Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Anthony Flew

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The Individual

The Certainty Concept is new to me and I'm trying to comprehend it.

Take a pregnant woman for instance. According to the Certainty Concept, it would be reasonable if the woman expected her child would be born with two eyes, two ears, a nose, a mouth, etc. But there have been occasions when a child is born with six fingers on a hand instead of five. What does that mean? Can one still be certain that a child is going to be born with two eyes, two ears, etc?

For clarification: certainty, as you saw in the definition, is an assessment that leads to a general conclusion about an idea or concept. The pregnant woman is a concrete example with (in your statement) no evidence available.

Dawkins doesn't help the Atheist movement? I have to disagree. I think Dawkins tipped more people into Atheism than Objectivism did, albeit using the wrong method I suppose. Isn't it taught in Science that nothing is absolute and therefore we have to be skeptical and question everything?

Conservatives bring people to the Rep. party but long-term do not help the conservative movement.

Do you see what was meant there?

Those who became atheists as a result of reading Obj. are at least clear on their beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still confused about Certainty. I keep re-reading the definition of it in the Lexicon.

“Certain” represents an assessment of the evidence for a conclusion; it is usually contrasted with two other broad types of assessment: “possible” and “probable.”

Idea X is “certain” if, in a given context of knowledge, the evidence for X is conclusive. In such a context, all the evidence supports X and there is no evidence to support any alternative.

You cannot challenge a claim to certainty by means of an arbitrary declaration of a counter-possibility, you cannot manufacture possibilities without evidence.

All the main attacks on certainty depend on evading its contextual character.

(Ayn Rand lexicon)

I don't understand the the two terms "probable" and "possible". What is the difference?

And what does "evidence for X is conclusive" mean? How conclusive must "conclusive" be?

Does it mean if all evidence points to the penguins being flightless, it is certain (or probable/possible) then that penguins cannot fly?

Edited by The Individual
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"possible" roughly means there is some cause to believe something may be the case. This doesn't mean mere metaphysical possibility. We cannot consider it int he range of possibility that if a man is found dead, everyone is a possible suspect because all humans are capable of murder.

"probable" entails that the evidence is in a theory's favor. Keeping with the murder case example (As Peikoff does in OPAR), lets say we discover John Smith has hard feelings for Jane Doe. The night she was murdered, John Smith was vacant from his normal activity with friends. Police also know he recent purchased a firearm. This is not enough to convict a man, but it is enough to suspect he is the one who murdered Jane Doe

Certainty is the elimination pf probability. There is no percentage of how certain one is. It simply IS the case based on conclusive evidence (John Smith's fingerprints were found on the gun that killed Jane Doe, her blood was found on his shirt). Now at this point you could step in and say "Yet it's still in the range of possibility that he did not do it". Well, that certainly may be true. What is your evidence? Do you have any evidence to the contrary? No? Then your assertion is arbitrary. There is a reason why baseless accusations are not allowed in courts. Let us take the opposite example of John Smith, Bob Smith. Bob Smith knew the victim, however all his friends say he was in Philadelphia that night. Also, he has no training with a firearm and the shot to Jane Doe was very precise. Also, no one knows of any ill feelings Bob has to Jane. Do you think it would be good for the defense to accuse Bob Jones, because it is still "possible" that Bob did it, even though there is evidence to the contrary and there is conclusive evidence in John Smith's case?

Now of course, certainty is contextual. Within the context of the police knowledge of the murder, John is the man who did it. Later on, it could be discovered he was not the murderer, but there is no reason to consider that within the range of the context of that court case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Individual

I am still confused about Certainty. I keep re-reading the definition of it in the Lexicon.

I don't understand the the two terms "probable" and "possible". What is the difference?

Possible to Probable to Certain: may, likely, will happen; see the dictionary.

And what does "evidence for X is conclusive" mean? How conclusive must "conclusive" be?

Does it mean if all evidence points to the penguins being flightless, it is certain (or probable/possible) then that penguins cannot fly?

Yes - certain. You used the key word - "all."

It takes more reading to truly understand abstractions like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we are "certain" God doesn't exist because there has been no conclusive evidence to the contrary?

We are certain because of no evidence of a god. More fundamentally, because of the false Meta. premise discussed....

"No conclusive evidence" suggests some evidence.

Note that an atheist believes in no god primarily because of the philosophical contradictions. He does not hold that belief because he can prove there is no god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are certain because of no evidence of a god. More fundamentally, because of the false Meta. premise discussed....

"No conclusive evidence" suggests some evidence.

Note that an atheist believes in no god primarily because of the philosophical contradictions. He does not hold that belief because he can prove there is no god.

What is the false Meta?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the false Meta?

Grames already discussed. Most conceptions of God, especially the three major monotheist religions, deal with a being who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. This goes against fundamental axioms, namely of existence existing and the law of identity.

Also, God is defined by its supernatural existence. Objectivism rejects any idea of supernature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does Objectivism deny the possibility of God, or merely dismiss the notion as arbitrary?

My line of inference is that claiming the existence of God necessarily places Him within the sphere of existence, which makes it impossible for Him to transcend the universe.

But is it possible for a God to exist as part of the universe, if not as the creator of existence?

Edited by BRG253
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'BRG253'

Does Objectivism deny the possibility of God, or merely dismiss the notion as arbitrary?

Obj. or atheism refutes the notion of a god due to a metaphysical contradiction (discussed).

It does not prove there is no god - can't prove a negative.

The notion is not arbitrary; it is fundamentally unsound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...