There are plenty of responses to Kant's (frankly super-boring) Critique of Pure Reason. I can only speak for myself, but apprehending truth is a lot easier using the scientific method than it is by reading Kant. 

Mine is the placement of modern religion next to ancient religion in terms of status. They are equally valid in their assertions and explanations.

No, not really. Uncertainty in that context means the problem becomes probabilistic. Matter is made up of probabilistic parts, so that's just a rational description of matter and our limitations when measuring. There's nothing supernatural or dramatic about that. 

I can't speak for Sapient, but his knowledge of the nature of the universe might not be complete. Speaking with an astrophysicist would give you a better idea of the scientific problem of the expanding universe.

True enough. I suppose I should use the terms "fact" and "fantasy" to make it easier from now on.

The scientific method is actually designed to take us beyond that kind of thinking. For instance, by determining that microbes cause disease. That theory broke through the commonly held beliefs of the time because its evidence became undeniable. Evidence being presented consistently is one of the features of the scientific method that make it so effective. It's now a fact that both bacteria and viruses are the reason for what we now call infection.

The double-blind method. It's an important part of the process to keep exactly Kant's concerns from ruining research.

I don't think so. But that's why we have probability. Fact within a high degree of probability is still fact. It's just fact with built-in humility.

The problem with absolutes and that kind of perfectionism in general is that it requires exhaustive knowledge. There's no reason to think that we will ever have exhaustive knowledge, and so probability is a more "adult" way of dealing with facts.

That's classic Hawking. He's a shit disturber, and he knows exactly what he's saying with statements like that. It's absolutely true that a perfectly deterministic universe is impossible. But that's again where probability comes in, particularly when you're talking about quantum indederminacy (which I think he was).

We've grown up a lot since then. Human reason, like all human endeavours, is limited. That's not to say our capacity for discovery can't grow, it's just saying we are limited, which is a fair statement.

I'm not sure I read Nietzsche the same way, there. He was a big fan of classics, and I think (thought I could be wrong) that he equated gods with gods. But I've definitely disagreed with Nietzsche before, so it wouldn't be the first time.

It might be a local idiomatic expression. It means a prankster or someone who always has that twinkle in their eye like they're messing with you.

Haha - "distributor". That would be funny, but certainly not. I think he was just writing something inflammatory in a book with a popular audience. I honestly wouldn't know if he had a religious agenda, since I'm not familiar with his views on religion.

Oh, I know what you're talking about now. I'm more of a hobby reader of Nietzsche anyway. I find him a fun read, and he may have influenced the way I put my statement about classical and modern gods. It's possible Nietzsche and I disagree on many more things.

I tend to argue (in a tongue-in-cheek way I think Nietzsche enjoyed himself) that having more than one god at least eliminates the tiresome arguments about omnipotence, and makes for better stories. The modern christian seems forced to make a god out of the devil in order to accomplish this goal. But at least that way, there's a battle.

We are conscious; we are part of the universe; therefore the universe has consciousness. The question is, did this consciousness exist at the beginning or did it evolve later on. All evidence points to it evolving. Therefore, it is not necessary that the universe did not start out with conscious, but it is rational to believe that it probably did not.

i suppose i was speaking of monism in the hindu, specifically advaita vedanta, sense: everything is one, this one is "god" (brahman to the vendantist, which is ultimately impersonal but can manifest itself in personal "god forms," e.g. vishnu, siva, etc.), and it is every being's goal to achieve liberation (moksha) from the cycle of rebirth and become one with brahman.  i'm not a hindu, i just wondered what your take on this view would be.

i don't think "consciousness" is at all necessary to an explanation of the universe, but neither do i see how it is detrimental.

please understand me, i'm not presenting or insinuating any "theory" i have.  i have none.  but i think you will agree with me that there are very few atheists in the world today who can really explain the position of atheism and why a god of any stripe is not only not provable (sic?) and unnecessary, but without a doubt nonexistent. i'll go ahead and show my cards and tell you, i'm just a great big skeptic of pretty much everything.  i know your website claims there is no distinction between atheism and agnosticism, but still, you must admit there is a distinction between those who say "i'm not sure there is a god, i've seen nothing to prove that to me" and "i am certain that, despite my lack of comprehensive knowledge of the universe, there cannot possibly be a god."  i would just like to ascertain why an atheist such as yourself holds the latter position to be so necessary.

i grill fundies too, by the way.  more than any atheist, because there's a helluva lot more of 'em.  ever seen "dawn of the dead"?  that's how full america is of fundies.  i'm glad i moved to europe.

Same answer - it just seems kind of "extra".

Do you mean the belief in that explanation would be detrimental? Or just that the consciousness itself might be detrimental? I would rather say it's either "irrelevant" or not there until it presents itself. Until then, it's a non-issue except in the form of cultural artifacts.

But "probably not existent" is surely the grown-up version of "without a doubt nonexistent" isn't it? There's no way to acheive exhaustive, perfect knowledge, so I just suck it up and go with what's probable. Gods just don't seem to have shown up, so until they do, they're not really all that relevant to me.

It's not really "necessary" to disprove leprechans either, is it? Do I have to disprove flying walruses or can we reasonably say there probably aren't any of those either? That's all I'm saying. That's the strong atheist position as far as I'm concerned: probably no flying walruses, and probably no gods.

He's absolutely correct. Our perception of reality is filtered through our senses. For instance, when we "see" a friend standing in front of us, we are not perceiving him directly. Photons are bouncing off him and striking receptors in our eyes, which are converted  to nerve impulses and fed into our brain. This allows our brain to form a "model" of our friend in front of us. This model is further given validity through further senses: we say, "Hello," and our friend responds with, "How's it hangin'?" We reach out with our hand, and we feel them clasp it and shake. This is further verified with our eyes receiving photons that have bounced off his shaking hand.

The fact that all these senses agree leaves us with one of two conclusions: either our mind is playing tricks with us and presenting a coherent model where none exists; or, our sensations are of an objective, perceivable reality. Can we know we are perceiving truth? Not for certain. We might really live in the world of the Matrix. That kind of solipsism leads us nowhere.

So, I assume our sensations of reality are correct, and present us an accurate (though perhaps biased) model of reality.

As Will pointed out, the scientific method has built-in tools to help us with skewed data collection bias.

Then there's the question of the model of the universe we create based on our sensations of reality. Our models are judged on their ability to predict new information that is also perceivable, such as reaching out our hand to our friend, and feeling him shake it. The more observation supports our model, the closer we assume it is to reality.

That doesn't mean the ontology given us by science is necessarily a perfect model of reality. Some philosophers and scientists assume there is more than one possible ontology that fits our data. This has actually occurred, such as when quantum mechanics replaced Newtonian dynamics. You could even say our ontology is nothing more than a "super-theory," that may be replaced by a more-accurate ontology at a later time, a new ontology that more accurately models reality.

So, science has tools to accurately adjust for observational bias; but it also has tools to adjust (eventually) for interpretive bias. Although I believe Kant was correct in pointing this out, I believe he underestimated the ability of science to account for these very-human flaws.

At this point, I think the biggest question we can ask is, "At what point will human conception give out, and fail science?" That is, are we sophisticated enough to understand a model of the universe that accurately reflects all of reality? Or, will we hit a wall of understanding?

As far as "proof" of the existence of God goes -- so far, science is the only epistemology that can demonstrably adjust for human bias. Therefore, any other knowledge, including that of God, is suspect, and susceptible to human bias.

Near as I can tell, the belief in God is especially subject to human bias.

nigel,

i appreciate the thoughtful response.  i don't think kant necessarily leads to solipsism.  maybe a radical interpretation of kant does.  we have to remember kant's basic objective: not to argue positively for the existence of a "more real" reality than what our senses can apprehend (i don't think he ever said for sure if he truly believed his world of ideals was different from what our senses perceive), but rather to explore the limits of reason, since we are hopelessly trapped inside our own brains.

the whole point of my initial post was to ascertain just what the RRS is all about: if it is just eliminating religion (or indeed all matters of faith), or arguing for empiricism as the be-all, end-all of what should influence how societies function.

i would also like to hear your take on my last question about religion as a human survival mechanism.

i want to assure you that i am not interested in discussing whether or not god exists, although perhaps i am a bit interested in whether or not we can say with certainty god does not exist.  from what i gather, will holds it as a matter of probabilities.  i would like to hear other perspectives, if there are any.

That's difficult, considering they all said slightly different things. If you mean the behaviour itself is present in humans, I'll buy that. But to conclude that we require it for survival, or even success, is jumping the gun. At best, it's a statement about behaviour that confuses correlation with causation, and at worst, it's intellectual elitism, where the populace could never survive without guidance from aristocrats with a supernatural endorsement.

But that's different than believing it's true. You can live a myth without outright believing in the supernatural. He was also there commenting on culture in a general sense, and the civilization as hero, etc. In that context, it's not really about the supernatural, but the legendary.

Certainly not. There's no reason to believe that people will behave differently than they always have, in the absence or presence of supernatural entities. We are kind and horrible to each other with or without the immaterial reference. There's no evidence that a god or gods make our behaviour better than the absence of a god or gods.

Was everyone ready for the idea of evolution? No. But it's a fact. We can run away from fact or we can face it. Whether people are not ready for something doesn't make it false.

That question doesn't need to involve an arbitrary supernatural creature either. What if we happen to like being alive? That's a good reason, isn't it? Even outside of reason, many of us have strong survival instincts. We just want to live. Why does that need a reason?

Hell, no. Not you and me, anyway. It'll be centuries before we get to the point where we understand ourselves enough to finally know that God exists, or know that he does not.

Thanks.

They were rhetorical, certainly. I was merely providing the reasons I don't cash in. I originally did stop at the first, but then I realized that my life isn't just about me having fun, but helping those around me have fun, too. That's partly why I like to be funny when I can. I think it helps people have fun.

Next time, I'll stop with the first, and put a couple of exlamation points after it.

It certainly doesn't carry the weight of an argument based on the reasoning of Russell or Kant, but it suits me.

I really hope Camus was much more fun at a party than it seems he'd be. Maybe he didn't get invited to parties. That'd certainly explain a lot.