The Not-Truthiness

The Takedown

Following is a fun video "takedown" of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It is interesting and worth the see, IMHO.

The "Takedown" of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

However, I wish to approach the subject matter from a different angle...

While Craig asserts that infinity is only a concept that doesn't exist in reality, why does he not afford the same courtesy to nothing? We build logical systems to help us understand and explain the world, but quite often because these logical systems involve boolean values, yea or nay, we assume that these absolute values are entailed by the logical system themselves and, therefore, that they translate into reality or "map onto" reality - but this need not be the case. Concepts like infinity arise from an unending progression and concepts like nothing arise from as idea of a perfect absence. There is nothing to suggest that these "perfect" states exist in reality.

While the video is all well and good, and interesting, I suspect the real "takedown" is in understanding the difference between synthetic and analytic arguments. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is an entirely analytic argument, as is the Ontological Argument.

The Ontological Argument relies on existence being a necessary condition for perfection, but from whence cometh perfection? Perfection seems to me an extension of idealistic thinking, completely divorced from reality, and a mere logical contrast to imperfection. To say that perfection necessarily entails existence is to make a baseless assumption - that perfection is existent or even possible. Claiming that that there is perfection refers not to any feature of reality - please do point to it if you can - but rather to a definition derived entirely from a logical structure - an implication of the terms involved. Nothing more. So when the Ontological Argument goes from "existence is a property of perfection" to "therefore God exists" what we have is an equivocation of the word "exist." Analytic existence is not equivalent to synthetic existence.

More Than One Truth-(Value)

And it is no surprise this happens, since logical "truth" is often equivocated with "empirical" (or "synthetic") truth. We have been engaged in propping up this error for millennia and I suspect this equivocation of truth is responsible for much, especially, theological error. It is, of course, trivia to create a valid argument that is not sound. This proves that logical truth values are not empirical truth. To find out empirical or synthetic truth you actually have to check with reality, something neither the Ontological nor Cosmological arguments do, although they end up making a claim that we are supposed to take as empirical/synthetic.

The nifty thing about entirely analytic arguments is that reality is not a function within them - no empirical reference is made prior to the assertion about reality. In this way terms in the premises represent equivocations of similar terms in the conclusion.

As given in the video, the Kalam Cosmological Argument goes:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause
And that cause is God.

Leaving aside the non-sequitur of the universe having a cause leading to that cause being God... ;)

The real problem here is the word "begins/began." Defenders of the KCA assume that beginning involves arising from nothing, hence their constant mockery that anyone who argues against the KCA is assuming the something arises from nothing. Now a careful examination reveals this to be a mere matter of definition - and analytical function, with no clear reference to reality. The matter seems persuasive because science makes a similar working assumption with regards to causality in order to do its work. However, at no time, does science necessarily invoke the logical concept of nothing in the same way apologists like Craig do (except as an effort to make a dramatic title intended to sell books perhaps). Indeed a recent understanding of the "origins of the universe" seem to posit the idea that there is never really any state of absolute nothing. Hence the "dilemma" presented by the KCA apologists is simply bypassed. And there is no particular reason why this cannot be done, since our understanding of "nothing" is merely the placing of a negation in front of "something." The logical nothing is not necessarily empirical nothing. To confuse them is, in my opinion, to equivocate the word "nothing."

Referencing Reality

The trick now is to make sure the new physics cosmology refers to empirical reality, and that's where things get interesting. Then it is an exercise in developing experiments from the theory that confirm or refute. We'll know whether the theory is interesting or not when we are provided the falsifiability in the theory.

I am not confident that replacing one entirely analytic argument with another does much for us except display the cleverness of everyone involved. Of course, science provides us the benefit of actually referring to reality - at least most of the time.

Which brings to mind string theory, but that's a topic for another time... ;)

The Point of the Journey...

God, the Perimeter of ignorance

Since my last blog entry was critical of Neil deGrasse Tyson, I'd like to present a new blog that sings praises about him. For (at least three) years now, I have said that of all the popular public scientific and skeptical figures available to host a Cosmos redux, Tyson is my preferred pick, and I stand by that, The man is engaging, well-spoken, learned, likeable - in a word, charismatic, much like Dr. Sagan was. This perhaps is why I found Tyson's "Think Big" brain-fart so disappointing.

The one thing that really struck me, and what garnered most of my appreciation of him, was Dr. Tyson's talk on intelligent design, from a historical perspective and with respect to the Dover Trial.

Here is a link to the important point of the talk:
Perimeter of Ignorance (Short)

Here's a link to the longer version for the completists:
The Perimeter of Ignorance (Full)

Intrinsic Inexplicability

Tyson's depiction of God as a "perimeter of ignorance," seems to me to be a powerful point. Now, Tyson's emphasis seems to be more about intrinsic inexplicability (what is often the "mystery" gaps the "God of the Gaps" skulks about in until swept out by the latest discoveries) than anything else, but even on just that point, Tyson's talk is interesting. Intrinsic inexplicability, at least in naturalistic terms, is really the festering heart and corrupt soul of intelligent design, a positions specifically intended to halt further inquiry and set up faith (chasing its own tail) as the ultimate authority in science.

Of course what I refer to as a "festering heart and corrupt soul," theists refer to as "mystery" to be "revered" with "awe," the loss of which they mourn when science reveals more and more of the universe to be, in Tim Minchin's words, "not magic." Every inch of reality no longer shrouded in intrinsically inexplicable mystery is an inch of God's dominion being trespassed upon. This kind of thinking is the stuff of which religious opposition to science has been built upon since the early roots of scientific inquiry. It is a good part of the horror of the story "Frankenstein" by Mary Shelley. Horror is, I suspect, a concept doomed to the trash heap of history. Perhaps a topic for another time...

Faith-Based Evidence

In the United States of the Bush(-league) regime, we saw an even nastier effort to depict faith as scientific evidence (so called "Faith-based evidence"), which is an inevitable sidekick to the cdesignproponentist (Intelligent Design) efforts. The inclusion of faith-based evidence as scientific evidence would, of course, undermine science as an empirical study altogether, since faith is quite anti-empirical in its emphasis. This was, of course, the desire of the religious right at the time.

Perimeter of Ignorance Redux

Of course, I want to take it a step further - from my philosophical skeptical perspective. This is not really just about God, as an ad hoc explanatory device when we assume we cannot and/or will not ever be able to explain something - and by explain I mean in a way that provides predictive power - but rather what God is a symbol of in the context of human understanding.

God is a substitute for knowledge and truth and an excuse to stop exploring. It acts as an explanation, albeit an abysmally useless one, and leaves us "satisfied" that no further exploration is necessary or desireable. God is a poor substitute for explanations for reasons I've gone into in another blogpost ("A Need to Know Basis") about the nature of explanations and scientific theories and the differences in predictive power offered by each (or lack thereof, in the case of "God's Will"). Indeed, it is a recurrent theme for me so far.

God is a symbol for truth, and it appears that God is a perimeter of ignorance in part because of this. After all if one thinks one has the truth, there is no further cause for inquiry, is there? I put it to you that truth itself is the perimeter of ignorance, of which God is only a symbol. A faith-based understanding of reality confuses the conceit of knowledge with actual knowledge and hence removes opportunity to acquire a more thorough, and empirically accurate understanding of reality.

No Truth?

If certain knowledge is unattainable, then is not a skeptical perspective doomed to failure?

Science has at its core skepticism, an understanding that we do not have certain knowledge, in other words that we do not have the definitive truth. We have explanatory devices (theories) that are better supported by evidence than others, perhaps overwhelmingly so, but at no time do we say that there is nothing more to explore or that we are now certain. A theory can be overturned, modified, or replaced, if it fails to agree with experimental results and empirical observations, or if a better one (more in line with experimental results and empirical observations) arises. Hence, inquiry is always an ongoing process. So, in effect, it is assumed (posited) that there is a truth (realism), but that we never know it with certainty, Now, does this mean that the entire enterprise is meaningless? After all, what is the point of seeking truth is we assume, a priori as it were (justified or otherwise), that we cannot ever reach certain truth? Well, it turns out that, like the NASA space program for example, there are benefits to be gained along the way. Whatever the goal or goals, the explorations themselves reap rewards, rewards like tripled lifespans, world-spanning communications networks, life quality improvements, etc., etc., etc...

What's really interesting about this, and as odd as it sounds, is that seeking truth using a scientific, error-correction methodology while assuming we never have truth reaps results and rewards undreamed of (indeed deliberately undreamed of) by pre-science religious investigations into vague, mystical (almost invariably analytical only) metaphysics. Having this tension works, perhaps because whatever else is at work, at least we continue our interrogations of the universe, whereas with God and other truth symbols, inquiry halts. It's not just the method of science that makes it work. It's the ongoing inquiry itself - and that is where the skepticism comes into play.

The road goes ever on and on. Perhaps the point of the journey is not to arrive...

A Need to Know Basis

So, let us conduct a thought experiment. :)

Help!

Let us posit that I am hovering, arms flailing, in a state of abject panic, 45 degrees off the edge of a cliff. Forget gravity (for the sake of this experiment, gravity doesn't exist). Instead, let's look at god's will as the sole determining causal factor in whether I:

(1) recover my balance, or
(2) plummet to a screaming, squishy death.

Now, if I recover my balance, is that consistent with god's will?
Now if I fall to a screaming, squishy death, is that consistent with god's will?

Well, if god is omnipotent, as is often claimed, then both are consistent with god's will. Indeed both at the same time are consistent with god's will, and neither at the same time. God could also whisk me up into the skies, never to see the ground again. If God so desired I could hang, terrified, there forever. So, god's will "explains" every possible (and even all logically impossible) outcomes.

This tells us something very important about god's will as an explanation. It actually permits all possibilities and, therefore, prohibits none. Clearly there is no possible result that is inconsistent with an omnipotent god. And that, folks, is precisely why god's will offers us zero predictive power. We cannot say, of any result, that it contradicts god's will.

That's quite a versatile "explanation" indeed. So versatile, in fact, that it doesn't give us anything to use to choose between different outcomes. Some folks find this feature to be compelling. Who doesn't like unlimited possibilities, after all?

So, using god's will, let us ask again, will I recover my balance or will I fall to a screaming, squishy death? It seems the only answer is, "We don't know." Well, as someone teetering in abject terror, I am intensely interested in any predicted results here. I am very much interested in whether I recover or fall to a (you know the rest)...

Theory vs Explanation

A scientific theory is specifically designed to offer predictive power. That means science's "explanations" require some results and prohibit others. The prohibiting other outcomes is referred to as "falsifiability." Falsifiability is the naming of outcomes under which a theory would be proven incorrect. If a scientific theory prohibits an outcome and it happens, then it is time to revise or abandon the theory.

This is the main difference between a scientific theory and any old explanation. Theories tell us something that we can test for. Whether you want to be able to test your explanation is another issue. Many people like composing their "explanations" so that there is no way to test them. This keeps them immune from inquiry. There are even follower-types who will gaze in jaw-dropped amazement at how clever such an explanation is. Such people can often be convinced to give you money, apparently.

"God's will" does not prohibit outcomes. How are you going to search for truth, how are you going to investigate anything, if your method of inquiry tells you nothing at all - offers you zero predictive power?

However, the matter is even worse than this, using "God's Will" as an explanatory device. Since there is no possible verification or refutation of the explanatory device, the matter is forever shrouded in impenetrable mystery. As an explanatory device, "God's Will" stops us dead in our tracks. With "God's Will" we get precisely nowhere and have no potential to get anywhere...

Irrefutable

There are two ways an "explanation" may be irrefutable:
(1) it may be true, or
(2) it may be designed such that it can never be refuted.

To say that something is irrefutable is not necessarily to say that it is true. The latter is only interesting as an example of what not to do. It is not profound, nor wise, nor deep, nor, and this is most important, true. So, when you are confronted by an irrefutable explanation, ask yourself if it is actually true or if it is irrefutable because there is no way of telling if it is true or not.