RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (37) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: No reason for a rift between science and religion?, Skeptic's chance to prove his claims.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2007,10:17   


I spend a few days doing what I am rather well paid to do in a lab and suddenly I'm being touch eh? Well, erm, in a word, no.

a) I have an infinitely better sense of humour than that.
b) I am infinitely less sensitive than that, although granted I suffer fools not at all gladly (if you ain't a fool you ain't gots a problem). Irritation =/= offense. Anyone would have to try very, very very, very very very very VERY hard to actually offend me. Annoy me, kinda easy though! ;-) I doubt anyone has noticed {ahem}.

Right, in no particular order:

Touchy? Sorry. I just picked up on the whole episode a little while ago so I rehashed it for my own benefit. Sorry if it's a sore spot.

How I see things:

I'm not trying to poke at you.

See above. TICK!

In defending your own reference point, you took a semantic issue and moved it from an internal dimension to an external dimension. You started in on quantifying it, dissecting it and claiming rational reason as the only source of information that could be valid. The problem with that approach was that you included unconscious processes as rational and reasoned (I do understand the current developments). Of course they are but doesn't that kind of make the words meaningless?  I can read the thread more than one way depending on whether I want to see it as comedic or tragic.

In a word: bollocks.

Lenny was wrong. Lenny couldn't admit it. Lenny chucked a snit.

I'll elaborate:

a) I loved and love (very much present tense) Lenny unreservedly. Annoyed with =/= dislike. I've "known" the guy online for years and the only emotions you could accurately describe me as having re Lenny and I on this thread are surprise and disappointment. Full stop. Period. End of story. Anyone else saying anything different is, to put it bluntly, talking ever so delicately through the wrong opening in their body.

b) The issue being discussed was not a semantic one. It is far more important than that. If we use "questions" poorly, or poorly define what we mean we get problems. Rather than rehash what I've explained very clearly (IMO) at least 3 times now, I invite ANYONE who thinks this is merely an issue of semantics or subjectivity to go back and read what I wrote.

Incidentally, the recent discussion between BWE and Bill and me has been based on EXACTLY this. I phrased something poorly, didn't bother to go back and correct it and was RIGHTLY called on it. From what Bill has written he and I now understand each other (and I guess BWE and I do too). This was ENTIRELY my fault for phrasing what I said poorly. I used words which I thought I'd been clear about but it turns out I hadn't been. I admitted this, we've clarified where we agree, and moved on. This is called "discussion".

This is what Lenny was not doing. I have demonstrated, clearly, beyond reasonable doubt, that Lenny quotemined (intentionally or not) my arguments to hammer on what he sees as "atheist fundamentalism". He made this abundantly clear, and can easily be quote incontext to demonstrate this. He and I happen to agree that what he sees as "atheist fundamentalism" is a bad thing. The problem was and is, I'm not advocating "atheist fundamentalism" or anything like it. I may have slightly tried to point this out to Lenny. Lenny ignored this and carried on regardless. This annoyed and annoys me FROM ANYONE. Especially someone I like and admire like Lenny.

I can't help it if when I am clear, on those few occasions, people try very very hard not to understand. Again, compare and contrast with the recent discussions where BWE/Bill/Me have tried very hard TO understand each other. See marked differences. If I am fed up of anything it is reiterating the plainly obvious.


You said that faith in reason is silly. Right. From the point of view you brought on, that is correct. But isn't that a kind of blanket doing away with the word? Are you just narrowing the definition of faith till it only means a belief in the irrational? So all you've done is have a long tirade against a definition of a word in that case. Or that reason includes any action or trust based on "processes that interact with and derive feedback and correction from the environment." (as Bill put it) Which includes pretty much everything else? I was looking for how you would define the words "faith" and "reason" in the context of the sentence. Apologies for being less than clear on that. I know you (plural) hashed out the definitions already but the context is what I was after. I did have a point I wanted to get at.



Is it possible for me to be MORE emphatic about this? I don't think faith is silly, I haven't (and don't need) to define faith narrowly to demonstrate it's lack of epistemological value. If I have done anything it is to constantly reiterate over and nauseatingly over again that the ONLY sense I am using "faith" etc in is the epistemological sense. I've made long posts on other definitions of faith, the use of faith in everyday life etc, the distinction I've made since the very start and definitely made very clear is that the core of the issue I am discussing is an epistemological one. Why this is still being confused and expanded beyond what I have very clearly stated is beyond me. (Incidentally I know it's clear because other people have told me it's clear).

The crux of the issue is that Skeptic claims there is no reason for conflict between science and religion. Rather tha conflating this with "need" for conflict or "desire" for conflict (neither of which I see, advocate, or have argued for anywhere on this thread or elsewhere) I decided to refute his claim on the very simple, very uncontroversial issue of epitsemology (and a couple of other things). There IS a conflict between religion and science, like it or not. What we DO about that, and HOW we do things about that are not only a) irrelevant to what I've been saying they are b) irrelevant to the issue of whether a conflict exists or not. How much clearer can I be? There is only one genuine, uncontroversial area of conflict and that is the epistemological conflict between faith and reason. I drew this distinction in the FIRST POST and expanded on it subsequently.

What seriously annoys me is I have to repeatedly keep putting out fires of irrelevance like "you claim science can tell us everything" which I've never claimed (nor would), and "you just define faith as something stupid" which I don't, and "it's all because you're biased" which I'm not, and "it's all because of your worldview" which I don't possess. Granted I am far from the most perfect communicator of ideas but I've been sufficiently clear that at least most of the people who've read what I've written have understood it!

Or that reason includes any action or trust based on "processes that interact with and derive feedback and correction from the environment." (as Bill put it) Which includes pretty much everything else?

Why yes, yes it does include everything! That has been my point! Skeptic's claim has been that faith alone, as a method of enquiry, as a method of gaining knowledge, is a valid epistemological method. I'm refuting that point by showing that in every instance it is claimed that faith gives us some knowledge it's actually some for of reason-like process. It's not like I've been ambiguous about this.

I did read what Bill wrote and it seems like a reasonable approach to a philosophical question regarding knowledge. I don't know exactly why I need to "Stop importing "conscious" "aware" "human" etc as prefixes for the "unconscious reason-like" process I have been describing (admittedly poorly).", when you take full blame for the misunderstanding. Because you hadn't thought how to phrase what you wrote carefully enough to remove intentionality/awareness implications from it, the idea ended up getting a much richer treatment and you get the chance to have a wry chuckle.

No the reason that you have to stop importing intentionality into your counters of my arguments is because they are not relevant to those arguments. The reason you might have imported them is because I might have poorly communicated them, or at least I can see how the way I have communicated them could cause that misunderstanding. I was being nice. It happens!

I thought I'd been very clear about what I meant, I can see however that other people can read a sentence and get a different meaning. In order to progress the discussion I acknowledged (and continue to acknowledge) that the phrasing I used could confuse. I've had this identical conversation with people it didn't confuse, mainly because they understood the arguments within context. That's no kudos to them or detriment to anyone else, yourselves included, it's simply a statement of fact. That's why we have to try very hard to be clear about what it is we're saying. That's why I get very annoyed when people import tangetial crap AFTER they've been told that the crap they are importing is tangential or irrelevant. Misunderstandings are fine, I make them all the time, persisting in those misunderstandings after they have been tirelessly corrected isn't.

Is this getting through?

Forgive me if this is a tad disjointed and/or ranty. It's not meant to come across that way. I think I've been pretty clear about what I mean most of the time and it is getting slightly frustrating to have to continually go back to the start and reiterate the distinctions I've been making since page one.



I was thinking about this and faith itself and I may have to concede some ground to Louis.

{Louis faints}




  1091 replies since Aug. 06 2007,07:39 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (37) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]