbia has shown that a realistic common sense guides the behaviour of eight month old babies: They have a basic understanding of random sampling in a game where the experimenter pulls red and white pingpong balls out of a box. The baby, when looking into the box, is more surprised when it finds that the mix of the balls in the box does not match the mix of the sample. This reaction seems to be an innate understanding of physical things, even when hidden from perception.

The common sense of physicalism

Objects do exist. They exist whether they are perceived or not. Objects are physical things. You can have an idea about an object. But this idea is not the object. And is seems counter-intuitive that the object itself should be an idea.

Babies seem to have an innate insight of this common sense. In peek-a-boo games, they learn that the assumption of a physical world makes sense. The whole world is full of physical things, and we humans deal with them, always assuming that they are real. And we have never proven wrong with this view. We may be tricked by illusionists, but all these tricks are applied physics on the object side and applied psychology and distraction on the observer side. Even as adults we are fascinated by peek-a-boo games like the Carnival of Venice.

Of course, it cannot be excluded that all physical matter and all energy is just sort of a crystallized idea. Energy and matter may be defined this way. Such a definition is not necessarily false. But it does not make sense.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/darcyvallance/2221983999/

The peek-a-boo of physicalism

Published

by

on April 11, 2008

.

carnival of venice

I am not yet fully satisfied with my yesterday's post about unmasked idealism, for two reasons. Firstly, I want to show a beautiful half-mask, coming back to the philosophical implications of the Venice Carnival. And secondly, I think I have missed an important point against idealism: its violation of common sense. Thus, I am going to show that physicalism is common sense and that idealism violates it.

Why is this important? In a strict sense, neither idealism nor physicalism may be falsified, let alone proven because both make a priori assumptions that must be taken for granted. The right or wrong discussion, the true or false dispute is most likely a pointless one. Rather should we argue about what is sound or unsound. If two theories exist and neither of them can be proven true or false, we should prefer the theory that fits common sense.

Babies, peek-a-boo and innate physicalism

I only can recall a few things from my earliest childhood. One is the view of my tiny shoes and the woollen socks bulging over their rim, and I remember their tight fit and how hard they were to put on. And another thing is the peek-a-boo game.

I don't know exactly what makes this game so exciting for babies and toddlers. It may be the experience of a reality that continues to be real even when hidden, and the sudden release of tension when the visible reality merges with the previously hidden one.

Just recently, an experiment at the Baby Cognition Lab at the University of British Columbia has shown that a realistic common sense guides the behaviour of eight month old babies: They have a basic understanding of random sampling in a game where the experimenter pulls red and white pingpong balls out of a box. The baby, when looking into the box, is more surprised when it finds that the mix of the balls in the box does not match the mix of the sample. This reaction seems to be an innate understanding of physical things, even when hidden from perception.

The common sense of physicalism

Objects do exist. They exist whether they are perceived or not. Objects are physical things. You can have an idea about an object. But this idea is not the object. And is seems counter-intuitive that the object itself should be an idea.

Babies seem to have an innate insight of this common sense. In peek-a-boo games, they learn that the assumption of a physical world makes sense. The whole world is full of physical things, and we humans deal with them, always assuming that they are real. And we have never proven wrong with this view. We may be tricked by illusionists, but all these tricks are applied physics on the object side and applied psychology and distraction on the observer side. Even as adults we are fascinated by peek-a-boo games like the Carnival of Venice.

Of course, it cannot be excluded that all physical matter and all energy is just sort of a crystallized idea. Energy and matter may be defined this way. Such a definition is not necessarily false. But it does not make sense.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/darcyvallance/2221983999/

Idealism unmasked

Published

by

on April 10, 2008

.

carnival mask

In the upcoming Philosophers' Carnival, a dispute about Idealism has been announced. Idealism is the belief that all existing things are just ideas, not physical matter. I am ready to take the invitation, and I'll put my focus on a cornerstone of Idealism as claimed by Berkeley: "To be is to be perceived" (esse est percipi).

Berkeley has set up a logical construction, leading from his premise "esse est percipi" to the conclusion that all existing reality is basically an idea. I accept all his logical constructions without even looking at them, because I am going to attack his premise. If his premise is false, the conclusion ~~must be false~~ is unsound (hat tip to The Barefoot Bum), regardless of the fact that all logic may be correct.

Hidden faces still exist

The Carnival of Venice is a celebration of beauty. What I love in particular are the half masks, showing beautiful lips and chins, surrounding the eyes of the women by sexy glitter. But for my reasoning, we need full masks such as this one. Every child knows that, while not visible, there are real faces of real people behind these masks. They cannot be perceived, yet they are there. Refutation of "esse est percipi" seems to be child's play. Are we done, then?

Just some more of this kind. We fall asleep and do no longer perceive the world, but the world continues to exist. An asteroid may strike our planet and extinct all life, and the planet would continue to exist. I better stop here because there are examples to infinity.

Not without a God

Of course, Berkeley was not dumb. He must have considered all these arguments himself, and of course he was ready to counter them. In fact, the main purpose of his whole philosophy has been a theological one: an apology of Theism and a rejection of Deism. Theism, that is the idea of a personal all-knowing and all-acting God. Deism is the idea of a God who created the Universe but does not guide it.

Berkeley says that the Universe exists because God perceives it. Well, this is one of those claims that are not falsifiable. The probability of God's existence is a function of the properties that are attributed to this God. With zero properties, I am ready to accept that God's existence is a hundred percent sure. Berkeley's God has a number of properties such as a mind, having created the Universe, and perceiving it. For me, this reduces the likeliness of such a God to a very low percentage. And the claim that only the perception of this God has brought the Universe to existence is very counter-intuitive, hence very unlikely, too. The combination of very unlikely with very unlikely is very unlikely squared.

Another look behind the mask

I am sure that Berkeley would not have accepted this as a refutation. I do not claim to have done it yet, by the way. I only point to the fact that he is using a double standard. "Esse est percipi" does not work at the Carnival of Venice. It does not work for humans. Then why should it work for God? Why should a notion that obviously is incorrect in our known world become true in a world that we do not know and making use of an entity (God) whose existence cannot be proven?

Of course, the people at Venice can be unmasked, and then their faces can be perceived. But I insist on exactness here, the devil is in the details: The claim is "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived) and not "esse est facultas percipi" (to be is the possibility of being perceived).

Would it be just the possibility, then Idealism would have been refuted: Something that can be perceived, but is not perceived at the very moment, not even by God, is most likely something physical.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/aarigo/103161345/

Idealism unmasked

Published

by

on April 10, 2008

.

carnival mask

In the upcoming Philosophers' Carnival, a dispute about Idealism has been announced. Idealism is the belief that all existing things are just ideas, not physical matter. I am ready to take the invitation, and I'll put my focus on a cornerstone of Idealism as claimed by Berkeley: "To be is to be perceived" (esse est percipi).

Berkeley has set up a logical construction, leading from his premise "esse est percipi" to the conclusion that all existing reality is basically an idea. I accept all his logical constructions without even looking at them, because I am going to attack his premise. If his premise is false, the conclusion ~~must be false~~ is unsound (hat tip to The Barefoot Bum), regardless of the fact that all logic may be correct.

Hidden faces still exist

The Carnival of Venice is a celebration of beauty. What I love in particular are the half masks, showing beautiful lips and chins, surrounding the eyes of the women by sexy glitter. But for my reasoning, we need full masks such as this one. Every child knows that, while not visible, there are real faces of real people behind these masks. They cannot be perceived, yet they are there. Refutation of "esse est percipi" seems to be child's play. Are we done, then?

Just some more of this kind. We fall asleep and do no longer perceive the world, but the world continues to exist. An asteroid may strike our planet and extinct all life, and the planet would continue to exist. I better stop here because there are examples to infinity.

Not without a God

Of course, Berkeley was not dumb. He must have considered all these arguments himself, and of course he was ready to counter them. In fact, the main purpose of his whole philosophy has been a theological one: an apology of Theism and a rejection of Deism. Theism, that is the idea of a personal all-knowing and all-acting God. Deism is the idea of a God who created the Universe but does not guide it.

Berkeley says that the Universe exists because God perceives it. Well, this is one of those claims that are not falsifiable. The probability of God's existence is a function of the properties that are attributed to this God. With zero properties, I am ready to accept that God's existence is a hundred percent sure. Berkeley's God has a number of properties such as a mind, having created the Universe, and perceiving it. For me, this reduces the likeliness of such a God to a very low percentage. And the claim that only the perception of this God has brought the Universe to existence is very counter-intuitive, hence very unlikely, too. The combination of very unlikely with very unlikely is very unlikely squared.

Another look behind the mask

I am sure that Berkeley would not have accepted this as a refutation. I do not claim to have done it yet, by the way. I only point to the fact that he is using a double standard. "Esse est percipi" does not work at the Carnival of Venice. It does not work for humans. Then why should it work for God? Why should a notion that obviously is incorrect in our known world become true in a world that we do not know and making use of an entity (God) whose existence cannot be proven?

Of course, the people at Venice can be unmasked, and then their faces can be perceived. But I insist on exactness here, the devil is in the details: The claim is "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived) and not "esse est facultas percipi" (to be is the possibility of being perceived).

Would it be just the possibility, then Idealism would have been refuted: Something that can be perceived, but is not perceived at the very moment, not even by God, is most likely something physical.

Photo credit: flickr.com/photos/aarigo/103161345/