Carl Sagan: Prophet of Scientism

[Clete]

Of course. An agnostic is one who believes that the truth of whether a higher, supernatural power exists is essentially unknowable.

"Unbelief, in distinction from disbelief, is a confession of ignorance where honest inquiry might easily find the truth. "Agnostic" is but the Greek for "ignoramus."" - Tryon Edwards

Because your assertation that science is inherently tied to and dependant of, either philosophically or logically, this "Christian world view" of yours, which you have not described, makes absolutely no sense. Since you have merely asserted this, I am waiting for you to provide an argument to support this before I provide a real rebuttal.

It was a trick question. You don't know, that's the point. Hopefully, you're about to see that you cannot know anything apart from a Christian worldview.

First, there is precious little in science that has been proven correct (in the absolute sense of the term) and its all found in the science of mathematics.

Mathematics is a form of logic. Would you agree with that?

Second, to answer your question directly, yes. You could say, in a general sense, that the Bohr model of the atom and quantum mechanics were derived from logic and reason, although this seems tautological to me. It would be more complete to say that they were derived from
a.) past scientific discoveries,
b.) experimentation,
and c.) logic and reason.

Past discoveries and experimentation were all used to form conclusions which where then tested and verified with other experiments and on and on. All of which is done in a logical manner, yes?

Let me ask the question this way. Would you agree, along with every scientist that I've ever known of, including Carl Sagan, that all truth claims must be verified via logic and reason?

This is not a trick question by the way, I just need to know where you are on this basic issue before we can proceed.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[avatar382]

There's a hint in the opening post....

Carl Sagan began his highly acclaimed public television series Cosmos with a grand overview of the universe and our place within it. With a crashing surf in the background, Sagan declares,

"The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be."(5)

Sagan eloquently expresses his conviction that matter and energy are all that exist. He goes on to describe his awe and wonder of the universe. He describes a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, as the greatest of mysteries is approached. With excitement, Sagan tells us our tiny planetary home the Earth is lost somewhere between immensity and eternity, thus poignantly emphasizing our simultaneous value and insignificance.

In the movie Contact, Dr. Ellie Arroway expresses this awe and wonder at several points in the film. The most dramatic episode occurs during her galactic space flight when she is confronted with the wonders to be seen near the center of the galaxy. She is at a loss for words in the face of such beauty and humbly suggests that a poet may have been a better choice to send on the trip.

While this is all very moving, the great emotion seems strangely misplaced and inappropriate. If the cosmos is indeed all there is or ever was or ever will be, why get excited? If we are lost between immensity and eternity, shouldn't our reaction be one of existential terror, not awe? Sagan borrows his excitement from a Christian worldview where the heavens declare the glory of God, which should produce a tingle in the spine and a catch in the voice.​

Okay, but this isn't nearly precise enough.

Can this "Chrisitian Worldview" be completely described as "where the heavens declare the glory of God, which should produce a tingle in the spine and a catch in the voice"?

If this is a complete description of this worldview of yours, then I must say it's so vague, it's useless.

If not, some questions to help refine it:
Who is this "god", and what is his or her or its nature?
What is meant by "the heavens"?
What is meant by "declare"?
Where does this "glory" come from, and why does this "god" possess it?

I'd appreciate a complete, but brief, if possible, description of this "Christian worldview" of yours.

 

[Clete]

Okay, but this isn't nearly precise enough.

Can this "Chrisitian Worldview" be completely described as "where the heavens declare the glory of God, which should produce a tingle in the spine and a catch in the voice"?

If this is a complete description of this worldview of yours, then I must say it's so vague, it's useless.

If not, some questions to help refine it:
Who is this "god", and what is his or her or its nature?
What is meant by "the heavens"?
What is meant by "declare"?
Where does this "glory" come from, and why does this "god" possess it?

I'd appreciate a complete, but brief, if possible, description of this "Christian worldview" of yours.

Sorry, but the quote from the article is as close to a direct answer as I am willing to give you to these questions at this time. I know from experience that if I allow the discussion to go down this path, the discussion is over. No progress will be made because you will (intentionally or otherwise) get bogged down in the detail and thereby miss the big picture. Basically, asking what the worldview is specifically is the wrong question. You asked the right question before to which I've been very repsonsive. You've presented two paths we can take the discussion down. Trust me, if we go down the first we'll get to some meaningful answers but if you insist on this second path, the discussion will be derailed immediately onto countless rabbit trails and we will get nowhere.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[avatar382]

"Unbelief, in distinction from disbelief, is a confession of ignorance where honest inquiry might easily find the truth. "Agnostic" is but the Greek for "ignoramus."" - Tryon Edwards

Your quote is not appropriate. I hold neither unbelief or disbelief. I hold the positive belief that
a.) The intellectual capacity/intelligence of man is limited,
b.) Understanding the supernatural, if it even exists, is probably beyond the capacity of man,
c.) Thus, it is probably not possible for man to know whether or not a supernatural higher power exists.

I don't wish to steer a debate in this direction. For now I wish that you accept that I hold the belief that man's intelligence has limits, and one, of many consequences of that is that we don't know of things we are incapable of comprehending. I believe the existence of the supernatural is one of those things.

It was a trick question. You don't know, that's the point. Hopefully, you're about to see that you cannot know anything apart from a Christian worldview.

Okay, provide your argument so we can get on with it.

Mathematics is a form of logic. Would you agree with that?
Let me ask the question this way. Would you agree, along with every scientist that I've ever known of, including Carl Sagan, that all truth claims must be verified via logic and reason?

To answer directly, yes.

I feel, however, there is a caveat - apart from the field pure mathematics, human logic and reason are not capable of verifing truth claims absolutely.

By this I mean that human logic and reason are conditional, dependant on
a.) our human senses, and limitations thereof
b.) our human brain, and limitations thereof

A minor point, to be sure, but an important one.

 

[avatar382]

Sorry, but the quote from the article is as close to a direct answer as I am willing to give you to these questions at this time. I know from experience that if I allow the discussion to go down this path, the discussion is over. No progress will be made because you will (intentionally or otherwise) get bogged down in the detail and thereby miss the big picture. Basically, asking what the worldview is specifically is the wrong question. You asked the right question before to which I've been very repsonsive. You've presented two paths we can take the discussion down. Trust me, if we go down the first we'll get to some meaningful answers but if you insist on this second path, the discussion will be derailed immediately onto countless rabbit trails and we will get nowhere.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Fair enough. I know all too well how easy it is to get bogged down in detail in these discussions.

I will assume for now that by "Christian worldview" you mean a worldview which affirms the existance of a supernatural element, defined as an entity that is outside of the laws and scope of the natural universe.

 

[Gerald]

Sagan borrows his excitement from a Christian worldview where the heavens declare the glory of God, which should produce a tingle in the spine and a catch in the voice.

I've never in all my life gotten a tingle or a catch like that. When I look up at the night sky, all I see are stars.

 

[SUTG]

Who is Jim Hilston and why should I care?

From what I'm gathering he might be a Van Tillian, or at least adept at invoking the Transcendental Argument. The Transcendental Argument can throw people for a loop the first time the encounter it, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny very well.

 

[Clete]

Your quote is not appropriate. I hold neither unbelief or disbelief. I hold the positive belief that
a.) The intellectual capacity/intelligence of man is limited,
b.) Understanding the supernatural, if it even exists, is probably beyond the capacity of man,
c.) Thus, it is probably not possible for man to know whether or not a supernatural higher power exists.

I don't wish to steer a debate in this direction. For now I wish that you accept that I hold the belief that man's intelligence has limits, and one, of many consequences of that is that we don't know of things we are incapable of comprehending. I believe the existence of the supernatural is one of those things.

I never intended to take the debate in this direction, I just enjoy pointing out that agnostic is literally the Greek for ignoramus. Just having a little fun at your expense. I'm glad to see your skin is thick enough to handle it.

And as for your statement about not being about to understand that which we cannot comprehend, I do not believe that anyone could rationally deny the truth of such a statement.

Okay, provide your argument so we can get on with it.

I'm right in the middle of it already. Be patient and we'll get there very shortly as long as you continue to answer my questions honestly.

To answer directly, yes.

I feel, however, there is a caveat - apart from the field pure mathematics, human logic and reason are not capable of verifying truth claims absolutely.

By this I mean that human logic and reason are conditional, dependant on
a.) our human senses, and limitations thereof
b.) our human brain, and limitations thereof

A minor point, to be sure, but an important one.

Okay, "Yes, but not really." isn't a valid answer! Which is it? Can we know something by logical analysis of the available information or can't we?

Can anything at all be known and if so must that knowledge be rational (logical)?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

From what I'm gathering he might be a Van Tillian, or at least adept at invoking the Transcendental Argument. The Transcendental Argument can throw people for a loop the first time the encounter it, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny very well.

Interesting comment.

Would such scrutiny utilize rational thought processes like logic and reason? If not, what's the point? And if so, then I encourage you to follow my discussion with a382.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[SUTG]

I just enjoy pointing out that agnostic is literally the Greek for ignoramus.

Well, as Socrates said, it is better to have self knowledge and know your limitations than to even be ignorant about your ignorance...

In other words it is better to realize you don't know then to delude yourself into thinking that you do.

 

[Clete]

Fair enough. I know all too well how easy it is to get bogged down in detail in these discussions.

I will assume for now that by "Christian worldview" you mean a worldview which affirms the existance of a supernatural element, defined as an entity that is outside of the laws and scope of the natural universe.

:up:

 

[Clete]

Well, as Socrates said, it is better to have self knowledge and know your limitations than to even be ignorant about your ignorance...

In other words it is better to realize you don't know then to delude yourself into thinking that you do.

That's a very presuppositional statement you just made! Was that intentional?

 

[SUTG]

That's a very presuppositional statement you just made! Was that intentional?

No.

 

[avatar382]

I never intended to take the debate in this direction, I just enjoy pointing out that agnostic is literally the Greek for ignoramus. Just having a little fun at your expense. I'm glad to see your skin is thick enough to handle it.

And as for your statement about not being about to understand that which we cannot comprehend, I do not believe that anyone could rationally deny the truth of such a statement.


I'm right in the middle of it already. Be patient and we'll get there very shortly as long as you continue to answer my questions honestly.


Okay, "Yes, but not really." isn't a valid answer! Which is it? Can we know something by logical analysis of the available information or can't we?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Your original question was:

Let me ask the question this way. Would you agree, along with every scientist that I've ever known of, including Carl Sagan, that all truth claims must be verified via logic and reason?

My answer is yes, with the caveat that human logic and reason is dependant on human senses, and the human mind.

This means that truth claims that have been validated by human logic and reason carry with them the liablilty of being the product of an imperfect (limited) human mind, and imperfect human senses.

Can anything at all be known and if so must that knowledge be rational (logical)?

Yes, and yes.

For example, we know that the underlying principles of aerodynamics are correct from our persepective because we can build airplanes that fly. But, can mankind claim to know perfectly everything that there is to know about aerodynamics? I don't think so.

My only point is that human logic and reason has limits, because of the reliance on human biology as I've said above.

 

[Clete]

Yes, and yes.

For example, we know that the underlying principles of aerodynamics are correct from our persepective because we can build airplanes that fly. But, can mankind claim to know perfectly everything that there is to know about aerodynamics? I don't think so.

My only point is that human logic and reason has limits, because of the reliance on human biology as I've said above.

Okay fine, I think this is good enough.

So just to make sure that I understand, we KNOW aerodynamics work and we know that because of logical reasoning. There may be some specific issue that is unknown to us and that may even be unknowable but there are things (about aerodynamics in this case) that we do know as verifiable facts and we know these things BECAUSE they have been verified by rational means and if those things could not be so verified we would not know them.

I'm going to proceed under the assumption that you are in complete agreement with the above statement. Please tell me if I'm doing so in error.

Now, for the punch line.

The statement that, "all truth claims must be rational", is itself a truth claim.
How would you propose to verify the truth of that claim?

If you answer that this truth claim is also to be verified via logical reasoning then you commit the logical error known as begging the question. You cannot verify logic with logic because by attempting to do so you have to presume that logic is valid which is the very question you are attempting answer. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, that question begging is irrational.

You are then left with the option of saying that this truth claim need not be verified by logic. But if you do that, then you violate the truth claim itself and thererby falsify it.

I'll leave it there for now and wait to see what your reaction is to the dilemma.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[SUTG]

You are then left with the option of saying that this truth claim need not be verified by logic.

There are other options. You can classify different domains for truth statements, for example, like Russel or Wittgenstein. Or, you can make up and assert arbitrary knowledge justifiers (anything whatsoever will do) like the transcendentalists.

 

[avatar382]

Okay fine, I think this is good enough.

So just to make sure that I understand, we KNOW aerodynamics work and we know that because of logical reasoning. There may be some specific issue that is unknown to us and that may even be unknowable but there are things (about aerodynamics in this case) that we do know as verifiable facts and we know these things BECAUSE they have been verified by rational means and if those things could not be so verified we would not know them.

I'm going to proceed under the assumption that you are in complete agreement with the above statement. Please tell me if I'm doing so in error.

Now, for the punch line.

The statement that, "all truth claims must be rational", is itself a truth claim.
How would you proppose to verify the truth of that claim?

If you answer that this truth claim is also to be verified via logical reasoning then you commit the logical error known as begging the question. You cannot verify logic with logic because by attempting to do so you have to presume that logic is valid which is the very question you are attempting answer. I'm sure I don't have to tell you, that question begging is irrational.

You are then left with the option of saying that this truth claim need not be verified by logic. But if you do that, then you violate the truth claim itself and thererby falsify it.

I'll leave it there for now and wait to see what your reaction is to the dilemma.

Resting in Him,
Clete

My initial thought - and I say "initial" because I feel that there is value in exploring this - is that logic does not need to be verified.

This is because logic is axiomatic. An axiom is defined as a "A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof."

Lets take a look at mathematics. All of math is built on a set axioms that are taken as true without proof. An example of one is "Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another."

Without axioms, we have no tools with which to construct the theorems that make up the foundations of mathematics.

Going back to the dilemma you posed, I offer that the laws of logic are our axioms for building rational thought. If we do not take them to be self-evident, without proof, then we have "nowhere to start", so to speak.

So, the proposition "all truth claims must be rational" is in fact a tautology, or a statement that is necessarily true, given that the laws of logic are axiomatic. Obviously, it doesn't make sense to verify the truth of a tautology.

 

[Clete]

There are other options. You can classify different domains for truth statements, for example, like Russel or Wittgenstein. Or, you can make up and assert arbitrary knowledge justifiers (anything whatsoever will do) like the transcendentalists.

Not without employing logic you can't.

 

[SUTG]

Not without employing logic you can't.

Is employing logic a bad thing?!

 

[Clete]

My initial thought - and I say "initial" because I feel that there is value in exploring this - is that logic does not need to be verified.

This is because logic is axiomatic. An axiom is defined as a "A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof."

And so you presuppose the validity of logic. You believe logic is valid without proof and in effect, by faith. Do you not?

Lets take a look at mathematics. All of math is built on a set axioms that are taken as true without proof. An example of one is "Things which are equal to the same thing are also equal to one another."

Without axioms, we have no tools with which to construct the theorems that make up the foundations of mathematics.

That particular axiom, as you call it, is known in philosophy as the law of identity or at least it is derived from it. It is one of the three laws of logic and thus it follows that it is a law of mathematics as well because as I mentioned earlier mathematics is simply a form of logic. So the point here is that your simply attempting to validate logic by describing what logic is but that doesn't help us determine whether logic is valid because what one is really asking is whether or not these axioms, or what I would call the three laws of logic, are valid and true. A question that you are completely incapable of answering in any rational manner.

Going back to the dilemma you posed, I offer that the laws of logic are our axioms for building rational thought. If we do not take them to be self-evident, without proof, then we have "nowhere to start", so to speak.

Holy cow! :noway:
You get positive rep for this one! I don't recall anyone that wasn't a Christian ever being intellectually honest enough to come right out and say this! It's absolutely unbelievable!
You're absolutely correct! You have nowhere to start. The problem is a lot worse than you realize though because with this admission you've just thrown the baby out with the bath water. You don't realize it but you've just admitted that knowledge is impossible unless you assume without cause or reason that logic is valid. Logic is literally your god which you believe in by faith and faith alone. By your own admission you cannot verify by any rational means that ANYTHING is true.

So, the proposition "all truth claims must be rational" is in fact a tautology, or a statement that is necessarily true, given that the laws of logic are axiomatic. Obviously, it doesn't make sense to verify the truth of a tautology.

It isn't a tautology it is one of the laws of logic. Let me just quote what those three laws are so that we all know what we're talking about here.

Here is a brief statement of each.

1. The law of identity states that if any statement is true, then it is true; or, every proposition implies itself: A implies A.

2. The law of excluded middle states that everything must either be or not be; or, everything is A or not-A.

3. The law of contradiction states that no statement can be both true and false; or, A and not-A is a contradiction and always false: thus, not both A and not-A.

These laws are irrefutable and are the basis of necessary inference. Without them necessary inference vanishes and any attempt to refute them, makes use of them. What's more, they are grounded in the 'Logos of God', the source and determiner of all truth. Moreover, the laws stand together as a trinity; to fault one, is to fault all, and to uphold one, upholds the others. Together, these laws establish and clarify the meaning of necessary inference for logic and all intelligible discourse.source

And it is this basis for the three laws of logic that you and other non-theists miss it. You have no means by which to establish or even explain the existence of logic whatsoever. You insist on living your life based on reason and logic and all the while you are living by truly blind faith and as a result cannot truly know anything at all.

Resting in Him,
Clete