Given any anti-realist philosophical framework, is the distinction between invention and discovery necessarily blurred, or even obliterated?
I think even determinism blurs the distinction. I think even in realism one can challenge a firm distinction.
Say more?
There’s a debate on youtube between Daniel Dennett and Dinesh D’Souza - “Is God a man-made Invention?” (I haven’t watched it). Given a realist framework, I’d have thought the answer would have to be either yes or no. I assume those two gentlemen are realists and one says yes while the other says no.
But given some anti-realist leanings, I could see answering the question “Yes, it is an invention, but that invention allows the theist to discover things about how reality works that the atheist can’t discover.” Given a firm anti-realist stance, I could see answering the question like this - “we are incapable of knowing the difference between discovery and invention, so there is no way to assess which is which and further, it doesn’t matter which is which. Whether an invention or a discovery, belief in God has certain consequences and disbelief in God has certain consequences. Life is one giant experiment - it doesn’t matter whether you believe something is true or you believe something is true for a while just to see where that leads.”
again—how are they defining god…how are you defining god…
It was just an example. God isn’t the topic here.
anon-----would you give an example of an invention and a discovery…
A microscope is an invention. DNA is a discovery.
You invent a hammer. You discover a rock.
Invention involves some kind of assembling of parts. Discovery is finding something existing.
The concept become blurred when someone invents a ‘process’. In this case, the invention is a sequence of steps which leads to a goal.
Well, if our actions and thoughts are utterly determined, we are talking simply about matter inevitably heading in certain directions and not others. Ants have come up with arches. We generally do not think of ants as inventors. Evolution led to certain actions being reinforced, actions that were inevitable. It was discovered by the ‘genes’ - to be rather sloppy conceptually - that arches were beneficials in home building for this or that species of ant. Is there either a discoverer or an inventor? Why should we, utterly determined organisms just like the ants, be called inventors and discoverers?
[/quote]
I will have to mull this over. I am in favor of the issues you raise and how you are raising them, but I am not quite sure what stand I want to take in relation to these. My gut reaction is that using God as an example, at this stage in the discussion, complicates things too much. Though I think it is an excellent example for further down the line.
I would say that a microscope is a bunch of discoveries put together. Also I think the issue is better focused on the discoverer/inventor. What is the difference and is the boundary clear and absolute?
Moreno - Now I see what you mean.
Numbers are another example. The realist must decide whether or not numbers are real. But isn’t the question itself possibly unnecessary?
Maybe we have a slightly different way of conceptualizing these things, because I definitely do think of ants as inventors of ant arches. It’s not a question of whether arches are natural or ant-made - it’s a question of whether the ant, supposing for now that it can conceptualize in this manner, believes the arches it makes to exist independently of ants or not.
I think most atheists believe that belief in God is natural. What they take issue with is the veracity of that belief.
I agree that there are many discoveries required in order to invent the microscope. But nobody believes that the microscope was discovered - that it existed prior to its discovery by scientists. The relevant question, then, is whether the microscope in a sense had to be invented (I guess you’re right about determinism!). If it was inevitable that the microscope be invented, then “microscope” almost has a kind of Platonic form-ish quality. It always existed, just waiting to be discovered.
I doubt ants conceptualize anything like that at all - the whole this is me, that is something else. The arches are built communally, not by a single ant. I doubt the ants are imaging the final product anymore than they imagine their mandibles clutching something.
Actually I think a lot of atheists think that the belief is cultural and not natural. Of course one can argue that culture is natural, but I see atheists specifically saying that children are atheists and this is the natural state in many of their arguments. So even if one can argue that culture is nature, it seems to me that many atheists stress that the belief is not natural.
Sure, but I am arguing that the process of invention is really just a bunch of discovery moments. I know how the word is used, but I am arguing that this is misleading. Also, given the determined nature of all actions, the nuances of agency in the word ‘invention’ are misleading.
It was always there in the future, yes. In a saense it is like saying that I invented a poop that was shaped like a corn on the cob. Well, not really, I just excreted it. It was an inevitable result of my digestion. I may have had the qualia of ‘agency’ and ‘intention’ but these are just side effects of consciousness.
Once the position is that an entire universe, with specific pasts therein having incredible organization and action, is NOT the result of design, for example, then why use this word - design or invention - at all, espcecialy if one beliefs in determinism. We simply have an inevitable unfolding of forms, a very complicated set of dominoes inevitably falling.
Bringing in the Platonic Form concept was a nice addition! did we discover numbers or invent them? I don’t think we can really argue that we invented them, since they seem tied into the fabric of the universe.
I meant hypothetically. We’re discussing the veracity and/or usefulness of statements. But there’s no need to take the ants’ point of view. The question is whether ant-arches exist independently of ants or not.
Ok. That’s not my experience. Atheists in my experience believe that delusion is perfectly natural, and may even contribute to survival (for instance, with respect to associating agency with certain phenomena).
All good points.
Again, good points.
anon,
You’re talking about the evolution of ideas. Only humans are capable of taking an idea and through innovation, adapt that idea in almost infinite ways. There are few truly creative ideas, and many more innovations - variations on a theme. Inventions and discoveries? Why not both? A few minds create, then thousands copy and embellish those invention/discoveries. Whether invention or discovery is to drift off into metaphysical la la land. One could never prove one or the other. IMO, I’d say both are at work, but with a caveat: We aren’t but a tiny bit as creative as we think we are. We may be clever innovators, but there are damned few creators of new ideas.
I think this is like asking dosthe ant’s poop exist independently of the ant.
Delusions, sure, but religion/theism, no. I see it repeatedly referred to as an artificial addition to the mental furniture of children.
I guess that’s what I’m saying, though with some more or less obvious caveats. One is that visiting metaphysical la la land (conjecture, imagination, bat-shit crazy ideas of any and all kinds…) is a highly valuable tool, as it modifies our experience of the here and now. We can afford to be playful. Some of the most amazing man-made structures in the world were made to “defy gravity”. The great astronomer Sir William Herschel strongly believed in complex, intelligent, organized life on the moon. I think fear of metaphysics can lead to degradation of this world. People have believed in Platonic forms, God, heaven, multiple universes, the existence of ideas, disembodied minds, ghosts, spirits, zombies, etc. etc. etc. It’s not the la la land aspect of all this that I have a problem with. It’s the idea that the truth of the matter matters. It’s the idea that there is a separate reality that we, for some unknown reason, must figure out and conform to. There are different nuances to the word “metaphysics”, which I am sorting through here a bit. A prominent architect, Louis Kahn, famously asked “what does a brick want to be”?..
[i]“To express is to drive.
And when you want to give something presence,
you have to consult nature.
And there is where design comes in.
And if you think of brick, for instance,
and you say to brick,
“What do you want brick?”
And brick says to you
“I like an arch.”
And if you say to brick
“Look, arches are expensive,
and I can use a concrete lintel over you.
What do you think of that?”
“Brick?”
Brick says:
“… I like an arch”[/i]
…which doesn’t mean, of course, that the deconstructivist architect is being mean to bricks.
Was Kahn discovering forms when he designed structures? Was he inventing forms? Does the answer even matter at all? If not, what does that mean for the realist outlook? What do we do with our realist tendencies?
Is this idea that there are true and false correspondences to “reality” really all that important? Is it required at all? Maybe it is. I’m just asking.
EDIT: Changed “concrete lentil” to “concrete lintel”. 
Sure. So does the human God exist independently of humans? Did God create humans, or did humans create God? Or is the answer to this question inconsequential?
Yes, I know. I’ve seen both views expressed. But the view that delusion comes from some separate non-natural realm (it isn’t natural), is pretty obviously self-defeating for the atheist.
Anon,
I have no problem with playful ‘what if’… It can be the basis for all that we call creative. At the same time, we can take imagination to the dark side and cripple and kill ourselves and others. So talking to the brick is perfectly “reasonable” from a creative perspective. But at this very moment, children in Africa are being accused of witchcraft and maimed or killed in the name of superstition - and this is in so-called christian churches. Discovery and Invention can create or destroy, so I’m biased against metaphysical pronouncements of one or the other. Even with both in play, I want to see a more reasoned approach to our wool gathering.
FWIW, as someone who plays with wood, I often ask what it wants to be. It’s part of the process. But this is playing with things, not living organisms. Moreover, the asking is based on an almost scientific understanding of the properties of the material and not some conjured pronouncement of good or evil. One must be careful when prying off the lid of our imagination.
Is there a separate reality? That is a trip into the hall of mirrors where truth becomes the victim of the reflections and the progenitor of unsupported faith.