Difficulty understanding philosophy

[kev67]

I used to think philosophy was quite an easy subject. I thought it was about ethics, a bit like religion but not spiritual. I thought it would be a bit fuzzy. Sophie's World was a bit like that, although I thought that was a bunch of garbage. However, when I tried reading some proper philosophy, I had a great deal of trouble understanding it. My father gave me a book called The Metaphysical Club as a Christmas present once (I don't know why he gave me it). It had won a Pulitzer Prize and had rave reviews. It was about four American philosophers from the 19th and early 20th century. I found I could understand all of the words, but not very many of the sentences. Another time I ordered a reader on political philosophy. I did not really know what type of book a reader was, and I was surprised when it arrived. It consisted of essays or extracts of essays from numerous philosophers from down the ages. I found I could not understand very much of that neither. I wondered what the reason was. Was it because the points they were making were very subtle ones. Was it because I did not have the background education to understand what they were writing about. Was it because the style of writing was archaic. Or was it because the writers just did not express themselves very well. I sometimes suspected the last option, because sometimes when I did get what they were driving it, the point did not seem particularly profound.

[MorpheusSandman]

Actually, I think it's a combination of all three of your possibilities. Philosophy is like any specialized field in that it has its own specialized language. If you don't learn that language before diving in it would be like reading an advanced paper on quantum physics without ever having learned the requisite math or terminology. As with most things, the best place to start is at a good beginning. Look on Amazon (or similar) for introductory textbooks on philosophy. Familiarize yourself with terms first, then try to get a good overview of the different fields, issues within those fields, major philosophers within those fields, and how those fields have evolved.

Philosophy is really about digging down as deep as possible into life, so of course very subtle points are often being made, and often philosophers struggle to find the best language to express it. Many philosophers are notorious for being bad writers or, to put it another way, never saying anything simply if they can say it in a much more convoluted manner. For this reason, it's often helpful to read introductions to philosophers before reading the philosophers themselves, to get a good overview before diving into the murkier details.

What you say about the points you get not being particularly profound could have several causes. First, consider that modern thought is a product of much historical philosophic thought, so many things that were once, at the time they were written, profound, have thoroughly been digested into our modern lives, so they can seem like little more than cliches. Second, consider Alexander Pope's maxim that "men must be taught as if you taught them not, and things unknown proposed as things forgot." I think there's a lot of that in philosophy where you come across points that are so obvious, it seems more like you forgot them, rather than that you had never thought them to begin with.

BTW, though I'm not the most well-read person in philosophy, I got my start through Bertrand Russell's excellent, accessible, A History of Western Philosophy. (http://www.amazon.com/History-Western-Philosophy-Bertrand-Russell/dp/0671201581/)

[russellb]

one author i would suggest is nigel warburton. I think i've got the name right i've read a couple of very readable introductions to philosophy by him. Also you might want to look at the illustrated 'introducing...' series which includes one on philosophy as well as various philosophers

[ladderandbucket]

I found I could understand all of the words, but not very many of the sentences.
I know that feeling well!

I once heard philosophy described as asking the questions of children in the language of lawyers. It can seem like a very difficult way of stating the obvious. The necessity for philosophy lies in the fact that we can't take the obvious for granted. Everything has to be questioned which often results in tedious and insoluble debates about language.
I do think a general knowledge of philosophy is important and fortunately some of the cornerstone works are relatively easy to read. I would recommend, in this order:

Russell - History of Western Philosophy

Russell - Problems of Philosophy

Plato - Republic

Descartes - Meditations

Hume - An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

Some kind of summary of Kant. Kant is essential but his writings are not for the casual reader. My understanding of Kant, such as it is, came from reading Schopenhauer who is well worth reading but kind of a philosophical dead end.

Dennett - Consciousness Explained

A much lighter read is Julian Baginni's The Pig that Wants to be Eaten which collects and gives commentary on 100 thought experiments - really the most interesting part of philosophy for most people. You could spend your whole life reading philosophy and not be any less confused than you would be after reading this book (I think confusion is mandatory).

[kev67]

Thanks for your answers. That is quite a reading list that l&b proposed, but maybe I will give Russell's History of Western Philosophy a go one day. I am slightly put off by Russell because of his pacifism and aggressive atheism. However, I was impressed when I read about some of his set theory paradoxes. He managed to derive a mathematical statement that was mathematically correct, but self-contradictory.

I have started reading an Open University introduction to social science text book. Open University learning materials are usually very good IME. Social science contains quite a lot of philosophy. I have already read about Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, and the Enlightenment. I am currently working through Positivism, and its successor Logical Positivism. This branch of philosophy is about how do you know what you think you know, and how to cut out bias. I am not sure social scientists have got there yet.

[TheFifthElement]

Thanks for your answers. That is quite a reading list that l&b proposed, but maybe I will give Russell's History of Western Philosophy a go one day. I am slightly put off by Russell because of his pacifism and aggressive atheism. However, I was impressed when I read about some of his set theory paradoxes. He managed to derive a mathematical statement that was mathematically correct, but self-contradictory.
I can recommend A History of Western Philosophy, it breaks down into philosophical eras and individual philosophers are covered in fairly light but manageable chunks. It's not an in-depth study, but a good starting point.
Btw - Russell was not an 'aggressive athiest' but an agnostic. He explains this quite neatly in his essay 'why I am not a Christian' which is worth a read.

[mal4mac]

BTW, though I'm not the most well-read person in philosophy, I got my start through Bertrand Russell's excellent, accessible, A History of Western Philosophy. (http://www.amazon.com/History-Western-Philosophy-Bertrand-Russell/dp/0671201581/)

This was also one of the first "popular philosophy" books I read. It's not bad, but I think there are better, including some by Russell himself, for instance, "My Philosophical Development". But my top recommendation would be Bryan Magee's "Confessions of a Philosopher". There are many others who I think do a better job than Russell: de Botton, Scruton, Kenny, Warburton,... I just completed "Plato's podcasts" by Mark Vernon, which is the brightest, breeziest introduction to Ancient Philosophy I've ever read, so if you want a nice intro. to Plato & gang, try that. Why not pop along to the local public library and try reading through their popular philosophy section?

I've read "the Metaphysical Club" and it's *not* a specialist work. It's a work of popular philosophy. But it's about a strange period of philosophy! Kev - can you give an example of a sentence that threw you? Why not start a thread on the book? I have it, and quite fancy re-reading it, so you'll get at least one responder.

[mal4mac]

... Kant is essential but his writings are not for the casual reader. My understanding of Kant, such as it is, came from reading Schopenhauer who is well worth reading but kind of a philosophical dead end.



That's mainly why I recommended Magee, he's very good on Kant and Schopenhauer (and explains why Russell isn't!)

I also like the Oxford "Very Short Introduction Series": Scruton on Kant, Singer on Hegel, Annas on Plato, ... these are very much worth reading if you are curious about a particular philosopher, or philosophy.

[mal4mac]

Btw - Russell was not an 'aggressive athiest' but an agnostic. He explains this quite neatly in his essay 'why I am not a Christian' which is worth a read.

That's a good essay to read, it confirmed me in my atheism :) Russell is wonderful on the subject of whether he should call himself an atheist or agnostic:


"I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it." http://sandwalk.blogspot.co.uk/2007/06/is-bertrand-russell-atheist-or-agnostic.html. He continues:

"As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

There is exactly the same degree of possibility and likelihood of the existence of the Christian God as there is of the existence of the Homeric God. I cannot prove that either the Christian God or the Homeric gods do not exist, but I do not think that their existence is an alternative that is sufficiently probable to be worth serious consideration. Therefore, I suppose that that on these documents that they submit to me on these occasions I ought to say "Atheist", although it has been a very difficult problem, and sometimes I have said one and sometimes the other without any clear principle by which to go.

When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others. It is much more nearly certain that we are assembled here tonight than it is that this or that political party is in the right. Certainly there are degrees of certainty, and one should be very careful to emphasize that fact, because otherwise one is landed in an utter skepticism, and complete skepticism would, of course, be totally barren and completely useless."

Also, he was not a total pacifist. He supported armed opposition to Hitler during WWII.

[mal4mac]

You could spend your whole life reading philosophy and not be any less confused than you would be after reading this book (I think confusion is mandatory).

I don't think that's true. When I was about 13 I wasn't sure whether to believe in atheism or theism, a quick scamper through Russell and I was no longer confused! The same has been true about several other fundamental problems that have bothered me.

[kev67]

I've read "the Metaphysical Club" and it's *not* a specialist work. It's a work of popular philosophy. But it's about a strange period of philosophy! Kev - can you give an example of a sentence that threw you? Why not start a thread on the book? I have it, and quite fancy re-reading it, so you'll get at least one responder.

Unfortunately I don't have it any more. I remember having a fair bit of trouble understanding Oliver Wendall Holmes (is it?). I noticed there's an author with that name with his own sub-forum here, but I think that's his father. The philosopher Wendall Holmes was a lawyer and a judge. His area seemed to be legal philosophy, if there is such a thing. I seem to remember he once made judgement about strikers that I thought was very unfair. I thought the book was better at portraying the four main philosophers' personalities than their views. I liked the guy who was described as a sort of modern day Socrates. He was a real deep thinker, but his social skills were so poor that hardly anyone at the time appreciated him. He certainly could not get any female interest. Then later there was a chap called Dewey. Everyone seemed to like him and rate him highly, but I cannot remember anything he said, probably because I could not understand it. IIRC Bertrand Russell made an appearance in the book. This surprised me, because he had only recently died. I think Russell lived to almost 100.

I have read Russell having talked about a space spaghetti monster, which made me think he was a Dawkins type aggressive atheist. I am agnostic too, but aggressive atheism annoys me.

[MorpheusSandman]

I have read Russell having talked about a space spaghetti monster, which made me think he was a Dawkins type aggressive atheist. I am agnostic too, but aggressive atheism annoys me.Flying Spaghetti Monster came long after Russell; I think you're thinking of Russell's Teapot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) Both are similar in that they're thought experiments used to illustrate the point that one can come up with outrageous theories that fit the given evidence, but they're completely pointless if we can't test them. I don't see Dawkins and the other New Atheists as "aggressive," certainly no more than the proselytizing that evangelicals have been doing for centuries. I just see them as anti-fundamentalist, which means they're against the types that attempt to get creationism taught in schools, or teaches kids that if they commit suicide for their religion they'll enter paradise. Someone NEEDS to be aggressive against such types.

[cacian]

I don't think that's true. When I was about 13 I wasn't sure whether to believe in atheism or theism, a quick scamper through Russell and I was no longer confused! The same has been true about several other fundamental problems that have bothered me.

why did you need to believe in either?

[Drkshadow03]

Kev67, this is why I wanted to start a philosophy book club!

[kev67]

Flying Spaghetti Monster came long after Russell; I think you're thinking of Russell's Teapot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot) Both are similar in that they're thought experiments used to illustrate the point that one can come up with outrageous theories that fit the given evidence, but they're completely pointless if we can't test them. I don't see Dawkins and the other New Atheists as "aggressive," certainly no more than the proselytizing that evangelicals have been doing for centuries. I just see them as anti-fundamentalist, which means they're against the types that attempt to get creationism taught in schools, or teaches kids that if they commit suicide for their religion they'll enter paradise. Someone NEEDS to be aggressive against such types.

Yes, I suppose I was thinking of Russell's Teapot :thumbs_up

I did not really intend to discuss Bertrand Russell in this thread. However, even Russell's Teapot irritates me. As did that other article of his that someone linked to, in which, when asked his religion, he had to consider before stating himself to be an agnostic. He was only an agnostic in his professional capacity as a philosopher. In practical terms he was an atheist. Russell's Teapot is a belittling analogy. He seemed to be comparing the possibility of God as a creator of the university with the possibility of characters such as Zeus or Odin having existed with all their attributed legends.

[MorpheusSandman]

Russell's Teapot is a belittling analogy. He seemed to be comparing the possibility of God as a creator of the university with the possibility of characters such as Zeus or Odin having existed with all their attributed legends.No, the teapot is a thought experiment on the nature of unfalsifiability. In particular, it's a rebuttal to the common argument from theists that atheists need to disprove God as much (if not more) than theists need to prove God. Russel's teapot proposes the existence of something that nobody can disprove. Perhaps people can make arguments and present evidence for why it might/probably exist(s), and then we can address those arguments and evidences, but nobody can directly disprove there's no teapot in orbit. This is the same thing with God. People can present arguments or evidence for God's existence, and atheists can rebut those arguments and evidences, but atheists can not directly disprove God, and it's unfair to ask them to do so.

[mortalterror]

When I read Russell's teapot analogy back in high school, it seemed like a decent thought experiment on the nature of unfalsifiability as Morpheus says. However, I have never seen a modern atheist use the thought experiment in anything but a highly insulting and belittling way. They often modify and embellish it to make the subject seem ridiculous and comical, which is something Russell did not do. It's at that point that Russell's thought experiment becomes an unfair attack, and an attempt to demean one's opponent. There are many things which are unfalsifiable, which was one point of Russell's experiment, but we don't heap derision on them. We leave open the possibility, but often doubt it as an unlikely one, which we can neither prove or disprove. The many possibilities which are unfalsifiable are neutral propositions which we cannot confirm nor deny. Neutrality, or objectivity is the default position of logic, and science, and philosophy, or at least the mark which they often strive for and often miss.

The teapot is a neutral object, and natural to Russell as an Englishman. There may even be positive connotations to the object he used, whereas the atheists I've seen make use of his argument more often speak of orgies of purple leprechauns at the heart of Neptune for instance. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is another insulting analogy. As students of literature, we must all be sensitive to the weight of these metaphors, and how like should be compared with like, and how inappropriate and odious some of these comparisons are. Comparing belief in the Judeo-Christian God to belief in Odin or Zeus seems perfectly fair, but comparing that belief to belief in unicorns, werewolves, and bigfoot is a stretch which limits the accuracy of the analogy as much as it seeks to diminish the credibility of those who believe the proposition.

[MorpheusSandman]

mortal, there are some things I agree with and disagree with in your post. I do agree many atheists do use the analogy both incorrectly and belittlingly; however, I have encountered atheists online that understood the thought experiment perfectly and used it correctly, so we just have different experiences there. As for the experiment itself, I do think Russell meant for it to be somewhat comical. While the teapot is ordinary enough, the idea of one orbiting a planet does seem somewhat comical. However, I don't necessarily think this comic element as meant in a belittling way, just in a whimsical way. As for heaping derision on unfalsifiable things, what did you have in mind? One thing that comes to mind is life on other planets. With that, though, it's a matter of thinking probabilistically based on what we know about the necessities for life to arise, and the number of planets out there (that we know of) capable of sustaining that life. So while such an unfalsifiable subject would require a lot of guessing, the guessing is, at least amongst those who professionally speculate about this stuff, educated. We know, of course, that life and other planets exist. So, yes, derision isn't heaped on beliefs like that, but that's because of the reason/logic underlying them.

While neutrality and objectivity may be the GOAL of logic, science, and philosophy, such a goal is impossible to achieve absolutely. Scientific history is itself a lesson of how our subjectivity gets in the way, if not our struggles in realizing when and how that subjectivity is in the way to begin with. It isn't always readily apparent how our hidden (from ourselves) assumptions are coloring even our observations. This is why I prefer Bayesian rationalism, because Bayes takes into account this subjectivity. It's also Bayes (amongst other things) that tells us that some unfalsifiable things are not equal, that some are far more likely than others based on the evidence at hand. So while I agree that not all unfalsifiable things deserve derision, I wouldn't agree that none of them do.

I don't think The Flying Spaghetti Monster is insulting. Its origins were in response to the various Creationist controversies at the time. The creator claimed that the FSM was just as valid an explanation as those put forward by Creationists, and he was absolutely right. The evidence for a FSM and the evidence for a Creationist universe are absolutely equal, meaning there's none. However, I generally think the FSM is valuable as satire in itself. Satire has often been used to point out absurdities that serious people overlook in their ideas. Are there differences between something a "mock" religion like Pastafarianism, deities like the FSM, and "real" religions and their deities? Yes, the same way there is a difference in how Alexander Pope presented the "Rape of the Lock" and the real incident, but that doesn't mean that there aren't some valid comparisons to be made through the satire.

You say it's unfair to compare the believe in a Judeo-Christian God to belief in bigfoot, but why so? I think the vast majority (99%+) believe werewolves and unicorns are fictional creatures, but there are many who STRONGLY believe in bigfoot and equally believe they have strong, convincing evidence for it. I think if you polled people you'd be surprised how many said that bigfoot could possibly exist and that they either believed it did or were open to the strong possibility it did. Scientology itself is a testament to how easy it is to get people to believe in nonsense, so if you're going to claim that your beliefs aren't nonsense you better be prepared to make some convincing distinctions between it and those you do believe are nonsense.

[mortalterror]

Well, as per the bigfoot analogy you said it yourself "some unfalsifiable things are not equal." Nobody with any sense believes in bigfoot, but many very intelligent rational people believe in the Judeo-Christian God. It's like comparing the number 1 to 100, the scale on which it is believed is entirely wrong. Now, if you were to compare belief in the Judeo-Christian God to another popular though long out of date deity such as Zeus or Ahura Mazda the scale and type of belief is maintained. Also, nobody prays to bigfoot. You are comparing a god to an animal, their essential characteristics are different. There are more ways in which the two objects are dissimilar, the people who believe in them are dissimilar, and the ways they believe in them are dissimilar, than there are ways in which they are similar. You can compare Dracula to the Wolfman or Bigfoot. But it's a sounder analogy to compare one god to another. It's just a better argument, and more apt, especially if you make the references timely. Christianity is a modern religion and so is Hinduism. Questioning why a theist believes in the gods of one and not the other is a much better argument for the atheist's purposes, and it doesn't belittle the theist at the same time.

Also, as far as belief in aliens goes we have much the same grounds to believe in them as we do in a god. It comes down to what leaps of imagination we are willing to take with the available (scanty) evidence. It's a probability game, the Drake equation for the alienists, and Pascal's Wager for the theists. Most of the sightings of either are by crazy people. Their craziness may not be proof that they are mistaken, but it does provide adequate grounds for most people to question their assumptions. Let's say that you don't believe that aliens have visited earth, but that they exist. We can set all personal testimonies aside. How is that different from believing that a god exists but that he's never revealed himself to mankind? And what if we conflate the two ideas? What if god is just an alien who is older than everything and created everything we know? We know that there is life on this planet, so why couldn't god be another form of life? Does it make more sense to think of god as another intelligent life form instead of as a spirit? I know that some atheists like to believe in things like ghosts or positive energy, they just reclassify them as something sciency that fits in their worldview.

[MorpheusSandman]

Well, as per the bigfoot analogy you said it yourself "some unfalsifiable things are not equal." Nobody with any sense believes in bigfoot, but many very intelligent rational people believe in the Judeo-Christian God.I wonder about the truthfulness of "nobody with any sense believes in bigfoot." You may not find very intelligent, rational people believing in Bigfoot; but, then again, higher education and higher intelligence have been equated in studies with less belief in God, too. In this case, I'd be more interested in the beliefs of people of average intelligence. Most average people don't think very hard about having standards for evidence and belief. Things like bigfoots and alien visitations and ghosts don't, for whatever reason, seem extremely improbable to many people; probably because they haven't thought about it much. I know my own mother takes the existence of those fake-documentaries on cable TV as evidence that ghosts really exist. My mother's no Einstein, but neither is she the village idiot.


Also, as far as belief in aliens goes we have much the same grounds to believe in them as we do in a god. It comes down to what leaps of imagination we are willing to take with the available (scanty) evidence. It's a probability game, the Drake equation for the alienists, and Pascal's Wager for the theists... Well, I don't think the Drake equation and Pascal's Wager are remotely the same either. The former is trying to calculate the likelihood of ET life based on what I described in my last post (ingredients for life, life-supporting planets, etc.); while the latter is a probabilistic argument not for God's existence, but for why one should believe (and even then I feel it's a poor argument, but that would be tangential).

As for your list of questions, I would snip it in the bud by saying that it shouldn't be a matter of believing in or not believing in aliens or God, but a matter of trying to correctly assign a probability to their existence. I think the probability for aliens is much higher for a great number of reasons, perhaps the best and simplest is that we both know life exists and that there are a great many life-supporting planets out there. As for your questions about God being an alien, I'm reminded of what Yudkowsky said in a post about quantum physics: "There are zillions of new fundamental laws you could postulate in the 20th decimal place; why are you even thinking about this one?" The essential point being that we have a near unlimited ability to hypothesize about the existence of anything that's out there somewhere in the realm of the unknown, but for someone to seriously consider it they need to have an amount of evidence something close to equal to how complex the hypothesis is.

Yudkowsky uses Einstein and GR as an example here. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jo/einsteins_arrogance/) (here (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jn/how_much_evidence_does_it_take/) and here (http://lesswrong.com/lw/jp/occams_razor/) are two prerequisite posts from which the majority of my reply below is based on).

What is the level of complexity (or even possibility) of any organic life developing to the point they have the attributes of gods? It's easy for us humans to abstract various qualities like knowledge or power or whatever and imagine that some being, usually quite like us, are imbued with limitless versions of those things. The problem being that nobody has bothered to propose how an infinite intelligence or power could operate, given that all our examples of both are quite limited by the physical processes by which they operate. I tend to think such things are an example of linguistic simplicity and human intuitions just completely hiding the real, ontological complexity of what's going on. We tend to underestimate how complex intelligence, power, or even emotion is because we get them on an intuitive level. On the other hand, try to program those things into a computer. On the flipside, we feel something like, say, quantum physics or General Relativity is difficult, complex, weird, etc. because we don't get it intuitively; yet the equations that govern both could be easily programmed into a computer. IE, all of this is just another example of the mind-projection fallacy, of assuming things we can intuit are simple, and things we struggle understanding are complex, even though it's often really the opposite.

[mortalterror]

higher education and higher intelligence have been equated in studies with less belief in God, too.
I wouldn't put too much faith in those studies. After all, the difference was on the order of one or two IQ points and scientists have found even greater variations in IQ between races. Plus, I believe the same studies showed an even greater correlation to IQ and Judaism than to IQ and atheism. Needless to say, the way in which IQ is determined is still a controversial issue without a full consensus as to the proper methodology. If we are talking about intuitive thinking, atheists score lower than religious people. If we are talking about emotional intelligence, they score lower. In things like mental health non-believers don't do as well as believers, and a number of different quality of life studies still show religious people out ahead. It's all about what you are measuring. If we measure athletic intelligence or artistic intelligence, I dare to predict we will find no such atheist advantage.

Also, I'm not sure that those studies show less belief in "God" so much as they show less belief in religious institutions and conventions. Often, the belief in a god is retained while the man made constructs pertaining to how it is worshiped are discarded.


In this case, I'd be more interested in the beliefs of people of average intelligence. Most average people don't think very hard about having standards for evidence and belief. Things like bigfoots and alien visitations and ghosts don't, for whatever reason, seem extremely improbable to many people; probably because they haven't thought about it much. I know my own mother takes the existence of those fake-documentaries on cable TV as evidence that ghosts really exist. My mother's no Einstein, but neither is she the village idiot.
Yes, my mother is quite intelligent and believes in nonsense too. She goes for all that new age hooey.


Well, I don't think the Drake equation and Pascal's Wager are remotely the same either. The former is trying to calculate the likelihood of ET life based on what I described in my last post (ingredients for life, life-supporting planets, etc.); while the latter is a probabilistic argument not for God's existence, but for why one should believe (and even then I feel it's a poor argument, but that would be tangential).
They both have their flaws and detractors.

Criticism of the Drake equation follows mostly from the observation that several terms in the equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. Star formation rates are on solid ground, and the incidence of planets has a sound theoretical and observational basis, but as we move from the left to right in the equation, estimating each succeeding factor becomes ever more speculative. The uncertainties revolve around our understanding of the evolution of life, intelligence, and civilization, not physics. No statistical estimates are possible for some of the parameters, where only one example is known. The net result is that equation cannot be used to draw firm conclusions of any kind, and the resulting margin of error is huge, far beyond what some consider acceptable or meaningful.[45] As Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated in a 2003 lecture at Caltech:[46]

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything, means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Criticism
My problem with the Drake equation isn't that I don't believe in aliens. It's that the equation is a string of guesses based on other assumptions with no evidence. It only seems like it is based on evidence, but it's as much a thought experiment as Russell's teapot. Belief in either Drake's equation or Pascal's Wager can only be justified with any finality in temperament. Is one optimistic in such matters or a pessimist? They are open ended questions which we fill in with what we want to believe, and what we already believe before we hear them.


As for your list of questions, I would snip it in the bud by saying that it shouldn't be a matter of believing in or not believing in aliens or God, but a matter of trying to correctly assign a probability to their existence. I think the probability for aliens is much higher for a great number of reasons, perhaps the best and simplest is that we both know life exists and that there are a great many life-supporting planets out there.
People make the same argument for the existence of God. You start from your own existence and then posit that there may be others like you but different. Simple as that.

Consider your own argument. If there is life and it is not like us then what is it like? Is it intelligent? Is it more intelligent than us? Is there a spectrum of intelligence, and what do we place at either end? These are exactly the questions people asked, and the reasons people gave thousands of years ago when they began to speculate on the nature of God.

[MorpheusSandman]

I wouldn't put too much faith in those studies. After all, the difference was on the order of one or two IQ points and scientists have found even greater variations in IQ between races.I wasn't referring to the studies done on the average IQs of atheists VS believers, but rather studies done on the people of the highest IQs and education levels: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-thinkingchristians.htm

In particular:

1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

3. Southern and Plant, 1968
Studied 42 male and 30 female members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.


My problem with the Drake equation isn't that I don't believe in aliens. It's that the equation is a string of guesses based on other assumptions with no evidence.IIRC, The Drake equation is simply an abstract formula for figuring out the probability of alien life. The problem isn't the formula itself, but the numbers we plug into it. People argue what the values are. This is not dissimilar to the controversy over how to obtain priors in Bayesian probability. The Bayes' formula itself is unassailable, but the numbers we plug into are another matter (garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes). I agree that our knowledge on the pertinent matters is probably too little to come up with any reliably accurate numbers on the probability of alien life.


People make the same argument for the existence of God. You start from your own existence and then posit that there may be others like you but different. Simple as that.

Consider your own argument. If there is life and it is not like us then what is it like? Is it intelligent? Is it more intelligent than us? Is there a spectrum of intelligence, and what do we place at either end? These are exactly the questions people asked, and the reasons people gave thousands of years ago when they began to speculate on the nature of God.Well, there is a difference between "alien life," "alien intelligence," "alien intelligence equal/greater than ours," and the supposed "omniscience" of God. The scale of likelihood decreases from the first to the last. Alien life is more likely than alien intelligence (there is far more "life" on Earth than "intelligent life"), alien intelligence is far more likely than aline intelligence equal/greater than ours, and so on for the same reasons. I'm not sure why you think it's the "same argument for God." We have, at least, one example (us) of a certain level of intelligence, but we have no examples of omniscience or even greater than us intelligence. While it's one thing to imagine intelligence being greater than ours (indeed, most working on AI research contend it's just a matter of harnessing enough processing power before we're no match for AI), it's quite another to postulate godlike intelligence. Eventually you run into fundamental physical limitations, which makes most believers propose God's intelligence as being somehow metaphysical (in the literal sense of "beyond the physical," not in the philosophic sense), for which we have no evidence for any metaphysical intelligence whatsoever.

[mortalterror]

I took a look into that link you provided and into this Lewis Terman fellow.

“High-grade or border-line deficiency... is very, very common among Spanish-Indian and Mexican families of the Southwest and also among negroes. Their dullness seems to be racial, or at least inherent in the family stocks from which they come... Children of this group should be segregated into separate classes... They cannot master abstractions but they can often be made into efficient workers... from a eugenic point of view they constitute a grave problem because of their unusually prolific breeding” (The Measurement of Intelligence, 1916, p. 91-92).
Apparently, the dude was into eugenics and compulsory sterilization. I was a little concerned at how old the studies were, but some of this is rather alarming. I saw that one of his studies concluded that religiously conservative students aren't as intelligent, but I don't think he is accounting for whether the underlying factor is their religion or the conservatism, or even controlling for regional differences in education.

As for the Mensa group you are going to get some selection bias. There's supposed to be an unusual number of unemployed and homeless people in Mensa too. They have a reputation for being a tad eccentric, anti-social, and awkward socially, introverts mostly, about 70% male, overwhelmingly white. Either way, Mensa is not a representative group.

Interesting enough, there is a correlation between non-belief and high functioning autism and Aspergers syndrome, suggesting that Atheism might be the result of brain disorder. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/05/29/people-with-aspergers-less-likely-to-see-purpose-behind-the-events-in-their-lives/

You'll also see statistically high levels of homosexuals among the atheist community, because of the anti-homosexual message often found in Christian churches. https://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/282-spiritual-profile-of-homosexual-adults-provides-surprising-insights

We also find higher levels of non-belief in the prison system among inmates despite their incentive to lie and claim reform through religious means.

In the federal prisoner statistics, a full 20% of the respondents either answered "none" or provided no response to the question on religious affiliation. Based on response patterns to similar questions on nationwide surveys, it is likely that all or nearly all of these persons would be in the "nonreligious" category (or the "atheists" category, to use the terminology from the atheist web page itself). Even without adding the ".209%" of the population that specifically identified themselves as atheists, the segment of the prison population which self-identifies as non-religious is approximately twice as large as found in the general population.
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html (Based on a study by Denise Golumbaski, who was a Research Analyst for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The data was compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997.)

The supposed intelligence correlation is something that atheists frequently cite to back up their propaganda that atheism is the choice of intelligent rational people, and they are elite or superior to the rest of the population. We're led to believe that one follows from the other, that atheism follows naturally from intelligence and education, but you might just as easily say that your atheism is the result of eccentricity, homosexuality, a mental disorder, or a criminal temperament.

[mal4mac]

I wonder about the truthfulness of "nobody with any sense believes in bigfoot." You may not find very intelligent, rational people believing in Bigfoot

Stop wondering, use Google. E.g.:

http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2003/10/1023_031023_bigfoot.html

Of course you could say the lawyers and scientists in that article were not "the best", which I think would be reasonable. Which is why we should look at FRS levels scientists. Many average scientists, and lawyers, believe in all kinds of nonsense. Maybe it's because they're average? They make up for their lack of success by pretending to believe in something that makes them feel special, at least to themselves.

[cacian]

big foot little hand I mean loch ness the wild cat and then there is the camera and the ufo sighting only above American skies.

Quote Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman View Post

I wonder about the truthfulness of "nobody with any sense believes in bigfoot." You may not find very intelligent, rational people believing in Bigfoot
the question remains why does not want to believe in anything that they do not experience themselves.
I saw nothing but heard lots. do I need to believe? why? cause I cannot be bothered.
there is this feeling that one feels they have to believe it is like clinging into something because they need it.

[mal4mac]

Interesting enough, there is a correlation between non-belief and high functioning autism and Aspergers syndrome, suggesting that Atheism might be the result of brain disorder.

So 97% of FRS levels scientists, and 93% of their American equivalents, have a brain disorder?



The supposed intelligence correlation is something that atheists frequently cite to back up their propaganda that atheism is the choice of intelligent rational people, and they are elite or superior to the rest of the population.

Stating that that 97% of FRS are atheists isn't propaganda, it's repeating an interesting fact. Who is saying that FRS are, generally, superior to the rest of the population? They are superior at doing science, the FRS after their names is testimony to that, but no one is arguing that they are superior as human beings.

[mortalterror]

So 97% of FRS levels scientists, and 93% of their American equivalents, have a brain disorder?
Well, I did leave open the possibility that they could also be homosexual criminals. And haven't you ever heard of Temple Grandin? But in all seriousness I still dispute the methodology of the study, the questions, and interpretation which got them to those figures.

Scientific assessment of the extent of "atheism" in various populations is beset with a number of problems. First in most of the world outside of East Asia the vast majority of the populations are believers in either a monotheistic or polytheistic system, typically being cited as 90% or more in countries like the United States or India. Consequently questions to assess non belief often take the form of any negation of the prevailing belief rather than an assertion of positive atheism and these will then be accounted, somewhat inaccurately, to rising "atheism".[3][4][5]
...
Studies and statistics

The demographics of atheism are substantially difficult to quantify. Different people interpret atheism and related terms differently, and it can be hard to draw boundaries between atheism, nonreligious beliefs, and nontheistic religious and spiritual beliefs. Furthermore, atheists may not report themselves as such, to prevent suffering from social stigma, discrimination, and persecution in some countries.[8]

Because some governments have strongly promoted atheism and others have strongly condemned it, atheism may be either over-reported or under-reported for different countries. There is a great deal of room for debate as to the accuracy of any method of estimation, as the opportunity for misreporting (intentionally or not) a category of people without an organizational structure is high. Also, many surveys on religious identification ask people to identify themselves as "agnostics" or "atheists", which is potentially confusing, since these terms are interpreted differently, with some identifying themselves as being agnostic atheists. Additionally, many of these surveys only gauge the number of irreligious people, not the number of actual atheists, or group the two together. For example, research indicates that the fastest growing religious status may be "no religion" in the United States, but this includes all kinds of atheists, agnostics, and theists.[9][10] Non-religious people make up 9.66%, while one fifth of them are atheists.[1]
Statistical problems

Statistics on atheism are often difficult to represent accurately for a variety of reasons. Atheism is a position compatible with other forms of identity. Some atheists also consider themselves Agnostic, Buddhist, Hindu, Jains, Taoist, or hold other related philosophical beliefs. Some, like Secular Jews and Shintoists, may indulge in some religious activities as a way of connecting with their culture, all the while being atheist. Therefore, given limited poll options, some may use other terms to describe their identity. Some politically motivated organizations that report or gather population statistics may, intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresent atheists. Survey designs may bias results due to the nature of elements such as the wording of questions and the available response options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism


Stating that that 97% of FRS are atheists isn't propaganda, it's repeating an interesting fact. Who is saying that FRS are, generally, superior to the rest of the population? They are superior at doing science, the FRS after their names is testimony to that, but no one is arguing that they are superior as human beings.
As I was going to sleep last night, I realized why scientists fall outside the normal distribution pattern for religious attitudes and it actually had nothing to do with intelligence or reason. If it were a matter of intelligence, we would see the same results across a number of disciplines. The elite in economics, art, medicine, literature, philosophy, history, music, law, linguistics, and leadership would show this trend in the same pronounced numbers. But instead the trend is limited to scientists. Why? It was an adaptation to their environment. In their line of work, it is advantageous to be skeptical. It is rewarded, encouraged, and reinforced. And even though the study at hand only measures religious skepticism, they are actually skeptical about a variety of subjects outside of religion in greater numbers than the general public as well. For instance, they are far more skeptical of business than most Americans.

Scientists also are more critical of business; they are roughly half as likely as the public to say that “business corporations generally strike a fair balance between making profits and serving the public interest” (20% of scientists vs. 37% of public).
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/
Another interesting statistical anomaly is how much more liberal and Democratic scientists tend to be relative to the population at large.

The scientists’ belief that the scientific community is politically liberal is largely accurate. Slightly more than half of scientists (52%) describe their own political views as liberal, including 14% who describe themselves as very liberal. Among the general public, 20% describe themselves as liberal, with just 5% calling themselves very liberal.

Most scientists identify as Democrats (55%), while 32% identify as independents and just 6% say they are Republicans. When the leanings of independents are considered, fully 81% identify as Democrats or lean to the Democratic Party, compared with 12% who either identify as Republicans or lean toward the GOP. Among the public, there are far fewer self-described Democrats (35%) and far more Republicans (23%). Overall, 52% of the public identifies as Democratic or leans Democratic, while 35% identifies as Republican or leans Republican.
http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/
This is largely due to liberalizing factors in academia, where many scientists are trained and find their employment, as well as the trend in politics for the Democrats to support increased science funding. Their attitudes in this respect can be seen as the result of self-interest and social forces, the same as union members holding strong Democratic views.

So you see there are systemic reasons that account for these aberrations, and their extent is not just limited to the metaphysical. If intelligence and rationality were the control factors we would see their results mirrored across other disciplines, but in intellectually demanding jobs like physicians we see trends pointing the other way. That is because skepticism while advantageous in the scientific realm can be a handicap in others. We see very little atheism in world leaders for instance. In jobs like leadership and medicine that require higher Emotional Intelligence, religious attitudes are advantageous.

[RequiemDisease]

I've had a situation very similar. At first, I picked up as many philosophical texts such as a translation of "The Republic" by Plato and soon realized I had extreme difficulty reading the text. A big part of Philosophy is reflecting. If you don't reflect on what you read in philosophy, how are you supposed to understand the message the philosopher is trying to make evident? Like a user explained above, picking a introductory text in philosophy is essential for the first step.

[NikolaiI]

I agree, somewhat, with the "introductory text" thing, with a very important caveat. One should be selective. Not just a little bit so, but excruciatingly selective. I somehow came across a wonderful book that had 8 "Western" philosophers, including Descartes, Pascal, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Nietzsche, Ficthe, Kierkegaard, among others, but I have not been able to find the title again. I do highly recommend starting out with Descartes Meditations on a First Philosophy. It's not about the fact that one person believes this, or believes that; that one is an atheist, or one is a deist - all of those views are true in some extent, they are a particular perception of reality.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Descartes' Meditations is absolutely ideal because it is very well written, (if you get the best translation ;)) it is very enjoyable, it is cohesive, it is reflecting, and it is rather deep. It is quite understandable; it is enjoyable simply as a discourse or conversation with the writer, and it is not watered down or anything. One (big, serious) problem with reading introductory type texts is that you are getting a watered down version of what some author or thinker said. Descartes is elevated enough to give wonderful food for thought; it's written in reflection, but it is also very accessible, readable and enjoyable. This really makes it perfect to begin with.

No, Descartes maybe doesn't arrive at the ultimate truth - although such a thing could never be static. But neither is he completely bound by his previous thinking. He maybe doesn't reach the same levels as the highest consciousness has reached - but he is following the right process. . .

Anyway, it's a perfect first step into philosophy. When I read it, I could really feel the depth of it, and felt what philosophy was for the first time.

I would say one more thing about reading introductory texts, and why it's wrong to read interpretations of thinkers. 1) You're introducing a filter, another imperfect mind interpreting your source, and that dilutes and pollutes what you receive. By reading a philosopher, you are already reading someone else' thoughts about life, about reality, "the crumbs from another person's table," in the words of Schopenhaur. I am of one mind with Emerson and he and many others who place so much emphasis on your own mind, your own understanding, your own perception and experience and knowing.

What does another person's understanding benefit you? None. But I don't quite take the view that one shouldn't read at all. I just feel we should be extremely selective - and by that means, by finding the best 1% of humanity's wisdom, literature, and philosophy, it can really change one's life. . . if you spend your time with humanity's greatness and genius, it shines through in your life with a warmth that you won't get if you are indiscriminate about what you let into your mind/heart.

To recap: a philosopher is writing their thoughts on life and reality, which thoughts are no deeper or better than your own (and usually less so); so if you are going to read a thinker at all, you should a) find the very most brilliant, and b) read it for yourself. You should only read it for yourself for these reasons as well as that it wastes your time and slows you down if you read someone's introduction or (mis)interpretation of Descartes, Jaspers, Ficthe, Nietzsche, or anyone else.

There is no reason to read any philosopher that is convoluted, and I recommend against doing so. One should be able to find more than one would ever need within the restrictions of it being readable, enjoyable and enlightening.

I'm not at all really a fan of Russell for a couple of reasons. . But again, Descartes is perfect to start with; I got lucky with that book I mentioned because it gave me a very wonderful sample of different ones. . .

So I would just say, mainly be selective. When you can work your way to Emerson, then you know you've reached a place you probably won't fall back from. ;)

Go from readable to readable, you know; go for Jaspers or Ficthe or (Thus Spake) Zarathustra if it seems at the right time for you. No need to read Kant really, unless you want to; a good translation of The World as Will and Idea would generally be more than enough.. It's great to read selections of things like Pensees (Thoughts) by Pascal, to get a good feel for his philosophy. If you find a philosopher you really love, you'll probably want to read almost all of his/her works; and if you over-indulge you'll probably become finished with them for a good while. Emerson, Goethe, Dostoevsky are among the most insightful of Western thinkers. . It does good to read books now and then that are literature/philosophy, like Siddhartha, by Hesse, Crime and Punishment and the rest of Dostoevsky's work. . The Sorrows of Young Werther, and Wilhelm Meister by Goethe, and his poetry - all of these will help you to understand the other, more strictly philosophy you may read.

In this way I have found it to be most fruitful and most satisfying. It can be very enjoyable; it can be very enlightening. It doesn't have to be confusing: and I would say again, you can avoid it by reading things that are readable always, try to find the best translations, and try to find the best 1% of everything you consume (mentally, emotionally, physically, are all linked), by whatever criterion you use.

This may be a longer answer than necessary. But I didn't even mention yet Socrates, who reached a higher place than most who came since him; or Buddha or any of the Eastern philosophy. If you are interested in that, there is an introductory text which is absolutely and simply superb, called Entering the Stream. It's a dollar. Besides this; there are a ton of books that are fantastic, such as The Further Reaches of Human Nature, by Abraham Maslow - really not at all about the hierarchy of needs! :p - In My Own Way, just an autobiography of Alan Watts, but it contains a lot of probably new ideas and good thoughts about life, society, philosophy and religion, etc.; and many others.

Still only in Western mostly. . in Eastern; Swami Vivekananda (Living at the Source is a more-than-fantastic book to begin with), Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sri Aurobindo, Sri Ramakrishna, and a few others are excellent for Hinduism. . .
etc.

[mal4mac]

As I was going to sleep last night, I realized why scientists fall outside the normal distribution pattern for religious attitudes and it actually had nothing to do with intelligence or reason. If it were a matter of intelligence, we would see the same results across a number of disciplines. The elite in economics, art, medicine, literature, philosophy, history, music, law, linguistics, and leadership would show this trend in the same pronounced numbers. But instead the trend is limited to scientists.

I very much doubt that. I'm always surprised when I hear a member of today's elite (outside politics) say he or she is a theist. If we go one step down from the elite, and just look at jobbing philosophers, here's a survey result:

God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.

http://io9.com/what-percentage-of-philosophers-believe-in-god-485784336

This is quite similar to the result for scientists of a similar standing.



Why? It was an adaptation to their environment. In their line of work, it is advantageous to be skeptical.


Their "line of work" is understanding the universe, isn't that what all of us should be trying to do, as best we can? They are not bankers, they don't just have a "line of work", they are actually doing something of fundamental importance.



It is rewarded, encouraged, and reinforced. And even though the study at hand only measures religious skepticism, they are actually skeptical about a variety of subjects outside of religion in greater numbers than the general public as well. For instance, they are far more skeptical of business than most Americans.


Another sign of their great sanity!



Another interesting statistical anomaly is how much more liberal and Democratic scientists tend to be relative to the population at large.


You just keep on making the case for science :)



This is largely due to liberalizing factors in academia, where many scientists are trained and find their employment, as well as the trend in politics for the Democrats to support increased science funding. Their attitudes in this respect can be seen as the result of self-interest and social forces, the same as union members holding strong Democratic views.


Or it might be because they have thought the matter through and decided that democracy, and science funding, leads to better results for society. If you are an FRS your job is safe, it doesn't matter whether right or left get into power, you have the freedom to say exactly what you think. Why would they go around pretending to believe in left wing views, if they actually hold right wing views? It's not like medieval times when a scientist would die if he said, "I don't think a king should rule."



... in intellectually demanding jobs like physicians we see trends pointing the other way. That is because skepticism while advantageous in the scientific realm can be a handicap in others. We see very little atheism in world leaders for instance. In jobs like leadership and medicine that require higher Emotional Intelligence, religious attitudes are advantageous.

It's not "Emotional Intelligence", its a rather cynical ploy to keep hold of power and money. In the USA, politicians don't want to lose the votes of deluded Christian voters. A General Medical Practitioner, in a southern state of America, daren't let it be known that he's an atheist or he would lose high paying customers.

[Drkshadow03]

I very much doubt that. I'm always surprised when I hear a member of today's elite (outside politics) say he or she is a theist. If we go one step down from the elite, and just look at jobbing philosophers, here's a survey result:

God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.

http://io9.com/what-percentage-of-philosophers-believe-in-god-485784336

This is quite similar to the result for scientists of a similar standing.



And yet here is a related study (http://www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs2/FacultyReligion07.pdf) done by The Institute for Jewish and Community Research, which describes itself as an independent, non-partisan think tank.

From the conclusion: "The data were surprising in revealing that faculty are more religious than many observers might have conjectured. Certainly, most
faculty are not anti-religious. Most faculty believe in God, identify with some religious tradition, want their children to have some religious
training, and attend religious services at least occasionally. Not so surprisingly, compared to the general public, faculty are less religious on nearly all measures.

In the study, they also found Math, science, and Social Science faculty were the least likely to believe in G-d, while those in health and education were the most likely to believe in G-d, followed by Business Faculty.

[hypatia_]

I would say one more thing about reading introductory texts, and why it's wrong to read interpretations of thinkers. 1) You're introducing a filter, another imperfect mind interpreting your source, and that dilutes and pollutes what you receive. By reading a philosopher, you are already reading someone else' thoughts about life, about reality, "the crumbs from another person's table," in the words of Schopenhaur. I am of one mind with Emerson and he and many others who place so much emphasis on your own mind, your own understanding, your own perception and experience and knowing.

You are introducing a filter by stating what philosophers you feel people should focus on! Having said that, I appreciate the outline you have created; it is definitely a good jumping off point for someone intimidated by centuries of works.

[OscarWildebeest]

A very relevant, a very intriguing thread, after reading all of it! If I may contribute?

The most complex something about the philosophers and their philosophy is the manner in which writers write about them/it. However, like a painting: I think it was Kandinski who stated that the success of a painting depends on the extent to which it expresses the personality of a painter. Understand the man, and you will understand his philosophy. There also is the further problem of the context of words as it relates to a specific time frame, and the accompanying translation. (The late professor Guthrie explains this in his simple "The Greek philosophers"). Also, one needs to read the philosophers in sequence for mostly they reacted to what has gone before.

That said I am presently attempting to simplify most of them, if you would like to read? http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?78460-Philosophers-simplified.

Thank you.