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 >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,07:39   

All,

The wheel turns, and yet again we are getting the following from Skeptic:

Quote
Louis, referencing our earlier discussion, this is the damage that radical atheists can do.  There is no reason for a rift between science and religion and to perpetuate the lie is damaging.  This in no means exonerates the religious who attempt to do the same thing but I hold science to a higher standard and you can not have an argument by yourself.


Skeptic has been remarkably silent about the evidence for the wanton damage we nasty old radical atheists (if indeed we are all nasty old radical atheists, which I know we're not, but seems to have escaped Skeptic) cause, but he does rear up every now and again and tell us that religion and science are not in conflict and (along with certain naughty religious people) we are responsible for world destruction and kittens dying. Or something.

We also get the very strong claim from Skeptic that it is a LIE (not merely wrong, but intentionally dishonest no less) to perpetuate the claim that the existance of a deity or set of deities is open to scientific scrutiny. Well dear friends, Skeptic included of course, I am going to shock you all to your cores and disagree with Skeptic. I know, I know, an amazing surprise!

I'm going to disagree on 3 bases:

1) Epistemiology: Very briefly and roughly speaking science at its core is the acquisition of knowledge by the application of reason and observation. Religion at its core claims to garner knowledge by faith and relevation. These mechanisms (faith/revelation and reason/observation) are diametrically opposed.

Now I want to be very careful about a potential misreading here, I do not mean that in the day to day practise of science there is no use of "faith" by individual scientists (with a very small f), or that people who practise religion are incapable of reason or that in religious teachings no reasoned or observational elements exist. To claim that would be a rampant straw man version of the epistemological argument, so best to get it out the way right now. I also do not mean that a false dilemaa exists; one is either 100% a person of reason, or 100% a person of faith, again this is a straw man.

What I DO mean is that the mechanisms of acquiring knowledge about the universe advocated by science and religion are very different and give different results. They are absolutely anathema to each other, and this is where the very real, very valid conflict between science and religion has its basis.

2) The existance of a deity/set of deities: There is a habit amongst some of our religious chums to define their deity/deities out of existance. See Carl Sagan's "Dragon in the garage" analogy in "A Demon Haunted World" for an excellent example. Like squid, our religious chums are occasionally prone to hiding behind clouds of ink when threatened. The word salad doesn't impress.

Unless one is going down the deist (Spinoza, Einstein etc) route (or perhaps the pantheist or panentheist routes) then the believer has problems because their deity or set of deities interacts with the material universe in some manner. If their deity created the universe a specific way that claim is in principle a scientific one and as such open to scrutiny. IF however, as some of our more learned chums claim, the deity in question did remarkably subtle work, using the mechanisms of the universe (i.e. not miracles) then (as mentiuoned above) then they have defined their god out of existance and have nothing but their faith (no reason, no observation) that this is the case. They multiply logical terms and claims unnecessarily.

Now I don't really have much of a problem with that, live and let live and all, but I at least hope that people can acknowledge it honestly. The faith in a tinkerer deity who moved this particle or this allele and so on, is pretty innocuous. However, if we are honest, we must acknowledge that in principle (even if in practise it is beyond our ability to figure out at this time) these tinkerings are detectable. This is the god of very very very small gaps!

Even the deist/pantheist/panentheist deities have problems logically, and upset good old uncle Ockham, however they do at least move themselves beyond the point where we can currently even conceive of scrutinising their existance. I will say this though, that which is totally undetectable is indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist. In the end, the believer always resorts to an appeal to faith, revelation or some combination of personal prejudice and ignorance. I have no problem with that on a personal level. I really don't care what exciting things people believe (I believe a few myself), what I DO care about is that claim that such beliefs have a rational, reasoned, evidenciary basis when they don't.

3) The "Radical" atheists charge, or as I like to call it the "Because you shout as loud as me, you are equally fundamentalist" fallacy: Reality does not necessarily lie halfway between two equally vocally expressed claims. There is another mechanism for deciding between the validity of two equally vocally expressed claims. See above for a hint!

Skeptic's employment of the "Tu Quoque" fallacy is noted. Nasty radical atheists are fuelling the fire of this rift (to mix my metaphors) because they have the temerity to ARGUE with religious people. They do it, thus we can do it and vice versa.

In the USA (and increasingly across the first world, rather annoyingly) resurgent relgious sects are demanding that their views and faith based claims be treated as equally as claims based on evidence, even where the evidence demonstrates the falsity of their faith based claims. Secularists (some of whom are religious), scientists (some of whom are religious) and even some atheists (none of whom are religious) have been opposing this with words and argumentation. No planes have been crashed into buildings, no people killed, no effigies burnt. The tally is slightly biased in that respect, the false equation is obvious. We "radical" athiests argue because the premises and claims of the various resurgent religious sects and cults are demonstrably false and are agressively marketed and privileged. We are not trying to force everyone to be an atheist (a common straw man), we are trying very hard not to be forced to be a member of some religion or to grnat some religions and religious people special privileges based only on their faith. Other than that, go in peace.

That should do for starters.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,07:44   

Thank you, Louis.  I was kicking this around last night and I appreciate the opportunity to explore it further.  I'll put together my post and get it up by this afternoon.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,08:46   

Damn you Louis, damn you to (atheist) hell, which is probably similar to a blog thread giving skeptic a chance to bloviate. I prefer just to poke him with a stick. (snikker)

To wit.

Skeptic, if god exists then why are there creationists?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,11:06   

Skeptic,

Make sure you notice the combination of good humour and exasperation! ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,11:26   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 06 2007,19:06)
Skeptic,

Make sure you notice the combination of good humour and exasperation! ;-)

Louis

Don't forget charm and genius :>

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,11:43   

Yours, mine, or his?

Actually, forget I asked!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,13:15   

Louis - outstanding work - as usual.  I hope you don't mind that I appropriated one of your lines...

Most of the time I agree with k.e. - "poke them with a stick", but I do realize that engaging in dialogue ala this post is the best route to take for us civilized types.  

But, just so you know Louis, like I told Kristine earlier, just cuz you Brits are smarter, better looking and talk prettier than us Colonials, don't mean you're better than us.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,14:08   

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 06 2007,13:15)
Louis - outstanding work - as usual.  I hope you don't mind that I appropriated one of your lines...

Most of the time I agree with k.e. - "poke them with a stick", but I do realize that engaging in dialogue ala this post is the best route to take for us civilized types.  

But, just so you know Louis, like I told Kristine earlier, just cuz you Brits are smarter, better looking and talk prettier than us Colonials, don't mean you're better than us.

No, but the fact you invented NASCAR does.


Sorry, low blow, low blow.....

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
heddle



Posts: 126
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,14:49   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 06 2007,14:08)
No, but the fact you invented NASCAR does.


Sorry, low blow, low blow.....

NASCAR rocks!  Much better than that effeminate F1 racing, where nobody ever passes for the lead.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,14:50   

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 06 2007,14:49)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 06 2007,14:08)
No, but the fact you invented NASCAR does.


Sorry, low blow, low blow.....

NASCAR rocks!  Much better than that effeminate F1 racing, where nobody ever passes for the lead.

Oh trust me, I am NOT a fan of F1 either.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,15:00   

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 06 2007,14:49)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 06 2007,14:08)
No, but the fact you invented NASCAR does.


Sorry, low blow, low blow.....

NASCAR rocks!  Much better than that effeminate F1 racing, where nobody ever passes for the lead.

Normally I have zero interest in either. Things have changed a jot with Hamilton leading the competition in his rooky year. Kinda schoolboy comic stuff.

Now since you are here you could head onto the educated creationist thread and explain why physics demands an older Earth than 6K years? Please.

  
heddle



Posts: 126
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,15:08   

I'll trundle over.

The coolest thing about Lewis Hamilton is that he presents a delightful political correctness conundrum for the American press. I believe USA Today has referred to him as a "British African-American F1 Driver."

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,15:17   

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 06 2007,14:49)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 06 2007,14:08)
No, but the fact you invented NASCAR does.


Sorry, low blow, low blow.....

NASCAR rocks!  Much better than that effeminate F1 racing, where nobody ever passes for the lead.

Uh oh. No religious wars allowed here.



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,15:17   

Quote (heddle @ Aug. 06 2007,15:08)
I'll trundle over.

The coolest thing about Lewis Hamilton is that he presents a delightful political correctness conundrum for the American press. I believe USA Today has referred to him as a "British African-American F1 Driver."

That is damn funny.
Something that I heard (pure anectdote) is an American (USA) reporter insisting in calling/labeling Nelson Mandela as "African-American."

Sorry for going way off-topic.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,17:02   

Hey Heddle, there's some guy in the "Educated Creationist" thread who thinks he is God's Spokesman.

Since YOU are, you might want to pop on over and set him straight.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,17:50   

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 06 2007,13:15)
Most of the time I agree with k.e. - "poke them with a stick", but I do realize that engaging in dialogue ala this post is the best route to take for us civilized types.  

Screw "civilized".  They're all nuts.

Pass me a stick.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,18:25   

Here Lenny - use mine.  I'm not using it right now, as I am now going through my "civilized" phase, but I am pretty sure I will want it back later.  Probably right after Pat Robertson makes another pronouncement, or sceptic makes another post.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,20:32   

As usual, great post Louis but, as usual, we have some differences of opinion.  I'm going to try to be as brief as possible and lay out my thoughts as well as address yours but I expect it will take a number of posts to really get into it.  

First, I'd like to address the general assumption that there must be a rift between science and religion.  In order for a conflict to arise between two disciplines they would have to trying to answer the same questions.  For example, look at astronomy and particle physics.  Both deal with the actions of massive bodies and have working theories to examine their respective spheres.  Unfortunately, the two theories are incompatible with each other.  They're both trying to answer the same questions from two different viewpoints and are in conflict.  Fortunately, because both are "speaking the same language" there is not only the inclination but the possibility of unifying both theories.

Now lets contrast that to science and religion.  First, the two are not even trying to answer the same questions.  Science is no more equipped to tell someone how to live a moral life as religion is able to calculate the acceleration due to gravity.  As practical issue this does not pose a real problem.  Science relies upon data, evaluation of data and confirmation of theories using those data.  This is man's attempt to explain the universe using his senses, the only source he really has, through his limited abilities.  The picture that science gives us is one that is incomplete and dynamic and limited to those areas in which data can be collected and evaluated.

Religion, on the other, does not rely upon empirical data.  In fact, actual sources of knowledge are varied and open to interpretation.  Appropriately enough so are the questions that religion attempts to answer.  How do I treat others?  What is goodness?  What is the purpose of my life?  The answer to any of these questions can hardly be "42" or some other hard answer.  Whether through inspiration or revelation the answers given still must be digested individually and implemented personally.  This again is in contrast to science as each answer is technically universal.  It is not for religion to say how the heavens work just where Heaven is and how to get there.  This leaves open the question concerning the existence of God and which discipline should claim superiority.  We'll get back to that question later.

So in my opinion, why does the creationist get a free ride while the scientist is subject to scorn.  To put it plain, I expect more of the scientist.  Just speaking of the US, the vast majority of Americans are religious, 80-90% depending upon which poll you accept.  In similar polls a minority of people reject evolution.  That leaves a large percentage of Americans who are both religious and accept evolution.  Now stick with me because these people are very important.  That also leaves a very vocal minority that rejects not only evolution but the science behind it.  Scientists are supposedly governed by rationality and yet some feel compelled to respond to this vocal minority.  The YECs/IDs do not deal in scientific fact, something the scientists know something about, but still some scientists cannot resist.  Why is this a problem?  On it's face, there is no problem as long as the scientists restrict their criticism to inaccuracies of fact and data but the ultimate bait is still out there and a vocal minority of scientists rise to it.  They go after God and attempt to refute the existence. We can disagree on whether this is even possible but I contend it is not and it compromises the credibility of the scientist.

Now comes in the large group that previously had no crisis between science and religion.  The scientists enjoy more popular exposure and media credibility and their message is released.  Now a conflict arises between an anti-God message and a less threatening more familiar religion.  Remember, religion is very much a part of culture that begins very early and can have deep roots.  Science, on the other hand, is not shared extensively by the general population and to many not utilized in everyday life.  Given these choices it's not a wonder which direction people tend to move.  This heats up the rhetoric on both sides and continues to widen a rift that shouldn't exist in the first place.

So, I think science should not engage religion on religious topics but stick to science.  This removes the perception that science is anti-religion and refocus the debate on science.  It's much more productive to tell people about chemistry then how chemistry supposedly eliminates the need for God.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,20:47   

Um, hey Skeptic, in case you haven't noticed, it's not the scientists who are trying to pass laws to force their religious opinions into school classrooms and textbooks by lying to people and claiming those religious opinions are actually "science" . . . .

Fix that, and all the scientists will happily go back to their science and ignore all the religious nutters again.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,20:53   

Astronomy is a theory? And it competes with particle physics? Wow...just...wow.

As an astronomer (unfortunatly not professional) that is possibly the funniest thing I've read yet today - and I've been reading up on Hovind, so your doing pretty well.


As for the rest, sounds like you just want to protect the IDers, to me. They can bring their books into schools, get teaching of evolution banned, and any other tactics that seem to be OK with you - but scientists shouldn't dare respond.

It's clear your motive has nothing to do with the prattle you write here, which is pretty thinly veiled. Your real motive is to advance that causes that you pretend to belittle here.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,22:12   

Re "For example, look at astronomy and particle physics."

Just wondering, but did you mean general relativity and quantum mechanics?

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2007,22:51   

Yes, comparing GR and QM brings you to an impasse but the quest for a Unified Theory goes on because of the reasons I stated.

Lenny, there's no problem with discussing science in an ID sense.  I don't accept ID as science and it is very easy to point out why.  This doesn't require attacking a religion or God in order to do so.  It's like being goaded by a three year old, when you bring yourself down to his level by arguing with him then you both look like three year olds.

Nerull, you obviously don't have a clue what my motives are but you could easily rectify that by going back and reading what I've said...over and over and over again.  You'll see that I've been pretty consistent over the last year and a half.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,07:23   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 06 2007,22:51)
Lenny, there's no problem with discussing science in an ID sense.  I don't accept ID as science and it is very easy to point out why.  This doesn't require attacking a religion or God in order to do so.  

Um, you DO understand that the vast majority of people (and scientists) who attack ID, are not only NOT "attacking religion or God", but are actually theists themselves.

Right?

You DO understand that, yes . . . .?


Have you ever read any of my big long wars with PZ Meyers?

Ring any bells for you?


Or, like all fundies everywhere, do you just want to whine and bitch and moan about how oppressed and downtrodden you are . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,07:24   

Hey skeptic where is heaven again? And how long does it take to get there? (Please convert to parsecs per fortnight)

And you still haven't answered my question, if a god exists why are there priests and pastors?

No rush, take your time. You soul savers seem to think eternity is the same as the attention span of an UD contributor.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,09:45   

"They go after God and attempt to refute the existence."

Refuting ID and Creationism is not the same as refuting God.  Then the fundies complain about people like Dawkins who got that way by putting up with fundie bull for years.

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,17:25   

Skeptic's basic complaint is that he wants the barrier between "science" and "religion" to be one-way only, just as he wants the wall of separation between "church" and "state" to be just one-way.

For me, the walls between science and religion, and between church and state, act equally on both sides.  Otheriwse they are gateways, not walls.

For Skeptic, those walls are indeed gates -- one-way gates that open only to one side.  He has no gripe at all if religion starts pronouncing itself on things scientific, and he has already delcared that he has no gripe with church invading state.  For Skeptic, the walls between science and religion, and church and state, are nothing but shields that he wants to be able to hide behind whenever his side moves on the other side and starts getting their holy little tookuses kicked for it.  It's his equivilent of "Safe zone! You can't beat me up anymore when I'm in here!"

If the goddamn fundies would keep their crap in church where it belongs, and stop trying to drag it into public schools and public governmental institutions, there'd be no problem, and we could all go home.

And by making excuses for the goddamn fundies and declaring that those walls don't apply to them, Skeptic only reinforces the problem.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,17:39   

Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 07 2007,09:45)
"They go after God and attempt to refute the existence."

Refuting ID and Creationism is not the same as refuting God.  Then the fundies complain about people like Dawkins who got that way by putting up with fundie bull for years.

Indeed, the fundies have been telling people for DECADES that science and religion are incompatible, and that if the Bible isn't literally true in every detail, then there is no God.

Odd that Skeptic wants to bitch and moan when some scientists simply take the fundies at their own word.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,19:36   

I'm waiting for some intelligent responses but I'll deal with these in the mean time.

k.e., is English your second language?  If so I can find the appropriate translation to get my point across.  If English is indeed your native tongue then I'll try to speak very slowly.  Ready?  Here goes...

It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God.

What part of that statement do you not understand and I'll be happy to clarify it for you.  As far as your other question, it is completely nonsensical.  Its akin to say if there is garbage, why is there garbage collectors?  Maybe it is a typo, that would explain it...well maybe not.

Lenny, as usual, you didn't comprehend what I was saying.  Not only is there no barrier between science and religion but there is no overlap.  Different questions, different methods, different purposes, no common ground.

Also, if religious people attempt to refute science from a theology perspective then they can easily be disputed from a scientific perspective.  They are in the wrong and can easily be corrected.  To compound their error by attacking them religiously does much more harm and has the potential of swaying the opinions of the onlookers.  

Discussions of the Establishment Clause are better left elsewhere as we fundamentally disagree on its intent but I will say an excellent example of how ID proponents should be reacted to could be seen in Dover.  Not the court decision but the subsequent elimination of the ID supporters from the school board.  That is democracy in action in the spirit of the Founders' intent.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,19:47   

Quote
Discussions of the Establishment Clause


That's the one where it talks about congress shall not favour any religion or somesuch, right?

What the hell DO you think it means Skeptic?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,19:49   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 07 2007,19:47)
Quote
Discussions of the Establishment Clause


That's the one where it talks about congress shall not favour any religion or somesuch, right?

What the hell DO you think it means Skeptic?

Yeah, Skeptic --- go ahead and tell him what YOU think it means . . . .

(reaches for popcorn and beer)

This should be fun . . . . . . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,20:27   

It's not relevant to this discussion and I'm going to try to stay on topic, if possible.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,20:28   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 07 2007,20:27)
It's not relevant to this discussion and I'm going to try to stay on topic, if possible.

Then PM me.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,20:52   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 07 2007,20:28)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 07 2007,20:27)
It's not relevant to this discussion and I'm going to try to stay on topic, if possible.

Then PM me.

No, no, no ---- start another thread so EVERYONE can see.

(snicker)  (giggle)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,20:53   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 07 2007,20:27)
It's not relevant to this discussion and I'm going to try to stay on topic, if possible.

Oh, I think it is EXTREMELY relevant.

I've already explained why.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2007,20:57   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 07 2007,19:36)
Also, if religious people attempt to refute science from a theology perspective then they can easily be disputed from a scientific perspective.  They are in the wrong and can easily be corrected.  

Alas, Skeptic, as you well know, ID and creationism are NOT "scientific" issues, NOR are they "religious" issues --- they are POLITICAL issues.


And THAT is what gets your panties all atwitter.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,02:46   

Quote
k.e., is English your second language?  If so I can find the appropriate translation to get my point across.  If English is indeed your native tongue then I'll try to speak very slowly.  Ready?  Here goes...



Well coming from a frigging Yank that's pretty funny Septic. When I was last in the 'land of the brave' the great majority of your countrymen and women that I met were barely able to speak anything that would pass for English in what once constituted the 'British Empire' where I am happy to inform you they have never named their children as nouns or verbs or have pet cemeteries. I don't hold you personally responsible but on the other your hubris appears to be approaching archetypical proportions.

Quote
It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God.


That's a testable hypothesis, are you sure you want to continue considering your intellectual ability and your grasp of language, oh and your nationality considering your president has 'gods' support for his war on sanity.

If you do want to continue, then first of all define god and just for my amusement where that matches pres. Bushes 'definition' for your god.

Are you sure you’re not a hypocrite rather than a skeptic?

Creation Science 101

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,06:05   

Quote
It is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God.


Uh, is it also impossible for God to prove his own existence? Let's face it, God could come down here, right now and introduce himself, and, all knowing as he is, he *must* know what he could do to prove himself to people, even the hardcore Atheists. So, it *is* possible to prove the existence of God, especially if the god in question lifts his ass and manifests himself in a way that would leave no doubt, you know, actually DO something for a change. Such a feat should be easy, for an all-knowing, all-powerful god, no?

But, since God has done such a great job of hiding himself it makes one wonder why some people are so full of sh*t to think they know God, what God does, why God does and who God does (Mary). Since some people also believe they have a special communication system (prayer) could they please request that God comes down here and stick up for himself, because we are tired of all the imaginations and cr*p that people offer up as reasons to even think that a God exists. Since God is not doing his part lots of precious souls are going to fry (and currently is frying) in Hell for being unable to place their faith in something (God) that cannot be differentiated from nothing.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,07:01   

I have no desire to see yet another pointless Holy War.

I simply point out that Skeptic is BS'ing all of us.  I have had knockdown drag-out fights with more than one hyper-atheist on all of this (just ask PZ what he thinks of me) -- but I have never ever seen "Skeptic" question even one fundie or creationist, ever.  His criticisms are entirely one-way, his "wall of separation" is entirely one-way, and his "skepticism" is entirely one-way.

It's just a shield that he hides behind when his side is getting its butt beaten.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,07:18   

Just a quick one here and I'll be back later for some more.  As a clarification, I don't think ID is either science or religion, it is a philosophy.

God, ultimately, is a personal concept and in truth it has no bearing on God's existence what anyone's personal concept is.  Just a quick example, if I could take every single religious text on Earth (every faith) and thoroughly disproves every single line in them it still would mean nothing when the question of God's existence is approached.  I know that's hard to accept but I believe your resistance comes from the fact that you're trying to frame this as a scientific question and it is not one.

Lenny, go back again and read.  You'll see that I've questioned AFDave, FtK, Reddot, to name a few.  I will always question YECers scientifically because I believe they are in the wrong as I will question anyone perverting science to make claims about faith because they are also absolutely wrong.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,08:51   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,07:18)
God, ultimately, is a personal concept and in truth it has no bearing on God's existence what anyone's personal concept is.  Just a quick example, if I could take every single religious text on Earth (every faith) and thoroughly disproves every single line in them it still would mean nothing when the question of God's existence is approached.

But why should we believe in god? If it's not to do with any religion, why does god HAVE to exist?

Sorry if this is off topic.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,09:00   

It's worth remembering that this topic got some thrashing here.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,09:30   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,07:18)
Just a quick one here and I'll be back later for some more.  As a clarification, I don't think ID is either science or religion, it is a philosophy.

God, ultimately, is a personal concept and in truth it has no bearing on God's existence what anyone's personal concept is.  Just a quick example, if I could take every single religious text on Earth (every faith) and thoroughly disproves every single line in them it still would mean nothing when the question of God's existence is approached.  I know that's hard to accept but I believe your resistance comes from the fact that you're trying to frame this as a scientific question and it is not one.

Lenny, go back again and read.  You'll see that I've questioned AFDave, FtK, Reddot, to name a few.  I will always question YECers scientifically because I believe they are in the wrong as I will question anyone perverting science to make claims about faith because they are also absolutely wrong.

Oh yes, you give some half-assed criticisms to some of the craziest, but you still give cover to all the others, including the IDers.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,09:36   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 08 2007,15:01)
I have no desire to see yet another pointless Holy War.

I simply point out that Skeptic is BS'ing all of us.  I have had knockdown drag-out fights with more than one hyper-atheist on all of this (just ask PZ what he thinks of me) -- but I have never ever seen "Skeptic" question even one fundie or creationist, ever.  His criticisms are entirely one-way, his "wall of separation" is entirely one-way, and his "skepticism" is entirely one-way.

It's just a shield that he hides behind when his side is getting its butt beaten.

Thou weasling is duly noted. :>

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,10:47   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 08 2007,02:46)

Quote
... When I was last in the 'land of the brave' the great majority of your countrymen and women that I met were barely able to speak anything that would pass for English in what once constituted the 'British Empire' where I am happy to inform you they have never named their children as nouns or verbs or have pet cemeteries.
...


Sorry, K.E., stick to surrealistic poetry.
The pet cemetary in Portmeirion, Wales, predates the demise of the empire.
Roger is a common British name, and was a verb, a rather 'earthy' verb, for no small period of time.
While one may freely consider the language use of "yanks" to be abominable, one cannot truthfully assert that the two language crimes you assert never occurred in the Empire.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,11:24   

Quote (Shirley Knott @ Aug. 08 2007,18:47)
[quote=k.e,Aug. 08 2007,02:46][/quote]
Quote
... When I was last in the 'land of the brave' the great majority of your countrymen and women that I met were barely able to speak anything that would pass for English in what once constituted the 'British Empire' where I am happy to inform you they have never named their children as nouns or verbs or have pet cemeteries.
...


Sorry, K.E., stick to surrealistic poetry.
The pet cemetary in Portmeirion, Wales, predates the demise of the empire.
Roger is a common British name, and was a verb, a rather 'earthy' verb, for no small period of time.
While one may freely consider the language use of "yanks" to be abominable, one cannot truthfully assert that the two language crimes you assert never occurred in the Empire.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

...Ahem...er ...collateral damage (mine)

I knew that a bit of blood might get on some innocent bystanders, but in my defense I would just like to say.... er...yer honor "It was a vicious hairy beast and I forgot my garlic necklace ..."

.....Oh waitaminute...... THAT'S FRIGGEN WALES THEY DON"T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!!

You better be right about that Welsh pet cemetery. I've been  blaming them on the rise of American poetry, what with the 'whispering glades' and 'valley of enchanted dreams' not to mention 'I love the smell of formaldehyde in the morning ...it smells of loved ones'  etc.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,11:25   

skeptic:

"As a clarification, I don't think ID is either science or religion, it is a philosophy."

Whether or not there is a creator may be a philosophical idea, but ID is not.  It's creationism disguised as science.  That's PURELY what it was invented for.


Shirley Knott:

"The pet cemetary in Portmeirion, Wales, predates the demise of the empire."

I was just thinking of that one!  I've been there.   :)   Had no idea it was that old, though.  I just assumed it was a modern thing.   :O

Maybe I should've taken a closer look at the dates on those graves.    :p

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,11:37   

Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 08 2007,19:25)
Shirley Knott:

"The pet cemetary in Portmeirion, Wales, predates the demise of the empire."

I was just thinking of that one!  I've been there.   :)   Had no idea it was that old, though.  I just assumed it was a modern thing.   :O

Maybe I should've taken a closer look at the dates on those graves.    :p

OK this is a conspiracy.

Probably by Tiddles that fiendish 12th century Welsh dicator with the Hitler moustache


--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,11:40   

That would be Tiddles KITLER!

:p

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,12:00   

Sorry again K.e. but this comment you made

Quote
THAT'S FRIGGEN WALES THEY DON"T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!!


Is also quite, quite wrong. Most of the Welsh have English as their first (and in many cases only) language. Welsh itself is hardly spoken.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,12:48   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,12:18)
God, ultimately, is a personal concept and in truth it has no bearing on God's existence what anyone's personal concept is.

I know that's hard to accept but I believe your resistance comes from the fact that you're trying to frame this as a scientific question and it is not one.

Since this is turning into a fairly one sided discussion I will jump in and agree with skeptic on this point. That's certainly how the vast majority of religious people I know view it.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,13:07   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Aug. 08 2007,12:48)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,12:18)
God, ultimately, is a personal concept and in truth it has no bearing on God's existence what anyone's personal concept is.

I know that's hard to accept but I believe your resistance comes from the fact that you're trying to frame this as a scientific question and it is not one.

Since this is turning into a fairly one sided discussion I will jump in and agree with skeptic on this point. That's certainly how the vast majority of religious people I know view it.

I don't buy it. It's just like saying, "Yes all psychics are frauds and charlatans. Not a one of them has any actual paranormal abilities... But, I know psychic powers are real."

If nobody, including those who claim to know the most about God, can give a non-self-contradictory account of the attributes of this entity, and, further, if none of these accounts agree with each other, what possible reason can you give me to believe? What does the name "God" even refer to, beyond a concept, in Skeptic's post above? If something exists, but it need have none of the attributes traditionally assigned to gods, what justification do we have for calling it a god?

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,14:19   

I can see where this is heading and I'm not sure if it is productive to go that way.  We could quickly get off into theology and philosophy and lose sight of the question at hand.

The question on the table is not "Should one believe in God" but "Can the concept of God be approached scientifically?"

BTW, just to give credit where credit is due, k.e. your responses to Shirley were hilarious.  I thought for a moment I might have to change pants.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,14:31   

The two questions can't be entirely untangled.

Can the concept of leprechauns be approaced scientifically?

Not really, because (in part) nobody believes in leprechauns.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,14:36   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 08 2007,11:37)
Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 08 2007,19:25)
Shirley Knott:

"The pet cemetary in Portmeirion, Wales, predates the demise of the empire."

I was just thinking of that one!  I've been there.   :)   Had no idea it was that old, though.  I just assumed it was a modern thing.   :O

Maybe I should've taken a closer look at the dates on those graves.    :p

OK this is a conspiracy.

Probably by Tiddles that fiendish 12th century Welsh dicator with the Hitler moustache

Kitlers

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
swbarnes2



Posts: 78
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,15:28   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,14:19)

The question on the table is not "Should one believe in God" but "Can the concept of God be approached scientifically?"


This is so obvious, I wonder why you ask it like it is the question of the ages.

Science tests physical phenomena.

If you want to insist that your God leaves no physical phenonena of any kind to be tested, then science has nothing to do.

But plenty of other people claim that God does all kinds of physical things...like flooding the whole planet.

Those claims can be tested, and if people put their god up to tests that he will fail, too bad for them and their god.

But if you are secure in your belief in a God who didn't cause a flood, who hasn't in fact, done anything in the real world, knock yourself out.

Just don't forget the lessons of history.  Humans get things wrong.  A lot.  Big things, small things, all the time.  The only method we have to getting rid of wrong beliefs is testing those beliefs in such a way that we can jettison them if we prove they are wrong.  That's why science has done so much in a few hundred years, compared to other methods of thinking, because it fixes errors.

If you believe in something that you can't test this way, especially if it's something that you wish were true, odds are, you are simply wrong.

  
Gunthernacus



Posts: 235
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,17:00   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 08 2007,02:46)
Quote
k.e., is English your second language?  If so I can find the appropriate translation to get my point across.  If English is indeed your native tongue then I'll try to speak very slowly.  Ready?  Here goes...

Well coming from a frigging Yank that's pretty funny Septic.

That's gold, k.e., gold!
Quote
When I was last in the 'land of the brave' the great majority of your countrymen and women that I met were barely able to speak anything that would pass for English in what once constituted the 'British Empire' where I am happy to inform you they have never named their children as nouns or verbs or have pet cemeteries.

Not so much in defense of my countrymen - our English is horrible, and the internets ain't H3lP1N6 - but the timing is too good to miss:
RU 4Real
Quote
A New Zealand couple is looking to call their newborn son Superman -- but only because their chosen name of 4Real has been rejected by the government registry.


--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,17:22   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 08 2007,07:18)
Lenny, go back again and read.  You'll see that I've questioned AFDave, FtK, Reddot, to name a few.  I will always question YECers scientifically because I believe they are in the wrong as I will question anyone perverting science to make claims about faith because they are also absolutely wrong.

Oh, don't bullshit us, Skeptic.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,17:39   

Quote
But plenty of other people claim that God does all kinds of physical things...like flooding the whole planet.

Those claims can be tested, and if people put their god up to tests that he will fail, too bad for them and their god.
The point is that many people don't make claims about their God that can be scientifically tested. You can argue that this makes God meaningless, but that's different argument.

  
Paul Flocken



Posts: 290
Joined: Dec. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,19:22   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 08 2007,14:31)
The two questions can't be entirely untangled.

Can the concept of leprechauns be approaced scientifically?

Not really, because (in part) nobody believes in leprechauns.

How does one exactly approach scientifically a human construct that has had millennia to evolve to avoid capture.  The people of 5000 years ago were just as smart as we are and were no doubt just as argumentative.  Religion as a meme was too valuable to the perpetrators to permit it to be lost and too important to the peace of mind of its victims.  The two were probably inextricable linked.  Its importance to its victims is what made it valuable to its perpetrators.  I haven't had enough sleep today, so I will stop babbling now.

--------------
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.  Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."-John F. Kennedy

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,23:43   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 08 2007,20:00)
Sorry again K.e. but this comment you made

Quote
THAT'S FRIGGEN WALES THEY DON"T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!!


Is also quite, quite wrong. Most of the Welsh have English as their first (and in many cases only) language. Welsh itself is hardly spoken.

To be quite honest young man, how can possibly you say that? Yes I will have to agree the words coming out of their mouths may be English but it could be reasonably argued that they don't actually think in English. I hardly need mention that for instance India speaks English and they are without a doubt completely understandable on a phone line when suggesting delivery of free telephones direct to your front door and to me they sound Welsh.

There has to be some degree of acceptance for this not so radical idea and considering that most true Welshmen don't like Tiger Rogan Josh (with real Tiger) then I think the case has been made.

God some people are sticklers for detail.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 08 2007,23:49   

Quote
BTW, just to give credit where credit is due, k.e. your responses to Shirley were hilarious.  I thought for a moment I might have to change pants.


Thank you Skeptic *high five* I prefer to be stired rather than shaken.

--Assume the position--

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,03:25   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 08 2007,23:43)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 08 2007,20:00)
Sorry again K.e. but this comment you made

   
Quote
THAT'S FRIGGEN WALES THEY DON"T EVEN SPEAK ENGLISH!!!!!


Is also quite, quite wrong. Most of the Welsh have English as their first (and in many cases only) language. Welsh itself is hardly spoken.

To be quite honest young man, how can possibly you say that? Yes I will have to agree the words coming out of their mouths may be English but it could be reasonably argued that they don't actually think in English. I hardly need mention that for instance India speaks English and they are without a doubt completely understandable on a phone line when suggesting delivery of free telephones direct to your front door and to me they sound Welsh.

There has to be some degree of acceptance for this not so radical idea and considering that most true Welshmen don't like Tiger Rogan Josh (with real Tiger) then I think the case has been made.

God some people are sticklers for detail.

Because I've spent a fair portion of my life in Wales?

My family, one half at least, are from there, and I spent at the very least about a month per year of the first 16 of my life their?

Because I live their most of the year, and have for the past 2?

I think we can safely conclude I know a tiny bit more about the Welsh than you, k.e.

Sorry I'm a stickler for detail.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,04:43   

And (if true) they have the worlds oldest PET CEMETRY which makes them as devilish as Americans!

I'm actually sorry to hear you have spent so much time there; it seems to have done nothing for your sense of humour. Taking on every 'Yank' obviously was not as big a mistake as taking on a single person who occasionally lives in Wales, no wonder Dylan Thomas drank himself to death.

I’ll be more careful next time, icky thump someone else next time OK?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,04:48   

Damn straight mo fo.

Sorry, I can't even type that with a straight face.

Appologies K.E., I don't mean to be an uptight arse.

Much.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,05:04   

Wait, you're part Welsh?

BAN HIM! BAN HIM NOW!

I will not tolerate close harmony singing, leeks, daffodils, any form of rarebit, or generalised whiny Celtic bollocks.

I will however tolerate Katherine Jenkins.

In fact I'd tolerate her quite a lot.

Louis

P.S. 62-5. Poh!

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,07:16   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 09 2007,05:04)
I will however tolerate Katherine Jenkins.

Nice necklace.   :)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,09:42   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 09 2007,13:04)
Wait, you're part Welsh?

BAN HIM! BAN HIM NOW!

I will not tolerate close harmony singing, leeks, daffodils, any form of rarebit, or generalised whiny Celtic bollocks.

I will however tolerate Katherine Jenkins.

In fact I'd tolerate her quite a lot.

Louis

P.S. 62-5. Poh!

Oh that's right; bring on the special ops Welsh glee squad. (curses …release the hounds Smithers)

HELLO ---- THEY HAVE A DEAD CAT HAVEN!!!

Next you'll be having Catherine Zeta Jones nude with a daffodil poking out of her posterior.

Well the only ones I’ve met were all called Taffy and were the biggest booze artists in the Pilbara (a rough mining region in North Western Australia) one of them had a liver turned into an amusement park ride.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,11:11   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,03:25)
Because I've spent a fair portion of my life in Wales?

My family, one half at least, are from there, and I spent at the very least about a month per year of the first 16 of my life their?

Because I live their most of the year, and have for the past 2?

Oh, you poor, poor man.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,11:17   

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 09 2007,11:11)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,03:25)
Because I've spent a fair portion of my life in Wales?

My family, one half at least, are from there, and I spent at the very least about a month per year of the first 16 of my life their?

Because I live their most of the year, and have for the past 2?

Oh, you poor, poor man.

Precisely what is so bad about Wales?

Honestly, you church burnin' ebola boys are beyond the pale.....

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,11:24   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,19:17)
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 09 2007,11:11)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,03:25)
Because I've spent a fair portion of my life in Wales?

My family, one half at least, are from there, and I spent at the very least about a month per year of the first 16 of my life their?

Because I live their most of the year, and have for the past 2?

Oh, you poor, poor man.

Precisely what is so bad about Wales?

Honestly, you church burnin' ebola boys are beyond the pale.....

Oh nothing...except Catherine Zeta Jones married an American sex fiend...I rest my case.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,11:52   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,17:17)
Precisely what is so bad about Wales?

You can't fool me, I've been there.

Quote
Honestly, you church burnin' ebola boys are beyond the pale.....

Well OBVIOUSLY! Hey wait...beyond the pale...are you saying I'm black?

HATE CRIME!!!!!

Welsh AND a racist!

BAN HIM!!! BAN HIM!!! BAN HIM UNTIL IT REALLY HURTS!!!!

--------------
Bye.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,14:26   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 09 2007,11:52)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 09 2007,17:17)
Precisely what is so bad about Wales?

You can't fool me, I've been there.

Me too.  I spent ten years there one summer.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,16:43   

There was quite a serious earthquake in Cardiff last year. It did 10 million pounds worth of improvements.

Thankyew. Try the fish, I'm here all week.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 09 2007,16:52   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 09 2007,09:42)
Next you'll be having Catherine Zeta Jones nude with a daffodil poking out of her posterior.

(raises hand)

I wouldn't mind seeing that.


:)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,04:57   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 09 2007,22:52)
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 09 2007,09:42)
Next you'll be having Catherine Zeta Jones nude with a daffodil poking out of her posterior.

(raises hand)

I wouldn't mind seeing that.


:)

I'll send you the video.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,06:21   

Skeptic,

1) There is no assumption of a rift between science and religion, it's a fact. It exists because of the epistemological differences between the two (an issue I notice you ignored completely). You claim science and religion aren't trying to understand the same things. I'm worried Skeptic. Very worried. Have you recently sustained head trauma? Taken some serious drugs? Been very drunk? I hope it's one of the above because otherwise you are willfully ignoring reality (never good). In time a decent bit of head trauma could be recoverable from! ;-)

I'll take "Creationism" for $400 please Alex. Creationism in all stripes from all religions is precisely an attempt to explain features of the natural, physical, observable universe. This is the simplest and easiest example of religions doing things that can be considered "trying to answer the same questions" as science.

There are of course others, for example your repeated use of the falsehood that religion is about telling people how to live their lives/morals etc. Morality does not derive from religion...but this is an issue I'll get to later. My point here is that ethics, morals, social behaviour and so on ARE things that are precisely within the remit of reasoned, rational, observational study, i.e. science. Of course their rational study is in it's relative infancy (despite a long and worthy history) due to the availability of the mechanisms for exchanging information regarding these issues. The internet, ease of travel and communication, ease of access to records etc are all tools that can be used to study moral, ethical and social on a rational basis.

Be clear about this, religion is the specific use of faith and revelation as mechanisms of acquiring knowledge about the universe, science is the most refined use of reason and observation as such a mechanism. So whilst we won't perhaps get a "grand unified theory of morals" in the same sense as we would say a physical or biological (or even sociological) theory, we CAN get reasoned and rational theories of social behviours, derivations of ethics and so on that are based on the evidence (for example). The fact that one's morals do not derive from religion should be equally obvious. Do you shun certain seafoods? Work on the sabbath? Do you stone adulterers and pagans? No of course you don't and very very few people advocate all of these moral pronouncements of certain religions. Why? Because the moral zeitgeist has changed. Of course religion as part of your culture and social environment informs SOME of your morals/ethics/socialisation, but it doesn't inform all. Obviously there is some other source, some other basis for moral judgements etc.

However, that said, this doesn't mean that the ethical/social/moral ideas religions have come up with over the years are not based on observation and reason etc. It's a mixed bag. I think the best way to explain a decent bit of thinking on the matter is to point to an article by Douglas Adams. It's called "Is there an artificial god?".

Text and audio available here.

So to head off a strawman before it comes, I am not saying that the religions of the world have nothing useful to say, but that the useful things they have to say are those based on reason, rational thought and observation. Or at least those things that turn out to be supported by reason, rational thought and observation (if you see the distinction).

Using faith or relevation to decide an issue is a total non starter. Appeals to faith and revelation alone can be used to justify ANYTHING. Where an article of faith or revelation coincides with reality it is not faith or revelation that determines or decides this, it is reason, rational thought and observation. I.e. an appeal to the evidence.

You repeatedly claim that there is no basis for a conflict between science and religion, Skeptic. To be blunt you can only do so out of total ignorance, or a deep desire not to see the evidence. Legions of philosophers (both religious and secular) from Aquinas to Russell, from Hume to Kant, from Plato to Popper have recognised the epistemological differences between faith and reason, and their greatest exponents religion and science. For your claim of "no rift should or does exist" to be true you would have to overturn all of this, you would have to rewrite what faith and reason are. Forgive me if I think that your confused claims above fail to do that. I suggest you familiarise yourself with what has gone before, BEFORE you tell everyone it is in error.

I'm going to skip over your appallingly inaccurate and woefully miused analogy with physics, although I will say I am a bit shocked that someone as qualified as you are is so rampantly ignorant of basic science in a discipline not their own.

2)  
Quote
Religion, on the other, does not rely upon empirical data. In fact, actual sources of knowledge are varied and open to interpretation


Bolding mine.

Actual sources of knowledge? What are these then? Show me these actual sources of knowledge and how you know they are sources of knowledge. What knowledge do they contain and how do you know it is knowledge? You must NOT use evidence, reason, rational thought or observation to show this. Why can't you do this? Because for these to be genuinely different sources of knowledge derived from genuinely different mechanisms for acquiring knowledge than those that science uses, you can't very well use the mechanisms science does and claim it as a win for religious mechanisms. That would be cheating, dishonest, stupid etc. And we all want to avoid that!

As for your questions "how do I treat others?" what makes you think that this is not open to rational scrutiny, why does religion have something to say here that reasoned, rational, evidence based enquiry does not? "What is goodness?" is that even a valid question? "What is the purpose of my life?" again, what makes this a valid question. I can phrase questions left and right, it doesn't mean they make sense or deserve an answer. "What is the temperature of jealousy in pine wardrobes?" A sincere question I desperately want an answer to. I REALLY deeply need that question answered, my soul bruns in torment every second I live wothout an answer. Does any of that make it a reasonable question? One that actually CAN be answered? No.

My point here is simple: not every question that can be asked, no matter how sincere or how deeply felt, deserves an answer or is even a rational question, formed in a logically coherent manner. Religion doesn;t help here either, and this is the really sad part. What is the religious answer to the question "what is the purpose of my life?" for example? More importantly, how is the answer to that question even dependant on religion? Why does the answer have to be religious? It can after all be a reasoned, rational, observation and evidence based answer. Why rely on faith and revelation to answer it? Again the point is not that religions have nothing to offer, just that the things they DO offer that work are those based on/derived from reason, rational thought and observation, NOT faith and revelation.

3) IDCists and creationists. Regardless of how many of them there are, they have (in the USA at least) some political clout. Politicians are asked questions about evolutionary biology as part of the interviews candidates get when running for the presidency of your nation (or the candidacy for the presidency if you see what I mean!). Creationists try to (and in many cases succeed) obtain positions of influence within the education establishments of many nations, most prominently the USA and the use that position toforce their religious ideas (for creationism is derived only from religion, never forget that, the roots are well documented) into science classes. These ideas are not only not scientific but are deliberately used to undermine science, scientific thought and the scientific enterprise. Why do they do this Skeptic? Because they realise that reason, rational thought and reliance on observation and evidence are anathema to faith and revelation and they are afraid. They have faith in a specific set of propositions and they will defend those propositions in the face of the evidence. This is why scientists fight back. No one gives a shit about what kooky beliefs some chap or chapess has. But you'll find that people give a massive shit about those kooky beliefs being claimed to be science when they are not and shoehorned into science classes when they have not earned the right to be there. THAT is the issue with creationists nothing more, nothing less. If no one opposes their lies (for lies they are) then they have free rein to infiltrate schools, ruin the science education of millions of children and so on and so forth. That vocal minority has enormous (disproportionate) influence precisely because of people like you Skeptic. People who defend religion because they believe in belief. More on this later.

4) Disproving god. First and foremost, you cannot prove a negative, so the sentence "I can prove god does not exist" is logically erroneous. False. A fallacious piece of drivel. No scientist worth the title would ever claim to be able to disprove the existence of god (depending on the definition used). No one is attempting to "refute the existence" as you awkwardly put it. What people ARE trying to do is show that religious ideas are not held up to the same scrutiny that other ideas are, even other "beliefs". The existence of such mythical entities as the existence of unicorns, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, space aliens and your comprehension of the subjects at hand are open to rational scrutiny, why not the existence of deities?

Let's get one thing clear, I couldn't care less if you or anyone believes in a deity or set of deities. It really doesn't bother me. What I DO care about and what DOES bother me is when you or other believers claim that their beliefs deserve special privileges or that they deserve special privileges based on their beliefs or if they claim theire belief is supported by the evidence. And there is a LOT of that going around Skeptic, so please don't annoy me by denying obvious reality.

I'll give you an uncontroversial example:

Carl Sagan's "The Dragon in my Garage".

It's not that god or gods do not exist absolutely, it's that there is no reasonable, rational, reproducible evidence that they do indeed exist. Saying that isn't the point, whining about persecution or how bad it makes me look for saying is just some much special pleading. I can make the identical case for the Flying Spagetti Monster and it is only your prejudice that prevents you from acknowledging it.

A second point. Whilst I am more than happy to admit to the philosophical, scientific and epistemological nuances of understanding the universe (i.e. the limits of observation and induction, uncertainty, all knowledge being provisional, the asymptotic nature of the accumulation of knowledge etc etc) I am also very happy to say that as far as anyone can tell god or gods do not exist at all. Just like unicorns. Just like pixies. Just like teapots in orbit around Mars or Jupiter. See here for brief details on the teapot. Evidence isn't the point? Ok then, I have a bridge to sell you. It was given to me by god, I am his agent and he commands you to buy it. Prove me wrong (but don't use any evidence now!).

5) The Framing Debate. Scientists look bad if they take on the existence of god(s) issue. Really?

Bullshit.

For every frame there is an audience. Some frames work for you, some for me. There is no One Tactic To Rule Them All. Perhaps if scientists followed your straw man version of reality it might be a problem (and incidentally I would be equally vocal about THEIR poor reasoning of they did), but they don't. Take your ridiculous analogy at the bottom of your post: chemistry supposedly eliminates the need for god. Who makes this sort of claim? NO ONE. Not Dawkins, not me, not anyone. The "need" for god (depending on how one defines "need") is eliminated by several things: 1) the lack of evidence for his/her/its/their existence, 2) a rational understanding of one's desires and their context, 3) the realisation that we do not understand the universe around us, or acquire knowledge of it, by recourse to faith and revelation but by reason, rational thought and observation. I agree we are better to spend our time teching people about how chemistry does work, but we keep getting these pesky distractions. Ignorant fools telling us that their beliefs trump the evidence, or that such and such cannot be so because they neither believe nor understand it. And so on and so forth. Like it or not scientists are part of society and as such very much entitled to defend hard won knowledge from destruction at the hands of willful fools who are afraid that reality doesn't match the picture in their heads. This isn't just religious people, I can point to scientists like this (Fred Hoyle for example, a freaking genius of a man who refused to go with the evidence in some few cases to his detriment), political ideologies (some of the more exciting elements of capitalist thought and communist thought are cases in point), and downright woo woo (homeopathy, astrology, etc etc etc).

6) Lastly, belief in belief. I think I know why you are such a vigourous defender of religion, why you want it off limits. You believe in belief and are threatened by rational inquiry into your beliefs. I suggest very strongly you read Dan Dennett's "Breaking the Spell". Firstly it is the best of the "new atheist" books out there by a country mile, mainly because it is the "nicest" (and I hate both the terms in quotes with a passion. There is nothing new in almost any of these books that hasn't already been said. The tragedy is that there are fools who necessitate this stuff be said repeatedly. Resurgent religious loons need to be confronted with reality once in a while). Secondly because he explains what he means by "belief in belief" better than I can.

And on that note...

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,06:52   

CHRIST LOUIS!!!! now I have to go back and read that. You realise its 7:30 pm on a Friday, I've had 3 large glasses of a 1/2 decent boxed red at around €0.50 a glass (The Chinese have dumped the $ *sniff-sorry god-* and after all cheap wine is Australia's gift to the whole world) She who must be obeyed has gone for a weekend away with her pals on secret Womens business PLUS I've just had Pasta for dinner, the humidty is 65%, the temperature is 14 degrees Centigrade and the speed the Earth hurtles around the sun has not changed (much).

It better be good.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,07:08   

Sorry K.e.

I wouldn't bother! I've been adding to it for a couple of days in a spare minute or two. It's probably a load of old shit.

Drink more Chardonnnay!

Louis

P.S. Oh no the Aussies have given us more than cheap wine. There's the rotary washing line, Steve Irwin (Crikey!), much good Ocker fun, Carlton Cold and much much more. Honestly, it's not like your some degenerate nation of wirey haired, short arsed whiners like the Welsh* or something.

*I know, I know. I actually like the Welsh and Wales, nowt wrong with them or it, but I also like taking the piss out of Ian and other touchy taffies. I'm a bad person. I've never denied this. Mind you, come rugby time when my normal liberal self disappears behind a steel wall of nationalist jingoism that would make the Duke of Edinburgh blush, I ceaselessly mock the Aussies (convicts), Welsh (sheep shaggers), Kiwis (big sheep shaggers, best be a bit careful, also convicts), French (garlic smelling, easily conquered gallic ponces), Irish (thick, terrorists), Scots (skirt wearing ponces, possible sheep shagging), Italians (greasy), Argentinians (greasy, shag horses), South Africans (racists. Yes I am aware of the irony, that IS kind of the point) because that is part of the rugby thing. I also fully expect to be mocked in return by the gentlemen and ladies of these fair nations. 'Tis the done thing. Then we all get to leap into a huge bath together, drink excessively and sing about women's genetalia and physically impossible sexual practises whilst pretending not to look at each other's willies. Come on England!

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,07:43   

Louis with due respect I know the boy is a bit of a wind up but look which side of fence he prefers to sit, amongst us heathens, he can't be all that bad.

Louis quoting skeptic:
 
Quote
Religion, on the other, does not rely upon empirical data. In fact, actual sources of knowledge are varied and open to interpretation


This is the most intelligent thing Skeptic said and I'm afraid he is right.

Myth, which I will use as a substitute for religion, is the public source of the universal meaning of being human , it is not concerned with nature per se but with Man's (not Men's) nature. The language of myth comes from poerty, music and dream it is the gap between drudgery and dance.

I am talking about the space over which one must leap between the reality of everyday life and that place which we would all like to inhabit, the ideal.

Now that the Western world has abolished poverty in a biblical sense and almost brought the equality that a certain radical a long time ago preached, yes even racial into USA, male/female elsewhere, what remains?

Can we congratulate ourselves or should more be done?

The answer to that question is purely subjective and a reflection I at least personally feel of individual desire.

Something more ameniable to a context couched in terms of morals and personal and group horizons, in other words religion, which I will point out derives from the latin word meaning "That which binds us together".
Need not include any dogma from past mistakes but can draw on the vast field of public dreams which are Myth and the basis for all religion bar none.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,07:50   

Louis -Damn!  Too bad I do not know anyone on the Pullitzer Committee - Your 1,000 word essay makes more sense than some books I have read on the subject.  Yes, I think I will have to save it under "Death To Sceptic" or "Reason vs. Religion", something like that.
Seriously - good stuff - thanks.

Your learned sociological treatise about various cultures and their traditions should also be published, although your summary of the Scots needs to be edited:  "Scots (skirt wearing ponces, possible sheep shagging),".  I think that based on the obvious evidence that we can all agree to remove the weasel-word "possible", can't we?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,07:52   

Quote
Come on England!


All together now--- get stuffed you pommie bastards.

A rugby boot stud in  your eye.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,07:59   

JDOG to understand why the sun never set upon the British Empire you need to view this

The Masters Rugby Match

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,08:04   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 10 2007,07:59)
JDOG to understand why the sun never set upon the British Empire you need to view this

The Masters Rugby Match

k.e. - I have this on my PC under "favorites".  

Some Americans realize that Rugby is a Real Sport, and "American football" is played by woosies that insist on wearing helmets and padding.  

Have you seen this?:

http://groups.northwestern.edu/womensrugby/links_thebrushback.htm

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,08:41   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 10 2007,13:43)
Louis with due respect I know the boy is a bit of a wind up but look which side of fence he prefers to sit, amongst us heathens, he can't be all that bad.

Louis quoting skeptic:
   
Quote
Religion, on the other, does not rely upon empirical data. In fact, actual sources of knowledge are varied and open to interpretation


This is the most intelligent thing Skeptic said and I'm afraid he is right.

Myth, which I will use as a substitute for religion, is the public source of the universal meaning of being human , it is not concerned with nature per se but with Man's (not Men's) nature. The language of myth comes from poerty, music and dream it is the gap between drudgery and dance.

I am talking about the space over which one must leap between the reality of everyday life and that place which we would all like to inhabit, the ideal.

Now that the Western world has abolished poverty in a biblical sense and almost brought the equality that a certain radical a long time ago preached, yes even racial into USA, male/female elsewhere, what remains?

Can we congratulate ourselves or should more be done?

The answer to that question is purely subjective and a reflection I at least personally feel of individual desire.

Something more ameniable to a context couched in terms of morals and personal and group horizons, in other words religion, which I will point out derives from the latin word meaning "That which binds us together".
Need not include any dogma from past mistakes but can draw on the vast field of public dreams which are Myth and the basis for all religion bar none.

K.e.

Oh I know Skeptic's not all bad (or even slightly bad, and not because of which side he's on), I don't mean to come over all harsh....but I am harsh, why deny my true and deeply harsh nature? ;-)

On the utility of religion angle, I think the Douglas Adams piece sums up my views. It might indeed have its uses and those derived from religere not least amongst them. This is why I want to be careful about where we are going and what use of "religion" and other words we are using. This is why I've been careful to stick to epistemological considerations, and also because those are the relevant aspects of religion to the science/religion rift that Skeptic denies exists.

Obviously there are many other facets to religion, but Skeptic is denying that it is in fact religion that tries to make models of the physical universe (and thus opens itself up to scientific scrutiny on that basis) rather than science goes after religion as some kind of persecution of religion and religious people. It's on that basis that I am dissecting religion, not other ones per se.

Ahhhh meaning and myth. What are these things? The stories we tell about ourselves to make us feel better, perhaps even make us act better, those things we find pleasurable or unpleasurable. I'm not saying they are insignificant or worthless, far from it. What I am saying is that faith and revelation are not effective ways of developing myth or meaning and reason and observation are. Faith and revelation are at the core of religion, reason and observation at the core of science. The emphasis I was making was the epistemological one I made above. I agree there are other emphases that one can make, but they weren't relevant to the point of Skeptic's objection.

Interestingly, these group stories and subjective details can be reasoned and observational. There is a whole swathe of study (which I am certain I don't need to tell you about) about semiotics and symbols, narrative and understanding of myths etc. However, these things are based on reason and observation, not just of the textual materials or the stories themselves but of the accuracy of their relation to the world around them. Granted it isn't as precise a use of the reasoning/observational tools as science is, but that's not the point. The same tools are being used, no one is making appeals to "different ways of knowing" and such.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,08:49   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2007,07:08)
... Aussies (convicts), Welsh (sheep shaggers), Kiwis (big sheep shaggers, best be a bit careful, also convicts), French (garlic smelling, easily conquered gallic ponces), Irish (thick, terrorists), Scots (skirt wearing ponces, possible sheep shagging), Italians (greasy), Argentinians (greasy, shag horses), South Africans (racists. Yes I am aware of the irony, that IS kind of the point)...

No offense taken.

By the way, what's your address?

(looks up number of nearest recently unemployed balaclava model and knee surgeon)

  
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,08:56   

My take on this subject, and maybe it's the middle point btwn Louis and Skeptic, is that religion and science should not come into conflict, but often do.  As Louis has said, they are based on two completely different ways of understanding the world and humanity.  Neither should try to answer questions that are best addressed by the other.  Religion can't usefully answer questions about the natural world and science can't usefully questions about what it means to be a human.  The problems arise when people forget this.  Usually creationists.

My €0.02.  Maybe not very enlightening or useful, but must dash now.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,08:57   

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 10 2007,13:50)
Louis -Damn!  Too bad I do not know anyone on the Pullitzer Committee - Your 1,000 word essay makes more sense than some books I have read on the subject.  Yes, I think I will have to save it under "Death To Sceptic" or "Reason vs. Religion", something like that.
Seriously - good stuff - thanks.

Your learned sociological treatise about various cultures and their traditions should also be published, although your summary of the Scots needs to be edited:  "Scots (skirt wearing ponces, possible sheep shagging),".  I think that based on the obvious evidence that we can all agree to remove the weasel-word "possible", can't we?

J-Dog,

I can't remove the word "possible" for one reason: Highlanders shag sheep, lowlanders drink vastly too much and eat huge quantities of deep fried pizza. I was trying to be inclusive!

Pullitzer? Hardly! But thanks! {blushes} And I'm a sociological dilettante (as I know you know!), but I have read a book by Russell or two.

To illustrate how I think about this I'll tell you a story: When I was at school I started reading the Discworld series. A friend of mine also enjoyed the series and he laboriously drew a detailed map of the discworld based on elements of the story. I also had a map in mind (I'd read the stories too) and did a brief sketch, but then I thought "I wonder if Pratchett has already done this?" so off to the library I went to find out if he had. I was pleased to find that he had made a map of the Discworld and promptly showed my friend. My vague map was useless and nothing like the "authoritative" version. Unfortunately my friend's was also way off. He had a massive huff about it, and ceased reading the Discworld novels because Pratchett's map was different from his (he'd made a few mistakes in his cartography). I on the other hand shrugged my shoulders and carried on enjoying the Discworld novels.

The shorter version of this I learned during my PhD: "An hour in the library can save a month in the lab".

The point being that we all have ideas, and we as a species have been having them quite a lot for quite a while. It's possible, but unlikely, that we'll be the one person who has a genuinely different idea so it is best for us to check our supposedly "novel" ideas a bit before we phone the Swedish Academy of Sciences.

So I had ideas as a kid about morals and what have you, and I checked them out a bit. I was right that time! Doesn't happen often! Right about the nature/study of morals I mean, not the morals I had. Oh no, my personal morals are bloody terrible. Proud of it! ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,09:01   

Quote (George @ Aug. 10 2007,14:49)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2007,07:08)
... Aussies (convicts), Welsh (sheep shaggers), Kiwis (big sheep shaggers, best be a bit careful, also convicts), French (garlic smelling, easily conquered gallic ponces), Irish (thick, terrorists), Scots (skirt wearing ponces, possible sheep shagging), Italians (greasy), Argentinians (greasy, shag horses), South Africans (racists. Yes I am aware of the irony, that IS kind of the point)...

No offense taken.

By the way, what's your address?

(looks up number of nearest recently unemployed balaclava model and knee surgeon)

My address is:

Mr T Blair
George Bush's Rectum
USA (and occasionally the MIddle East)

Please go and break his my legs.

Anyway, we all know (when it comes to rugby) the English are arrogant, whiny, boring and old. We'd shag sheep, but they've all got foot and mouth.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,09:18   

Quote (George @ Aug. 10 2007,14:56)
My take on this subject, and maybe it's the middle point btwn Louis and Skeptic, is that religion and science should not come into conflict, but often do.  As Louis has said, they are based on two completely different ways of understanding the world and humanity.  Neither should try to answer questions that are best addressed by the other.  Religion can't usefully answer questions about the natural world and science can't usefully questions about what it means to be a human.  The problems arise when people forget this.  Usually creationists.

My €0.02.  Maybe not very enlightening or useful, but must dash now.

George,

Well as we know, I disagree on epistemological grounds. Reigion and science are the most notable uses of two very different mechanisms that we humans have developed for acquiring knowledge of the universe around us.

I'm happy to be pluralist about this and admit that there are aspects of religion and science that don't overlap or conflict in any way, but I really don't buy this Non Overlapping Magisteria stuff at all, for the reasons stated. I'd also disagree that science can't answer questions about what it means to be human. There's a huge swathe of psycholgical, philosophical and neurological data that is at least a fledgling attempt to answer just these sorts of questions. We can ask questions like "why do I feel this way?" or "why does this mean so much?" or "what is it to be human?" etc and get very rational answers based on reason and observation. What do faith and revelation offer in the way of answers to these questions that a) isn't actually reason, rational thought and observation in disguise or at it's root, or b) trite and dismissable on the basis that the identical answer can be provided by faith in anything or revelation of anything.

I really don't the fact that because religious answers are easily packaged and haven't "shown their workings" that they are somehow different or not based on reason etc. Again, take Douglas Adams' point about Feng Shui: load of old bollocks, but is it telling us something useful? Is it a meta-system that has struck on a more profound factual truth? If so, how do we examine it? What principles can we learn from it etc? The utility gained from understanding Feng Shui (for example) doesn't prove the spiritual guff associated with it, nor does it provide support for the existence of dragons.

This is the thing with religion. I'd be singularly amazed if all relgious ideas from all religions over all time turned out to be totally useless. In fact it would be a staggering (and interesting) clue if they were. As it turns out, not all the ideas contained in religion are totally useless, some of them, many of them are quite useful. But a) how do we know they are useful, b) how did they develop, and c) how do we examine them and extract the useful bits? The answer to those three questions is not "faith and revelation". The answer is "by careful reasoning, rational examination of their claims and coherence, careful observation of their effects and basis, and scrutiny of the evidence they claim in support". The useful bits of religions are not only discernable by reason and observation, they are derived from them and can be reverse engineered on that basis. The fact that we have forgotten how they arose, or that their workings are hidden is no more significant than the fact that some part of our brain does very rapid and complex differential calculus when we catch a ball, or that we don't show the full proofs of number theory when we add two and two to get four.

I hope that helps.

Cheers

Louis

P.S. And it was enlightening and useful to me at least!

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,09:29   

"Oh well the Augustin route, wenching, drinking and blaspheming, then the discovery of God later in life" Gore Vidal on Malcolm Muggeridge  
- keep up the good work Louis.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,09:31   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 10 2007,09:29)
"Oh well the Augustin route, wenching, drinking and blaspheming, then the discovery of God later in life" Gore Vidal on Malcolm Muggeridge  
- keep up the good work Louis.

Yeah.  Much better than the other way around...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,09:38   

Re: The Augustin Route:

On noticing a marked tendancy towards piety in his aging friends, an Australian gent remarked to one of them "Swotting for the finals, eh?".

I thought it summed it up nicely. Now if I could only remember where I heard the anecdote.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,09:39   

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 10 2007,17:31)
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 10 2007,09:29)
"Oh well the Augustin route, wenching, drinking and blaspheming, then the discovery of God later in life" Gore Vidal on Malcolm Muggeridge  
- keep up the good work Louis.

Yeah.  Much better than the other way around...

Chin chin darling

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,09:48   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 10 2007,15:39)
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 10 2007,17:31)
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 10 2007,09:29)
"Oh well the Augustin route, wenching, drinking and blaspheming, then the discovery of God later in life" Gore Vidal on Malcolm Muggeridge  
- keep up the good work Louis.

Yeah.  Much better than the other way around...

Chin chin darling

Oh is it cocktail time already?

{looks at watch}

Yikes I'm late!

TO THE BAR!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,10:56   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2007,07:08)
P.S. Oh no the Aussies have given us more than cheap wine. There's the rotary washing line, Steve Irwin (Crikey!), much good Ocker fun, Carlton Cold and much much more.

And Rolf Harris.  How could you forget Rolf Harris?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,11:38   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2007,09:18)

George,

Well as we know, I disagree on epistemological grounds. Reigion and science are the most notable uses of two very different mechanisms that we humans have developed for acquiring knowledge of the universe around us.

I'm happy to be pluralist about this and admit that there are aspects of religion and science that don't overlap or conflict in any way, but I really don't buy this Non Overlapping Magisteria stuff at all, for the reasons stated. I'd also disagree that science can't answer questions about what it means to be human. There's a huge swathe of psycholgical, philosophical and neurological data that is at least a fledgling attempt to answer just these sorts of questions. We can ask questions like "why do I feel this way?" or "why does this mean so much?" or "what is it to be human?" etc and get very rational answers based on reason and observation. What do faith and revelation offer in the way of answers to these questions that a) isn't actually reason, rational thought and observation in disguise or at it's root, or b) trite and dismissable on the basis that the identical answer can be provided by faith in anything or revelation of anything.


Back again.  You've expanded on my narrow ideas on science and religion to talk about faith and reason.  I was going to make the point that a lot of religion, although grounded in faith, actually uses reason and logic in developing theology.  But you've made that point for me.  We need to be careful not to conflate science with reason.

Certainly science and reason can answer some questions about being human, like the above "why do I feel this way"?  Prime candidate for the psych people.  What I meant were the big fluffy questions like "what is the meaning of life", "why am I here" and "how can I be a good person."  Reason can only go so far I think with these questions.  At the root of logical analysis of these are assumptions made using something else, philosophy, faith or something.  These are the questions I think are better addressed by religion or other disciplines like philosophy or art.

As for your point b), you'll have to explain in what sense triteness necessarily follows.

Quote

This is the thing with religion. I'd be singularly amazed if all relgious ideas from all religions over all time turned out to be totally useless. In fact it would be a staggering (and interesting) clue if they were. As it turns out, not all the ideas contained in religion are totally useless, some of them, many of them are quite useful. But a) how do we know they are useful, b) how did they develop, and c) how do we examine them and extract the useful bits? The answer to those three questions is not "faith and revelation". The answer is "by careful reasoning, rational examination of their claims and coherence, careful observation of their effects and basis, and scrutiny of the evidence they claim in support". The useful bits of religions are not only discernable by reason and observation, they are derived from them and can be reverse engineered on that basis. The fact that we have forgotten how they arose, or that their workings are hidden is no more significant than the fact that some part of our brain does very rapid and complex differential calculus when we catch a ball, or that we don't show the full proofs of number theory when we add two and two to get four.


A couple of thoughts here.  Sometimes it may not be possible to extract the useful "bits" as they lose their value when removed from other apparently useless bits of context, support, etc.  The Catholic mass comes to mind.  On its own, incense or responses by the congregation mightn't be very useful in isolation, but they can combine to benefit individuals and arguably society.  The definition of "useful" is also tricky in this context and its definition conditions the ability of reason to analyse religious beliefs and aspects.  Beliefs that are useful in producing a happy, productive society are easily analysed by logical, rational methods.  Certain practices or customs may not have any obvious utility, but may be good for an individual.  Often religion and "religious bits" may be useful or good for one person or in one context, but not others.  Can be a bit messy I think.

All that said, I'm in large agreement with you on heavy doses of reason and logic in religion.  A lot of religion can be understood with reason and logic, but fundamentally religion is irrational and illogical.  I'm not exactly sure how the non-overlapping magisteria idea is defined.  But I would agree that science in the strict sense and religion don't overlap if properly applied.  It's in the misapplication that the conflicts occur.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,12:17   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 10 2007,06:21)
Skeptic,

1) There is no assumption of a rift between science and religion, it's a fact. It exists because of the epistemological differences...etc.

Seriously good post Louis. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,12:23   

Hi George,

Since I already explained a lot of what is dealt with above in the long reply to Skeptic (including why I was talking about faith and reason for example), I thought I'd deal with this:

Quote
Reason can only go so far I think with these questions.  At the root of logical analysis of these are assumptions made using something else, philosophy, faith or something.  These are the questions I think are better addressed by religion or other disciplines like philosophy or art.


How do you know?

This is a serious question.

Oh and science IS the application of reason, rational thought and observation etc. It is the very epitome of it. I'm not conflating the two at all, there's no conflation to be made. The difference between the use of reason etc in science and it's use in other fields is merely the difference, to use a surgical analogy, between the careful strokes of a master surgeon's scapel and the broad strokes of a butcher's knife (in some cases the wild swings of a bastard sword! But that's a different matter).

Again, the fact that reason etc can be applied "unconsciously" or with no "significant showing of workings" is insignificant. Precisely as insignificant as the fact that the calculus your brain does is "unconscious" when you catch a ball. The ability to reason is an evolved trait, and for good reasons (to mix definitions!).  Also the fact that one individual might find something useful and another might not is again no more significant than one likes strawberries and another doesn't. Diversity of preference is to be expected. Perhaps the next bit will clarify this.

You cannot fence off religion from scruntiny. This "religion properly applied" stuff is purest bunk. Religion, in part, seeks to inform us about the universe (I would say "and ourselves" but the illusion that we are seperate from the universe is just that, an illusion). In trying to inform us about the universe it makes models and claims and conjectures (like any other area of enquiry). In part those models etc are based on faith: I believe X to be so as a matter of faith, or because god revealed it to me. Regardless of reasoning downstream from this the axioms of faith and revelation are very different from the axioms of philosophy or reason or anything else. By definition an axiom of faith/revelation (and hence religion, the greatest exponent of these mechanisms of "acquiring knowledge") is an unchallengable edict from the creator(s) of the universe. No where else will you find such an in principle unchallengeable edict. Simply because all forms of epistemological tool kits have some axioms does not mean all axioms are equal nor as productive.

Religions use their faith and revelation derived ideas to describe the universe around us. Religions use their faith and revelation derived ideas to make moral, social and ethical claims. On what basis can any religion state that these physical descriptions and moral claims are valid? If it claims them by faith alone then I can make an equally supported faith claim of the polar opposite. Who is right and how do we decide?

Faith and revelation are at their core anti-reason, anathema to it, its polar opposite. That one can combine the two to form ideas is not in doubt, that useful ideas, or accurate ideas, or indeed that any knowledge at all can be gained from faith and revelation is. Examine two faith based propositions. Again, how can one distinguish between them? The only basis one has is reason. That should be a massive clue!

The conflict between science and religion has this very epistemological conflict at its heart. Religions make faith derived claims about the universe. Religion in this sense is overlapping on science's territory (although to frame this as a territorial dispute is false, it's more like a Venn diagram). Epistemologically religions are making the claim that in addition to reason etc, faith and revelation are methods of acquiring knowledge about that universe that work. This is a claim open to scrutiny, and thus far every time it has been scrutinised it has been found wanting. Coincidence happens, but any scrutiny of faith derived claims causes their faith based nature to waft away. The claim to "different ways of knowing" is nothing more than special pleading, wishful thinking and an appeal to prejudice and ignorance.

The tools of art, philosophy etc etc are just the same as the tools of science (as mentioned above) the difference is a quantitative one, not a qualitative one. Again, how something makes one feel is a reasoned response no matter how unconscious. It is bog standard "stimulus-response". The bagges we associate with it is also based on other stimuli, claiming an undemonstrated (and undemonstrable) "other" dimension to it is simply over emphasising the "unconscious" element.

Lastly, to answer your question about triteness, well I thought the rest of the sentence did that, but obviously I didn't explain myself very well. Give me a question of the type you/I mention and the religious answer to it and I'll show you what I mean.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
swbarnes2



Posts: 78
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2007,13:59   

Quote (George @ Aug. 10 2007,11:38)
 I was going to make the point that a lot of religion, although grounded in faith, actually uses reason and logic in developing theology.


And one can use pure logic to extrapolate about hen's teeth.

I think the utter absence of hen's teeth (barring fun tricks in the laboratory) proves that reason badly applied is pretty stupid.

     
Quote
We need to be careful not to conflate science with reason.


I don't think "we" need to be careful at all.  I think all the science advocates here are perfectly aware that what makes science so darn useful is that it's reason combined with empirical testing.

That's what distinguishes science from theology, which is reason built on...things not empirical.

     
Quote
What I meant were the big fluffy questions like "what is the meaning of life", "why am I here" and "how can I be a good person."


Your third question is amendable to scientific inquiry, because we probably can build a definition for "good" person that we can observe in the physical universe. You could start by saying that a "good person" is the kind of person that most people feel improves their society.  Or that a "good person" follows closely the Golden Rule, which is valued as useful by pretty much every society on the planet ever.

We probably can't make a purely objective definition, but we can at least ground our definition in observable behaviors.

But your other questions are meaningless unless you start with the assumption that your life has a "meaning" and a "reason".  And that you can't demonstrate.  You just believe it on religious grounds.  So we're back to impeccably reasoned treatices on hen's teeth.

 
Quote
But I would agree that science in the strict sense and religion don't overlap if properly applied.


Okay, so who defines "proper"?  Religions once proclaimed that the best way to ensure a good crop was to rip the queen's sacred consort to shreds over the fields.  They thought that was a proper application of religious thinking.  And why isn't it "proper" to learn about, say, a global flood from reading a book that your religion tells you is suppsoed to describe it utterly faithfully?

I suppose the best answer to how to "properly" apply science and religion is: "science works with physical phenomena, and religions work for non-physical phenomena".  You are just stuck with the problem that you can't know if there are any of the latter, you just have to hope there are, and call that wish "faith".

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2007,23:00   

I hate getting this far behind because I can't possibly respond to everything that's been said so I'll just make a few quick points.

First, nice thorough post Louis however much I disagree with what you said.  

The term creationist is being thrown around alot and I think slightly misused.  You could lump every single religious person into this catagory because whatever mechanism God used, the universe was still created.  Now the small subset of this group are the YECs and IDers who attempt to construct a rigis framework to the creation story.  They are incorrectly straying into science just as the scientist who  mistakenly applies empiricism to faith.  They are part of the problem but not the norm.  I'll use Genesis as an example but it applies to all creation stories.  Genesis is poetry written by a man.  Careful reading of Genesis quickly reveals that it is not a science text, there is no evidence presented nor observations recorded.  The point is to demonstrate the power of God and reinforce the concept of the special nature of mankind (this is an over-simplification but I'm just hitting the high points) not to layout the blueprint for universe creation.  Remember the author, Moses or Aaron or other, did not see any of this take place nor interview anyone who did.  Any attempt to say that Genesis is develops a model for the physical universe is groundless.  Genesis lays the groundwork for a spiritual model of the universe.  Huge difference.

The questions that faith and reason try to answer are in NO way similar.  Take for instance the brain.  Science will tell me about the neurons that form networks that lead to higher functions.  How they fire, what stimuli drive these responses, etc and so forth.  What science can not tell me is anything about the Mind, who I am, where I reside in this brain.  These questions are outside of rational thought as are love, sadness, goodness and morality.  These questions must be answered in some other ways and faith is one of these avenues.  And just to make my thoughts plain, there is no such thing as true morality in the absense of God everything else is just a human construct and therefore flawed.

But before we go round and round I wanted to make an observation.  Based upon what you've said I think you are much more optimistic concerning man's ability to apply reason and rationality to these questions and find the answer.  I do not believe that is possible as our capacity is limited and those questions are beyond reason.  I see why you insist on the conflict because you believe it is science's role to answer these questions using it's methods as opposed to the methods used by faith.  Science can not answer these questions and in error when it tries and the same applies to faith.

One last thing, both science and faith seek knowledge but of a completely different sort and for a completely different reason.  I believe Crick ran right out to the local pub after the discovery of the structure of DNA and promptly declared that they had discovered the meaning of life.  What was not doscovered was the meaning of Life and that is a question only Faith can answer.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,01:28   

Quote (George @ Aug. 10 2007,08:56)
My take on this subject, and maybe it's the middle point btwn Louis and Skeptic, is that religion and science should not come into conflict, but often do.  As Louis has said, they are based on two completely different ways of understanding the world and humanity.  Neither should try to answer questions that are best addressed by the other.  Religion can't usefully answer questions about the natural world and science can't usefully questions about what it means to be a human.  The problems arise when people forget this.  Usually creationists.

My €0.02.  Maybe not very enlightening or useful, but must dash now.

Perhaps you are right with "science can't usefully questions about what it means to be a human". But, how does religion do any better with answering questions about being human? Is philosophy not perhaps better at this and does it mean that non-beleivers like Atheists and Agnostics cannot answer questions about being human because they have no religion to help them?

I don't buy it. There are many people who uphold NOMA, for obvious reasons, even reasons that I can understand but I don't agree with it. Religion is just pissed because science has refuted so much opinions that their holy texts had about the universe and world we live on.

*Disclaimer: As Lenny would surely point out, there are many religious people that stands up for science, even against people that share their faith. My above comments are therefore not a blanket.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,04:52   

Skeptic,

So your reply is to handwave away generations of evidence that contradict your claims and simply reassert them?

Wow, well I'm impressed!

1) The mentions of creationists were:

a) in response to a point that you made claiming that people don't use faith to understand/claim knowledge of the world, the existence of creationists proves that claim wrong, Skeptic. You can say they are wrong to do so all you like, but you haven't answered the question of how you know they are wrong to do so. You are merely asserting that they are wrong, you are not demonstrating it. How do you know they are wrong? And remember Skeptic you are not allowed to use reason, logic, evidence and observation because if you do you prove my point.

b) You made a (false) claim about scientists being naughty for daring to counter creationists. That claim has been refuted, ergo the mention of creationists was relevant.

You go on about Genesis being poetry, great, I agree. How do you know Skeptic. All though this you are merely asserting these things by faith alone. If I were to come up with a contradictory position based on faith alone, then how would you demonstrate which was right and which wasn't (if indeed either of them were)?

2) No one is applying empiricism to faith. All anyone is asking is what knoweldge comes from faith/revelation and how do we know. You have avoided that question. Just as you have avoided the question about how we distinguish between two faith based positions that are mutually contradictory.

3) You are very keen on defining things as beyond rational study and yet you give no support for these claims. Worse than that the claims you make are actually false. We CAN rationally study morals and ethics. We CAN rationally study aspects of the mind (not "merely" the brain, although what is "mere" about it I'll never know! Looks bloody complicated to me). No one is saying these studies are perfect or 100% complete but appeals to mind/brain dualism (long since refuted by the evidence) don't work.

4) It's not a matter of my optimism or my beliefs or a desire to see science answer something it "shouldn't" (not my claim, but yours. Totally unsubstantiated on your part you'll note), Skeptic. It's a matter of the evidence. All the knowledge we have that deserves the title derives solely from reason and observation. Show me what knowledge faith and revelation have contributed and how we know that it is knowledge and not mere fantasy. All the evidence we have demonstrates beyond doubt that reason, observation, rational thought etc can provide us with answers to every coherent question we can ask. My faith/desire/belief is immaterial, it doesn't even enter into the question. I might want completely the opposite, or believe in limits, but I cannot honestly deny the success of the methods of acquiring knowledge about the universe we have developed.

Back to your false dualism, we know for a fact that alterations in brain structure and chemistry alter aspects of what was once thought to be the province of the "mind" or "spirit" as entities distinct and disembodied from the brain. We can induce religious experiences of awe and love with an electromagnetic field or a chemical. Experiences indistinguishable from the "natural" occuring ones. This alone disproves your comments about reason being incapable of probing the mind.

Again, no one denies humanity's limits or lack of infinite attributes but so what? Simply declaring things off limits because you don't like them is not an answer. We haven't reached the end of what we can study yet, when and if we do you *might* have a point, but as it stands we haven't and you don't. (Actually you wouldn't have a point, because the appeal to mystery is a) logically fallacious and b) open to ANY mystery anyone wishes to insert). I suggest you start trying to answer the epistemological question rather than flapping around avoiding the issue.

5) Meaning of life? Go on then, how does faith/revelation answer it better than reason. In fact how does it answer it at all. Why is the question even worth answering or meaningful (and I DO NOT mean from a personal perspective)?

You keep making the assertion that reason and faith are attempts to answer different questions and yet you a) haven't established this and b) whenever this point is refuted (because they do have questions in common at least) you run away or re-assert that it is misapplication of these methods of acquiring knowledge with no support.

6) No "true" morality in the absence of god, eh? Oh really! Eat a lot of porridge do you? Put and sugar on it? Which god Skeptic, and how do you know? Stop dodging the question.

Oh and no one denies the imperfections of human morality, imperfections don't equal a problem. Unless of course one is a fool seeking absolutist ideals, demonstrated decades (hell, centuries) ago to be false and fallacious. Again Skeptic you believe this because you want to, despite the fact that it flies in the face of all of the evidence.

The simple fact that different societies have different morals utterly refutes your appeal to absolutist morals. Unless of course you can demonstrate that the basis for you moral claims is more valid than the basis for a different set of moral claims. Let me clue you in a second: the appeal to prejudice won't cut the mustard.

So Skeptic, you have a lot of work to do. For your assertions to be true you have to:

a) Demonstrate that faith/revelation provide knowledge about the universe. I.e. that they are valid mechanisms of acquiring knowledge, be it physical or "spiritual" (whatever that means, we'd need a definition, and some evidence it even exists, because saying that reason cannot examine love [for example] is merely yet another reassertion of the original claim).

b) Demonstrate a method for distinguishing between two faith based claims. (this includes your moral claims)

c) Demonstrate that reason etc cannot penetrate the areas you claim faith/revelation can, because at the moment all of your examples have been either i) mere reassertions of your original point or ii) derived solely from your personal ignorance of the topics at hand.

d) Demonstrate that questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" are valid questions, and that faith/revelation can answer them.

Oh and you have to do this WITHOUT recourse to reason, logic, rational thought and observation. Why? Because I have taken the position that all knowledge acquired by humanity since the dawn of time is derived solely from reason, logic, rational thought and observation (unless one really wants to retreat into solipsism and nihilism). I can conclusively demonstrate (as far as any such thing can be conclusive) that appeals to faith and revelation alone are indistinguishable from any other appeal to faith and revelation, and thus mere fantasy. It is you that is claiming "different ways of knowing" to reason thus you who has to justify that claim. Simply reasserting them and stamping your foot and saying "They ARE different" doesn't acheive this.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,07:34   

This will have to be quick but I will get back later to address this fully.  One thing I'm seeing is the criticism that I'm making statements about faith by faith alone without proving them.  That sounds like a catch-22 to me.  How can I possibly supply evidence in a field that I conclude is beyond reason? : D

You are absolutely right.  You can not prove that you're statements by faith are any more valid than my statements of faith.  Again, these opinions are not subject to empirical analysis.  This is not about truth in a scientific sense and that may be hard to accept.

Be back for more later...

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,07:50   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 14 2007,13:34)
This will have to be quick but I will get back later to address this fully.  One thing I'm seeing is the criticism that I'm making statements about faith by faith alone without proving them.  That sounds like a catch-22 to me.  How can I possibly supply evidence in a field that I conclude is beyond reason? : D

You are absolutely right.  You can not prove that you're statements by faith are any more valid than my statements of faith.  Again, these opinions are not subject to empirical analysis.  This is not about truth in a scientific sense and that may be hard to accept.

Be back for more later...

Great! Then what knowledge value do they have? How do I distinguish "true" faith claims from "false" faith claims. And if I can't, why listen to either when I have so excellent an alternative to both at my disposal?

It isn't about truth in a scientific sense? LOL Skeptic, it ain't about "truth" at all. It's about the probelm the majority of humanity have with a) dealing with reality, and b) the exciting little hypocritical circles they run in when confronted about it.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,07:50   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 14 2007,07:34)
This is not about truth in a scientific sense and that may be hard to accept.

Please define other types of proof (if by proof you mean overwhelming evidence, if you DON'T, then that's another problem entirely)

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,09:08   

Quote
But, how does religion do any better with answering questions about being human?

Well, it's much faster and easier.  For instance, if you asked a mathematician "what's the smallest prime number of more than a trillion digits?"  It would probably take him/her a long time and a large amount of effort and resources to figure out the answer. OTOH, you could ask me the same question and I could instantly blurt out "fifty seven point oh-six-three."  From the standpoint of response time and ease of calculation at least, my answer is superior.  Stupid, useless and wrong, but faster and easier.

And so children, that's how religion helps us understand the answers to questions about what it means to be human.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,09:14   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Aug. 14 2007,15:08)
Quote
But, how does religion do any better with answering questions about being human?

Well, it's much faster and easier.  For instance, if you asked a mathematician "what's the smallest prime number of more than a trillion digits?"  It would probably take him/her a long time and a large amount of effort and resources to figure out the answer. OTOH, you could ask me the same question and I could instantly blurt out "fifty seven point oh-six-three."  From the standpoint of response time and ease of calculation at least, my answer is superior.  Stupid, useless and wrong, but faster and easier.

And so children, that's how religion helps us understand the answers to questions about what it means to be human.

AH But Occam's Toothbrush, the answer "I haven't a bastard clue" is equally short, rapid, useless, and easy but with the additional virtue of (in my case at least) being absolutely true.

Therefore ignorance is knowledge, black is white, war is peace, love is hate, slavery is freedom and I'm a little teapot.

All together now.....

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,09:28   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 14 2007,09:14)
AH But Occam's Toothbrush, the answer "I haven't a bastard clue" is equally short, rapid, useless, and easy but with the additional virtue of (in my case at least) being absolutely true.

The answer "I don't know" is always a more useful answer to any real question than "goddidit."  At least when you say "I don't know," the door is still open for someday figuring out the real answer.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,09:51   

I see that our disagreement is very fundamental.  We are two ships passing in the night with you seeking certainty and I saying there is none.

Consider this example.  I ask you to prove that you love your wife and you give me your evidence.  I reject your evidence because IMO you don't love your wife you just like her.  Why?  Because love can not be broken down to an equation or proven as a theorem.  No matter how unsatisfying that answer is it is simply true.  In these cases we turn to poetry, philosophy and faith to answer questions such as these.

Example number 2.  Let's take the Bible and assume that everything in it is proven absolutely false.  It's just one big novel with some very interesting stories.  What does this mean for the existence of God, any God?  Nothing.  God's existence, or more correctly the existence of anything, is independent of our ability to comprehend or recognize it.  In order to gain knowledge of something we have to observe it, measure it, touch it, etc.  In the case of God, science is unable to supply these observations whereas revelation, inspiration, meditation, etc are exactly suited to this kind of knowledge.

I understand you desire to know everything or assume that everything is theoretically within reach for mankind.  The truth is it's not and that is very hard for some people to accept.  In fact, in some cases, it's just that realization that allows people to find comfort in their faith.  This may be an alien concept.

anyway gotta go for now...

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,10:51   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 14 2007,15:51)
I see that our disagreement is very fundamental.  We are two ships passing in the night with you seeking certainty and I saying there is none.

Consider this example.  I ask you to prove that you love your wife and you give me your evidence.  I reject your evidence because IMO you don't love your wife you just like her.  Why?  Because love can not be broken down to an equation or proven as a theorem.  No matter how unsatisfying that answer is it is simply true.  In these cases we turn to poetry, philosophy and faith to answer questions such as these.

Example number 2.  Let's take the Bible and assume that everything in it is proven absolutely false.  It's just one big novel with some very interesting stories.  What does this mean for the existence of God, any God?  Nothing.  God's existence, or more correctly the existence of anything, is independent of our ability to comprehend or recognize it.  In order to gain knowledge of something we have to observe it, measure it, touch it, etc.  In the case of God, science is unable to supply these observations whereas revelation, inspiration, meditation, etc are exactly suited to this kind of knowledge.

I understand you desire to know everything or assume that everything is theoretically within reach for mankind.  The truth is it's not and that is very hard for some people to accept.  In fact, in some cases, it's just that realization that allows people to find comfort in their faith.  This may be an alien concept.

anyway gotta go for now...

Skeptic,

Fuck me you really do like your straw men don't you!

Me? Certainty? Can't you read for comprehension. All knowledge is provisonal, I've never said different. You do realise that this means there isn't any certainty don't you? Lawks Skeptic, but you can be a tiresome idiot.

Ships passing in the night? Crikey, will you do anything to avoid defending your claims?

Let's deal with your examples:

1) I love my wife. I can demonstrate that I act towards my wife in a certain way consistent with the defition of love. I can, as far as can be ascertained, demonstrate to an impartial observer that I love my wife by the use of evidence and reason and observation. Is there some modicum of doubt? Of course, as I said above there is always some element of doubt, knowledge is provisional.

I didn't say anywhere that things could be broken down into equations, that is a strawman of your own confection. Please don't you it again or I shall be moved to exceedingly harsh language! ;-)

You end your first example by simply restating your original claim, again. What on earth makes you think that art and philosophy are not founded on and utilising reason and observation? As I have said possibly umpteen times now, the fact that one doesn't sit down and work out one's desires or emotions on a calculator does not in any way mean they are not reasoned responses to stimuli. The fact that they are perhaps unconsciously processed is no more indicative of magic or faith or "different ways of knowing" than is catching a ball. Try again.

2) The bible: Apart from the fact that it deals with some demonstrably real places, occasionally some demonstrably real people and events, and that it contains the anecdotes of many people some of which bear up to scrutiny, it HAS BEEN proven absolutely false! But that aside your "example" is nothing of the sort, it is simply you restating BY FAITH ALONE that some things are unexaminable by reason. You then couple this with some patronising falsity about my seeking certainty.

If there is a theistic deity or set of deities that interact with the universe in such a way as to alter it (i.e. not a deistic god), then those interactions are by definition detectable (no one is saying that it's necessarily an easy job!). Deities that tinker with the material world are open to disproof (as far as such things can be accomplished) simply on the basis that no interaction of that nature can be shown to be occuring. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and there could be a deity lurking somewhere, but not the one's describe by current world faiths. Why? Because those descriptions include properties we simply do not observe.  As I said right at the start you are trying to constantly redefine your deity away from scrutiny and you simply cannot honestly do that.

Skeptic, try very very hard to understand the fact that you are merely repeatedly ASSERTING your claims, you are NOT demonstrating them. You have continually reasserted that reason cannot understand some things whilst being incapable of pointing out what those things are. You have to date (IIRC, I can't be bothered to wade through your shit to find them all) said that reason cannot examine:

a) the mind
b) meaning
c) emotions (e.g. love)
d) god(s)
e) morals and ethics

In every case you are staggeringly wrong, and not because I merely assert that this is the case.

a) The studies of psychiatry, psychology and neurology are (despite their flaws) doing precisely what you claim they cannot. They are probing the nature of the "mind" tha arises from the physical functioning of the brain. There is no reason to expect a "ghost in the machine" separate from the brain's operation. Is it a complex and imperfectly understood relationship and set of processes? Yes of course it is. Is it in principle unexaminable by reason? Demonstrably no.

b) Meaning can be explored rationally through various branches of philosophy and the arts. Not only do these fields rely on reason and observation but the very things that underpin them are derived from the interaction of the brain anf the universe around it. Where the questions involved are not non sequiturs, reason can explore them. Where the questions are irrational, there is a) no reason to expect them to even have answer and b) no reason to expect that faith and revelation can answer them. Assertion that this is the case is merely a restatement of the original claim, not a validation of it.

c) Emotions can not only be explored and understood psychologically but they have definite bases in biological processes that we know the workings of. If I wish to demonstrate I love my wife for example, I can behave in a manner consonent with the defintion of love towards her. The fact that I cannot demonstrate if it is "true" love or not is a) logially fallacious (no true scotsman) and b) irrelevant in exactly the same way that "is the colour purple you see the same as the colour purple I see" is. We can demonstrate the brain responds the same way to the same frequencies of radiation in the brains of different people, both of whom refer to that stimulus as seeing the colour purple. That is as close as it is possible to get to anything approaching certainty. Certainty is itself unreachable.

d) Gods. If they interact with the material universe they are in principle a claim about the material nature of the universe and thus open to falsification on that basis. Thus far, no single event consonent with any current operating defintion of any deity conceived of by humanity has been observed. This far, no logical or rational argument from ontology to teleology and beyond has been found that can demonstrate the existence of a deity ab initio and as a matter of principle. Any deity described in such a way that it is utterly undetectable is uttrely indistingushable from a  non-existent deity, and thus as a matter of parsimony can be said not to exist. All so far totally open to reason and rational enquiry, nothing thus far unpenetrable by reason.

e) Morals and ethics are demonstrably social contructs. Rationalisations of current behaviours and desires about future or general behaviours. Centuries of study in philosophy, sociology, anthropology, ethology etc etc etc (all reasoned and observational) have demonstrated this beyond any reasonable doubt. Again, all open to reason.

Your examples, Skeptic and you claims are not only unsubstantiated but utterly refuted thus far. Care to do any better?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,10:56   

Shouldn't "skeptic" be changed to
"Not a skeptic", or maybe "I'll believe any old thing if it's in a dusty old book"?

Aren't there Truth In Advertising laws anymore?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,13:19   

on points a)-e), I completely disagree on every point and it can not be any plainer than that.  You put you faith in man's ability to collect knowledge on these concepts and you couldn't be more wrong.

The Mind, not the mind, define it for me please.  Explain how the function and structure of the brain gives rise to the emergence of the Mind and (just for kicks) consciousness.

Meaning in life is rationally subjective and can not be pinned down to a time, place or culture.  The only universal solution is if it is based upon something transcendate to time, place and culture.

Emotions or the chemical reactions leading to emotions have nothing to do with what Love is or what Sadness is.  For that matter, if you've ever known a woman you know that emotions are in no way rational.

God.  Well this is the point of the discussion but it is extreme arrogance to assume that if God exists you should be able to detect him or them.  Prove that to me and you win.

Morality is also subjective and it depends upon time, place and culture unless rooted upon something uninfluenced by these factors.  Resorting to rationality to define morality results in nothing but relativism.  But again, if you believe otherwise, prove it.

I keep having to repeat myself because you just aren't getting it.  You're appling humanistic reasoning but it is severely limited and if it wasn't then these concepts would be defined by now and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,13:23   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 14 2007,13:19)
The Mind, not the mind, define it for me please.  Explain how the function and structure of the brain gives rise to the emergence of the Mind and (just for kicks) consciousness.

Skeptic, you've got to be kidding.

Please remove your brain and let us know if you retain consciousness.

Or, if that seems a bit extreme, please outline for us the scientific evidence for a mind/brain dualism.

thanks

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,14:23   

Quote
Meaning in life is rationally subjective and can not be pinned down to a time, place or culture.

Quite demonstrably false.
As you go on to show later in your own post...

 
Quote
Morality is also subjective and it depends upon time, place and culture unless rooted upon something uninfluenced by these factors.


Trying to have it both ways, eh?

 
Quote
You're appling humanistic reasoning but it is severely limited and if it wasn't then these concepts would be defined by now and we wouldn't be having this discussion.


I have to assume you intended to say 'human reasoning' rather than humanistic.  Otherwise, kindly define and demonstrate just what the heck 'humanistic reasoning' is other than plain old everyday human reason.
And insofar as you mean 'human reasoning', you are using the same thing [to be charitable.  The content of your posts suggests that you might not be...]
It is the only kind of reasoning we have available to us.
And it is the starting point for anything you do; if it is flawed, the flaws apply equally to you and the products of your mentation.
Secondly, "then these concepts would be defined by now".
Says who?  Why must this be the case?
Concepts appear at a point in time, and our understanding of that to which the concept, or proto-concept refers, grows and evolves over time.
Contra to your first point, but somewhat in synch with your second, and devastating to your third-and-a-half.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,16:09   

Alba, you raise a very interesting question.  Let me put something together for you.

Shirley, you do not.  Look up "humanism."

  
Shirley Knott



Posts: 148
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,16:52   

I'm *quite* familiar with the general and specific meanings of 'humanism'.
I am at a loss as to how any of them help clarify your effluent.
Your screed was all but meaningless in the technical sense of the term.  What little meaning was actually there was confused, largely self-refuting, and embarrassing to anyone with more than 2 functioning brain cells.
And you have ignored the challenge embedded in your own post, while trivializing a response that both points that out and asks a meaningful and specific question about just what it is you are going on about.
It is on that basis that I conclude:
You, sir, are an idiot.
Not a sceptic, an idiot.
A singularly clueless, smug, supercilious idiot.
Kindly intercourse elsewhere and expire.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2007,19:22   

*smiles*

Thank fine lady but I will kindly turn down your offer and apply my two functioning brain cells to the question at hand.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,03:02   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 14 2007,19:19)
on points a)-e), I completely disagree on every point and it can not be any plainer than that.  You put you faith in man's ability to collect knowledge on these concepts and you couldn't be more wrong.

The Mind, not the mind, define it for me please.  Explain how the function and structure of the brain gives rise to the emergence of the Mind and (just for kicks) consciousness.

Meaning in life is rationally subjective and can not be pinned down to a time, place or culture.  The only universal solution is if it is based upon something transcendate to time, place and culture.

Emotions or the chemical reactions leading to emotions have nothing to do with what Love is or what Sadness is.  For that matter, if you've ever known a woman you know that emotions are in no way rational.

God.  Well this is the point of the discussion but it is extreme arrogance to assume that if God exists you should be able to detect him or them.  Prove that to me and you win.

Morality is also subjective and it depends upon time, place and culture unless rooted upon something uninfluenced by these factors.  Resorting to rationality to define morality results in nothing but relativism.  But again, if you believe otherwise, prove it.

I keep having to repeat myself because you just aren't getting it.  You're appling humanistic reasoning but it is severely limited and if it wasn't then these concepts would be defined by now and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Skeptic,

This is getting beyond farcical.

We are not merely exchanging subjective opinions, and my "faith" in humanity's ability to study things is not faith at all but observation of what is occurring/has occurred. I need no faith in it at all, it's happening all around me and we as a species have been doing it since the dawn of time and writing about it for only slightly less time! It doesn't matter than some of the conclusions and data we have are in error (or were in error or will be in error) the fact is beyond doubt that we can rationally investigate these things.

I know you don't understand this but you are making a claim that (for example) all of psychiatry, psychology and neurology cannot study the things they study! It's not up to me to get a psych textbook and regurgitate it for you, it's up to you to support your claim that, in contradiction to enormous quantities of evidence available at your local library no less, that the rational study of topics such as minds, morals and men is an impossibility.

I'll repeat it to help you:

Throughout this entire "conversation" (for I now realise I have been casting pearls not merely before swine but into a black hole of utter ignorance and stupidity) you have made various claims about the impossibility of things being studiable. You have in no way expanded on how or why you know this to be the case, you have merely continually reasserted them without basis. You can disagree all you like but all you are doing is sticking your fingers in your ears, plugs up your nose, and a blindfold over your eyes and singing "LALALALALA the universe isn't the way I want it to be so I won't admit anything". So again Skeptic, how do you know, i.e. on what basis, do you make the claim that (for example) the mind is not open to rational enquiry.

You claim to keep repeating yourself because *I* don't get it? Jesus fucking H Corbett, Skeptic! For an utterly clueless moron you don't suffer from the virtue of humility do you! LOL Honestly old bean your attempts at "argument" have been laughable. You now claim that if these concepts were open to rational enquiry then they would already be settled? Skeptic, crack a book, THEY ARE! The fact that many people are too biased, apathetic stupid or ignorant to know about/understand/care about the relevant data isn;t a data point in your favour! Pick up a neurology text, or a psych text, go and read Hume and Russell on ethics (hell, go and read the Greeks, no need to trouble you with anything from the last century or two!), it's all out there.

Oh and meaning and morals ARE relative! That's the point I've been trying to get you to comprehend for a while now. There is no transcendant moral code to which human morals are merely a poor reflection and the different cultural moral codes are a key indicator (but by no means the only one) of this. That's the whole point, morals vary from culture to culture (as does attempt at meaning etc). We can study (and do very effectively) the origins and nature of different cultures' morals and ethics, again crack a book and you'll find the world open up around you.

Oh and Skeptic, you really need to lay off the straw men:

a) I do live with a woman (and I've known a few, I believe my mother is one, although I'll have to ask her) and her emotions are perfectly rational whilst at the same time being totally irrational (just like mine, yours, anyone's. Oh and your abject sexism is noted, well done Skeptic, a new low). Guess what, the word "rational" can be used in different ways. I was very explicitly (and very clearly to anyone with a reading age over 5) using "rational" in the EPISTEMOLOGICAL sense of the word, not the colloquial one. Pissing about with definitions makes you look very silly. Please don't act the cunt with me because I will slap you down.

b) I never said that if god(s) exists then we should be able to detect it (them). I said that if god(s) exist AND interact with the universe (answer prayers, move matter about to create X or Y) then BY DEFINITION that is an interaction with the material universe that is detectable. How easy or hard it might be to do that is a different matter. If god(s) only move single photons, then our chance of detecting them are vanishingly small, still finite, but beyond modern technology unless it's a photon we currently happen to be looking at very carefully. That's the difference Skeptic, and I think you'll find it's a key one. Appeals to undetectable deities don't butter any parsnips. First undetectable looks a lot like nonexistant. Second it's not exactly parsimonious. Appeals to tinkerer gods (liek the one described above) are dangerous because thus far all gods defined by the human race have attributes that are open to detetction. Claiming (for example) that hurricanes are sent by god is a big no no. We KNOW how hurricanes work and arise, no god there at all.  If you want to make the utterly asinine claim that "ahhhhhh well it's really god behind it all but you can't see him" then you know I am going to ask "how do you know?" and "how do you know which god it is? Or if it's not pixies etc?" and since you are relying solely on faith to suuport your claim then those contradictory and mutually exclusive faith claims are equally as valid, so you lose out once again.

Oh and Skeptic, if I prove something to you I've won? Sweetie I hate to break this to you but if there was winning and losing to be done, I won a while ago. I was also unaware that conversation involved winning or losing. You think this is a debate? LOL Skeptic my dear sweet little munchkin, if this was a debate, the debate moderator would have removed you for failing to meet the minimum intellectual requirements both in terms of your abilities as a prticipant and the lack of cohesion in your claims and arguments. You would have been ruled out of order and sat on the sidelines so that a more capable debater could take the floor. PErhaps some kind of vegetable.

What you are currently doing is flannelling around and repeating the same claims you made at the start. Even a sympathetic reader would be ashamed of your drivel, but don't take my word for it. Capitalising words like Mind and Love don't change their meaning, and as some supposedly capable of understanding basic chemistry (although no eevidence of this has ever arisen I note) you seem curiously ignorant about the basics of drug action and biological chemistry. Want me to prove you can feel a sincere and abiding love just on the basis of your body's chemistry? Easy peasy, take an E, go to a club. You'll love everyone in the room very sincerely indeed because of the lovely little biological pathways through your brain that E stimulates.

I'm giving you an F, must try a lot harder. Now are you going to answer the questions or not?

Here they are again:

1) How does one distinguish between two faith based claims?

2) Demonstrate that faith/revelation provide knowledge about the universe. I.e. that they are valid mechanisms of acquiring knowledge, be it physical or "spiritual" (whatever that means, we'd need a definition, and some evidence it even exists, because saying that reason cannot examine love [for example] is merely yet another reassertion of the original claim).

3) Demonstrate that reason etc cannot penetrate the areas you claim faith/revelation can, because at the moment all of your examples have been either i) mere reassertions of your original point or ii) derived solely from your personal ignorance of the topics at hand.

4) Demonstrate that questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" are valid questions, and that faith/revelation can answer them.

Four simple questions you have yet to answer, and yet you continually (ever more frantically) reassert your claims without basis. Whining that you do so "because I don't get them" is a) untrue (quite demonstrably so) and b) a logically fallacious special plead. Not only do I "get" your claims Skeptic, but since post number one I have shown them to be utterly false at every turn.

It's quite simple: the rational study of the universe works and is going on all around you despite your ignorance of it. You can stamp your feet and shout "BUT IT CAN'T" all you like, the simple fact is that it can, it does, it is and you are in denial. Asserting by faith alone that something is not open to rational enquiry does not constitute evidence for your claims. The very fact that we can and do investogate things like morals, mind and what have you rationally proves your claims false. The fact that we investigate these things and produce reproducible, reliable data from their study that can be used to predict future phenomena before we've even observed them (why, that seem like science! Gosh, it is!) is the icing on the cake. Not only can we investigate these matters perfetcly rationally, we can do so successfully. So your claims aren't merely false, they are in direct contradiction to what we already know. Hence why you have to show on what basis you make those claims. Good luck!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,11:58   

Louis, for the first time, I'm sad to say, you utterly demonstrate that you just don't know what you are talking about.  It appears that you are just so rooted in materialism that you just can not accept that there may be knowledge that can not be accessed by rational means.  We are continuially reasserting the same premises because we are talking past each other.  For my part, I mistakenly assumed that you acknowledged the different types of knowledge.

There is a distinct difference between the mind and The Mind and if you don't see that then this conversation is in real trouble.  Certainly, Alba raises a valid criticism as to the actual existence of The Mind but I'll get back to that.  If you can not understand what is meant by spiritual or you fail to understand the limitations of psychology, neurology or any other ology that you seem to think can absolutely reveal reality then we must go back and reeducate you on the basics of knowledge.

I'm really surprised.  It is one thing to differentiate between the different types of knowledge accessable by science and faith but it is another thing entirely to completely deny that faith can offer any types of knowledge and that not only is science the only source of "true" knowledge but all knowledge is completely accessable to it.

You're gonna have to provide some proof because I'm just not buying it and I really don't think you know what you're even implying.  Otherwise you're just endlessly repeating yourself and making ridiculous claims such as ectasy-induced chemical reactions are equivilent to Love.  Louis, that's just laughable and I think you know it.

P.S. the comment about emotional women was an attempt at levity (failed apparently) but it does reflect the fact that no emotions are rational and that I will stand by.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,12:11   

God presuppositionalist dualists are so fekking boring.  

It boils down to this:  

Skeptic "faith is a valid epistemology"

Louis "You can't prove it"

Skeptic "I've got your nose.  Look, I've got your nose"

Louis "That's your bloody thumb, not my nose"

Skeptic "You materialist".

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,12:34   

Hark!  Can it be?  My net working @ home?  Time will tell...   :O

If so, then YAY!   :p

(ahem)

Quote
It appears that you are just so rooted in materialism that you just can not accept that there may be knowledge that can not be accessed by rational means.


Quote
You're gonna have to provide some proof



Malfunction:  Logic circuit failure!  Organic grey matter flaw detected!  

In other words:  Huh?

???

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
swbarnes2



Posts: 78
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,12:42   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 15 2007,11:58)
It appears that you are just so rooted in materialism that you just can not accept that there may be knowledge that can not be accessed by rational means.


Knowledge about what subjects?  The tooth fairy?  Pixies?  How do you know those things are real?

How do you know that your "knowledge" isn't just making things up?

The thing about knowledge about the physical world is we all agree that rocks, DNA, cannonballs exist.  And we all agree that ballistics correctly predicts what cannonballs do.

But how do you know that the "Mind" exists?  And how do you know that your "knowledge" about the Mind is accurate?

You've been asked this over and over again.  You know you have no answer.  We all know you have no answer.  

Really, you are just embarassing yourself.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,12:45   

Skeptic,

Wow! *I * have to go back and learn about epistemology etc? Irony meters the world over are melting!

I would be overjoyed if there were exciting supernatural/faith based/ revelatory claims for which reason cannot suffice. Tell me what they are* because at the moment all you are doing is yet again reasserting your claims with still no support and twatting about with the usual straw men.

Tell me, oh wise Skeptic what the difference between the Mind and the mind is. Enlighten me as to why a chemically induced sensation is not the same as a "real" one.

Oh and whilst your at it, try answering a fucking direct question would you.

Louis

*Added in edit: this should be "Tell me what they are AND how you know" because otherwise Septic will merely restate his claims ever louder and ever more undeservingly patronisingly.

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,12:57   

this is parallel to a conversation I am having with fundies at worldblog.  I was told that I can never have a coherent understanding of what love or other emotions are since I have, in their estimation, a materialist evilutionist atheistic Hate Of God (just kidding heddle, they didn't say that.  

I'm fairly convinced I am talking to a penguin or a porcupine over there and not a thinking person.  What do you say to this argument that is so obviously dumb that I can't fathom why any one would advance it?

*edited to fix the goddam html code

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,13:53   

One of the things that is amusing me greatly about Skeptic's "argument" (and I hesitate to glorify what is the dumpings of an inadequant mind as "argument") is it is the bog standard endless goalpost movement of the drivelling loon. It's a classic everyone should be aware of.

Loon: Ah but science can't cross this line!!1one!

Scientist: Umm it did centuries ago.

Loon: Ah but science can't cross THIS line!!!!one!11!

Scientist: Why on earth do you think that, we've been doing precisely that for the last decade or more.

Loon: Ah but science can NEVER cross THIS line !!!!!!!!!!1111111one !11111111!!!!!!!!1!!1!!!!!1!

Scientist: Well that line is defined by a logical fallacy why do you even expect that there is a genuine line there to be crossed? But if we examine the issue in this way I think you'll find that mdoern science has indeed crossed that line and is investigating the limits of it as we speak.

Loon: Ah but your evil materialist science can never, EVER, EVVVVEEEERRRRRRRRR with cherries on top cross THIS line!!!!!one!!!!11!1!!11111!1!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!11!!!1!!1!1oneoneoneoneoneoneone!!!!!

Scientist: Well, it certainly is true that we haven't crossed it yet, but we're working towards it and we hope to be able to cross it in a few years. What makes you think that it is an uncrossable line?

Loon: Ah your materialist bias is so strong you cannot admit to the unknowables. I shall capitalise words and not define them, you can cross the line but never the True Line. All you want is certainty waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

Scientist: Um, no. All knowledge is provisional, we may have mentioned that before. Look calm down and have a cup of tea there's a good chap. Or even better do fuck off quietly, I have real work to do.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,14:29   

Pssssst. Louis!

Don't scare him away. Supposedly he's about to openly espouse dualism. That should be good for a laugh at least.

*drums fingers*

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,16:18   

I find it ironic that I'm taking the negative position and you the positive and yet I'm the one that proof is being demanded of.  Hmm.

Anyway, let's look at an easy one.  Love.  We can examine people who say the are in love and monitor reactions and interactions in the course of them displaying this love.  We're into a subjective realm already unless you just want to rely on a consensus but we'll proceed anyway. Now we've identified various chemicals that are involved in these reactions and maybe even presumed at their optimum levels.  Do this mean that everything we need to know about what we think we're studying, Love, can be determined by the levels of testosterone, phenylethylamine , dopamine, etc.  Does this tell us what love feels like?  Or why a mother charges into a burning building to save her child?  Or why a spouse will die of a "broken heart" following the death of their beloved?  Or why people will knowingly sacrifice themselves for family, friends, country and God? NO. NO. NO, and NO.

The true meaning of love can not be divined from reactions and chemical levels and may actually be beyond our ability to comprehend.  A reductivist analysis of love is hollow and swallow and in the end tells you nothing about Love.

Now I acknowledge that there are those out there that do not believe that things like Love, Good, Evil and the Mind actually exist.  To those people, it may all be reactions and chemical levels or human desires and firing neurons.  I say that there is so much more and those people live in a pale, colorless world without sampling the beauty around them.  I pity those people.

more soon on the dualism question,  I find it intriguing because I have to admit I've sort of taken it for granted.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,16:28   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 15 2007,16:18)
Now I acknowledge that there are those out there that do not believe that things like Love, Good, Evil and the Mind actually exist.  To those people, it may all be reactions and chemical levels or human desires and firing neurons.  I say that there is so much more and those people live in a pale, colorless world without sampling the beauty around them.  I pity those people.

"...TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN  SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET- Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME... SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

Death, speaking in The Hogfather.

Why must you imply there is good and evil? Why must you imply that love is more than the reactions of the brain producing strong surges of chemicals causing people to do things for others?

Why does there have to be ANYTHING beyond what we can see, and measure?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,16:32   

Quote
I say that there is so much more and those people live in a pale, colorless world without sampling the beauty around them. ?I pity those people.


Good Christ skeptic!

Could you blither ANY more patronizingly?

Was there "so much more" to a thunderstorm when the average person believed there was heavy cosmic activity going on up there in the heavens to cause the brilliance of lightning and the rumble of thunder?

Pray tell, how, exactly is my awe at the spectacle of a great big storm (I grew up in the midwest --we like big storms) impoverished by my understanding of electromagnetism and meteorology?

Short form of my question: What is better about experience if you put a veil of imaginary incomprehensibility between yourself and the realities of life?

Please, let's have the dualism soon, if it's so easy.
I'm primed to deliver a good smackdown after that last bit of wooier than thou BS.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,16:47   

One doesn't have to blindly take the dualist or positivist approach to this question.  

love may be analyzed via material relations and processes.  is this all love is?  you can never know.  we might discover something tomorrow we had never measured before.  so in my view this is a relatively useless position as well.

of course dualism is easily shown to be contrived as well.  no need to explicate that (i think louis' suggestion to take some E and go dancing is a great experiment).  

skeptic has shown how poor one's thinking can be when one tosses about sloppily defined words.  semantic disagreements don't get to the substance of the debate.

How about this:  "All propositions that refer to non-material entities are indistinguishable from nonsense".

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Gunthernacus



Posts: 235
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,16:50   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 15 2007,16:18)
...love is hollow and swallow...

Catchy slogan.

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
argystokes



Posts: 766
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,19:09   

Quote
Anyway, let's look at an easy one.  Love.  We can examine people who say the are in love and monitor reactions and interactions in the course of them displaying this love.  We're into a subjective realm already unless you just want to rely on a consensus but we'll proceed anyway. Now we've identified various chemicals that are involved in these reactions and maybe even presumed at their optimum levels.  Do this mean that everything we need to know about what we think we're studying, Love, can be determined by the levels of testosterone, phenylethylamine , dopamine, etc.  Does this tell us what love feels like?  Or why a mother charges into a burning building to save her child?  Or why a spouse will die of a "broken heart" following the death of their beloved?  Or why people will knowingly sacrifice themselves for family, friends, country and God? NO. NO. NO, and NO.

Bull. Give me infinite technology and take away my sense of medical ethics and I could devise experiments to test each one of those questions, and produce results indistinguishable from the "real thing." Do you really think that a "love potion" is theoretically impossible?

--------------
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2007,19:38   

Quote
argystokes Posted on Aug. 15 2007,19:09
Quote
Anyway, let's look at an easy one. ?Love. ?We can examine people who say the are in love and monitor reactions and interactions in the course of them displaying this love. ?We're into a subjective realm already unless you just want to rely on a consensus but we'll proceed anyway. Now we've identified various chemicals that are involved in these reactions and maybe even presumed at their optimum levels. ?Do this mean that everything we need to know about what we think we're studying, Love, can be determined by the levels of testosterone, phenylethylamine , dopamine, etc. ?Does this tell us what love feels like? ?Or why a mother charges into a burning building to save her child? ?Or why a spouse will die of a "broken heart" following the death of their beloved? ?Or why people will knowingly sacrifice themselves for family, friends, country and God? NO. NO. NO, and NO.

Bull. Give me infinite technology and take away my sense of medical ethics and I could devise experiments to test each one of those questions, and produce results indistinguishable from the "real thing." Do you really think that a "love potion" is theoretically impossible?


--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,06:05   

MASSIVE LENGTH WARNING (This is not a knob joke)

Skeptic,

Preamble

First of all I am not making any positive claim, I'm merely informing you about the nature of reality (i.e. that in fact reason can be used to analyse certain phenomena that you claim on no basis it cannot) such as humans have uncovered over millenia. Your repeated shrill denials do not constitute evidence. You are making the positive claim that reason cannot examine X and faith can. That is the claim (or rather one of the claims) you have to justify. You are claiming limits on rational enquiry that don't appear to be there, you are making a claim in contradiction to the evidence we have collected as a species thus far. So yes, the burden of proof falls to you. You are also supporting a dualism based on nothing more than an appeal to ignorance, a dualism long since disproven by the evidence, so yet again the burden of proof falls to you.

My point has never been that all things have been explained already by the use of reason, but that thus far we have not encountered anything that is in principle inexplicable by reason and that we have no reason (see, one word used two different ways! Whoa, what a revelation!) to expect we will. I for one am getting exceedingly tired of your endless straw men.

_


Section 1: Dealing with stupid questions:

All that aside let's deal with what has to be the stupidest example of all time, your comments on love:

1) Behavioural. Lets make a general definition of "love" as "behaviour consistent with X" it doesn't matter what X is, it merely matters that one can describe it in a consistent manner. It doesn't even matter that the definition is not all invclusive. We can observe people behaving in a manner consistent with X and thus say that by our definition these people are exhibiting the quality we have defined as love. If we see other behaviours that we think we need to include and thus modify our definition we can make it "behaviour consistent with X and Y and/or Z" and so on. Regardless of how subjective that definition is, this is a rational process, i.e. ONE rational, reason based mechanism by which we can explore the concept of love and study it. I'll deal with your appeal to Platonic ideals such as "LOVE" exisiting in the ether later, or there being some ideal "LOVE" of which human love is a poor imitation. The point here is not that this completely explains and encompasses "love" but that it shows in principle just one method of rationally investigating and understanding it.

2) Biological ?and mechanistic concerns: Yes we know about the hormonal and other chemical influences on emotional states, including love. And despite your assertion (again with no support) that these tell us nothing about love, you are completely wrong. They tell us a lot. Even better we know that we can chemically and physically (by use of electromagnetic stimulation) manipulate the emotions. So we kow that we can cause euphoric feelings or affectionate feelings by using certain physical methods. We also know that when we test people with these methods they report that the feelings are indistinguishable from the "real" thing. Does this mean that this alone explains and encompasses all the details of a concept as poorly defined and variable as "love"? No of course not, and no one claims it does (that is another of your fucking pathetic straw men Skeptic. Stop it, you're making a mockery of what could be a sensible conversation by being a deluded little fuckwit). What it DOES show (in part along with a huge set of other data) is that our emotional states, even those which we prize most highly, are at least partly the result of our biochemical state.

Even more than that, the fact that we can physically induce emotional states in others by biochemical/physical means and that those people report identical sensations or report identical emotional experiences shows that there is some commonality of experience between people that is based on identical physical mechanisms. Another rational, reasoned way to investigate the phenomenon.

Add to that MRI studies of people in emotional states, or thinking about complex topics. Add to that investigations of people that have suffered specific brain trauma and have changed emotional abilities or mental capabilities afterwords. Add to that the known mechanism of serotonin in depression. Add to that....

Get the point? The point is not that we know everything right now, but that we have successfully interrogated the nature of the phenomena thus far on a mechanistic basis and there is no reason to suppose that there are phenomena relating to these mechanisms and yet undiscovered mechanisms that we cannot investigate.

Oh and incidentally, yes, this does in part tell us why a spouse will die of a broken heart. Excessive stress hormone production, rapid reuptake of seratonin, a dampening of endorphin production caused by sedentary behaviour after bereavement all contribute to a depressive mental sate (they are not the ONLY thing, but they are a demonstrate PART of it, there are more contributary factors I'll mention later) and all have a profound effect on the body's biochemistry (heart function is particularly affected by increased stress hormone levels for example). It is very possible to die of stress for well understood biochemical reasons (and bereavement and grief are types of biological stress). Do these explain everything there is to know about being a grieving spouse? No of course not, nor is it claimed they do, but the point is they a) do explain something and b) are a rational mechanism by which the phenomenon can be examined.

Equally, this tells us something about why (to clump your other "examples" into one) people endanger themselves for people or concepts. Again we have stress hormone overproduction, adrenaline coursing through your system etc etc etc. These biochemical changes affect the emotional and psychological state of the person. Yet again, this isn't even intended to be a complete explanation which encompasses every facet and nuance of the concept of "love" but it is (yet again) a rational and reasoned area of enquiry into the phenomenon which goes some way to explaining various behaviours.

Again, the point here is not that all this completely explains and encompasses "love" but that it shows in principle just one method of rationally investigating and understanding it. Now we have two broad methods, the behavioural and the biochemical/physical.

3) Sociological and psychological mechanistic concerns. Specific sets of behaviours can be conditioned by one's social context and one's individual psychology. Love is a good one to explore here. For example, we all know the anecdotal stories about men or women who fall in love with people who abuse them. Guess what Skeptic? The phenomenon has been investigated! Patterns of behaviour can be expected from people who themselves have suffered abuse as children. By no means are these universal, or indeed as mechanistically clear as the biochemical/physical mechanisms mentioned above, but again we have some fledgling understanding of these things by rational means. Now I am no psychologist (that much should be evident!) but even I know that one's psychological state affects one's behaviour. A depressed person will react differently to various stimuli and situations than will a non-depressed person (I mean clinical depression here, not merely a bit sad because you got Malibu Barbie for Christmas instead of Ballerina Barbie). A manic depressive (oops sorry bipolar depressive) will react perhaps differently, a schizophrenic another way and so on and so forth. Again the point is not that all of love is encpmpassed by these investigations, but that an understanding of psychology can allow us to understand the phenomenon of "love" in some ways.

Sociological concerns are another mechanism. Different societies express "love" differently (incidentally they have the same biochemical/physical basis, part of the studies mentioned above was to test people from different races/cultures). There are striking similarities (more on this later). In some societies physical contact between men and women who are not married (even to the extent of hugging someone who is crying) is a massive taboo. I would think nothing of comforting a crying, dearly loved female friend by giving them a hug and my wife would have no problem with it either (she would behave the same way and also think I was doing the "right thing"). Her mother though would see it as extremely rude of me to express my love for my friend this way. The point here is that the manner of expression of an emotional state is not merely governed by one's biochemisty but also by one's social context and one's psychological state. We can investigate "love" on these bases. The behavioural aspects mentioned above can be corrected for social context and expression of love can be investigated in different societies to see if there are commonalities (and indeed there are).

We can research the literature and art of different people and societies and see if expressions of "love" in words and art have commonalities (and they do, despite their equally fascinating differences). There are a plethora of things to investigate on this basis.

Again, the point here is not that all this completely explains and encompasses "love" but that it shows in principle just another pair of methods of rationally investigating and understanding it. Now we have four broad methods, the behavioural, the biochemical/physical, the psychological and the sociological.

4) Evolutionary mechanisms. Can we understand "love" from the persepctive of evolution? Can we explain the commonalities of behaviour we observe across cultures, even across species, by an understanding of whether these things confer an adaptive benefit, or whether they are legacies of other evolved things (which evolved for a previous adaptive reason and are now defunct), or whether they are simply byproducts of other evolved things etc etc. In the case of one aspect of love "altruism", it turns out we can. Rather than go into a lengthy explanation of the whole thing here (for my intention is not to prove we have all the answers, merely that these phenomena are understandable by rational means in principle) I'll merely mention a few key elements: kin selection, the adaptive behaviour of organisms to favour those other organisms closely related to them has been demonstrated by ethologists (and anthropologists) studying animal (and human) behaviour. In addition, it's been demonstrated very clearly to be effective by the use of game theory. Game theory has also been very useful in determining successful evolutionary strategies such as "the golden rule" and reciprocation and social altruism. Apparently altruistic behaviours can be also understood in less flattering "selfish" terms, asking such questions a "who benefits" when approaching (for example) herding behaviours etc.

Again, the point here is not that all this completely explains and encompasses "love" but that it shows in principle just one method of rationally investigating and understanding it. Now we have five broad methods, the behavioural, the biochemical/physical, the psychological, the sociological. and the evolutionary.

I'll stop there, there are others!

Again Skeptic, and I am going to keep hammering this home in spite of your repeated straw men and utter avoidance of the point: no one claims that all these fields and all the work done to date have all the answers or a perfect answer. What IS being claimed is that we can rationally investigate the phenomenon of "love" (for example) and come to some understanding of it. That that understanding is at the present moment imperfect, or that some aspects of what we understand are wrong (as undoubtedly some of them are) is not an argument against what I am saying. For the umpteenth time, I am not saying we have the 100% perfect certain answer to all questions everywhere, just that we have an excellent method of investigating phenomena which not only has never let us down (i.e. failed to successfully investigate the phenomenon in question) but has yet to encounter a phenomenon it cannot be applied to the investigation of. That's a very powerful method! (And incidentally a claim so different from the straw man you make of what I am saying that you keep touting as to be laughable!).

So sorry Skeptic, but the answer to your questions:

?
Quote
Does this tell us what love feels like? ?Or why a mother charges into a burning building to save her child? ?Or why a spouse will die of a "broken heart" following the death of their beloved? ?Or why people will knowingly sacrifice themselves for family, friends, country and God?


Are actually: Yes partially up to the limits of what is in fact knowable, yes partially but actually that's quite a big part. yes partially but this is also quite a big part, and yes partially although this does get a bit vague in places, we are working on it however.

Before I move on to the next section, I'll give you two quotes from my favourite physicist:

?
Quote
Science is a way to teach how something gets to be known, what is not known, to what extent things are known (for nothing is known absolutely), how to handle doubt and uncertainty, what the rules of evidence are, how to think about things so that judgements can be made, how to distinguish truth from fraud, and from show


?
Quote
You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than it is to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we're here....

I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me.


R P Feynman.

_

Section 2: Dealing with stupid claims:

Claim 1: ""True" love, or how love "truly" feels, or what love "truly" means cannot be understood by rational methods."

Well, first and foremost this is a logical fallacy (No True Scotsman, look it up), a special case of goal post shifting. When I advance any rational understanding of love, you insert the word "true" in there to move the goalposts beyond reach. So sorry Skeptic but no dice.

Secondly, this is in fact totally untrue. The simple fact that by a variety of rational means we can explore not merely any aspect of the phenomenon "love" we choose to, but that we can (drum roll, this is important) explore the common elements of "love" expressed by different people (and even different species, but let's not complicate things yet, you're having enough trouble with reading for comprehension and forming a coherent argument) shows that there is an avenue available for the exploration of what love "feels" like and what love "means". That self same set of commonalities is a shining beacon of a clue. We can understand what love means by questioning people, by investigating expressions of love etc etc etc ad nauseum and thus we can come to some understanding of what it "feels" like to feel love or what love "means" to an individual. These might be imperfect methods (and they are, but remember there are also more refined methods that we can use, see above) but they are entirely rational and reason based modes for exploring the "feeling" and "meaning" of love.

Thirdly, as I mentioned before:

?
Quote
The fact that I cannot demonstrate if it is "true" love or not is a) logially fallacious (no true scotsman) and b) irrelevant in exactly the same way that "is the colour purple you see the same as the colour purple I see" is. We can demonstrate the brain responds the same way to the same frequencies of radiation in the brains of different people, both of whom refer to that stimulus as seeing the colour purple. That is as close as it is possible to get to anything approaching certainty. Certainty is itself unreachable.


This is a point about the limits of observation, in fact the very limits of what we can know by any means. If you and I both look at a purple object, I have no knowledge that the "purple" you see in your brain is the same "purple" I see in mine. It is forever unknowable by any means, appeals to faith or revelation cannot help you and it is beyond the ability of any mechanism of acquiring knowledge to ascertain. However, I can know that we are looking at an identical object, I can know that the frequencies of radiation absorbed and reflected by it are identical for you and for me, I can know that your sensory cells in your eyes respond identically to mine and that the areas of your brain that are stimulated are exactly the same as the areas in mine and that that stimulation takes the same form, I can know that a shared cultural and social and linguistic heritage allows us to describe the same frequency of reflected raditiation as being called "purple", I can know that our shared evolutionary heritage means that we are so close to being biologically identical that the likelihood of our identical reactions to an identical stimulus means that the experience we have is very likely to be identical. And so on and so forth. That's a HELL of a lot I DO know.

I can use this commonality to exchange information with you usefully, if I ask you to select the purple ball from the set of coloured balls I have with me, you can pick the purple one out. If I am an airport security guy monitoring the cameras and I say to you (another airport security guy) "get the guy in the purple jacket" I can rely on the commonality of our experience and knowledge to know that you will go for the right guy. Again, and so on and so forth. This is also a HELL of a lot of stuff to know.

In what meaningful sense of the word "knowledge" is the possibility that what you see as purple I might see as green despite our identical reactions is "knowledge"? Answer: it isn't. It's a linguistic trick. We can explore the commonalities of our experience to degrees of accuracy that put uncertainty into the fractions of fractions of a percent (remember 100% certainty is unacheivable). What significant doubt is there about the purple you see being identical to the purple I see? Answer: None.

The self same thing applies to more complex phenomena like love. We can define it, we can explore it, we can understand it by a variety of rational means. We can also explore the commonalities of experience expressed by different people when they say they feel "love". Is it as accurately determined as the above example with "purple"? No of course it isn't, it's first and foremost a far broader concept with a far more complex physical and social and psychological sets of phenomena underpinning it, it shouldn't be expected to be as easy to deal with as "purple", but this is a quantitative difference not a qualitative one.

Yet again, the point is that (your goalpost shifting dishonest bullshit aside) one can explore the concept, the phenomenon by the use of reason. Does this mean all the answers are in and perfect, lined up like ducks for the shooting? Nope, but then it never did.

Claim 2: "Reductionist understanding of "love"etc is hollow (I take this to indicate meaningless, emotionally unsatisfying). People who do not believe that "Love" etc exist as some form of abstract entities outside of their human context live in a pale, colourless world and miss the beauty around them and are thus deserving of pity"

My first thought was: Well fuck me! Aren't you a undeservingly patronising, sub intellectually normal cunt? Actually Skeptic, when it comes to you, that is rapidly becoming ym abiding thought, but nonetheless I shall continue to cast pearls before swine in the hope that you wake the fuck up and stop being such a contemptible, drivelling little moron. (See, we can all be nasty and abusive, and boy, I am far, FAR better at it than you so don't bother).

My second thought was: this is coming from a supposedly qualified scientist? Where did he get his education? From the back of a cereal box? He better hand those degrees he claims to have back to the diploma mill he got them from, because they ain't worth the paper they are printed on.

My third thoughts were vastly more constructive and useful!

This claim essentially boils down to the exact same claim made by the Romantic poets, the best example of which I think is probably Lamia by Keats. The important lines are:

?
Quote
What wreath for Lamia? What for Lycius?
What for the sage, old Apollonius?
Upon her aching forehead be there hung
The leaves of willow and of adder?s tongue;
And for the youth, quick, let us strip for him
The thyrsus, that his watching eyes may swim
Into forgetfulness; and, for the sage,
Let spear-grass and the spiteful thistle wage
War on his temples. Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things.
Philosophy will clip an Angel?s wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine?-
Unweave a rainbow, as it erewhile made
The tender-person?d Lamia melt into a shade.


There of course is also Blake's Auguries of Innocence the key passages of which are:

?
Quote
He who mocks the infant's faith
Shall be mock'd in age and death.
He who shall teach the child to doubt
The rotting grave shall ne'er get out.

He who respects the infant's faith
Triumphs over hell and death.
The child's toys and the old man's reasons
Are the fruits of the two seasons.

The questioner, who sits so sly,
Shall never know how to reply.
He who replies to words of doubt
Doth put the light of knowledge out.


However, I prefer the start of the poem which I will come to later (as well as some of the other sentiments) and I strongly disagree that doubt is bad or harmful Sorry Blake!

The basic claim is that understanding reduces mystery and thereby beauty and passion and love and all those good things. Let's simplify it to "Understanding is anathema to appreciation of beauty" for that is not only the essence of the claim but the answer to it is easily translatable to the other aspects of it.

I have to say that this claim has always staggered me. I have always been thoroughly amazed that anyone could think this is the case, or that for example science is merely the passionless recitation of equations or facts or data.

How is the beauty of the rainbow destroyed by understanding that it is due to light being refracted by droplets of water? How is my love for my wife in any way diminished by the fact that I know it has a biochemical basis? How does understanding something reduce appreciation of its beauty at a superficial level?

The simple answer is it doesn't. The even better answer is understanding opens up greater opportunity to appreciate beauty.

I defy anyone who understands them to not appreciate the beauty of (to name a few examples): the mathematical formulation of quantum electrodynamics, the kinship of all living organisms as is clearly demonstrated by evolutionary biology, the elegance of Patrick Harran's synthesis of Diazonamide A (to name things that have been on my mind this week!). The elegance of the Kreb's cycle, the intermeshings of metabolism that give rise to maitotoxin and other polyketide natural products. All wonderfully complex and detailed bits of science, all extremely beautiful.

Take a phenomenon with which I am familiar: red tides. Red tides are (simply put) algal blooms. They turn coastal woaters a red colour (or sometimes brown etc) and can be quite striking.



Is such a phenomenon made less beautiful by the fact I know it is caused by algal blooms? Is it made less beautiful by the fact that I know that it is responsible for all manner of harmful sea food poisoning such as ciguatera? Is it made less beautiful by the fact that I know that, for example, the dinoflagellates responsible for red tides and sea food poisoning are organisms like Gambierdiscus toxicus



and Karenia brevis



Is it made less beautiful by the fact that I know that among many of the toxic agents made by these dinoflagellates are Brevetoxin A



and Maitotoxin?



Is it made less beautiful that I know that some of the spectroscopic data for Maitotoxin looks like this:



and that I know how to interpret it?

The answer, of course, is no. Understanding increases one's opportunity to experience beauty and wonder. The awe I feel for the natural world increases because I understand it better every day. DOes this mean I shall acheive some perfect total understanding nirvana of purest ecstasy? No. Nor do I even desire to. Like Feynman I am content to live in doubt, and to struggle to understand as best I can. I don't need to have false certainties and appeals to mystery to find things beautiful or meaningful or worthy. The joy of understanding and the beauty contained in the intricate, quite reductionist, details of nature are more than sufficient for any needs I could have.

I can, could and probably WILL go on!

"But what of love?", I hear Skeptic whine. Surely love, eros and philos, passion, expression, torment, divine, sublime, emotional, irrational love cannot be understood and kept beautiful? Two words: Bull and shit.

As I said before, what the hell does understanding the modes of expression I use for love, the biochemical mechanisms my love is based on, the social and psychological conditions that in part dictate what, who and even how I love take away from my feeling of love? How does understanding that (for example) increased serotonin levels within my brain make me feel an elated love, or that endorphins not only assuage pain and give one a euphoric feeling that is also associated with love (and incidentally quite vigourous sex!). Answer: it doesn't.

So yet again, Skeptic, you raise a straw man. That understanding cripples beauty. That by understanding love it is somehow destroyed. It doesn't and it isn't.

The first lines of Blake's poem are, incidentally:

?
Quote
To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.


That (rather ironically considering Blake's later line, in my opinion) expresses precisely the sort of wonder one gets from understanding.

If you complain that the understanding we gain from rational enquiry into love fails to encapsulate its every nuance, then I am sorry but I disagree. As stated above, actually as DEMONSTRATED CONCLUSIVELY above, the meaningful aspects of love that can be encapsulated at all can be ONLY be understood by reasoned enquiry. Their explanation or "reduction" (to use your horrible, lying, vile and twisted, little term) does nothing to destroy them, in fact it makes them more beautiful.

_

Section 3: Dealing with stupid people:

Well Skeptic, what a nice time I've had playing with your infantile drivel. However, all this is really a moot point, we knew it all already, What we don't yet have is anything other than whiny, shrill, unsupported bullshit from you. It's all well and good for you to ask me questions, but the problem you have, sweetie, is that I can answer, do answer and have answered them. I know a total fuckwit like you will not be able to wrap your pathetic little mind around the concept, but I'll try to ram it home anyway: even if everything I have said is untrue, utterly false and completely wrong, how does it in any way constitute proof of, or evidence for, your claims?

Answer: It doesn't.

You have yet to a) answer the questions you need to answer to prove your claims, b) provide even the merest shred of evidence to support them, and c) (even better than all the rest) you haven't shown how faith and revelation can even begin to answer the questions you yourself claim are not open to reason.

If reason fails, on what basis can or do you claim, that faith and revelation are sufficient to take over the task?

Answer: None. You have no basis. Not only is your claim false, but it is also fallacious, a total non-sequitur.

By the way, I find it hilarious that you are doing exactly what I described above in the Kook Line Drawing post above, even AFTER I identified it publicly. Goal post shifting and shrill restatements of your original claims, STILL WITH NO CORROBORATION I note, do not constitute an argument, Skeptic. I wonder when you are going to make one that I didn't deal with in the first post.

{Golf Clap}

So well done, no really, I'm impressed. Even I didn't expect you to be this incompetant. I'm going to be interested to see if you raise your infantile and utterly laughable straw men AGAIN without answering the questions about your claims. Which incidentally are:

?
Quote
1) How does one distinguish between two faith based claims?

2) Demonstrate that faith/revelation provide knowledge about the universe. I.e. that they are valid mechanisms of acquiring knowledge, be it physical or "spiritual" (whatever that means, we'd need a definition, and some evidence it even exists, because saying that reason cannot examine love [for example] is merely yet another reassertion of the original claim).

3) Demonstrate that reason etc cannot penetrate the areas you claim faith/revelation can, because at the moment all of your examples have been either i) mere reassertions of your original point or ii) derived solely from your personal ignorance of the topics at hand.

4) Demonstrate that questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" are valid questions, and that faith/revelation can answer them.


And remember all of that has to be accomplished WITHOUT recourse to reason, evidence observation, logic and rational thought. Otherwise you prove my point for me. Good luck. Again. Do you think you could demonstrate a modicum of intellectual honesty and, ohhhhh I don't know, actually answer the fucking questions?

Louis

Oh and P.S. Just FY(everybody's)I, I am stuck at home today waiting for a plumber to come and clear the drain of shit. The joy of living in a Victorian property I have discovered is that the drains block because the sewer access is shared by several houses. The entire place reeks of shite, and so I thought that if some poor sod was going to come and wade through shit so I can do the washing up, the least I could do whilst waiting for him was wade through the asinine bafflegab shite of the terminally confused Skeptic, and thus gain some empathetic sense of solidarity. Right, so that's two hours killed!

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,06:14   

Oh and I know that Skeptic meant that a reductionist understanding of love is hollow and shallow (not swallow), so people, I reckon we have ourselves another Piranha moment!

Well done Skeptic, both incompetant at argumentation AND simple English......oh all right, considering the MASSIVE number of stupid typos I make, I'll forgive you the English bit.

Anyway, love is hollow and swallow? HELLZ YEAH! Hollow and swallow? Cheap, dirty, round the back of the nightclub in the alley type love? All good. But use protection children. And remember: nice girls don't like Dirty Sanchez on a first date.*

Louis

*Or actually any date I would imagine, what a revolting concept.

--------------
Bye.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,08:03   

Louis,

Well done and quite thorough!  An excellent way to wait out a plumbing disaster.

I think you hit on something in that post that truly distinguishes science (and perhaps scientists) from the rest. Feynman articulates it quite well. "I don't have to know an answer." Sure, answers are nice, and even nicer when you discover them yourself, but if you don't have one (or many), it's still OK. Every practicing scientist understands that, but it seems to be baffling to lots of folks, who don't understand how anyone can live that way.

I honestly think that some folks absolutely cannot fathom that possibility; to them it is as alien as Neptune's rings. So they auto-generate answers like DaveScot, or pretend that some ancient text provides the answers like FtK, or imagine (like Skeptic) that some other "way of knowing" will give them all the answers. They are incapable of living with uncertainty, and I think it is hard-wired. You really will never reach them, because for them to think like you, they will have to be re-wired to understand that living and working on the edge of knowledge can be even more fun than looking up the answers in a book.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,08:55   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Aug. 16 2007,14:03)
Louis,

Well done and quite thorough! ?An excellent way to wait out a plumbing disaster.

I think you hit on something in that post that truly distinguishes science (and perhaps scientists) from the rest. Feynman articulates it quite well. "I don't have to know an answer." Sure, answers are nice, and even nicer when you discover them yourself, but if you don't have one (or many), it's still OK. Every practicing scientist understands that, but it seems to be baffling to lots of folks, who don't understand how anyone can live that way.

I honestly think that some folks absolutely cannot fathom that possibility; to them it is as alien as Neptune's rings. So they auto-generate answers like DaveScot, or pretend that some ancient text provides the answers like FtK, or imagine (like Skeptic) that some other "way of knowing" will give them all the answers. They are incapable of living with uncertainty, and I think it is hard-wired. You really will never reach them, because for them to think like you, they will have to be re-wired to understand that living and working on the edge of knowledge can be even more fun than looking up the answers in a book.

Alabatrossity2,

I'm not so sure it is a wiring or immutable thing. Mind you, I will freely admit that this varies depending on the day of the week and who/what I have recently encountered! Perhaps I try to keep myself sane by being a "glass half full"  about the prospects of other people's ability to reason. Perhaps, the attempts have failed, who knows!

Perhaps where I go wrong is, despite the evidence sometimes, I really do think people think like me. By which I mean they use the same sorts of processes, not that they agree with my every word or have the same abilities (or lack thereof) and ideas that I do. This idea has a vague biological basis: we're the same species after all, if they are of the opposite sex it is likely we could breed successfully etc, i.e. we are sufficiently similar that the balance of probability is that we do think alike in many respects.

Add to that the fact that I see people making perfectly rational decisions and choices given their circumstances, I find it hard to believe (for it would be a belief) that they think so staggeringly differently from me. I'll say something some people might think is shocking as an example. Perhaps I think it's shocking because I am an out and out atheist of the fully nasty, very intolerant, very radical type, I make no secret of it and thus I come across the usual straw men. The shocking thing is this: Being religious is a rational choice in modern Western (particularly USAian) society. That's right, you heard me, I think it's a perfectly rational decision to either be religious or to profess one's religiosity in the modern USA (less so in other Western nations, but it still carries a certain social currency).

I think it's a rational decision because your average USAian is so deeply immersed in an incredibly religious society it takes an enormous amount of either effort or simple affrontery to not only realise but admit one is not religious. (Incidentally, if any cretinous Yank godder* is currently patting themselves on the back, just remember I think the same thing about Iran for exactly the same reasons) There are negative social consequences to coming out as an atheist in modern America. Yes, this is less the case now than in days past, and yes this is less the case in some areas than others. But the point still stands that most people are brought up in most nations (esp USA etc) across the globe with a decidedly superstitious bent to their thinking, be it religious or "spiritual" (whatever THAT term means) or what have you. Magical thinking is a highly common set of memes.

Add to that the bog standard stuff about humans being pattern recognising geniuses/agency obssessives and false positives, and BLAM, you have a huge set of very good reasons why standing out from the relgious/magical thinking crowd is not an easy decision to come to. Far better to stay with the herd and hope nothing picks you off from the edges.

I don't mean this in a derogatory sense because to varying extents in varying ways we all do this, we are all socialised in many fashions. No man, after all, is an island. Hawaii is an island, Sean Connery is a man. I would hope by now that people had learned to tell the difference. Well unless he is a very, very big man....but anyway.

I see people buying second hand cars, very few of whom look to the skies instead of kicking the tyres or checking the car's history etc. People then drive those cars by using the brake and accelerator and gears, not by chanting and performing an interpretive driving dance (involving much use of the middle finger of each hand) designed to appease Phukkyew, the God of Driving. My stark staringly obivous point is that people use reason every day in every way. They have merely been conditioned into thinking it doesn't apply elsewhere.

Like you say that conditioning can be linked to other things like emotive beliefs and fears etc, but I don't see it as an unbreakable thing. Perhaps I am vastly too optimistic!

Oh well, another 20 minutes killed! Back to my stack of journals.

Louis

*This category is a subset of all three sets: cretins, Yanks and godders. It is specifically the subset where all three sets intersect. Thus, for the hard of thought: not all cretins are Yanks, not all Yanks are godders and not all godders are cretins. Yay verily, though some of them do try very hard to give the impression that the Venn diagram I have just drawn is actually a series of perfectly overlapping, concentric circles. This is a standard disclaimer, not aimed at anyone in particular.

And yes I am still waiting for a plumber. He better hurry up he has 3 hours before I go to the gym, and I REALLY cannot afford to miss the gym.

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,09:31   

Love=Hollow and swallow ?....looks like a Fruedian slip by someone not getting enough of either.

However, that reminds me of a throw away anecdote by

Vilayanur S. Ramachandran
at his Reith Lectures 2003 The Emerging Mind . He is not only a fine thinker but a great raconteur and he deals with dualism thusly.

 
Quote
A young male medical student goes home to his girlfriend and says sadly "I learned today that love is just a bunch of neurons firing in our brains" and she says "See! I told it was real"


HEY HOMOS, ID ISN'T DUALISM IT'S TRI-ALISM, I ACCUSE, JUDGE AND SENTENCE YOU IN DEMBSKI'S UD COURTHOUSE. -dt

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,10:47   

Louis,

But there is a big difference between the ability to make rational decisions (i.e., kick the tires/tyres rather than pray to a skydaddy when buying a car) and the ability to be comfortable with the unknown. The former is a reasonable expectation; the latter seems substantially more uncommon in the general populace. It is not at all linked to the "ability to reason", but is a psychological state similar to being afraid of snakes, or heights, or clowns. The latter is what what I was referring to as "hard-wired".

You probably encounter those who are comfortable on the edge of knowledge and peering over that edge quite often; the proportion of such folks tends to be higher among hard science types compared to the general populace.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,11:02   

Albatrossity2,

Very good point, I didn't think of that. Damn, too optimistic again!

Speaking of being afraid of clowns and hard science (fiction)...no let's not. Why do I want cheesy poofs?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,11:08   

Quote
We can examine people who say the are in love and monitor reactions and interactions in the course of them displaying this love. We're into a subjective realm already unless you just want to rely on a consensus but we'll proceed anyway. Now we've identified various chemicals that are involved in these reactions and maybe even presumed at their optimum levels. Do this mean that everything we need to know about what we think we're studying, Love, can be determined by the levels of testosterone, phenylethylamine , dopamine, etc. Does this tell us what love feels like? Or why a mother charges into a burning building to save her child? Or why a spouse will die of a "broken heart" following the death of their beloved? Or why people will knowingly sacrifice themselves for family, friends, country and God? NO. NO. NO, and NO.

Does the current lack of a comprehensive "materialistic" explanation for each one of these phenomena provide the slightest shadow of a scintilla of a hint of a suggestion of the tiniest, most microscopic little piece of evidence that there's anything non-materialistic behind them? NO. NO. NO. NO, NO, NO, and uh-uh.

Please, let us know as soon as you find some of this non-materialistic evidence. Or when you can suggest what evidence might eventually be found. Or how we might find it. Even hypothetically. Please. Otherwise and until then, you're just talking out your ass and spouting the same arguments from ignorance/false dichotomies as the stupID IDiots. As usual.

Meanwhile science marches on, providing more and more (admittedly provisional and incomplete) explanations of those same phenomena your woo tells us utterly, absolutely NOTHING useful about. Believe whatever you want, but arguing with smarter people (I'm not including myself in this group) who know more about the subject just makes you look stupid. er.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,11:12   

Quote
First of all I am not making any positive claim, I'm merely informing you about the nature of reality (i.e. that in fact reason can be used to analyse certain phenomena that you claim on no basis it cannot) such as humans have uncovered over millenia. Your repeated shrill denials do not constitute evidence. You are making the positive claim that reason cannot examine X and faith can. That is the claim (or rather one of the claims) you have to justify. You are claiming limits on rational enquiry that don't appear to be there, you are making a claim in contradiction to the evidence we have collected as a species thus far. So yes, the burden of proof falls to you. You are also supporting a dualism based on nothing more than an appeal to ignorance, a dualism long since disproven by the evidence, so yet again the burden of proof falls to you.


You have not demonstrated that this evidence exists just your continued sayso.  I'll get back after I read your "book,"  just wanted to point that out real quick.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,11:14   

ALL IMPORTANT PLUMBER UPDATE

Not only has he now arrived but I wish to defeat a creationist claim whilst he is here. I have seen it said by creationists that we humans are not related to monkeys because they throw shit around and play with it on the floor etc. If the creationists could see what this plumber is doing.....

Thank you.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,11:16   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 16 2007,17:12)
Quote
First of all I am not making any positive claim, I'm merely informing you about the nature of reality (i.e. that in fact reason can be used to analyse certain phenomena that you claim on no basis it cannot) such as humans have uncovered over millenia. Your repeated shrill denials do not constitute evidence. You are making the positive claim that reason cannot examine X and faith can. That is the claim (or rather one of the claims) you have to justify. You are claiming limits on rational enquiry that don't appear to be there, you are making a claim in contradiction to the evidence we have collected as a species thus far. So yes, the burden of proof falls to you. You are also supporting a dualism based on nothing more than an appeal to ignorance, a dualism long since disproven by the evidence, so yet again the burden of proof falls to you.


You have not demonstrated that this evidence exists just your continued sayso. ?I'll get back after I read your "book," ?just wanted to point that out real quick.

{Slaps forehead}

Fuck me, you're a stupid bastard Skeptic.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
don_quixote



Posts: 110
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,11:20   

Great thread Louis!

Skeptic, I couldn't let this one go by:
Quote
Do this mean that everything we need to know about what we think we're studying, Love, can be determined by the levels of testosterone, phenylethylamine , dopamine, etc. ?Does this tell us ... why a spouse will die of a "broken heart" following the death of their beloved?

That would be Takotsubo cardiomyopathy. :)

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,11:22   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 16 2007,11:16)
?
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 16 2007,17:12)
?
Quote
First of all I am not making any positive claim, I'm merely informing you about the nature of reality (i.e. that in fact reason can be used to analyse certain phenomena that you claim on no basis it cannot) such as humans have uncovered over millenia. Your repeated shrill denials do not constitute evidence. You are making the positive claim that reason cannot examine X and faith can. That is the claim (or rather one of the claims) you have to justify. You are claiming limits on rational enquiry that don't appear to be there, you are making a claim in contradiction to the evidence we have collected as a species thus far. So yes, the burden of proof falls to you. You are also supporting a dualism based on nothing more than an appeal to ignorance, a dualism long since disproven by the evidence, so yet again the burden of proof falls to you.


You have not demonstrated that this evidence exists just your continued sayso. I'll get back after I read your "book," just wanted to point that out real quick.

{Slaps forehead}

Fuck me, you're a stupid bastard Skeptic.

Louis

Professor Feynman, er, I mean Louis, can you prove that there isn't any non-materialistic evidence that Skeptic isn't a stupid bastard? NO. NO. NO, NO and NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,12:30   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Aug. 16 2007,17:22)
Professor Feynman, er, I mean Louis, can you prove that there isn't any non-materialistic evidence that Skeptic isn't a stupid bastard? NO. NO. NO, NO and NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok I know you're being funny but never call me "Feynman" again or refer to me favourably with regards to that genius. I am unworthy to lick the soles of his long dead shoes. As far as I have heros that man is the paramount one amongst them, save one other.

But seriously (for you know the above is humourously meant, although most of it are true) of course I can prove that there isn't any non materialistic evidence that Skeptic isn't a stupid bastard, I shall now do so:

Here isn't the evidence.

Quod erat demonstratum*

Louis

*Or as some genius coined when dealing with AFDave at the RDF "Quod erat davenstratum" for when Dave thought he had proven something he hadn't. Personally I preferred my complimentary term "Embiblical Davidence", but it was not taken up with as much fervour, and thus, died a sad and lonely death. There's no accounting for taste. We now have to come up with a term for Skeptic. I can't think of any off hand except forthe fact that I am writing a book called "Skeptic Potter and the Red Shifting Goalposts". YES, YES, YES, YES, NO, YES and YES! Well I'm spent, cigarette?

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,12:33   

Quote (don_quixote @ Aug. 16 2007,17:20)
Great thread Louis!

Skeptic, I couldn't let this one go by:
Quote
Do this mean that everything we need to know about what we think we're studying, Love, can be determined by the levels of testosterone, phenylethylamine , dopamine, etc. ?Does this tell us ... why a spouse will die of a "broken heart" following the death of their beloved?

That would be Takotsubo cardiomyopathy. :)

Thanks on two counts, but most especially for that titbit of information. I didn't know that's what the condition was called.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,12:41   

Quote
of course I can prove that there isn't any non materialistic evidence that Skeptic isn't a stupid bastard, I shall now do so:


What's the marital status of his parents got to do with it? ;)

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2007,12:54   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 16 2007,18:41)
Quote
of course I can prove that there isn't any non materialistic evidence that Skeptic isn't a stupid bastard, I shall now do so:


What's the marital status of his parents got to do with it? ;)

I refer the honourable gentleman to a book called "The Meaning of Liff" by Douglas Adams and John Lloyd.

See entry for "Gastard"

Gastard (n.):
USeful specially new-coined word for an illegitimate child (in order to distinguish it from someone who merely carves you up on the motorway, etc.)

The language has moved on. ;)

Louis

P.S. COMEDY PLUMBER UPDATE

The plumber has just sucked air over his teeth and made some feeble excuse about needing some piece of kit and he'll be back on Monday. The plumber has just come within in an inch of having his head kicked in. Happily I managed to avoid this by delicately informing the plumber that the piece of kit he needs is in his van (it is actually, he was making an obvious excuse to get home in time for Eastenders, he's part of a franchise company who I happen to know keep this kit in their vans. Knowledge is power!;). The plumber is now fixing my drains. I shall go and keep an eye on the comedy individual and offer him a cup of tea. Granted I should be nice because he can fuck up my drains, but he doesn't know what I can put in his tea so I reckon we're even. Today is not a good day to mess with me I am thinking. ;)

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,10:24   

So to sum up thus far, we've had no evidence for dualism or his initial claims from Skeptic. No actual arguments only increasingly shrill restatements of the initial claims from Skeptic. And of course the usual straw men and attempts to shift either the goalposts or the burden of proof by Skeptic.

Well I'm bored. Anyone for a game of poker?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,16:32   

Sorry Louis, been a bit busy the last couple of days.  Actually, somewhere in the middle of your dissertation I started laughing and just couldn't get back into it.  I wasn't laughing at you but at myself and what really precipitated it was Alba's question.  I'll try to explain.

To recap, the initial discussion referenced the rift between science and religion but I'm going to alter that description slightly.  It is not a rift it is a chasm and I think we've proved that over the last 5 pages.

Alba asked me to prove that the Mind existed and you, in effect, were asking me the same thing for any of the non-physical universal ideals or concepts.  I fell victim to the temptation and contradicted myself by busily applying myself to the task at hand.  The problem was the question of the Mind was something I couldn't even prove to myself because it isn't independent of Me.  Nice little trap I put myself in but finally your post brought it home and I couldn't help but feel alittle silly.

I believe in God and so by definition I believe in concepts or existence beyond the physically measurable universe.  Things like Love, Beauty, Good, Evil, Hope, etc are all real things for me because I have experienced them and accept them as transcendent.  The Mind, I can only infer because, to me, the others exist and so the Mind can exist and I believe I am a unique being so I take a leap of faith on that one.  What I'm saying is I believe in these things and accept them to be real even though I can provide no evidence that they exist.

You do not believe in God and whether by cause or effect you do not accept the existence of anything beyond physical (or potentially) measurement.  These things, ideas, concepts, etc have no meaning for you beyond what can be measured and defined either by science or consensus.   Here comes the chasm.  I can not accept your definition of  physical reality because I've already experienced things beyond that simplistic framework.  By the same token, you can not accept my view until and if you actually experience these things as transcendental ideals.  You are more than happy to jump into the science of lust and attraction but that's all love will ever be for you unless you recognize and experience Love.  The same goes for all of these example including God.

This is why there can be no conflict between science and religion.  I can not reveal religion and faith to you because I can not prove them to you in the way that you require.  Nor can you disabuse me of my beliefs because to do so would require me to deny that which I already know.  We are at an impasse and it is one that science and religion have forever been at.  Regardless of the progress of human knowledge, the width of this chasm will never shorten.  The comforting thought for me after browsing through the library today is we are not alone.  Many more before us have made the mistake that I did and it will continue to be made long after me.  Truth be told, I'm not so sure that I won't make the same mistake again but I'll chalk that up to my human failings and move on.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,16:46   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 20 2007,16:32)
Here comes the chasm.  I can not accept your definition of physical reality because I've already experienced things beyond that simplistic framework.

Ohhh....bad move Skeptic. This is an assertion. You can't make that without evidence, unless you would like to show how people cannot be mistaken as to what they believe they feel.

Quote
By the same token, you can not accept my view until and if you actually experience these things as transcendental ideals.  You are more than happy to jump into the science of lust and attraction but that's all love will ever be for you unless you recognize and experience Love.  The same goes for all of these example including God.


So basically, we have to accept the premise to be able to accept the premise? I smell circular reasoning...

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,17:27   

Quote
Nor can you disabuse me of my beliefs because to do so would require me to deny that which I already know.

Wrong. You don't know these things:
Quote
What I'm saying is I believe in these things and accept them to be real even though I can provide no evidence that they exist.

By your own admission, you believe these things without, or in spite of, evidence. That is not knowing.

And you have not provided any sort of argument as to why we should care one whit about your religious opinions or what in Falwell they have to do with the rift between science and reliigion. You start out claiming there are these two, equally valid ways of knowing, and end with admitting that one way isn't knowing at all.

Lame.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,18:27   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 20 2007,17:27)
Quote
Nor can you disabuse me of my beliefs because to do so would require me to deny that which I already know.

Wrong. You don't know these things:
Quote
What I'm saying is I believe in these things and accept them to be real even though I can provide no evidence that they exist.

By your own admission, you believe these things without, or in spite of, evidence. That is not knowing.

And you have not provided any sort of argument as to why we should care one whit about your religious opinions or what in Falwell they have to do with the rift between science and reliigion. You start out claiming there are these two, equally valid ways of knowing, and end with admitting that one way isn't knowing at all.

Lame.

Yes.  Lame is the word skeptic.

Louis writes a damn fine book answering you, defining terms, and doing his usual splendid upper-crust English curmudgeon act, up-dated for this century with a "fuckwit" thrown in for your benefit, and you write a two paragraph "Ooops, sorry, I was kidding" excuse for not answering? What?

Sorry old boy, we just can't have this, don't you know.  

You know what you have to do.

(Skeptic leaves room.  Sound of religious discusion with Heddle erupts through closed door...)

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 20 2007,20:30   

Skeptic,

I just want to know what The Mind is, and how it differs from the (or a) mind.

Is it one thing? Some all pervasive consciousness that permeates the universe? And if so, how is The Mind related to God? I assume it's not the same as God, or there'd be no reason to call it The Mind. (Does The Mind = the holy ghost?)

Or do we each have a Mind? And if so, how is it different from our minds?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,01:16   

seriously, there's probably many different ways to answer that question depending upon your definition.  I name the Mind to be my Mind and that which is Me.  it is more than just the physical me because that changes everyday and me yesterday is not me tomorrow and yet I still consider myself the same person.  You could call it the sum total of my experiences but I prefer to think of it in terms of a soul.  That is something I believe in and it fits my definition well.  But, no Louis, I have no proof of that nor can I prove it to you...unless you could read my mind, lol.  Boy, is it getting late.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,02:39   

Well I apologise for all the "fuckwits" and sundry vileness. I confess to an overactive curmudgeon gland and a deep lack of tolerone (the hormone of tolerance). Mea culpa. Being patronised (undeservedly) always brings out the worst in me.

Skeptic,

How on earth can you think that is an answer to anything?

Equally, how on earth can you honestly attempt AGAIN to shift the "blame" to me? You have no idea whether or not I believe in supernatural/non-material/non-physical things/Platonic truths and the question of whether or not I do is utterly irrelevant. Equally, your faith in these things is utterly irrelevant.

The argument was based on your claim that there exist things that are in principle unexamineable by the use of reason and that where reason fails faith/revelation succeed. I am not asking you to prove things to me personally (my assent or dissent is irrelevant) I am asking you to justify the claims you make on some basis other than "Because I say so".

So yet again Skeptic you simply reassert your claims and appeal to your own beliefs as support for them (since the claims in question are your beliefs this is entirely circular). You then run away! Would you like me to give you a point by point detailed explanation of how pathetic that is?

You AGAIN claim that science and religion are not in genuine (epistemological) conflict after it has been more than adequately demonstrated to you that they are. I'm beginning to question your ability to read, think and comprehend basic concepts.

In the interest of progressing a discussion with you (ANY discussion) and attempting to garner some impression that you can actually follow an argument, I am going to ask you one question at a time. Try to answer it instead of running away and pretending it doesn't exist.

You claim that you know certain things based on your faith/revelation alone. Let's just say for the sake of argument that one of those faith derived bits of knowledge is that sheep walk on their 9 legs (the actual belief isn't important, I'm at least relatively sure you don't believe this). I know, based on my faith/revelation that sheep have no legs, they in fact hover on methane bruning jets of awe and wonder. These two claims are mutally exclusive, they cannot both be simultaneously true. Sheep cannot both be legless hover-sheep AND have 9 legs which they walk around on. Both of these faith/revelation bits of knowledge are about aspects of a bit of the universe which is neither you nor me (unless you are a sheep, and believe me, this is an idea I have given some consideration of late). They are both by definition claims based on faith/revelation about the universe around us. How do we tell which (if any) of these two beliefs is an accurate representation of that bit of the universe we are discussing?

Try to answer that question, Skeptic. Stop obfuscating. Stop simply restating your orignal claims and acting as if this some how supports them. Stop appealing to mystery. Stop shifting the goalposts and the burden of proof. Stop raising straw men. Just get on with the business of having a productive intellectual discussion. You might be amazed at the progress you get if you try.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,03:36   

Oh and whilst I remember it:

Skeptic,

You're utter lack of anything approaching intellectual engagement in this discussion and your abject failure to demonstrate the validity of your claims in any sense means that from this point onwards (until such time as you DO demonstrate your claims) they are forfeit.

So (for example) you can say "I believe there is no conflict science and religion based on my faith alone. No evidence other than my own faith supports this claim" or words to that effect, but you cannot say that "There is no conflict between science and religion" as if it were a statement of fact BECAUSE TO DO SO WOULD BE A LIE. And you know how much I love liars, Skeptic. As long as you and I both post here I will forever remind you (whenever you bring these claims up) that you have failed to demonstrate them or even argue rationally in their favour should you even seem to be attempting to claim otherwise.

Why will I do this? Two reasons:

1) The simple exchange of unverified or unverifiable opinion is all well and good. Unfortunately not everything in the universe is governed or defined by opinion. The fact that you can make asinine special pleads for your faith, which itself is a defence for your ignorance, is no demonstration of your claims. Reality and you differ, your ignorance and willful denial of that fact do not constitute evidence against it. Trying to claim that this debate is simply due to a matter of differing yet equaly supported beliefs is manifest dishonesty of the first water.

2) You persist in your ignorance ONLY because of your ramapant hypocrisy and denial. You live in a highly privileged society founded from its very conception on the principles of the Enlightenment. Reason foremost amongst them. You claim scientific credentials and a scientific career. Doubtless you avail yourself of the products of generations of rational enquiry into the mechanisms of the universe such as technology and medicince. And yet at every possible turn you eschew reason as it suits you. You might tolerate liars and hypocrites, Skeptic, I do not.

So, as I said, until such time as you demonstrate your claims they are utterly forfeit. Every time you raise them here as if they were fact I, or I hope someone else, will remind you that you have been given ample opportunity to defend them and you have failed. As such they are whimsy, mere fantastic articles of your faith alone and they have no demonstrated bearing on reality at all. Thus they should be paid no mind, being as they are nothing more than the vacuous, childish pleas of someone who cannot be bothered to make even the basic effort required to investigate the world around them.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,09:56   

You see this is all the fault of Freud.

He proposed the super ego and and gambling as masturbation.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,09:58   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 21 2007,15:56)
You see this is all the fault of Freud.

He proposed the super ego and and gambling as masturbation.

Gambling as masturbation? Does that involve scissors?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,10:03   

Did I mention? All his subjects were frustrated.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,10:38   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 21 2007,02:39)
You AGAIN claim that science and religion are not in genuine (epistemological) conflict after it has been more than adequately demonstrated to you that they are.

Well, of course, there ARE questions which cannot, in principle, be answered by reason or by science.

No amount of scientific reasoning can ever tell us whether brunettes are cuter than blondes.

No amount of scientific reasoning can tell us whether abortion is wrong or not.

No amount of scientific reasoning can tell us whether it's OK or not to keep a wallet full of money that we find on the sidewalk.

No amount of scientific reasoning can tell us whether we should marry this person or that one.

Those are all questions that simply cannot be answered using scientific reasoning. That is why philosophers and theologians have been arguing over them for thousands of years.  There is simply no way to answer the question.

Scientific reasoning CAN, of course, provide us with reams and reams of INFORMATION about all those questions, right down to the molecular reasons why this person may prefer one answer and that person may prefer another answer.  But that, in and of itself, doesn't answer the question.  Only we can do that, each of us for ourselves.  

No matter how much biological detail science gives us about the process of embryological development --the exact second in which a fetus develops feelings, or which it becomes aware, or which it can feel pain -- that won't answer the question of when or whether abortion is right or wrong.

Even if we determine that the presence of this amino acid in this particular gene produces biochemistry that leads to a genetic predetermination for attraction to blondes, while THIS particular amino acid in this particular gene produces biochemistry that leads to a genetic predetermination for attraction to brunettes -- that still doesn't tell us whether brunettes are or are not actually cuter than blondes.

So in a way, Skeptic is right (though, as usual, he is too blinded by his ideology to see any of it).  It so happens that many of those very same questions that science simply can't answer -- "is it right or wrong to do this?", "how should I act towards other people?" -- are indeed answered by religion (or, more correctly, religion gives answers to those questions to people who are either too afraid or too uncertain to try to answer those questions for themselves).  Hence, there can, indeed, be a clear division between "science" and "religion", with no overlap between them, and hence no conflict.

However, this is true only insofar as religion limits itself to those "moral" and "ethical" questions which science simply cannot answer.

As Skeptic demonstrates so clearly, religions (well, most of them anyway) can't do that.  Instead, they insist on dealing with matters of "authority", which inevitably leads to them blathering a lot about supernatural this and supreme being that, which in turn inevitably tempts them into questions such as "how does the world work?" and "how did things get to be the way they are?".  Alas for them, that is the realm of science, not of religion.

If Skeptic REALLY understood what he was saying, he would recognize that he is a part of the problem, not of the solution. But alas, Skeptic's "faith" is completely dependent upon an external authority (his Big Daddy in the Sky), and therefore he simply cannot tolerate the existence of two sources of authority (science and faith).  As his Book tells him, it's impossible to serve two masters.

Once one gives up that dependence upon external authority, though, the entire "problem" of "science vs religion" disappears completely.  After all, instead of trying to serve two masters, its easier to serve none at all. But, as Skeptic demonstrates so often, his dependence upon external authority is complete and total.  He is utterly terrified to depend upon the only person he  can really count on --- himself.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,10:46   

Sheep are boring, even with 9 legs or propped afloat on awe and wonder.  I prefer the more obvious example, that you darwinist materialist from ATBC cannot understand (insert some czech-y sounding pith here)

All human beings have wings.  Every one of them.  You just can't see them.  You have to accept it on faith.  Until you accept that humans have wings, you will forever fail to understand just what it is to be human.  You will not have a coherent narrative of why wings are important to being a human.

Don't bother looking for the wings.  They're there.  You just can't see them.  Trust me.  It was revealed to me.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,10:54   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 21 2007,18:46)
Sheep are boring, even with 9 legs or propped afloat on awe and wonder. ?I prefer the more obvious example, that you darwinist materialist from ATBC cannot understand (insert some czech-y sounding pith here)

All human beings have wings. ?Every one of them. ?You just can't see them. ?You have to accept it on faith. ?Until you accept that humans have wings, you will forever fail to understand just what it is to be human. ?You will not have a coherent narrative of why wings are important to being a human.

Don't bother looking for the wings. ?They're there. ?You just can't see them. ?Trust me. ?It was revealed to me.

Don't bogaart that book 'rasmus.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,11:14   

'eeeeeeere

i'm kinda hungry now.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,11:19   

Hi Lenny,

Actually I disagree to an extent, although I am happy to admit that there are areas of science and religon that don't overlap. I am however less happy to agree that there are areas of reason and faith that don't overlap. Reason and faith are both tools that humanity has developed for the acquisition of knowledge, they have been developed for the same purpose. Religion is the most notable exposition of the use of faith, and science that of reason.

I've been quite careful to note that science is one application of the use of reason, perhaps the most precise and careful application, but an application nonetheless. It's the use of reason which I have been defending, and the epistemological differences at the heart of science and religion which I argue cause the conflict.

I think a reasoned understanding of human psychology etc can tell you who is hotter the blonde or the brunette, as you note. It might not answer the question for me or you personally (although I am sure we could reason our way through it), but it might be able to answer the question in a statistical fashion. Again the same applies (only more so) to each of your other examples. Our love of blondes (or brunettes) is a function of our personal history, be that genetic or environmental (or more properly some combination of both). This is eminently open to rational study both on an individual and a grander basis.

Yes of course if one whiles away the hours carefully reasoning out one's love for blondes or brunettes then both have disappeared long ago and you will die a virgin, but that's hardly the point. The point is that despite the "unconscious" nature of one's personal preferences those personal preferences have developed for reasons environmental and genetic. I know btw you don't dispute that. The fact that a lot of this processing is done "unconsciously" is no more significant than the fact that the processing for you to catch a ball is done "unconsciously". Of course if you sit down and do the calculus required to catch the ball by hand the ball is on the fround before you've written the first equation, but this doesn't deny the fact that sound mathematical calculation underpins your ability to catch (either balls or blondes!). Simply put: like it or not these things are products of reason, conscious or unconscious, not any other mysteriosu mechanism.

Similarly for morals and ethics, these things can and have been developed and understood by reason alone. No recourse to faith or what have you. Is our understanding of them perfect? Nope, never said it was. But this doesn't mean that they are somehow inaccessible to rational enquiry which is Skeptic's (and your it would appear) basic claim. Can reason tell us about abortion or wallet finding and keeping being right or wrong? Sure it can! Carefully define the parameters for what constitute right and wrong and BOOM you can reason your way through it. That ethical and moral systems proceed from axioms doesn't mean that they are unreasoned. Nor does it mean that we have to naively appeal to the Is/Ought fallacy to set those axioms. We can agree to a set of axioms for moral/ethical systems.

Also, morals and ethics are situational. Can anything tell you if any act is ultimately, once and for all, independant of all context Right or Wrong? No! Can anything tell you if any act is right or wrong within a given social context, and/or proceeding from certain given axioms? Yes! The abortion example is a great one. Catholic person A believes that abortion is always ethically and morally wrong. I believe that it is not always ethically and morally wrong. If we left it at that, we have two opposed beliefs, no way to distinguish between them and an almighty fight! However, if we examine the consequences (to take a consequencialist view for a second) of the positions "no abortions" vs "some abortions in some circumstances" we can make a judgement about which has the least/most harmful consequences. That is an entirely reasoned, rational approach. It's based on observation, evidence and hell, bits of it might even be scientific! Is it infallible? Nope. Does it provide a universal answer? Nope. But then what is and what does? Knowledge is a provisional entity, certainty an unacheivable illusion. On what basis do you or anyone claim (implicitly or otherwise) that there is some ultimate answer to each moral question out there? There's simply no evidence to support that.

Again the claim is made for religion as being able to answer these questions! How does it do this? How does one determine from two different, mutually exclusive, religious answers to a moral question, which one is the "correct" one? Faith simply provides no more answer to any question than the answer I can merrily pull out of my arse. When one abandons reason, appeal to observation and evidence in any situation, moral, preferential or otherwise, what else does one have? Faith? Great! What are the results of that? Make sure you don't use any reason, observation or rational thought because to do so proves my point.

I've got no problem with someone's personal faith, someone's personal choice to follow this or that ethical system. I DO have a big problem with these grandiose claims made for the power of faith/revelation to answer questions universally. Whatever gets you through the night is all well and good for you, but the claim that because you (and I don't mean you personally, I mean you plural/general) believe X, X is therefore true is utterly vacuous. Personal faith I have no truck with, the erroneous extension of personal faith to universality I do have a problem with.

So no, I don't agree that if religion limits itself to "moral" and "ethical" questions that there is no basis for a conflict between science and religion a) Because religion doesn't actually answer those questions at all, and b) if it does so successfully it is demonstrably doing so by using reason and thus what's the need for all the religious claptrap? (Unless we are talking about metasystems as I did in the very first post). If religion is restricted to personal questions it doesn't conflict with science/reason on a universal basis, but then people aren't that disciplined in restricting their faith based claims to themselves, so it inevitably leaks out.

Does this mean I am an evil atheist who wants to ban religion and burn religious people at the stake? Nope. Does this mean I am an intolerant fucker, unwilling to grant kudos where it is not deserved? Yup. But then I may have said this before.....

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,11:23   

Har har this is Louis ........who is blond.

Louis who is blond

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,11:31   

Pfff if I was that good looking and female, I wouldn't be wasting my time talking to you drongos, I'd be out there getting me some hot, throbbing....

{The completion of that sentence and the following sentences have been removed to protect the innocent. We now return you to your regularly scheduled abuse}

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,11:42   

If was by Rudyard Kipling

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,12:13   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 21 2007,11:19)
I think a reasoned understanding of human psychology etc can tell you who is hotter the blonde or the brunette, as you note. It might not answer the question for me or you personally (although I am sure we could reason our way through it), but it might be able to answer the question in a statistical fashion.

But alas, that doesn't answer the question at all.  It tells us how MANY people think blondes are hotter than brunettes (at this particular time and place). It might even tell us WHY more people prefer this particular answer over that one (again, at this particular time and place).  But that doesn't answer whether blondes really ARE hotter than brunettes.

Unless, of course, we are willing to make, a priori, the assumption that "truth" is a democracy, and that if more people think brunettes are hotter, or that abortion is wrong, or that people should return lost wallets, then that makes it "true".  And I see no reason to make such a (subjective and non-rational) assumption.

Subjective questions (such as moral or ethical questions)simply cannot be answered logically or rationally.  If they could be, there'd be nothing left to argue.  The "debate" would have ended centuries ago.  Nobody still argues whether the sun is a chariot in the sky. That is not a subjective question.  But everybody still argues what it means to be a "good person".  That IS a subjective question.  And science simply can't answer it.

Religion can't, either -- but it can at least offer people alternative answers to choose from. Science can't. Science is not a philosophy, not a worldview, not a religion, not a way of life, not an ethical or moral system of thought.  Answering subjective questions about morality or ethics, is not science's job.

That is why science should (indeed, MUST) stick with objective questions, while religion should stick with subjective questions.

The only "conflict" that happens is when science trieds to answer subjective questions, or when religion tries to answer objective questions -- something that neither one CAN do.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,12:15   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 21 2007,11:19)
The point is that despite the "unconscious" nature of one's personal preferences those personal preferences have developed for reasons environmental and genetic. I know btw you don't dispute that.

But that does not equate to "rational".

And it still doesn't answer the ethical or moral question.  Just because we are evolved to be child molestors or murderers, for instance, does not make it "ethical" or "moral".

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,12:20   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 21 2007,11:19)
Carefully define the parameters for what constitute right and wrong

Well, BOOM !  ----  there's your problem right there.  

Who the heck gets to define "right" and "wrong", and why are a "scientist's" definitions of "right" and "wrong" any better than those of my car mechanic or my veterinarian or the kid who delivers my pizzas?  

Alas, "science" and "reason" can't "define the parameters of right and wrong" any more than my grandmother can. (shrug)

You can try all you like --- you simply cannot escape the fact that all ethical and moral questions are, at root, subjective, and simply cannot be answered rationally or scientificaloly.  At best, one can utilize information derived from science or reason to justify, post priori, an ethical decision which you already prefer.  But that does not make your decision any more rational or scientific than anyone else's.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,12:33   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 21 2007,11:19)
Again the claim is made for religion as being able to answer these questions!

That was Skeptic's claim, not mine, so I'll let Skeptic flounder about trying to answer it.

MY claim, which I'll repeat again for clarity, was that religion CAN'T answer those questions (since there ARE no objective answers).  At best, religion can help each of us answer those questions OURSELVES; at worst, religion simply provides a series of prepackaged answers which people can then pick and choose according to their own subjective preference.  As I've often said, people choose their religion, their religion does not choose them.

What *most* religion does, alas (and, particularly, what FUNDAMENTALIST religion does), is give answers to those people who are too insecure or too afraid to find their OWN answers.  For people like that, it is a matter of "faith" that the given answer is "correct".  That, of course, does not make it any more objectively "correct" than would the fact that my grandmother also believes it.  But, as I also noted, most religions (though not all) bolster their "answers" by appealing to divine authority.  To the problem "if religions all give differing answers to subjective questions, then how do I know which one is the right one?", the authority-based religions (such as Skeptic's) answer "because God says so". It is of course entirely a subjective decision on the part of the religious person whether or not to accept that authority.  

The non-authority-based religions (such as Buddhism or Taoism) take an entirely different approach.  To the question "what is right or wrong?", they say, "Only YOU can answer that.  And you can answer it only for you."

Since religions like these do NOT base their answers on any external authority, they have no need for supernatural sky daddies to tell everyone what to do.  Nor do they have any need to pretend that their subjective answers are really objective.  Hence, they have no need to use "religion" to answer objective questions -- and no need to have any "conflict" with science.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,12:36   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 21 2007,11:19)
Personal faith I have no truck with, the erroneous extension of personal faith to universality I do have a problem with.

Indeed.  Precisely because answering questions for one's SELF keeps them subjective.  What's right for you, is right for you.  But when you move from that to declaring that what's right for you is right for EVEYONE, then you've moved from subjectivity to objectivity -- to a claim of universal moral or ethical truth.  Many religions (and particularly fundamentalism) DO make that claim.  And it's what gets them into trouble with science.

The religions that do NOT make that claim, don't have any gripe with science, and vice versa.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,12:42   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 21 2007,11:19)
If religion is restricted to personal questions it doesn't conflict with science/reason on a universal basis, but then people aren't that disciplined in restricting their faith based claims to themselves, so it inevitably leaks out.

Then your gripe isn't with "religion" at all -- it is with those people (and fundamentalists are of course the primary offenders) who abuse and mis-use religion and force it to intrude into areas where it doesn't belong and doesn't have anything useful to say.

Oddly enough, that is precisely my gripe, too.



The barrier is NOT non-existent. Skeptic is right about that. Oddly enough, though, Skeptic is himself the best example of why the barrier is so tempting to climb over.

And he has no idea why he is.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,13:32   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 21 2007,11:19)
When one abandons reason, appeal to observation and evidence in any situation, moral, preferential or otherwise, what else does one have? Faith? Great! What are the results of that? Make sure you don't use any reason, observation or rational thought because to do so proves my point.

As an aside, this entire thread reminds me of Spock in the Star Trek movies.

In one movie, we see Spock at the cusp of attaining  Kohlinar, total logic, complete rationality, flawless reason.  

And in another movie, we see the result:  he can flawlessly configure warp injection systems, he can derive mathematical formulas, he can cite metaphysical principles, he's the best science whiz ever.

But he can't answer the question "How do you feel?"



One of the reasons I like Star Trek so much is that it deals precisely with those same subjective questions that humans have grappled with since the beginning.  Do we trust our head or our heart?  Reason or faith?  Logic or emotion? Spock represents the logical objective scientific mind; Bones McCoy represents the emotional subjective heart and soul.  Both are fused in Kirk, who alone, but with the help of both, is capable of actually commanding the ship.

Gene Roddenberry was a Zen master.  I bow to his Buddha-nature.   :)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,14:31   

Buddha-nature is dried dung.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,16:36   

I don't get referring to faith as a means of acquiring knowledge. Doesn't a person have to have already heard about something before developing faith in it?

Henry

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 21 2007,18:13   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 21 2007,14:31)
Buddha-nature is dried dung.

Or five pounds of flax.


;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,17:17   

Thanks, Lenny, you make my point so much better and with more credibility but I would like to add a few points.

Louis, I'm not shifting the "blame" to you.  I'm just trying to point out your position to demonstrate why we are at odds.  Also, let's not be coy, if you believed in God then we wouldn't be having this discussion because you would get what I was saying even though I'm apparently not as elegant as Lenny.  You see rational thought or science as a sphere within which knowledge and potential knowledge is contained.  Within this same sphere you see the tumor of irrational thought or faith that is attempting to address this same knowledge or potential knowledge and in doing so is slightly corrupting to the whole.  As far as you're concerned there is nothing that is beyond the investigation of rational thought.  Everything can be reduced, characterized and understood or potentially understood.  There is nothing wrong with this view as it is just as valid as the alternative which is mine.

I believe that there are things (not quite the right word) beyond rational examination.  I see two separate spheres that address two completely different types of knowledge.  They only overlap in the Mind of the observer.  Thanks again to Alba and getzal, the questions on Mind have been a great starting point for me and I have been heavily focused upon them for the past few days.  Anyway, one difference I have with your characterization, Louis, is that you continually insist that science and faith are trying to answer the same questions.  They not only are not but they should not.  I agree with Lenny (I hope you're sitting down, Lenny) and I believe that the conflict would disappear if faith stuck to faith and science stuck to science.  I can see your problem with this statement because you don't view faith as valid to answer any questions and certainly not the questions that you believe can be answered by reason.  You might be right.  There may be no other true source of knowledge but reason and we've just been fooling ourselves for thousands of years.  In this life, we'll never know but enough people think and have thought that the questions are beyond reason that as these questions have been pondered they will continue to be pondered.

So the conclusion (lol), there are many worldviews and the two on display here are:

a) Science and religion are always at odds because the only true source of knowledge is science and religion attempts to intrude upon this quest.  There is an opposite to this which we don't see here but we run into quite often and that is that religion is the only true source of knowledge, blah, blah, blah.  Again, in this case religion and science are always at odds.

b) science and religion are two independent areas of knowledge asking different questions, using different methods and having no impact upon each other.

Neither can be proven as a better worldview because initial inclinations dictate which one you accept and the other never appears adequate from that point on.

On a side note,  I wanted to quickly address Alba and getzal's question and hit on something Lenny was trying to tell me last year.  I had a great deal of trouble working through this question of the Mind as I've mentioned.  But as I kept looking at my idea of the two separate areas in dawned upon me.  There must be some overlap between the physical and non-physical otherwise we would no awareness of the non-physical as we are decidedly physical.  That overlap is the Mind.  The point at which we experience the non-physical and translate that into our physical thoughts, feelings, actions, etc.  That raises two questions, is the non-physical real or just a human construct and how or where does this overlap occur?  In the case of the second question, I must punt because I've really just moved the overlap internal to each individual but not really said anything about it specifically.  In the case of the second question, it is a matter of belief.  Some will believe that these do not really exist and view them within the framework of reason while others with accept their independent existence.  Not a real good answer, I know, but it reminds me of Lenny's discussion last year about authority.  It only took me this long to really get it but I did want to focus on one point.  Even though my view acknowledges an external authority it is still me who holds the final authority.  It is still my Mind that must experience and evaluate the non-physical and process it for consumption.  Because it still must go through the filter of my Mind then it is up to me to decide how I should act, feel and think based upon in.  The buck stops here as we say and that is still something that every individual must do for themselves.  That is, of course, unless there is only one Mind that we are all just parts of and if that's the case then I'm out to lunch and I have no idea where go with that.    :D

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,17:25   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 22 2007,17:17)
Even though my view acknowledges an external authority it is still me who holds the final authority. ?It is still my Mind that must experience and evaluate the non-physical and process it for consumption. ?Because it still must go through the filter of my Mind then it is up to me to decide how I should act, feel and think based upon in. ?


?

Well, perhaps there is hope for you yet, young Jedi . . .

Now, you need to take the next step, and understand that this external thing that you filter through your mind, is actually not separate from you at all; it is a part of you, and you are a part of it.  It is only your Mind that makes it appear separate from you.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,17:28   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 22 2007,17:17)
?Also, let's not be coy, if you believed in God then we wouldn't be having this discussion

Let me just note once more, for those who may have forgotten, that I do not assert, and I do not accept, the existence of any god, goddess, or any other supernatural entity whatsoever, in any way shape or form.

I see no need for any such entity, either scientifically, philosophically, or religiously.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,17:29   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 22 2007,17:17)
That is, of course, unless there is only one Mind that we are all just parts of and if that's the case then I'm out to lunch and I have no idea where go with that. ? ?:D

There is, of course, only one place you CAN go . . . .

Oddly enough, you've been there all along.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,19:14   

good Lenny

good Lenny

Bad Lenny!!

LOL

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,20:02   

Quote
it is a part of you, and you are a part of it.  It is only your Mind that makes it appear separate from you.



"No different!  Only different in your mind.  You must UNLEARN what you have 'learned'."

:p

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,20:23   

skeptic is riding the ox in search of the ox.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,21:32   

Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 22 2007,20:02)
Quote
it is a part of you, and you are a part of it. ?It is only your Mind that makes it appear separate from you.



"No different! ?Only different in your mind. ?You must UNLEARN what you have 'learned'."

:p

I am wondering if anyone has yet written "The Tao of Yoda".   Sort of along the lines of "The Tao of Pooh".
It'd be a great book.


(turns to another browser page for a moment . . . )


Hmmm, nothing at Amazon under that title . . . .


I think I've just found my next writing project.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,22:02   

Now, Lenny, if I don't miss my guess, that is a statement rooted in capitalism.  :D

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2007,22:34   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 22 2007,22:02)
Now, Lenny, if I don't miss my guess, that is a statement rooted in capitalism. ?:D

I, uh, doubt very much I'll be able to retire on the earnings.


Indeed, I doubt very much I can even pay a month's rent on the earnings.

-edit-  One thing I *don't* doubt very much is that the entire manuscript will be available on the Web, complete, for free.  Just like every other manuscript I've done.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,01:49   

now that's the Lenny I know

  
Darth Robo



Posts: 148
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,04:31   

Problem also is that the big GL could probably sue you.  

Maybe you could pitch the idea to him?  I'd buy it!   :D

--------------
"Commentary: How would you like to be the wholly-owned servant to an organic meatbag? It's demeaning! If, uh, you weren't one yourself, I mean..."

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,09:04   

Quote (Darth Robo @ Aug. 23 2007,04:31)
Problem also is that the big GL could probably sue you. ?

Maybe you could pitch the idea to him? ?I'd buy it! ? :D

Yeah, that's probably why nobody has already done the book.

Anyone have GL's email address . . . .?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,10:03   

Hi Lenny,

First off, I suspect if you read back you'll find I've dealt with almost all of the comments you make already, if not I'll try to do them justice here.

1)

Quote
But alas, that doesn't answer the question at all.  It tells us how MANY people think blondes are hotter than brunettes (at this particular time and place). It might even tell us WHY more people prefer this particular answer over that one (again, at this particular time and place).  But that doesn't answer whether blondes really ARE hotter than brunettes.


This is equivocating on the meaning of words in the question. It is essentially the "no true Scotsman fallacy" writ large. It's rhetorical pissing about and nothing more.

In what sense can the question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" be answered without appeal to evidence or reason? Answer: it can't. Complaining that all the information obtained by rational inquiry is merely information about this facet of the issue or that facet of the issue doesn't cut the mustard. That's all the information we can ever get by any means (as I've said before). The "are blondes hotter than brunettes" question is a question about group's or individual's preferences, that is a question studiable by reason. If you want to know the answer to a universal version of that question, then a you are asking something beyond the limits of any mechanism of acquiring knowledge about the universe and b) asking an illogically framed question. My point is, was and has always been that the ONLY information you can get about this question (or indeed any other) derives from rational, reason based investigation of it. Again, I can ask any number of illogical questions "what is the sock preference of my banana tree?" for example. It doesn't mean that I am asking a question that a) means anything, or b) has an answer.

It does not in any way rely on an appeal to post modernist subjective/democratic truth. What it does rely on is the basic realisation of the limits of what we can know about a particular thing by any means, reasoned or otherwise. The question itself is either a question about preferences or it is a meaningless appeal to a universal idea derived solely from the misapplication of a concept. The concept that blondes could be universally hotter than brunettes (i.e. without any appeal to subjective preferences) is a total non sequitur. The concept of hotness relies specifically on subjective preference, ergo it's a question about a subjective issue. Trying to extend that beyond its meaning to objective universality is logically inconsistent.

More than that, if we do various studies and find that blondes are really the preferred female hair colour (or whatever) then we have found out something objective. It's not a democratic truth at all. we have found out which hair colour is more preferred. Therefore on that basis and within those limits we CAN say that blondes are hotter than brunettes. There's the point about limits again. Extending that to "blondes are universally hotter than brunettes" would be fallacious because we don't have the information to say that, and as I mention above, even the question of whether blondes are universally hotter than brunettes is utterly meaningless.

Again, to ram it home: the only useful information that can be gained from answering that question is obtained from rational, reasoned enquiry however that is done.

You then go into EXACTLY the sort of shit Skeptic has been doing which is stamping your foot and repeating by decree that reason cannot answer ethical/moral questions. This is utter shit as I have demonstrated before and will cheerfully do so again. (See below) Oh and incidentally, the equivocation of science and reason when I have made in plainly clear in what sense I am using both words is more than a touch annoying. It's also a strawman.

2)  Morals, ethics etc.

First and foremost, by referring me to your pizza boy you have utterly missed the point of what I was saying. Also by asking the question what makes a "scientist's" moral axioms better than anyone else illustrates this too.

I have not said, will not say, and am not saying that my or any scientist's moral axioms are or ever will be better than anyone else's. To even think that I am makes me think you cannot read, and Lenny, I KNOW you can read, so I guess you are playing devil's advocate or you fucked up. (Better than Devil's Advocaat, which is a horrible drink). ;)

All I have said, all I will say, is that morals/ethics etc are explorable by reason and are relative. Nothing more complex than that. I'd also say that they are more examinable than as mere post priori rationalisations of preferences. You and I agree that in questions of morals and ethics there are no objective 100% certain etc answers. What there ARE are objective answers to moral questions within certain moral systems. (I.e. it's a question of propositional logic: given limits X, Y and Z, and goals P, Q and R which of scenarios A and B best sticks within those limits and fulfills those goals) Hence my point about consequentialism above (I was using it as an example, not as a preferred moral system). I can say that within a given system X behaviour is right or wrong based on the axioms and workings of that system. I didn't say that equates to universal right or wrong. And I won't!

Incidentally, something I find amusing is in the first instance (the one of preference of blondes or brunettes) it's you (wrongly) extending subjective ideas beyond their defined limits to objective truths, and then on the moral questions you accuse me (wrongly) of doing just that and take me to task for it. I did laugh about that.

Anyway, back to the res.

As for your Buddhist comments re morals, I totally agree. Only you can answer moral questions for you and you can only answer them for you. However, when one is trying to set up a system of morals for a group, although the same principle applies (morals are after all relative), one can develop a system (not as an authority but as a collaboration. It's not always "authority" vs "whatever" you know Lenny! Bloody commies ;) ) based on reason. Of course one has to set those axioms right at the start somehow, and of course those axioms can be informed by reason and of course it's likely those axioms will be at least partly in error when the kinks and consequences are worked out.

This is the unfortunate area of compromise! If we are going to live together in groups and if we are going to have laws and organisations and social structures and so on and so forth then sadly we are going to have to develop some sort of ethical/moral system. This doesn't imply or mean that that system has to be inflexible or authoritarian, one can after all engage in social contract (the privileges/benefits of group living can be conferred to the individual provided they agree to the contract etc). The axioms that underpin any moral or ethical system are (or at least bloody well should be) open to question, change and debate. The virtues/pitfalls of group living are incidentally a different debate, one eminently informed by reason, observation and not a small amount of evolutionary biology and other scientific data.

Incidentally this is why I would advocate not merely a REASONED approach to moral questions but a SCIENTIFIC approach, because science fundamentally tests everything up to and including its own underpinnings. If there were a better way of acquiring knowledge about the universe than reason (etc) science would incorporate it because science is about most closely modelling what does happen as opposed to imposing what we want to happen on reality. This is a matter of personal preference, within given moral/ethical limits by the way and absolutely NOT an attempt to claim that universal morals/ethics can be derived from it. I mention it merely as an aside.

So again, to ram it home, I am in total agreement Lenny that morals and ethics are relative. I am not in agreement that they are unexplorable by reason and rational enquiry. This does not mean I think that moral/ethical absolutes are definable by reason. They aren't. This means that a) for a given set of moral/ethical axioms/goals it is possible to define (within those limits remember) a specific act as moral/ethical or immoral/unethical. This has no bearing on the universal morality of that specific act because that is an unknowable, illogically framed question. And b) that the axioms/goals with which a moral/ethical system is set up are explorable by recourse to reason, as far as any subjective question can be. As for who decides what is right and wrong? All depends on the system of ethics and morals you develop. If you are developing one system it might be just you, if it's another it might be founding father, if it's another it might be women only etc etc etc. I.e. it is irrelevant to the point I was actually making, not the point you thought (wrongly) I was making.

Incidentally, the only reason people still argue about what makes a good person is because, and I want to be totally clear here, people are fucking idiots. In all these arguments they are working from different sets of unstated axioms. State the axioms outright front and centre and it's dead easy. Keep hiding those axioms, keep forgetting to mention the assumptions you're making and the argument can run and run for all eternity (and will). Moral and ethical philosopher (or at least the bright ones) got over this ages ago and started trying to develop coherent moral/ethical systems from given sets of axioms that were clearly stated. You and I and they might disagree about their choice of axioms and the limitations of their systems, but this does not for one tiny second refute my point which is that these things are open to exploration by reason.

Incidentally again, Skeptic's dumb claim, which you are dangerously close to repeating, is that because we don't have the complete 100% right answer yet (as if such a thing is even acheivable, do you people NE VER read the quotes I provide from Feynman!?!?!?!), it is impossible for reason to explore these issues. That's exactly like me arguing that because we can't fly by flapping our arms yet, heavier than air flight is impossible.

Oh and Lenny, if you read things as a whole rather than snipped bits out, you'd have a) caught the fact that you misrepresented what I did say already, and b) you'd have caught the fact that I mentioned that naive appeals to the Is/Ought fallacy were not required. Dude, I expected a LOT better! Also, the "we can't get a perfect answer so it's all totally like ya know subjective" argument is a big crock of horseshit! We CAN get imperfect answers and we CAN try to make those answers as perfect as we possibly are able. Granted this is not easy and granted we might have to start from some very subjective and pretty shaky axioms, but we can evolve a better set of axioms by referring to their consequences.

3) The arse quakingly annoying and oft repeated false dichotomy between reason and emotion:

For the same reasons you like Star Trek Lenny, it always annoyed me. Why is Spock's logic deemed unemotional? Well I could riff on that subject for a week and I guarantee you I'd mention sexism and the view of women as the "weaker" sex in there! Anyway....

Again unconscious=/=unreasoned. Emotion=/=irrational. I'll remind you, your pizza boy and EVERYONE again that I do not mean "irrational" as it "batshit insane and unreasonable" but I DO mean it in the strict epistemological sense: i.e. logically incoherent.

One's emotional response to some set of circumstances may be totally rational (i.e. logically coherent), derived totally from reason, observation etc. Whether one consciously understands the underpinnings of one's emotions or not is a trivial irrelevance, just like the calculus one does to catch a ball being unconscious is. Emotional responses are both innate and learned, like ball catching ability etc. This does not ring fence off emotion from rational enquiry. Again the imperfection of our answers to complicated issues is not evidence against rational enquiry being capable of getting those answers as far as answer can even be got.

I can only think, with reference to the false dichotomy of of logic being unemotional, that the people who advance this have never done a day's science in their lives. And given some of the people who DO advance this, I know that the previous thought must be a load of old shit! So there must be some other reason, perhaps it's because people think that because reasoning free from passion can be clearer and eaiser on a personal level, thus reason eschews the emotions and thus emotions are not reasoned or reasonable. Bollocks sayeth I! Whilst the former might be true the two latter statements do not follow from it. Classic if A then B therefore if B then A logical fuckwittery.

Either way, the classic Star Trek picture presents just this false dichotomy. Another element to it I think is the appeal to mystery/unconscious. I like X, I don't know why I like X but it sings to my soul etc thus why I like X must be unknowable. Again, logically fallacious crap.

Anyway, I have a) gone on too long AGAIN and b) already dealt with this before. So unless you have anything to present that I haven't already dealt with, I stand by my previous comments.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,10:18   

Skeptic,

I call bullshit.

First and foremost you have utterly failed to encapsulate or understand my position anywhere in the previous thread and have resorted to egregious strawmen throughout.

Sceond, you make MASSIVE claims for faith and run away every time you are asked to demonstrate those claims. Then you go on to say that our views are equally supported but opposed. Sorry, but where the hairy fuck to you get off saying that? If you claim that faith can answer a question reason cannot show us all what this question is and show us how reason cannot answer a question. All I have had from both you and Lenny on this issue is equivocation and illogical extension of subjective questions beyond their subjective frame. Needless to say that does not constitute an answer! Trying to appeal to faux subjectivity is dishonest in the extreme. You have not made any demonstration that your claims are valid, you have merely asserted them. Incidentally on the issue of the limits of reason being able to enquire about things, Lenny has mertely asserted it too, and exactly the same way. Your assertions are not supported by anything, ergo they are not equal to mine which are. Sorry if you don't like that.

Thirdly, I do not "believe" anything (except in the most vague and colloquial sense of the word) I accept various explanations and hypotheses as being provisionally true because this is all I (or anyone) can do. Presenting this as a clash of worldviews that would be assuaged if I believed in god is so manifestly stupid that I am actually shocked. You're making appeals based on ignorance and claiming them equal to things that are a) not appeals and b) not based on ignorance. I don't see faith as some sort of tumour corrupting the whole, I see faith as a distraction, a self delusional fantasy which people use to disguise their ignorance and settle theit nerves about uncertainty. You claim faith informs you about the universe? GREAT! I'm all ears, show me how it does this. But remember, don't reason because the second you do you prove my point. I notice that everyone I ask to do this runs away. I wonder why? It's not that my personal view is that faith is invalid, it's not anything to do with my personal view at all. I'm totally open to the idea that faith has some epistemological use that reason can't touch: so show it to me. Thus far all I've had is restatements of this claim from you and appeals to imperfection, mystery, and subjectivity from you and Lenny. None of which answer the actual question at all. It's why I am both unimpressed and fundamentally frustrated with discussing it with you.

Fourthly, Lenny doesn't agree with you precisely the way you think, although there are similarities. I'd be careful what you wish for.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,10:46   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 23 2007,10:03)
In what sense can the question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" be answered without appeal to evidence or reason? Answer: it can't.

In what sense can it be answered AT ALL?


Answer: it can't.  It's entirely a subjective judgement.


If you still disagree, please by all means go ahead and demonstrate to us, logically and using whatever scientific data you like, that brunettes are cuter than blondes (or vice versa).

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,10:50   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 23 2007,10:03)
The "are blondes hotter than brunettes" question is a question about group's or individual's preferences, that is a question studiable by reason.

No, that is not the question at all.

The question is:  are brunettes cuter than blondes.  Nothing in there about anyone's "preferences", collective or individual.  Just as "are rocks heavier than feathers" isn't about anyone's "preferences".

All I want is a simple, objective, answer to the simple question: "are brunettes cuter than blondes".

And science is completely unable to give me one.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,10:53   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 23 2007,10:03)
All I have said, all I will say, is that morals/ethics etc are explorable by reason and are relative.

Explorable, yes.

Answerable, not even remotely.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,10:55   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 23 2007,10:03)
For the same reasons you like Star Trek Lenny, it always annoyed me.

Good luck in your search for Kohlinar.  (grin)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,11:00   

Hotter, to who?  (clue, there, that one is)

I like redheads anyway. So sod off you bastards.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,11:03   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 23 2007,11:00)
Hotter, to who? ?(clue, there, that one is)

And a very good clue, it is.   ;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,11:05   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 23 2007,11:00)
I like redheads anyway. So sod off you bastards.

Argh, too pale.  They look like corpses.  Yikes.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,11:25   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 23 2007,11:00)
Hotter, to who? ?(clue, there, that one is)

I like redheads anyway. So sod off you bastards.

I'll have to toss in on the redheads too!

If you want, I'll even go out and do my own research....armed with nothing more than some NoDoz, Coffee and duct tape...

I'll explain later.....


;-)

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,11:34   

Lenny you probably also prefer tupperware to fine porcelain as well.  to each their own.  i have one word (two actually):  pink nipples.  none of this ruddy brown business.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,11:55   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 23 2007,19:05)
? ?
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 23 2007,11:00)
I like redheads anyway. So sod off you bastards.

Argh, too pale. ?They look like corpses. ?Yikes.

When I was younger I never found a blonde or a brunette or a redhead that I didn't immediately consider hopping into bed with unless there was someone prettier next to them, that of course meant that my search revealed that beauty and desirability rarely coincided.

Did I mention I'm a legs and ass man? Now if you want proof of some hidden guiding hand behind the curtain, there it is right there. One minute I'm normal and sane and this girl walks into the room and BANG the hand of god takes over, I lose control of my thoughts, I see things that were not there before, my body does strange things and the whole world is wonderful and I love everything. In fact several books in the Vedas discuss this very point in ....erm....interesting detail. Krishna had some very entertaining interludes with cowgirls, masses of them...but I digress, suffice to say the sacred texts are full of erotic fulfillment, we are all gods after all or are descended from them except for those that aren't ...you know who you are. The Bull and the Moon, .Bull Bulls and Bull moon my moon


the masculine and the feminine are the primordial mythological semiotic symbols that today still resonate louder than any other element in religious human life. Look at any advert and the portrayal of femininity or masculinity in art or the media.



Oh, is that the time? I should be grazing in an Elysian field then leaping over horns in a cretian bull run.





AAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHH.


Pasipha? fell in love with, giving birth to the Dave Tard all Bull not human


Cretan Bull

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,12:10   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 23 2007,11:34)
Lenny you probably also prefer tupperware to fine porcelain as well. ?to each their own. ?i have one word (two actually): ?pink nipples. ?none of this ruddy brown business.

Ah, well --- perhaps someone can solve this conundrum logically for us.

;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,12:19   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 23 2007,20:10)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 23 2007,11:34)
Lenny you probably also prefer tupperware to fine porcelain as well. ?to each their own. ?i have one word (two actually): ?pink nipples. ?none of this ruddy brown business.

Ah, well --- perhaps someone can solve this conundrum logically for us.

;)

Let's call on Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dr. Dembski, he can give us the probability that the 2nd blond after the 9th redhead is the most satisfying, after all those laws were made in heaven...right?.

Fundys duck my sick.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,12:38   

Lenny,

You are missing my point by a country mile. Just to dissect it AGAIN for you:

In so far as the question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" is even a meaningful question it is open to rational enquiry.

I know it can be framed as a subjective question, you know it can be framed as a subjective question. All well and good. Smug little asides that imply I haven't noticed this when I mentioned it pages ago make it rather obvious you can't read.

If you are merely referring to it as a subjective question then as I have already said it depends on who you are framing the question about. Do I find blondes more hot than brunettes? That's a very specific question, open at the very shallowest level AT LEAST to rational enquiry: i.e. you want to know if I find blondes hotter than brunettes, you ask me, I answer, quention answered.

If you are asking if across the globe blondes are preferred to brunettes then as you and I have both noted you can ask that question and get an answer derived from reason.

Again it depends on the question you are asking. Poorly framing a question so it is vague and you can shift meanings doesn't mean you have a real question (it's dishonetsly shifting the goalposts). Yet again, if you are asking if blondes are forever and ever, universally at all times hotter than brunettes, you simply cannot answer that question by ANY means. Why? Because it is a logically incoherent question. The reason it cannot be answered is not because the methods used to answer it are inadequate, it's because the question is poorly framed. There is no answer that can be made to that question, so in what sense is it meaningful? Answer: it isn't.

If you are asking me to answer a question about YOUR subjective preference for blondes or brunettes, then I can simply ask: Lenny, which do you prefer, blondes or brunettes? And at least on a superficial level I can get an answer via reasoned means (i.e. interrogating the person who's preferences I am seeking to understand).

If you are asking a biological question about species H sapiens and the preference of the male of that species for blondes or brunettes we answer the question a different, more thorough way.

If you are asking a biological question about one individual then the answer to that question can be examined superficially (as I mentioned) or delved into in a deeper fashion, e.g. psychologically etc.

The question you are asking CAN be answered perfectly logically within the parameters of the question as long as one takes the trouble to define it. And as far as it is even answerable by ANY means. Rhetorical games and goalpost shifting don't save you.

And there in lies the rub, the one single thing that neither you or Skeptic have managed to get yet at all. As far as ANY question is answerable by ANY means, the answer flows directly from a reasoned and rational examination of that question and the issues to which it pertains. The same goes for morals/ethics. As far as we CAN get answers we can only get them by the use of reason. Show me another way, please do! There isn't one and you and I both know it, hence why you are acting the twat.

If you'd bothered to read what I've written you might stop making such asinine mistakes and fighting straw men versions of my argument.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,12:40   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 23 2007,16:55)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 23 2007,10:03)
For the same reasons you like Star Trek Lenny, it always annoyed me.

Good luck in your search for Kohlinar. ?(grin)

Not looking for it at all. Can't you read Lenny?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,14:10   

To find out which group is hotter:

Collect a sample population of each.

Insert thermometers in their mouths (or other openings).

Wait appropriate amount of time.

Read off and compare results.

Then you'll know which is hotter!

(Of course, it's possible I might be missing the point - nah.)

Henry

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,15:05   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 23 2007,12:38)
You are missing my point by a country mile. Just to dissect it AGAIN for you:

In so far as the question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" is even a meaningful question it is open to rational enquiry.

I know it can be framed as a subjective question, you know it can be framed as a subjective question. All well and good. Smug little asides that imply I haven't noticed this when I mentioned it pages ago make it rather obvious you can't read.

If you are merely referring to it as a subjective question then as I have already said it depends on who you are framing the question about. Do I find blondes more hot than brunettes? That's a very specific question, open at the very shallowest level AT LEAST to rational enquiry: i.e. you want to know if I find blondes hotter than brunettes, you ask me, I answer, quention answered.

If you are asking if across the globe blondes are preferred to brunettes then as you and I have both noted you can ask that question and get an answer derived from reason.

No, I'm afraid it is you who misses the point . . .

Your statement here, I repeat, is simply not the question beign asked.  The question, once more, is:

*ahem*  Are brunettes cuter than blondes?

That is no more complicated than asking "Are rocks heavier than feathers?"  Either they are, or they ain't. It has nothing to do with what anyone thinks, or what anyone's perceptions are, or what country they live in, or how many of who thinks what and why.  

The same with "are brunettes cuter than blondes?"  Either they are, or they ain't.  I simply want an objective rational scientific logical answer to the question "are blondes cuter than brunettes".  Yes, they are, or no, they aren't.  Which is it, and how can we tell through logic and/or scientific experiment.

Or to "is murder right or wrong"?  Or "Is abortion right or wrong"?

You don't have to wave your arms about "what way you are asking the question" to rationally scientifically logically answer "are rocks heavier than feathers?"

So why do you have so much trouble rationally scientifically logically answering the equally simple question "Are brunettes cuter than blondes?"

Ohhhhhhhhh . . .  it's because  logic and science simply can't answer subjective questions.   Subjective matters simply cannot be answered objectively (or logically, or scientifically, or rationally, or whatever other word for it anyone wants to use).

That's what makes them . . . well . . . subjective.

Why you keep missing that simple point, I simply don't see.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,15:14   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 23 2007,12:40)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 23 2007,16:55)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 23 2007,10:03)
For the same reasons you like Star Trek Lenny, it always annoyed me.

Good luck in your search for Kohlinar. ?(grin)

Not looking for it at all. Can't you read Lenny?

Louis

Dude, lighten up.  You'll live longer.


Geez.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,15:21   

Hate to split hairs but I don't buy the subjective/objective distinction anyway.  purely pragmatically speaking of course.  objectively.  hey.  what.

10  Louis points out that the question is answerable if you define the parameters.

20  Lenny points out the semantic form of the question is parameterless.

30 Goto 10

I wanna talk about redheads some more.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,15:55   

Re "20  Lenny points out the semantic form of the question is parameterless."

They both pointed that out. Then Louis went on and explained how to fix the question so as to make it answerable.

Or as somebody once put it: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

IOW - calling somebody or something beautiful, or cute, is really describing the reaction of the one doing the describing, rather than a quality inherent to the object being described.

Henry

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,16:51   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 23 2007,15:05)
?
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 23 2007,12:38)
You are missing my point by a country mile. Just to dissect it AGAIN for you:

In so far as the question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" is even a meaningful question it is open to rational enquiry.

I know it can be framed as a subjective question, you know it can be framed as a subjective question. All well and good. Smug little asides that imply I haven't noticed this when I mentioned it pages ago make it rather obvious you can't read.

If you are merely referring to it as a subjective question then as I have already said it depends on who you are framing the question about. Do I find blondes more hot than brunettes? That's a very specific question, open at the very shallowest level AT LEAST to rational enquiry: i.e. you want to know if I find blondes hotter than brunettes, you ask me, I answer, quention answered.

If you are asking if across the globe blondes are preferred to brunettes then as you and I have both noted you can ask that question and get an answer derived from reason.

No, I'm afraid it is you who misses the point . . .

Your statement here, I repeat, is simply not the question beign asked. ?The question, once more, is:

*ahem* ?Are brunettes cuter than blondes?

That is no more complicated than asking "Are rocks heavier than feathers?" ?Either they are, or they ain't. It has nothing to do with what anyone thinks, or what anyone's perceptions are, or what country they live in, or how many of who thinks what and why. ?

The same with "are brunettes cuter than blondes?" ?Either they are, or they ain't. ?I simply want an objective rational scientific logical answer to the question "are blondes cuter than brunettes". ?Yes, they are, or no, they aren't. ?Which is it, and how can we tell through logic and/or scientific experiment.

Or to "is murder right or wrong"? ?Or "Is abortion right or wrong"?

You don't have to wave your arms about "what way you are asking the question" to rationally scientifically logically answer "are rocks heavier than feathers?"

So why do you have so much trouble rationally scientifically logically answering the equally simple question "Are brunettes cuter than blondes?"

Ohhhhhhhhh . . . ?it's because ?logic and science simply can't answer subjective questions. ? Subjective matters simply cannot be answered objectively (or logically, or scientifically, or rationally, or whatever other word for it anyone wants to use).

That's what makes them . . . well . . . subjective.

Why you keep missing that simple point, I simply don't see.

I get the impression that you 2 are talking past each-other.

If Louis is saying that you can take a subjective statement/question and rephrase it so that it is open to objective inquiry then he is correct.

If Lenny insists on keeping the original phrasing then he is right.

ie. "female blondes cuter than brunettes" = subjective and only personal choice can answer.

However: "female blondes cuter than brunettes to most males" can be investigated scientifically.

EDIT: On the whole, I believe that Louis is making his point very well. As soon as religion states something that impacts upon the real world then it is open to scientific invesigation. Once something is open to real-world investigation then science is the primary way to investigate. Example would be: Does the Earth orbit the Sun or vice-verce?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,18:07   

Let's try this one then:

in so far as murder is the willful killing of an innocent person,

Is it always wrong to commit murder?  Why? or why not?

BTW, your Spock objection is ridiculous.  If there is nothing more than the physical that is or possibly is open to only rational description then there is no such thing as emotion.  The word, emotion, is nothing more than a place-holder masking our relative ignorance concerning the characteristics of emotion.  It is impossible for Spock to say "I feel good" but it easy for him to say "my serotonin re-uptake rate is low."

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,18:13   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 23 2007,18:07)
Let's try this one then:

in so far as murder is the willful killing of an innocent person,

Is it always wrong to commit murder?  Why? or why not?

BTW, your Spock objection is ridiculous.  If there is nothing more than the physical that is or possibly is open to only rational description then there is no such thing as emotion.  The word, emotion, is nothing more than a place-holder masking our relative ignorance concerning the characteristics of emotion.  It is impossible for Spock to say "I feel good" but it easy for him to say "my serotonin re-uptake rate is low."

That depends on if you mean in society, or at all as a universal absolute.

If the first, it's never right because of the laws and social norms we live with, possibly to ensure better species survival.

If the second, it's neither right nor wrong, as there is no reason to accept universal moral constants exist.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,18:26   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 23 2007,16:51)
EDIT: On the whole, I believe that Louis is making his point very well. As soon as religion states something that impacts upon the real world then it is open to scientific invesigation. Once something is open to real-world investigation then science is the primary way to investigate. Example would be: Does the Earth orbit the Sun or vice-verce?

Or, as I said before:

Quote
The only "conflict" that happens is when science trieds to answer subjective questions, or when religion tries to answer objective questions -- something that neither one CAN do.



That, alas, is not the point in dispute.  The point in dispute is whether there are things that science and reason cannot answer, even in principle.

And the answer is -- yes.  Science and reason cannot answer *any* matter of subjective judgement, for the simple reason that there IS NO objective answer.

For instance, science/reason can't tell us whether brunettes are cuter than blondes.  Science/reason can't tell us whether abortion is right or wrong.  Science/reason can't tell us whether I should marry THIS girl or THAT one.

As Louis so easily illustrates, the only way science CAN answer those sort of questions is to change them to a different question -- to turn them into related objective questions with measurable answers.  But alas, that does nothing to answer the *original* subjective question.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,18:31   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 23 2007,18:13)
That depends on if you mean in society, or at all as a universal absolute.

If the first, it's never right because of the laws and social norms we live with, possibly to ensure better species survival.

If the second, it's neither right nor wrong, as there is no reason to accept universal moral constants exist.

Point of fact, there have indeed been societies in which what we would consider "murder", was not only legal, but encouraged.

Quite aside from the ethical/moral question of whether something that is "illegal" means that it is necessarily ethically "wrong", or whether something that is "legal" means that it is ethically "right".

And indeed, it is the very fact that not only does no universal moral constant (of any sort) exist, but science and reason cannot provide us with any, that makes questions like this impossible to objectively answer.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,18:35   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 23 2007,16:51)
ie. "female blondes cuter than brunettes" = subjective and only personal choice can answer.

However: "female blondes cuter than brunettes to most males" can be investigated scientifically.

Indeed.  But those are two entirely different questions, and answering one doesn't answer the other.

Science/reason/logic/kohlinar can indeed answer one of these questions.  But it is utterly completely helpless with the other one.

Which is, of course, entirely my point.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,18:39   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 23 2007,16:51)
I get the impression that you 2 are talking past each-other.

Yes, we are.

That too, being my point.  

Louis wants to treat "science/logic/reason" as a worldview, or a way of life, or a philosophy, or a universal viewpoint that holds everywhere.

It's not.

And I am speaking from outside it.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2007,19:02   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 23 2007,15:21)
Hate to split hairs but I don't buy the subjective/objective distinction anyway.

A Zen Koan:


Two students were arguing about subjectivity and objectivity when a Master happened to be passing by.  Pointing to a large boulder nearby, the Master asked one of the students, "Tell me, does that boulder exist inside your mind, or outside of it."  The student answered, "Since according to Buddha all is an objectification of mind, I would have to say that the boulder exists inside my mind."  Whereupon the Master laughed and walked away, remarking, "Your head must feel very heavy if you are carrying around a rock like THAT in it."


;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,04:23   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 23 2007,18:31)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 23 2007,18:13)
That depends on if you mean in society, or at all as a universal absolute.

If the first, it's never right because of the laws and social norms we live with, possibly to ensure better species survival.

If the second, it's neither right nor wrong, as there is no reason to accept universal moral constants exist.

Point of fact, there have indeed been societies in which what we would consider "murder", was not only legal, but encouraged.

Quite aside from the ethical/moral question of whether something that is "illegal" means that it is necessarily ethically "wrong", or whether something that is "legal" means that it is ethically "right".

And indeed, it is the very fact that not only does no universal moral constant (of any sort) exist, but science and reason cannot provide us with any, that makes questions like this impossible to objectively answer.

But Lenny, Louis wasn't saying they can objectively answer everything, he's just saying they are the only routes to answers for objective things.

He wasn't saying reason and science can answer all questions, just that nothing else can answer any.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,04:28   

Lenny,

No I am not missing the point at all. Like I said before simply stringing words together in question form does not a question make.

Again, just so you get it, I'll try AGAIN. I don't need to redefine the question or change it, I am asking what you mean by the question. Why do I ask this? Because as I said earlier, the question is vague. Quite deliberately so actually (IMO) since you are STILL playing rhetorical silly buggers. I'll dissect it again for you a different way:

Are blondes hotter than brunettes?

What do you mean by "are"?

What do you mean by "blondes"?

What do you mean by "hotter"?

What do you mean by "than"?

What do you mean by "brunettes"?

Each of those words has a meaning (or otherwise it's merely empty noise and can be discarded as the ravings of a lunatic.), they form a coherent phrase together which is intended to pose a question about some "thing" (to use a deliberately vague term). A question is a phrase designed to not merely get a response but to get some kind of information. If the question is phrased in such a way that it is incoherent then the phrase is no longer a question because by virtue of its incoherence it cannot be used to get information.

I can reel off incoherent questions until the end of time, of the vast set of potential questions that exists (an infinite set some might say) only a fraction of them are coherent. Unless the terms in the question are defined, unless the meanings of the words used in the questions are clearly stated and unless the terms used in the question fit together in terms of their meanings (i.e. they refer to related concepts) then the question is incoherent and cannot be answered by ANY means at all.

The reason incoherent questions cannot be answered by any means is because an incoherent question can be answered with anything. If any answer is applicable to a question no information has been gained by answering it, thus the very purpose of framing a question in the first place (gaining information) is defeated. To retreat from this ismple fact is to retreat to one of a variety of solipsist or nihilist positions where nothing at all is knowable to any extent. Incidentally this is a fundamentally dishonest position to occupy because the person occupying it is communicating using words etc, claiming some form of knowledge, participating in a discussion using the rigours and modes of reason and then when it suits them denying that this works by the very process they are using to deny it! It's rankest hypocrisy and it's also the silliest and oldest rhetorical game in the book. Frequently used by theists, if they only knew it.

So as I have said before, the question can either be framed in such a way as to get information (i.e. one defines what one means by those terms in it, no change on my part is necessary) or it is left undefined and as such is meaningless, incoherent and utterly unanswerable by any means.

So Lenny, you are AGAIN, quite wrong. You, like Skeptic are declaring by assertion that reason cannot answer certain questions. You are also (quite wrongly incidentally) accusing me of trying to turn science/reason into a worldview as if this is a conflict of biases. You do so in both cases either by virtue of your own lack of intellectual ability or by virtue of the quite standard dishonesty exhibited by people incapable of "losing" an argument. I'm singularly unimpressed with the pair of you. The fact that you more eloquently restate your case than Skeptic is not a point in your favour, you are performing exactly the same nonsense he is: i.e. mere assertion as opposed to demonstration.

You are "outside" logic are you? Really? How are you communicating then? How are you arguing your case if not by the use of common definitions of words set by reason and observation? How are you attempting to defeat my argument if not by logical and reasoned reference yourself? You can't answer that and you know it, the reason being is you are doing PRECISELY what I am saying: answering by use of reason. As I have said before: insofar as a question is answerable, it is answerable by reason alone. Disagree? Great! Show me a question that can be answered by means other than reason, and show me its answer. The simple fact is that you haven't done this (and cannot, which is why you evade it everytime). Smug little rhetorical games don't constitute proof Lenny. So sorry chum but you are NOT outside logic and reason, you are using them precisely as I have predicted you would. Your hypocrisy and denial regarding that fact is not my problem but it's pretty bloody starkly obvious.

Your question about blondes whether it is objective or subjective is a question open to answering by reason insofar as it is a question at all. The reason you keep restating it as vaguely as you do and refusing to define your terms is because you know the very second you define them you prove what I have been saying correct. Hence you keep the phrase vague and reassert your original claim that reason cannot answer it. Then (since this is now the third time at least I have pointed this out) you ignore the fact that the question is a non sequitur and is unanswerable by any means. After that you go on to ignore the question I have posed you and Skeptic and had not even been responded to let alone answered (incidentally I consider this evasion to be the pinnacle of dishonesty, and I DID expect a lot better from you at least): if the question can be answered by any means show me what those means are and what that answer is.

So I'll try AGAIN to get you to answer a simple question, one that I have been trying to get you and Skeptic to answer and yet you both seem curiously incapable of doing so.

Show me a pair of phrases, one question and its corresponding answer, that have not been in any way answered by reason and are not answerable by reason.

Don't like that? Ok then show me one piece of knowledge, one tiny fleck of epistemologically unique data, obtained by non rational, non-reason based means.

Incidentally I KNOW you will run away from this question AGAIN because I KNOW and you KNOW that you cannot answer it. That's the fundamental hypocrisy at the core of your argument: you are using reason to defend unreason and you know it.

Louis

P.S. Erasmus, in your chain of logic you have also missed the key point. I don't need to REdefine the question to answer it, I need it to be defined by the person asking it. No change is needed by me at all. All I am arguing is that insofar as any question is answerable it is answerable by reason. And to date, unless someone shows up with a different way of knowing, that it is answerable by reason alone. This is a MASSIVE distinction between what I am ACTUALLY saying, and the straw version of what I am saying that Lenny and Skeptic keep playing with.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,04:38   

Oh and incidentally, whilst I remember:

"Hotness" is not an inherent property of blondes or brunettes like "heaviness" is of rocks and feathers. Unless you define "hotness" the question is meaningless and you and I both know the second you define it, that the question has parameters and thus is open to reasoned enquiry. "Hotness" refers to a concept dependant on other concepts and certain frmaeworks existing. In that sense it's like money. Take all the humans off the planet, blink us all out of existence, how much is the money in your bank worth? Not a thing. Why? Because the value of your money is dependant on a series of other concepts and a series of social frameworks and agreements.

In exactly the same way the "hotness" of blondes or brunettes is dependant on other concepts and frameworks and agreements. In the absence of those it is a meaningless concept and the question is a non sequitur. Ergo it is utterly unanswerable by any means, reasoned or otherwise. The very second yu blink all us humans back into existence, and all the frameworks, concepts and agreements by which "hotness" is defined, then the question once again has a defined context and is answerable by reason.

Blink humans out of existence and rocks and feathers still have mass (as far as we can tell!). That's why your question fails to do the job you are trying to use it to do (using reason I note).

SO you are dealing with two different sets of concepts: one subjective (defined by its relevant context) and one objective (an inherent proerty if the system under observation). As long as the context is taken into account one can answer and explore any subjective question in exactly the manner one can explore an objective question. Remove the context and the subjective question becomes meaningless. In the absence of blondes, brunettes and a social framework in which there is a sense of "hotness", the question means nothing at all and cannot be answered by any means. The answer to the contextless question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes" is "blue" "999 and a bag of frankfurters" and "bibble wibble wobble bobble gurgle blurgle". All those answers (and myriad more) answer that contextless question equally well. Snap the context back in, i.e define your terms and form a coherent question, and boom, you have an answer open to reason.

The same goes for moral questions by the way, they are context dependant and in that context open to reasoned enquiry. Outside that context they are meaningless non sequiturs and simple restatement of them is a clear indication of semantic and rhetorical silliness.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,06:17   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 24 2007,04:28)
...
Don't like that? Ok then show me one piece of knowledge, one tiny fleck of epistemologically unique data, obtained by non rational, non-reason based means...


Louis...

But that sort of knowledge is not really communicable, it is entirely personal.

Example: Do you like Chinese food?
You will only be able to give an honest answer to that question by eating Chinese food. The answer has to be subjective rather than objective. 1000 people could give different answers and all the answers could be correct.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,07:14   

Ok Steve, but how would that answer be *not* based on reason, observation etc?

If you're asking me if I like Chinese food, then for me to know whether or not I like Chinese food I have to eat some, you are asking a question with a reason based observational answer. I have to "observe" the Chinese food (in this case by eating it, yum!) to know whether or not the Chinese food eating gives me pleasure. I'd also argue that you can know if it gives me pleasure by meauring certain aspects of my brain function etc i.e. without my telling you so.

Also, if you are going to mention a purely personal and internal piece of knowledge, then how is it knowledge at all? What distinguishes it from fantasy? How do you in fact know it is knowledge at all? Answer: by recourse to reason, observation etc, which rather obviously proves my point! I.e. that insofar as any question is answerable that answer can only be derived from reason, observation etc, thus any knowledge we have can only be derived from reason, observtion etc. Disagree? GREAT! Show me a piece of knowledge that isn't derived from reason, observation etc.

I'm not arguing we know everything, or that we can, or that I'd like to, or that there is no subjectivity, or that science can answer all questions everywhere, or that religious people are stupid, or that the universe is entirely reducible to a deterministic stream of 1s and 0s, or any such drivelling straw man version of what I have said (to name just a few of the shitty things that have been duffed up by Lenny and Skeptic).

I AM arguing against the claim that reason (etc) can tell you nothing about subjective questions (within their relevant context) and that there are other mechanisms of acquiring knowledge that CAN tell you something about these subjective questions regardless of their context. I am also arguing that if one removes a subjective question from its context it ceases to be a question at all, and is merely a series of pretty noises.

Hence why I am getting bored to fucking tears by the endless goalpost shifting and semantic/rhetorical bullshit of Skeptic and Lenny. I don't care which definition of their questions they pick (so their accusations of me having to change the question etc are baseless wankery) only that they pick one and stick to it honestly.

This is an antique argument by the way. Lenny and Skeptic are essentially arguing a solipsist, or even potentially a nihilist, position. It is impossible to argue for such a position honestly or coherently because the act of arguing denies the position. In other words, they want to have their cake and eat it.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,07:19   

Quote
But that sort of knowledge is not really communicable, it is entirely personal.


So I really AM Napolean....cool.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,07:46   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 24 2007,04:23)
He wasn't saying reason and science can answer all questions, just that nothing else can answer any.

Well let's see:


Quote
You, like Skeptic are declaring by assertion that reason cannot answer certain questions.



Indeed, that is precisely what I am saying.


So if Louis is agreeing with me, then what's the issue?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,07:47   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 24 2007,04:28)
Are blondes hotter than brunettes?

What do you mean by "are"?

What do you mean by "blondes"?

What do you mean by "hotter"?

What do you mean by "than"?

What do you mean by "brunettes"?

Well, that's sort of the problem, isn't it. . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,07:50   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 24 2007,04:28)
After that you go on to ignore the question I have posed you and Skeptic and had not even been responded to let alone answered (incidentally I consider this evasion to be the pinnacle of dishonesty, and I DID expect a lot better from you at least): if the question can be answered by any means show me what those means are and what that answer is.

I have alrready told you, four times, that the question about blondes (like any other matter of subjective judgement) cannot be answered objectively either by sciecne or by reason or by logic or by rationality, because it is not an objective question.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,07:54   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 24 2007,04:28)
Show me a pair of phrases, one question and its corresponding answer, that have not been in any way answered by reason and are not answerable by reason.

Oh, I can give a billion questions that are not answerable by "reason" or "science" or "rationality" or "logic" or whatever else anyone wants to call it.

1.  are brunettes cuter than blondes?

2.  Is abortion right or wrong?

3.  Should I return a wallet full of money that I find on the sidewalk?

4.  Does chocolate ice cream taste better than vanilla?

5.  Is it wrong to sleep with a woman other than my wife?

6.  How can I become a better person?



As for answers to these questions (obtained through either science or religion), I cannot give any objective answers because there aren't any.  Neither science nor religion can objectively answer those questions.

That being my whole point.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,07:56   

By the way, Louis, you can snarkily equate me and Skeptic all you like -- I'll just ignore it.  Skeptic knows better.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,08:14   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 24 2007,07:14)
Ok Steve, but how would that answer be *not* based on reason, observation etc?

If you're asking me if I like Chinese food, then for me to know whether or not I like Chinese food I have to eat some, you are asking a question with a reason based observational answer. I have to "observe" the Chinese food (in this case by eating it, yum!) to know whether or not the Chinese food eating gives me pleasure. I'd also argue that you can know if it gives me pleasure by meauring certain aspects of my brain function etc i.e. without my telling you so.

Also, if you are going to mention a purely personal and internal piece of knowledge, then how is it knowledge at all? What distinguishes it from fantasy? ...
Louis

TBH Louis,
I reckon that your arguments are by far the strongest on this thread. Yes, you are almost certainly correct that measurements could be made to tell if you enjoyed an experience or not. My point was that the exact same experience with different people would render different results.

Correct me if I am wrong but I have been under the impression that a "scientific" answer is universal. I may be wrong here (and willing to accept your authority on this).

I do not know how to distinguish personal (or any) knowledge from fantasy. How is that done?

Anyway, I was trying to say that the best/easiest answers to some questions (and they are not dishonest) is to just try it.

"scientific"=The reason for the quote marks is that I may be wrong

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,08:17   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 24 2007,07:19)
Quote
But that sort of knowledge is not really communicable, it is entirely personal.


So I really AM Napolean....cool.

Where did that come from?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,09:05   

Didn't Russell say that formal logic does not work with sloppily defined propositions?

let's lose the subjective/objective false distinction.  it pushes you to anti-realism.  unless you embrace that.  i might.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,10:06   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 24 2007,08:17)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 24 2007,07:19)
Quote
But that sort of knowledge is not really communicable, it is entirely personal.


So I really AM Napolean....cool.

Where did that come from?

Personal truths. As far as I'm concerned, I'm Napolean (Not really, just for the sake of argument/a joke)/

If something that you believe is a truth, then it is incorrect not to say I am Napolean, surely?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,10:14   

Lenny,

You are completely ignoring the nuances (well, they're not exactly SUBTLE! I've stated them right out) of the argument I am making. Again, try reading as a whole as opposed to quoting snippets then treating them as the whole.

Yet again: I don't deny the fact that one can formulate an unanswerable phrase which appears to be a question, but those "questions" are unanswerable full stop. Reason can't answer them because they cannot be answered by any means, they are non sequiturs.

When I ask you what the words in your question mean, it isn't a problem for me, it's a problem for you, YOU are asking the question. As I have said the very second you define those terms in your question they are immediately answerable by reason. You put the subjective question into its relevant context (whatever that context is) then it is an in principle answerable question. Again, you have missed this and AGAIN you shift the goalposts to do so. Think the comparison with Skeptic is unfounded? I don't, you are using precisely the same rhetorical trick to do precisely the same job. You keep the "question" deliberately vague so that you can claim it is unanswerable by reason. You are shifting the goalposts to put the answer beyond reason, the problem you have is that it makes it a non sequitur, i.e. nothing more than empty noise.

Try to answer the question posed and deal with the argument made. As opposed to what you are currently doing.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,10:21   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 24 2007,13:54)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 24 2007,04:28)
Show me a pair of phrases, one question and its corresponding answer, that have not been in any way answered by reason and are not answerable by reason.

Oh, I can give a billion questions that are not answerable by "reason" or "science" or "rationality" or "logic" or whatever else anyone wants to call it.

1. ?are brunettes cuter than blondes?

2. ?Is abortion right or wrong?

3. ?Should I return a wallet full of money that I find on the sidewalk?

4. ?Does chocolate ice cream taste better than vanilla?

5. ?Is it wrong to sleep with a woman other than my wife?

6. ?How can I become a better person?



As for answers to these questions (obtained through either science or religion), I cannot give any objective answers because there aren't any. ?Neither science nor religion can objectively answer those questions.

That being my whole point.

Lenny,

AGAIN you are merely restating your (disproven if you'd bothered to read) contention. This does not constitute evidence for that contention.

ALL of those questions are in principle answerable by the use of reason within context. Define the terms in them (and that's YOUR job as the questioner) and then they can be answered. The key words are WITHIN CONTEXT. I've explained why at length, try fucking reading it. I've only explained it 3 or 4 different ways in the last few pages. I'm also relatively certain I have used pretty clear English, English I am also pretty sure you can understand (although that surety is becoming less and less with every post you make).

You want me to stop equating you with Skeptic? Stop doing the exact same rhetorical dance to avoid answering the actual questions and issue posed.

Is it only me who, when confronted with an intelligent person who is clearly saying "you have utterly misunderstood the argument, go back and try again" thinks "gee, I might have fucked up, maybe I should look"? Apparently Skeptic and you don't think that. Try it, you might be pleasantly suprised.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,10:33   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 24 2007,14:14)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 24 2007,07:14)
Ok Steve, but how would that answer be *not* based on reason, observation etc?

If you're asking me if I like Chinese food, then for me to know whether or not I like Chinese food I have to eat some, you are asking a question with a reason based observational answer. I have to "observe" the Chinese food (in this case by eating it, yum!) to know whether or not the Chinese food eating gives me pleasure. I'd also argue that you can know if it gives me pleasure by meauring certain aspects of my brain function etc i.e. without my telling you so.

Also, if you are going to mention a purely personal and internal piece of knowledge, then how is it knowledge at all? What distinguishes it from fantasy? ...
Louis

TBH Louis,
I reckon that your arguments are by far the strongest on this thread. Yes, you are almost certainly correct that measurements could be made to tell if you enjoyed an experience or not. My point was that the exact same experience with different people would render different results.

Correct me if I am wrong but I have been under the impression that a "scientific" answer is universal. I may be wrong here (and willing to accept your authority on this).

I do not know how to distinguish personal (or any) knowledge from fantasy. How is that done?

Anyway, I was trying to say that the best/easiest answers to some questions (and they are not dishonest) is to just try it.

"scientific"=The reason for the quote marks is that I may be wrong

Steve,

You might have hit on what Lenny is getting wrong. I am not saying that reason can universally answer a subjective question in a universal way. I've made that abundantly clear to anyone who has read the arguments I have been making. I've made quite a bit of effort to make that very clear! I find it amazing that a bright lad like Lenny keeps missing it (and on occasion deliberately avoidiing it).

I'm not saying that any specific subjective or moral question can be answered universally by reason. I AM saying that any specific or moral question can, WITHIN CONTEXT, be answered by reason. Since the context is by definition not universal, that makes that not a universal claim. If the context wasn't important then yes, I would be making an argument for universal moral/subjective questions being answered by reason etc. But then I am explicitly, very very very very very very very clearly NOT making that argument. I am ALSO saying that if one removes the context from a moral/subjective question then that "question" is reduced to a non-sequitur. I.e. it is meaningless, utterly unanswerable by any means reason or otherwise, it becomes nothing more than pretty words being strung together so that someone can hear themselves speak. That was why I drew attention to the difference between the quality "hotness" and the quality "mass".

Also, I've been more than slightly explicit about the sense I am using the words "science" and "reason". I've made it abundantly clear right from the start that the clash between science and religion is at its core an epistemological one, the conflict between reason and faith. For someone, anyone, you, me, Lenny, Skeptic, anyone to misunderstand the extremely clearly defined  sense in which I have been using those words indicates they haven't read or haven't understood anything I have written. And since I am more than abundantly aware that nothing I have written is above a philosophy 101 level, and certainly not controversial in philosophy or complex or profound, that means that people who misunderstand/miss the point I am trying to make are trying very very VERY hard to do so.

(I'm not directing that at you or anyone by the way. It's a generalised frustration that I give peoples' arguments a decent bit of consideration, and the fact that mine don't seem to get the same treatment pisses me off [not for reasons of ego, but for reasons of productive discussion]. I consider it fucking rude as it happens! I may have made a few rather long posts on the subject before now! ;-) )

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,11:22   

Louis, I have to say that I'm surprised by the absolute hard-headed narrowminded stance that you've taken here.  You have proven or demonstrated nothing more than your opinion as to the nature of knowledge which BTW is not an objective topic.  Reason is the only source of knowledge, that is what you are saying whether you know it or not.  Any word games in the attempt to define a subjective concept in objective terms is just childish.

Again, is it wrong to commit murder?  I can give you a reasoned-based response to that question BUT I can also give you a response based solely upon revelation, inspiration, meditation, etc.  You are saying that one is knowledge and the other is not regardless of the fact that both can contribute to the human experience.  You're in a hole and yet you just keep digging.  Stop digging and think beyond your own rigid construct and you might start to see the other side of the discussion.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,11:37   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 24 2007,08:50)
? ? ?  
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 24 2007,04:28)
After that you go on to ignore the question I have posed you and Skeptic and had not even been responded to let alone answered (incidentally I consider this evasion to be the pinnacle of dishonesty, and I DID expect a lot better from you at least): if the question can be answered by any means show me what those means are and what that answer is.

I have alrready told you, four times, that the question about blondes (like any other matter of subjective judgement) cannot be answered objectively either by sciecne or by reason or by logic or by rationality, because it is not an objective question.

Lenny and Louis [Edit: and Skeptic!],

I'm thinking that Thomas Nagel's book "The View From Nowhere" has something to say to both of you. I commend it as a way of advancing this discussion.

Lenny, you're right to point out that questions vis the "rightness" subjective preferences (eg. blonds vs brunettes) cannot be answered by means of operations reserved for the determination of physical states that can be expressed independently of any particular point of view - that can be described "from nowhere." The subjective is inherently omitted from "The view from nowhere."

That said, you've expressed your question in a form ordinarily reserved for matters that can be expressed and resolved independently of any particular subjective point of view (e.g. the mass of an object). Louis is correct to object that the question is not merely unanswerable, but is ill-formed, for that reason.

Although ultimately somewhat of a "mysterian," Nagel presents a fascinating discussion of a cardinal innovation that defines science (the process of adapting an increasingly objectified descriptions of the natural world that can be expressed from no particular point of view - from "the view from nowhere") - as well as the inevitable loss of the facts of subjectivity that ultimately follows from adapting that innovation.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,11:38   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 24 2007,11:22)
Reason is the only source of knowledge, that is what you are saying whether you know it or not

Yes, it is. Please demonstrate otherwise, without appealing to your own authority.

Quote
Again, is it wrong to commit murder?  I can give you a reasoned-based response to that question BUT I can also give you a response based solely upon revelation, inspiration, meditation, etc.  You are saying that one is knowledge and the other is not regardless of the fact that both can contribute to the human experience.  


What makes it knowlegde, exactly?

Absolutely ANYTHING can be knowledge by your standards Skeptic.

It's now knowlegde that I am Napolean.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,12:08   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 24 2007,11:22)
Louis, I have to say that I'm surprised by the absolute hard-headed narrowminded stance that you've taken here. ?You have proven or demonstrated nothing more than your opinion as to the nature of knowledge which BTW is not an objective topic. ?Reason is the only source of knowledge, that is what you are saying whether you know it or not. ?Any word games in the attempt to define a subjective concept in objective terms is just childish.

Again, is it wrong to commit murder? ?I can give you a reasoned-based response to that question BUT I can also give you a response based solely upon revelation, inspiration, meditation, etc. ?You are saying that one is knowledge and the other is not regardless of the fact that both can contribute to the human experience. ?You're in a hole and yet you just keep digging. ?Stop digging and think beyond your own rigid construct and you might start to see the other side of the discussion.

To be fair, Louis is being far more lucid than you are. In what way is Louis being narrowminded?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,12:24   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 24 2007,10:06)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 24 2007,08:17)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 24 2007,07:19)
 
Quote
But that sort of knowledge is not really communicable, it is entirely personal.


So I really AM Napolean....cool.

Where did that come from?

Personal truths. As far as I'm concerned, I'm Napolean (Not really, just for the sake of argument/a joke)/

If something that you believe is a truth, then it is incorrect not to say I am Napolean, surely?

Good grief,
Do you think that I am some sort of postmodernist? I never claimed that anything I believe is the truth. Far from it.
My only claim so far is that some things are not universaly true. I enjoyed going skiing you nay or may not. I think that science (as it is now) cannot reliably predict whether you will like it (skiing) or not. The only way for you to know (right now) wether you like it or not is to go and try it Napoleon.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,12:33   

It's now knowlegde that I am Napolean.[/quote]
I am Napoleon!

Ooops.. wrong movie...



--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,12:35   

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 24 2007,12:33)
It's now knowlegde that I am Napolean.[/quote]
I am Napoleon!

Ooops.. wrong movie...


"And so is my wife!"

eek! Wrong movie...again

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,13:29   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 24 2007,13:35)
eek! Wrong movie...again

Corrected image...



--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,13:33   

Skeptic,

You really don't learn to well do you.

Rather than repeat my assessment of your failed arguments back at me, how about you go and show, as I have done for your arguments, where the flaws in my arguments are.

Bet you pennies to pure gold bars you cannot and will not do it.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,13:43   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 24 2007,12:24)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 24 2007,10:06)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 24 2007,08:17)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 24 2007,07:19)
 
Quote
But that sort of knowledge is not really communicable, it is entirely personal.


So I really AM Napolean....cool.

Where did that come from?

Personal truths. As far as I'm concerned, I'm Napolean (Not really, just for the sake of argument/a joke)/

If something that you believe is a truth, then it is incorrect not to say I am Napolean, surely?

Good grief,
Do you think that I am some sort of postmodernist? I never claimed that anything I believe is the truth. Far from it.
My only claim so far is that some things are not universaly true. I enjoyed going skiing you nay or may not. I think that science (as it is now) cannot reliably predict whether you will like it (skiing) or not. The only way for you to know (right now) wether you like it or not is to go and try it Napoleon.

Oops, my mistake.

Also, my incorrect spelling. Damn.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,14:22   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 24 2007,09:05)
Didn't Russell say that formal logic does not work with sloppily defined propositions?

But that is the entire point. ?It ALL comes down to "definitions". ?Here's the problem, though;

The question I am asking is a simple one: ?are brunettes hotter than blondes? ?And, of course, the relevant question behind that question is: is there any area that reason (or logic, or science, or kohlinar, or whatever anyone wants to call it) cannot answer (which is itself the result of the question "do science and religion necessarily conflict?"). ?My assertion, of course, is that no, science and religion need not inherently conflict, because yes, there are areas that science simply cannot answer -- one of those areas being moral, ethical or aesthetic judgements such as "are brunettes hotter than blondes?".

Louis, instead of just admitting that science and reason cannot answer ethical, moral or aesthetic questions, wants to change the question to make it into an "objective" question that science CAN answer, and that is why he is so hung up on the matter of "precise definitions". ?Indeed, when Louis asks me to DEFINE exactly what I mean by "hotter", he is, in essence, just asking me to answer the question for him, since science and reason simply can't answer it.

See, all Louis is doing is setting up an algorithm -- a perfectly rational algorithm that ruthlessly follows all the laws of logic. ?All you have to do is input the correct "definitions", turn the crank, and voila, out pops your perfectly rational logical answer. ?Simple, and works on any possible question.

The problem is that Louis's algorithm isn't actually ANSWERING anything. ?After all, it is the "definitions" themselves which determine the answer. ?If I define "hotter" as X, Y and Z, then lo and behold, Louis's algorithm will simply tell me that Girl A meets criteria X, Y and Z (according to the rational laws of logic) while Girl B doesn't. ?In other words, Louis is simply saying, "tell me what you think, and I'll tell you if this is what you think". ?Louis is simply measuring whether this or that thing meets my definition that I have already given him. ?

The real question, though, is can we determine (rationally, logically and scientifically) which "definitions" are the right ones?

If I give Louis my personal definition of "beauty", of course he can logically then tell me what I find to be "beautiful". ?BFD.

The real question that I keep asking (and that Louis keeps avoiding) is can science (or reason, or rationality, or logic, or kohlinar, or whatever else anyone wants to call it) determine whose definition of "beautiful" is the correct one?" ?Until we answer THAT fundamental question, then Louis's logical algorithm is just an exercise in reproduction. ?I define for him what I think is "beautiful", and he tells me, logically and rationally, what I think is "beautiful". ?So what.

The fundamental problem is precisely the fact that judgements like "beauty" or "justice" or "right and wrong" have no precise definitions. ?Or, more correctly, they have BILLIONS of precise definitions -- one for each person on the planet, and science and "reason" simply can't tell us which definition is the correct one. ?They are inherently "sloppy".

And because of that, science (or logic, or rationality, or kohlinar) simply cannot answer those questions. ?At best, they can run the algorithm and tell you whether this or that thing meets YOUR OWN definition. ?But they can't say a single word about whether your particular definition is any better or more correct than anyone else's. ?

All they can do is accept your own definition as a given assumption.








Arrrggghhh -- I edited to correct a typo, and got all these extraneous question marks.  Ignore, please.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,14:31   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 24 2007,11:22)
?Reason is the only source of knowledge, that is what you are saying whether you know it or not.

Reason, of course, CAN answer objective questions.

Religion, of course, cannot.


So I wouldn't crow quite so loudly, were I you.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,14:34   

Ah Ha! - Lightbulb goes on - beautifully done Lenny.

So.  The REAL $10,000 question then is:  Granted that both Louis and Lenny are right, where do we go from here?  

(No.  Sorry.  NOT you skeptic... You go over there and be quiet, and get in the same line that UD's bornagain77 is in...).

This discussion is for the big boys.  This is good stuff, not your bible - Big Juju stuff...

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,14:36   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 24 2007,11:22)
Again, is it wrong to commit murder? ?I can give you a reasoned-based response to that question BUT I can also give you a response based solely upon revelation, inspiration, meditation, etc. ?

No you can't.  All you can do is give us YOUR OPINION concerning any such revelation, inspiration or meditation.

You have no way whatsoever to determine if your interpretations are any better or more correct than anyone else's.  Religion can't tell us if murder is wrong any more than my grandmother can.  Religion cannot reveal anyuniversal moral laws to us, because there aren't any -- other than the ones that you yourself have chosen to interpret as having the authority of "universal moral laws".

And your interpretations are no better than anyone else's.

Other than to you.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,14:42   

Lenny and Louis ... two posters separated by a common language...

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,14:43   

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 24 2007,14:34)
So. ?The REAL $10,000 question then is: ?Granted that both Louis and Lenny are right, where do we go from here? ?

Well, we go to the only place that we CAN go --- we leave "objective" questions to the scientists, and we leave "non-objective" questions to the philosophers, theologians, ethicists and all the others who have been arguing uselessly over them for thousands of years.

So, to get back to the original question posed in this thread, we let scientists do science, and we let ethicists do ethics, moralists do morality, aesthicicians do aesthetics -- and never shall the twain meet.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,14:47   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 24 2007,14:22)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 24 2007,09:05)
Didn't Russell say that formal logic does not work with sloppily defined propositions?

But that is the entire point. ?It ALL comes down to "definitions". ?Here's the problem, though;

The question I am asking is a simple one: ?are brunettes hotter than blondes? ?And, of course, the relevant question behind that question is: is there any area that reason (or logic, or science, or kohlinar, or whatever anyone wants to call it) cannot answer (which is itself the result of the question "do science and religion necessarily conflict?"). ?My assertion, of course, is that no, science and religion need not inherently conflict, because yes, there are areas that science simply cannot answer -- one of those areas being moral, ethical or aesthetic judgements such as "are brunettes hotter than blondes?".,,

Can religion answer those same questions?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,14:49   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 24 2007,14:43)
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 24 2007,14:34)
So. ?The REAL $10,000 question then is: ?Granted that both Louis and Lenny are right, where do we go from here? ?

Well, we go to the only place that we CAN go --- we leave "objective" questions to the scientists, and we leave "non-objective" questions to the philosophers, theologians, ethicists and all the others who have been arguing uselessly over them for thousands of years.

So, to get back to the original question posed in this thread, we let scientists do science, and we let ethicists do ethics, moralists do morality, aesthicicians do aesthetics -- and never shall the twain meet.

Sorry. I think you just answered my question posted above at 14:47

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,14:51   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 24 2007,14:42)
Lenny and Louis ... two posters separated by a common language...

Except he spells it funny ----- he puts lots of u's in places where they don't belong:

"Colour".  "Labour".

And he has a weird accent, too.

;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,14:54   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 24 2007,14:51)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 24 2007,14:42)
Lenny and Louis ... two posters separated by a common language...

Except he spells it funny ----- he puts lots of u's in places where they don't belong:

"Colour". ?"Labour".

And he has a weird accent, too.

;)

Oh yeh?
What is the name of the language you are posting in?
Feel free to use it, just don't break it. :)

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,15:04   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 24 2007,14:54)
Oh yeh?
What is the name of the language you are posting in?

American.




:)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,15:07   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 24 2007,15:04)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 24 2007,14:54)
Oh yeh?
What is the name of the language you are posting in?

American.




:)

LOL.

Believe it or not I have heard of a hotel receptionist in the USA make that exact claim.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,15:22   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 24 2007,15:07)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 24 2007,15:04)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 24 2007,14:54)
Oh yeh?
What is the name of the language you are posting in?

American.




:)

LOL.

Believe it or not I have heard of a hotel receptionist in the USA make that exact claim.

And I bet it wasn't even in the South . . . .

;)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,16:45   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 24 2007,13:33)
Skeptic,

You really don't learn to well do you.

Rather than repeat my assessment of your failed arguments back at me, how about you go and show, as I have done for your arguments, where the flaws in my arguments are.

Bet you pennies to pure gold bars you cannot and will not do it.

Louis

If it weren't against my better judgment, I'd love to have what you're smoking.  You have proven NOTHING other than your opinions.  

Answer my question.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,16:52   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 24 2007,14:36)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 24 2007,11:22)
Again, is it wrong to commit murder? ?I can give you a reasoned-based response to that question BUT I can also give you a response based solely upon revelation, inspiration, meditation, etc. ?

No you can't.  All you can do is give us YOUR OPINION concerning any such revelation, inspiration or meditation.

You have no way whatsoever to determine if your interpretations are any better or more correct than anyone else's.  Religion can't tell us if murder is wrong any more than my grandmother can.  Religion cannot reveal anyuniversal moral laws to us, because there aren't any -- other than the ones that you yourself have chosen to interpret as having the authority of "universal moral laws".

And your interpretations are no better than anyone else's.

Other than to you.

I agree completely.  I can give you an answer based decidedly NOT on reason or rational thought and that works for me and is correct only for me.  Now what happens when I share my belief with someone else and they agree to some measure and we both have essentially the same answer.  Is that belief now knowledge?  Was is knowledge when it only applied to me?  I think what we actually might be doing here is spiraling downwards into an argument over what is "knowledge."

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,16:53   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 24 2007,14:43)
Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 24 2007,14:34)
So. ?The REAL $10,000 question then is: ?Granted that both Louis and Lenny are right, where do we go from here? ?

Well, we go to the only place that we CAN go --- we leave "objective" questions to the scientists, and we leave "non-objective" questions to the philosophers, theologians, ethicists and all the others who have been arguing uselessly over them for thousands of years.

So, to get back to the original question posed in this thread, we let scientists do science, and we let ethicists do ethics, moralists do morality, aesthicicians do aesthetics -- and never shall the twain meet.

That is EXACTLY my point also.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,17:07   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 24 2007,16:45)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 24 2007,13:33)
Skeptic,

You really don't learn to well do you.

Rather than repeat my assessment of your failed arguments back at me, how about you go and show, as I have done for your arguments, where the flaws in my arguments are.

Bet you pennies to pure gold bars you cannot and will not do it.

Louis

If it weren't against my better judgment, I'd love to have what you're smoking.  You have proven NOTHING other than your opinions.  

Answer my question.

Quote
WARNING! WARNING!

Irony meter going critical!

Evacuate immediately!



In adition, my hypocrisy shield is down, capt'n, we cannae do anything!

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2007,17:56   

Since my first post on Nagel created such a stir, a bit more:

Nagel, in The View From Nowhere, described the move from the subjective to the objective that characterizes the invention of scientific realism:

"To acquire a more objective understanding of some aspect of life or the world, we step back from our initial view of it and form a new conception which has that view and its relationship to the world as its object. In other words, we place ourselves in the world that is to be understood. (p. 4)"

We employ this maneuver because we recognize that "we are small creatures in a big world of which we have only very partial understanding, and that how things seem to us depends both on the world and on our constitution" (p. 5). Nagel also underscored a crucial limitation inherent in this intellectual maneuver:

"Every objective advance creates a new conception of the world that includes oneself, and one's former conception, within its scope; so it inevitably poses the problem of what to do with the older, more subjective view, and how to combine it with the new one. A succession of objective advances may take us to a new conception of reality that leaves the personal or merely human perspective behind. But if what we want to understand is the whole world, we can't forget about those subjective starting points indefinitely; we and our personal perspectives belong to the world. (p. 5-6)"

And a book for Skeptic, vis the grounding of human love in mammalian evolution, disclosed by good science: Affective Neuroscience, by Jaak Panksepp:

"Animals do not need to learn to experience and express fear, anger, pain, pleasure and joy, nor to play in simple and rough and tumble ways, even though all these processes come to modify and be modified by learning. Evidence suggests that evolution has imprinted many spontaneous psychobehavioral potentials within the inherited neurodynamics of the mammalian brain. In general, both psychology and modern neuroscience have failed to give sufficient credence to the fact that organisms are born with a variety of innate affective tendencies that emerge from the ancient organizational structure of the brain. (p. 24)"

And later:

"The life of a young sea otter is completely dependent on the care provided by its mother. When she dives beneath the dark surface of the water for food, being absent from her infant's side for many minutes at a stretch, the young otter begins to cry and swim about in an agitated state. If it were not for those calls of distress among the rising and falling waves, young otters might be lost forever. Their security and future are unequivocally linked to the audiovocal thread of attachment that joins them to their mothers. It is the same for all mammals. At the outset, we are utterly dependent creatures whose survival is founded on the quality of our social bonds - one of the remaining great mysteries, and gifts, of nature." (p. 262)

Of course, human beings have inherited these same neurodynamics, expressed within our quite mammalian limbic systems, and these discoveries have a great deal to tell us about the origins and nature of human love.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,03:02   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 24 2007,20:22)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 24 2007,09:05)
Didn't Russell say that formal logic does not work with sloppily defined propositions?

But that is the entire point. ?It ALL comes down to "definitions". ?Here's the problem, though;

The question I am asking is a simple one: ?are brunettes hotter than blondes? ?And, of course, the relevant question behind that question is: is there any area that reason (or logic, or science, or kohlinar, or whatever anyone wants to call it) cannot answer (which is itself the result of the question "do science and religion necessarily conflict?"). ?My assertion, of course, is that no, science and religion need not inherently conflict, because yes, there are areas that science simply cannot answer -- one of those areas being moral, ethical or aesthetic judgements such as "are brunettes hotter than blondes?".

Louis, instead of just admitting that science and reason cannot answer ethical, moral or aesthetic questions, wants to change the question to make it into an "objective" question that science CAN answer, and that is why he is so hung up on the matter of "precise definitions". ?Indeed, when Louis asks me to DEFINE exactly what I mean by "hotter", he is, in essence, just asking me to answer the question for him, since science and reason simply can't answer it.

See, all Louis is doing is setting up an algorithm -- a perfectly rational algorithm that ruthlessly follows all the laws of logic. ?All you have to do is input the correct "definitions", turn the crank, and voila, out pops your perfectly rational logical answer. ?Simple, and works on any possible question.

The problem is that Louis's algorithm isn't actually ANSWERING anything. ?After all, it is the "definitions" themselves which determine the answer. ?If I define "hotter" as X, Y and Z, then lo and behold, Louis's algorithm will simply tell me that Girl A meets criteria X, Y and Z (according to the rational laws of logic) while Girl B doesn't. ?In other words, Louis is simply saying, "tell me what you think, and I'll tell you if this is what you think". ?Louis is simply measuring whether this or that thing meets my definition that I have already given him. ?

The real question, though, is can we determine (rationally, logically and scientifically) which "definitions" are the right ones?

If I give Louis my personal definition of "beauty", of course he can logically then tell me what I find to be "beautiful". ?BFD.

The real question that I keep asking (and that Louis keeps avoiding) is can science (or reason, or rationality, or logic, or kohlinar, or whatever else anyone wants to call it) determine whose definition of "beautiful" is the correct one?" ?Until we answer THAT fundamental question, then Louis's logical algorithm is just an exercise in reproduction. ?I define for him what I think is "beautiful", and he tells me, logically and rationally, what I think is "beautiful". ?So what.

The fundamental problem is precisely the fact that judgements like "beauty" or "justice" or "right and wrong" have no precise definitions. ?Or, more correctly, they have BILLIONS of precise definitions -- one for each person on the planet, and science and "reason" simply can't tell us which definition is the correct one. ?They are inherently "sloppy".

And because of that, science (or logic, or rationality, or kohlinar) simply cannot answer those questions. ?At best, they can run the algorithm and tell you whether this or that thing meets YOUR OWN definition. ?But they can't say a single word about whether your particular definition is any better or more correct than anyone else's. ?

All they can do is accept your own definition as a given assumption.








Arrrggghhh -- I edited to correct a typo, and got all these extraneous question marks. ?Ignore, please.

Hi Lenny,

I'd agree with a lot of that except for two tiny things (which I've mentioned before, but don't worry, since you seem to be taking this discussion seriously I think I can be bothered to state them **again**). Well, okay, they ain't so tiny. Again you've missed the key part of the argument. So you'll forgive me for being a little pissed off that you have only just caught up to the very basic its of what I have been saying for pages. But hey, discussing this with you is INFINITELY better than discussing it with Skeptic, so we'll just have to have a beer and a smile and fucking forget about it! ;)

1) The undefined phrase "are blondes hotter than brunettes" is meaningless. It's a non sequitur but far more than that, without its context it is meaningless in ANY sense. It is the definition of what unanswerable is. And I mean unanswerable by any means whatsoever, be they reaosn, faith, subjective interpretation, anything anywhere. That is not an answerable question because it is not a question at all. It is nothing more than pretty noises in the air (or a collection of dark spots on my screen). Removing it from its context destroys its ability to inform hence its ability to even be a question.

I'm not changing the question because without context the question is meaningless. You keep saying that I am channging the question and that I am avoiding answering the universal question of whos's defintion of beauty (for example) is right (and you're wrong btw). I have precisely answered that question at least 3 times now.

I'll do it again since you seem to have skipped over in in your bid to restate your conclusions without support yet again:

The concept of beauty does not exist outside of its context. Beauty is not an inherent/intrinsic property of an object, like (for example) mass is.

Do you understand the distinction? You are asking me (or anyone) to say what is universally beautiful, i.e. as is there is some objective yardstick of beauty to which one can appeal. There is not. By the way, thus far this is the bit you and I agree about.

Where we part company is where you keep insisting that this can be done by some means other than reason or that it actually even makes sense as part of a "question". (How do I know you're doing this? Because you keep insisting that the context free question is actually a question when it ain't) It can't. It doesn't. This is why I am accusing you (quite rightly) of playing a rhetorical word game, because the very concept of beauty is utterly without meaning outside of its context and you are insisting that it is taken out of context, put into a phrase like a "question" and then that that "question" is answered. As I've said, in the absence of context the "are blondes hotter than brunettes?" phrase is not a question at all. It's meaningless noise. That is the issue YOU keep avoiding. It's also something I've been banging on about for a little while.

Do you see the fundamental incoherence of your own argument? What you are saying runs roughly thus:

"There exist non universal concepts. Give me a universal answer about some aspect of one of these non universal concepts".

Not only can that not be done by reason it cannot be done by any means at all. So the point I have been trying to hammer home for ooooo about 9 pages now is that INSOFAR as the question "are blondes hotter than brunettes?" be answered AT ALL it is answerable by reason. What you are doing is removing it from its context and insisting it must be answered, that context is what makes it answerable by any means. So do I think reason can answer aesthetic, moral, ethical and subjective questions? Yes I do PROVIDING those questions are in context (or defined if you prefer). More on this later.

The "next" fundamental mistake (I say "next", it's the same one) you are making is that you claim I am saying that reason can choose between two different definitions of "beauty" (for example). Nope, it can't, never claimed it could. But NOTHING can. The question again is meaningless.

So, as I said, right from the very start Lenny, you have been arguing against a straw man version of what I have been saying. The place we differ is you think that the contextless question "are blondes hotter than brunettes?" is still a question and I don't (and I've demonstrated WHY I think it's not a question whereas you have yet to demonstrate that it is a question at all, I may have pointed this out a while back, so forgive me if I am a little snarky that you haven't yet caught up). I also don't want to change the question, so please stop accusing me of that. I've said umpteen times now the questions you have asked are, out of context, unanswerable by reason, this is because they are unanswerable by any means at all. They are not questions in any meaningful sense of the word.

So, the bits you accurately sum up: I AM saying that reason etc can decide subjective matters within context, I am not saying that reason can decide between contexts. Change the word context for definition if you like. This is the bit we agree on, and have done since the word go. The relativist stuff is not controversial.

The burden falls to you to demonstrate that the question "are blondes hotter than brunettes" in the absence of defintions (context) is an actual question. In other words, since we've hopefully finally moved onto an intellectual plane above that of kindergarden, you have to demonstrate that the process of chosing between different contexts is open to any epistemological process, or is indeed an informative process at all. What does it mean to choose between two different concepts of "beauty" for example? Why should it be done? Why is it epistemologically valid, i.e. what information can be gained by doing so and how is it acheived?

2) The second bit of disagreement is much simpler. You appear to be saying that because we cannot get a perfect answer to a question we can have no answer at all. Or perhaps more precisely, that because reason cannot distinguish between two subjective contexts reason can tell us nothing about those subjective concepts.

If that IS what you are saying then I obviously disagree. Reason can tell us a HUGE amount about subjective questions within context. The fact you seem to airily dismiss as mere "telling you what you already know" covers a huge amount of stuff! So, to use Skeptic's question "Can reason tell you if murder is wrong or right?" yes it bloody well can in context and that is not an insiginificant thing! To caricature it as "We assume murder is wrong, therefore reason can tell us that murder is wrong based on that assumption" trivialises centuries of rational ethical philosophy. Reason can tell you murder is wrong based on a whole series of different axioms, none of which is "murder is wrong". That's quite important Lenny, and I really hope you are a) not dumb enough to deny it, and b) not dumb enough to continue mischaracterising reason as mere number crunching.

I'd also say that reason CAN help us to develop those axioms. Now I have to be careful here because I don't want to give you the wrong impression that I think reason can make my definition of "good" better than your definition of "good" in some universal sense (for example) because I don't. Try very carefully to follow what I am ACTUALLY saying:

What reason can do is given a very minimal series of axioms, take for example "extend the life span of the most people", a) develop the best system to fulfill the goals and stay within the limits of those axioms (i.e. tell you the best way to extend the lifespan of the most people), and b) tell you about the consequences of those axioms within a competing series of developed systems. That information can then be fed back to alter the original axioms. So to take the example "extend the life span of the most people" (which incidentally would lead to wra and horror the wolrd over if left unmodified! But remember it's merely an example) what we might find is that this axiom alone was not enough. How we would find this out is that there might be a series of unintended consequences which we didn't like, so we went back to modify the original axioms by adding "do no harm to other humans in acheiving this life span extension". We go out again, test this, and come back with a ravaged planet which we also decide we don't like so we add "keep fluffy animals happy too". and so on.

My point is that we can from a vague minimal set of ethical/moral axioms (which I agree cannot a priori be decided between on any basis) evolve a more effective ethical/moral system by the simple process of feeding back data from the consequences to those axioms. That is the very epitome of a rational, reasoned, objective, HELL I'll say it, SCIENTIFIC enterprise. Does it help us get started with the original axioms? Nope, but then nothing can. But it sure a shit helps us develop better ethical systems and answer ethical questions within those systems that might not be immediately obvious.

There is another cautious way that reason, and in this case science, can help to answer aesthetic, moral and subjective questions. That way is study.

Again, this is not something you can handwave away again Lenny. And AGAIN, please don't misunderstand this as an attempt to decide the universal truth of your concept of beauty vs mine. It's nothing of the sort. Study falls foul of one potential pitfall: the Is/Ought fallacy. In ethical terms, simply because something is the case it does not follow that it ought to be the case within a given ethical system. So for example the fact that genocide happens does not make genocide morally good.

Bearing that pitfall in mind, rational, reason based enquiry about the universe can tell us a lot of objective facts that are useful in informing our moral axioms, our notions of what constitutes beautiful etc. For example take the work of a huge number of sociologists and anthropologists in discovering what moral and ethical facets different societies have in common. There's a surprisingly large list:

Donald Brown's Human Universals

There are two important ways to misunderstand what I am saying here: 1) I am NOT saying that this allows us to distinguish between two different contexts in any universal sense (in the manner describe above), 2) I am NOT saying that this represents a perfect list which we SHOULD adopt. In other words, I am not in 1) making universal claims based on contextually limited concepts, 2) I am not falling foul of the Is/Ought fallacy I mentioned before.

What I AM saying is that we can (if we choose to, the choice to do so would itself be an axiom as defined above) use reason to inform our choice of axioms and we can use study of the universe around us to decide from the start which axioms go into our vague minimum set of initial axioms and which don't.

The same sort of thing applies to concepts of beauty for example. What humans find beautiful can be studied. This gives us a lot of information. What we can do with that information is try to see areas of concordance (just like we did with ethic etc) that exist across human societies. Perhaps we can even do this with non-human species also, although this is technically more challenging.

Again the principle I am trying to get across here is not that we can make absolute declarations about relativist concepts but that we can try to understand what concordances exist across our species about those relativist concepts and use those to inform both our definitions of those things and how we use them. I'll agree quite merrily that this doesn't help us decide a priori which moral axiom is better than another or which defintion of beauty is better than another but as I have banged on about endlessly above THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN DO THIS, THE VERY IDEA THAT IS CAN BE DONE IS DERIVED ONLY FROM A LINGUISTIC TRICK, A MISTAKE IN REASONING.

It does however give us a reason based mechanism for the development of subjective systems. Yet again, I am more than cheerful to live with doubt (a la Feynman). I don't require moral certainty or a cast iron defintion of beautiful because I realise that, unlike mass, charge, spin, chemical composition etc, these concepts are not inherent properties of ANY object, they are concepts which only have meaning within a given context. They are, if you like emergent properties of that context. Scour the universe and you will not find one particle of beauty or superposition of moral states, they are fictions, constructs derived only from their contexts and nothing more. Hence why it is utterly meaningless and beyond stupud to claim that they exist in some objective fashion outside of the systems that give them their birth. Hence why the very phrases "are blondes hotter than brunettes" or "is murder wrong" are utterly and totally devoid of meaning. They are a linguistic fuck up, a rhetorical game they have no significance or meaning, they are fictions of your imagination and nothing more, mere fantastic drivel. They are not questions in any meaning of the word question. They are not informative, no information can be obtained from them. Get it yet? How many fucking times must I repeat myself only for you to completely ignore the single same point I have been making since post fucking number one and watch you make some fucking asinine straw man of what I AM saying.

Get it yet? If not, please give me some indication of how many times I have to repeat it until you do. Why the snark? because since post one I have been saying PRECISELY this and since post one you and Skeptic have grossly misunderstood/misrepresented what I have been saying extremely clearly. Try for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to understand this simple fact.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,03:33   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,03:02)
Hence why the very phrases "are blondes hotter than brunettes" or "is murder wrong" are utterly and totally devoid of meaning.

Really?


Really and truly?


Wow.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,04:00   

Lenny,

Stop snipping bits of the argument out and treating them as the whole argument.

They are meaningless when taken out of the context from which they arise, as I have made ABUNDANTLY clear. Think more about the idea that these are emergent phenomena: i.e. products of various systems as opposed to inherent properties of the constituents of those systems or the system itself. The context itself defines the meaning of those concepts, hence why WITHIN context reason can explore them as fully as it is possible to do. Take them out of that context and they become meaningless. Think about a phonon. A phonon is a quantised mode of vibration in a crystal lattice. No crystal lattice, no phonons. They are an emergent property of crystal lattices. Same with concepts like beauty and good and evil. They are emergent properties of the systems from which they arise. Taking the system, the context away, renders them non existant. Hence when context free they are devoid of meaning, they are nothing more than pretty noises. Insert them BACK into context and BLAM, they are redolent with meaning etc. I may have mentioned this ooooooooooh about four or five times now.

Incidentally, just to head off a straw man I can see galloping towards me, this does not mean that "beauty is not real" for example. Just like a phonon is a real aspect of a crystal lattice, beauty is a real aspect of certain systems. I am not arguing that beauty is not real, I am arguing that beauty is an emergent phenomenon. That's quite an important distinction that I am almost certain, based on your behaviour thus far, you will miss. Prove me wrong!

Treating that line as a stand alone is a little thing we call "quote mining". Arguing as if it is the whole point is called "attacking a straw man". Some people, myself included, think this is really rather dishonest. I would go as far as to say that on your part it is deliberately dishonest. This is contrast with Skeptic who is simply not intelligent enough to be that deliberate. He is just stupid and dishonest. You on the other hand, I reckon are bright enough to know what you are doing. So please stop being intellectually dishonest Lenny, it's upsetting and unproductive.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,04:04   

P.S. Whilst I think of it:

Would you, as I have been asking now for a couple of days, like to demonstrate what meaning they have when devoid of context?

I'm looking forward to someone proving that beauty (for example) is a context free aspect of reality like a Platonic solid. Especially since the concept of Platonic solids etc was thoroughly refuted a few millenia ago by a variety of bods.

And shit, before I forget this too, would you like to demonstrate how your argument differs from those of various species of solipsists and nihilists, i.e. the argument that reason can tell us nothing about ethical, moral, aesthetic or subjective matters, also well refuted in the last few centuries.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,04:22   

P.P.S. Whilst I think of this also:

Why the surprise Lenny? I've been saying this since post whatever it was. This is not the first time I've said it. I've said it several times in really big letters and massively simple language.

Which of course you'd know as you've carefully read my arguments and considered them carefully. Obviously.

Which is why you keep misrepresenting it. And why you keep attacking straw men.

Which is why you have yet to do anything more than Skeptic which is merely restate your assertion that reason cannot do X without any basis for doing so (other than the bits I already agreed to and have done since the fucking start!).

Which is why I might have mentioned this a few times.

Which might possibly be the reason that I am fucking pissed off with this discussion and fucking disappointed that I have bothered to treat you like an intelligent human being when you're clearly an illiterate, sanctimonious, discourteous twat.

Do you ever get the idea that maybe, just maybe you have fucked up and maybe just maybe you should actually read what someone is saying before you disagree? I know I do.

Do you ever get the impression that perhaps, just perhaps Lenny, someone else isn't some species of fundamentalist absolutist nutter and as such the same arguments you use on those nutters might not work against different arguments?

Do you ever get the impression, Lenny that maybe, just possibly maybe, someone on this earth has a) considered a subject in greater depth than you and b) knows vastly more about it than you?

No, obviously not, sorry, just babbling, clearly not!

Moron.

Louis

ADDED IN EDIT:

FOR THE UNINITIATED THIS IS WHAT WE CALL SARCASM

ADDED IN FUTHER EDIT:

The reason this annoys me so very very much is quite simple so before THAT is misrepresented too:

It has two basic strands: a) I think arguing dishonestly, playing silly buggers, being a smarmy sanctimonious twat to disguise the fact that you are wrong about something, quote mining, attacking straw men, accusing people of bias where none exists etc is MASSIVELY rude and unconducive to reasoned discourse. Twenty fucks, three thousand cunts and a brace of bastards might offend you, they might not, but they are not a necessary part of reasoned discourse and never arise unless elicited by rudeness of the type I mention. Hence why discussing almost anything with a total moron like Skeptic is annoying.

b) I expect better from you Lenny. Regardless of the topics about which we differ I expect you to be both capable of arguing reasonably and that you will actually do it. The fact that it is apparent that you are both incapable and unwilling is actually quite upsetting.

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,04:50   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,04:04)
P.S. Whilst I think of it:

Would you, as I have been asking now for a couple of days, like to demonstrate what meaning they have when devoid of context?

I'm looking forward to someone proving that beauty (for example) is a context free aspect of reality ...

Louis

I doubt if anyone could do that. Surely beauty does not exist in it's own right. For something to be beautiful it requires an observer that considers it beautiful.

But I think that is what you are saying anyway (correct me if I am wrong).

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,05:11   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,10:50)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,04:04)
P.S. Whilst I think of it:

Would you, as I have been asking now for a couple of days, like to demonstrate what meaning they have when devoid of context?

I'm looking forward to someone proving that beauty (for example) is a context free aspect of reality ...

Louis

I doubt if anyone could do that. Surely beauty does not exist in it's own right. For something to be beautiful it requires an observer that considers it beautiful.

But I think that is what you are saying anyway (correct me if I am wrong).

That's not the total of it, but it's a hell of a lot closer than anything Lenny or Skeptic have managed. I'll cheerfully accept "observer" as a substitute for "system" or "context". For suitably vague values of "observer"! ;)

Incidentally people did used to think that beauty existed in its own right as some kind of abstract, a perfection to be acheived, a standard to be measured to.

Regardless of the specific quality/concept (e.g. beauty, good, truth etc) under discussion, people have used precisely this kind of reasoning to argue for the existence of god, for the righteousness of slavery, for the superiority of man over woman etc etc etc. I.e. this same flaw in reasoning, this same erroneous extension of an emergent phenomenon beyond the context in which it emerges, this same appeal to what is effectively a faith claim in an unobserved (and unobservable) Platonic concept has been the basis for some of the most utter drivel the human species has come up with.

Throughout ALL those instances and as refutation of ALL those claims has stood one single thing. I wonder what that thing is and what its limits are.

Thanks for reading.

And I mean that in every sense of the phrase!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,05:49   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,05:11)
...
Throughout ALL those instances and as refutation of ALL those claims has stood one single thing. I wonder what that thing is and what its limits are.
...

Louis

I take it you are talking about reason. Well we sure live in interesting times. Looking at human history it is quite amazing where science has brought us and I sure would like to know where it will take us. Oh for omniscience, 2nd thoughts maybe that (omniscience) would be boring.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,07:40   

Quote
The concept of beauty does not exist outside of its context. Beauty is not an inherent/intrinsic property of an object, like (for example) mass is.


This is Louis' narrowmindedness on display.  Here you state opinion as if it where fact.  If only you could accept that then you'd be able to understand that other people may believe differently from you.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,07:45   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,07:40)
Quote
The concept of beauty does not exist outside of its context. Beauty is not an inherent/intrinsic property of an object, like (for example) mass is.


This is Louis' narrowmindedness on display.  Here you state opinion as if it where fact.  If only you could accept that then you'd be able to understand that other people may believe differently from you.

It might as well be fact, Mr Pot.

Indeed, since there is absolutely no reason to think otherwise, surely the default position is no?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,07:46   

Quote
Same with concepts like beauty and good and evil. They are emergent properties of the systems from which they arise. Taking the system, the context away, renders them non existant. Hence when context free they are devoid of meaning, they are nothing more than pretty noises. Insert them BACK into context and BLAM, they are redolent with meaning etc. I may have mentioned this ooooooooooh about four or five times now.


Really?  That's a pretty profound statement you've made there.  There are philosophers throughout history that disagree with you.  Can you back this up with anything more than just your say-so?  I don't believe you can but I'd interested in hearing you try.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,07:51   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,07:46)
Quote
Same with concepts like beauty and good and evil. They are emergent properties of the systems from which they arise. Taking the system, the context away, renders them non existant. Hence when context free they are devoid of meaning, they are nothing more than pretty noises. Insert them BACK into context and BLAM, they are redolent with meaning etc. I may have mentioned this ooooooooooh about four or five times now.


Really?  That's a pretty profound statement you've made there.  There are philosophers throughout history that disagree with you.  Can you back this up with anything more than just your say-so?  I don't believe you can but I'd interested in hearing you try.

Where is it written in the universe that something is beautiful?

Where is the universal decree on evil?

"...TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN  SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET- Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME... SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

Death, speaking in The Hogfather.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,07:56   

Louis, apparently your definition of dishonesty is anyone who dares disagree with you.  I think you really need to sit back and review some of the statements you've made.  In themselves they are subjective statements and you may believe them and, who knows, they may actually be true, but they can not be proven and it is entirely understandable that there may be other human beings on this Earth that believe differently.  I think it's say to say that you don't represent the totality of human thought.  Maybe you do in your own mind but I think it might be time for you to get real.  Your hardheadedness and petty insults are just an ongoing display of arrogance that blinds you to possibility that there may be alternate opinions in this discussion.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,07:59   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,07:56)
Your hardheadedness and petty insults are just an ongoing display of arrogance that blinds you to possibility that there may be alternate opinions in this discussion.

Mr. Kettle, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

Good grief.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,08:04   

Ian, I would say that I think that Beauty exists independent of the physical but maybe not independent of existence.  This sortof touches on Stephan's observer comment.  So the question for the observer then becomes am I observing Beauty or is the beauty that I observe just my own mental construct?  Same goes for Good, Evil, God, etc.  have we just invented these concepts in our minds or are we actually aware of them though our Minds?  Both are equally valid points and neither of which can be proven, it just comes down to which you prefer based upon your own understanding.  My philosophical framework is based upon The Cave so naturally I believe that Beauty exists and we are exposed to it no matter how imperfectly.  That's a quick and dirty explanation.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,08:14   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:04)
Ian, I would say that I think that Beauty exists independent of the physical but maybe not independent of existence.  This sortof touches on Stephan's observer comment.  So the question for the observer then becomes am I observing Beauty or is the beauty that I observe just my own mental construct?  Same goes for Good, Evil, God, etc.  have we just invented these concepts in our minds or are we actually aware of them though our Minds?  Both are equally valid points and neither of which can be proven, it just comes down to which you prefer based upon your own understanding.  My philosophical framework is based upon The Cave so naturally I believe that Beauty exists and we are exposed to it no matter how imperfectly.  That's a quick and dirty explanation.

Err....why do you believe this?

Why do you not take the more logical step of accepting that there is no such thing as good or evil, considering the universe as a whole almost certainly could not give two shits about the actions of an individual member of a single sepcies on a backwater planet? Even if there is no other life, why would the universe care, and HOW could it care?

Is this belief knowledge (which you were originally asked to discuss) or not?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,08:45   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:40)
?? ? ? ? ?  
Quote
The concept of beauty does not exist outside of its context. Beauty is not an inherent/intrinsic property of an object, like (for example) mass is.


This is Louis' narrowmindedness on display. Here you state opinion as if it where fact. If only you could accept that then you'd be able to understand that other people may believe differently from you.

There is a sound basis for what Louis is saying - albeit one that also undercuts, to some degree, the assertion that reason and empiricism yield results that are simply "objective," free of subjective and conceptual commitments. What are often considered objective descriptions of physical systems are inherently entangled with the conceptual and intentional commitments of the observer (and here we need not even resort to quantum observer effects).

See, for example, Hilary Putnam's very interesting argument in The Many Faces of Realism.

Putnam invites us to imagine a pressure cooker on which the safety valve has jammed, causing the cooker to explode. Why did the cooker explode? We say that the cooker exploded because the valve failed to open. We don't say that the cooker exploded because an arbitrary section of the wall of the cooker, say one centimeter square, was in place and hence retained the steam, even though, from the perspective of physics, the stuck valve and this arbitrary section of cooker wall play identical roles: the absence of either would have allowed the steam to escape and averted the explosion.

Why do we insist that the faulty valve caused the explosion, and not an arbitrary area of the wall? Because we know that the valve "should" have let the steam escape - that is its function, what it was designed to do. On the other hand, the arbitrary bit of surface was not doing anything wrong in preventing the steam from escaping; containing the steam is the function of that patch of cooker surface. Hence, in the instance of this human artifact, there is an inescapably normative element to what superficially appears to be a simple physical explanation.

Putnam concludes that, in asking Why did the explosion take place - and knowing what we know and knowing what interests we have - our explanation space consists of the alternatives:

(1) Explosion taking place
(2) Everything functioning as it should.

What we want to know is why (1) is what happened, as opposed to (2). We are simply not interested in why (1) is what happened as opposed to an infinite collection of alternatives such as, 3) An arbitrary patch of surface is missing, and no explosion takes place.

In short, our interests dictate that the presence of a given area of the wall of the cooker, and countless other facts about the physics of the explosion, take their places as background conditions rather than causes of the explosion. This discrimination between causes and background conditions cannot be provided by an account of the explosion supplied by mathematical physics, because the normative, designed aspects of the cooker cannot be deduced at the level of physics. Consideration of causation in this sense requires knowlege of the history of the mechanism - the story of its origins and purpose - in addition to its present physical state. Hence an irreducible explanatory relativity must be introduced if we are to understand the cause of this explosion.

This is not, however, to say that there is no objective adjudication to be had regarding the truth of the assertion that the stuck valve caused the explosion. Quite the contrary. Once we have specified our interests, given the nature of our language, and, indeed, given our scientific practices (all of which help us discriminate foreground and background), it would be simply false to say that the wall of the pressure cooker caused the explosion - even though the physics of the explosion dictate that had that area of wall not been present the explosion would not have occurred. In fact, it is only once we have identified our conceptual commitments and our interests that the determination of the cause of the explosion at the level of our interests becomes an adjudicable, objective fact. Hence, unless one is to abandon the idea that the stuck valve on the pressure cooker caused the explosion is an adjudicable, objective fact (in a court of law, for example), one must acknowledge the importance of those interests and abandon the notion that an idealized, purely observer-independent perspective is inherently more correct or more useful. We want to know why what should have happened failed to happen - or why what should not have happened, happened, a statement of our values and perspective that cannot be deduced from physics. (In the instance of organisms, this "intentional" dimension of "function" maps onto the contingent story of descent with modification by means of natural selection - a notion that advocates of ID just can't seem to wrap their heads around).

If this is true for our notions of ordinary physical causation, all the more for purely subjective notions such as beauty, attraction and hotnitude, dimensions that are even more entagled with our interests - indeed are often expressions of our interests, and cannot be described or even meaningfully envisioned without consideration of the background conditions from which they emerge. Conversely, understanding of those background conditions (such as the facts of mammalian evolution) tells us a great deal about those subjective states.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,08:52   

.
Quote
This sort of touches on Stephan's observer comment.



Fuck, I've just about had enough.

IT'S A FUCKING PROJECTION!!!!!!

The super ego DOES NOT EXIST IN THE EXTANT except in the heads of 2 legged sheep.

YOU AND YOUR PATHETIC LITTLE COLLECTION OF VIBRATING ATOMS ARE MAKING IT UP. The proof is all this WILL BE irrelevant history precisely a fraction of a nano second after you (or I) thought it up. FUCKER.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,08:58   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 25 2007,08:14)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:04)
Ian, I would say that I think that Beauty exists independent of the physical but maybe not independent of existence.  This sortof touches on Stephan's observer comment.  So the question for the observer then becomes am I observing Beauty or is the beauty that I observe just my own mental construct?  Same goes for Good, Evil, God, etc.  have we just invented these concepts in our minds or are we actually aware of them though our Minds?  Both are equally valid points and neither of which can be proven, it just comes down to which you prefer based upon your own understanding.  My philosophical framework is based upon The Cave so naturally I believe that Beauty exists and we are exposed to it no matter how imperfectly.  That's a quick and dirty explanation.

Err....why do you believe this?

Why do you not take the more logical step of accepting that there is no such thing as good or evil, considering the universe as a whole almost certainly could not give two shits about the actions of an individual member of a single sepcies on a backwater planet? Even if there is no other life, why would the universe care, and HOW could it care?

Is this belief knowledge (which you were originally asked to discuss) or not?

You and I (and apparently k.e.) differ in this regard.  It is entirely more satisfying (and logical to me) to believe that it does exist independently.  Who is to say which opinion is better?

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,09:12   

Quote
You and I (and apparently k.e.) differ in this regard. ?It is entirely more satisfying (and logical to me) to believe that it does exist independently. ?Who is to say which opinion is better


Facts trump opinion.

That is a testable hypothesis, quick grab your video camera and a microphone rush to your nearest mushroom farm and interview the nearest Shitake or for variety a Latvian nose flute player.

What you are describing is a cultural construction. There are parts of the world that think fat girls are more desirable you are a culture tragic skeptic. It seems to me that Disney sets your horizons.

Insular twit.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,09:29   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:58)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 25 2007,08:14)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:04)
Ian, I would say that I think that Beauty exists independent of the physical but maybe not independent of existence.  This sortof touches on Stephan's observer comment.  So the question for the observer then becomes am I observing Beauty or is the beauty that I observe just my own mental construct?  Same goes for Good, Evil, God, etc.  have we just invented these concepts in our minds or are we actually aware of them though our Minds?  Both are equally valid points and neither of which can be proven, it just comes down to which you prefer based upon your own understanding.  My philosophical framework is based upon The Cave so naturally I believe that Beauty exists and we are exposed to it no matter how imperfectly.  That's a quick and dirty explanation.

Err....why do you believe this?

Why do you not take the more logical step of accepting that there is no such thing as good or evil, considering the universe as a whole almost certainly could not give two shits about the actions of an individual member of a single sepcies on a backwater planet? Even if there is no other life, why would the universe care, and HOW could it care?

Is this belief knowledge (which you were originally asked to discuss) or not?

You and I (and apparently k.e.) differ in this regard.  It is entirely more satisfying (and logical to me) to believe that it does exist independently.  Who is to say which opinion is better?

1. Something cannot be logical 'to [you]'

2. It is absolutely illogical to assume there is an absolute standard of ethics, or beauty, or some other subjective idea.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,09:30   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 25 2007,09:12)
... It seems to me that Disney sets your horizons.

Insular twit.

LOL Funniest thing I have read for awhile.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,10:12   

Reciprocating Bill,

I'd agree with every word of that.

I'm more than happy to concede that there are limits to reason and observation and that one of those limits is the systematic one, i.e. the path of ideas trodden to get to that point if you see what I mean. I think the steam/explosion example you give is a very good one. I don't think we can get pictures of reality that are 100% free from error, assumptions, systematic influences etc. I don't think we can get 100% pictures of reality at all.

This feeds back into (partly at least) what I have said before about seeing the colour purple. I can't know that you and I see the same thing, but I can know about the similarities of responses etc. Like with the explosion example you give, this example shows that there are limits on what can be known by any means. The point about areas of interest is also a good one.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,10:15   

Skeptic,

You're merely flannelling around and trolling for kicks. Wake me when you have something serious to say or some evdience to present for your contentions. If you could read you'd see where I'd demolished your claims. You can't ergo you haven't. Your loss. Remain ignorant.

Until that changes, you go into the "Moron" cupboard.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,10:23   

Quote
This feeds back into (partly at least) what I have said before about seeing the colour purple.


OK, he's gay, a gay Gerbil.

Have you given the good news to your wife?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,10:30   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 25 2007,16:23)
Quote
This feeds back into (partly at least) what I have said before about seeing the colour purple.


OK, he's gay, a gay Gerbil.

Have you given the good news to your wife?

I AM NOT A GERBIL!

Louis

P.S. Or gay, but I'm less worried about that. I fucking HATE gerbils.

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,10:59   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,18:30)
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 25 2007,16:23)
Quote
This feeds back into (partly at least) what I have said before about seeing the colour purple.


OK, he's gay, a gay Gerbil.

Have you given the good news to your wife?

I AM NOT A GERBIL!

Louis

P.S. Or gay, but I'm less worried about that. I fucking HATE gerbils.

Have you heard the word of Gerbil?

He says that every Gerbil on earth is a Gerbil and you should hold my hand and put your other hand in your wallet and give me all your money. Oh by the way if you want to marry your Gerbil you can, and you can  have more than one and they love viagra and under age stock car racing.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:10   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,04:50)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,04:04)
P.S. Whilst I think of it:

Would you, as I have been asking now for a couple of days, like to demonstrate what meaning they have when devoid of context?

I'm looking forward to someone proving that beauty (for example) is a context free aspect of reality ...

Louis

I doubt if anyone could do that. Surely beauty does not exist in it's own right. For something to be beautiful it requires an observer that considers it beautiful.

But I think that is what you are saying anyway (correct me if I am wrong).

It'ds also what I am saying.


And it is precisely why "science" and "reason" can't say anything at all about "beauty" (or "truth" or "justice" or any other subjective matter).


Which, of course, is precisely my point.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:12   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,08:04)
Ian, I would say that I think that Beauty exists independent of the physical but maybe not independent of existence. ?

Where.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:23   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,17:10)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,04:50)
 
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,04:04)
P.S. Whilst I think of it:

Would you, as I have been asking now for a couple of days, like to demonstrate what meaning they have when devoid of context?

I'm looking forward to someone proving that beauty (for example) is a context free aspect of reality ...

Louis

I doubt if anyone could do that. Surely beauty does not exist in it's own right. For something to be beautiful it requires an observer that considers it beautiful.

But I think that is what you are saying anyway (correct me if I am wrong).

It'ds also what I am saying.


And it is precisely why "science" and "reason" can't say anything at all about "beauty" (or "truth" or "justice" or any other subjective matter).


Which, of course, is precisely my point.

Lenny,

If this is the case then what are you disagreeing with me about? Various degrees of "anything"?

Reason tells us a huge amount about subjective concepts when those concepts are in context, as I have been bangin on about now until I am exceedingly sick of it.

You've also not answered the questions I asked you, let's just deal with beauty:

Does beauty exist outside of observers who describe things as being beautiful, objects to be described as beautiful and a system of ideas in which a concept like beauty can arise?

Do the "vanish humans" thought experiment I suggested before. All humans (and other organisms for the sake of completeness) are blinked out of existence ?and the planet is a barren lifeless rock (just to head a straw man off at the pass, this absence extends back in time, no human artifacts or life have ever existed). Which bits are beautiful? Where is this beauty? Is beauty an inherent property of an object like mass or charge is?

Louis

P.S. Added in edit, I'm guessing from your comment to Skeptic that you don't think that beauty is a Platonic form or a real entity. Clarify this please.

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:29   

Just keep in mind folks Louis is a Gerbil fucking Homo.

So he has no idea what beauty is...... plus his grandmother was a woman, who lived in the Mediterainian, so probably had a beard.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:31   

K.E.

Gerbil fucking homo I can live with, being a gerbil I cannot. Anyway, at least I am not a horse nosher and a goat gobbler.

And my grandmother emigrated from the Med, but she did have a beard. A massive bugger it was too. Darwin would have been proud of such a bushy beast.

Anything ont topic to contribute or have you been at the mescaline again?

Don't let the pixies get you.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:37   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,19:31)
K.E.

Gerbil fucking homo I can live with, being a gerbil I cannot. Anyway, at least I am not a horse nosher and a goat gobbler.

And my grandmother emigrated from the Med, but she did have a beard. A massive bugger it was too. Darwin would have been proud of such a bushy beast.

Anything ont topic to contribute or have you been at the mescaline again?

Don't let the pixies get you.

Louis

Huh?

Look if you want to discuss the philosphical implications of wanking goats then don't let me stop you. As far as mescalin goes, it doesn't go far enough, especially since it was banned in Coca Cola.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,11:53   

I never discuss the philosophical implications of wanking goats. Remember: Greek heritage. Goats don't need wanking, they are sluts and they are asking for it.

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it. Or simply do hot knives with an eight of an ounce of it. Your choice. Although I advise staying away from a lung or a bath bong. They tend to get a little lairy.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,12:00   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,19:53)
I never discuss the philosophical implications of wanking goats. Remember: Greek heritage. Goats don't need wanking, they are sluts and they are asking for it.

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it. Or simply do hot knives with an eight of an ounce of it. Your choice. Although I advise staying away from a lung or a bath bong. They tend to get a little lairy.

Louis

Well, thats just dandy!

Hot knives always make me want to stab myself...after I've stabbed everyone esle.

Sleep, sleep kind man, be careful not to wake up dead.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:00   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,11:23)
Which, of course, is precisely my point.[/quote]
Lenny,

If this is the case then what are you disagreeing with me about?

Exactly what was at the beginning of this thread:

Do science and religion necessarily conflict?


My postulate is;  no, they don't, because they deal with different things -- science deals with objective things, and religion deals with subjective things.  

YOU were the one who then made the assertion that science (or reason, or rationality, or something) CAN deal with subjective things.  

Are you now withdrawing that assertion?

If so, we have nothing to argue about.

If not, then please by all means feel free to use all your logical and scientific means to answer the simple question "are brunettes hotter than blondes".  Or "is abortion wrong".  Or "should I return a wallet full of money that I find on the sidewalk".  

Show us how it's done.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:06   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 25 2007,11:37)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,19:31)
K.E.

Gerbil fucking homo I can live with, being a gerbil I cannot. Anyway, at least I am not a horse nosher and a goat gobbler.

And my grandmother emigrated from the Med, but she did have a beard. A massive bugger it was too. Darwin would have been proud of such a bushy beast.

Anything on topic to contribute or have you been at the mescaline again?

Don't let the pixies get you.

Louis

Huh?

Look if you want to discuss the philosphical implications of wanking goats then don't let me stop you. As far as mescalin goes, it doesn't go far enough, especially since it was banned in Coca Cola.

Good lord, what is it with you Brits and barnyard animals? It's almost as bad as that whole crossdressing thing.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:08   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,11:23)
Reason tells us a huge amount about subjective concepts when those concepts are in context, as I have been bangin on about now until I am exceedingly sick of it.

And as I have already shown, reason tells us nothing at all about any subjective matter, other than what *you*have already told *it*.

If I tell you "beauty is X, Y and Z", then yes, by golly, you can use your reason and logic to tell me whether this or that thing has X, Y or Z and is therefore "beautiful" under my definition.

Alas, what your logic and reason can NOT do, is simply tell me what X, Y and Z are.  Not unless *I* tell you first.  

Logic and reason simply can't answer the question. All it can do is accept MY answer as a "given" precondition.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:15   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,15:00)
Do science and religion necessarily conflict?

My postulate is; ?no, they don't, because they deal with different things -- science deals with objective things, and religion deals with subjective things.

Example:

"...are brunettes hotter than blondes? ?

Lenny -

What feels ill-formed about this question - and I think this is what (in part) Louis is objecting to - is that you are insisting that this is an inherently subjective question, but ask it in a form that inherently excludes subjects. You pose it in a form ordinarily reserved for phenomena that can be described independent of POV.

Lenny, are brunettes hotter than blonds to WHOM?? Who or what is the subject? SUBJECTS are what makes questions SUBJECTIVE.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:21   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2007,14:15)
You pose it in a form ordinarily reserved for phenomena that can be described independent of POV.

Lenny, are brunettes hotter than blonds to WHOM?? Who or what is the subject? SUBJECTS are what makes questions SUBJECTIVE.

Well heck, that's sort of the point, isn't it . . . .


It CAN'T be treated as an objective matter (independent of POV) because it AIN'T one.

Alas, science can't deal with subjective questions.  It can only try to change them into OBJECTIVE questions -- which ain't the same thing.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:22   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,14:00)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,11:23)
Which, of course, is precisely my point.

Lenny,

If this is the case then what are you disagreeing with me about?[/quote]
Exactly what was at the beginning of this thread:

Do science and religion necessarily conflict?


My postulate is; ?no, they don't, because they deal with different things -- science deals with objective things, and religion deals with subjective things. ?

YOU were the one who then made the assertion that science (or reason, or rationality, or something) CAN deal with subjective things. ?

Are you now withdrawing that assertion?

If so, we have nothing to argue about.

If not, then please by all means feel free to use all your logical and scientific means to answer the simple question "are brunettes hotter than blondes". ?Or "is abortion wrong". ?Or "should I return a wallet full of money that I find on the sidewalk". ?

Show us how it's done.

But Lenny,
How could those questions possibly be answered? They are not simple at all. In a way I do not even consider them as honest questions. I am pretty damn sure that you know that any answer that is definite could be shown to have instances where the opposite answer is more reasonable.

I would agree hpwever that science and religion do not have to be in conflict. I also think that they have been in the past and present (although I only know of a few religions where that is the case).

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:25   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,14:21)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2007,14:15)
You pose it in a form ordinarily reserved for phenomena that can be described independent of POV.

Lenny, are brunettes hotter than blonds to WHOM?? Who or what is the subject? SUBJECTS are what makes questions SUBJECTIVE.

Well heck, that's sort of the point, isn't it . . . .


It CAN'T be treated as an objective matter (independent of POV) because it AIN'T one.

Alas, science can't deal with subjective questions. ?It can only try to change them into OBJECTIVE questions -- which ain't the same thing.

Agreed. But it (science) is still making inroads when it does that.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:58   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,15:21)
Alas, science can't deal with subjective questions. ?It can only try to change them into OBJECTIVE questions -- which ain't the same thing.

Certainly what Gilbert Ryle and B.F. Skinner would have argued. (God rest their radically and methodologically (respectively) behavioral souls.)

Further, there are large and very interesting experimental literatures within psychology and cognitive science that demonstrate that persons themselves often have shockingly little reliable access to the antecedents and consequences of their own subjective states, as well as of the environmental factors that shape what they "feel" to be subjective judgments, decisions, etc. We often learn more about their subjective states by confining our attention to objectively accessible/observable phenomena than can be learned by querying the subject him or herself. Introspection discloses surprisingly little about the bases for our behaviors and decisions - although we stubbornly model ourselves as unfettered agents.

In fact, as I muse on this topic, I would argue that science (and specifically cognitive psychology) has a great deal to say about the subjective, in some instances by way of subtraction. It is clear that we aren't the quite the agents we fancy ourselves to be, and have somewhat over-valorized subjective agency and experience.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,14:58   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,14:22)
If not, then please by all means feel free to use all your logical and scientific means to answer the simple question "are brunettes hotter than blondes". ?Or "is abortion wrong". ?Or "should I return a wallet full of money that I find on the sidewalk". ?

Show us how it's done.[/quote]
But Lenny,
How could those questions possibly be answered?

Ding ding ding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Now you're getting somewhere . . . .

They CAN'T be objectively answered.  Not by science, not by logic, not by kohlinar.  (Not by religion, either.)

That being the whole point.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,15:02   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2007,14:58)
Further, there are large and very interesting experimental literatures within psychology and cognitive science that demonstrate that persons themselves often have shockingly little reliable access to the antecedents and consequences of their own subjective states, as well as of the environmental factors that shape what they "feel" to be subjective judgments, decisions, etc. We often learn more about their subjective states by confining our attention to objectively accessible/observable phenomena than can be learned by querying the subject him or herself. Introspection discloses surprisingly little about the bases for our behaviors and decisions - although we stubbornly model ourselves as unfettered agents.

In fact, as I muse on this topic, I would argue that science (and specifically cognitive psychology) has a great deal to say about the subjective, in some instances by way of subtraction. It is clear that we aren't the quite the agents we fancy ourselves to be, and have somewhat over-valorized subjective agency and experience.

Indeed. ?No one has said otherwise.

What science CAN'T do, though, is tell us whether abortion is wrong, or what I should do with a wallet full of money I find on the sidewalk, or whether brunettes are cuter than blondes.

As I said before, even if we discover right down to the molecular level why person X holds this opinion and person Y holds that one, that STILL doesn't tell us which opinion is correct.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,15:07   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,14:22)
If not, then please by all means feel free to use all your logical and scientific means to answer the simple question "are brunettes hotter than blondes". ?Or "is abortion wrong". ?Or "should I return a wallet full of money that I find on the sidewalk". ?

Show us how it's done.[/quote]
But Lenny,
How could those questions possibly be answered? They are not simple at all. In a way I do not even consider them as honest questions.

In what way are they "dishonest"? In what way are they "meaningless"?  In what way are they "beside the point"?

They are the very sort of questions that every one of us asks himself every day, thousands of times.  Indeed, they are the very sort of questions that so many of us turn to religion for help in answering.  

I can't think of anything MORE relevant to the question of whether science and religion are in conflict than how we can in principle use either one to go about answering questions like these.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,15:08   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,14:58)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,14:22)
If not, then please by all means feel free to use all your logical and scientific means to answer the simple question "are brunettes hotter than blondes". ?Or "is abortion wrong". ?Or "should I return a wallet full of money that I find on the sidewalk". ?

Show us how it's done.

But Lenny,
How could those questions possibly be answered?

Ding ding ding !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Now you're getting somewhere . . . .

They CAN'T be objectively answered. ?Not by science, not by logic, not by kohlinar. ?(Not by religion, either.)

That being the whole point.[/quote]
How can they be subjectively (or any other way) answered Lenny?

Can you answer the question "are blondes hotter than brunnettes" without altering the question?

If you do that I am willing to bet that I can give you an example (or 2) where you would dissagree with your original answer.

Edited to change here to where.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,15:16   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,15:07)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,14:22)
If not, then please by all means feel free to use all your logical and scientific means to answer the simple question "are brunettes hotter than blondes". ?Or "is abortion wrong". ?Or "should I return a wallet full of money that I find on the sidewalk". ?

Show us how it's done.

But Lenny,
How could those questions possibly be answered? They are not simple at all. In a way I do not even consider them as honest questions.[/quote]
In what way are they "dishonest"? In what way are they "meaningless"? ?In what way are they "beside the point"?

They are the very sort of questions that every one of us asks himself every day, thousands of times. ?Indeed, they are the very sort of questions that so many of us turn to religion for help in answering. ?

I can't think of anything MORE relevant to the question of whether science and religion are in conflict than how we can in principle use either one to go about answering questions like these.

I consider the questions "dishonest" because they are framed with a yes/no answer intended to be the answer. We both know that any yes/no answer can be shown to be wrong in certain circumstances.

They seem like a kinda lawyer/political trap to me than honest questions that can be answered universally.

Abortion right/wrong can be answered both ways but only when many other circumtances are known. The same applies to murder and wallet theft.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,15:17   

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Without a beholder, or group of them, what the heck would the term "beauty" (or "cute" or "hot") even mean?

As for Lenny's complaint from a while back that defining all the terms of the question would answer it - well yes, understanding the meaning of a question is a large part of answering it. Maybe even the most important part. (Remember "word problems" in elementary school math?)

Henry

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,15:40   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 25 2007,15:17)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Without a beholder, or group of them, what the heck would the term "beauty" (or "cute" or "hot") even mean?
...
Henry

I completely agree with that.
I also kinda agree with Lenny (with reservations) and Louis (also with resevations).

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,15:56   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,16:02)
What science CAN'T do, though, is tell us whether abortion is wrong, or what I should do with a wallet full of money I find on the sidewalk, or whether brunettes are cuter than blondes.

Vis wallets and abortions, I wonder if such questions are inaccessible to science not so much because they are "subjective" versus "objective," but rather because they are "normative" versus "objective." Answers to such questions are typically supplied by communities rather than individuals delving into subjective depths (as much as they like to believe otherwise), and the "free floating rationales" (per Dennett in "Breaking the Spell") for those normative responses often lie at the group/community level rather than the individual.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,16:00   

who is the question meaningful to?  The person asking the question!  Who answers the question? the person asking the question!  How hard is this to understand.  How does the person answer the question?  Does he do a study, collect statistics, make observations, compile evidence?  That sure does depend on the question being asked now doesn't.  If the person want to know do seatbelts reduce traffic fatalities, then yes he may well do that.  If the question is whether or not abortion is wrong then he most likely will not do that.  Either way the question is answered and there is no certainty that the answer is the correct one.  Does that mean that there is no correct answer in either case?  No!  As far as seatbelts are concerned, based upon the predetermined conditions there will be a correct answer.  For abortion, we just don't know.  For one, we don't know what the actual predetermined conditions are so there is no way to arrive at a correct answer.  We answer that question as best we can based upon our beliefs and we go with it.  The question is not meaningless nor is the answer and to assert so is just plain stupid.

If Beauty exists in my Mind which one of you can say that it doesn't?  And if it exists in my Mind whose to say that it doesn't exist independent of my Mind?  No matter how hard you try and how many ridiculous insults you throw around none of you can answer these questions for anyone but yourselves.  There is no evidence that can be presented, there is no physical observations that can be made, there are no general parameters that can be set.  How can this be so hard for people to get their heads around?  My only conclusion is that it must be denial and fear.  "What happens if there is something that can not be answered by science, what does that mean for me and my worldview?"

regardless, of all that we've reached an impasse and in my mind we've only proven one thing:  science and religion are in conflict with one another only if we require them to be and some of us require them to be.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,16:12   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,16:00)
who is the question meaningful to? ?The person asking the question! ?Who answers the question? the person asking the question! ?How hard is this to understand. ?How does the person answer the question? ?Does he do a study, collect statistics, make observations, compile evidence? ?That sure does depend on the question being asked now doesn't. ?If the person want to know do seatbelts reduce traffic fatalities, then yes he may well do that. ?If the question is whether or not abortion is wrong then he most likely will not do that. ?Either way the question is answered and there is no certainty that the answer is the correct one. ?Does that mean that there is no correct answer in either case? ?No! ?As far as seatbelts are concerned, based upon the predetermined conditions there will be a correct answer. ?For abortion, we just don't know. ?For one, we don't know what the actual predetermined conditions are so there is no way to arrive at a correct answer. ?We answer that question as best we can based upon our beliefs and we go with it. ?The question is not meaningless nor is the answer and to assert so is just plain stupid.

If Beauty exists in my Mind which one of you can say that it doesn't? ?And if it exists in my Mind whose to say that it doesn't exist independent of my Mind? ?No matter how hard you try and how many ridiculous insults you throw around none of you can answer these questions for anyone but yourselves. ?There is no evidence that can be presented, there is no physical observations that can be made, there are no general parameters that can be set. ?How can this be so hard for people to get their heads around? ?My only conclusion is that it must be denial and fear. ?"What happens if there is something that can not be answered by science, what does that mean for me and my worldview?"

regardless, of all that we've reached an impasse and in my mind we've only proven one thing: ?science and religion are in conflict with one another only if we require them to be and some of us require them to be.

Pure trollbait.

Please fuck-off or actually answer questions honestly.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,16:36   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,16:00)
who is the question meaningful to?  The person asking the question!  Who answers the question? the person asking the question!  How hard is this to understand.  How does the person answer the question?  Does he do a study, collect statistics, make observations, compile evidence?  That sure does depend on the question being asked now doesn't.  If the person want to know do seatbelts reduce traffic fatalities, then yes he may well do that.  If the question is whether or not abortion is wrong then he most likely will not do that.  Either way the question is answered and there is no certainty that the answer is the correct one.  Does that mean that there is no correct answer in either case?  No!  As far as seatbelts are concerned, based upon the predetermined conditions there will be a correct answer.  For abortion, we just don't know.  For one, we don't know what the actual predetermined conditions are so there is no way to arrive at a correct answer.  We answer that question as best we can based upon our beliefs and we go with it.  The question is not meaningless nor is the answer and to assert so is just plain stupid.

If Beauty exists in my Mind which one of you can say that it doesn't?  And if it exists in my Mind whose to say that it doesn't exist independent of my Mind?  No matter how hard you try and how many ridiculous insults you throw around none of you can answer these questions for anyone but yourselves.  There is no evidence that can be presented, there is no physical observations that can be made, there are no general parameters that can be set.  How can this be so hard for people to get their heads around?  My only conclusion is that it must be denial and fear.  "What happens if there is something that can not be answered by science, what does that mean for me and my worldview?"

regardless, of all that we've reached an impasse and in my mind we've only proven one thing:  science and religion are in conflict with one another only if we require them to be and some of us require them to be.

Ah, psuedo-intellectual pretentious tripe at it's best.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,16:52   

Quote
Ah, psuedo-intellectual pretentious tripe at it's best.

Quote
Pure trollbait.

Please fuck-off or actually answer questions honestly.

(etc.)

I don't quite understand the abuse being directed Skeptic's way. After all, Louis started the thread in response to a statement he made elsewhere and invited his participation. That pretty much renders silly the notion that his posts are troll-like intrusions. He has continued to generate (earnestly, I would say) the stuff that he generates (as have we all).

That upsets you?

I don't get it.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,17:01   

As for the question of whether there's a rift between science and religion - imnsho without adding a bunch more detail, that's way too vague for a yes or no answer.

There's no logical contradiction between the ToE (for example) and a generic theism.

But believers in specific theisms do sometimes make claims and attach them to their theologies.

Henry

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,17:02   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2007,16:52)
?
Quote
Ah, psuedo-intellectual pretentious tripe at it's best.

?  
Quote
Pure trollbait.

Please fuck-off or actually answer questions honestly.

(etc.)

I don't quite understand the abuse being directed Skeptic's way. After all, Louis started the thread in response to a statement he made elsewhere and invited his participation. That pretty much renders silly the notion that his posts are troll-like intrusions. He has continued to generate (earnestly, I would say) the stuff that he generates (as have we all).

That upsets you?

I don't get it.

Fair point but I see it differently.
IMO Louis has made points and gone to lengths to explain them. I have not seen skeptic go to anywhere near the same effort.

The reason that I feel abusive is that I can see Louis making an effort to explain but I do not see the same effort being done reciprocally.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,17:17   

If you're looking for a word count then you will continue to be disappointed.  This is not a difficult concept and Louis has repeated his point to the extreme.  The reason he feels he must beat the dead horse is because he refuses to acknowledge that differing opinions even exist.  If anyone here has taken an introductory philosophy or ethics class you'll agree that these concepts are basic.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,19:57   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2007,16:52)
Quote
Ah, psuedo-intellectual pretentious tripe at it's best.

Quote
Pure trollbait.

Please fuck-off or actually answer questions honestly.

(etc.)

I don't quite understand the abuse being directed Skeptic's way. After all, Louis started the thread in response to a statement he made elsewhere and invited his participation. That pretty much renders silly the notion that his posts are troll-like intrusions. He has continued to generate (earnestly, I would say) the stuff that he generates (as have we all).

That upsets you?

I don't get it.

Bear in mind I was not abusing skeptic in him/herself, I hold no real opinion either way of him/her. I don't even know what gender (s)he is.

However, that post was unbelivably pretentious psuedo intellectual posing of the highest order.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,19:58   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,15:08)
How can they be subjectively (or any other way) answered Lenny?

They can't.  

That's the whole point.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,19:59   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,15:16)
They are the very sort of questions that every one of us asks himself every day, thousands of times. ?Indeed, they are the very sort of questions that so many of us turn to religion for help in answering. ?

I can't think of anything MORE relevant to the question of whether science and religion are in conflict than how we can in principle use either one to go about answering questions like these.[/quote]
I consider the questions "dishonest" because they are framed with a yes/no answer intended to be the answer. We both know that any yes/no answer can be shown to be wrong in certain circumstances.

That of course being the whole POINT.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,20:02   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,16:00)
who is the question meaningful to? ?The person asking the question! ?Who answers the question? the person asking the question! ?How hard is this to understand. ?How does the person answer the question? ?Does he do a study, collect statistics, make observations, compile evidence? ?That sure does depend on the question being asked now doesn't. ?If the person want to know do seatbelts reduce traffic fatalities, then yes he may well do that. ?If the question is whether or not abortion is wrong then he most likely will not do that. ?Either way the question is answered and there is no certainty that the answer is the correct one. ?Does that mean that there is no correct answer in either case? ?No! ?

Well, you started out OK. But then veered off into the weeds . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2007,20:33   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,17:00)
If Beauty exists in my Mind which one of you can say that it doesn't? ?And if it exists in my Mind whose to say that it doesn't exist independent of my Mind? ?No matter how hard you try and how many ridiculous insults you throw around none of you can answer these questions for anyone but yourselves. ?There is no evidence that can be presented, there is no physical observations that can be made, there are no general parameters that can be set. ?How can this be so hard for people to get their heads around? ?My only conclusion is that it must be denial and fear. ?"What happens if there is something that can not be answered by science, what does that mean for me and my worldview?"

regardless, of all that we've reached an impasse and in my mind we've only proven one thing: ?science and religion are in conflict with one another only if we require them to be and some of us require them to be.

Skeptic - try this:

Beauty is subjective in the same sense that the taste of foods is subjective. If you find beets tasty, and I don't, who can say that I am right, and you are wrong? No one.

Simultaneously, I think it easy to see that there is no sense in which foods objectively have particular "tastes," including the values of "tastes good" vs. "tastes bad," apart from the organisms that consume them. The taste of a particular food reflects the likely nutritional content/safety of the food relative to the states and needs of particular organisms - a relationship established over the long evolutionary history of both organism and foodstuff. When there is a match, that food tastes "good." This is not to say that the chemical composition of foods has no bearing upon taste; we are adapted to detect sugars, salts and gluatmates (Umami), as well as to experience disgust in response to certain combinations of taste and odor. Yet surely the fact that some foods taste "too salty" is a relative, not objective, fact. In short, there is no taste "independent of" organisms who do the tasting.

IMHO beauty - certainly the beauty of other persons but also other forms of beauty, reflects similar admixtures of the characteristics of the object itself and the characteristics (needs, states) of the organism experiencing that object. This is obvious vis sexual attractiveness but is also likely the case with respect to other forms of beauty, as well as forms of revulsion - in a manner analogous to taste, as described above. With respect to human beings, the person and object have a relationship that is likely grounded simultaneously in evolutionary, cultural and personal history. The resulting experience of beauty is no less relational than the example of taste.

Indeed, it is the embeddedness of these subjective judgments in the relationship between person and object (food, persons, art, natural beauty) that endow you with the final authority with respect to what you find beautiful. If beauty does exist independently, then it would be possible for you to find something beautiful, yet be wrong. "We looked, and although you find your child beautiful, we've determined that at a level independent of and external to all observers she is not. You are wrong." And, as the example of one's child, the things we find beautiful are often also the things we love - surely a relational state if ever there was one. Simultaneously, that these qualities inhere in a relationship between subject and object, and the characterstics of both, also renders discussion of beauty in the the absence of observers empty of meaning.

What exists in the world is not beauty that exists independently of our minds, but rather objects, and creatures like ourselves who find objects beautiful.

[persnickety edits for clarity and beauty]

[edit for obvious yet interesting twist]:

Of course, in nature most things consumed, however tasty to the consumer, only become "foodstuffs" at all by virtue of their being consumed by another organism, and are not at all thrilled by the conversion.

Skeptic: are you willing to say that exquisitely good steaks have "beauty" in their subtle and savory taste that can be said to exist independently of the observer/consumer of that particular animal muscle?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,05:23   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 25 2007,19:58)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 25 2007,15:08)
How can they be subjectively (or any other way) answered Lenny?

They can't. ?

That's the whole point.

I don't understand Lenny. What is the point of unanswerable questions? You ask a question that is so vague that any definate answer can be shown to be wrong in certain circumstances, claim that science can't answer it (when indeed nothing can answer it) and then state that is the whole point.

Please explain (in simple words) what you mean. Damned if I get it.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,05:26   

What's with the question marks that seem to appear randomly (ish)?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,09:59   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 25 2007,20:33)
Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 25 2007,17:00)
If Beauty exists in my Mind which one of you can say that it doesn't? ?And if it exists in my Mind whose to say that it doesn't exist independent of my Mind? ?No matter how hard you try and how many ridiculous insults you throw around none of you can answer these questions for anyone but yourselves. ?There is no evidence that can be presented, there is no physical observations that can be made, there are no general parameters that can be set. ?How can this be so hard for people to get their heads around? ?My only conclusion is that it must be denial and fear. ?"What happens if there is something that can not be answered by science, what does that mean for me and my worldview?"

regardless, of all that we've reached an impasse and in my mind we've only proven one thing: ?science and religion are in conflict with one another only if we require them to be and some of us require them to be.

Skeptic - try this:

Beauty is subjective in the same sense that the taste of foods is subjective. If you find beets tasty, and I don't, who can say that I am right, and you are wrong? No one.

Simultaneously, I think it easy to see that there is no sense in which foods objectively have particular "tastes," including the values of "tastes good" vs. "tastes bad," apart from the organisms that consume them. The taste of a particular food reflects both the likely nutritional content/safety of the food relative to the states and needs of particular organisms - a relationship established over the long evolutionary history of both organism and foodstuff. When there is a match, that food tastes "good." This is not to say that the chemical composition of foods has no bearing upon taste; we are adapted to detect sugars, salts and gluatmates (Umami), as well as to experience disgust in response to certain combinations of taste and odor. Yet surely the fact that some foods taste "too salty" is a relative, not objective, fact. In short, there is no taste "independent of" organisms who do the tasting.

IMHO beauty - certainly the beauty of other persons but also other forms of beauty, reflects similar admixtures of the characteristics of the object itself relative to the characteristics (needs, states) of the organism experiencing that object. This is obvious vis sexual attractiveness but is also likely the case with respect to other forms of beauty, as well as forms of revulsion - in a manner analogous to taste, as described above. With respect to human beings, the person and object have a relationship that is likely grounded simultaneously in evolutionary, cultural and personal history. The resulting experience of beauty is no less relational than the example of taste.

Indeed, it is the embeddedness of these subjective judgments in the relationship between person and object (food, persons, art, natural beauty) that endow you with the final authority with respect to what you find beautiful. If beauty does exist independently, then it would be possible for you to find something beautiful, yet be wrong. "We looked, and although you find your child beautiful, we've determined that at a level independent of and external to all observers she is not. You are wrong." And, as the example of one's child, the things we find beautiful are often also the things we love - surely a relational state if ever there was one. Simultaneuosly, that these qualities inhere in a relationship between subject and object, and the characterstics of both, also renders discussion of beauty in the the absence of observers empty of meaning.

What exists in the world is not beauty that exists independently of our minds, but rather objects, and creatures like ourselves who find objects beautiful.

[persnickety edits for clarity and beauty]

[edit for obvious yet interesting twist]:

Of course, in nature most things consumed, however tasty to the consumer, only become "food" at all by virtue of their being consumed by another organism, and are not at all thrilled by the conversion.

Skeptic: are you willing to say that exquisitely good steaks have "beauty" in their subtle and savory taste that can be said to exist independently of the observer/consumer of that particular animal muscle?

Bill, this is a perfectly rational explanation of "taste" and "beauty" and represents a valid viewpoint.  The alternative is, and this is where Lenny and I part ways, is if there is in fact an independent concept of Taste and Beauty.  This is where religion, inspiration, revelation, meditation, imagination, etc jump in.  These are irrational sources of knowledge that propose to answer the unanswerable question.  This does not mean that the answer is correct or as Lenny points out that there is even an answer but it is an attempt.

Consider this.  Take the question, "What is Beauty?"  I would say that mankind has been trying to answer that question since its earliest existence through art.  It has had an impact throughout history and has contributed to the human experience.  Is it "knowledge?"  I would say yes and others may disagree so the real conflict may actually be "What is knowledge and who gets to decide?"

Might I suggest, Science, Religion, and the Human Experience edited by James D. Proctor.  This is a collection of lectures given at UC Santa Barbara and it represents views all over the spectrum that we've been discussing.  Some I agree with some I don't and some I'm still thinking about but most important the collection shows that this is not a monolithic topic.  There are many different viewpoints discussed and it might be useful for us to remember that.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,10:54   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 26 2007,10:59)
Bill, this is a perfectly rational explanation of "taste" and "beauty" and represents a valid viewpoint. ?The alternative is, and this is where Lenny and I part ways, is if there is in fact an independent concept of Taste and Beauty. ?

OK. But what do you make, specifically, of this:

"If beauty does exist independently, then it would be possible for you to find something beautiful, yet be wrong. 'We looked, and although you find your child beautiful, we've determined that at a level independent of and external to all observers she is not. You are wrong.'"

[edit]

And this: "Are you willing to say that exquisitely good steaks have "beauty" in their subtle and savory taste that can be said to exist independently of the observer/consumer of that particular animal muscle?"

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,12:20   

The trick is finding that level independent and external.  Lenny (and Louis, for that matter) says it doesn't exist.  Religion says it is God. Art says it is inspiration.  In all cases, we can not rationally access this level, we require some (or no) authority to tell us what it is.  So the truth is your child may be beautiful or not.  What does your authority tell you?  And just to save Lenny the trouble, your authority may be You.  In any case, this question is only answered by reason if reason is your authority otherwise you're seeking elsewhere for the answer.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,12:41   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 26 2007,13:20)
The trick is finding that level independent and external. ?Lenny (and Louis, for that matter) says it doesn't exist. ?Religion says it is God. Art says it is inspiration. ?In all cases, we can not rationally access this level, we require some (or no) authority to tell us what it is. ?So the truth is your child may be beautiful or not. ?What does your authority tell you? ?And just to save Lenny the trouble, your authority may be You. ?In any case, this question is only answered by reason if reason is your authority otherwise you're seeking elsewhere for the answer.

The assertions that the "external and independent" does not exist, and that it does, but can't be accessed except by non-rational means, through the authority of one's choosing (yours is you, mine is me), are assertions with the same consequences.

Hence I find that sort of "independent and external" notion of beauty empty.

Again: Are you willing to say that exquisitely good steaks have "beauty" in their subtle and savory taste that can be said to exist independently of the observers/consumers of that sort of animal muscle? An independent sort of "goodness" that is independent of all possible consumers?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,13:03   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 26 2007,12:20)
The trick is finding that level independent and external. ?Lenny (and Louis, for that matter) says it doesn't exist. ?Religion says it is God. Art says it is inspiration. ?In all cases, we can not rationally access this level, we require some (or no) authority to tell us what it is. ?So the truth is your child may be beautiful or not. ?What does your authority tell you? ?And just to save Lenny the trouble, your authority may be You. ?In any case, this question is only answered by reason if reason is your authority otherwise you're seeking elsewhere for the answer.

What does this mean? Damned if I understand. After several readings I cannot make out a definitive statement. Can anyone explain or is this just word salad?

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,15:25   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 26 2007,05:23)
That's the whole point.[/quote]
I don't understand Lenny. What is the point of unanswerable questions?

The assertion was made that science and religion necessarily conflict.

I pointed out that this isn't true, since science can only answer objective questions, while religion can only attempt to deal with subjective questions.

I was then asked to produce an area which science/logic/reason/kohlinar cannot answer.

I have.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,15:26   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 26 2007,05:26)
What's with the question marks that seem to appear randomly (ish)?

Apparently, whenever anyone edits a post (to correct spelling typos or whatever), the software then adds random question marks to the resulting edited post.

Annoying, isn't it.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2007,15:28   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 26 2007,09:59)
?The alternative is, and this is where Lenny and I part ways, is if there is in fact an independent concept of Taste and Beauty. ?

Huh?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2007,11:28   

Since:

a) I have had a perfectly decent weekend and have no wish to be annoyed by abject idiocy

b) Via both PM and posts on this board Lenny has demonstrated he is either too lazy, too illiterate, too stupid or too dishonest to deal with the actual arguments I have made (Skeptic has already demonstrated this tendancy amply in his own case).

c) The endless merry-go-round this thread has become is more than a little annoying due to the fact that those people who are actually willing to read for basic comprehension seem to be in agreement and the other protagonists seem to be interested only in playing rhetorical silly buggers and nothing more.

I think I'll leave you too it until tomorrow.

Disappointing. I suggest remedial reading lessons.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2007,11:54   

Translation:  Those people who agree with me, I applaud and those that do not I ignore - Louis.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2007,14:21   

Quote
c) The endless merry-go-round this thread has become is more than a little annoying due to the fact that those people who are actually willing to read for basic comprehension seem to be in agreement [...]


Well, that's your own fault, for winning the argument several pages ago.  :)

Henry

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2007,21:20   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 27 2007,11:28)
b) Via both PM and posts on this board Lenny has demonstrated he is either too lazy, too illiterate, too stupid or too dishonest to deal with the actual arguments I have made

If you say so.

(shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,03:53   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 27 2007,17:54)
Translation: ?Those people who agree with me, I applaud and those that do not I ignore - Louis.

No.

The simple translation is this: "Those people who argue competently and honestly are worth my time regardless of any disagreement.* Those who do not, are not."

Louis

*Until this last week, Lenny fell into this category. Disagreement is not a problem. Attempting to beat the very basics of an argument into people either unwilling, incapable or (for reasons beyond my ability to comprehend) simply too biased and dishonest to argue coherently is a problem. I know you don't understand this, you also clearly don't understand the written word so it really isn't my problem.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,04:01   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 28 2007,03:20)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 27 2007,11:28)
b) Via both PM and posts on this board Lenny has demonstrated he is either too lazy, too illiterate, too stupid or too dishonest to deal with the actual arguments I have made

If you say so.

(shrug)

Unlike you Lenny, I don't make unsupported or unsupportable statements, or if I do I admit it. Want me to quote you Lenny?

Ok, no problem. One example for you:

Quote
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 25 2007,03:02)
Hence why the very phrases "are blondes hotter than brunettes" or "is murder wrong" are utterly and totally devoid of meaning.

Really?


Really and truly?


Wow.


From here.

Explain how this is an accurate representation of the argument I have made and NOT a simple out of context quote mine.

The paragraphs before it and after it, and the sentences around it, make it abundantly clear that the simple use of the sentence you are trying to imply is not the totality of the argument I have been making. In fact five words (hardly an essay) would take that quote and make it an accurate representation of that segement of my argument.

Explain to me how quote mining, in the manner you DEMONSTRABLY have done, is an honest and rational mechanism of forming a coherent argument?

My guess is that you will ignore this AGAIN and keep pretending like you have a valid point in this argument, which, thus far, you don't.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,04:19   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 27 2007,20:21)
Quote
c) The endless merry-go-round this thread has become is more than a little annoying due to the fact that those people who are actually willing to read for basic comprehension seem to be in agreement [...]


Well, that's your own fault, for winning the argument several pages ago. ?:)

Henry

LOL

Even I wouldn't go that far! (Although I'm relatively sure you're taking the piss)

I don't think the actual argument has even started. I think Skeptic has demonstrated he is an ineducable, illiterate dolt* and Lenny is merely being contrarian for motivations of his own. The totality of the Skeptic/Lenny axis argument thus far runs briefly thus:

1) Reason cannot answer certain questions.
2) If at any point reason does answer certain questions, it has cheated by redefining the question (although how one can REdefine something that people refuse to define in the first place is beyond me!;).
3) Anyone advocating reason as a mechanism for answering these questions is biased/blinkered/narrow minded/prejudiced etc.
4) Reason cannot answer certain questions.

Repeat ad nauseum.

Now the literate amongst you might notice that points 1 and 4 are the same and that points 2 and 3 are irrelevant, untrue and illogical. I'm STILL waiting for answers to questions I asked right from the start, I'm STILL waiting for any actual argument from these people that goes beyond mere assertion of the original contention.

It's a pity because there is a potentially interesting conversation in there that would range from epistemological methods to the recent "science wars" between "relativists" and "realists" touching on aspects of how best to acheive consilience between the humanities and the sciences (which incidentally I think exists anyway at a very fundamental level. Anyone who can and has read what I've written in this thread will guess the basis for it. The CP Snow "Two Cultures" like claims of some I reckon are false with some reasonable basis) and what it means to know anything at all anyway.

Oh well.

Louis

*AGAIN! Why I persisted in my counterfactual optimism regarding this specific moron's abilities I shall never know. I have corrected that error.

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,06:07   

Quote
*AGAIN! Why I persisted in my counterfactual optimism regarding this specific moron's abilities I shall never know. I have corrected that error.


I see your paranoia is improving, keep taking the red pills.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,07:27   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 28 2007,04:19)
The totality of the Skeptic/Lenny axis argument thus far runs briefly thus:

1) Reason cannot answer certain questions.
2) If at any point reason does answer certain questions, it has cheated by redefining the question (although how one can REdefine something that people refuse to define in the first place is beyond me!).
3) Anyone advocating reason as a mechanism for answering these questions is biased/blinkered/narrow minded/prejudiced etc.
4) Reason cannot answer certain questions.

Repeat ad nauseum.

(sigh)

Whatever.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,08:12   

Because I'm an optimist, I will try one more time but I fear I'm just talking to a child in both attitude and intellect.

Is a sunrise beautiful? and if so, Why?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,08:37   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 28 2007,13:27)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 28 2007,04:19)
The totality of the Skeptic/Lenny axis argument thus far runs briefly thus:

1) Reason cannot answer certain questions.
2) If at any point reason does answer certain questions, it has cheated by redefining the question (although how one can REdefine something that people refuse to define in the first place is beyond me!).
3) Anyone advocating reason as a mechanism for answering these questions is biased/blinkered/narrow minded/prejudiced etc.
4) Reason cannot answer certain questions.

Repeat ad nauseum.

(sigh)

Whatever.

Lenny,

Going to show that what you did earlier is not a quote mine?

Didn't think so.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,08:38   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 28 2007,14:12)
Because I'm an optimist, I will try one more time but I fear I'm just talking to a child in both attitude and intellect.

Is a sunrise beautiful? and if so, Why?

Already answered this and others like it a dozen times.

Going to keep repeating my criticisms of your argument back at me as if they applied to me?

Yup thought so.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,08:40   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 28 2007,12:07)
Quote
*AGAIN! Why I persisted in my counterfactual optimism regarding this specific moron's abilities I shall never know. I have corrected that error.


I see your paranoia is improving, keep taking the red pills.

Paranoia? How so?

I have habitually been at least relatively optimistic that Skeptic can actually reason. Until now. Unless that is some new definition of paranoia you've got yourself, I'd say it was pessimism not paranoia.

Anything useful to contribute?

Didn't think so.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,08:46   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 28 2007,09:12)
Because I'm an optimist, I will try one more time but I fear I'm just talking to a child in both attitude and intellect.

Is a sunrise beautiful? and if so, Why?

Skeptic:

Are you willing to say that exquisitely good steaks have "beauty" in their subtle and savory taste that can be said to exist independently of the observers/consumers of that sort of animal muscle? An independent sort of "goodness" that is independent of all possible consumers?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,12:11   

Louis, you are simply delusional.  You've proven nothing and failed to answer simple questions repeatedly all the while claiming your superiority.  It is simply sad.

Bill, I'm not sure sure it is the proper context to say that steaks have beauty in their taste.  It might be more appropriate to say that beauty can be accessed through taste in general as with other senses.  So that then the taste of the steak reveals Beauty in the experience of eating the steak.  This really may come down to quibbling about what is Beauty.  If Beauty exists it will be independent of all consumers and may not actually be accessable.  Ask yourself this, what is it about the taste of a steak that may invoke thoughts of beauty?  Taste may simply be sensory response to stimuli which is purely physical in this regard but why does it seem to transcend this to many people?

Is a sunrise beautiful and if so why?

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,12:19   

Quote
......but why does it seem to transcend this to many people


Have you heard the word of God?

Or mass marketing....u r truly a naive prat.

U R all individuals except skep.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,12:39   

Quote
Taste may simply be sensory response to stimuli which is purely physical in this regard but why does it seem to transcend this to many people?

Why are you willing to hang so much on seeming?
Mind seems independent from brain.
Truth and Beauty seem to be external to human thoughts and motivations.
The Sun seems to go around the Earth.

My point here is twofold. For one, I'm saying that the progress of rational thought has led to discarding a great many seemings. The way it seems to you is not convincing to anyone, because we know very well that seeming isn't reliable. And for another, your points are obvious and banal. They've been dealt with, long ago. You're merely defending a maximally naive form of essentialism. If things didn't sometimes seem other than they are, would we have any need to methodically investigate the universe at all? Your philosophizing is extremely amateur sophistry. I do wish you'd quit patting yourrself on the back for it.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,14:04   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 28 2007,12:11)
Louis, you are simply delusional.  You've proven nothing and failed to answer simple questions repeatedly all the while claiming your superiority.  It is simply sad.

Bill, I'm not sure sure it is the proper context to say that steaks have beauty in their taste.  It might be more appropriate to say that beauty can be accessed through taste in general as with other senses.  So that then the taste of the steak reveals Beauty in the experience of eating the steak.  This really may come down to quibbling about what is Beauty.  If Beauty exists it will be independent of all consumers and may not actually be accessable.  Ask yourself this, what is it about the taste of a steak that may invoke thoughts of beauty?  Taste may simply be sensory response to stimuli which is purely physical in this regard but why does it seem to transcend this to many people?

Is a sunrise beautiful and if so why?

A sunrise being beautiful is entirely a matter of opinion.

Why would beauty 'exist'? We call something beautiful because we find it pleasant, its as simple as that. There is no need, and no reason for, some silly hand waving about beauty existing 'outside' of everything else.

Many humans like sunrises because they are often accompanied by striking colors - something we like. I suspect, however, that if you were stranded in a desert and dying of thirst you would not find it so beautiful.

Personally, I prefer sunsets. Sunrises mean I have to close down the observatory, park the telescopes, and put up CCD equipment and eyepieces, go home, and crash for a few hours.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,14:16   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 28 2007,18:11)
Louis, you are simply delusional. ?You've proven nothing and failed to answer simple questions repeatedly all the while claiming your superiority. ?It is simply sad.

Ok I'll bite.

Prove it.

I asked you once before to go back and restate my argument because you were utterly misunderstanding them. You're a) doing so again and b) accusing me rather laughingly of things which you are guilty of. So I'll ask you again:

Restate my argument to my satisfaction and I will doo the same for you.

Not only will I bet you CANNOT do it, I'll bet you WILL NOT do it.

Lenny, the same goes for you: restate my argument to my satisfaction and I will do the same for yours. Incidentally, you also owe me one demonstration of how your quote mining of my posts is not a quote mine.

That is unless you want this farce to continue as it is.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,14:30   

I fucking hate the sun.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,14:41   

Yeah, sun. Why you gotsta be givin' life, warmin' the planet n'shit?

Lousy gasball.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,15:02   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 28 2007,13:39)
?
Quote
Taste may simply be sensory response to stimuli which is purely physical in this regard but why does it seem to transcend this to many people?

Why are you willing to hang so much on seeming?
Mind seems independent from brain.
Truth and Beauty seem to be external to human thoughts and motivations.
The Sun seems to go around the Earth.

My point here is twofold. For one, I'm saying that the progress of rational thought has led to discarding a great many seemings. The way it seems to you is not convincing to anyone, because we know very well that seeming isn't reliable. And for another, your points are obvious and banal. They've been dealt with, long ago. You're merely defending a maximally naive form of essentialism. If things didn't sometimes seem other than they are, would we have any need to methodically investigate the universe at all? Your philosophizing is extremely amateur sophistry. I do wish you'd quit patting yourrself on the back for it.

Exactly the point made by my earlier quotation of Thomas Nagel:

?
Quote
"To acquire a more objective understanding of some aspect of life or the world, we step back from our initial view of it and form a new conception which has that view and its relationship to the world as its object. In other words, we place ourselves in the world that is to be understood. (p. 4)"

We employ this maneuver because we recognize that "we are small creatures in a big world of which we have only very partial understanding, and that how things seem to us depends both on the world and on our constitution" (p. 5).

What appears to be "objectively" beautiful, when we step back and take in both the object AND our view of it (and the history of the factors that determine the characteristics of that view), is seen not to be so. Rather, the sense of beauty reflects the characteristics of the observer as well as, perhaps more than, the observed.

This intellectual operation does not remove the subjectively experienced beauty - rather, it deepens our understanding of that experience.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,15:14   

OK then, let's see if science can answer this one:

Quote
What color is a five-sided square?


I'd like to see you weasel out of this one with all them'ar big words, Louis.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,15:27   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 28 2007,21:14)
OK then, let's see if science can answer this one:

 
Quote
What color is a five-sided square?


I'd like to see you weasel out of this one with all them'ar big words, Louis.

No worries!

The colour of a five sided square is Bognor Regis.

Or to be precise Bognor Regis point six three banana four quantum Sigmund BunkyBunkyJigJig.

Louis

P.S. I know, I know, I've already answered questions of this type: how are they questions? Demonstrate it is a question, demonstrate it is coherent, define the terms in it and I'll wager at least one 5 sided square that it can be in principle answered by reason.

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,15:34   

DEMON-STRATORS ARE HOMOS


har har this is you


--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,15:51   

Damn unmasked again.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,15:54   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 28 2007,14:41)
Yeah, sun. Why you gotsta be givin' life, warmin' the planet n'shit?

Lousy gasball.


"For years mankind has dreamed of destroying the Sun."



--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,15:54   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 28 2007,15:14)
OK then, let's see if science can answer this one:

?  
Quote
What color is a five-sided square?


I'd like to see you weasel out of this one with all them'ar big words, Louis.

Oh yeah? Oh yeah??

Answer me THIS, smart guy!

What would chairs look like if our knees bent backwards?

Huh? HUH?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,15:56   

Quote

The colour of a five sided square is Bognor Regis.

Or to be precise Bognor Regis point six three banana four quantum Sigmund BunkyBunkyJigJig.

Louis


Bugger Bognor.

:angry:

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,16:27   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 28 2007,21:54)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 28 2007,15:14)
OK then, let's see if science can answer this one:

? ?
Quote
What color is a five-sided square?


I'd like to see you weasel out of this one with all them'ar big words, Louis.

Oh yeah? Oh yeah??

Answer me THIS, smart guy!

What would chairs look like if our knees bent backwards?

Huh? HUH?

Not like this:



But I still want one.

{wipes geek drool off chin}

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,16:31   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Aug. 28 2007,21:56)
 
Quote

The colour of a five sided square is Bognor Regis.

Or to be precise Bognor Regis point six three banana four quantum Sigmund BunkyBunkyJigJig.

Louis


Bugger Bognor.

:angry:

Been there, done that.

See post on unmasking above for evidence.

I reckon I am being outed at a rate of four to five times a week. I think I might actually have to turn gay just to keep up. Damn, the fundies were right! You CAN be turned gay just by being told about it.

Oh well, at least my dress sense will improve, my house will be nicely decorated and my wife will have someone to go shopping with.

Louis

P.S. Yes I am aware of the original quote ;)

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,16:57   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 28 2007,08:37)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 28 2007,13:27)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 28 2007,04:19)
The totality of the Skeptic/Lenny axis argument thus far runs briefly thus:

1) Reason cannot answer certain questions.
2) If at any point reason does answer certain questions, it has cheated by redefining the question (although how one can REdefine something that people refuse to define in the first place is beyond me!).
3) Anyone advocating reason as a mechanism for answering these questions is biased/blinkered/narrow minded/prejudiced etc.
4) Reason cannot answer certain questions.

Repeat ad nauseum.

(sigh)

Whatever.

Lenny,

Going to show that what you did earlier is not a quote mine?

Didn't think so.

Louis

(sigh)


Dude, your emotions are getting away with you.

Calm yourself.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,17:27   

Louis, you're dealing in word games and evasion.  Exceedingly long word games at that.  Why don't you just answer a question?  Is there something so threatening in that request?

You guys are also dancing around the point.  If someone views a sunrise and finds it beautiful, why is to so and what does that mean to them?  Imagine if there was no one else in the world and the individual viewed that same sunrise, would it still be beautiful?  Now, imagine that the individual has never seen a sunrise but still imagines one to be beautiful, is it still beautiful?  Where does the concept of beauty reside?

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,17:49   

You know what, Sophist?

I can answer all of those questions, to a fairly high level of detail. That would be a lot of work, though. I'm not going to do it. You know why? Because at the end of all that work, all you're going to say is, "That's not capital-B Beauty."

You are capital-B Boring.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,18:07   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 28 2007,15:27)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 28 2007,21:14)
OK then, let's see if science can answer this one:

?
Quote
What color is a five-sided square?


I'd like to see you weasel out of this one with all them'ar big words, Louis.

No worries!

The colour of a five sided square is Bognor Regis.

Or to be precise Bognor Regis point six three banana four quantum Sigmund BunkyBunkyJigJig.

Um, let me interrupt the repartee for a moment to clarify something:

Is it your view that the questions "is abortion wrong?", "are brunettes cuter than blondes?" or "is it wrong to keep a wallet full of money that I find on the sidealk" are "meaningless" -- that is, they are no different, in principle, from questions like "what color is a five-sided square?"


Really and truly?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,18:08   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 28 2007,15:27)
P.S. I know, I know, I've already answered questions of this type: how are they questions? Demonstrate it is a question, demonstrate it is coherent, define the terms in it and I'll wager at least one 5 sided square that it can be in principle answered by reason.

But alas, as I already pointed out, "defining the terms" in the way you wish is, indeed, to answer the question.  Your "logic" doesn't do anything except spit out what it's already been told to assume as true.  It doesn't actually "answer" anything.


Which is, of course, exactly the problem.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,18:12   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 28 2007,17:27)
?Where does the concept of beauty reside?

"In the eye of the beholder".

Alas for you, Skeptic, your religion can't answer subjective questions any more than science can.

And, of course, your religion can't answer objective questions at all.

Which suggests to me that there's something . . . ya know . . . useless about your particular religion.  It doesn't answer questions for you -- it simply prevents you from answering them yourself.

You simply don't need it.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,18:21   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 28 2007,17:49)
Because at the end of all that work, all you're going to say is, "That's not capital-B Beauty."

Ah, but there's the rub --- science can't tell us what capital-B Beauty is, either.

Nor can logic, reason, rationality, or kohlinar.

So Skeptic (despite the fact that he's basically a parrot) is half right.

Of course, his religion can't tell us what capital-B Beauty is, either. So he's also half-wrong.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,18:38   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 28 2007,16:27)

Didn't I see that in one of the "Alien" movies . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,19:26   

This Lenny vs. Louis contest has lurched along unproductively. As I have followed, something struck me.

This discussion has revolved around a highly polarized set of abstractions in addressing subjective versus objective processing, which suggests that these modes operate over entirely separate domains in entirely incomparable ways. But that isn't what happens in real people in real-time.

Certainly "reason" versus "the irreducibly subjective" can refer to alternative modes of apprehending the world adopted by individuals depending upon the problems they confront. People often can be said to reason in a way that can be made public and checked for qualities such as logical coherance; at other times both problems and process are difficult to publicly articulate or even describe.

But the fact is that we reason over our subjective experiences, and subjectivity (and the non-propositional forms of processing we call "feelings") plays a huge role in motivating and organizing reasoning. It is certainly true that, in answering individual questions such as attractiveness and decisions vis altruistic behavior (i.e. wallet returns) individuals reason over their more subjective and less articulable subjective "raw feels." And it is equally true that, in real human beings, even the most Vulcanesque reasoning is energized by and depends upon subjective affects and interests for their motivation and even organization. A recent thread of research within psychology and cognitive neuroscience with growing empirical support has followed recognition that affect (feeling) plays a crucial role in framing and organizing cognition (thinking) - very much in contrast with the older cognitive view that feeling is derived from cognitive appraisal. This is apparent both experimentally and becoming increasingly obvious vis neural organization.

Tursky* articulated this well, underscoring a fact that is obvious to anyone who has actually participated in actual scientific research: the highest forms of human cognitive and intellectual attainment depend upon affect, and it's subjective contents:

"We tend to forget that even the most abstract forms of knowledge require curiosity and passion to know as well as a commitment to truth without which knowledge would simply cease to advance. And we pay little attention to the fact that the great intellectual movements that canonized this mind-set - the scientific revolution most notable among them - could not have been sustained without an informing set of powerful, essentially emotional understandings about the nature of human agency."

And some pages later:

"That we are the most emotional as well as the most rational of animals is surely due to the complex interaction between 'thought' and 'emotion,' and not because we have somehow grown each of these capacities by excluding the other - that is impossible." (my emphasis).

This observation - that human beings are at once the most emotional and the most rational of animals, and that these extremes reflect the interdependency and synergy of subjective feels and publicly expressible propositional cognition, strikes me as exactly right. This is certainly how our brains are organized.

In short, many elements of the polarity that separates the modes of processing alternatively underscored by Lenny and Louis are in fact inextricably bound in living people.

Science is full of feeling; lord knows that Louis and Lenny are.

*Turski, W. G. (1994). Toward a Rationality of Emotions: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,20:07   

Lenny unless I can be convinced why not,  I do suspect that asking about 'Capital B-Beauty' or 'are blondes hotter than brunettes' is like asking 'what color is a five sided square'.

after all, as louis has repeatedly and verbose-ly pointed out, that question is rather indistinguishable from nonsense without the subjective qualifiers.  

do you not agree?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,20:11   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 28 2007,19:26)
In short, many elements of the polarity that separates the modes of processing alternatively underscored by Lenny and Louis are in fact inextricably bound in living people.

Indeed, given that science is a human activity, and humans are both rational and emotional creatures, how could it be otherwise . . . . ?


But as I am seeing it, the issue separating us is this:  is science (or reason or rationality or kohlinar) universally applicable?

Louis seems to think "yes".

I say "no".  And I've given examples where it's not applicable.  Can science tell us whether abortion is wrong?  Can science tell us how to be a good person, or even what a good person IS?  Can science tell us whether we should marry this person instead of that one?Nope.  Science is utterly helpless to answer any of these sort of questions.

Louis dismisses these questions as "meaningless".  Yet they are precisely the sort of questions that most people struggle with in their everyday lives, which are far more "meaningful" and "important" to them than are scientific questions.  Far more people spend far more thought on the question "what makes a good person?" or "should I keep this wallet full of money that I found on the sidewalk?" than they do to questions like "what is the density of osmium?" or "what is the fossil ancestor of Basilosaurus?"  Indeed, it is precisely to answer these sort of "meaningless" questions that so many people turn to religion, in a search for --- you guessed it --- "meaning".  So I think that to dismiss such questions as "meaningless" (which is just another way of saying "science can't answer them so they're not worth asking") is rather silly.

Science is a method.  It's not a philosophy, not a worldview, not a way of life, not a system of answering ethical or moral questions.  Science simply cannot answer questions in those spheres.  Inform us about them?  Yep.  Bring up interesting considerations about them?  You bet.  But answer them?  No way.  

Why is that relevant to this thread?  Because my conclusion that science and religion need not necessarily conlfict is based precisely on the fact that science is *not* universal -- there are questions it simply cannot answer (and indeed it can't even objectively ASK), and therefore religion and science simply deal with different types of questions (I leave aside for now the question of whether religion can deal with subjective matters any *better* than science can -- for now the only thing that matters is that religion can limit itself to attempting to answer subjective questions, while science simply cannot answer those questions, period).  The only "conflict" then arises when one attempts to intrude into the other's territory (if religion attempts to tell us how humans got here, for instance, or if science attempts to answer ethical, moral or aesthetic questions).

That viewpoint, of course, is emotionally threatening to BOTH those who want religion to be universal, AND to those who want science to be universal.

Alas, neither are.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,20:14   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 28 2007,20:07)
Lenny unless I can be convinced why not, ?I do suspect that asking about 'Capital B-Beauty' or 'are blondes hotter than brunettes' is like asking 'what color is a five sided square'.

after all, as louis has repeatedly and verbose-ly pointed out, that question is rather indistinguishable from nonsense without the subjective qualifiers. ?

do you not agree?

No, I do not agree.

And the reason is simple --- if you go out on the street, stop five or six random people, and ask them:  (1) what color is a five-sided square?, and then (2) are blondes cuter than brunettes?, you will very quickly discover something interesting.

Everyone will answer the second question.

Nobody will answer the first.


Why?

One question has meaning to people.

One doesn't.

It won't take long to discover which is which.


Go try it.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,20:20   

so people are suckers for pedantic nonsense.  no surprise there.  ask them what 'freedom' means, while you are at it.

that doesn't address the epistemological issue.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,20:31   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 28 2007,20:20)
so people are suckers for pedantic nonsense. ?no surprise there. ?ask them what 'freedom' means, while you are at it.

that doesn't address the epistemological issue.

"Meaning" is "meaning".  The fact that they can answer the question at all, demonstrates pretty conclusively that it's simply not "meaningless".  (shrug)

As for epistemology, well, that's the problem, isn't it?  Science can't answer that issue either.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,20:50   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 28 2007,20:20)
so people are suckers for pedantic nonsense.

I'm a little curious now:

Please identify for me which, if any, of the following questions are "pedantic nonsense".

Of those that are NOT "pedantic nonsense", please explain to me how science can go about answering them.

Thanks.

*ahem*


1.  Is abortion wrong?
2.  If I find a wallet full of money on the sidewalk, should I keep it?
3.  Should I marry this person, or that one?
4.  Should I quit my job?
5.  What makes a person "good"?
6.  Would I look better if I dropped twenty pounds?
7.  Should we invade Iraq?
8.  Should we pull our troops out of Iraq?
9.  Should we drop nuclear weapons on Iran?
10. Should I vote for Hillary Clinton in the pirmary?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,21:28   

One subtle trapdoor through which this discussion has been slipping is that while Louis has advocated the broad applicability of "reason," Lenny's statements have pointed to the limits of "science" and the "scientific method." "Reason" and the "scientific method" are not coterminal, with the latter connoting a much more specialized set of operations than the former. The scientific method is clearly much more powerful than naked "reason" in the domains to which it applies, whereas "reason" (and the less misleadingly reified "reasoning") may certainly be conducted appropriately in domains where the scientific method proper can't get traction.

Hence I would argue that while Lenny is correct in stating that the scientific method cannot provide answers to the questions he has posed, most persons, in arriving at responses and decisions by means of the subjectivity that remains to them, engage in an admixture of reasoning across subjective feels. While a "correct" conclusion cannot be attained by means of formal scientific operations, in many instances the quality of the reasoning phase of such a decision can be improved with critique and practice, and perhaps by exposure to the values (if not application of the methods) that drive science proper.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,21:38   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 28 2007,21:28)
One subtle trapdoor through which this discussion has been slipping is that while Louis has advocated the broad applicability of "reason," Lenny's statements have pointed to the limits of "science" and the "scientific method." "Reason" and the "scientific method" are not coterminal, with the latter connoting a much more specialized set of operations than the former. The scientific method is clearly much more powerful than naked "reason" in the domains to which it applies, whereas "reason" (and the less misleadingly reified "reasoning") may certainly be conducted appropriately in domains where the scientific method proper can't get traction.

Yes, I noticed that too.  For my part, I point to the title of this thread . . . . .


But alas, as I pointed out before, even the most rational logical algorithm known to man, cannot *answer* the sort of questions I am talking about.  All they can do is take one's own (subjective) definitions and feelings, crank them through the algorithm, and then spit them back out in logical format.  If I define "beauty" or "justice" or "good" as X, Y and Z, then "logic" can only accept those as "givens", as "axioms", as "preconditions".  It has no choice but to accept them, because that's what I have chosen to input.  

If I were to input A, B and C instead, "logic" can once again only accept *them* as a "given" instead of X, Y and Z -- not because they are "better" or "more correct", but simply because that's what I have chosen to input.  

Logic (or science, or reason, or kohlinar) is utterly incapable of determing if X, Y and Z are "correct", or if A, B and C are.  It can only accept whichever set I choose to input at the beginning, and then crank it through its logical rational algorithm.

Which doesn't actually "answer" anything.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,21:52   

Maybe if we think of it this way:

Science aids in understanding what is, or in estimating the likely results of doing something.

It does not make decisions, set aesthetic opinions, or set priorities, it only provides information that may be helpful in doing or understanding those activities or their results.

Plus, this Lenny vs. Louis thing seems to me to be more about semantics rather than content, which may be part of why it's dragged on like this.

Well, that plus the point I've tried to make before - defining the terms in an unclear question is a necessary first step toward answering it. Ergo, objecting to a request for definitions of terms just does not make sense.

As for what "beauty" is, I'll just quote Reciprocating Bill, since he said it quite well:
Quote
What appears to be "objectively" beautiful, when we step back and take in both the object AND our view of it (and the history of the factors that deteremine the characteristics of that view), is seen not to be so. Rather, the sense of beauty reflects the characteristics of the observer as well as, perhaps more than, the observed.


Reciprocating:
Quote
But the fact is that we reason over our subjective experiences, and subjectivity (and the non-propositional forms of processing we call "feelings") plays a huge role in motivating and organizing reasoning.


Yep. Reason is a tool for planning how to acheive a goal, or perhaps in deciding which goals are actually practical; motivation comes from feelings (as might be guessed from the word "motivation").

Henry

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,22:04   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 28 2007,21:52)
Well, that plus the point I've tried to make before - defining the terms in an unclear question is a necessary first step toward answering it. Ergo, objecting to a request for definitions of terms just does not make sense.

But that is precisely the problem:  when it comes to subjective questions, there IS NO definition. Or, more correctly, there are BILLIONS of definitions -- one for every person alive -- and there simply is no way to logically, scientifically or rationally determine whose definition is the "correct" one.  Asking for a single precise definition of terms, is asking for something that just doesn't exist.

And that is precisely why science cannot even BEGIN to answer these questions.  There is simply no way to objectively define the terms -- other than arbitrarily picking one definition (ANY one --it doesn't matter which) and declaring "that's it -- that's the one we're using".

Which doesn't actually answer the question.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2007,23:17   

Lenny,

Re "But that is precisely the problem:"

It looks to me like the real problem seems to be that you're saying that like somebody's disagreeing with you, when your point here isn't what Louis is disagreeing with, as far as I can tell.

I think what Louis is saying is that the answers from a group of people, once obtained, can be analyzed statistically, and maybe that a persons answer could be detected by using an instrument to measure the person's reaction to something.

As far as I can tell, he isn't saying that science can decide the answer for a given person, which is what it looks like what you appear to think he's saying.

Regarding asking somebody on the street "are blondes cuter than brunettes?" - if you ask a specific person that question, then you've provided the context that Louis keeps saying is needed. Which makes me wonder why you keep objecting to his suggestion that context (i.e., who is being asked) is needed for that kind of question? For that particular question, the term that typically needs defining is simply the "to whom" part of the question - without that the question is meaningless (Or at least unanswerable as is), as everybody who's commented here (excepting perhaps Skeptic) appears to agree.

Henry

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,01:32   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 28 2007,20:14)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 28 2007,20:07)
Lenny unless I can be convinced why not, ?I do suspect that asking about 'Capital B-Beauty' or 'are blondes hotter than brunettes' is like asking 'what color is a five sided square'.

after all, as louis has repeatedly and verbose-ly pointed out, that question is rather indistinguishable from nonsense without the subjective qualifiers. ?

do you not agree?

No, I do not agree.

And the reason is simple --- if you go out on the street, stop five or six random people, and ask them: ?(1) what color is a five-sided square?, and then (2) are blondes cuter than brunettes?, you will very quickly discover something interesting.

Everyone will answer the second question.

Nobody will answer the first.


Why?

One question has meaning to people.

One doesn't.

It won't take long to discover which is which.


Go try it.

We have a semantic tangle. I recommend to anyone who has skimmed the longer posts here that they read Reciprocating Bill's last few posts with some care. Clarity was needed, and Bill delivered.

My own contribution to an unravelling of the particular knot Lenny worries at here is the concept of speech acts. Language is a part of human behavior, more of a conduit through which we mediate interpersonal affairs than a channel dedicated to noise-free information transfer. A great deal of the time, our speech acts, that is, discrete utterances, do not "say" the literal meaning of what we "said."

Classic examples are like "Do you have the time?" The speaker is not interested, particularly, in a yes or no answer, which, taken literally, the question requires. The speaker wants to know the time. This is what Searle and others have called indirect speech acts. The concept can be applied to questions like Lenny's though, and doing so reveals that they are just not the same kind of speech acts as questions about matters of easily verified facts and results of measurements.

The question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" in ordinary discourse is really a request: "[Tell me your opinion:] are blondes hotter than brunettes?"

So, while it takes the identical grammatical form as questions like "Are bricks heavier than feathers?" it is not a speech act requesting an assertion of fact, but an opinion. That is why it will generate a reply from the man in the street, and Louis's nonsense question will not. If you asked the same random person, "Are blondes hotter than brunettes, always, for everyone?" you'd get the same blank stares as you would if you babbled.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,03:56   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 29 2007,00:07)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 28 2007,15:27)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 28 2007,21:14)
OK then, let's see if science can answer this one:

?  
Quote
What color is a five-sided square?


I'd like to see you weasel out of this one with all them'ar big words, Louis.

No worries!

The colour of a five sided square is Bognor Regis.

Or to be precise Bognor Regis point six three banana four quantum Sigmund BunkyBunkyJigJig.

Um, let me interrupt the repartee for a moment to clarify something:

Is it your view that the questions "is abortion wrong?", "are brunettes cuter than blondes?" or "is it wrong to keep a wallet full of money that I find on the sidealk" are "meaningless" -- that is, they are no different, in principle, from questions like "what color is a five-sided square?"


Really and truly?

Lenny,

You of course already know precisely what I think having carefully read what I have written.

And it isn't my emotions that are leading me to tell you you have quotemined me, it is the facts, the nice black and white written down facts of the messages on this message board. Hence why I have little interest in discussing this with you UNTIL you can admit you were wrong. You quote mined me and have been attacking a strawman ever since. Why should I waste further time retyping an explanation of something I have already explained several times exceedingly clearly?

Oh and yes, both "questions" are meaningless as they stand because they are incoherent. They are incoherent for different reasons, but why bother to explain this to you? You clearly a) haven't read what I have written (because I've explained this a few times now)and b) the bits you have read you are quote mining in order to attack a strawman.

So like I said, if you want to progress the discussion, restate my arguments to my satisfaction and I'll do the same for yours.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,04:00   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 28 2007,23:27)
Louis, you're dealing in word games and evasion. ?Exceedingly long word games at that. ?Why don't you just answer a question? ?Is there something so threatening in that request?

You guys are also dancing around the point. ?If someone views a sunrise and finds it beautiful, why is to so and what does that mean to them? ?Imagine if there was no one else in the world and the individual viewed that same sunrise, would it still be beautiful? ?Now, imagine that the individual has never seen a sunrise but still imagines one to be beautiful, is it still beautiful? ?Where does the concept of beauty reside?

Skeptic,

No, I'm not dancing around, I've already ANSWERED the question. I spent a good portion of my day waiting for the plumber answering it. I spent a reasonable amount of time answering it. The fact that you have either not read it, or if you have read it not understood it really isn't my problem.

The fact that as CJ (and others) also note when any question is answered you resort to goalpost shifting (as has been amply demonstrated) makes this conversation (such as it is) utterly futile.

You could of course go back, read what I've written and try very hard to understand it and then restate it to my satisfaction. That might progress things.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,04:29   

Lenny,

Shit boy you DO love your strawmen!

I didn't say those questions were meaningless I said those questions were meaningless in the absence of context. Those last few words are kind of significant, they just ever so slightly alter the meaning of the whole sentence.

Also, whilst the title of the thread has the word "science" in it, you'll notice (because you've read everything right?) that in the FIRST post I pointed out that major basis for the rift between science and religion as being the epistemological differences between faith and reason. I made it somewhat clear to anyone with a reading age of oooooh around five I'd say.

Of course you'd know this if you'd read it, or if you'd bothered to do anything other than quote mine my arguments for straw men. Still playing the smug cunt? Still not ready to admit that you have utterly failed to understand or deal with the arguments I've actually made? (As opposed to your strawmen of course)

I just wonder what MASSIVE arrogance you must possess to utterly ignore someone who has REAPEATEDLY told you that you have misunderstood their argument and REPEATEDLY restated it for you and then to continue with the SAME misunderstanding as if it were real. You actually have staggered me on that front. You seem to be as borish and stupid as the fundamentalists you dislike because you are parroting EXACTLY their methods of discussion.

I notice you are ALSO ignoring the points I made earlier about the evolutionary approach to axiom generating in subjective matters (indeed ANY matter, because all thing proceed from axioms) AND the statistical points I've made. I notice that in doing this all you have done is restate your original claims. Just like Skeptic has done. Just like AFDave would etc etc etc. If you want to be distinguishable from morons, don't argue like them.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,04:39   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 29 2007,07:32)
We have a semantic tangle. I recommend to anyone who has skimmed the longer posts here that they read Reciprocating Bill's last few posts with some care. Clarity was needed, and Bill delivered.

First, thanks for your help, I made the point about definitions and use of language a while ago but it has been ignored. I'm not singling you out CJ, someone else (Bill I think, I may be wrong) upthread said this was a semantic wrangle, and I don't agree that it is.

Second, long though some of my posts may have been they have been abundantly clear to anyone willing to read them. Which I don't agree that Lenny has done

Third, I don't agree that I am part of any semantic tangle or wrangle. I have been exceedingly clear about why I think the questions Lenny and Skeptic are posing are answerable by reason and under what circumstances. I've also been exceedingly clear about what, when they shift definitions to make a question unanswerable, or when they rely on commonly used definitions for terms without stating that up front, renders the questions unanswerable. I can't help it if people want to quote mine and attack straw men.

Fourth, Lenny and I disagree on one issue: he thinks that an undefined, context free, collection of words about a context dependant property constitutes a question, I don't. I've pointed this out both verbosely and succinctly a few different ways and it has yet to get through. Needless to say, I am less than convinced, given the demonstrable quote mining and attacking of strawmen, that my communication skills (or lack thereof) are to blame.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,06:41   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,05:39)
I'm not singling you out CJ, someone else (Bill I think, I may be wrong) upthread said this was a semantic wrangle, and I don't agree that it is.

Louis -

I jumped in somewhat midstream. FWIW, upon returning to the start and reading (portions of) your earlier posts I see that you've most often been clear about the distinction between "reason" and "science/scientific method." I'm not sure that characterizing science as simply a more skillfully applied form of reason fully captures the distinction, however, as science has contributed unique means of empirical feedback and extended communities capable of "distributed cognition" and self-correction that go far beyond reasoning alone - as well you know.

R. Bill

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,08:19   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 29 2007,12:41)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,05:39)
I'm not singling you out CJ, someone else (Bill I think, I may be wrong) upthread said this was a semantic wrangle, and I don't agree that it is.

Louis -

I jumped in somewhat midstream. FWIW, upon returning to the start and reading (portions of) your earlier posts I see that you've most often been clear about the distinction between "reason" and "science/scientific method." I'm not sure that characterizing science as simply a more skillfully applied form of reason fully captures the distinction, however, as science has contributed unique means of empirical feedback and extended communities capable of "distributed cognition" and self-correction that go far beyond reasoning alone - as well you know.

R. Bill

Hi Bill,

Actually, I'd agree with your comment completely, and  I'm guilty of oversimplifying the reason/science relationship. My point about the reason/science relationship was limited to the epistemological basis of science. I'm not sure how relevant the mechanistic nuances of science are relevant to the discussion however, but I'm willing to learn!

Skeptic's initial claim was that there is no valid reason for a rift between science and religion, my starting comment on this was that at the very core of these broad human enterprises there are very different epistemological methods (or claims for epistemological validity) and that this leads to a very real and very genuine rift.

As a general rule I have to say that I am less than enamoured by the dichotomies that people erect between fields of study. It's a Greek legacy, blame those old dudes! The mechanistic, technical aspects of say physics and history (for example) are very different but their underpinnings by reason (etc) are identical.

At least partly where this thread has gone awry is where the "unanswerable" "questions" arise (I take issue with BOTH of those words for separate reasons). First we have the unsupported (unsupportable) claim that methods can answer "unanswerable" questions and second we have the unsupported (unsupportable) claim that unanswerable "questions" are in fact questions. Perhaps that's my fault for emphasising the epistemological elements of the discussion, but that is where the root of the rift between science and religion lies.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,08:46   

Louis, who's context?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,09:06   

think i figgered it out.

I don't assume that every question may be answered and that this answer is 'out there' and floating around like lenny seems to be saying, man, in some ontological void until some particular bastard like Louis insists that it be squeezed into some contingent context or the other.  

lenny, if you aren't saying that, then may i characterize you as saying that 'NOT every question may be answered'.

louis it is true that you are saying these are questions that don't have answers?

if we agree that not every question may be answered (of course i am skipping over uninteresting quibbles about definitions of truth etc) then this gets simpler.  

Lenny i don't see how you can argue that 'science can't answer these questions' because of their context-free ubersubjective nature, and also claim that 'these are meaningful questions'.  i find that asking Joe Schmo on the street is not only a red herring but also damages your argument because someone pointed out, this implies  
Quote
[In Your Opinion] Are Live Women Hotter Than Dead Women?


Ed Abbey said something relevant here (i forget what the object was but it works for whatever), when asked by a visitor 'What is that?', Abbey replied "Ahh, what it is no man knows, but some call it a raven".

And that is the same essentialist obfuscating that you are doing with insisting that 'questions have answers that beyond science' and on the other hand 'those questions have answers'.  it's just an ontological silly buggers game, you are stuck with this conundrum because you have assumed an essential characteristic and therefore must claim that it is outside of science, and define science accordingly.

But I could be wrong.  Do all questions have answers?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,09:07   

p.s. that was all an excuse to say ontological silly buggers.  i've been laughing my ass off at that, rhetorically.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,09:11   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 29 2007,14:46)
Louis, who's context?

Depends on which context you are asking about. Which one are you asking about?

Oh and incidentally, you'd know my answer to this question if you'd bothered to read what I'd written before on this thread. I've explained it about 3 or 4 times now.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,09:18   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 29 2007,15:06)
louis it is true that you are saying these are questions that don't have answers?

All questions have answers by definition*.

Not all things that appear to be qustions or are framed as questions are, in fact, questions.

Some of the things that appear to be questions are incoherent and thus cannot, by definition, be questions.

Louis

*Whether they have answers YET is a different matter, as is whether you, I, or anyone else will ever know the answers and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,09:18   

Quote
We have a semantic tangle


No we have a semantic triangle AKA Semiotic triangle not be confused with ?a Map Of Tassie

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,09:20   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 29 2007,15:07)
p.s. that was all an excuse to say ontological silly buggers. ?i've been laughing my ass off at that, rhetorically.

I have been wondering when people will get to onology for a while. The sort of (well refuted) arguments that Skeptic is attempting to make (very badly) are geared towards the ontological argument for the existence of god.

Enjoy the laugh.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,09:21   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 29 2007,15:18)
Quote
We have a semantic tangle


No we have a semantic triangle AKA Semiotic triangle not be confused with ?a Map Of Tassie

I have also been wondering when someone was going to make a joke about cloppers.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,10:02   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,09:18)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 29 2007,15:06)
louis it is true that you are saying these are questions that don't have answers?

All questions have answers by definition*.

Not all things that appear to be qustions or are framed as questions are, in fact, questions.

Some of the things that appear to be questions are incoherent and thus cannot, by definition, be questions.

Louis

*Whether they have answers YET is a different matter, as is whether you, I, or anyone else will ever know the answers and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Context determines whether or not a question is indeed a question?  I'm not sure if this is simply stupid or incredibly arrogant.

Take this scenario.  I ask you Why you love your wife.  Who gets to decide the context?  You tell me that you love your wife because God linked your souls for eternity or something equally irrational.  I say, I'm sorry, that's not correct.  Population X has determined that love is defined by A, B, and C and your reason is not on the list.  Please go back and try again or I can only conclude that you do not love your wife, at least not according to my context which is the only way this question is meaningful to me.  Who gets to decide which questions are meaningful?  How about everyone!  You should really go back and read some of what you've written.  And before you ask, I have no interest in restating your opinion to your satisfaction.  This is nothing more than a diversion and I have no intention in arguing in the schoolyard with a three year old.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,10:06   

A search for 'cloppers', which seems to be a plural for a singularity, reveals only this.

Mad and Bad: Lewis, Psychosis and the Culture of Psychiatry

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,10:13   

Quote
I ask you Why you love your wife.
 

After I help you up off of the floor, I respond 'That's why'.

and to you, that answer is just as valid as your population statistics.  any answer would be.  and that is why it is a stupid question that doesn't have an answer.  it is irrelevant that you can ask 8 out of 10 dentists or what have you and they will give you an answer instead of saying 'What the fuck are you talking about'.  surprise, skeptic, people make shit up when they are asked softball stupid pseudo-questions.  you have proven that over and over again.  tell us more about duality.

you forgot that it would be "[In My Opinion], I Love My Wife Because" before we took to rasslin' over it.  

Or do you presume that there is an objective answer, floating around out there in the ether, to the question?  Must I pray to know the real answer?  How can you tell?

you can't, because it is nonsense dressed up in drag.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,10:21   

But doesn't that question mean something to you?  Obviously it does or you wouldn't have decked me.  Is it really a stupid question?  How much more significant in the course of your day is that answer to that question than the speed of light or some other physical quantity?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,10:30   

of course you miss the point, again.  mighta hit you harder than i meant (of course, it could have been because you were really drunk and took a swing at me).

the point was namely that To You, any answer is as good as any other answer to that question.  

that would be my position as well except that i don't think it is a meaningful question.  just a string of words soliciting my opinion.

isn't it just amazing that people add meaning to meaningless things?  how about a three tier waterfall symbolizing the trinity?  or that time when the phone rang right when i was thinking about it ringing?  or assigning some ontological priority to sloppy propositions?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,10:49   

Another Stroke Against Dualism

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,10:53   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 29 2007,16:02)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,09:18)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 29 2007,15:06)
louis it is true that you are saying these are questions that don't have answers?

All questions have answers by definition*.

Not all things that appear to be qustions or are framed as questions are, in fact, questions.

Some of the things that appear to be questions are incoherent and thus cannot, by definition, be questions.

Louis

*Whether they have answers YET is a different matter, as is whether you, I, or anyone else will ever know the answers and irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Context determines whether or not a question is indeed a question? ?I'm not sure if this is simply stupid or incredibly arrogant.

Take this scenario. ?I ask you Why you love your wife. ?Who gets to decide the context? ?You tell me that you love your wife because God linked your souls for eternity or something equally irrational. ?I say, I'm sorry, that's not correct. ?Population X has determined that love is defined by A, B, and C and your reason is not on the list. ?Please go back and try again or I can only conclude that you do not love your wife, at least not according to my context which is the only way this question is meaningful to me. ?Who gets to decide which questions are meaningful? ?How about everyone! ?You should really go back and read some of what you've written. ?And before you ask, I have no interest in restating your opinion to your satisfaction. ?This is nothing more than a diversion and I have no intention in arguing in the schoolyard with a three year old.

Skeptic,

I have already answered the "do I love my wife" question AND the issue of context. You can read these answers in this very thread.

Don't want to restate my arguments to my satisfaction? Bullshit! Don't want to read them more like! You can keep pissing about Skeptic, but you just make yourself look like a fucking idiot. It's actually quite funny. I have a vague sense that when I accuse you of arguing poorly in manner X you repeat the exact accusation (baselessly I might add) a few posts later as if this WERE some schoolyard tauntfest. I might go back and see if my vague sense is correct. Of course it's far more likely I won't waste my time.

Like I asked above, which use of "context" were you referring to? I've used it in at least two ways and defined each use quite carefully. Which one do you mean?

Incidentally, to answer this question, and to get e to answer your question, you will have to actually read and understand my arguments. I have complete confidence that you lack both the will and the ability to do this. Keep up the terrible work.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,12:35   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 29 2007,10:30)
of course you miss the point, again. ?mighta hit you harder than i meant (of course, it could have been because you were really drunk and took a swing at me).

the point was namely that To You, any answer is as good as any other answer to that question. ?

that would be my position as well except that i don't think it is a meaningful question. ?just a string of words soliciting my opinion.

isn't it just amazing that people add meaning to meaningless things? ?how about a three tier waterfall symbolizing the trinity? ?or that time when the phone rang right when i was thinking about it ringing? ?or assigning some ontological priority to sloppy propositions?

I'm going to have to step back here and say that I'm not really sure what you're trying to say.

To me, my answer is not just as good as any other.  Are you saying that to you my answer is just as good as any other?

adding meaning to a meaningless thing?  love is meaningless and we attach fake meaning to it?  I'm really not sure I'm getting you here...my ears are still ringing.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,17:40   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 28 2007,23:17)
I think what Louis is saying is that the answers from a group of people, once obtained, can be analyzed statistically, and maybe that a persons answer could be detected by using an instrument to measure the person's reaction to something.

Which is all well and fine --- except that it doesn't . . . ya know . . . .answer the question.


:)



Which is of course my whole point.  Science (or logic, or reason, or kohlinar) simply can't answer the question.  All it can do is examine OTHER PEOPLE'S answers-- with no clue at all which answer is right.

Which is why science (or reason, or logic, or kohlinar) is not universally applicable.

Which is why science and religion need not inherently conflict with each other.

Which is all I've been saying all along.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,17:42   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Aug. 29 2007,01:32)
The question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" in ordinary discourse is really a request: "[Tell me your opinion:] are blondes hotter than brunettes?"

So, while it takes the identical grammatical form as questions like "Are bricks heavier than feathers?" it is not a speech act requesting an assertion of fact, but an opinion. That is why it will generate a reply from the man in the street, and Louis's nonsense question will not. If you asked the same random person, "Are blondes hotter than brunettes, always, for everyone?" you'd get the same blank stares as you would if you babbled.

Ding ding ding ding !!!!!!!!!!


Exactly right.


Which is exactly why science can't answer such questions.


Which demonstrates why sciene is not universally applicable.

Which indicates why sciecne and religion need not inherently conflict wiht each other.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,17:42   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,03:56)
Is it your view that the questions "is abortion wrong?", "are brunettes cuter than blondes?" or "is it wrong to keep a wallet full of money that I find on the sidealk" are "meaningless" -- that is, they are no different, in principle, from questions like "what color is a five-sided square?"


Really and truly?[/quote]
Lenny,

You of course already know precisely what I think having carefully read what I have written.

Humor me.  Tell me again.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,17:44   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,04:29)
I didn't say those questions were meaningless I said those questions were meaningless in the absence of context. Those last few words are kind of significant, they just ever so slightly alter the meaning of the whole sentence.

That's great.

So how can "logic" or "science" or "reason" answer those questions.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,17:45   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,04:29)
Also, whilst the title of the thread has the word "science" in it, you'll notice (because you've read everything right?) that in the FIRST post I pointed out that major basis for the rift between science and religion as being the epistemological differences between faith and reason. I made it somewhat clear to anyone with a reading age of oooooh around five I'd say.

You're uh, bitching at the wrong person here, Louis.  I think Reciprocating Bill made the point you are bitching about.  So you'd best bitch at him instead of at me.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,17:46   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 29 2007,04:39)
I have been exceedingly clear about why I think the questions Lenny and Skeptic are posing are answerable by reason and under what circumstances.

Then answer them.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,17:52   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 29 2007,09:06)
I don't assume that every question may be answered and that this answer is 'out there' and floating around like lenny seems to be saying

Um, no.  I said no such thing.  Indeed, I sais precisely the opposite --- questions such as the ones I cited cannot be answered because there is no answer.  Or, more accurately, there are BILLIONS of answers -- one for every person on earth -- and no way whatsoever to tell which, if any, are more "correct" than any other.


Which is why science (or logic, or reason, or kohlinar) can't answer them.

Which is why scienec is not universally applicable.

Which is why science and religion need not inherently conflict.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,17:58   

Hey, Lenny, you've repeated yourself multiple times does this mean that by Louis' definition you win?  Oh, no, that's right, you did it in less than 1000 words.  Sorry, you still lose Lenny.  :D

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,18:04   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 29 2007,09:06)
?i find that asking Joe Schmo on the street is not only a red herring but also damages your argument because someone pointed out, this implies ?
Quote
[In Your Opinion] Are Live Women Hotter Than Dead Women?

Far from damaging my point, that

*******IS*********

my point.

You are precisely right --- such questions do indeed ask for SOMEONE'S OPINION.  Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.  Whether it's an opinion about aesthetics, or morality, or ethics, it remains just that -- an opinion.  And by asking someone to "define their terms precisely", all one is doing is asking for MORE OPINIONS, since there IS NO "precise definition" for any of those terms -- only various opinions, none of which can be determined to be any more or less "correct" than any other.

And that is exactly why science/reason/logic/kohlinar simply cannot answer any question of opinion, aesthetics, morality or ethics.

Why not?  Because there is no answer.

Only opinions.

And science can't judge opinions/aesthetics, morality or ethics.


That is precisely what I have been saying all along.

Hence, science is not universally applicable.  It can't answer questions dealing with opinions about aesthetics, morality or ethics.  Inform us about them?  Yes.  Provide information to help us make better choices?  Sure.  Present different possible ways of looking at things to give a new viewpoint?  Absolutely.  But it simply cannot answer the question, because there is no objective answer.

Hence, if religion limits itself to those sort of questions that science/reason/logic simply cannot answer, such as aesthetics, morality and ethics (and once again we here leave aside the question of whether or not religion CAN answer these questions any better than science can--and of course I don't think it can) then science and religion will be simply talking about different things that have virtually nothing to do with each other, each will be asking questions that simply can't be answered by the other, and therefore they need not inherently conflict in any way.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,18:04   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 29 2007,17:58)
Hey, Lenny, you've repeated yourself multiple times does this mean that by Louis' definition you win? ?Oh, no, that's right, you did it in less than 1000 words. ?Sorry, you still lose Lenny. ?:D

Skeptic, please shut up.

Thanks.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,18:11   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 28 2007,20:50)
1. ?Is abortion wrong?
2. ?If I find a wallet full of money on the sidewalk, should I keep it?
3. ?Should I marry this person, or that one?
4. ?Should I quit my job?
5. ?What makes a person "good"?
6. ?Would I look better if I dropped twenty pounds?
7. ?Should we invade Iraq?
8. ?Should we pull our troops out of Iraq?
9. ?Should we drop nuclear weapons on Iran?
10. Should I vote for Hillary Clinton in the pirmary?

BTW, I have to say that the notion that questions like these are "not really meaningful questions", has got to be one of the top five silliest things I've heard in a long long long time . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,20:29   

Watch out, Lenny, you're kicking your word count up there.  

I'd like to focus on the initial question real quick.  Is there a rift between science and religion.  Now, Louis, it appears that we may need to place that question in context for it to have any meaning.

If you take rift to mean a separation between the two areas then I fully agree.  The two areas are completely separated and the discussion is over.  Yes there is a rift between science and religion.

If you mean rift to mean necessary conflict then I say no and I'd like to offer this as an example:

Take two questions,

What is the speed of sound?

Is murder wrong?

Now who am I going to turn to for the answers?  I believe we all can agree on one thing (unbelievable as it may sound), we will not turn to a theologian to discover the speed of sound.  Anyone who disagrees with that?...No hands, good.  Some will ask the theologian is murder wrong and I feel vaguely confident that we'll all agree that SOME will do this.  Still with me?

Again, I believe we'll find universal agreement that we'll ask the scientist what is the speed of sound.  Still no problems.  The question gets clouded when we examine the final scenario.  Do we ask the scientist is murder wrong?  From what we've seen here that is a very complex answer.  No, yes, maybe, what's the point, there is no answer, etc.  As in the case of the theologian being a source for the answer to this question to many people, I will have to concede that there are many who may answer yes to the scientist too.

So we've got two individuals answering the same question in some cases but what of their answers.  Is there any continuity in the answers?  Would either be satisfied with the other's answer?  Do the two different answers necessarily conflict?  I'd say in all three cases, no.  In fact, I would say that an examination of the answers would reveal that they are actually answers to two very different questions.  I would say that you can not compare these two answers in any meaningful way.  Even if the answer is the same the opposing methodology in each case is unacceptable to the other individual.  It would be more appropriate to ignore the alternate answer than to engage in any debate over the merit of one answer over the other.  The two individuals are at an impasse from initial conditions.

So what does all this mean?  You'll notice throughout I've emphasized that this is my opinion and it appears that is where this discussion ends.  I compartmentalize science and religion, reason and faith to such a degree that there is no conflict, for me.  Others may view this differently and come to the opposite conclusion.  So who is right?  I say both because ultimately we're just making assessments of our own opinions and nothing more.  

that's how I see it as clearly and plainly as I can state it.  I'll leave it to the rest of you to continue you express how you see it.  Good night.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,20:52   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 29 2007,21:29)
So we've got two individuals answering the same question in some cases but what of their answers. ?Is there any continuity in the answers? ?Would either be satisfied with the other's answer? ?Do the two different answers necessarily conflict? ?I'd say in all three cases, no. ?

Not sure I follow. Why wouldn't you ask a scientist? While the scientist's professional tools may not be helpful in answering this question, nothing about being a scientist puts her at a disadvantage in answering such a question relative to persons in other professions. And surely being bright helps one arrive at well-considered individual conclusions.

Neither does the theologian's discipline privilege him in any way, or offer him any help - he may be able to report in detail the history of theological debate on the topic, but ultimately he is in the same boat as the scientist in responding to the question. In that boat are also you and me. We may or may not arrive at the same conclusions, and may or may not be satisfied with one another's reasoning.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,20:52   

Lenny,

In other words, science does not make decisions or establish opinions.

But nobody was arguing against that point; as far as I can tell Louis' point doesn't conflict with that. Is there a disagreement on that point that I'm not seeing?

As for that list of questions that you've accused Louis of saying are without meaning: unless I've misunderstood him, he's been saying questions of opinion have to be directed at a particular person(s) in order to have an answer. As far as I can tell you're in agreement on that point. So here too: Is there a disagreement on this point that I'm not seeing?

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,21:20   

The theologian and the scientist are merely metaphors for science and religion and not literal individuals.  But your point is taken and we are much more complex as individuals which is why I offered my example of compartmentalization.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,21:27   

Hey Lenny -

In thinking about the scientist and the theologian, and the potential value of bringing intelligence to these subjective decisions, and a question occurred to me I want to pose to you. Start with your list of questions:

1. Is abortion wrong?
2. If I find a wallet full of money on the sidewalk, should I keep it?
3. Should I marry this person, or that one?
(etc....)

You have insisted repeatedly that there are no "right" answers to these questions discoverable by scientific or other means, and all said and done, I see your point.

But I also want to say that people display widely varying degrees of quality of the process they employ in arriving at such everyday ethical, aesthetic, and emotional subjective judgments. Take the question, "Should I marry this person, or that one?"

One guy gets to know his potential partners over a considerable period, meets their families, determines whether they have compatible interests, learns whether they are sexually compatible, explores for commonalities vis money, children, religious affiliation, etc., really explores the quality of their intelligence and capacity for cooperation, and so forth. He also reflects on the quality and intensity of the romantic feelings he has and the "feel" of being with each potential spouse. He proposes.

The other guy says, "What the fuck," picks two with the best tits, flips a coin, and gets a beer.

Any of us can construct similar scenarios for the other questions.

Now I want to say that the first guy is engaging in a better quality process, and is more likely to make a good and ultimately satisfying selection. Accepting that premise, and in light of the utter subjectivity vis the "rightness" of such decisions to which you refer, what is the metric that justifies such a statement? ?Accepting your position, it cannot be the rightness or wrongness of the decisions; as you argue such conclusions are entirely subjective. Yet I suspect you would agree that some people make patently and foreseably poor decisions in, for example, mate choice, often because the process is so poor, while others do much better in that regard.

Even given your point vis the impossibility of devising an "algorithmic" process (such as the scientific method) that yields objectively "right" decisions vis these questions, I nevertheless find it impossible to state that there are not degrees of quality in the process brought to those questions, and degrees of quality vis the decisions themselves.

Given the subjectivity you have underscored vis the the questions you offer as exemplars, what is the metric for these variations in quality of the sort of judgement I have described?

R. Bill

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,21:29   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 29 2007,20:52)
In other words, science does not make decisions or establish opinions.

But nobody was arguing against that point; as far as I can tell Louis' point doesn't conflict with that. Is there a disagreement on that point that I'm not seeing?

Yes.  And it lies in the area of "universality".

As I have repeatedly stated, I consider science to NOT be universally applicable.

Hence, there are questions that science simply cannot answer.

Religion, therefore, is in principle able to limit itself to exactly those areas (ethics, morality) that science simply can't answer.

Therefore, science and religion are not, even in principle, inherently or inevitably in conflict.

UNLESS

One wants to make the claim that science IS universally applicable.  One way to do that is to simply declare that any question science can't answer . . . well . . . isn't really a question.  Silly, I think, but an option nevertheless.

Another is to claim that science CAN answer questions about ethics, morality, aesthetics, etc.  Or, at least science can change these sort of questions that it cannot answer, into questions that it CAN answer, and then declare that it has answered the question.  Again, silly, I think, but again, an option nevertheless.

If science (or reason, or rationality, or logic, or kohlinar) IS universal, then it not only inherently conflicts with religion, but it inherently conflicts with EVERY OTHER viewpoint that is not science (such as, say, political programs or ideologies of any sort).  After all, if science can answer all questions, then there simply is no need for any other viewpoint.  Anything other than science, is just "pedantic nonsense".  

If, on the other hand, science (or reason, or rationality, or logic, or kohlinar) is NOT universal, then there is no reason whatsoever why any viewpoint (religion, political ideology, or whatever) that deals exclusively with the areas NOT covered by science, should inherently be in conflict with it.


So I guess the real question is:

Is science (or reason or rationality or logic or kohlinar or whatever else anyone wants to call it) universally applicable?  Are there, or are there not, questions that it cannot answer?

If the answer is "yes, science IS universally applicable, and there is NO question that science (or logic, or rationality, or reason) cannot answer, in principle", then that is the source of our disagreement.  And I will then once more ask anyone to go ahead and answer the question "is abortion wrong?" using science (or logic, or reason, or kohlinar).

If the answer is "no, science is NOT universally applicable, and there ARE questions that science (or reason, or logic, or kohlinar) cannot answer, in principle", then I agree, and there's nothing more to say.  If religion stays in those areas that science cannot answer anyway, then there is absolutely no necessary conflict between them (unless one attempts to intrude into the area of the other).

As I noted before, the assertion that science and religion don't cover the same areas, is only emotionally disturbing to someone who either wants religion to be universal (like most of the evangelical Christians) OR who wants science to be universal (like most of the evangelical atheists), and who wants to leave no room whatsoever for the other.

I hold neither view.  Which is why, I suppose, I generally manage to piss off BOTH sides.  (shrug)

And indeed, the high level of emotion and defensiveness visible from some people in this thread indicates pretty clearly that this is NOT just a simple intellectual disagreement -- we are, indeed, talking about worldviews here, in which a lot of emotional investment has been made.

But, of course, the very PURPOSE of this thread was to religion-bash, yet again.  I, as before, still think such holy wars to be pointless and dumb.  But it only seems fair that if everyone insists on a holy war, then BOTH sides ought to be able to take their licks.  After all, I consider both sides to be equally pointless and equally useless.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,21:31   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 29 2007,21:27)
Now I want to say that the first guy is engaging in a better quality process, and is more likely to make a good and ultimately satisfying selection. Accepting that premise, and in light of the utter subjectivity vis the "rightness" of such decisions to which you refer, what is the metric that justifies such a statement? ?Accepting your position, it cannot be the rightness or wrongness of the decisions; as you argue such conclusions are entirely subjective. Yet I suspect you would agree that some people make patently and foreseably poor decisions in, for example, mate choice, often because the process is so poor, while others do much better in that regard.

True, all.

And not relevant.  WHATEVER process people use to answer these questions, it odesn't change the fact that science can't answer them.

Therefore, any viewpoint that limits itself exclusively to trying to answer them, simply cannot be in conflict with science, since science doesn't have diddley to say about answering those questions.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,21:42   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 29 2007,21:27)
Given the subjectivity you have underscored vis the the questions you offer as exemplars, what is the metric for these variations in quality of the sort of judgement I have described?

R. Bill

The metric lies in the person asking the question.

After all, there IS no objective way to determine which choice is "best".

An example -- For most people in the US, living in a garage, unmarried, at an almost minimum-wage job, with no car, is the very definition of "failure".

And yet for me, it is my very definition of "success".  I wouldn't give it up for anything.

Who are you (metaphorically) to tell me my choice is "right" or "wrong", or is "better" or "worse" than the differing choices made by someone who became a multi-billionnaire?

As with everything else with such questions, the metric is entirely subjective.  "Logic" and "reason" may help one to reach one's goals, but they can't define or determine those goals.  What is "success" for one person, can be utter "failure" for another.  And none of us can judge which is objectively "better" -- other than to judge whether it would be better or worse FOR YOU.


So any "quality of judgement" that you see is entirely in your own eyes.  Other people's judgements will differ from yours, and there is simply no way to objectively determine whose judgement is "correct".

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,21:42   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 29 2007,22:31)
Therefore, any viewpoint that limits itself exclusively to trying to answer them, simply cannot be in conflict with science, since science doesn't have diddley to say about answering those questions.

That said, we can operationalize the classification of kinds of "mate selection processes," empirically investigate the success rates of each sort of process, and thereby offer (by scientific means) "second order" assistance with the decision process: not conclusions, but help with selection of the process by which conclusions are attained.

Surely that is squat, if not diddly.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,21:49   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 29 2007,21:42)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 29 2007,22:31)
Therefore, any viewpoint that limits itself exclusively to trying to answer them, simply cannot be in conflict with science, since science doesn't have diddley to say about answering those questions.

That said, we can operationalize the classification of kinds of "mate selection processes," empirically investigate the success rates of each sort of process, and thereby offer (by scientific means) "second order" assistance with the decision process: not conclusions, but help with selection of the process by which conclusions are attained.

Surely that is squat, if not diddly.

OK, I'll take squat.   :)

Of course, first you have to define "success".  As I've already noted, everyone will have his or her own definition of that.  So we're right back to the very same problem we've had all along --- how can science determine whose definition of "success" is the proper one to measure and apply?

Can science (or logic, or reason, or rationality, or kohlinar) help us improve our decision-making process?  Sure.  Can it provide more information to help make our our decision?  Yep.  Can it prompt us to consider alternative viewpoints or possibilities that we may not have considered before?  You bet.

Can it answer the question?  Not in a million years.  Not any better than your grandmother's (non-rational, emotional, subjective) advice can.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,21:56   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 29 2007,22:42)
After all, there IS no objective way to determine which choice is "best".

Naturally. But as with methods, there is a sort of "second order" metric vis assessments of outcomes: the individual's own satisfaction with their choice. Example: As you have stated, there are no "right" answers vis mate choice other than the answer provided by the individual. However, I might conclude "I hate that bitch I married." By MY metric I've made a poor choice.

I would argue that there are empirically (scientifically) derived means to reduce the likelihood of persons making poor choices relative to their own subjective preferences (whatever those may be), and given their own assessments of the outcome of their choices.

If that were the case, that contribution would amount to significant diddly, IMHO.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,22:00   

skeptic,

Quote
Take two questions,

What is the speed of sound?

Is murder wrong?


I agree that there's no necessity of a conflict (i.e., there's no logical contradiction between scientific conclusions and a generic theism), and some religions don't object to science.

But you're not going to establish your point by picking questions that avoid the areas of disagreement that some religious groups do have with science.

The problem is that those religious groups apparently want our 99% similarity with chimpanzees to be a deliberate design decision on the part of somebody or something, rather than a consequence of the methods used to produce both. How that is supposed to establish a greater distance between us and chimps I have no idea; to me it looks like it does just the opposite. Oh well.

Henry

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,22:01   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 29 2007,21:56)
I would argue that their are empirically (scientifically) derived means to reduce the likelihood of persons making poor choices relative to their own subjective preferences (whatever those may be), and their assessments of the outcome of their choice. ?

If that were the case, that contribution would amount to significant diddly, IMHO.

Well, as I said, can science help us improve our decision-making process?  Sure.  Can it give us information we can use to make better decisions (towards whatever goal we have subjectively set for ourselves)?  Heck, yeah.  Can it allow us to consider probable outcomes of varying decision-scenarios?  It sure can.

Can it tell us what is the right decision to make?  Nope.

Science simply is not universal.

And because it is not universal, there is no inherent conflict whatever between science and ANY viewpoint (whether it be religion or political ideology or whatever) that deals with the areas that science simply can't deal with.

Science is not a worldview.  It's not a way of life.  It's not a philosophy.  It's not a system of morals or ethics or aesthetics.

Science is a method of answering a particular type of question.

Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,22:05   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 29 2007,22:00)
The problem is that those religious groups apparently want our 99% similarity with chimpanzees to be a deliberate design decision on the part of somebody or something, rather than a consequence of the methods used to produce both. How that is supposed to establish a greater distance between us and chimps I have no idea; to me it looks like it does just the opposite. Oh well.

That's because Skeptic is on the opposite side to Louis. Louis wants SCIENCE to be universal.  Skeptic wants RELIGION to be universal.

Neither are.

Indeed, I can't see where religion can even do a good job of answering the areas it CAN reasonably claim for itself outside of science.

Science can't answer subjective matters.

Religion can't answer objective matters.

But alas, religion can't answer subjective matters, either.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,22:09   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 29 2007,21:56)
However, I might conclude "I hate that bitch I married." By MY metric I've made a poor choice.

As an aside, being with someone they constantly bitch about, is for more than one person, precisely what they WANT.

Some people ENJOY bitching, and freely choose every opportunity to engage in it.

Indeed, anyone who "hates that bitch" and doesn't walk out the door, either (1) doesn't really hate the bitch or (2) likes it.


People are strange animals who make lots of strange decisions.  Or, at least, decisions that look strange to everyone else. . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,22:14   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 29 2007,23:09)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 29 2007,21:56)
However, I might conclude "I hate that bitch I married." By MY metric I've made a poor choice.

As an aside, being with someone they constantly bitch about, is for more than one person, precisely what they WANT.

Some people ENJOY bitching, and freely choose every opportunity to engage in it.

Indeed, anyone who "hates that bitch" and doesn't walk out the door, either (1) doesn't really hate the bitch or (2) likes it.


People are strange animals who make lots of strange decisions. ?Or, at least, decisions that look strange to everyone else. . . .

Of course - but not the intent of my hypothetical, over which I have complete and utter control. (In the next hypothetical moment, having suffering catastrophic consequence of a poor choice, I buried her in the basement and moved on. Who is to say that was wrong?)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,22:22   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 29 2007,22:14)
(In the next hypothetical moment, having suffering catastrophic consequence of a poor choice, I buried her in the basement and moved on. Who is to say that was wrong?)

Depends what one means by "wrong", I suppose.

Indeed, many people would say that you *did* make the "right" choice.  The law, of course, would disagree.  And since the law has guns backing up its particular opinion, that's the only one that counts in practice.  

I believe it was Thoreau who said that democracy doesn't operate on the principle of "majority rule" because the majority is more likely to make better decisions, or because the majority is a better judge of morality or ethics, or because the majority is more likely to have the best interests of society as a whole at heart.  The majority rules simply because it is physically stronger than the minority, and can force its views onto the minority if necessary, whether its views are right or wrong.

Much truth in that.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,22:33   

Quote
I would argue that there are empirically (scientifically) derived means to reduce the likelihood of persons making poor choices relative to their own subjective preferences (whatever those may be), based upon their own assessment of the outcome of their choice.


You're starting to spoil this soft toy fight.

A person?s choice (The English word 'heresy' is derived from the Greek word for choosing) depending on their power relationship to a person, who has made a conflicting choice be it a child or a government, is governed more often than not by outside influences

Religion more often than not makes the choice for the 'choicee' not based on any empirical evidence but dogma.

To suggest otherwise invites the holder of that opinion to subject their mental state to a thorough examination for schizophrenia.

Even if you are the world?s most perfect protestant and the choice is made between some sort of personal god and reason, then that personal god is not separate to that person and simply an extension of their own ego.

Religion by definition is a social construct that sets the horizons of that particular tribe, whatever it is it is not based on reason or 'empericity' but pure politics and Machiavelli.

To even suggest religion and science are not in conflict is Machiavellian. In other words the end justifies the means, even if that means lying for the 'greater good of the religion'.

A very simple test is to ask the question which religion is (or is not) in conflict with science or more correctly the scientific method.

In other words there are well over 2000 separate Xtian cults in the US alone, throw in all the sects and cults of every stripe of all the other religions some of which are thousands of years old VS the scientific method which has only one version last time I looked.

You are comparing myth to reality.

The problem is we use the same language to communicate the story for each.

If one chooses to believe fantasy is real, good for you, it is not a method that will help one discover what reality actually is.

One could pray for reality to go away of course.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,23:44   

Bill, you miss one looming issue.  The rational man may use the method to pick the best mate based upon all agreed upon criteria, even his own, but does that mean that he loves his mate.  Is love subject to a selection criteria?  It is a worn out anecdote about the couple who where perfect for each other and still didn't work out.

Henry (and Lenny), I can't argue that some on the religious side commit the same error as those on the scientific side.  They are equally wrong, IMO.  I do not believe religion is the universal answer.  I believe religion, as science, has a limited role to play in the collection of knowledge and each should keep their hands to themselves.  I see no conflict precisely because I see boundaries around each of them that are impenetrable.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2007,23:54   

Quote
I see no conflict precisely because I see boundaries around each of them that are impenetrable.


Yup I'll go along with that, the boundary around each religion is equivalent to the walls around an asylum and the boundary aound science the limits of the observable universe including all past and all future events.

Or are you talking about imaginary boundaries?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,00:41   

it could be said that one may escape from an asylum... :D

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,02:00   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 30 2007,08:41)
it could be said that one may escape from an asylum... :D

How true, you can't escape from reality...er unless you make it up.

Just as an aside after 40 days of no food the chances of having a psychotic episode are greatly enhanced. It is thought Shamans in ancient tribal societies fasted to reach a state 'spiritual elevation'.

It could be argued a great many of the 'revelations' in sacred texts could be the result of schizophrenia i.e. where the sufferer literally looses touch with the here and now and hears voices or sees things no one else can.

Late one night at the insane asylum one inmate shouted, "I am Napoleon!"

Another one said, "How do you know?"

First inmate answers, "God told me!"

Just then, a voice from another room shouted, "I did NOT!"


Still nothing beats philosophy for insanity.




The First Law of Philosophy

For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.

The Second Law of Philosophy

They're both wrong.

* * * * * * *

Question: What do you get when you cross the Godfather with a philosopher?
Answer: An offer you can't understand.


--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,03:00   

Lenny,

1) Why should I waste my time repeating what I have clearly said when you can't be bothered to a) read it and b) argue against it accurately. It's all there. go back and read.

2) I WANT science to be universal? Really? Wow Lenny, you'd think that you could at least bother to get what I HAVE said right.

Rather that acting the patronising cunt, why don't you actually, erm deal with the argument that has been made rather than the one you want to deal with.

Mmmkay

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,03:22   

Lenny and Skeptic:

This is one last appeal for sense.

Both of you seem to think I have done something very stupid. Fair enough, that possibility exists, I've made mistakes before and will cheerfully do so again. Unfortunately I disagree with you in this instance for one major reason:

The comments and arguments you are making are not dealing with the arguments I have actually made.

I have been literally begging you both for pages now to go back and read what I have actually written and deal with the arguments I have actually made. Please for the sake of a sane conversation DO THIS. You will find that I have not only explained my arguments very thoroughly and clearly (i.e. not ambiguously), but that I have answered all the questions you ask about meaning and context etc and at the very least given you one worked example of how the subjective questions you are asking can be answered.

Please, rather than waste everyone's time banging on as you have been for the last few pages, go and actually read and deal with the arguments I have actually made as opposed to quote mines and misunderstandings. You will find it a huge amount less frustrating than the endless merry-go-round you are now on.

Incidentally, I hope you WILL read them, try to understand them and try to deal with them as they are NOT as you would like them to be. The reason I hope this is the case is that there is the bones of a productive discussion here and with the combination of misunderstandings/quote mines/straw men you have raised you are wrecking it.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,03:32   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 29 2007,23:58)
Hey, Lenny, you've repeated yourself multiple times does this mean that by Louis' definition you win? ?Oh, no, that's right, you did it in less than 1000 words. ?Sorry, you still lose Lenny. ?:D

Skeptic,

Have I claimed this or anything like it?

No.

Is this a competition where winning or losing applies?

No.

Have you a) supported your own claims or b) dealt with any argument I have actually made?

No.

Please try, I know it's hard for you, to understand that you and Lenny are not dealing with my arguments as they are stated. Please try to understand, and I know this is really hard for you, that this is YOUR responsibility. I have, repeatedly, made what I am saying very very clear, everyone but you and Lenny seems (at least to some degree) to understand. I don't say if they agree or not, but they DO understand.

I cannot go back and read what I have written for you. I cannot come around to your house and in a series of tutorials explain basic reasoning to you. All I can ask is that you read and deal with my arguments honestly and with some degree of intellectual ability.

Thus far neither you nor Lenny is doing this. That is why I am frustrated by this farce and that is why the thread has descended into farce.

If anyone, even you Skeptic, repeatedly said to me that I had utterly misunderstood their arguments in a discussion I would AT LEAST go back and read them again. If someone said that I had utterly failed to deal with any aspect of their arguments I would AT LEAST go back and try to restate them to their satisfaction. The reason I would do this is because I care about having a productive concersation.

So please, please, PLEASE try to do this. You will be amazed at  how different the subsequent conversation is.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,03:41   

Quote
But, of course, the very PURPOSE of this thread was to religion-bash, yet again.  I, as before, still think such holy wars to be pointless and dumb.  But it only seems fair that if everyone insists on a holy war, then BOTH sides ought to be able to take their licks.  After all, I consider both sides to be equally pointless and equally useless.


Lenny,

This is utterly false. Not only am I not interested in bashing religion, I am not interested in any form of holy war.

As I have said from the very start, you are not arguing with some ignorant atheist "fundamentalist" claiming all religion = bad or any such stereotype. I have repeatedly implored you to deal with my arguments AS THEY HAVE BEEN MADE and NOT as your favourite caricatures of "fundamentalist" atheism or theism.

The fact that I have repeatedly BEGGED for you and Skeptic to go back and read what I have actually written rather than repeat endless straw men should give you pause. To an honest person genuinely interested in productive discussion such a request would make them do so. I wonder why you are so resistant.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,06:42   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 30 2007,00:44)
Bill, you miss one looming issue. ?The rational man may use the method to pick the best mate based upon all agreed upon criteria, even his own, but does that mean that he loves his mate. ?Is love subject to a selection criteria? ?It is a worn out anecdote about the couple who where perfect for each other and still didn't work out.

My point is that there are objectively observable degrees of quality in making such subjective decisions - which suggests degrees of success in making those decisions, and gives "science" a role in improving the process of making such decisions successfully, as Lenny acknowledges. I wasn't addressing myself to love.

But the question posed by Lenny was, "should I marry this person, or that one?" not, "Do I love this person, or that person?" Nor does it follow from the fact that I "love" a particular woman that I should marry her. I might love two women. I may fall for a woman who dislikes me. I may fall for a woman who loves me, but is also already happily married. (PLEASE don't tell me that these instances are not "really" love.) I may fall for a woman who loves me, but has terrible personality problems that make marriage impossible. I may never "fall in love." I may content myself with a utilitarian marriage that doesn't include love at all, and later find I love that person. I may marry a woman I have fallen deeply in love with, and later come to despise her.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,07:18   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,03:22)
This is one last appeal for sense.

Louis, take a deep breath.

Calm down.

Talk to me again when you've gotten control of your emotions.


Geez.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,07:19   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,03:41)
This is utterly false. Not only am I not interested in bashing religion, I am not interested in any form of holy war.

Oh, come on, Louis . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,08:11   

Lenny,

I confessedly get fucking angry with poor argumentation. Hands up, guilty as charged ('twould be pretty hard to deny after all!).

That does not detract on iota from the fact that you have continually misunderstood/misrepresented my arguments.

You can claim I want to religion bash all you like, but it simply isn't the truth. This idea is based on your own prejudices regarding reason, atheism etc. You've made this abundantly clear on this thread and in the past. Am I criticial of some aspects of religion? Sure I am! Am I criticial of false claims based on faith? Sure I am! Does this mean I am out to bash religion? Nope. Again Lenny, as I identified a few pages ago you have gone into "fundy fighting" mode, which would be great if you were fighting a fundy. You aren't. You have continually missed the nuances of my argument, and have even done so by quite blatant quote mining (something I NEVER would have suspected you capable of).

For pages now, all I have been asking is for you and Skeptic to go back and read what I have ACTUALLY written and argue against my ACTUAL arguments. I simply don't understand your resitance to doing this.

And please stop patronising me Lenny. You're simply not in a position to be able to do so, intellectually, morally, physically or in any sense you can dream of.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,08:39   

Louis, the problem is we have read what you've written.  Maybe you don't know what you've actually written.  I'd suggest you go away and come back when you're interested in holding a mature discussion but my guess is that option doesn't appeal to you so just go away.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,08:52   

HEY LEAVE LOUIS ALONE, HE'S PARANOID (and married aparantly). HOMOS!!!

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,09:25   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 30 2007,08:39)
Louis, the problem is we have read what you've written. ?Maybe you don't know what you've actually written. ?I'd suggest you go away and come back when you're interested in holding a mature discussion but my guess is that option doesn't appeal to you so just go away.

No. The problem is that you wont state what Louis' argument is. Your refusal to do so is childish and making this whole thread pointless.

WTF is the point of Louis remaking his argument over and over again to just get stupid vacuous replies?

Why not do as he requests and state Louis' argument in your own words so he can point out where the missunderstanding is?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,10:00   

I was in the middle of a large post, which referenced all the previous posts carefully quoting them in context when I had a thought (yes I know, the first one ever!):

Why am I wasting my time? What the hell do I care whether a pair of chaps on the internet are capable of understanding an argument I have made?

Answer: I don't! Thus that post is now in the bin and I am off to get back to my extremely interesting work.

Skeptic, Lenny, you can think what you like of me. This thread shows quite clearly that you have utterly failed to understand or respond to a single point I have made and that in doing so all you have done is flap about. Despite my many (choleric!) faults I have at least tried to get you to deal with my arguments as they have been made and implored you to do so. You're unwilling and that's fine. It says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,10:01   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 30 2007,14:52)
HEY LEAVE LOUIS ALONE, HE'S PARANOID (and married aparantly). HOMOS!!!

Paranoid? Hardly. A useful contribution? Nope didn't think so.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,10:13   

Well for the life of me I still think there is some sort of ontological confusion at work here.  But I'm not smart enough  nor motivated enough to work it out.  

I'm off to go find meaning in the pattern of specks of paint in the floor, entrails of a chicken or in a random question about my arbitrary opinion about the mass of Britney Spears' hot pocket.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,10:28   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,18:01)
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 30 2007,14:52)
HEY LEAVE LOUIS ALONE, HE'S PARANOID (and married aparantly). HOMOS!!!

Paranoid? Hardly. A useful contribution? Nope didn't think so.

Louis

Now, now, don't take it to heart.

Usefull?....why you ungratefull little BASTARD!!!!

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,10:41   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,18:01)
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 30 2007,14:52)
HEY LEAVE LOUIS ALONE, HE'S PARANOID (and married aparantly). HOMOS!!!

Paranoid? Hardly. A useful contribution? Nope didn't think so.

Louis

SHHHHHH, I didn't realize you were listening.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,11:08   

lol, of course he's listening, he's paranoid, remember?

Stephan, Louis' arguments are fully understood and it's a waste of time to restate them.  It fact, everyone's position is fully understood at this point.  In my opinion, it looks like we're done we just haven't blown the whistle yet.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,11:29   

To tell you the truth skeptic I once thought you (would you believe my fingers typed *we* instead of *you* first time around *SHRIEK* maybe there is a god) were a complete idiot now I think you are actually a reasonable person. Now why is that? Well since it is a rhetorical question and I feel obliged to answer it before some other twit jumps in to do it for me, you are.

So there.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,11:59   

Oops. I just remembered.

Virtually all of the findings of contemporary neuroscience conflict with the central tenet of most religions: that we have/are a detachable ghost (soul) that hangs around after the body dies and bears into one or another future (into a new reintarnation, into eternity in heaven or hell) elements of personality such as identity, memory, desires, and accountability for past behaviors. Current neuroscience clearly indicates that virtually all characteristics previously attributable to something like a soul are functions of living tissue, functions that cease when the body dies.

Plus Denyse O'leary just wrote a book stating the opposite, which further strengthens my case.

Other than that, no conflict.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,12:09   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 30 2007,11:08)
...Stephan, Louis' arguments are fully understood and it's a waste of time to restate them. ?It fact, everyone's position is fully understood at this point. ?In my opinion, it looks like we're done we just haven't blown the whistle yet.

I am not certain that this is the case. If you are so sure that you fully understand Louis' argument, why don't you state what it is? For my part I am not convinced.

This has gone to 16 pages now and any progress seems impossible unless you do as Louis has requested. Why are you really dodging?

Now IMO (and yes it is only an opinion), Louis has behaved the most reasonable so far. Colourfull language? Yes. Some name-calling? Yes. But as far as I can see, Louis has put his agument vastly more clearly than you and more clearly than Lenny.

This could be an interesting thread. So far it has failed
to deliver. I think that on the whole the majority of the blame for this lies at your door (and to a lesser extent Lenny's).

Why would it be a waste of time for you to restate (what you think) Louis argument is? If you do fully understand it then fine. If you have made an error of judgement Louis could atempt to correct it. Either way the conversation could maybe progress.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,12:15   

Or even, for the sake of completeness Steve, if I have made a mistake Skeptic/Lenny could point that out. Using things like quotes from my posts and explanations of where the mistake is, you know, things like that. Of course this would rely on them actually dealing with the arguments I have made, which both of them are statedly unwilling to do. Such a dilemma!

After all, as I am a mere pitiable, reductionist, biased, fundamentalist, materialist, atheist my mistakes should be easy to find and point out.

Right?

I wonder why, when these erudite and intellectually honest gentlemen who never misunderstand an argument, raise straw men or quote mine have me on the ropes, they don't actually point out where the error is.

I think it's because they are above such petty things as reason and evidence.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,12:23   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,12:15)
Or even, for the sake of completeness Steve, if I have made a mistake Skeptic/Lenny could point that out. Using things like quotes from my posts and explanations of where the mistake is, you know, things like that. Of course this would rely on them actually dealing with the arguments I have made, which both of them are statedly unwilling to do. Such a dilemma!

After all, as I am a mere pitiable, reductionist, biased, fundamentalist, materialist, atheist my mistakes should be easy to find and point out.

Right?

I wonder why, when these erudite and intellectually honest gentlemen who never misunderstand an argument, raise straw men or quote mine have me on the ropes, they don't actually point out where the error is.

I think it's because they are above such petty things as reason and evidence.

Louis

You forgot the    /end sarcasm

thingy.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,12:42   

Louis,
Maybe you're not putting enough emphasis on things they consider important? Or putting too much emphasis on ideas they don't like?

I'm seeing disagreement on how to phrase what's being said between you and Lenny, but if there's disagreement about the concepts (rather than just the words used to describe them), I'm not seeing it.

Henry

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,13:02   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 30 2007,18:42)
Louis,
Maybe you're not putting enough emphasis on things they consider important? Or putting too much emphasis on ideas they don't like?

I'm seeing disagreement on how to phrase what's being said between you and Lenny, but if there's disagreement about the concepts (rather than just the words used to describe them), I'm not seeing it.

Henry

Henry,

Re disagreement with Lenny: Whilst I see what you're saying (and initially thought the same myself) I'm not sure I agree completely any more.

I think that reason has a valuable part to play in exploring moral, ethical, emotional, and aesthetic systems and in their development (as an evolutionary, recursive method). I think the fact that science (not merely reason in this case, a distinction I have made time and again) can tell us a huge amount about the origins and development of these systems is an important thing. I don't agree with Lenny that science can only tell us what we already know in a merely computational sense.

I DO agree with Lenny that when he frames certain context dependant questions as universals there is no way those "questions" can be answered. However I disagree with him that in the absence of their necessary context that they are even questions at all (he says they are, I say they ain't). I've also explained what I mean by "context" in that sense, and it REALLY isn't what Lenny seems to think it is. So no, I don't agree that there is merely a semantic difference between us.

I think Lenny is mired in his religious mindset (something he mentions early on in this thread as a facet of Buddhism btw) and refuses to come out of it, of course he'd say the same about me, the difference is I have evidence and reason to support my case and he doesn't. He's also clearly vastly too arrogant to even condescend to dealing with arguments made as opposed to his straw men of them. Hence why he has to attack straw men and quote mine. I'm not enamoured, impressed or intimidated by such dishonesty. Why he thinks it works is beyond me.

As for your comments on emphasis, well I can't say I disagree, perhaps I could have emphasised certain elements differently for Skeptic and Lenny. And perhaps that would help them understand an argument they clearly don't/haven't read. Either way I'm not sure I'm interested in making the effort to correct them in the face of their refusal to actually read and deal with the arguments I've actually made.

I can't really do any more than that. Sure I'm angry about it, I'm ALWAYS angry about dishonesty in debates, but all I'm getting in return for basically PLEADING for them to attempt to understand my arguments as they are stated not as the straw men they have demonstrably erected is patronising abuse. Which despite my own deplorable tendancy to get frustrated with idiots (something I need to get into check I admit) is a substitute in their case for a total lack of argument on their part. A fact I think speaks volumes about their honesty and motivations to be frank.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,13:09   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 30 2007,18:23)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,12:15)
Or even, for the sake of completeness Steve, if I have made a mistake Skeptic/Lenny could point that out. Using things like quotes from my posts and explanations of where the mistake is, you know, things like that. Of course this would rely on them actually dealing with the arguments I have made, which both of them are statedly unwilling to do. Such a dilemma!

After all, as I am a mere pitiable, reductionist, biased, fundamentalist, materialist, atheist my mistakes should be easy to find and point out.

Right?

I wonder why, when these erudite and intellectually honest gentlemen who never misunderstand an argument, raise straw men or quote mine have me on the ropes, they don't actually point out where the error is.

I think it's because they are above such petty things as reason and evidence.

Louis

You forgot the ? ?/end sarcasm

thingy.

Steve,

Despite the obvious sarcasm I am quite serious: I could have made an error. I've done it before and I'll do it again (in fact if you read back in this very thread you'll find I have no problem admitting it when I do so, see my brief chat with Albatrossity. Just one example, there are MYRIAD others in other threads and places).

Lenny and Skeptic both claim that I am in error, great! I love the opportunity to learn. I learn by my errors, so thankfully I get lots of opportunities to learn! What I want to know is if I AM in error what are the errors I have made?

I'm also mildly curious, if indeed I am in error and Skeptic and Lenny know what that error is, then why don't they point it out? Why the refusal to restate my arguments? Why the demonstrated quote mining by Lenny and the demonstrated straw men by Lenny and Skeptic? Why the telling me to "calm down" for example (uncalm as I was before) in response to perfectly rational, calm requests to go back and reexamine what I have said instead of arguing against things I didn;t say?

I think THAT is highly indicative of something extremely unpleasant and unflattering about both of these gents.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,13:20   

It's become abundantly clear that Louis is the one confused about the nature of the dispute here.  His latest posts display that prominently.  Ask yourself this, Louis, is it possible for you to be in error about your own opinion?  If you are then you may want to consult help.  For the record, I don't believe that is necessary.  Your opinion stands and it is not in error for you.  If an error can said to be committed it is when you extend your opinion as a universal truth based upon your own say-so.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,13:22   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 30 2007,19:20)
It's become abundantly clear that Louis is the one confused about the nature of the dispute here. ?His latest posts display that prominently. ?Ask yourself this, Louis, is it possible for you to be in error about your own opinion? ?If you are then you may want to consult help. ?For the record, I don't believe that is necessary. ?Your opinion stands and it is not in error for you. ?If an error can said to be committed it is when you extend your opinion as a universal truth based upon your own say-so.

Great! I'm confused and I'm in error. Excellent.

Care to point out where? Or are you just going to claim it with no basis as usual.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,13:23   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,14:02)
I think that reason has a valuable part to play in exploring moral, ethical, emotional, and aesthetic systems and in their development (as an evolutionary, recursive method). I think the fact that science (not merely reason in this case, a distinction I have made time and again) can tell us a huge amount about the origins and development of these systems is an important thing. I don't agree with Lenny that science can only tell us what we already know in a merely computational sense.

Louis -

I've been pressing this point in recent posts (e.g. the contribution science may have to improving the process of making subjective decisions), Lenny in response made statements acknowledging those contributions, and I felt that we wound up pretty close together on that score (no hand-holding involved, however). E.g., per Lenny and vis aesthetic, ethical, and moral decisions, science can "inform us about them," "provide information to help us make better choices," and "present different possible ways of looking at things to give a new viewpoint," all of which is clearly helpful in improving the process of making such decisions. Which appears to exactly what you are saying above. I think you're pretty close, at least with respect to this phase of your debate.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,13:29   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 30 2007,19:23)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,14:02)
I think that reason has a valuable part to play in exploring moral, ethical, emotional, and aesthetic systems and in their development (as an evolutionary, recursive method). I think the fact that science (not merely reason in this case, a distinction I have made time and again) can tell us a huge amount about the origins and development of these systems is an important thing. I don't agree with Lenny that science can only tell us what we already know in a merely computational sense.

Louis -

I've been pressing this point in recent posts (e.g. the contribution science may have to improving the process of making subjective decisions), Lenny in response made statements acknowledging those contributions, and I felt that we wound up pretty close together on that score (no hand-holding involved, however). E.g., per Lenny and vis aesthetic, ethical, and moral decisions, science can "inform us about them," "provide information to help us make better choices," and "present different possible ways of looking at things to give a new viewpoint," all of which is clearly helpful in improving the process of making such decisions. Which appears to exactly what you are saying above. I think you're pretty close, at least with respect to this phase of your debate.

Great! I think this is the case too. Please explain to me why Lenny has been going out of his way to quote mine me and argue at strawmen versions of what I have been saying then.

THAT I would love an answer to.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,13:30   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,13:09)
Steve,

Despite the obvious sarcasm I am quite serious: I could have made an error. I've done it before and I'll do it again (in fact if you read back in this very thread you'll find I have no problem admitting it when I do so, see my brief chat with Albatrossity. Just one example, there are MYRIAD others in other threads and places).

Lenny and Skeptic both claim that I am in error, great! I love the opportunity to learn. I learn by my errors, so thankfully I get lots of opportunities to learn! What I want to know is if I AM in error what are the errors I have made?

I'm also mildly curious, if indeed I am in error and Skeptic and Lenny know what that error is, then why don't they point it out? Why the refusal to restate my arguments? Why the demonstrated quote mining by Lenny and the demonstrated straw men by Lenny and Skeptic? Why the telling me to "calm down" for example (uncalm as I was before) in response to perfectly rational, calm requests to go back and reexamine what I have said instead of arguing against things I didn;t say?

I think THAT is highly indicative of something extremely unpleasant and unflattering about both of these gents.

Louis

I have almost no doubt that is the case. I was just being flippant.

The situation where niether Lenny or Skeptic is willing to write down what they think you have argued is dissaponting.

It would help things move along if they did as you reqested.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,13:34   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 30 2007,19:30)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,13:09)
Steve,

Despite the obvious sarcasm I am quite serious: I could have made an error. I've done it before and I'll do it again (in fact if you read back in this very thread you'll find I have no problem admitting it when I do so, see my brief chat with Albatrossity. Just one example, there are MYRIAD others in other threads and places).

Lenny and Skeptic both claim that I am in error, great! I love the opportunity to learn. I learn by my errors, so thankfully I get lots of opportunities to learn! What I want to know is if I AM in error what are the errors I have made?

I'm also mildly curious, if indeed I am in error and Skeptic and Lenny know what that error is, then why don't they point it out? Why the refusal to restate my arguments? Why the demonstrated quote mining by Lenny and the demonstrated straw men by Lenny and Skeptic? Why the telling me to "calm down" for example (uncalm as I was before) in response to perfectly rational, calm requests to go back and reexamine what I have said instead of arguing against things I didn;t say?

I think THAT is highly indicative of something extremely unpleasant and unflattering about both of these gents.

Louis

I have almost no doubt that is the case. I was just being flippant.

The situation where niether Lenny or Skeptic is willing to write down what they think you have argued is dissaponting.

It would help things move along if they did as you reqested.

Flippant? FLIPPANTTTTTT!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

You shall be taken from this place and shot forthwith. If not fifthwith.

There is not room for humour here. This is a serious business this. Oh yes, it's a proper argument with proper people who argue honestly and with demonstrable intellectual gifts....

...Oh wait... No it isn't.

As you were ;)

Louis

P.S. I agree it will help things move along if they did just either restate my argument or point out the errors I have made. I'd be exceedingly grateful for either.

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,13:39   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 30 2007,13:20)
It's become abundantly clear that Louis is the one confused about the nature of the dispute here. ?His latest posts display that prominently. ?Ask yourself this, Louis, is it possible for you to be in error about your own opinion? ?If you are then you may want to consult help. ?For the record, I don't believe that is necessary. ?Your opinion stands and it is not in error for you. ?If an error can said to be committed it is when you extend your opinion as a universal truth based upon your own say-so.

Once again you fail to nail down the specifics.
I am annoyed.

What is the nature of the dispute?
How is Louis confused about it?
Which (be specific with sentences) posts display that prominently?
How can anyone be in error of their own opinion?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,13:51   

Whilst we're at it I would LOVE anyone to explain how this post is not a quote mine.

By "quote mine" I mean a quite deliberate selective quoting in order to dishonestly erect a straw man argument to knock down in place of the real argument being made.

I am EXPLICITLY and OPENLY calling Lennny DISHONEST for doing this by the way.

Here is the original paragraph:

Quote
It does however give us a reason based mechanism for the development of subjective systems. Yet again, I am more than cheerful to live with doubt (a la Feynman). I don't require moral certainty or a cast iron defintion of beautiful because I realise that, unlike mass, charge, spin, chemical composition etc, these concepts are not inherent properties of ANY object, they are concepts which only have meaning within a given context. They are, if you like emergent properties of that context. Scour the universe and you will not find one particle of beauty or superposition of moral states, they are fictions, constructs derived only from their contexts and nothing more. Hence why it is utterly meaningless and beyond stupud to claim that they exist in some objective fashion outside of the systems that give them their birth. Hence why the very phrases "are blondes hotter than brunettes" or "is murder wrong" are utterly and totally devoid of meaning. They are a linguistic fuck up, a rhetorical game they have no significance or meaning, they are fictions of your imagination and nothing more, mere fantastic drivel. They are not questions in any meaning of the word question. They are not informative, no information can be obtained from them. Get it yet?


From this post in which I explain PRECISELY and in great detail under what circumstances I consider those phrases to be meaningless. This demonstrates CONCLUSIVELY by the way that what Lenny has done is a quote mine. I THINK (although I am open to correction) that Lenny's continued refusal to reconsider his straw man version of my arguments and continued evasions and distractions when asked extremely nicely to even consider the possibility that he has misconstrued my arguments demonstrates to a reasonably low evel of doubt that he is quite deliberate in adhering to this quote mined straw man. Ergo he is doing so quite deliberately and thus dishonestly.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,14:20   

Quote
Hence why the very phrases "are blondes hotter than brunettes" or "is murder wrong" are utterly and totally devoid of meaning.


They're each like a sentence fragment in the absence of the rest of the sentence - they need a "to whom" and maybe a "which one" added before an answer can be made.

(Otoh, on average, blondes are cuter. ;) )

Henry

Oh, and come to think of it, there might need to be a "when" added to each of those partial questions as well, since a person's preferences can change over time.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,14:50   

An interesting point Henry.

Heaven forefend I should EVER misrepresent anyone because I was too hasty or too keen to find something I didn't like.

I wonder, could that be relevant?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,17:42   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,13:02)
I think Lenny is mired in his religious mindset

That's pretty funny.  Yes, Louis, I'm just another retarded theist.  Just ask PZ.  (sigh)

I do think that certainly ONE of us has a religious mindset that's being dragged into this.  I'd guess it's probably the one who is letting his emotions run away with him.

Nothing either one of us has said affects my worldview in the slightest, so there's simply no need for me to get all emotional and defensive about it.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,17:48   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,17:42)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,13:02)
I think Lenny is mired in his religious mindset

That's pretty funny.  Yes, Louis, I'm just another retarded theist.  Just ask PZ.  (sigh)

I do think that certainly ONE of us has a religious mindset that's being dragged into this.  I'd guess it's probably the one who is letting his emotions run away with him.

Nothing either one of us has said affects my worldview in the slightest, so there's simply no need for me to get all emotional and defensive about it.  (shrug)

Yet you're the one misrepresenting the other side and acting like a child by refusing to accept where you were wrong.

You never cease to amaze Lenny.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,17:53   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 30 2007,13:23)
I've been pressing this point in recent posts (e.g. the contribution science may have to improving the process of making subjective decisions), Lenny in response made statements acknowledging those contributions, and I felt that we wound up pretty close together on that score (no hand-holding involved, however). E.g., per Lenny and vis aesthetic, ethical, and moral decisions, science can "inform us about them," "provide information to help us make better choices," and "present different possible ways of looking at things to give a new viewpoint," all of which is clearly helpful in improving the process of making such decisions. Which appears to exactly what you are saying above. I think you're pretty close, at least with respect to this phase of your debate.

That's right.

The crucial difference is that science (or reason, or kohlinar) cannot ANSWER those questions.  Science simply is not a method for answering moral, ethical or aesthetic questions.  And those who try to turn it INTO one, are abusing and mis-using science every bit as much as the creationists do, and for precisely the same reasons.

Science simply is not universally applicable. It simply cannot answer ethical, moral or aesthetic questions. Which means that if religion limits itself to those questions that science can't answer, then there simply is no inherent conflict between science and religion.

I can't put it any simpler than that.



I should also point out that religion is also capable of informing us and guding us in making ethical, moral or aesthetic decisions, just as science is.  For instance, if you find a walet full of money and are cosndiering whether to return it or not, one can sit down and logically work out all your personal definitions of "right" and "wrong", and gain some insight into what to do.  One could just as usefully ask your grandmother to give you the benefit of her life experience and ask her advice as to what she would do.  One could also ask one's priest or minister or shaman or brahmin or whatever for his/her advice.  One could read any of a dozen different religious texts, and then meditate upon the meaning of "do unto others as you would have others do unto you"  (that, I think, being the primary assertion of nearly every religion I can think of, with everything else being just commentary).

None of those things, of course, will ANSWER the question for you.  But all of any of them can HELP you find your own answer.  

And none of them is inherently any more or less correct than the others.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,17:56   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,13:51)
I am EXPLICITLY and OPENLY calling Lennny DISHONEST for doing this by the way.

And I am explicitly and openly ignoring you.

When you've gotten control of your emotions, let me know, and I'll converse with you again.

Until then, feel free to rant at me all you like.  

I'm a commie.  I'm pretty used to people ranting at me.   (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,17:57   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,17:48)
Yet you're the one misrepresenting the other side

What "other side"?

Please be clear about that.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,18:03   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,17:48)
by refusing to accept where you were wrong.

I, of course, don't think I *am* wrong.

You, of course, do.

Alas, until you find some way to demonstrate that either of us actually *is* wrong, using the scientific method, it is, and will always remain, a difference of subjective opinion.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,18:05   

Anyone notice that Reciprocating Bill and I are having a nice civilized (and quite interesting) conversation about the topic, while . . . well . . . others aren't?

Any idea why that might be . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,18:12   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,13:51)
Hence why the very phrases "are blondes hotter than brunettes" or "is murder wrong" are utterly and totally devoid of meaning. They are a linguistic fuck up, a rhetorical game they have no significance or meaning, they are fictions of your imagination and nothing more, mere fantastic drivel. They are not questions in any meaning of the word question. They are not informative, no information can be obtained from them. Get it yet

And yet if you ask those questions to people, you get answers.  Sensible answers, too.

How can that be, if they're all meaningless gibberish?

Offhand, I'd say that if you ask people "is abortion wrong", and they give an answer, then, by golly, that consitutes a "question".  A question with "meaning".


Oh, right ----- it's because people PROVIDE THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL CONTEXT.


Hmmm, I wonder who has been saying THAT all along . . . . ?


I wonder if the fact that everyone has their own individual context, and that science can't tell which individual context is "the" correct context, has anything to do with the fact that science simply can't objectively answer that simple question?

I think someone said that before . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,18:51   

BTW, now that this thread has (as it inevitably must) devolved into "you stupid theist !!!!!", I see no reason to continue with it.  

Other than to continue the conversation with R Bill (if he'd like).

One area I'd like to move into, RB ---- what, if anything, makes political or economic ideology any better (or worse) than religion, when it comes to answering ethical or moral questions that science can't answer.  After all, science simply has no way of demonstrating the truth or falsity of the statement "the free market is the best way to approach social questions", or "socialized medicine is better than market-driven medicine" -- either viewpoint can be no more "scientific" or "logical" or "rational" than any religious statement, or indeed any other subjective statement of any sort that I can think of.  

Certainly we can use science to help determine whether this or that potential result is consistent with our ideology or program or goals, but there's simply no way to objectively determine whose goals or program are any more "correct" than anyone else's.  Science can help us implement a liberal Democrat political program; science can also help us implement a fascist political program.  What science CAN'T do is tell us which one we should implement.

Does that mean, therefore, that (if we assume for a moment that science is indeed universal and can answer any "meaningful" question), political ideologies and economic programs would also be inherently in conflict with science in the very same way that some claim religion is?  After all, many political ideologies and programs are based largely on "faith" in the pronouncements of some claimed "authority" (whether it's the Politburo or the Democratic National Chairman or the President of National Right to Life or Greenpeace or whatever), and therefore might not appear to differ all that much from most religious ideologies. . . they're true largely because their adherents BELIEVE they are true.  

If science and religion are indeed inherently in conflict, then are science and political ideology (of any sort, from liberal democracy to anarchism to fascism and everything in between) also inherently in conflict, for precisely the very same reasons?

Indeed, if science  **is**  actually all-inclusive and universal, and can indeed answer any meaningful question, can there be ANY viewpoint other than science, any at all whatsoever, that is NOT inherently in conflict with it?

A question I don't believe has ever been considered, amidst all the holy-war-ing. . . . .


Perhaps a new thread would be useful here . . . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,18:53   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,17:53)
Science simply is not universally applicable. It simply cannot answer ethical, moral or aesthetic questions.

Lenny, as you've said repeately, science can't provide objective, universal answers to these questions because they don't HAVE objective, universal answers. You seem to be claiming that science isn't universal because it can't do what's logically impossible - i.e., answer questions that are inherently unanswerable. I confess that makes little sense to me.

Quote
Which means that if religion limits itself to those questions that science can't answer, then there simply is no inherent conflict between science and religion.


But, as you yourself point out, religion can't answer those questions either (because they have no answer). So, isn't this equivalent to saying that science and religion don't conflict as long as religion does nothing?

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,18:59   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,17:57)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,17:48)
Yet you're the one misrepresenting the other side

What "other side"?

Please be clear about that.

Well actually, it's not really the other side, more a parallel side you don't agree with.

While I'm not going to jump right into these rather muddy waters of philosophy, I have to say, you ARE dishonestly representing Louis, and are somehow pulling a favourite of the creationists out at the same time (the "Those darn atheists are all a bunch of zealots as well!!!!!!" rubbish that we've grown quite, quite sick of).

Not all atheists want a religious war lenny, and calling people out on following up their statements about religion (as Louis did to skeptic, vis a vis, revelation/religion is another way of finding the truth that doesn't need logic and/or science) is not a call for all religion to be banned and it's followers shot andburied in mass graves.

I quite understand that you don't like atheism as a position, while not holding any religious values of your own. Great, bully for you, but every time an atheist asks questions of religion, it's quite, quite stupid of you to go "Sigh, another religion bashing thread AGAIN".

Had Louis' point been "Religion is good for nothing and makes the world all evil and stuff, yah boo sucks" then your resigned attitude of tut tut here go the fundies again would be quite well placed, and occasionally, it is. Unfortunately, any time anyone who is an atheist questions religion, or an aspect of it, you seem to IMMEDIATELY pull it out of the bag without looking and refuse to recant.

The religious think atheists are wrong, atheists think the religious are wrong, but you, Lenny Flank, master of the universe and reader of minds both concious and subconcious extraordinaire know differently. BOTH sides are silly fools who want to rip each other to shreds. Well you sit back and chuckle at any religious debate that comes by lenny, but do try to understnad one thing. We aren't all out to rip the shit out of the other side, and you consistantly claiming we are makes you look like someone who just spots the headline and doesn't read the full story before reacting.

Edited for typos.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:06   

Quote (qetzal @ Aug. 30 2007,18:53)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,17:53)
Science simply is not universally applicable. It simply cannot answer ethical, moral or aesthetic questions.

Lenny, as you've said repeately, science can't provide objective, universal answers to these questions because they don't HAVE objective, universal answers. You seem to be claiming that science isn't universal because it can't do what's logically impossible - i.e., answer questions that are inherently unanswerable. I confess that makes little sense to me.

Then you miss the point.

It is NOT that the questions are "unanswerable" --- after all, people answer them every second of every day.  Just ask some random person on the street, "Is abortion wrong?" and you'll get --- tada! -- an answer.

It's that they are not OBJECTIVELY answerable.

It's not that there is NO answer -- it is that there are BILLIONS of answers, and science simply can't tell us which is the right one.

And you are precisely and absolutely right --- for science to answer them is logically impossible.  Great choice of words.

And if science can't answer the question (and Joe Blow on the street *can*), then science is not universal.  There are questions it simply can't answer.  It can't even frame the question itself in any objective way.  It is, indeed, impossible for logic to do so.

That being my entire point.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:11   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:06)
Quote (qetzal @ Aug. 30 2007,18:53)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,17:53)
Science simply is not universally applicable. It simply cannot answer ethical, moral or aesthetic questions.

Lenny, as you've said repeately, science can't provide objective, universal answers to these questions because they don't HAVE objective, universal answers. You seem to be claiming that science isn't universal because it can't do what's logically impossible - i.e., answer questions that are inherently unanswerable. I confess that makes little sense to me.

Then you miss the point.

It is NOT that the questions are "unanswerable" --- after all, people answer them every second of every day.  Just ask some random person on the street, "Is abortion wrong?" and you'll get --- tada! -- an answer.

It's that they are not OBJECTIVELY answerable.

It's not that there is NO answer -- it is that there are BILLIONS of answers, and science simply can't tell us which is the right one.

And you are precisely and absolutely right --- for science to answer them is logically impossible.  Great choice of words.

And if science can't answer the question (and Joe Blow on the street *can*), then science is not universal.  There are questions it simply can't answer.  It can't even frame the question itself in any objective way.  It is, indeed, impossible for logic to do so.

That being my entire point.

Which is....err....not the opposite of Louis'.

Incidentally, logic can answer those questions within a given context, as Louis was saying, for example, for the blondes/brunettes thing, you could (theoretically) test every single straight man and lesbian and find out which one came top, you could then logically state that for the majority, one is cuter. Since there isn't really any other context it could be put in, you could state it is concievable that whichever won (assuming one beat the other to a significant degree) that one is demonstratably the cuter.

If that isn't sound logic then that's cool, my bad, but I assume since there is only really one group with which the question has meaning (those people who are attracted to women), the majority answer would be feasibly correct, no?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:17   

Quote (qetzal @ Aug. 30 2007,18:53)
Quote
Which means that if religion limits itself to those questions that science can't answer, then there simply is no inherent conflict between science and religion.


But, as you yourself point out, religion can't answer those questions either (because they have no answer). So, isn't this equivalent to saying that science and religion don't conflict as long as religion does nothing?

No.  Again, it's not that there is NO ANSWER  -- there are indeed billions, each based on some subjective judgement of "right" and "wrong".  What religion cannot do, any more than science can, is give *The Answer*.  

Science, on the other hand, can't give any objective answer at all. It can't even objectively define the question in a way that it CAN answer.

Religion, on the other hand, can give lots of answers.  What it CAN'T do is tell us which of them is right (other than by simply asserting, based on some presumed authority, that this or that particular answer is the right one because god or zeus or allah or wakan tanka or whatever, says so.).  

Whether religion can or can't give The Answer, though, is not the point.  The point is that science can make no attempt at all to objectively answer the question -- therefore, ANY attempted answer given by religion (or by political ideology, or by social convention, or whatever) cannot inherently conflict with science, simply because science can't give any answer at all on the matter.

Saying SOMETHING, ANYTHING, cannot be in inherent conflict with saying NOTHING AT ALL.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:18   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,18:59)
I quite understand that you don't like atheism as a position, while not holding any religious values of your own. Great, bully for you, but every time an atheist asks questions of religion, it's quite, quite stupid of you to go "Sigh, another religion bashing thread AGAIN".

Yeah, right, OK.   If you say so.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:23   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:11)
And if science can't answer the question (and Joe Blow on the street *can*), then science is not universal. ?There are questions it simply can't answer. ?It can't even frame the question itself in any objective way. ?It is, indeed, impossible for logic to do so.

That being my entire point.[/quote]
Which is....err....not the opposite of Louis'.

Well, I don't know if that is so or not, yet.

I've asked Louis to tell me if he thinks science (or logic or reason or rationality or kohlinar or whatever the heck else he wants to call it) is or is not universally applicable.

Are there, or are there not, any meaningful questions that science/reason/rationality/kohlinar cannot in principle answer?

I certainly think his answer to that question is pretty apparent.

But I'm all willing to have him answer it explicitly and remove all doubt whatsoever from everyone's mind.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:25   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,18:59)
Well you sit back and chuckle at any religious debate that comes by lenny, but do try to understnad one thing. We aren't all out to rip the shit out of the other side, and you consistantly claiming we are makes you look like someone who just spots the headline and doesn't read the full story before reacting.

Um, have you been reading the same threads I've been reading . . . . . . . ?



Hey Skeptic, do you think anyone here has been trying to rip the shit out of your religious beliefs . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:27   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:11)
If that isn't sound logic then that's cool, my bad, but I assume since there is only really one group with which the question has meaning (those people who are attracted to women), the majority answer would be feasibly correct, no?

No.

If every person on the planet but one said brunettes are cuter, and one said they're not, there's simply no objective way to determine who is right.

Aesthetics is not a democracy.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:28   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:18)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,18:59)
I quite understand that you don't like atheism as a position, while not holding any religious values of your own. Great, bully for you, but every time an atheist asks questions of religion, it's quite, quite stupid of you to go "Sigh, another religion bashing thread AGAIN".

Yeah, right, OK.   If you say so.

See, this is why you come across as a jackass.

You always, always insist you are right, no matter what the tone is.

I personally have questions about religion that don't boil down to "so you believe this....why exactly?" but nope, not in Lenny Flank world. In Lenny Flank world even questions such as "so what is the meaning behind X?" or "What is your religions view of Y?" are actually saying "Ah hah! I come to kill your twisted religion you fools! Your god is false and you are evil for following him! I AM ALWAYS RIGHT FOR I AM ATHEIST!!!!!!!!1".


If you can't work out why this is joe G stupid, theres something wrong with you.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:30   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:27)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:11)
If that isn't sound logic then that's cool, my bad, but I assume since there is only really one group with which the question has meaning (those people who are attracted to women), the majority answer would be feasibly correct, no?

No.

If every person on the planet but one said brunettes are cuter, and one said they're not, there's simply no objective way to determine who is right.

Aesthetics is not a democracy.

No, but the logical thing to say would be that the one person is wired in a different way, and the majority opinion is probably more rooted in something.

More people think one way, so it's more likely that this is the correct way of thinking within that context, surely?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:32   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:23)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:11)
And if science can't answer the question (and Joe Blow on the street *can*), then science is not universal. ?There are questions it simply can't answer. ?It can't even frame the question itself in any objective way. ?It is, indeed, impossible for logic to do so.

That being my entire point.

Which is....err....not the opposite of Louis'.[/quote]
Well, I don't know if that is so or not, yet.

I've asked Louis to tell me if he thinks science (or logic or reason or rationality or kohlinar or whatever the heck else he wants to call it) is or is not universally applicable.

Are there, or are there not, any meaningful questions that science/reason/rationality/kohlinar cannot in principle answer?

I certainly think his answer to that question is pretty apparent.

But I'm all willing to have him answer it explicitly and remove all doubt whatsoever from everyone's mind.

He already stated they are not.

They can be applied to any meaningful question within context. This doesn't mean they can be universally applied outside of context.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:37   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:32)
Are there, or are there not, any meaningful questions that science/reason/rationality/kohlinar cannot in principle answer?

quote]
He already stated they are not.

They can be applied to any meaningful question within context. This doesn't mean they can be universally applied outside of context.

Then that is the source of our disagreement.  It's also why he thinks science and religion must necessarily conflict, and I don't.

I find the view that "questions which science can't answer, aren't really questions" --- well, silly.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:39   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:30)
More people think one way, so it's more likely that this is the correct way of thinking within that context, surely?

Why.

The majority is just as capable of being utterly stupid as the minority are.

Just ask all the people who thought witches should be burned.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:41   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:39)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:30)
More people think one way, so it's more likely that this is the correct way of thinking within that context, surely?

Why.

The majority is just as capable of being utterly stupid as the minority are.

Just ask all the people who thought witches should be burned.

But within the context of the times, the religion, the knowlege etc, that WAS the most logical way to do things.

Oh, and virtually no witches were burned, or at least burned alive, most were hung or strangled.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:42   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:37)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:32)
Are there, or are there not, any meaningful questions that science/reason/rationality/kohlinar cannot in principle answer?

quote]
He already stated they are not.

They can be applied to any meaningful question within context. This doesn't mean they can be universally applied outside of context.

Then that is the source of our disagreement.  It's also why he thinks science and religion must necessarily conflict, and I don't.

I find the view that "questions which science can't answer, aren't really questions" --- well, silly.

But they aren't questions if they don't have context.

He isn't arguing that science can answer absolutely every question in every way, he saying there are certain ways in which science CAN answer any question, but that doesn't mean the answer can be applied to absolutely anything.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:43   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:41)
Just ask all the people who thought witches should be burned.[/quote]
But within the context of the times, the religion, the knowlege etc, that WAS the most logical way to do things.

Was it correct?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:44   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:42)
But they aren't questions if they don't have context.

Then, um, how do people answer them, if you ask them.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:45   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:43)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:41)
Just ask all the people who thought witches should be burned.

But within the context of the times, the religion, the knowlege etc, that WAS the most logical way to do things.[/quote]
Was it correct?

For the knowledge of the time, yes.

Was it absolutely correct? Who knows.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:46   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:42)
He isn't arguing that science can answer absolutely every question in every way, he saying there are certain ways in which science CAN answer any question, but that doesn't mean the answer can be applied to absolutely anything.

Great.  Wonderful.  Glad to hear it.

Please answer the question "is abortion wrong?"

I can stop any fifty people on the street, ask them that simple question, and get answers.


What is science's answer . . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:46   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:45)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:43)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:41)
Just ask all the people who thought witches should be burned.

But within the context of the times, the religion, the knowlege etc, that WAS the most logical way to do things.

Was it correct?[/quote]
For the knowledge of the time, yes.

Was it absolutely correct? Who knows.

I thought YOU know.  Aren't YOU the one who just finished telling me that the majority's answer must be the correct one  . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:47   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:44)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:42)
But they aren't questions if they don't have context.

Then, um, how do people answer them, if you ask them.

Because they are put into context in certain situations.

If I ask you "do you think blondes are hotter than brunettes?" it has the context of your opinion, which we could test. If I asked you the straight question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" you automatically put the question into the aforementioned context. That doesn't mean it HAS this context, you just choose to put it in.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:48   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:47)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:44)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:42)
But they aren't questions if they don't have context.

Then, um, how do people answer them, if you ask them.

Because they are put into context in certain situations.

If I ask you "do you think blondes are hotter than brunettes?" it has the context of your opinion, which we could test. If I asked you the straight question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" you automatically put the question into the aforementioned context. That doesn't mean it HAS this context, you just choose to put it in.

DING DING DING !!!!!!!!!!


And why, again, can't SCIENCE do that . . . . . . . . . ?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:48   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:46)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:42)
He isn't arguing that science can answer absolutely every question in every way, he saying there are certain ways in which science CAN answer any question, but that doesn't mean the answer can be applied to absolutely anything.

Great.  Wonderful.  Glad to hear it.

Please answer the question "is abortion wrong?"

I can stop any fifty people on the street, ask them that simple question, and get answers.


What is science's answer . . . . . . ?

That the majority of people withing certain groups think a or b.

Does that mean it's an overarching answer, always applicable? No. Does it provide an answer for the context of (for example) the calvinist church? Yes.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:50   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:48)
What is science's answer . . . . . . ?[/quote]
That the majority of people withing certain groups think a or b.

But that wasn't the question.  I didn't ask "how many people think abortion is right or wrong?"

I asked "is abortion wrong?"


They're not the same question.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:50   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:48)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:47)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:44)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:42)
But they aren't questions if they don't have context.

Then, um, how do people answer them, if you ask them.

Because they are put into context in certain situations.

If I ask you "do you think blondes are hotter than brunettes?" it has the context of your opinion, which we could test. If I asked you the straight question "Are blondes hotter than brunettes?" you automatically put the question into the aforementioned context. That doesn't mean it HAS this context, you just choose to put it in.

DING DING DING !!!!!!!!!!


And why, again, can't SCIENCE do that . . . . . . . . . ?

Because it isn't overarching. No one has ever said it was.

They have stated, as I have, in certain situations, science/logic can answer questions.

Lenny, Louis wasn't arguing that science and logic can answer questions on peoples opinion (except within certain strict limits) but that there is no other process than can.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:51   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:50)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:48)
What is science's answer . . . . . . ?

That the majority of people withing certain groups think a or b.[/quote]
But that wasn't the question.  I didn't ask "how many people think abortion is right or wrong?"

I asked "is abortion wrong?"


They're not the same question.

The answer given was according to group A, it is wrong (for example). That's the best science can do.

What is your point, exactly?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:52   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:46)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:45)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:43)
 
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:41)
Just ask all the people who thought witches should be burned.

But within the context of the times, the religion, the knowlege etc, that WAS the most logical way to do things.

Was it correct?

For the knowledge of the time, yes.

Was it absolutely correct? Who knows.[/quote]
I thought YOU know.  Aren't YOU the one who just finished telling me that the majority's answer must be the correct one  . . . ?

No, actually, I'm not. I'm saying for the strict perameters set by the group asked, the social and intellectual constraints of the time and location etc. the majority is, theoretically at least, right.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,19:59   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:51)
Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:50)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:48)
What is science's answer . . . . . . ?

That the majority of people withing certain groups think a or b.

But that wasn't the question. ?I didn't ask "how many people think abortion is right or wrong?"

I asked "is abortion wrong?"


They're not the same question.[/quote]
The answer given was according to group A, it is wrong (for example). That's the best science can do.

What is your point, exactly?

DING DING DING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You are absolutely right.  That *is* the best that science can do.

And that is precisely my point.

Science not only cannot answer the question "is abortion wrong", but it can't even devise any method whereby it CAN answer that question (other than by simply changing the question to something else, such "how many people think abortion is wrong?").  If you doubt that, then please by all means go ahead and show us how science can answer that question.

And if there is a question that science cannot answer, even in principle, then science simply is not universal.

And if science is not universal, then there are areas about which it can say nothing.

And if there are areas about which science can say nothing, then it simply cannot be in any conflict with anything else which DOES say something about that area.

Such as, for instance, religion.

Sciecne cannot answer the question "is abortion wrong?"  Religion, however, CAN answer it.  And oddly enough, it can answer either "yes" or "no".  (Of course, what religion can NOT do is tell us which answer is "correct".)

Science can't even manage a "yes" or "no" answer.  As you point out, the very best that science can manage is "X number of people say 'yes', and Y number of people say 'no' ".

Which, of course, doesn't answer the question.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,20:00   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:52)
I'm saying for the strict perameters set by the group asked, the social and intellectual constraints of the time and location etc. the majority is, theoretically at least, right.

Says who.

I am not being flippant.


Why, exactly, is the majority "right"?  Based on what authority is it "right"?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,20:02   

I'm off for now.  I have some manuscripts to typeset.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,20:04   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,20:00)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,19:52)
I'm saying for the strict perameters set by the group asked, the social and intellectual constraints of the time and location etc. the majority is, theoretically at least, right.

Says who.

I am not being flippant.


Why, exactly, is the majority "right"?  Based on what authority is it "right"?

Based upon the fact that this is probably the most logical path for the various factors involved. According to a multitude of factors it's almost certain I will type a full stop at the end of my sentance, based upon me having a fully working keyboard, and knowledge of how english grammer works. Does that mean it's the absolutely correct thing for any sentance in any language everywhere? No, but within the perameters, it is.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,20:05   

Quote


Which, of course, doesn't answer the question.


Neither does a religious answer.

It's exactly the same answer, phrased in a different way. Just because Catholics say no, it's wrong doesn't mean that everyone will, and it doesn't mean that every single catholic thinks the same way. It's still a numbers game Lenny.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,20:51   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,20:04)
Why, exactly, is the majority "right"? ?Based on what authority is it "right"?[/quote]
Based upon the fact that this is probably the most logical path for the various factors involved.

Says who.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,20:52   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,20:05)
Quote


Which, of course, doesn't answer the question.


Neither does a religious answer.

It's exactly the same answer, phrased in a different way. Just because Catholics say no, it's wrong doesn't mean that everyone will, and it doesn't mean that every single catholic thinks the same way. It's still a numbers game Lenny.

Indeed.

But at least religion can GIVE an answer.

And since science can't, it's pretty obvious that any answer given by religion simply cannot conflict with an answer given by sciecne, since science, uh, can't give any.

Which is, after all, my point.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,20:53   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,20:05)
Neither does a religious answer.

By the way, you seem to be under the impression that I am defending religion.

I'm not.

Just ask Skeptic.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,21:01   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:51)
BTW, now that this thread has (as it inevitably must) devolved into "you stupid theist !!!!!", I see no reason to continue with it.

Other than to continue the conversation with R Bill (if he'd like).

One area I'd like to move into, RB ---- what, if anything, makes political or economic ideology any better (or worse) than religion, when it comes to answering ethical or moral questions that science can't answer....

I have zero economic expertise, and will confess to not being often moved to be very political.

That said: vis economics, surely it is the aspiration of some professional/academic economists to better model, predict, and ultimately render controllable human economic systems at a variety of scales. Such models are always abstractions from and simplifications of the messy complexity of real time human behavior (on any scale), and are also likely plagued by chaotic phenomena that are difficult to model (as is turbulence within fluids), but I would be surprised to hear an assertion that there has been no progress in modeling the operation of various forms of economy over the last 100 years, or that further improvements in mathematical and computational modeling of economic behavior aren't likely or possible. Economics would indeed be the "dismal science" if that were true - but it probably isn't true (IMHO). To the extent that there are universals in human psychology and human motivation (and I would say that there are some evolutionarily grounded universals), as well as in view of the effectiveness of game theory in isolating and modeling the behavior of individuals pursuing simple interests, I would say that a "special science" (see below) of economics is possible.

Naturally, whether economics or politics can claim to be (or at least aspire to be) a science or not depends somewhat upon one's demarcation of the boundaries of science. Jerry Fodor usefully observed that all sciences other than physics must be characterized as "special sciences," beset with increasing intrusions of entirely contingent factors that are not amenable to modeling at the level of that science. Hence model building within a "special science" must stipulate "all else being equal" with respect to those special-case intrusions before their models can hope to function. As an example, a model of the meanderings of riverbeds can only function when "all else is equal" regarding the surrounding geology (e.g. the consistency of the sediments through which the river is cutting). Mathematical physics is much less beset with contingent concerns that must be held constant. Those intrusive contingencies increase as one moves through chemistry to biochemistry, then biology, then psychology, and lastly economics and politics. Economics is difficult in large measure because contingent and special-case intrusions overwhelm lawfulness.

Nevertheless, I assume that some useful modeling can be accomplished, so long as we attain sufficient understanding of the contingent, special case intrusions. I think progress can be made in that regard. I seriously doubt the same is true for religious reasoning, which from where I sit mostly concerns debates that can never make secure gains.

Given that, I'll stipulate that, in a manner analogous to the earlier examples vis individual aesthetic/ethical choices, no mathematical or scientific modeling of economies can specify ultimate economic or political goals. Perhaps you want to maximize "the good" for the largest number; perhaps you wish to maximize the good for particular classes. Even a successful science of economics can't specify ultimate goals (although it might predict who selects which goals, based upon their economic interests).

Nevertheless, in a manner analogous to my earlier argument vis improvement in the processes through which subjective individual decisions are made, improvements in such models may improve the process of selecting those economic goals, as well as increase the likelihood of attaining them by specifying proximate economic means. For example, we may discover through powerful modeling that a an economic system may be devised such that the interests of all are maximized to a greater degree than would be accomplished by either narrower alternative described above (greater good for all?), which might prompt one to choose different goals (I'm tawkin' straight out of my ass here). Additionally, vis the question of deciding whether a fascist or liberal democratic system is preferable, the usefulness of "science" would depend upon whether you see those as the ultimate, subjective, value-drive alternatives from which one is choosing, or have a more "distal" ultimate goal in mind relative to which which these systems are proximate alternative means. If the former, science isn't likely to be of much help. But if the latter, a modestly successful special science of economics/politics may be capable of probabilistic predictions regarding which is most likely to satisfy your more distal, subjective, ultimate goals.

So I wouldn't place science in opposition to economics - given the observations vis "special sciences" above. That special science likely does have further contributions to make, within the limits above. I'm less sure that this applies to politics - although there is clearly considerable overlap, perhaps without the quantitative "scorekeeping" that economics provides.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,21:15   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,20:52)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,20:05)
Quote


Which, of course, doesn't answer the question.


Neither does a religious answer.

It's exactly the same answer, phrased in a different way. Just because Catholics say no, it's wrong doesn't mean that everyone will, and it doesn't mean that every single catholic thinks the same way. It's still a numbers game Lenny.

Indeed.

But at least religion can GIVE an answer.

And since science can't, it's pretty obvious that any answer given by religion simply cannot conflict with an answer given by sciecne, since science, uh, can't give any.

Which is, after all, my point.

Science gives the exact same answer as religion.

It gives a People X think Y answer.

Religion just states what people and what answer.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,21:17   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,20:51)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,20:04)
Why, exactly, is the majority "right"? ?Based on what authority is it "right"?

Based upon the fact that this is probably the most logical path for the various factors involved.[/quote]
Says who.

Says the perameters put in place.

People who are living in this place at this time with this belief system and this level of education think this.

Within those given perameters, that is right. Those people think it is right, therefore it is right.

Does that mean we can take their answer and apply it to everything? No. But within those perameters, it is the correct answer. Even i the perameters limit the group to one person, for that group with those characteristics, it is the correct answer.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2007,23:48   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:59)
...
Sciecne cannot answer the question "is abortion wrong?" ?Religion, however, CAN answer it. ?And oddly enough, it can answer either "yes" or "no". ?(Of course, what religion can NOT do is tell us which answer is "correct".)

Science can't even manage a "yes" or "no" answer. ?As you point out, the very best that science can manage is "X number of people say 'yes', and Y number of people say 'no' ".

Which, of course, doesn't answer the question.

"Is abortion wrong" has no meaningfull answer because it is not a meaningfull question. Anyone who thinks that a yes/no answer is aplicable is probably either arogant or ignorant.

You claim religion can give an answer but is unable to say which is correct. So in what way is that an answer? It is a reply of course, but not an answer.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,01:21   

No, Lenny, you're right.  There's been no real discussion of a religion here.  Nor should there be because all religions fall under this umbrella.

Ian, I can sum it up for you very simply.  There are three opinions here being expressed.  On the matter of abstract concepts,

Louis says they don't exist.  All knowledge is or potentially is accessable through reason and context.

Lenny says they exist indepedently for every person rendering them off limits to reason and context because the range of answers is infinite (being based upon every single person and every potential person).

I say they exist separate and independent of us and our understanding of these concepts really only scrap the surface but there is no way to know the actual *correct* answer because we can not actually fully access these concepts.

based upon these opinions, Louis requires a conflict between science and religion whereas Lenny and I do not, for similar yet different reasons.

That's it in a nutshell and all the rest of the back and forth and name-calling is just pointless.

BTW, Lenny, I don't think an additional thread is necessary as you answer the question, or should I say define the question, rather adequately.

let me know if anyone has anything new to say; otherwise, good night all.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,02:13   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,23:42)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,13:02)
I think Lenny is mired in his religious mindset

That's pretty funny. ?Yes, Louis, I'm just another retarded theist. ?Just ask PZ. ?(sigh)

I do think that certainly ONE of us has a religious mindset that's being dragged into this. ?I'd guess it's probably the one who is letting his emotions run away with him.

Nothing either one of us has said affects my worldview in the slightest, so there's simply no need for me to get all emotional and defensive about it. ?(shrug)

Theist? No no no!

Religious? Perhaps!

Just firing a shot across your bows Lenny.

Oh and the reason I am annoyed is because you've misrepresented what I have said, nothing more. My "worldview" is mutable, it changes on the evidence. If I'm wrong, show me where. Isn't it strange that you cannot do this and strange that you have tried very very hard to avoid doing this.

Louis

P.S. Added in edit: Lenny, the reason I mentioned your religion as a possible cause of your deliberate misunderstandings is because you claimed my lack of religion is the source of what you claim are my flawed arguments. I hope your religion is irrelevant. It certainly should be! I am angry because you have misrepresented what I am actually saying and for no other reason. Nothing you have said "threatens" my "worldview" because my "worldview" such as it is, is entirely open to disproof. My anger is solely directed at your por argumentation, nothing more, nothing less. You are of course entitled to your opinion but since that in this case that opinion requires that you DEMONSTRATE I am lying about my motivations for it to be a valid one, I will look forward to you doing so! However, I will suggest, as I have before, that instead you go back and try to understand what I am ACTUALLY arguing for as opposed to what you THINK I am arguing for.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,02:17   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 31 2007,00:12)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,13:51)
Hence why the very phrases "are blondes hotter than brunettes" or "is murder wrong" are utterly and totally devoid of meaning. They are a linguistic fuck up, a rhetorical game they have no significance or meaning, they are fictions of your imagination and nothing more, mere fantastic drivel. They are not questions in any meaning of the word question. They are not informative, no information can be obtained from them. Get it yet

And yet if you ask those questions to people, you get answers. ?Sensible answers, too.

How can that be, if they're all meaningless gibberish?

Offhand, I'd say that if you ask people "is abortion wrong", and they give an answer, then, by golly, that consitutes a "question". ?A question with "meaning".


Oh, right ----- it's because people PROVIDE THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL CONTEXT.


Hmmm, I wonder who has been saying THAT all along . . . . ?


I wonder if the fact that everyone has their own individual context, and that science can't tell which individual context is "the" correct context, has anything to do with the fact that science simply can't objectively answer that simple question?

I think someone said that before . . . . .

Who's been saying it all along?

ME!

Lenny, I have never, will never and am not saying that science can choose the "correct" context. I've not only made that abundantly clear to everyone reading this I've constantly pointed it out to you when you claim I am not saying it. THAT is why I am saying you have misrepresented my arguments.

Jesus fucking wept Lenny, this is PRECISELY why I am annoyed with you.

I disagree with you that these are questions in the absence of context. If that context is provided by an individual then that question is open to reasoned enquiry, a fact I have been banging on about since the second or third post on this thread. The fact that you don't understand that and are deliberatley twisting my words is why I am nnoyed. Get it yet you lying sack of shite?

Incidentally, I note in the above quote you quote mine AGAIN! By starting at the word "Hence" you are explicitly missing the preceeding paragraphs which explain why that "hence" is relevant. Interesting that when your dishonesty is pointed out to you resort to more dishonesty! Well done Lenny.

I have only made but one prayer: Lord make my enemies foolish. And it was granted

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,02:22   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 31 2007,01:25)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,18:59)
Well you sit back and chuckle at any religious debate that comes by lenny, but do try to understnad one thing. We aren't all out to rip the shit out of the other side, and you consistantly claiming we are makes you look like someone who just spots the headline and doesn't read the full story before reacting.

Um, have you been reading the same threads I've been reading . . . . . . . ?



Hey Skeptic, do you think anyone here has been trying to rip the shit out of your religious beliefs . . . . ?

No one Lenny has been reading the same thread you have been reading.

And Skeptic thinks everyone is trying to rip the shit out of his religious beliefs. Stop playing silly buggers and try to admit you were wrong to quote mine my arguments and attack straw men.

I've been saying for pages that you've missed the nuances of my argument and yet again you clearly make this obvious.

Well done. What a fucking moron.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,02:27   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,23:56)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,13:51)
I am EXPLICITLY and OPENLY calling Lennny DISHONEST for doing this by the way.

And I am explicitly and openly ignoring you.

When you've gotten control of your emotions, let me know, and I'll converse with you again.

Until then, feel free to rant at me all you like. ?

I'm a commie. ?I'm pretty used to people ranting at me. ? (shrug)

Lenny,

I am fucking angry at you, this is true.

I am not angry at you for the reasons you claim I am (my "worldview", if I even have one in the sense you mean, is not under any "threat", whatever that would mean)

I am angry because you have misrepresented my arguments and have continued to bash the straw man you have made up even when I am telling you (and other people are telling you) you are wrong to do so.

The fact that I have BEGGED you to go back, reread awhat I have written and stop bashing up straw men should give you pause. The fact that it hasn't demonstrates what an arrogant moron you can be.

I notice in the two pages of shite since I posted last night you have not in any way demonstrated how your quote mine of me is not a quote mine. Face it Lenny, you're wrong about my arguments and you have to admit it to retain any shred of claim to intellectual honesty.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,04:50   

Lenny,

I am going to give one last go at explaining this to you, then hopefully I'll get the apology I damned well deserve. You can claim you're ignoring me all you like, but let's be blunt you're wrong about mischaracterising my arguments and you know it. It's about time you admit it and deal with arguments as they are made. That is the ONLY reason I am annoyed, any attempt to portray this as something else is manifestly dishonest.

I'm going to use one question as an example, the same method works for all of them. I will try to break it down as clearly as I can because if you persist in your misreprentations after this then I think it is conclusive evidence you are doing so deliberately.

CAVEAT!! This is an ARGUMENT, i.e. a series of connected statements designed to establish a premise. Snipping bits out of the relevant context and treating them as the whole argument is NOT applicable or honest. PLEASE DO NOT DO IT. Try to follow the whole argument for the love of the FSM!

"Are blondes more beautiful than brunettes?"

First, I've changed "hotter"/"cuter" to "more beautiful" because there are less possible interpretations and confusions. I hope this won't cause undue distress.

I have TWO initial contentions regarding this phrase:

a) In the absence of context, it is meaningless. It does not constitute a question in the absence of context. In the absence of context this phrase is an incoherent non sequitur

Pay very close attention to the bits in bold.

MEANINGLESS IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTEXT =/= MEANINGLESS FULL STOP

Please stop using this particular straw man. Also, if your question is "who decides the context" this is a great question, one I have answered before and will do so again below. Like I said above, try to follow the argument as a whole first.

When in context it becomes a coherent question, i.e. a phrase used to communicate a set of ideas in order to acquire some knowledge/information. The main reason for this is that the phrase/question is referring to a concept which is an emergent property of some context (which may or may not be the same context as the questions is framed in). If this is too complicated, I'm going to explain it later, so don't worry.

b) The ONLY knowledge/information that can be gained from asking the IN CONTEXT question is COMPLETELY derived from a reason based exploration of the question and its context.

Let's make this clear reason does not 100% perfectly overlap with science. I am expressedly NOT saying that there is a scientific answer to the question, although in certain contexts the question will be amenable to a scientific exploration. What I AM saying is that when in context, any context, the only information that can be gained from asking the question and getting an answer is derived from reason. Scientific answers in this case are a subset of reasoned ones. I've made this clear before, so I'll make it clear again just to head of another round of straw men.

Ok, the explanation:

1) Contention a), the issue of context:

What is "context" as I am using it here? Well, there are two uses in Contention a) (actually it's one use, but it can be taken two ways so I'm being careful and separating them).

"Context 1":

The first use is the context of the question being asked. If you approach a person in the streets and ask "Are blondes more beautiful than brunettes?" you have supplied the context for the question to be meaningful, for it to be coherent. However, the issue I have with this is very simple: there are a HELL of a lot of unspoken assumptions loaded into that specific phrasing. You require such things as a common language, a common understanding of the terms involved etc all of which you are assuming are the case. That's fine, that's a natural assumption, but it is one relevant to the context. If you approach the bloke on the street and ask the question as phrased you are asking a much more detailed and specific question but you are relying on your common assumptions to shorten the phrasing of question being asked. I'm not the only one to point this out to you.

You are NOT asking the bloke on the street "are women with hair that reflects light across these frequencies, usually have physiology of this structure and skin tones that reflect light across these other frequencies more beautiful in a UNIVERSAL sense (i.e. not merely subjectively but objectively) than women with hair that reflects light across those frequencies, usually have physiology of that structure and skin tones that reflect light across those other frequencies?".

Please note the word UNIVERSAL, it's very, very important.

What you are asking the bloke on the street "are women with hair that reflects light across these frequencies, usually have physiology of this structure and skin tones that reflect light across these other frequencies more beautiful TO YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL than women with hair that reflects light across those frequencies, usually have physiology of that structure and skin tones that reflect light across those other frequencies?".

Firstly, the former question is an incoherent non sequitur for the reasons I'll get to in a minute. Secondly, the very fact that you are surveying this specific individual's opinion by asking a logically coherent fashion using defined terms (those terms are defined by your common understanding of them, not by some authority or outside appeal. That common understanding is defined by the context the concepts contained in the question arise from. This is the second context I referred to) is a REASONED mode of enquiry, you are explicitly asking for information about an individual's preferences in a logical, rational way. You are examining the bit of the universe (The bloke on the street) in a logically coherent, rational manner (asking a question) in order to get some information (whether he thinks blondes or brunettes are more beautiful). That is explicitly a REASON based enquiry. You are performing some observation in order to obtain some information. The fact that that observation is perhaps imprecise, or open to error, or not in a lab (or any of a myriad of other straw men you will probably raise) is immaterial. You are explicitly trying to understand some facet of the universe around you by interacting with it and observing it. That is precisely what the reasoned, rational, evidence based, observational approach is.

If I haven't made this clear yet, it doesn't matter what the context IS, all it matters is that there is SOME RELEVANT CONTEXT. So it doesn't matter if you are taking a survey of millions, just asking individuals in the street, or probing the brain response of people by MRI whenn shown pictures of blondes and brunettes. The very process of asking the question defines to some extent its context.

So, just to head off this oft repeated straw man, I'll make this abundantly clear: in asking the question you the questioner are in part defining the context. This does not mean that it is being imposed upon you externally.

The problem with your question as it is phrased, Lenny, is that it is imprecise, ambiguous. As I said above, phrasing the question as you have above is reliant on a whole swathe of unspoken assumptions. Which of those unspoken assumptions will be relevant is dictated by the context in which you ask the question.

"Context 2":

So why is the former UNIVERSAL question I mention above an incoherent, meaningless non sequitur? Beause the concepts you are asking about are not inherent properties of the objects you are applying those concepts to, they are emergent properties of the context (sense 2) that those objects are in. To make this abundantly clear: "How heavy is this blonde?" is an empirical question about an inherent property of the object under observation, i.e. its mass. "How beautiful is this blonde?" is not such a question because beauty is not an inherent property of the object under observation. The concept of beauty is mutable, it changes due to factors whcih are not part of the object under observation. If I ask "Who is heavier, this blonde or this brunette?" I can get an empirical answer. If I ask "Who is more beautiful, this blonde or this brunette?" I cannot get an empirical answer.

There's an important way to misunderstand what I have just said. "Empirical" does not 100% map on to "reasoned", again, like I mentioned with "scientific" above, "emprirical" is a SUBSET of "reasoned" answers, not the whole set.

If I crush the blonde down to her constituent parts I can (in principle) find the bit of her that gives her mass. If I take her mass and for the sake of argument her mass does not change, any observer can determine her mass and get the exact same answer I do, taking into account local conditions (note I said MASS, NOT WEIGHT). If I take the same blonde and crush her down to her consituent parts I will not find that bit of her that gives her beauty. If I place some arbitrary number value on her beauty I cannot guarantee that any other observer will give the same answer as I did. By the way, I know you understand this, I am just making things abundantly clear for you so hopefully you don't run away with another straw man.

The property of the blonde's mass is independant of her observers (unless we really want to get all quantum mechanical about this, but then you face the decoherence problem, so let's not eh?!). It is a property intrinsic to the blonde herself. The property of her beauty is more complicated. Of course some factors of it are related to intrinsic properties (her height, weight, her facial features etc) but the very concept of beauty is not necessarily an intrinsic property of the blonde, rather it is a composite property of some of her intrinsic properties and some other factors derived from the context (sense 2) around her.

For example, what societies deem is beautiful changes, and, as people are in part products of their social environment, people's idea of whether or not the blonde is beautiful is partly dependant on that social context (sense 2). Incidentally, the change in general social concepts of beauty is open to reasoned enquiry. Perhaps in some cases even scientific study.

For another example, what individuals deem beautiful is partly dependant on their biology. There is an evolutionary element to this, a simple example being peacocks and peahens: the well known detail of the peacock's tail being a sexually attractive (one sense of the word beautiful) facet of the peacock to peahens. Obviously this is open to reasoned, even scientific and empirical, enquiry.

My point here is that, unlike mass, the property of "beauty" arises from a complex interaction of numerous factors derived both from the group/social context of the individual and the experiential/biological nature of the individual and their development. Understanding the concept of beauty is dependant on an understanding of that complex set of interactions, i.e, the CONTEXT from which the concept has arisen.

Hopefully you now understand what I mean by both senses of the word "context" in Contention a). And don't try to pretend you did from the start because the straw men you have been erecting prove otherwise.

So now to the bit you will like.

If I ask two people (Bloke A and Bloke B) the "same" apparent question: "Are blondes more beautiful than brunettes?" I am not, in fact asking the same question at all. I am asking two different questions. They are the SAME question with reference to context in the sense of "context 1", they are DIFFERENT questions with reference to context in the sense of "context 2". The factors affecting Bloke A are not identical to the factors affecting Bloke B hence why it is utterly meaningless to compare their answers in anything like a "like for like" manner. I CAN ask Bloke A and Bloke B who is heavier, this blonde or that brunette because I am keeping both context 1 AND context 2 the same in both cases.

Trying to extend a poorly phrased question to a universal principle, i.e. "Are blondes UNIVERSALLY more beautiful than brunettes?" is again meaningless for two reasons, 1) we are not taking into account "context 2" in each instance the question is asked, 2) we are extending a context dependant property beyond its relevant context, we are effectively REMOVING "context 2" and treating the property "beauty" as if it were an intrinsic/inherent property like "mass" which it is not.

Ergo, as I have said from the very first post on this topic (the second proper post I made in this thread), trying to ask a universal question about a context dependant property like beauty (or good, or evil, or right, or wrong etc etc) by the use of poor phraseology is an error. It is an error derived from rhetorical misuse of the terms in question. It is a logical mistake. It renders the question incoherent, a non sequitur. You cannot coherently ask "are blondes UNIVERSALLY more beautiful that brunettes?" because the concept of beauty is a) not a universal concept or an inherent property of the objects in question, and b) the context from which the concept of beauty arises ("context 2") is being ignored.

So on this we agree, but for different reasons, and those reasons are important. I agree that trying to decide who has the right conception of "beauty", Bloke A or Bloke B is unanswerable by reason because it is unanswerable by any means whatsoever. The reason this is is because the question of who has the right conception of "beauty" is MEANINGLESS because it ignores that context from which that concept arises. You are claiming this is STILL a question that somehow has an answer, I have demonstrated that it is not even a question. THAT is the difference between us, again as I have been saying since what feels like time immemorial.

Again, just to ram it home: the "question" of who has the "right" concept of beauty or if blondes are UNIVERSALLY more beautiful than brunettes are utterly meaningless because the words and concepts in them do not fit together coherently. They are not phrases which can extract information from any source because they fail to take into account the context (sense 2) of the property they are examining. So saying that reason or science or what have you can't answer them is a given, not because they are merely unanswerable in the sense of "difficult", but because there is nothing there in the first place TO ANSWER. They are not questions. They are poorly phrased rhetorical mistakes that are simple non sequiturs.

There are literally TRILLIONS of "questions" like this and we have no means to "answer" them because they are not in fact questions at all. They are errors of thought, rhetorical traps that people get themselves into.

Do you understand the distinction? I hope so because I have gone to some trouble to explain it! (Considering how late I am going to have to work tonight to catch up, "trouble" is the operative word!).

Incidentally, the ONLY way to counter the section of my argument in this instance is to demonstrate that applying the concept of "beauty" UNIVERSALLY is coherent OR demonstrating that the "context 2" of (for example) two blokes in the street is IDENTICAL (merely very very similar will not do) and that these blokes with IDENTICAL "context 2"s give NON-IDENTICAL answers. Good luck with that by the way!

2) The only knowledge we CAN get from the incontext question is derived from reason:

Hopefully this will be shorter!

What way can an IN CONTEXT version of the question "Are blondes more beautiful than brunettes?" be answered?

In other words, what contexts can we COHERENTLY ask that question?

Well this should be obvious, there are billions upon billions of ways. First, of all we have at least 6 billion individual answers to get. Secondly, we can trawl through various social situations (paintings, poetry, movies, all forms of art, philosophical treatises on beauty etc, agreed) and ascertain what SOCIAL answers to the question we can get. Thirdly, we can do a series of studies that emphasise the biological aspect, we can try to see if there are common elements of beauty when controlling for the social factors mentoned above. I really REALLY hope I don't have to tell you that these are REASON based enquiries.

Again "reason" does not map 100% onto "scientific" or "empirical". Philosophy, art, literature, sociology, psychology and physics are ALL reason based areas of enquiry/effort, they are NOT all "empirical" or "scientific". (Hence why your straw man of "Reason, science, logic, kohinar" etc doesn't work. I'm not claiming there are SCIENTIFIC answers to every coherent question, I AM claiming there are REASON based answers to every coherent question. Scientific answers are a subset of Reason based answers. Do you understand the difference yet? How much more explicit do I have to be?). Also, just to head of another straw man: "unconsciously reasoned" answers and "consciously reasoned" answers are also subsets of "reason based answers". The degree of conscious effort does not affect the fact that a specific answer might be reason based.

Because a) I have gone on too long, b) because your answer will make my point for me, and because c) I want you to answer some questions I'll end with a question or two:

i) Answer the question "are blondes more beautiful than brunettes?" in any context you like, as long as it is IN CONTEXT (i.e. a coherent question) using any mechanism you like EXCEPT reason. I.e. The use of reason is forbidden.

ii) Demonstrate how your answer to i) is knowledge, i.e. how you know it to be true or even merely provisionally true (which is, as I have said many times before, all one can acheive by reason) in a coherent manner (i.e. mere assertion is insufficient because I can assert the opposite, then how do we distinguish between two opposed assertions?).

Please answer these questions because I've been trying to get someone to answer them for years. Every time I ask them people run away. Answering these questions effectively would constitue a refutation of this section of my argument by the way. So I have given you both the argument AND the way to refute it in both of the contentions I made at the start of the post. Hopefully, rather than misquoting me and attacking straw men you will deal with the arguments AS THEY ARE.

Louis

P.S. I hope for two things, 1) I hope you read AND understand this argument, 2) I hope you apologise for misrepresenting my arguments (because they have not differed from this restatement of them and your comments have not dealt with the points I have made). I unreservedly apologise for a) getting angry with you and b) being bloody rude.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,05:42   

Quote
Science not only cannot answer the question "is abortion wrong", but it can't even devise any method whereby it CAN answer that question (other than by simply changing the question to something else, such "how many people think abortion is wrong?").  If you doubt that, then please by all means go ahead and show us how science can answer that question.

And if there is a question that science cannot answer, even in principle, then science simply is not universal.

And if science is not universal, then there are areas about which it can say nothing.

And if there are areas about which science can say nothing, then it simply cannot be in any conflict with anything else which DOES say something about that area.

Such as, for instance, religion.

Sciecne cannot answer the question "is abortion wrong?"  Religion, however, CAN answer it.  And oddly enough, it can answer either "yes" or "no".  (Of course, what religion can NOT do is tell us which answer is "correct".)

Science can't even manage a "yes" or "no" answer.  As you point out, the very best that science can manage is "X number of people say 'yes', and Y number of people say 'no' ".

Which, of course, doesn't answer the question.


I dispute aspects of this utterly. Although not for the reasons claimed by Lenny and Skeptic.

1) First of all, no one is claiming science is universal. I'm not even claiming REASON is universal, in fact in previous posts I have gone over in great detail areas that reason cannot penetrate (is the purple you see the purple I see etc) and the limits we have to reason and observation.

What I AM claiming is that when we have ANY knowledge of ANYTHING AT ALL we have gained that knowledge by the use of reason. AGAIN Reason does not map 100% onto science etc. This is a very different claim from "reason is universal". In fact as I have been banging on about for a while now, this interpretation of what I am saying CAN ONLY be based on a straw man.

I'll give you an example. Let's just say that on the 1st of January 3000 the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle plops into place, scientific and rational enquiry into the universe has done it. We have a complete set of mathematical expressions which describe every phenomenon, every emergent phenomenon, every chaotic and complex system, we've resolved the decoherence issue, we understand the whole shebang (incidentally I don't think aspects of this are even possible, but just for the sake of argument say they are). What do we in fact have?

A first approximation.

Nothing we have done so far or have even come close to doing (until the point above is reached) says that there isn't a second EQUALLY well supported description of the universe. Reason (and by extension, science) doesn't even attempt to claim an absolutely TRUE answer to all questions. It claims a PROVISIONALLY true answer. As such, the possibility that there exists and EQUALLY valid, EQUALLY coherent answer (or even a better one, but never a worse one) is not excluded.

That is a fundamental limit on reasoned enquiry and one I have always acknowledged, it shows that ANYONE who claims my argument is based on an assumption that science or reason is universal is LYING ABOUT MY ARGUMENT. More importantly it places a limit on what we CAN know by any means thus far discovered.

Because our knowledge of the universe cannot be universal (there is always the potential redundancy of models I mention) no mechanism of acquiring knowledge is universal.

2) Reason can give you the best answer to any COHERENT IN CONTEXT question you can ask. We have no other method of answering those questions that works. Asking the question "is abortion wrong" for example in a UNIVERSAL SENSE is a non sequitur for the reasons I mention in detail in the previous post. You are extending a non universal concept that emerges from a specific context (sense 2, defined above) beyond that context. You are even trying to remove that context entirely. THIS renders the phrase "is abortion wrong?" meaningless because the phrase has become "is abortion UNIVERSALLY wrong?" and that is a non sequitur because you are appealling to a universal sense of "wrong" which does not exist (unless of course you can demonstrate it does....I'm WAITIING!)

It is NOT changing the question in any sense to ask what context it is being asked in. So sorry Lenny, but you're wrong again. By asking the question you yourself are defining the context in some fashion. How well you do this, how accurately I mean, is immaterial. By asking the question of an individual or group is to in part define the context in whcih you are asking it.

Also, reducing what reason can tell you about the IN CONTEXT question to a simple popularity vote is amazingly narrow! Reasoned enquiry can tell you a huge amount about that question in any context you chose to use it. That is extremely different from CHANGING the question to suit.

Again Lenny, the way to refute my argument in this case is to demonstrate that the phrase "is abortion wrong" IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTEXT is in fact a coherent question. Appeals to common prejudice don't save you, not in this case because they are fallacious, but because that appeal in part defines the context the question is being asked in. DO you get this yet?

3) Religion can ANSWER the question? Really? How?

The answer boils down to "I believe it is wrong" or "I believe it is not wrong". These are not answers at all, they are simple statements of belief.  You haven't learned whether or not abortion is wrong, you have merely learned what someone thinks of abortion. Ironically you have done so by a process of reason, i.e. you have asked them a question.

Answering the UNIVERSAL question is a similar matter. Is abortion UNIVERSALLY wrong? Who knows, the phrase doesn't even make sense, it isn't even a question. Extending the concept of "wrong" beyond its context (sense 2) is meaningless. Until someone demonstrates a UNIVERSAL meaning of the word wrong, i.e. a universal moral code, and I do mean DEMONSTRATES not merely ASSERTS, then the "question" has no meaning, i.e. it is not even a question.

I don't agree that reason cannot give you a "yes or no" answer to the question either. One can conduct the narrow minded surveys you mention (your understanding of what science is and can do is pitiful in the extreme Lenny, I never knew you were this ignorant!), one can also make consequentialist arguments based on known consequences (consequences known on the basis of reason), one can make arguments of equivalence based on known biology (i.e, the embryo is not sufficiently distinct from the mother or aware for the moral question to apply), one can study myriad things, all of which can INFORM our decision to say "yes" or "no" to that question. All reason based (again reason does not map 100% onto science. I'm going to keep saying this until you get it).

I can also, with no recourse to religion at all, say "yes" or "no" to that question. I need no religious framework to make that arbitrary answer.

Can any means tell us if "yes" or "no" is the right answer? NO! Why? Because it isn't even a question! As I demonstrated above, the question can be phrased identically (i.e. context 1 is identical" and fail to take account of "context 2". It is the disimilarity in "context 2" that renders "like for like" comparison invalid. THEY ARE NOT ALIKE.

The religious "answer" to the question is no better than mere flipping of a coin. UNLESS that religious answer is in some manner informed by reason. In which case we can say "on the balance of the evidence, under these circumstances the best answer is ....." I.e. WE DEFINE BOTH SENSES OF CONTEXT CAREFULLY. Incidentally this is a REASONED process.

Again, the refutation of this argument is NOT any of the straw men you have raised before it is the demonstration that some other mechanism of acquiring knowledge than reason can in fact answer the question. Please don't reduce this to the straw man of "science can't answer it" because not only is that NOT what I a claiming, it is because reason does not map 100% onto science. Science is a SUBSET of reason. What you have to show is, for example, how FAITH answers the question and how we can tell that the answer FAITH has given us is IN CONTEXT a better answer than reason gives us. Hell, that's a hard task! I'll settle for you showing how the answer faith gives is better than the flip of a coin, IN CONTEXT.

Incidentally you are continually proving my point for me. My original contention is that religion and science have a valid basis for conflict because at their epistemological core they are using different methods of acquiring knowledge to gather information. In every case thus far you are trying to use a REASON based answer (do I have to point out that reason does not 100% map onto science again? Please tell me you've got this now), not once have you tried to appeal to faith. In fact every time an appeal to faith has been mentioned you have agreed with me that it doesn't do the job. As I said right at the start, there are good bits to religion, really genuinely useful information, and that information is derived from the use of reason in religion, NOT the use of faith. Show me that FAITH gives me any knowledge and whoopeee, you'll have disproven my argument. Keep using reason and you prove me right with every sentence.

It's the dilemma you face. You are espousing the virtues of a method of enquiry you do not use. Ironic eh?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,06:03   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 31 2007,00:05)
Anyone notice that Reciprocating Bill and I are having a nice civilized (and quite interesting) conversation about the topic, while . . . well . . . others aren't?

Any idea why that might be . . . . . ?

Yes Lenny, it's because you have misrepresented my arguments and persisted in those misrepresentatiosn despite it being pointed out to you several times that they are in fact misrepresentations.

Sure I've got angry about this and let you know it. I'm a fallible and flawed human being, I get annoyed with being lied about.

Did you notice that Reciprocating Bill and I and everyone else were also having a nice conversation? Did you notice that this was perhaps because we are dealing with each other's arguments as they are stated?

Do you know what the argumentum ad hominem is and why it is fallacious? Do you know the difference between "Louis is angry and therefore his arguments are false" and "Lenny has misrepresented my arguments and therefore I am angry, I wonder why he is misrepresenting my arguments, is it because his arguments fail to deal with the points I have made?".

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,06:05   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 31 2007,00:03)
Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 30 2007,17:48)
by refusing to accept where you were wrong.

I, of course, don't think I *am* wrong.

You, of course, do.

Alas, until you find some way to demonstrate that either of us actually *is* wrong, using the scientific method, it is, and will always remain, a difference of subjective opinion. ?(shrug)

If you read the above posts, you'll find I have done so.

Got an argument that ACTUALLY deals with my points or am I going to get more straw men, more goalpost shifting, more ad hominem, more special pleading from you?

Just curious.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,06:23   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 31 2007,03:01)

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 30 2007,19:51)
BTW, now that this thread has (as it inevitably must) devolved into "you stupid theist !!!!!", I see no reason to continue with it.


Yet FURTHER misrepresentation and lies from Lenny! BOY are you going strong.

I did not say you were a stupid theist or any thing like it. What I said was:

Quote
I think Lenny is mired in his religious mindset (something he mentions early on in this thread as a facet of Buddhism btw) and refuses to come out of it, of course he'd say the same about me, the difference is I have evidence and reason to support my case and he doesn't. He's also clearly vastly too arrogant to even condescend to dealing with arguments made as opposed to his straw men of them. Hence why he has to attack straw men and quote mine. I'm not enamoured, impressed or intimidated by such dishonesty. Why he thinks it works is beyond me.


From here. Nite time and date (using UK time) is August 30th at 19:02.

I said it because of this comment from Lenny:

Quote
The non-authority-based religions (such as Buddhism or Taoism) take an entirely different approach.  To the question "what is right or wrong?", they say, "Only YOU can answer that.  And you can answer it only for you."

Since religions like these do NOT base their answers on any external authority, they have no need for supernatural sky daddies to tell everyone what to do.  Nor do they have any need to pretend that their subjective answers are really objective.  Hence, they have no need to use "religion" to answer objective questions -- and no need to have any "conflict" with science.


Note time of posting was Aug. 21 2007,18:33. I was basing my comment on a) my knowledge of Lenny's religious stance as some species of Buddhist/Taoist and b) Lenny's comment above. I expressedly did this to tweak Lenny's nose because..... well let's see who intorduces the concept of "religious bias" shall we?

Quote
And indeed, the high level of emotion and defensiveness visible from some people in this thread indicates pretty clearly that this is NOT just a simple intellectual disagreement -- we are, indeed, talking about worldviews here, in which a lot of emotional investment has been made.

But, of course, the very PURPOSE of this thread was to religion-bash, yet again.  I, as before, still think such holy wars to be pointless and dumb.  But it only seems fair that if everyone insists on a holy war, then BOTH sides ought to be able to take their licks.  After all, I consider both sides to be equally pointless and equally useless.


From here.

Note time of posting was Aug. 30 2007,03:29. Or how about this at Aug. 30 2007,13:19. I can find (and have found) other instances.

Let me see now, is 03:29 before or after 19:02? Is 13:19 before or after 19:02? I wonder. Who is it that is saying that is this a religious conflict derived from the desire to bash religion of a "fundamentalist atheist"?

Who is it that introduced the notion of "religious bias"? Was it me?

Erm...NO!

YET AGAIN Lenny you are wrong. Wow sunshine, quite a record you've got going. As I have said my annoyance lies ONLY with your refusal to treat my arguments as they are. Full stop, end of story. My "worldview" isn't threatened by your comments because your comment are not directed at anything contained in my "worldview".

So perhaps, just perhaps, I'm telling the truth when I say that I am annoyed because of your repeated adherence to straw men versions of my argument Lenny. Perhaps, just perhaps you owe me an apology.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,06:39   

Oh and incidentally, if anyone were to ask me if there are conceivable religions that are not in conflict with science I'd say "depends on how you define "religion"".

If there is a claim that faith is a valid mechanism for acquiring knowledge of the universe enshrined in that religion then I would say "yes".

If however they said "well I don't think that "religion" in the sense I am using it requires any claims based on or derived from faith, it's more of a series of mutable moral philosophies" then I'd say "no, and how does this differ from any non-religious series of philosophies?".

My problem is not with religion, it is with the claim that faith (religion does not map 100% onto faith or revelation, gee it seem that I've said something like this before) is a valid mechanism of acquiring knowledge at all. I'd love for ONCE for someone to show me it is rather than running away from the question and hiding behind irrelevances.

Oh and just to give lie to the "but non-authoritarian religions don't conflict with science" bullshit. Reincarnation. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't it a faith based tenet of some non-authoritarian religions that there is some "soul" or "spirit" which survives after death and is reincarnated in another physical body before going onto nirvana or somewhere. Erm, got any evidence?

No.

Didn't think so.

This is what we call a conflict with science. The fact that it is faith derived tenet is what we call a conflict with reason. Demonstrate it is at least provisionally true and I will change my mind.

NOMA is a crock of shit.

Louis

P.S. Incidentally, this is separate from the issue of STRATEGY. I don't think that BASHING religions or faith is a good idea. I think QUESTIONING religions or faith is a good idea. Questioning=/=bashing. I think that religious and faith based claims should be held to exactly the same standards any other claims are. I think this for one good reason: if there is any value in religious or faith based claims this will demonstrate it. Far from wanting to destroy faith/revelation or even religion, I want to know if there is any information that can be garnered from them. I want to know if they work. If they do then whoopee for me because I have learned something new and exciting about the universe, which is the purpose I have self definedly given to my life.

This is incidentally why I find it both hilarious and incredibly annoying to be accused of wanting to bash religion. Far, far, FAR from it! I want to EXAMINE it, to probe its recesses and to understand it. I want to find out whether any of the claims made in the name of religion are true and whether faith does in fact get us information about the universe. Nothing more, nothing less.

For people like Lenny and Skeptic, who have grown up in a very religious society, it seems the very concept of atheism as a simple acknowledgement of a lack of evidence is impossible to grasp. For them, to be an atheist is to be anti religion. Something so far from the truth as to be laughable. Yet STILL the inaccurate slurs fly as if they actually accomplished anything.

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,06:39   

Strangely enough, and I don't think I am weaseling or massively uncomprehending, I find myself in near complete agreement with Lenny, and in near complete agreement with Louis, who nevertheless are in very strong disagreement with each other.

Louis -
Quote
I agree that trying to decide who has the right conception of "beauty", Bloke A or Bloke B is unanswerable by reason because it is unanswerable by any means whatsoever. The reason this is is because the question of who has the right conception of "beauty" is MEANINGLESS because it ignores that context from which that concept arises. You are claiming this is STILL a question that somehow has an answer, I have demonstrated that it is not even a question. THAT is the difference between us, again as I have been saying since what feels like time immemorial.


This is exactly equivalent to my earlier objection to this particular question:

"Lenny, you're right to point out that questions vis the "rightness" subjective preferences (eg. blonds vs brunettes) cannot be answered by means of operations reserved for the determination of physical states that can be expressed independently of any particular point of view - that can be described "from nowhere." The subjective is inherently omitted from "The view from nowhere."

That said, you've expressed your question in a form ordinarily reserved for matters that can be expressed and resolved independently of any particular subjective point of view (e.g. the mass of an object). Louis is correct to object that the question is not merely unanswerable, but is ill-formed, for that reason."

I continue to commend Nagel's "The View From Nowhere" as a way of clarifying thoughts on this issue. Some very careful thinkers have already covered this ground, y'know.

By the same token, as with Putnam's pressure cooker ("The Many Faces of Realism"), your argument vis "context" is another way of stating that it is our "interests" that determine which factors are in the "explanation space" ("answer space"), and which take their place as "background conditions" ("context") from which one's explanatory reply can obtain leverage. Without that context no explanation (answer) is possible even with respect to an apparently simple physical system ("what caused the explosion"), much less complex aesthetic, social, ethical issues.

(These fucking question marks and their extermination are driving me out of my tree!)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,06:48   

Bill,

LOL the reason Lenny and I disagree is because Lenny is insisting that "is abortion wrong" (for example) is a valid question in the absence of context and I have demonstrated it is not.

The reason Lenny and I disagree is because Lenny has been bashing up a straw man version of my argument as if I were making the lovely little "fundamentalist atheist" argument he is so familiar with. Erm, I'm not. To say the least.

I think it is past time when Lenny acknowledges the fact that the disagreement he is keen to make about areas we actually agree upon is his fault. I think it is well past time he apologises for misrepresenting my arguments. I think it is WAY past time that everyone let's Lenny know this is the case.

He also insists that religion can answer questions better than reason (not science, I've bashed on enough about how they do not map 100%). I disagree. Those answers that religion gives us that work are precisely the same as the answers based on reason. This is because the religious answer have been reasoned! If Lenny thinks that FAITH can answer the question better than reason I'd LOVE him to show me how, in fact I have been begging him and myriad others to do so for about 15 years. They all seem curiously reluctant.

The exciting drivel about holy wars is Lenny's excuse not to deal with the fact that he isn't facing someone who is arguing the easily knocked down arguments he has faced before.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,06:58   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 31 2007,12:39)
I continue to commend Nagel's "The View From Nowhere" as a way of clarifying thoughts on this issue. Some very careful thinkers have already covered this ground, y'know.

No shit!

Hence why AGES ago I said I was doing nothing more than philosophy 101. This is trivial shit, as anyone who has read any Hegel, Kant, Nietsche, Hume, Russell, Wittgenstein, Lakatov, Popper, Chalmers, Feyeabend, Paine etc should know.

I have read them, not everything, but a reasonable amount. Some of them I even read voluntarily, which scares me beyond all reason I can tell you!

I am going to pick up that Nagel book next week! ;)

The really AMUSING thing for me is that the epistemological differences between faith and reason are not in question. The epistemological basis for a conflict between a set of faith based claims and a set of reason based ones is not in question, by anyone with even a scintilla of knowledge about the subject anywhere (in the absence of prior faith based bias, sorry but it does exist!).

The really, REALLY, REEEEEEEEEAAAAALLLLLYYY amusing thing is that Lenny and Skeptic are trying to demonstrate that reason cannot do certain things by using reason to fence those things off! They are proving MY point by their very method of trying to disprove my point. They are then both asserting that religion (faith) CAN do these things but providing no justification for this claim whatsoever, it is merely bold assertion.

So angry as I am that I am being misrepresented and blatantly lied about. Pissed off as I am that I am wasting my time wading through swathes of shit and incoherent argument. I am EXTREMELY amused by the rank hypocrisy and lack of consideration they give their arguments, which in the end boil down to nothing more than "It can because I SAY it can, you're mean for asking me to prove it, so there".

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,07:16   

Louis, take a deep breath and calm yourself.


Sorry that I've upset you by questioning your worldview.

I'm pretty sure you'll get over it.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,07:17   

This reminds me of The Simpsons episode Lisa the Vegetarian

? ?
Quote

The family is gathered around the breakfast table.

Homer: Marge? ?Since I'm not talking to Lisa, would you please ask her
? ? ? to pass me the syrup?
Marge: [Wearily] Dear, please pass your father the syrup, Lisa.
Lisa: Bart, tell Dad I will only pass the syrup if it won't be used on
? ? ? any meat product.
Bart: [To Homer] You dunkin' your sausages in that syrup homeboy?
Homer: Marge, tell Bart I just want to drink a nice glass of syrup like
? ? ? I do every morning.
Marge: Tell him yourself, you're ignoring Lisa, not Bart.
Homer: Bart, thank your mother for pointing that out.
Marge: Homer, you're not, not talking to me, and secondly, I heard what
? ? ? you said.
Homer: Lisa, tell your mother to get off my case!
Bart: Uhhh, Dad. ?Lisa's the one you're not talking to.


It also has the classic lines

?  
Quote
At Springfield Elementary.
Hoover: Okay class, time to dissect our worms. ?[Class cheers. ?Miss
? ? ? ?Hoover places a worm in a pan before Lisa.] ?First pin them down
? ? ? ?so they don't fly up and hit you in the eye.
Ralph: Umm, Miss Hoover?
Hoover: Yes Ralph, what is it?
Ralph: My worm went in my mouth and then I ate it...can I have another
? ? ? ?one?
Hoover: No Ralph, there aren't any more...[shaking her head] just try to
? ? ? ?sleep while the other children are learning.
Ralph: Oh boy...sleep! ?That's where I'm a viking!

.
..
Who sez there aint a god?

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,07:22   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 31 2007,13:16)
Louis, take a deep breath and calm yourself.


Sorry that I've upset you by questioning your worldview.

I'm pretty sure you'll get over it.

Lenny,

You haven't questioned MY "worldview" (whatever it is), you have questioned your misrepresentation of what you think my "worldview" is. That is why I am annoyed. MY "worldview" (whatever it is) hasn't even entered into the discussion. You do realise that my "worldview" (whatever it is) changes every day based on erm, well the evidence don't you? You do realise that the arguments here consitute a totally tiny quantity of any "worldview" (whatever it is) I might or might not have.

Of course, you COULD go and read the rewording of my arguments I have taken some time to do for you. You could of course try to deal with my arguments as they are as opposed to your caricature of them.

Oh and amused/pissed off as I am by this, I'm perfectly calm. Which of course you'd know from having read my posts and dealt with my arguments as they are.

Incidentally Lenny, why DO you keep running away from that?

Louis

ADDED IN EDIT: P.S. Oh!!!! {Smacks forehead} I know why this "worldview" shit of yours keeps coming up Lenny. You're projecting. You're so afraid of the arguments I have ACTUALLY made (as opposed to your caricatures of them) that you cannot deal with them. Ah it makes sense. Stop projecting Lenny, read what I have actually written.

ADDED IN FURTHER EDIT: P.P.S. PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG! Do you understand that I want to be wrong and I want YOU Lenny to show where I am wrong. Please do so in a point by point manner. I restated everything for you today in a long post. PLEASE show where it is in error.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,07:29   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2007,13:17)
Who sez there aint a god?

No one.

I sez there's bugger all reliable evidence FOR a god. Which is a very different thing.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,08:04   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,06:48)
..
I think it is past time when Lenny acknowledges the fact that the disagreement he is keen to make about areas we actually agree upon is his fault. I think it is well past time he apologises for misrepresenting my arguments. I think it is WAY past time that everyone let's Lenny know this is the case...
Louis

OK.

I agree that your arguments have been missrepresented by Lenny. Damned if I can understand why.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,08:05   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 31 2007,14:04)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,06:48)
..
I think it is past time when Lenny acknowledges the fact that the disagreement he is keen to make about areas we actually agree upon is his fault. I think it is well past time he apologises for misrepresenting my arguments. I think it is WAY past time that everyone let's Lenny know this is the case...
Louis

OK.

I agree that your arguments have been missrepresented by Lenny. Damned if I can understand why.

Ditto!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,08:15   

Incidentally, whilst I think of it, the claim that Lenny and Skeptic are making that I am somehow out to get religion/faith, that I am somehow biased against it when in fact all I want is to examine it, are nothing more than the oft repeated claims of the poets I mentioned waaaaaaaaaaay back that examination destroys beauty.

Not only is this false (as demonstrated to anyone willing to look back at the plumber inspired huge post with piccies), it is irrelevant.

The incredibly amusing irony is that if any "worldview" is threatened by examination it certainly isn't going to be mine! My "worldview" (such as it is, I'm not sure I have something sufficiently concrete to be called a worldview) exists only to be questioned. As I have repeatedly said, the issue of doubt and being wrong doesn't bother me in the slightest. I am so often wrong and I doubt so very much that one more thing relly isn't a big deal, even if it's something significant. My "worldview" (such as it is) changes based on the evidence. If the evidence is that faith trumps reason in some instance, then my world view has to change to accomodate that.

Of course no one has managed to find any situation yet in which faith does trump reason as far as I am aware. Please let me know when they do.

So all in all, I find Lenny's Winneresque "Calm down, dear" (See crap car insurance commercials in the UK for details) quite hilarious. The level of projection he exhibits is really huge. It's a laugh riot. And incidentally the diversions Lenny keeps resorting to are standard tactics by the...shall we say "damaged world view afflicted"? Me, I'm just pissed off that someone I thought was honest and intelligent, isn't, and that they see fit to misrepresent my arguments and cast slurs at me in order to protect themselves.

Oh PROJECTIONIST!!! A little focus please. ;)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,08:21   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,15:29)
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2007,13:17)
Who sez there aint a god?

No one.

I sez there's bugger all reliable evidence FOR a god. Which is a very different thing.

Louis

Of course.

God is just a figure of speech or a projection, nothing more and never will be, unless the preacher has a gun, a 747 or controls the door to the afterlife, then huge proportions of the great unwashed cower under the appropriate deity. But then that is why we have fundies, nobody loves them. Fuck ?em.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,08:42   

A girl in my lab once said 'Doesn't ecology tell us that we should recycle?'

I thought this was the stupidest thing I had ever heard.  I now realize that for her, Science was answering the question.  So Lenny it does appear that science can answer that question.

Was it the right answer?  Who Knows.  Who Cares?  

I'm more interested in skeptic going on about abstract concepts (and the answers to these stupid context-free examples) existing independent of ourselves (and therefore implied to be in the Mind Of Gawd or something).  I suppose I need to update my Gawd Connection, I either have too many firewalls or I'm using dialup.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,09:05   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 31 2007,07:16)
Louis, take a deep breath and calm yourself.


Sorry that I've upset you by questioning your worldview.

I'm pretty sure you'll get over it.

Bloody hell Lenny. Have you read Louis' replies to you? He is quite specific that he is annoyed that you have missrepresented his arguments and doesn't give a fig for any "worldview" of his.

I can't understand why you are behaving like this (unless your latest batch of viking-piss is particularly strong), but it apears that you are deliberately setting out to anoy/upset/piss-off Louis.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,09:17   

Ahhhhh but Steve, he has only succeeded in a very temporary fashion, for I have moved beyond the turbulent rapids of annoyance at his refusal to deal with my arguments honestly into the clear blue waters of hilarious amusement at his projection, flailing about and utter inability to deal with my arguments honestly.

'Tis true I do (and did) get annoyed by dishonest/poor argumentation, and 'tis equally true I should not. And for that I can only apologise most humbly.

It doesn't take anything away from Lenny having a little strop and whining "But you're MEAN so you can't be right WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH".

I have therefore moved directly to the exciting pelagic depths of MOCKERY. Until such time as Skeptic or his new best friend* and identical argumentation user Lenny see fit to actually DEAL with my arguments AS I HAVE MADE THEM (as opposed to AS THEY WISH THEM TO BE), I shall mock.

As the gentleman himself would do:

{shrug}

Louis

*This is a deliberate wind up. Although it is based partly in seriousness. Lenny considers himself above the theists and considers his arguments so superior and different. One wonders why, upon examination, they are identical in places and in error for the SAME reasons. Could it be that Lenny's biases are showing? Perhaps that Lenny is desperate to defend his own religion (non-theistic of course) from scrutiny? These don't have to be religious arguments he's using after all, the same drivel is spouted by homeopaths and shamans and crystal healers the world over. The "god" element doesn;t even need to enter into the equation. Woo is Woo, and boy, Lenny is wooing with the best of them. That is, until he deals with my arguments AS THEY ARE STATED. Rather seems like the person with something to lose is Lenny, doesn't it? Hence all the projection and bluster. Pity really because it doesn't actually fool anyone.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,09:20   

Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2007,14:21)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,15:29)
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2007,13:17)
Who sez there aint a god?

No one.

I sez there's bugger all reliable evidence FOR a god. Which is a very different thing.

Louis

Of course.

God is just a figure of speech or a projection, nothing more and never will be, unless the preacher has a gun, a 747 or controls the door to the afterlife, then huge proportions of the great unwashed cower under the appropriate deity. But then that is why we have fundies, nobody loves them. Fuck ?em.

I love fundies. I love everyone. Except liars.

No one likes liars.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,09:25   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,09:20)
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2007,14:21)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,15:29)
 
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2007,13:17)
Who sez there aint a god?

No one.

I sez there's bugger all reliable evidence FOR a god. Which is a very different thing.

Louis

Of course.

God is just a figure of speech or a projection, nothing more and never will be, unless the preacher has a gun, a 747 or controls the door to the afterlife, then huge proportions of the great unwashed cower under the appropriate deity. But then that is why we have fundies, nobody loves them. Fuck ?em.

I love fundies. I love everyone. Except liars.

No one likes liars.

Louis

Then you should hate yourself! Claiming that it isn't the attack on your deeply atheist worldview you're upset about (same as me apparently).

We don't even know our own minds Louis.....good thing we have Lenny here, eh, otherwise we wouldn't have a CLUE what we thought.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,09:46   

Quote (IanBrown_101 @ Aug. 31 2007,15:25)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,09:20)
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2007,14:21)
 
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,15:29)
?
Quote (k.e @ Aug. 31 2007,13:17)
Who sez there aint a god?

No one.

I sez there's bugger all reliable evidence FOR a god. Which is a very different thing.

Louis

Of course.

God is just a figure of speech or a projection, nothing more and never will be, unless the preacher has a gun, a 747 or controls the door to the afterlife, then huge proportions of the great unwashed cower under the appropriate deity. But then that is why we have fundies, nobody loves them. Fuck ?em.

I love fundies. I love everyone. Except liars.

No one likes liars.

Louis

Then you should hate yourself! Claiming that it isn't the attack on your deeply atheist worldview you're upset about (same as me apparently).

We don't even know our own minds Louis.....good thing we have Lenny here, eh, otherwise we wouldn't have a CLUE what we thought.

Ah but you see Young One, Lenny is so superior, his worldview so robust that he doesn't actually have to deal with people's arguments as they are made. Not for him the actual engagement of reality, not for him the honest and courteous treatment of an argument.

No Lenny is beyond that, his ways are the old ways: the strawman, the quote mine, the argumentum ad hominem, the rampant blatant projection and lies.

Of course I could be wrong, Lenny could at this very moment be typing a point by point refutation of my ACTUAL arguments. Hell, I even told him PRECISELY what he needs to do to do so. I won't hold my breath. I suspect what I'll get is "Calm down" and "Your worldview is threatened".

Ironic isn't it? I have read and examined Lenny's (and Skeptic's) argument and taken each element of it to pieces and refuted each individual piece carefully. Strange how Lenny (and Skeptic) refuses to do the same for my argument and yet it is MY "worldview" that is the one threatened apparently. Hmmmm mmm, yeah, right! Strange how their ONLY reply is to quote mine, bash straw men, and tell me how it's all opinion or how I'm so mean and biased.

Like I said, projection.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,10:02   

I'm also tickled pink by the idea Lenny has that because someone is annoyed with him he must be right. Hasn't it occurred to him that someone can be annoyed with him because he is wrong?

Rather strikes me that, as with Skeptic, Lenny views discussion as some child's game in which gainsaying the other person is what counts.

Ooops Lenny. No. Do grow up, there's a good lad. Haven't you seen Monty Python? An argument is a series of connected statements designed to establish a premise. You want "Running away, projection and failing to adequately address a single point of someone's argument." That's down the corridor. It's ok Lenny, you'll have company, Skeptic's in the same room.

Of coirse any time you're willing to grow a pair and deal with my actual arguments and stop projecting like a whiny child, let me know. I'll be waiting.

Incidentally, this is mockery, try to learn to distinguish it from annoyance. There's a good boy.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,10:10   

So the truth is out!!!11!

You now MOCK him for your worldview!!11!1

(Anyone else getting the impression of that bit from Team America:World Police where Tim Robbins is unable to get things striaght? "and the corperations sit in their buildings, and are all corperationy, and...")

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,10:26   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,10:02)
I'm also tickled pink by the idea Lenny has that because someone is annoyed with him he must be right. Hasn't it occurred to him that someone can be annoyed with him because he is wrong?

Rather strikes me that, as with Skeptic, Lenny views discussion as some child's game in which gainsaying the other person is what counts.

Ooops Lenny. No. Do grow up, there's a good lad. Haven't you seen Monty Python? An argument is a series of connected statements designed to establish a premise. You want "Running away, projection and failing to adequately address a single point of someone's argument." That's down the corridor. It's ok Lenny, you'll have company, Skeptic's in the same room.

Of coirse any time you're willing to grow a pair and deal with my actual arguments and stop projecting like a whiny child, let me know. I'll be waiting.

Incidentally, this is mockery, try to learn to distinguish it from annoyance. There's a good boy.

Louis

What I think this thread is about to evolve into:

From the Monty Python Argument Sketch:

Q:   WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M:   Well, I was told outside that...
Q:   Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M:   What?
Q:   Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M:   Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q:   OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M:   Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q:   Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M:   Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q:   Not at all.
M:   Thank You.
(Under his breath) Stupid git!!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,10:42   

Wow, what an long unnecessary crock.  To you, Louis, these may be meaningless question or non-questions.  To the rest of humanity throughout history we see and entirely different story.  But in the world according to Louis, you're right and and everyone else is wrong.  Either that or they're involved in this vast conspiracy against to quote-mine, misrepresent, and otherwise annoy you.  Do you know Hilary Clinton?  It seems you two would have much to talk about.

So, Louis doesn't accept the existence of abstract universal concepts, hmm sounds familiar.  Also sounds like an opinion to me.  Louis asks for evidence if these concepts actually exist.  Well where does that evidence come from?  Louis says it must come from reason or else it is invalid.  Again sounds like an opinion to me.  I'm glad we've got Louis here to completely define for us the nature of reality.  Saves me alot of time and I can throw all these books out.  

But before I do maybe I'll take a second look.  This question "is abortion wrong" it seems to be a hot topic.  many people disagree about the answer.  But how is this possible if it's not really a question or a question with no reason.  Must be a definition problem cause now I'm not sure what "wrong" means because I lack the proper context.  Wrong either means nothing without reasoned parameters or it means different things to different people.  Yep, I'm gonna go with the second one because that makes more sense to me and more correctly reflects the world I see everyday.  But people still ask the question...hmm why is that?  Don't they know that there is no reasoned answer because there lacks a consistent context in the form it is in.  Those silly people, what are we gonna do with them?  Maybe they're part of the conspiracy too.

How 'bout I ask someone and find out.  That fine man looks to be a good subject.

"Sir, may I ask you a question?"

"Sure."

"Is abortion wrong?"

"Yes, it is wrong."

"Really, are you sure that is the case?  I've been told it's not really a question."

"No actually it's a very important question.  Where have you been for the last 16 years."

"Why is abortion wrong?"

"Because abortion is murder."

"And murder is wrong?  Are we sure?  That doesn't sound like a question to me either."

"Of course murder is wrong.  Where are you from?"

"Why is murder wrong?"

"Because all life is sacred and it comes from God."

"Oh.  Well that sounds like an answer to me.  May not be the right one but I appreciate your time anyway."

So in this case it appears that if you believe in God you can arise at an answer to that unanswerable question.  Somehow, I think its more complex than that but again that is probably just my opinion.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,10:49   

No you idiot it means you put context around the question.  So it is not the same question anymore.

Jesus, if you believe in gods you can answer this question.  are you serious.  yeah, i think you are.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,10:50   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 31 2007,10:42)
Wow, what an long unnecessary crock.  To you, Louis, these may be meaningless question or non-questions.  To the rest of humanity throughout history we see and entirely different story.  But in the world according to Louis, you're right and and everyone else is wrong.  Either that or they're involved in this vast conspiracy against to quote-mine, misrepresent, and otherwise annoy you.  Do you know Hilary Clinton?  It seems you two would have much to talk about.

So, Louis doesn't accept the existence of abstract universal concepts, hmm sounds familiar.  Also sounds like an opinion to me.  Louis asks for evidence if these concepts actually exist.  Well where does that evidence come from?  Louis says it must come from reason or else it is invalid.  Again sounds like an opinion to me.  I'm glad we've got Louis here to completely define for us the nature of reality.  Saves me alot of time and I can throw all these books out.  

But before I do maybe I'll take a second look.  This question "is abortion wrong" it seems to be a hot topic.  many people disagree about the answer.  But how is this possible if it's not really a question or a question with no reason.  Must be a definition problem cause now I'm not sure what "wrong" means because I lack the proper context.  Wrong either means nothing without reasoned parameters or it means different things to different people.  Yep, I'm gonna go with the second one because that makes more sense to me and more correctly reflects the world I see everyday.  But people still ask the question...hmm why is that?  Don't they know that there is no reasoned answer because there lacks a consistent context in the form it is in.  Those silly people, what are we gonna do with them?  Maybe they're part of the conspiracy too.

How 'bout I ask someone and find out.  That fine man looks to be a good subject.

"Sir, may I ask you a question?"

"Sure."

"Is abortion wrong?"

"Yes, it is wrong."

"Really, are you sure that is the case?  I've been told it's not really a question."

"No actually it's a very important question.  Where have you been for the last 16 years."

"Why is abortion wrong?"

"Because abortion is murder."

"And murder is wrong?  Are we sure?  That doesn't sound like a question to me either."

"Of course murder is wrong.  Where are you from?"

"Why is murder wrong?"

"Because all life is sacred and it comes from God."

"Oh.  Well that sounds like an answer to me.  May not be the right one but I appreciate your time anyway."

So in this case it appears that if you believe in God you can arise at an answer to that unanswerable question.  Somehow, I think its more complex than that but again that is probably just my opinion.

Well done for not answering anything put to you. Congratulations.

The point is that religion can't answer questions that reason cannot, not that religion can't answer anything.

Saying Catholosism thinks abortion is wrong is EXACTLY the same as the logic argument that states for group X, proposal Y is wrong. You cannot get an answer from revalation that you could not get from reason. Without context, those questions ARE meaningless. The context can be supplied by absolutely anything. The question "Is this square yellow?" is totally meaningless, unless I give a context in which it is not, by showing you a square, for example.

Just because your holy book of choice says the answer is yes doesn't mean it absolutely is.

Your opinion is different from Louis' because you state something is absolutely so without any evidence or logical thought, Louis simply states he doesn't agree with you, and thinks it's wrong because there is no evidence. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,11:15   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 31 2007,10:42)
Wow, what an long unnecessary crock... ?

As Ian pointed out, you have dodged all the hard questions asked of you.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,11:37   

OK From what (after too many sauvignon achtung babies) I can percieve, we in our overindulgent exothermic lives will go down in history a\s the last flaming flamingoes (60's reference for those still asleep).
In an under world the remaining (and honorable) keepers of the left wing (come on lennny and louis cross that Promethean biway).

You see the Greeks laughed at their gods but could on a turn commit you to blasphemy in an instant (or a ?homophiliociphity).

Does that remind you of now?".

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,12:07   

Quote
Wow, what an long unnecessary crock.  To you, Louis, these may be meaningless question or non-questions.  To the rest of humanity throughout history we see and entirely different story.  But in the world according to Louis, you're right and and everyone else is wrong.  Either that or they're involved in this vast conspiracy against to quote-mine, misrepresent, and otherwise annoy you.  Do you know Hilary Clinton?  It seems you two would have much to talk about.

So, Louis doesn't accept the existence of abstract universal concepts, hmm sounds familiar.  Also sounds like an opinion to me.  Louis asks for evidence if these concepts actually exist.  Well where does that evidence come from?  Louis says it must come from reason or else it is invalid.  Again sounds like an opinion to me.  I'm glad we've got Louis here to completely define for us the nature of reality.  Saves me alot of time and I can throw all these books out.  


Oh dear. Never throw books out! I have the bible, the qu'ran, the torah, the talmud, the bhagavad gita, the guru granth sahib and a slew of other religious and apologetics books on my shelves. I don't believe in a single one of them but they have their uses.

1) No Skeptic, there is no conspiracy, nor do I claim there is. Neither Lenny nor you have responded to my actual arguments. Lenny has even gone so far as to quote mine me in order to create a straw man he can bash at. These are demonstrable facts, not open to my opinion or yours. This thread constitutes the evidence of that. Please DON'T take my say so for it. I'm right everyone else is wrong? FAR FAR from it!

Again Skeptic, try to understand that to refute an argument you first have to understand it and be able to repeat it. You have to then demonstrate which aspects of it are false.

YOU ARE NOT DOING THIS!

You say you disagree. GREAT! I WANT you to disagree. I also WANT you to show me where and why you disgaree and what errors I have made.

YOU ARE NOT DOING THIS!

Please start doing so. Otherwise admit you cannot.

2) I am NOT saying that (for example) "Is abortion wrong?" a non-question or meaningless (I think it's pretty important myself), I AM saying that in the absence of context it is a non question and meaningless. I've gone to considerable lengths to define very carefully what I mean by context too. Which, of course you'd know having read it and understood it. Try again.

3) Evidence. You claim LOVE exists (for example) as a seperate entity in it's own right. That perfect and absolute standard by which all other love is judged. Great! Got any evidence? "I believe it to be true" won't suffice because I can come up with "I believe it to be false" and then where are we? How do we decide between these two faith based claims Skeptic? This is the question I asked waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back at the start and you are STILL avoiding it. I want to believe as you do, I want to believe LOVE exists as a separate perfect entity, so show me the evidence for it. Show me evidence that is more substantial than "I believe it". Show me how to distinguish between two faith based claims.

Again in the absence of that evidence, why should I believe your claim? It is up to YOU to defend and establish your claim not me. Remember I am NOT claiming LOVE does not exist as some perfect entity, I am claiming that there is no good evidence to think LOVE DOES exist as a perfect separate entity. That is pretty different. In the interim, whilst you're gathering all that evidence, I'll go along with the huge swathe of data we as a species have garnered so far on the topic of love (note small "l") and I'll deal with the universe as it appears to be, rather than how I might like it.

4) I don't claim to know or dictate what reality IS. Far from it Skeptic. In fact if you read back I've gone to great lengths to tell you all I have very little idea. What I HAVE told you is that I and millions of others are working towards a model, a first approximation, a working theory of what reality is. Are we there yet? No, by no means, but we do know SOMETHING. That SOMETHING is far from small and insubstantial. Included in that SOMETHING is a list of the cock ups we have made as a species in the past, a list of commn errors we have made. Assuming something exists in the absence of good evidence is one of those cock ups. And Skeptic, you are making it. Don't feel bad, if that's the only one you've made, you've done better than me, my name is alongside huge numbers of those cock ups, some I've managed to sort out, some I've yet to. All I CAN tell you is the cock up you are making is an old one and one we know very well indeed.

Incidentally, there is an important and very misleading way to misunderstand this. Some people (i'm looking at the post modernist extreme relativists here) think this means we know nothing or that all claims are equal regardless of the evidence. Oops. This is a cock up we know well too. I'll just say that I find it very curious how these people use reason, science, technology, language etc to communicate and "defend" (for it is indefensible actually) this claim. They don't use "other ways of knowing".

5) Inclusiveness. Perhaps Skeptic you don't understand that reason in the sense I have been using it since post 1 is INCLUSIVE. It includes the best products of religion and philosophy, it includes all of science, it includes art, history, literary criticism, poetry etc. It includes ALL human endeavours except one. It doesn't include faith.

It doesn't include unsupported, unsupportable claims based on faith. I'm not talking about the little "f" faith one has in certain things like the love of a spouse or the faith that your team will win the cup, these are conjectures based on erm, well reason and observation, sorry to break it to you!

I'm talking about the Big "F" faith, the faith in objects and concepts for which there is simply no evidence outside of the belief, the claim of faith, itself. I'm talking about those things for which not only is there no evidence but for which faith in them CONTRADICTS the evidence. Those reason doesn't include because it cannot. Unfortunately for you, nothing thus far developed by the human race can either, so you're screwed.

6) Does all this mean that I am some huge meanie who wants to destroy religion and dismantle faith and burn theists, deists and other non-theistic believers on stakes?

NO!

NO NO NO NO NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO!

Like I have said before, all I care about is how we know what is real not what we think is real. I care that what we claim is real we do so on as solid a basis as we possibly can. That's it. Nothing more.

Hence why I want to understand and examine religious claims and other faith based claims. As I alluded to with the Douglas Adams essay at the start (Is there an artificial god) these meta systems we have developed like religion, like feng shui, like {insert woo here} MIGHT (I don't say they definitely DO because in some cases I don't know) have a use.

I'll give you an example I hope against all hope you will be able to understand: Homeopathy (This is a little over simplified because I haven't got all the details to hand right now. Hoefully the point will come across regardless)

Homeopathy is a crock of total shite. The claim that bioactive compounds become more potent the more they are diluted in aqueous solution is not merely unsupported by the evidence it is in direct contradiction to it. However, homeopathic treatments have a demonstrated effect at about the same ratio as placebo does for certain illnesses. (Homeopathic willow bark might "cure" your headache no homeopathic reattaches your severed leg or causes a rejecting xenograft to be accepted). People anecdotally report success with homeopathic treatments. What does this mean? Does it mean the claims of homeopathy are true? NO! What it means is that no matter whether homeopathy is true or not aspects of it might still be USEFUL.

In the UK somewhere in the region of 85% to 90% (I forget which, I'll have to dig the study out) of a General Practitioner's surgery time is taken up by palliative care and reassurance. Sadly, GPs get to spend between 12 and 18 minutes on average with a patient (same study, the numbers aren't actually that important, the RELATIVE numbers are as will become apparent). Homeopaths spend on average 45 minutes to 1 hour with each patient, initial consultations can commonly take 2 hours or more. Patients report feeling more assured and less stressed after these long consultations. Stress and the hormones it produces are a major factor in a huge variety (but not all) diseases and ailments, from simple headaches (although there is NOTHING simple about pain as you should know) to irritable bowel, neuropathic pain, psychological complaints, even wound healing rates (IIRC). We have something to LEARN from this. We need to treat patients more carefully, consult with them for longer, focus on reassurance and stress reduction. There are other things we can learn too, but NONE of them is that dilution increases potency!

The truth value of homeopathy is unaffected by how some of the incidental facets of it might be useful.

The same idea applies to religions. Are they all useless root and branch? Is every facet of every religion total shite? No of course not, and in fact as I said to George on this very thread, I would be EXTREMELY surprised if they were. The fact of their utility does not reflect on their truth value, nor vice versa. There are useful falsehoods and there are truths that might not be as useful. Interestingly enough, the utility of an idea in THIS LIMITED SENSE depends on its context! Ha, who knew!

PLEASE stop bashing up strawmen and PLEASE stop putting words into my mouth that simply are not there and finally PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE deal with my actual arguments and answer the few very simpe questions I have asked you.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,12:24   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 31 2007,09:05)
[...] but it apears that you are deliberately setting out to anoy/upset/piss-off Louis.

Well, Lenny has in the past stated that he enjoys "yanking" somebody's "chain". I'm left with the very strong impression that that's all he's doing here, and it's all he's trying to do here.

Henry

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,12:25   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2007,18:24)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 31 2007,09:05)
[...] but it apears that you are deliberately setting out to anoy/upset/piss-off Louis.

Well, Lenny has in the past stated that he enjoys "yanking" somebody's "chain". I'm left with the very strong impression that that's all he's doing here, and it's all he's trying to do here.

Henry

You, me, Steve and everyone except Skeptic it would appear.

Poor twat thinks he has an ally.

Oops

Louis

P.S. Incidentally isn't this just trolling for kicks if it is true? This makes Lenny different from say GoP how precisely?

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,12:26   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,12:07)
...
PLEASE stop bashing up strawmen and PLEASE stop putting words into my mouth that simply are not there and finally PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE deal with my actual arguments and answer the few very simpe questions I have asked you.

Louis

Good luck with that. I am not optimistic though. But if you do get your wish, this thread will become far more interesting.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,12:31   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2007,12:24)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 31 2007,09:05)
[...] but it apears that you are deliberately setting out to anoy/upset/piss-off Louis.

Well, Lenny has in the past stated that he enjoys "yanking" somebody's "chain". I'm left with the very strong impression that that's all he's doing here, and it's all he's trying to do here.

Henry

That sir, could be the truth. I must admit that Lenny's behaviour on this thread baffles me. Personally I wish that that Lenny wold explain this himself as all else is pure speculation (including mine).

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,12:37   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 31 2007,18:26)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,12:07)
...
PLEASE stop bashing up strawmen and PLEASE stop putting words into my mouth that simply are not there and finally PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE deal with my actual arguments and answer the few very simpe questions I have asked you.

Louis

Good luck with that. I am not optimistic though. But if you do get your wish, this thread will become far more interesting.

Me neither but all I can do is ask. It's not like I can go round to their houses and suddenly make them intelligent or honest or capable of finding a clue with both hands, a map, a series of spotlight, a team of clue hunting Sherpa, a brace of specially bred clue hunting dogs with clue hunting senses honed over centuries of selective breeding, and a picture of a FUCKING GREAT CLUE! ;)

The REALLY interesting bits have been glossed over. There's a swathe of data regarding (for example) morals and ethics being evolved. More for aesthetics etc. All of this is being handwaved away by Lenny and Skeptic which is a terrible shame. The amusing thing is we can and do know a huge amount about all these topics, we can and will know a huge amount more (as far as I can tell anyway, I'm not a great predictor of the future!).

There's this whole beautiful universe out there, waiting for us to dive in and examine and appreciate it's depths and marvels. Lenny and Skeptic and their ideological ilk are dipping a toe in and crying "IT'S COLD! I WANTED IT TO BE WARM! I WON'T GO IN AND I WON'T LOOK AT IT SO THERE AND YOU'RE A MEANIE FOR MAKING ME TRY SO THERE!".

All the other shite is just projection. A series of feeble psychological excuses they are making so that they don't have to acknoledge this fact. It's a terrible shame really, but it has ever been thus.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,12:39   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,12:25)
...P.S. Incidentally isn't this just trolling for kicks if it is true? This makes Lenny different from say GoP, how precisely?

If true, I think there is some difference. GofP came here only to yank chains (and TBH I didn't particularly mind), Lenny is actually very commited to fighting creationism in schools (far more than I am), and just having the occaisional laugh at challenging people to think differently (I hope).

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,12:44   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 31 2007,18:39)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,12:25)
...P.S. Incidentally isn't this just trolling for kicks if it is true? This makes Lenny different from say GoP, how precisely?

If true, I think there is some difference. GofP came here only to yank chains (and TBH I didn't particularly mind), Lenny is actually very commited to fighting creationism in schools (far more than I am), and just having the occaisional laugh at challenging people to think differently (I hope).

Good point. I hope so too.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,13:06   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,12:44)
Good point. I hope so too.

Louis

Judge Judy is on right now. Far more interesting than this thread (and that is not your fault Louis). I think that you have made your points far more effectively than your opponents (in fact, I do not think your opponents have made any viable points).

Something that I find strange is a claim that Lenny made. The one where he (claimed to have) challenged your "worldview" and yet I agree with you. That is wierd, considering that I am not an atheist.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,13:14   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 31 2007,19:06)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,12:44)
Good point. I hope so too.

Louis

Judge Judy is on right now. Far more interesting than this thread (and that is not your fault Louis). I think that you have made your points far more effictively than your opponents (in fact, I do not think your opponents have made any viable points).

Something that I find strange is a claim that Lenny made. The one where he (claimed to have) challenged your "worldview" and yet I agree with you. That is wierd, considering that I am not an atheist.

Yeah weird isn't it.

I suppose that it's equally weird that my best mate's wife (a theologian of whom I have spoken before. Super clever, all round brilliant person and VERY religious) would agree with every word I have said thus far and yet she maintains a belief in god, a christian god no less.

She and I find very little to disagree about. Strange really. Makes one think that perhaps there is some kind of mechanism or way of understanding the universe around you that actually works independant of your religious beliefs. Gee, I wonder who could be advocating something like THAT now.

Even stranger, she admits that her faith in her deity is totally indistingushable from fantasy and that for her this simply isn't the point. She makes no claims that god exists or her way is the right way, she simply believes because it works for her. If you asked her to define some moral absolute for you, she'd laugh at you and point out why is was absurd for the same reasons I have.

Even stranger than that, I cheerfully agree with her but do not share any aspect of her faith.

Wow! I wonder how THAT can be accomplished? I wonder if it has anything to do with those metasystems I mentioned? Naaaaaaah. It's probably because I'm a biased fundamentalist atheist who wants to burn churches and kill religious people and because my worldview is in crisis. Yeah, that'll be it.

Louis

ADDED IN EDIT. P.S. The previous post should have read "Good point. I hope so too. I WAS WRONG. I made a bad argument of equivalence and you showed me where the error was and I admit it unreservedly". I think that might be an example people could use in these situations. ;)

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,15:06   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,13:14)
ADDED IN EDIT. P.S. The previous post should have read "Good point. I hope so too. I WAS WRONG. I made a bad argument of equivalence and you showed me where the error was and I admit it unreservedly". I think that might be an example people could use in these situations. ;)

Louis - Wouldn't this work better?

"I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future. "

(from a Fish called Wanda)

At the risk of starting another long argument, I mean discussion, it occurs to me that everything that I DO believe in and hold to be utterly true, has been said by Monty Python, or a Monty Python graduate.

I am not sure what this means, nor do I think I want to know.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,17:12   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 30 2007,21:01)
That said: vis economics, surely it is the aspiration of some professional/academic economists to better model, predict, and ultimately render controllable human economic systems at a variety of scales.

(snip very good but very long post)

My virew, of course, has always been that economics ain't sciecne at all, just an apologetic for the existing social order.   ;)

Seriously, though, economics seems divided into ideological camps, everything from free market libertarians to Keynesian New Dealers to commies.

I think that at best, economic "science" can just gather a bunch of impressive-sounding statistics, but in reality none of them have any idea at all what all those numbers actually mean.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,17:18   

Quote (skeptic @ Aug. 31 2007,01:21)
No, Lenny, you're right. ?There's been no real discussion of a religion here. ?Nor should there be because all religions fall under this umbrella.

Ian, I can sum it up for you very simply. ?There are three opinions here being expressed. ?On the matter of abstract concepts,

Louis says they don't exist. ?All knowledge is or potentially is accessable through reason and context.

Lenny says they exist indepedently for every person rendering them off limits to reason and context because the range of answers is infinite (being based upon every single person and every potential person).

I say they exist separate and independent of us and our understanding of these concepts really only scrap the surface but there is no way to know the actual *correct* answer because we can not actually fully access these concepts.

based upon these opinions, Louis requires a conflict between science and religion whereas Lenny and I do not, for similar yet different reasons.

That's it in a nutshell and all the rest of the back and forth and name-calling is just pointless.

BTW, Lenny, I don't think an additional thread is necessary as you answer the question, or should I say define the question, rather adequately.

let me know if anyone has anything new to say; otherwise, good night all.

No, that's not it at all.

There are indeed three viewpoints.  They are:

The evangelical religious-ites say, "Science and religion can't coexist, so science should shut up, because we can answer everything for you".

The evangelical atheist-ites say, "Science and religion can't coexist, so religion should shut up, because we can answer everything for you."

Everyone else says, "Science and religion can coexist because neither can answer the areas explored by the other, so when it comes to intruding into the other's area, BOTH of you should shut up."


The surest sign that this is indeed just an ideological squabble, over worldviews, is the simple fact that EVERYONE who holds the first view is a fundamentalist religiouser of some sort, EVERYONE who holds the second view is an evangelical atheist of some sort (and those of course are simply two different sides of the same coin), while the third position is held by people of every conceivable ideology or worldview, from the commie atheist Steve Gould to the Pope.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,17:23   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,12:25)
P.S. Incidentally isn't this just trolling for kicks if it is true? This makes Lenny different from say GoP how precisely?

Feel entirely free to have me banned if you like.  (shrug)

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,17:29   

Quote
Even stranger, she admits that her faith in her deity is totally indistingushable from fantasy and that for her this simply isn't the point. She makes no claims that god exists or her way is the right way, she simply believes because it works for her. If you asked her to define some moral absolute for you, she'd laugh at you and point out why is was absurd for the same reasons I have.

Even stranger than that, I cheerfully agree with her but do not share any aspect of her faith.
That sounds like pretty much every Christian I knew growing up. I find it hard to see how this kind of religious faith conflicts with science.

Quote
Seriously, though, economics seems divided into ideological camps, everything from free market libertarians to Keynesian New Dealers to commies.
Thats why I hate listening to people argue about economics. They manage to have a heated discussion about why their system will lead to a better outcome without mentioning that they have completely different measures for the desirability of the outcome.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,17:56   

Who's the little boy?

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,18:00   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Aug. 31 2007,17:29)
That sounds like pretty much every Christian I knew growing up. I find it hard to see how this kind of religious faith conflicts with science.

Yeah, me too.  

Still sounds like the UCC.

Thanks to 20 years of fundie political power, alas, most people nowadays don't even know that there is any difference between "fundamentalism" and "religion".  

The two are not the same.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,18:09   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Aug. 31 2007,17:29)
Thats why I hate listening to people argue about economics. They manage to have a heated discussion about why their system will lead to a better outcome without mentioning that they have completely different measures for the desirability of the outcome.

What I've always found interesting is that economists virtually never examine or explain any NON-capitalist economic system, despite the fact that humans lived under non-capitalist economic systems for 99% of all human history.  I only recall ever seeing one book by a modern economist (other than Marx) on the feudalist economic system (IIRC, it was by Heilbroner).  I don't recall seeing ANY on Roman or Greek slave-holding economies.

Every other economist seems to simply assume as a matter of course that modern capitalism is simply a "given" that was apparently here for all eternity and will continue eternally into the indefinite future.

Alas, history has never been very kind to peopole who blithely assumed that their current social/economic/political system was the very best of all possible worlds . . . .  . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,18:15   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 31 2007,18:12)
I think that at best, economic "science" can just gather a bunch of impressive-sounding statistics, but in reality none of them have any idea at all what all those numbers actually mean.

Is it your view that better performance is inherently impossible? Or simply that nothing much useful has been devised as yet.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,18:20   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 31 2007,18:56)
Who's the little boy?

Apologies. I passed gas.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,18:36   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 31 2007,18:15)
Is it your view that better performance is inherently impossible? Or simply that nothing much useful has been devised as yet.

Well, my view is that humans just aren't _Homo economicus_, that it's impossible to separate "economics" from "ideology", "social position", "class outlook", "political preferences", and a bazillion other subjective things, and thus impossible to study economics "objectively".

At best, economics can study what people have already done, and compile lots and lots of statistics about it, without any idea what they all mean.  I've never seen an economist yet make any successful prediction of future economic changes based upon anything remotely resembling the scientific method.

And since economics is all about measuring things, I don't see how science CAN study social economy through any other method than . . . well . . . measuring things -- things that have already happened.  I very much doubt that there are any such things as "economic laws" that allow anyone to predict the future -- other than in the most general of generalities.  Economics is just people interacting with each other.  And people are notoriously subjective, ir-rational, non-logical and un-predictable.

Oddly enough, it has always been the Leninists who have been the most shrill about "economic laws" (and their presumed skill and authority at interpreting and guiding us through understanding them).

It's just one of the many reasons why I've always thought the Leninists were full of caca.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,19:31   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 31 2007,12:39)
challenging people to think differently (I hope).

Doesn't seem to work. . . .

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,22:04   

This thread began with the question of whether a rift between science and religion is inevitable. The focus became rather narrow: upon the applicability of science to questions that may be characterized as subjective, ethical, moral, and aesthetic. Lenny argued that if there are domains to which science cannot address itself, and religions confine their concerns to those domains (aesthetic, moral, ethical), then no clash is evident.

But this post (of mine) was not remarked upon:

Quote
Oops. I just remembered.

Virtually all of the findings of contemporary neuroscience conflict with the central tenet of most religions: that we have/are a detachable ghost (soul) that hangs around after the body dies and bears into one or another future (into a new reintarnation, into eternity in heaven or hell) elements of personality such as identity, memory, desires, and accountability for past behaviors. Current neuroscience clearly indicates that virtually all characteristics previously attributable to something like a soul are functions of living tissue, functions that cease when the body dies.

Plus Denyse O'leary just wrote a book stating the opposite, which further strengthens my case.

Other than that, no conflict.

This raises an issue that goes beyond those raised to date. As I see it, when religions press the notion of a "detachable ghost" (an immortal soul), it finds itself squatting squarely in a domain that has been captured by science (particularly neuroscience). Neuroscience increasingly demonstrates the emptiness of dualism, and increasingly shows us that minds (and consciousness) are what brains do (much as digestion is something that stomachs and intestines do). To increasing degrees, the faculties that were once assigned to something like an immortal, immaterial soul (memory, identity, cognition, executive functioning, etc.) have clear and indisputable origins in increasingly well articulated brain functioning.

The notion that an additional unseen entity (a soul) is riding atop and somehow guiding all of these patently brain-based activities, and is required to understand those activities (and the behaviors that result), represents a clear instance of an intrusion of a religious postulate into a domain that clearly CAN be and IS being addressed by science - with an obvious clash, much to the detriment of detachable ghost religion.

Similarly, although science can't bring direct evidence to bear upon this final point, the notion of a soul that bears these faculties into the future following death becomes obviously untenable as the grounding of those feature in brain activities - in living tissue - is increasingly articulated.

Given that the notion of an immaterial, immortal soul - a soul that nevertheless interacts with and guides our bodies - is a central feature of most (but not all religions), one that addresses the primary problem that religions have been devised to address (the problem of death), I would say here we have an instance of a clear, inevitable, and likely unresolvable rift between science and many religions.

What say ye?

(Except you, Krabs. Don't care what you say.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,22:54   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 31 2007,22:04)
...Given that the notion of an immaterial, immortal soul - a soul that nevertheless interacts with and guides our bodies - is a central feature of most (but not all religions), one that addresses the primary problem that religions have been devised to address (the problem of death), I would say here we have an instance of a clear, inevitable, and likely unresolvable rift between science and many religions.

What say ye?

(Except you, Krabs. Don't care what you say.)

I don't think that there needs to be a rift betwen science and religion as long as religion does not try to explain the real world. For myself, religion is merely a source of hope rather than authority and I dislike people who wish to enforce "the will of God" upon others through law. Fundamentalists give me the creeps.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,23:35   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 31 2007,22:04)
Given that the notion of an immaterial, immortal soul - a soul that nevertheless interacts with and guides our bodies - is a central feature of most (but not all religions), one that addresses the primary problem that religions have been devised to address (the problem of death), I would say here we have an instance of a clear, inevitable, and likely unresolvable rift between science and many religions.

What say ye?

(Except you, Krabs. Don't care what you say.)

Ye say that not all religions assert the existence of any such thing or things.  See Chris's previous post.  Or drop by your local United Church of Christ and ask them a  few questions.

Anyway, as I noted, religion is indeed fair game whenever it makes ANY statement about what objectively exists or doesn't exist.  Yes, that includes souls or god-things.

That's not the issue.

The issue, again, is, if religion can't answer objective questions, and sciecne can't answer subjective questions, that they must be inherently in conflict.

I leave aside the notion of where certain religions get their claimed authority for their answers (which is where the god-things enter the picture).  For the issue at hand, it simply doesn't matter.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2007,23:36   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 31 2007,22:54)
I don't think that there needs to be a rift betwen science and religion as long as religion does not try to explain the real world. For myself, religion is merely a source of hope rather than authority and I dislike people who wish to enforce "the will of God" upon others through law. Fundamentalists give me the creeps.

I could not possibly under any circumstances, agree more.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,01:18   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 31 2007,22:04)
This thread began with the question of whether a rift between science and religion is inevitable. The focus became rather narrow: upon the applicability of science to questions that may be characterized as subjective, ethical, moral, and aesthetic. Lenny argued that if there are domains to which science cannot address itself, and religions confine their concerns to those domains (aesthetic, moral, ethical), then no clash is evident.

But this post (of mine) was not remarked upon:

 
Quote
Oops. I just remembered.

Virtually all of the findings of contemporary neuroscience conflict with the central tenet of most religions: that we have/are a detachable ghost (soul) that hangs around after the body dies and bears into one or another future (into a new reintarnation, into eternity in heaven or hell) elements of personality such as identity, memory, desires, and accountability for past behaviors. Current neuroscience clearly indicates that virtually all characteristics previously attributable to something like a soul are functions of living tissue, functions that cease when the body dies.

Plus Denyse O'leary just wrote a book stating the opposite, which further strengthens my case.

Other than that, no conflict.

This raises an issue that goes beyond those raised to date. As I see it, when religions press the notion of a "detachable ghost" (an immortal soul), it finds itself squatting squarely in a domain that has been captured by science (particularly neuroscience). Neuroscience increasingly demonstrates the emptiness of dualism, and increasingly shows us that minds (and consciousness) are what brains do (much as digestion is something that stomachs and intestines do). To increasing degrees, the faculties that were once assigned to something like an immortal, immaterial soul (memory, identity, cognition, executive functioning, etc.) have clear and indisputable origins in increasingly well articulated brain functioning.

The notion that an additional unseen entity (a soul) is riding atop and somehow guiding all of these patently brain-based activities, and is required to understand those activities (and the behaviors that result), represents a clear instance of an intrusion of a religious postulate into a domain that clearly CAN be and IS being addressed by science - with an obvious clash, much to the detriment of detachable ghost religion.

Similarly, although science can't bring direct evidence to bear upon this final point, the notion of a soul that bears these faculties into the future following death becomes obviously untenable as the grounding of those feature in brain activities - in living tissue - is increasingly articulated.

Given that the notion of an immaterial, immortal soul - a soul that nevertheless interacts with and guides our bodies - is a central feature of most (but not all religions), one that addresses the primary problem that religions have been devised to address (the problem of death), I would say here we have an instance of a clear, inevitable, and likely unresolvable rift between science and many religions.

What say ye?

(Except you, Krabs. Don't care what you say.)

It does not if the soul exists beyond our physical reality.  Hence there is no physical evidence for it.  There's the say-so of religious doctrine.  There's meditation, transcendation, prayer, etc.  But nothing that can be examined by science to evaluate its existence.  So religion uses the idea or concept of the soul to convey the ideas of continuity, unity and infinity which are again abstract ideas.  Religion does not use the soul to discuss electrochemical reactions in the brain, patterns of neural firing, etc.  If it did then conflict would be in order because religion would have stepped out of its boundaries.  The same mistake science makes when used to declare that no physical evidence for the soul exists therefore there is nothing beyond physical reality.  How can science discuss a concept of unity with any real validity? It can not and should not and then again there is no conflict.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,02:16   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 01 2007,05:36)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Aug. 31 2007,22:54)
I don't think that there needs to be a rift betwen science and religion as long as religion does not try to explain the real world. For myself, religion is merely a source of hope rather than authority and I dislike people who wish to enforce "the will of God" upon others through law. Fundamentalists give me the creeps.

I could not possibly under any circumstances, agree more.

At the risk of agreeing, I said something very much like this earlier.

Quote
Oh and incidentally, if anyone were to ask me if there are conceivable religions that are not in conflict with science I'd say "depends on how you define "religion"".

If there is a claim that faith is a valid mechanism for acquiring knowledge of the universe enshrined in that religion then I would say "yes".

If however they said "well I don't think that "religion" in the sense I am using it requires any claims based on or derived from faith, it's more of a series of mutable moral philosophies" then I'd say "no, and how does this differ from any non-religious series of philosophies?".

My problem is not with religion, it is with the claim that faith (religion does not map 100% onto faith or revelation, gee it seem that I've said something like this before) is a valid mechanism of acquiring knowledge at all. I'd love for ONCE for someone to show me it is rather than running away from the question and hiding behind irrelevances.


From here

And before we all go around AGAIN, the claim that reason (the claim I am making by the way, do remember that science does not map 100% onto reason. I may have mentioned it) CAN and DOES say very effective things about morals, ethics, aesthetics etc has yet to even be dealt with, let alone refuted.

Secondly, if you are going to define all the faith elements out of a religion, how is it a religion? Hence why I asked the question above. I can easily find things that call themselves religions with which no conflict would exist or even could exist (hence why I said right at the start of this thread that science and religion don't perfectly overlap, reason and faith do. It seems that few people have discovered this distinction yet). How they go about not conflicting is to reduce their faith based claims to (almost) zero. Distinguish this from a non-religious moral philosophy (of which thre are many, and some of which conflict with reality too and get treated just the same as religions that do by the way).

[QUOTE=Chris Hyland]That sounds like pretty much every Christian I knew growing up. I find it hard to see how this kind of religious faith conflicts with science.[/QUOTE]

Her view is that there are two revelations, the scriptural and the natural and that for her the natural trumps the scriptural. She still makes the faith claim that a deity exists, but how she defines her deity is unusual for most christians I would imagine, and works along the lines of the Douglas Adams metasystem I sopke about right at the start.

Like I said right at the start the science vs religion thing is NOT the crux of the matter, it is a reason vs faith thing. This is essentially an epistemological conflict. The fact that we can find certain social situations in which science and religion don't clash (a fact I openly acknowledged from the word go) says nothing about the epistemological conflict that is very real and very genuine.

The faith based claim that some unobserved entity exists (be it gods or pixies or unicorns) is a claim that is immediately in conflict with what we already know about the universe by its very nature. If, when the entity's parameters are defined, we find that not only is it unobserved but that the evidence we have to date conflicts with those parameters and thus shows that no only does it not exist but based on what we know already it COULD not exist, you have an almighty conflict! (Pun intended)

Again, if you define the parameters of this entity so that it is undetectable, then how is that different from it being non-existant? Again this is an issue people avoid like the plague. Another issue that people avoid like the plague is why all the special pleading for religion? Why is no one here defending unicorns in the same way? (Don't worry, I know the answer to this, but defenders of faith run away from it almost universally).

As I have been banging on about endlessly now, it is issues like the epistemolgoical ones mentioned above that never get dealt with, and they are the crux of the matter. IF we are going to bowdlerise religion so much that we effectively define all the faith elements out of it then how is it different from any secular philosophy? The second someone starts making faith based claims, claiming that X is true on faith alone, WHATEVER X IS (this is simply NOT restricted to deities!) then this self same epistemological conflict arises. How do you know? What evidence have you got? How is it indistinguishable from fantasy? etc. No one seems keen to answer those questions. They seem very keen to avoid them though.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,02:25   

Lenny,

Quote
The evangelical atheist-ites say, "Science and religion can't coexist, so religion should shut up, because we can answer everything for you."


Where have I said ANYTHING like this?

I don't think religion should shut up as I said in post 1 (maybe post 2) of this thread. I think religion has its uses and in fact I think that for all religions everywhere at all times to have been entirely wrong about everything everywhere would be one hell of a surprise and worth investigating. The fact that some aspects of some religions have some use does not equate to evidence for their faith based claims. Do you see the distinction? It's a quest to understand not to destroy.

Second, I don't and haven't claimed that science can answer everything. I haven't even claimed that reason can answer eveything. I HAVE claimed that reason can answer every IN CONTEXT, COHERENT question. That's very different and I have gone to some pains to define very carefully what I mean by that and the limits of what we can know by any means, reason included.

It's interesting that you are STILL repeating this caricature of my views when you have utterly failed to deal with a single point I have made. It's interesting that everyone but you notices this.

Stop it.

Or of course you could go back, find where I have said this and prove me wrong. I rather suspect you won't though. You seem afraid to do so for some reason. I wonder what that is.

Also, please learn to read Lenny, a few short posts from this:

Quote
P.S. Incidentally isn't this just trolling for kicks if it is true? This makes Lenny different from say GoP how precisely?


Came this:

Quote
ADDED IN EDIT. P.S. The previous post should have read "Good point. I hope so too. I WAS WRONG. I made a bad argument of equivalence and you showed me where the error was and I admit it unreservedly". I think that might be an example people could use in these situations. ;)


You should stop snipping the bits of people's comments that fit your prejudices and deal with what people actually say. It seems I've said something similar before.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,02:27   

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 31 2007,21:06)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2007,13:14)
ADDED IN EDIT. P.S. The previous post should have read "Good point. I hope so too. I WAS WRONG. I made a bad argument of equivalence and you showed me where the error was and I admit it unreservedly". I think that might be an example people could use in these situations. ;)

Louis - Wouldn't this work better?

"I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future. "

(from a Fish called Wanda)

At the risk of starting another long argument, I mean discussion, it occurs to me that everything that I DO believe in and hold to be utterly true, has been said by Monty Python, or a Monty Python graduate.

I am not sure what this means, nor do I think I want to know.

An excellent suggestion and a good point.

A very scary good point I agree. All life was predicted by Monty Python.

{shudder}

Nobody expects.......THAT ;)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,02:32   

Quote
"Science and religion can coexist because neither can answer the areas explored by the other, so when it comes to intruding into the other's area, BOTH of you should shut up."


Lenny,

You or Skeptic or ANYONE have yet to show how religion (or indeed anything) better explores moral etc areas than guesswork, let alone REASON (not just science, reason and science do not 100% map, it seems like I have mentioned this before).

You have also yet to show how my comments regarding REASON (not just science, reason and science do not 100% map, it seems like I have mentioned this before) being capable of exploring the knowable aspects of moral etc areas are in error.

I think before you make the quoted claims above you should do that. Otherwise you are merely asserting your conclusions. Some might see that as circular. I took some trouble yesterday to explain what I meant to you (again). You could at least do me, your and everyone the courtesy of dealing with it honestly as opposed to caricaturing it for your own benefit.

Thanks

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,02:38   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 01 2007,02:16)
And before we all go around AGAIN, the claim that reason (the claim I am making by the way, do remember that science does not map 100% onto reason. I may have mentioned it) CAN and DOES say very effective things about morals, ethics, aesthetics etc has yet to even be dealt with, let alone refuted.

This is your opinion.  If you redefine the questions and provide parameters in which to measure abstract concepts you've eliminated any universal quality and qualified the idea for the scenario at hand.  For example, the questions asked by faith, art, philosophy are specifically universal ones.  It is very easy to look at a particular situation, view the outcomes, measure against certain parameters and arrive at an answer.  This is a much different case from asking whether the concept applies in all cases.

Take for instance, a popular scenario over here, the self-defense plea.  In case A, a man defends himself from an aggressor and kills the man.  If asked if this is wrong, many will say No.  In this specific case the details of the case can be looked at and conclusions rendered using rational means.

It is an entirely different question to say is killing wrong.  That is the question that persists throughout history not the previous that is decided rather quickly in the moment.  You may say that discussion about the universal right or wrongness of murder is meaningless but that is simply your opinion and others will disagree.

So you may point to some reasoned approach to morals and ethics, etc but these are very different questions then those approached by faith.  You would need to prove to me that reason has anything to say about universal morals, aesthetics and ethics because by definition that would be impossible.

Most importantly, Louis, go to bed!  It's got to be the middle of the night over there or very early morning.  Get some sleep.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,02:44   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,07:18)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 31 2007,22:04)
This thread began with the question of whether a rift between science and religion is inevitable. The focus became rather narrow: upon the applicability of science to questions that may be characterized as subjective, ethical, moral, and aesthetic. Lenny argued that if there are domains to which science cannot address itself, and religions confine their concerns to those domains (aesthetic, moral, ethical), then no clash is evident.

But this post (of mine) was not remarked upon:

?
Quote
Oops. I just remembered.

Virtually all of the findings of contemporary neuroscience conflict with the central tenet of most religions: that we have/are a detachable ghost (soul) that hangs around after the body dies and bears into one or another future (into a new reintarnation, into eternity in heaven or hell) elements of personality such as identity, memory, desires, and accountability for past behaviors. Current neuroscience clearly indicates that virtually all characteristics previously attributable to something like a soul are functions of living tissue, functions that cease when the body dies.

Plus Denyse O'leary just wrote a book stating the opposite, which further strengthens my case.

Other than that, no conflict.

This raises an issue that goes beyond those raised to date. As I see it, when religions press the notion of a "detachable ghost" (an immortal soul), it finds itself squatting squarely in a domain that has been captured by science (particularly neuroscience). Neuroscience increasingly demonstrates the emptiness of dualism, and increasingly shows us that minds (and consciousness) are what brains do (much as digestion is something that stomachs and intestines do). To increasing degrees, the faculties that were once assigned to something like an immortal, immaterial soul (memory, identity, cognition, executive functioning, etc.) have clear and indisputable origins in increasingly well articulated brain functioning.

The notion that an additional unseen entity (a soul) is riding atop and somehow guiding all of these patently brain-based activities, and is required to understand those activities (and the behaviors that result), represents a clear instance of an intrusion of a religious postulate into a domain that clearly CAN be and IS being addressed by science - with an obvious clash, much to the detriment of detachable ghost religion.

Similarly, although science can't bring direct evidence to bear upon this final point, the notion of a soul that bears these faculties into the future following death becomes obviously untenable as the grounding of those feature in brain activities - in living tissue - is increasingly articulated.

Given that the notion of an immaterial, immortal soul - a soul that nevertheless interacts with and guides our bodies - is a central feature of most (but not all religions), one that addresses the primary problem that religions have been devised to address (the problem of death), I would say here we have an instance of a clear, inevitable, and likely unresolvable rift between science and many religions.

What say ye?

(Except you, Krabs. Don't care what you say.)

It does not if the soul exists beyond our physical reality. ?Hence there is no physical evidence for it. ?There's the say-so of religious doctrine. ?There's meditation, transcendation, prayer, etc. ?But nothing that can be examined by science to evaluate its existence. ?So religion uses the idea or concept of the soul to convey the ideas of continuity, unity and infinity which are again abstract ideas. ?Religion does not use the soul to discuss electrochemical reactions in the brain, patterns of neural firing, etc. ?If it did then conflict would be in order because religion would have stepped out of its boundaries. ?The same mistake science makes when used to declare that no physical evidence for the soul exists therefore there is nothing beyond physical reality. ?How can science discuss a concept of unity with any real validity? It can not and should not and then again there is no conflict.

Well sorry Skeptic but this is false for one very simple reason I mentioned right at the start:

INTERACTION.

What you are proposing is that the non-physically real soul interacts in some fashion with the physically real universe (if only our brain or our left big toenail or whatever). That is IN PRINCIPLE a detectable interaction.

Now, as I said right at the very start, some smart people might say "Ah well it shifts this wavefunction this way" or "Ah well it moves that molecule that way" or some such tiny change that eventually has massive consequences. This is essentially the god (in this case ghost) of the gaps argument. All you are doing is forcing your soul/ghost/god/unicorn/magic purple dragon into ever smaller gaps in current knowledge. The first problem is that those gaps close, the second problem is that studies can be set up to detect the effects of infinitessimally weak interactions that we might not be able to detect directly themselves right now.

This also falls foul of another problem I mentioned right at the start: if you define things as utterly undetectable (and the definition you've given so far isn't, but lets say you came up with one that is) how can you claim it to be distinguishable from something that doesn't exist? Again I tried to get this point across by using the "Dragon in the Garage" analogy of Carl Sagan. Go and read it, you might find it interesting.

Again, if you are making the claim that an utterly undetectable entity or object exists purely on faith (which by definition you MUST be doing) then how do you distinguish between that faith claim and the faith claim of Lenny's Pizza boy which is that the object or entity you claim exists in fact does not exist.

Please stop avoiding these issues.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,02:47   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,02:38)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 01 2007,02:16)
And before we all go around AGAIN, the claim that reason (the claim I am making by the way, do remember that science does not map 100% onto reason. I may have mentioned it) CAN and DOES say very effective things about morals, ethics, aesthetics etc has yet to even be dealt with, let alone refuted.

This is your opinion. ?If you redefine the questions and provide parameters in which to measure abstract concepts you've eliminated any universal quality and qualified the idea for the scenario at hand. ?For example, the questions asked by faith, art, philosophy...

1. You keep claiming it is just opinion but it isn't. Louis has gone to great effort to provide evidence and reasoning to back up his claims. You haven't.

2. What questions does faith ask? You and I seem to be working with different definitions of the word "faith". I tend to consider faith something you have once you have stopped asking questions and consider them answered (for a particular subject).

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,02:57   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 01 2007,04:04)
This thread began with the question of whether a rift between science and religion is inevitable. The focus became rather narrow: upon the applicability of science to questions that may be characterized as subjective, ethical, moral, and aesthetic. Lenny argued that if there are domains to which science cannot address itself, and religions confine their concerns to those domains (aesthetic, moral, ethical), then no clash is evident.

But this post (of mine) was not remarked upon:

 
Quote
Oops. I just remembered.

Virtually all of the findings of contemporary neuroscience conflict with the central tenet of most religions: that we have/are a detachable ghost (soul) that hangs around after the body dies and bears into one or another future (into a new reintarnation, into eternity in heaven or hell) elements of personality such as identity, memory, desires, and accountability for past behaviors. Current neuroscience clearly indicates that virtually all characteristics previously attributable to something like a soul are functions of living tissue, functions that cease when the body dies.

Plus Denyse O'leary just wrote a book stating the opposite, which further strengthens my case.

Other than that, no conflict.

This raises an issue that goes beyond those raised to date. As I see it, when religions press the notion of a "detachable ghost" (an immortal soul), it finds itself squatting squarely in a domain that has been captured by science (particularly neuroscience). Neuroscience increasingly demonstrates the emptiness of dualism, and increasingly shows us that minds (and consciousness) are what brains do (much as digestion is something that stomachs and intestines do). To increasing degrees, the faculties that were once assigned to something like an immortal, immaterial soul (memory, identity, cognition, executive functioning, etc.) have clear and indisputable origins in increasingly well articulated brain functioning.

The notion that an additional unseen entity (a soul) is riding atop and somehow guiding all of these patently brain-based activities, and is required to understand those activities (and the behaviors that result), represents a clear instance of an intrusion of a religious postulate into a domain that clearly CAN be and IS being addressed by science - with an obvious clash, much to the detriment of detachable ghost religion.

Similarly, although science can't bring direct evidence to bear upon this final point, the notion of a soul that bears these faculties into the future following death becomes obviously untenable as the grounding of those feature in brain activities - in living tissue - is increasingly articulated.

Given that the notion of an immaterial, immortal soul - a soul that nevertheless interacts with and guides our bodies - is a central feature of most (but not all religions), one that addresses the primary problem that religions have been devised to address (the problem of death), I would say here we have an instance of a clear, inevitable, and likely unresolvable rift between science and many religions.

What say ye?

(Except you, Krabs. Don't care what you say.)

To be fair Bill, I have mentioned (only in passing) the huge amount of data from a variety of studies neurological, sociological, psychological etc. But you're right, we haven't delved into this huge and very interesting aspect of the discussion properly yet. I was hoping we'd get there eventually. I've tried to get people to focus on the core aspects of the epistemological conflict because that is where the only real aspect of conflict genuinely lies. The reason I've tried to do this is because from there everything flows easily.

Incidentally these studies give lie to the claim that reason cannot investigate moral, ethical and aesthetic areas. It seems your "fans" have ignored this bit ;)

Amongst the various formulations of "religion" (and I use the inverted commas for a reason) can be found areas that don't overlap with science, a fact I mentioned way back at the start (and has gone overlooked). However I would argue that this area of no overlap contains one whole religion, then that religion makes no faith based claims and is indistinguishable from any secular, non-religious philosophy. As I said right at the start, they are defining their "god" (and here god stands for any faith based claim) out of existence. I often ask people "then how is this a religion and not a secular philosophical system of ethics?" but I never get an answer.

I wonder about that too.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,03:08   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Aug. 31 2007,23:18)
The surest sign that this is indeed just an ideological squabble, over worldviews, is the simple fact that EVERYONE who holds the first view is a fundamentalist religiouser of some sort, EVERYONE who holds the second view is an evangelical atheist of some sort (and those of course are simply two different sides of the same coin), while the third position is held by people of every conceivable ideology or worldview, from the commie atheist Steve Gould to the Pope.

Let's get this straight Lenny. You are claiming that anyone who says there is a reason for conflict between science and religion falls into one of the two categories above?

Strange, since I fall into neither and yet I exist. Perhaps your model needs to be modified on the basis of the evidence.

Oh and you do realise that both the Pope and the inestimable Prof Gould were wrong on this issue don;t you? Shock horror I know.

Tell you what, rather than casting me as a fundamentalist by misrepresenting my arguments, how about you go back and deal with them honestly. Mmmkay?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,03:15   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,08:38)
This is your opinion. ?If you redefine the questions and provide parameters in which to measure abstract concepts you've eliminated any universal quality and qualified the idea for the scenario at hand. ?For example, the questions asked by faith, art, philosophy are specifically universal ones. ?It is very easy to look at a particular situation, view the outcomes, measure against certain parameters and arrive at an answer. ?This is a much different case from asking whether the concept applies in all cases.

Take for instance, a popular scenario over here, the self-defense plea. ?In case A, a man defends himself from an aggressor and kills the man. ?If asked if this is wrong, many will say No. ?In this specific case the details of the case can be looked at and conclusions rendered using rational means.

It is an entirely different question to say is killing wrong. ?That is the question that persists throughout history not the previous that is decided rather quickly in the moment. ?You may say that discussion about the universal right or wrongness of murder is meaningless but that is simply your opinion and others will disagree.

So you may point to some reasoned approach to morals and ethics, etc but these are very different questions then those approached by faith. ?You would need to prove to me that reason has anything to say about universal morals, aesthetics and ethics because by definition that would be impossible.

Most importantly, Louis, go to bed! ?It's got to be the middle of the night over there or very early morning. ?Get some sleep.

1) No it is not my opinion that reason has useful things to say about ethics and morals etc. It is an established fact. The very fact that (for example) psychology, sociology, anthropology, secular ethical philosophy (you know, Hume, Russel etc etc) exist PROVES this beyond reasonable doubt. Do you understand why?

2) I am NOT redefining the questions being asked. **I** am not defining them at all. Whoever is asking the question is (at least in part). Try reading what I have written for some modicum of comprehension.

3) Art and philosophy are REASON based enquiries. Do you understand why?

4) UNIVERSAL MORALS???? Oh fuck me quite deftly with a ten foot bargepole Skeptic. (That is not a request! It is an expression of exasperation). The first thing is that YOU have to demonstrate universal moral exist AT ALL and you haven't doen this. ALL the evidence we have is that morals are RELATIVE. Again, as I said at the start, the burden of proof falls to you to demonstrate YOUR claims. I do not claim morals are universal, you do. Thus YOU have to demonstrate it. I can demonstrate morals are relative (because this is what the evidence says is the case), but first I'd LOVE to see what evidence for UNIVERSAL morals you have. Present it.

5) It is (now) 9 am here, I started posting about 8 am. I think that at 32 I can decide my own bedtime thanks. ;)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,03:31   

All,

I've asked a few questions here and have yet to receive anything approaching an answer (or even in some cases a response). I think I should restate those questions because it seems it is being forgotten that they are still hanging. I might forget a few, so chime in with ones I've forgotten.

a) Demonstrate that faith/revelation provide knowledge about the universe. I.e. that they are valid mechanisms of acquiring knowledge, be it physical or "spiritual" (whatever that means, we'd need a definition, and some evidence it even exists, because saying that reason cannot examine love [for example] is merely yet another reassertion of the original claim).

b) Demonstrate a method for distinguishing between two faith based claims.

c) Demonstrate that reason etc cannot penetrate the areas you claim faith/revelation can, because at the moment all of your examples have been either i) mere reassertions of your original point or ii) derived solely from your personal ignorance of the topics at hand.

d) Demonstrate that questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" are valid questions or valid universally, and that faith/revelation can answer them.

e) Demonstrate that a "religion" that has absolutely no areas of conflict with science at all is distinguishable from a secular, non-religious philosophy or ethical system.

f) Demonstrate that something that is undetectable by any means at all is distinguishable from something that doesn't actually exist.

That's all I can think of for now.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,04:09   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 01 2007,03:31)
All,

I've asked a few questions here and have yet to receive anything approaching an answer (or even in some cases a response)...

Louis,
I will respond then, but I don't think what you are asking can be answered in a way contrary to your position. With one exception (b). Different claims can be distinguished between but I suspect that you mean the validity of 2 faith based claims. If that is so then I doubt there is a way.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,04:19   

And another "while I think of it":

Lenny,

You have said that reason (science, logic, kohinar etc) can say nothing about ethics and morals etc and that religion CAN.

Wonderful! This is yet another instance of the old "atheists are immoral" saw. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that I don't think you have fully thought this through and that maybe you don;t mean what you appear to be saying.

If you think that atheists have no morals, please demonstrate this.

If you think that morals are only explorable by religion, please demonstrate this.

If, however, you say that moral and ethical systems are explorable by REASON (which is my argument) then you agree with me, and incidentally prove my point.

Clarify this please.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Chris Hyland



Posts: 705
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,05:55   

In Lennys defence Im pretty sure he didnt mean that the answers religion gave were useful or correct.

My problem with this whole topic is that if the answers to all those points are 'cant be done' then I don't see how religion and science are nessecarily in conflict, and I know a lot of religious people who would answer cant be done to all of those questions.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,06:10   

Quote (Chris Hyland @ Sep. 01 2007,05:55)
In Lennys defence Im pretty sure he didnt mean that the answers religion gave were useful or correct...
.

I am pretty sure Lenny said that that they where not usefull or correct, except to the individual using them (or words to that effect).

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,06:58   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 01 2007,00:35)
Ye say that not all religions assert the existence of any such thing or things. ?See Chris's previous post. ?Or drop by your local United Church of Christ and ask them a ?few questions.

Anyway, as I noted, religion is indeed fair game whenever it makes ANY statement about what objectively exists or doesn't exist. ?Yes, that includes souls or god-things.

That's not the issue.

The issue, again, is, if religion can't answer objective questions, and sciecne can't answer subjective questions, that they must be inherently in conflict.

I leave aside the notion of where certain religions get their claimed authority for their answers (which is where the god-things enter the picture). ?For the issue at hand, it simply doesn't matter.

Naturally. I stated this provisionally - "when religions press the notion of a "detachable ghost" (an immortal soul)...I would say here we have an instance of a clear, inevitable, and likely unresolvable rift between science and many religions.
?
Quote
Anyway, as I noted, religion is indeed fair game whenever it makes ANY statement about what objectively exists or doesn't exist. ?Yes, that includes souls or god-things.

That's not the issue.

NOW it's the issue. :)

The discussion was badly stalled, and I perceived that this is an area of conflict between many religions and science that wasn't subsumed under the discussion of subjective, aesthetic, moral propositions.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,07:02   

Chris and Steve,

Sorry but whether the answer is correct or not it doesn't solve the problem.

Lenny is arguing a matter of PRINCIPLE i.e. that religion can IN PRINCIPLE make a valid exploration of morals, ethics, aesthetics etc and reason (not simply science, science does not map 100% onto reason. I may have mentioned this) IN PRINCIPLE cannot.

Try this for an example of his position:

Quote
Sciecne cannot answer the question "is abortion wrong?"  Religion, however, CAN answer it.  And oddly enough, it can answer either "yes" or "no".  (Of course, what religion can NOT do is tell us which answer is "correct".)


I *don't* think Lenny is say that religion can choose between two moral systems (for example) and tell us which one is "correct" (for the reasons I have gone into at length and are thus far being ignored by Lenny for his own convenience). And indeed Lenny and I agree that this cannot be done by reason either (for different reasons).

I am in effect asking Lenny how he knows religion can make a VALID exploration of the topic of morals and reason cannot. Firstly because I don't think Lenny actually thinks this. Secondly because I am in the fortunate position to already know the answer, and the answer supports MY argument not his (and I reckon he knows it).

Incidentally, this is what people do when they are interested in another person's actual arguments, they examine them, understand them (I cannot emphasise that enough!) and ask relevant questions about them. Compare and contrast!

I've gone to some lengths to show how one can dissect a question, and under what circumstances it can be answered by any means. ALL of this has been ignored. Instead I have been accused of being a representative of a fundamentalist position I simply do not occupy. The reason this is being done is because Lenny and Skeptic both know that they not only cannot deal with the actual arguments I've made but that the arguments I have made remove the ring fence they wish to place around religion. They have also assumed that without that ring fence nasty people (supposedly like me) will destroy religion. Far from it! Study it, yes. Extract what is useful from it, yes (even if that means maintaining the meta systems required. Shock horror!). Understand it, YES!

They have totally missed this aspect (along with a number of others) of my argument. Have they even read the Douglas Adams piece and commented on it? Nope. Have they read or understood the point I was making with homeopathy? Nope. Instead they are playing the silly "ooooh you're a fundamentalist" game because it is easy for them. It alows them to dismiss my arguments. Arguments they have no hope of dealing with at all.

Frankly it is more that a tad fucking pathetic of them both and equally frankly it is clearly projection. I wonder when someone is going to grow a pair of bollocks and actually deal with my arguments as they are. Until then I'll just have to put up with being lied about I guess.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,07:09   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 01 2007,10:09)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 01 2007,03:31)
All,

I've asked a few questions here and have yet to receive anything approaching an answer (or even in some cases a response)...

Louis,
I will respond then, but I don't think what you are asking can be answered in a way contrary to your position. With one exception (b). Different claims can be distinguished between but I suspect that you mean the validity of 2 faith based claims. If that is so then I doubt there is a way.

Steve,

You're completely right, I have phrased that badly. I am explicitly asking about the validity of the questions. And there is a way to tell if one of two mutually exclusive faith based claims are true or not, or even if both are not true.

I wonder what it is ;)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,07:11   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,02:18)
It does not if the soul exists beyond our physical reality. ?Hence there is no physical evidence for it. ?There's the say-so of religious doctrine. ?There's meditation, transcendation, prayer, etc. ?But nothing that can be examined by science to evaluate its existence. ?So religion uses the idea or concept of the soul to convey the ideas of continuity, unity and infinity which are again abstract ideas. ?Religion does not use the soul to discuss electrochemical reactions in the brain, patterns of neural firing, etc. ?If it did then conflict would be in order because religion would have stepped out of its boundaries. ?The same mistake science makes when used to declare that no physical evidence for the soul exists therefore there is nothing beyond physical reality. ?How can science discuss a concept of unity with any real validity? It can not and should not and then again there is no conflict.

As Louis explained while I slumbered (and my soul visited nether realms), the notion that one "is" or "has"  a soul is to assert a religious notion that makes a huge, honking electrochemical intrusion into physical reality as persons (who are really immortal souls, not the flesh) act in the world by means of their bodies.  

This is a certainly a claim of the Christian notion of a soul, and I would imagine of many other religions, reflecting a habit of dualism that once seemed necessary but is now utterly obsolete from the perspective of contemporary neuroscience.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,07:27   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 01 2007,07:02)
Chris and Steve,

Sorry but whether the answer is correct or not it doesn't solve the problem.

Lenny is arguing a matter of PRINCIPLE i.e. that religion can IN PRINCIPLE make a valid exploration of morals, ethics, aesthetics etc and reason (not simply science, science does not map 100% onto reason. I may have mentioned this) IN PRINCIPLE cannot...

Just to make quite certain. I am not dissagreeing with anything you are stating Louis. My last post was nothing more than a response to Chris in that I am fair sure that Lenny has said quite clearly that religion can only answer an individuals questions for that individual (which I agree with).

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,07:31   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 01 2007,13:27)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 01 2007,07:02)
Chris and Steve,

Sorry but whether the answer is correct or not it doesn't solve the problem.

Lenny is arguing a matter of PRINCIPLE i.e. that religion can IN PRINCIPLE make a valid exploration of morals, ethics, aesthetics etc and reason (not simply science, science does not map 100% onto reason. I may have mentioned this) IN PRINCIPLE cannot...

Just to make quite certain. I am not dissagreeing with anything you are stating Louis. My last post was nothing more than a response to Chris in that I am fair sure that Lenny has said quite clearly that religion can only answer an individuals questions for that individual (which I agree with).

No worries Steve.

But I am also asking how that individual answer that religion gives is any better than the toss of a coin.

No one has explained that either.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,07:35   

Me being skeptic: ?

blah blah blah, that's just your opinion. ?yeah that is just your opinion too. ?uh-huh my opinion is that it is just your opinion. ?everything is relative i could probably fly off the top of that building if i wanted to and i knew how to get my Sooooooooooooooul to drive for a little while. ?God is the ghost in the machine and it looks JUST LIKE he wasn't there and you might disagree but that is just your opinion. ?And atheists are probably immoral and for sure dont know why they are moral because they don't have their hearts tuned to God's Radio Station and not only do they not have their AM dial on it, I have a direct wireless connnection to the god-ether at all times and that is where all our abstract thoughts come from. ?And you can disagree but it is just YOUR OPINION and Lenny and I agree. ?Oh yeah and Louis you are a stodgy bastard that needs jesus christus in your lifeus and I can help you get saved just PM me and we can go over the prayer together and then your soul will get to live forever like mine.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,07:38   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 01 2007,07:31)
No worries Steve.

But I am also asking how that individual answer that religion gives is any better than the toss of a coin.

No one has explained that either.

Louis

I suppose it goes along the lines of "I have this dilema, what should I choose to do". Then they look at the teachings of their particular religion to decide.
Is it better than a coin toss? I don't know but suspect it would have to do with whatever their particular religion suggests. It is probably better than a coin toss in the sense that it possibly gives sense of comfort to the person that tossing a coin does not.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,07:41   

Well, fellas, I don't know about you-all but my soul is Intelligently Designed to LOOK LIKE IT DOESN'T EXIST AND HAS NO EFFECT ON ANYTHING.  yet it is there and drives my flesh bus.  And that is just the way God Jesus or The Designer (you pick) made it so that we would have free will to choose him for verily the Designer designed his designed in such a designful way that he designed us to be designed to love him or reject him.  For the designer so loved his design that he designed his only begotten design, and that whosoever designed to believe on his design would not un-design, but eternal designful life.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,07:58   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 01 2007,03:57)
To be fair Bill, I have mentioned (only in passing) the huge amount of data from a variety of studies neurological, sociological, psychological etc. But you're right, we haven't delved into this huge and very interesting aspect of the discussion properly yet. I was hoping we'd get there eventually. I've tried to get people to focus on the core aspects of the epistemological conflict because that is where the only real aspect of conflict genuinely lies. The reason I've tried to do this is because from there everything flows easily.


Louis

This was implicit in your opening posts. I nudged the conversation this direction in part because the focus of religion/science questions often remains stuck on deities and origins, including the origins of moral codes, as though those are the sole questions that animate religious ardor, when (IMHO) a more important engine is the problem of death. The notion of an immortal soul is essentially encapsulated denial vis death. Plus, although deities and origins are quite "remote," the notion of "soul" intrudes right here (RB raps skull with knuckles) or here (lays hand on chest), and is DOING things (RB commits a sin for demonstration purposes only), and conflicts with our understanding of biological reality quite locally.
Quote
Incidentally these studies give lie to the claim that reason cannot investigate moral, ethical and aesthetic areas. It seems your "fans" have ignored this bit ;)

Lenny briefly advanced a notion that goes to this - which I think is a subset of the more general problem (and it is a real problem) of how to reconcile agency with a complete causal picture of the world - when he stated here "As I said before, even if we discover right down to the molecular level why person X holds this opinion and person Y holds that one, that STILL doesn't tell us which opinion is correct." This points to the fact that "physical explanations" and "reason explanations," which both seem obvious in an of themselves, are hard to reconcile*. A topic for another post.

(*see Schueler, G. F. (2001). Action Explanations: Causes and Purposes. In B. F. Malle, L. J. Moses, & D. A. Baldwin (Eds.), Intentions and Intentionality: Foundations of Social Cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,07:58   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 01 2007,13:38)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 01 2007,07:31)
No worries Steve.

But I am also asking how that individual answer that religion gives is any better than the toss of a coin.

No one has explained that either.

Louis

I suppose it goes along the lines of "I have this dilema, what should I choose to do". Then they look at the teachings of their particular religion to decide.
Is it better than a coin toss? I don't know but suspect it would have to do with whatever their particular religion suggests. It is probably better than a coin toss in the sense that it possibly gives sense of comfort to the person that tossing a coin does not.

Steve,

I'm not worried about how the person feels (of course reading a religious text is going to help a person feel better than tossing a coin would. For exactly the same reasons a 2 hour consultation with a homeopath makes someone feel better than a 12 minute chat with a stressed GP. None of this has any bearing on the truth of the underlying claims.) in this instance. I'm concerned with the validity of the answer. How is the religious answer better, in terms of its validity, than the result of a coin toss?

I'll guarantee you in many cases it IS better than a coin toss.

And I'll also guarantee you that not only is it in many cases better than a coin toss, but the reason that it is better than a coin toss is that the distilled reason based knowledge of lots of folks is contained in the religious text (along with a lot of old shit! My point is we need to examine it in order to sift the nuggets of gold from the shit).

I'll even go so far as to guarantee you that the only reason that we can even know if the religious answer is better than a coin toss is because we have observed it working, another perfectly reasoned process.

As I've said before, I don't think religion is useless and I don't think that religious people should shut up, and I don't think that religions have nothing to offer. I DO think that asking questions like "Is this bit useful? Or this bit?" or perhaps "Do we need the whole meat system to get the benefits from it?" for example are a good idea.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,08:14   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 01 2007,13:58)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 01 2007,03:57)
To be fair Bill, I have mentioned (only in passing) the huge amount of data from a variety of studies neurological, sociological, psychological etc. But you're right, we haven't delved into this huge and very interesting aspect of the discussion properly yet. I was hoping we'd get there eventually. I've tried to get people to focus on the core aspects of the epistemological conflict because that is where the only real aspect of conflict genuinely lies. The reason I've tried to do this is because from there everything flows easily.


Louis

This was implicit in your opening posts. I nudged the conversation this direction in part because the focus of religion/science questions often remains stuck on questions of deities and origins, including the origins of moral codes (as though those are the sole questions that animate religious ardor), when I think that another important engine is the problem of death. The notion of an immortal soul is essentially encapsulated denial vis death. Plus, although deities and origins are quite "remote," the notion of "soul" intrudes right here (RB raps skull with knuckles) or here (lays hand on chest), and is DOING things (RB commits a sin for demonstration purposes only), and conflicts with our understanding of biological reality quite locally.
 
Quote
Incidentally these studies give lie to the claim that reason cannot investigate moral, ethical and aesthetic areas. It seems your "fans" have ignored this bit ;)

Lenny briefly advanced a notion that goes to this - which I think is a subset of the more general problem (and it is a real problem) of how to reconcile agency with a complete causal picture of the world - when he stated "As I said before, even if we discover right down to the molecular level why person X holds this opinion and person Y holds that one, that STILL doesn't tell us which opinion is correct." This points to the fact that "physical explanations" and "reason explanations," which both seem obvious in an of themselves, are hard to reconcile*. A topic for another post.

(*see Schueler, G. F. (2001). Action Explanations: Causes and Purposes. In B. F. Malle, L. J. Moses, & D. A. Baldwin (Eds.), Intentions and Intentionality: Foundations of Social Cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.)

Oh absolutely!

Re: reasoned explorations of morals etc:

As you know, I've gone into a reasonable level of basic detail trying to explain how this (in principle) is done. And unlike Lenny's caricature, I don't pretend at all to claim to have a method of distinguishing which opinion is correct in the absence of context (both interest and environment). I don't expect to be able to get a complete causal picture of the world (far from it!), but I don't see why in principle a coherent first approximation is impossible, and that includes cognitive phenomena.

Thanks for the reference, I've just found a copy on the web of that chapter, so I'll give it a look and get back to you. (ADDED IN EDIT: PIGS KNACKERS! It's only the first two pages. Mumble...library.....groan...rhubarb...moan)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,08:21   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 01 2007,07:58)
Steve,

I'm not worried about how the person feels (of course reading a religious text is going to help a person feel better than tossing a coin would. For exactly the same reasons a 2 hour consultation with a homeopath makes someone feel better than a 12 minute chat with a stressed GP. None of this has any bearing on the truth of the underlying claims.) in this instance. I'm concerned with the validity of the answer. How is the religious answer better, in terms of its validity, than the result of a coin toss?

I'll guarantee you in many cases it IS better than a coin toss.

And I'll also guarantee you that not only is it in many cases better than a coin toss, but the reason that it is better than a coin toss is that the distilled reason based knowledge of lots of folks is contained in the religious text (along with a lot of old shit! My point is we need to examine it in order to sift the nuggets of gold from the shit).

I'll even go so far as to guarantee you that the only reason that we can even know if the religious answer is better than a coin toss is because we have observed it working, another perfectly reasoned process.

As I've said before, I don't think religion is useless and I don't think that religious people should shut up, and I don't think that religions have nothing to offer. I DO think that asking questions like "Is this bit useful? Or this bit?" or perhaps "Do we need the whole meat system to get the benefits from it?" for example are a good idea.

Louis

I can't argue with you Louis as you are not saying anything that I dissagree with. The only point I can make is that by removing what could be considered as "the mumbo jumbo" from a religion could remove a placebo/comforting effect that it gives. But I don't know.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,08:29   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 01 2007,14:21)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 01 2007,07:58)
Steve,

I'm not worried about how the person feels (of course reading a religious text is going to help a person feel better than tossing a coin would. For exactly the same reasons a 2 hour consultation with a homeopath makes someone feel better than a 12 minute chat with a stressed GP. None of this has any bearing on the truth of the underlying claims.) in this instance. I'm concerned with the validity of the answer. How is the religious answer better, in terms of its validity, than the result of a coin toss?

I'll guarantee you in many cases it IS better than a coin toss.

And I'll also guarantee you that not only is it in many cases better than a coin toss, but the reason that it is better than a coin toss is that the distilled reason based knowledge of lots of folks is contained in the religious text (along with a lot of old shit! My point is we need to examine it in order to sift the nuggets of gold from the shit).

I'll even go so far as to guarantee you that the only reason that we can even know if the religious answer is better than a coin toss is because we have observed it working, another perfectly reasoned process.

As I've said before, I don't think religion is useless and I don't think that religious people should shut up, and I don't think that religions have nothing to offer. I DO think that asking questions like "Is this bit useful? Or this bit?" or perhaps "Do we need the whole meat system to get the benefits from it?" for example are a good idea.

Louis

I can't argue with you Louis as you are not saying anything that I dissagree with. The only point I can make is that by removing what could be considered as "the mumbo jumbo" from a religion could remove a placebo/comforting effect that it gives. But I don't know.

And I agree Steve, it COULD do that, and obviously in that case if we want to extract the benefits removing the mumbo jumbo would be a potentially bad idea.

However just for the sake of completeness I will say that I don't think a) it's immediately obvious that removing mumbo jumbo would destroy the benefits, or b) that this is a good reason to avoid examining it, or c) that even if we do destroy the benefits by removing the mumbo jumbo that it would be impossible to reproduce those benefits another way (perhaps even a mumbo jumbo free way, once we understand how the benefits arise).

Ah well, these things are only really just starting out. There's always a bit of resistance. A hundred years from now with any luck people will look back and say "They took THAT long to examine religion rationally? Wow!"

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,09:06   

I must admit first that I was in error.  I lost track of time here, thinking it was much earlier than it was and it was I who needed to hit the sack.

On the subject of INTERACTION, you simply have no basis to make this assumption.  The nature of the INTERACTION, if it exists, is unknown and troubling, hence the thousands of years of controversy, but that still does not mean that is necessarily detectable in some measurable sense.  You say then how can it even be said to exist?  This is a personal understanding and it's based on...wait for it...faith.  Just because you personally don't agree still doesn't make it so.  I will offer one question for you to chew on and maybe bring this concept into perspective.  Where does the triangle exist?  Or the circle for that matter?  Are they real?

To put this next issue to bed, how about you offer any specific scientific evidence you have noting an answer of any topic in morals, ethics, aesthetics, etc.  This certainly comes with the risk of immediately recognizing upon examination that this evidence will be in regard to specific situations and not about Morals, Ethics, etc.  Again just because you say these concepts only exist in the specific cases and not in the broader sense is your opinion and others, including me, disagree.  Consequently, being abstract concepts, I believe faith constitutes existence as they certainly exist within my Mind and many others.  But still feel free to offer any evidence you deem appropriate and we'll deal with it.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,09:06   

opps

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,09:22   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 01 2007,03:31)
All,

I've asked a few questions here and have yet to receive anything approaching an answer (or even in some cases a response). I think I should restate those questions because it seems it is being forgotten that they are still hanging. I might forget a few, so chime in with ones I've forgotten.

a) Demonstrate that faith/revelation provide knowledge about the universe. I.e. that they are valid mechanisms of acquiring knowledge, be it physical or "spiritual" (whatever that means, we'd need a definition, and some evidence it even exists, because saying that reason cannot examine love [for example] is merely yet another reassertion of the original claim).

b) Demonstrate a method for distinguishing between two faith based claims.

c) Demonstrate that reason etc cannot penetrate the areas you claim faith/revelation can, because at the moment all of your examples have been either i) mere reassertions of your original point or ii) derived solely from your personal ignorance of the topics at hand.

d) Demonstrate that questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" are valid questions or valid universally, and that faith/revelation can answer them.

e) Demonstrate that a "religion" that has absolutely no areas of conflict with science at all is distinguishable from a secular, non-religious philosophy or ethical system.

f) Demonstrate that something that is undetectable by any means at all is distinguishable from something that doesn't actually exist.

That's all I can think of for now.

Louis

a) over and over again I have given instances in which faith has provided knowledge of a concept.  Because you refuse to accept it as knowledge is your limitation not mine.  But just for the record, "is murder wrong?" - "yes, because all life is sacred."  Whether or not this is the right answer or you agree with it makes no difference it still amounts to personal knowledge for the person asking the question.

b)impossible

c)ask reason to answer "is murder wrong", it can not without forcing the question into a specific scenario and eliminating any universal or individual applicability.  But feel free to try, I'm merely asserting the negative in the absence of evidence you may argue the positive by providing that evidence.

d)these questions are valid because people ask them and continually strive for the answers.  Again just because you refuse to acknowledge the questions as valid doesn't make it so.  Also, faith has provided answers to these questions throughout history, who knows if these are the right answers but they have been the right answers for some because the are not the right answers for you is irrelevant.

e)God exists.  That is a religious tenet, somewhat universal too.  Science has nothing meaningful to say about this statement.  The only conflict arises when science forces one by straying outside of its area of validity.  Of course, this question is the whole point, isn't it?

f)its not, that's called a matter of faith and again it really doesn't matter if you agree with this or not.  This is a matter that individuals must decide for themselves.

As you see, all of these have been stated multiple times before so we just start the circle anew.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,09:36   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,09:22)
e)God exists. ?That is a religious tenet, somewhat universal too. ?Science has nothing meaningful to say about this statement. ?The only conflict arises when science forces one by straying outside of its area of validity. ?Of course, this question is the whole point, isn't it?

As far as I can see most of the conflict comes from religion straying outside its area. It is religious people that sometimes insist that the Earth is fixed in the centre of the Universe or the Earth is 6-10K years old etc.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,09:41   

and that minority who does is in error also.  no argument there.  Maybe it is safe to say that science and religion provide the opportunity for conflict if either is incorrectly taken out of context.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,09:47   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,09:41)
and that minority who does is in error also. ?no argument there. ?Maybe it is safe to say that science and religion provide the opportunity for conflict if either is incorrectly taken out of context.

By heck. I agree.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,10:22   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,10:06)
I must admit first that I was in error. ?I lost track of time here, thinking it was much earlier than it was and it was I who needed to hit the sack.

On the subject of INTERACTION, you simply have no basis to make this assumption. ?The nature of the INTERACTION, if it exists, is unknown and troubling, hence the thousands of years of controversy, but that still does not mean that is necessarily detectable in some measurable sense. ?You say then how can it even be said to exist? ?This is a personal understanding and it's based on...wait for it...faith. ?Just because you personally don't agree still doesn't make it so. ?I will offer one question for you to chew on and maybe bring this concept into perspective. ?Where does the triangle exist? ?Or the circle for that matter? ?Are they real?

SKEPTIC! *slap! slap!*

Interaction is INHERENT within most notions of soul - at least as with respect to human beings, their actions, and their resulting responsibility.

As an example, within the context of one particular religion's notion of soul: I decline to accept Jesus as my savior. I don't utter the creed, I don't think that thought, I spit upon my brother as he witnesses to me. I wield a ten pound axe and commit murder. I gaze longingly at my neighbor's cattle. I'm expel air through my larynx and over my tongue, producing words that dishonor my father and my mother.

Then I croak, unrepentant beyond the last instant of embodied consciousness. I consequently spend eternity separated from God. In hell.

What spends eternity in in that state? Not my body - that may be found at Crestlawn Cemetery, all bits and pieces accounted for (although quite transformed). My soul spends eternity in that state.

Why? Because that was, is, and always will be my eternal essence (not my body). Soul was my essence when I refused Jesus. My body may have physically uttered blasphemous statements (I'm pretty sure it did), failed to give voice to the creed and spat upon my brother, but it was indwelling soul that was responsible for initiating (or failing to initiate) those actions. When I murdered, it was soul that caused my arm and hand to wield a heavy axe. When I coveted cattle and dishonored parents, it was my soul, once again - soul directed my eyes to turn and gaze upon my neighbor's cattle, and soul directed my lungs, larynx and tongue to utter dishonorable statements vis my parents.

Were this not the case - perhaps one's body acts as a consequence of causal chains unrelated to soul - what sense is there in the notion that souls are assigned eternities as a consequence of thoughts and behaviors to which they were and are unconnected in any way?

Hence soul interacts, because, within these frameworks, AGENCY and MORAL RESPONSIBILITY are mapped upon SOUL. Souls commit moral and ethical crimes by withholding utterances (and thoughts), by expelling spittle, by propelling steel axe-heads, by initiating the physiochemical events within our bodies that we know result in modified gaze direction and the emergence of utterances - all events present in the physical world. Souls interact with the physical world, and indeed account for the behaviors we observe performed by the bodies therein.

So the story goes.

The fact that there isn't a shred of evidence within contemporary science in support of this sort of interaction is a problem for YOU, not for ME.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,11:06   

again, what is the actual nature of this INTERACTION?  Sorry but science has nothing to say about that.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,11:20   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,11:06)
again, what is the actual nature of this INTERACTION? ?Sorry but science has nothing to say about that.

Who does have something to say about it?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,11:32   

the nature of the INTERACTION is irrelevant to faith only the existence matters.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,11:48   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,11:32)
the nature of the INTERACTION is irrelevant to faith only the existence matters.

How then did this conection/interaction get discovered?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,11:52   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,12:32)
the nature of the INTERACTION is irrelevant to faith only the existence matters.

This does not go to faith, nor is it intended to be relevant to faith.

The thesis of this post is that the notion of a soul - certainly the Christian notion and likely many others - INHERENTLY entails interaction. Souls, VIRTUALLY BY DEFINITION (within these systems), interact with the physical domain also sampled by science, because souls are, ultimately, the agents that matter (within these systems) with respect to human moral agency and responsibility. This is at or near the very center of these belief systems, and is essential to them. It is your religion that postulates this interaction, not me, nor science.

Hence religions that postulate souls in this way (which I would argue is most of them, and certainly Christianity) offer explanations for events that are ultimately physical (my arm, hand, and axe arcing through space, for example). But we already make scientific claims about these events (within biology, cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience, and psychology, to name a few disciplines with interests in this area), and those claims inherently compete with those of these religions.

BTW, this remains the case even if the religious picture is right, and the scientific picture (which assigns most of the functions religions attribute to souls to living tissue) is wrong, because this is a claim about a necessary conceptual clash, or rift, not a claim about the correctness of the scientific picture.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,12:27   

You're making an assumption about the nature of the INTERACTION that is unwarranted.  In fact you could extend this assumption to all spiritual or non-physical concepts and say you've proved that they don't exist.  The problem is that the assumption is based upon your opinion of how you think the universe operates.  You are free to have this opinion as are others to disagree.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,12:45   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,12:27)
You're making an assumption about the nature of the INTERACTION that is unwarranted. ?In fact you could extend this assumption to all spiritual or non-physical concepts and say you've proved that they don't exist. ?The problem is that the assumption is based upon your opinion of how you think the universe operates. ?You are free to have this opinion as are others to disagree.

What is the assumption that is unwaranted?

I don't think many people are saying that undetectable stuff has been proven to not exist. Rather, there is no evidence at all, in the slightest, whatsoever, for it.

  
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank



Posts: 2560
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,13:19   

(sigh)

Louis, did it ever occur to you that maybe, just MAYBE, mind you, not everyone who disagrees with you is a lying dishonest troll?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just MAYBE, mind you, your logic is not so perfect, and your views are not so infallible, that an honest reasonable person cannot hear all of your arguments, understand them completely, and simply disagree with them?

Has that thought ever occurred to you?

(sigh)


Ya know, there WAS a time when coming to ATBC was fun.

It is no longer.

Now it's the same as PT -- some people (and oddly, they all seem to be of the same viewpoint) seem constitutionally unable to disagree with someone without being disagreeable.

I have better things to do with my time.

So, best of luck to everyone -- I wish you all the best.

Bye.

--------------
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,13:36   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 01 2007,13:19)
(sigh)

Louis, did it ever occur to you that maybe, just MAYBE, mind you, not everyone who disagrees with you is a lying dishonest troll?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just MAYBE, mind you, your logic is not so perfect, and your views are not so infallible, that an honest reasonable person cannot hear all of your arguments, understand them completely, and simply disagree with them?

Has that thought ever occurred to you?

(sigh)


Ya know, there WAS a time when coming to ATBC was fun.

It is no longer.

Now it's the same as PT -- some people (and oddly, they all seem to be of the same viewpoint) seem constitutionally unable to disagree with someone without being disagreeable.

I have better things to do with my time.

So, best of luck to everyone -- I wish you all the best.

Bye.

Oh c'mon Lenny. It isn't that bad.

Louis did explain (in great detail [to steal a line from Dogma {sorta}]) why he was upset and you did fail to comply to reasonable requests. Now I know you will understand why people dislike quotemining. You was accused of it (with examples) but failed to respond with either an explanation or an apology. You must know why that would anger a person. Now you may not believe that you did such a thing but you should at least of answered.

Rather than leave why don't you just converse with Louis?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,13:43   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,13:27)
You're making an assumption about the nature of the INTERACTION that is unwarranted. ?In fact you could extend this assumption to all spiritual or non-physical concepts and say you've proved that they don't exist. ?The problem is that the assumption is based upon your opinion of how you think the universe operates.?You are free to have this opinion as are others to disagree.

SKEPTIC!!

Begin with my last statement:

"this remains the case even if the religious picture is right, and the scientific picture (which assigns most of the functions religions attribute to souls to living tissue) is wrong, because this is a claim about a necessary conceptual clash, or rift, not a claim about the correctness of the scientific picture."

1) Do you understand that I am not making claims (in these posts) about which picture of things is correct? That I am not here arguing "there are no souls?"

2) What I am claiming is that many - probably most - conventional conceptions of soul include, part and parcel, the notion of soul as locus of human agency and moral responsibility, from which human actions arise and become apparent in the natural world. Souls that retain accountability for those actions even after the body has died. From within this framework human behavior within the natural world is ultimately understood to originate from soul. Hence souls and the natural world interact. I have no idea how, why, where or in what way this interaction is supposed to occur, because this is a religious proposition that I don't share. I do understand that it is YOUR WORLD PICTURE that necessarily entails interaction of this sort.

Are you disputing this? Can you state it more accurately?

3) I am also claiming the behavior of organisms (that would make a catchy title for a book...), including that of human beings, is part of the natural world, and hence firmly within the domain of science. Although many conceptual and empirical problems remain to be solved, the solutions are almost certainly monistic, with most human attributes that were formerly attributed to soul now understood to be instantiated in living tissue (ultimately, even those with origins in culture, learning, etc.)

Are you disputing that this characterizes the modern scientific world picture (I am NOT asking if you dispute the picture itself. I am asking if you dispute that this is an acurrate characterization of that picture). If so, can you describe the scientific world picture more accurately?

4) I am therefore claiming that within the domain of understanding human actions, science and religion offer very different, incompatible, and hence clashing accounts of the origins of human behavior. As I think even you stated earlier, religion gets into trouble when it ventures into domains that are the legitimate concern of science. I am arguing that this is the case in this instance.

Do you disagree? Can you reconstruct or modify the above such that they don't clash?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,14:00   

I basically never read this thread. I've checked in maybe a dozen times, just to make sure nobody's posting inappropriate things. This recent dustup caught my eye. I have barely even skimmed any of the posts so what I'm about to say should absolutely not be construed as supporting any of the parties in this disagreement, I just have a thought about such disputes in general.

I'm an atheist. If you're itching for a fight, that's some pretty good material. I could drive over to a fundy church right now and we could all be yelling and hollering at each other inside of five minutes. But somehow I never get in those fights. I know that I can choose between different actions which will have different outcomes, and I try to avoid outcomes which are pointlessly negative for me.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,14:05   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 01 2007,14:00)
I basically never read this thread. I've checked in maybe a dozen times, just to make sure nobody's posting inappropriate things. This recent dustup caught my eye. I have barely even skimmed any of the posts so what I'm about to say should absolutely not be construed as supporting any of the parties in this disagreement, I just have a thought about such disputes in general.

I'm an atheist. If you're itching for a fight, that's some pretty good material. I could drive over to a fundy church right now and we could all be yelling and hollering at each other inside of five minutes. But somehow I never get in those fights. I know that I can choose between different actions which will have different outcomes, and I try to avoid outcomes which are pointlessly negative for me.

Steve,
I don't fully grasp what you are saying here. Could you be more specific?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,14:19   

It seemed pretty obvious to me...

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,14:27   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 01 2007,14:19)
It seemed pretty obvious to me...

But not to me. So why not point out what I am missing? The first thing I thought of was that Louis was being told not to start a delliberate fight. But he did not do that. He started this thread to remove an argument from another thread. So I tried to think of another explanation but cannot come up with one.

What is wrong with asking for a warning/whatever to be clear and specific anyway?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,14:28   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 01 2007,15:00)
I basically never read this thread. I've checked in maybe a dozen times, just to make sure nobody's posting inappropriate things. This recent dustup caught my eye. I have barely even skimmed any of the posts so what I'm about to say should absolutely not be construed as supporting any of the parties in this disagreement, I just have a thought about such disputes in general.

I'm an atheist. If you're itching for a fight, that's some pretty good material. I could drive over to a fundy church right now and we could all be yelling and hollering at each other inside of five minutes. But somehow I never get in those fights. I know that I can choose between different actions which will have different outcomes, and I try to avoid outcomes which are pointlessly negative for me.

Hi Steve -

It's not been about atheism vs. religion, something a bit more nuanced. Which is not to say that it's getting anywhere on net - although some eddies and whorls have been pretty interesting, at least for me. Both atheists and believers could adopt either side of this discussion (and have, for the most part, although I'm thinking one quadrant has remained empty). The most intense contest has been conducted by two "unbelievers."

RB

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,14:33   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 01 2007,14:28)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 01 2007,15:00)
I basically never read this thread. I've checked in maybe a dozen times, just to make sure nobody's posting inappropriate things. This recent dustup caught my eye. I have barely even skimmed any of the posts so what I'm about to say should absolutely not be construed as supporting any of the parties in this disagreement, I just have a thought about such disputes in general.

I'm an atheist. If you're itching for a fight, that's some pretty good material. I could drive over to a fundy church right now and we could all be yelling and hollering at each other inside of five minutes. But somehow I never get in those fights. I know that I can choose between different actions which will have different outcomes, and I try to avoid outcomes which are pointlessly negative for me.

Hi Steve -

It's not been about atheism vs. religion, something a bit more nuanced. ?Which is not to say that its getting anywhere. ?Both atheists and believers could adopt either side of this discussion (and have, for the most part, although I'm thinking one quadrant has remained empty). The most intense contest has been conducted by two "unbelievers."

RB

Agreed. In fact I think that is the case so far.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,14:35   

I've been trying to get away from this computer all afternoon.  :p  Okay, last post, then I'm off to do some reading at Open Eye or Caribou or the like.

I'm going to be at a coffeeshop in 10 minutes. If I'm getting my java and the person next to me is holding a book and it's Hitchens's 'God is Not Great', I might say, oh, hey, I like that guy, how's the book, what do you think of religion, etc. If the book he's holding is 'Fag Lovers: Why Satanist Democrats Hate Jesus', I'm going to say, pass the half-and-half. thanks. bye. If I choose otherwise, and confront the guy, we'll get into a big angry shouting match and I'll be pissed off and I'll think he's a jerk and then I won't feel like reading and I'll be replaying bits in my head etc. For me, that would be a negative outcome. There are much better things I'd rather do at the coffeeshop. So I choose not to help create an argument.

What I'm saying is, how you interact with people is your choice. In every interaction with people you have a variety of ways you can procede, and a variety of outcomes you'll get. It takes two to tangle. Nobody can make you argue if you don't want to. If you find yourself in a very negative outcome, look back and see if you helped create it, and how you could have created a better outcome.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,14:38   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 01 2007,15:28)
It's not been about atheism vs. religion, something a bit more nuanced.

I didn't mean it was. I was using atheism as a hypothetical example of something I could argue about. Sorry I wasn't clear.

OK, it's coffeetime.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,14:40   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 01 2007,15:27)
The first thing I thought of was that Louis was being told not to start a delliberate fight.

Let me reiterate I'm not directing this at anybody. I have no idea what the dispute is here. I'm just talking about disputes and interpersonal interactions in general.

Over and out.

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,14:46   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 01 2007,14:35)
I've been trying to get away from this computer all afternoon. ?:p ?Okay, last post, then I'm off to do some reading at Open Eye or Caribou or the like.

I'm going to be at a coffeeshop in 10 minutes. If I'm getting my java and the person next to me is holding a book and it's Hitchens's 'God is Not Great', I might say, oh, hey, I like that guy, how's the book, what do you think of religion, etc. If the book he's holding is 'Fag Lovers: Why Satanist Democrats Hate Jesus', I'm going to say, pass the half-and-half. thanks. bye. If I choose otherwise, and confront the guy, we'll get into a big angry shouting match and I'll be pissed off and I'll think he's a jerk and then I won't feel like reading and I'll be replaying bits in my head etc. For me, that would be a negative outcome. There are much better things I'd rather do at the coffeeshop. So I choose not to help create an argument.

What I'm saying is, how you interact with people is your choice. In every interaction with people you have a variety of ways you can procede, and a variety of outcomes you'll get. It takes two to tangle. Nobody can make you argue if you don't want to. If you find yourself in a very negative outcome, look back and see if you helped create it, and how you could have created a better outcome.

OK Steve,
That was more more clear for me and I do not dissagree with you.

I take it that you are refering to the opening post (if I am wrong then correct me). The thing is that Louis brought the subject/opened this thread as a response to a claim on another thread to stop it going off-topic.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,14:57   

Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 01 2007,14:40)
Over and out.

Pedant kicks in (and this is just for fun [I am not serious here]).

But:-
Over="I have finished this transmision but expect a reply"
Out="I have finished transmiting and expect no reply"

Hence: "Over and out=silly" ? ?;)

Just saying.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,19:42   

Quote
Another issue that people avoid like the plague is why all the special pleading for religion? Why is no one here defending unicorns in the same way?


Cause unicorns can defend themselves. They have that horn, after all.

That aside, it occurs to me that if/when a religion "chooses" something or makes a decision, that really just means that the leaders (or perhaps the originator(s) of the religion) of that religion made a choice. What method(s) they used in making that choice is another question.

Quote
I've gone to some lengths to show how one can dissect a question, and under what circumstances it can be answered by any means. ALL of this has been ignored.


Not by me, but then I haven't been disagreeing with it. One thought I have though, is that one of those unanswerable-as-is questions (aka non-questions aka incompletely-specified questions) does have a meaning in the sense of suggesting a set of questions that then can be answered. So for something like "which hair color is prettier", I wouldn't call it meaningless, though granted it isn't an answerable question until a subject is attached or the terms defined in some way to make it objective. If that makes sense.

----------

Quote
(RB commits a sin for demonstration purposes only)


Details! Confess! Uh - and then repent!

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,19:44   

Quote
All,

I've asked a few questions here and have yet to receive anything approaching an answer (or even in some cases a response). I think I should restate those questions because it seems it is being forgotten that they are still hanging. I might forget a few, so chime in with ones I've forgotten.

a) Demonstrate that faith/revelation provide knowledge about the universe. I.e. that they are valid mechanisms of acquiring knowledge, be it physical or "spiritual" (whatever that means, we'd need a definition, and some evidence it even exists, because saying that reason cannot examine love [for example] is merely yet another reassertion of the original claim).

b) Demonstrate a method for distinguishing between two faith based claims.

c) Demonstrate that reason etc cannot penetrate the areas you claim faith/revelation can, because at the moment all of your examples have been either i) mere reassertions of your original point or ii) derived solely from your personal ignorance of the topics at hand.

d) Demonstrate that questions such as "what is the meaning of life?" are valid questions or valid universally, and that faith/revelation can answer them.

e) Demonstrate that a "religion" that has absolutely no areas of conflict with science at all is distinguishable from a secular, non-religious philosophy or ethical system.

f) Demonstrate that something that is undetectable by any means at all is distinguishable from something that doesn't actually exist.

That's all I can think of for now.

Louis


I don't know how to demonstrate those things. A few comments though:

a) I don't think that faith itself is a way of acquiring knowledge (as somebody else already mentioned somewhere up thread); rather it's acceptance (or confidence in) of something the person heard or thought already.

b) Depends on whether either/both claims imply a physically detectable difference between what we'd see or detect according to whether they're true or false.

d) 42. (Sorry, but somebody had to say that. :) )

Henry

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,19:55   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 01 2007,20:42)
 
Quote
(RB commits a sin for demonstration purposes only)


Details! Confess! Uh - and then repent!

Henry

Royciprocating Bill: I've done...questionable things.

Tyrell: Also extraordinary things, revel in your time.

Royciprocating Bill: Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.

(Then I crush your head.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,21:02   

faith can be used as a means to acquire knowledge if tenets for the faith are extrapolated to address new questions.  Abortion is not addressed as such in the Bible but an understanding of the murder concept allows abortion to be addressed.  New knowledge is thus gained using faith alone.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,21:34   

Quote
Where does the triangle exist?  Or the circle for that matter?  Are they real?


I'd say no more so than a fictional character or object from a novel.

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2007,22:27   

Quote
faith can be used as a means to acquire knowledge if tenets for the faith are extrapolated to address new questions.  Abortion is not addressed as such in the Bible but an understanding of the murder concept allows abortion to be addressed.  New knowledge is thus gained using faith alone.  


That's not using faith, that's using inference. Plus, somebody else might infer a different conclusion - which makes it doubtful that the conclusion should be regarded as knowledge.

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,00:13   

Quote
if tenets for the faith are extrapolated to address new questions
Loki, skeptic, are you going to explain how this is any different from the courtier's reply?  

we can all take nonsense and run with it.  that makes you a hero?  seems to be your MO

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,10:11   

I do not recall the courtier's reply so you'll have to remind me but I will point out that nonsense is a relative term.  One man's junk is another man's treasure.  Also, Henry, you'll have to explain how this is not knowledge.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,10:40   

google it

when you take this nonsense and make something constructive with it, then i shall cease and desist from deigning it nonsense.  until then it's a square circle.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,11:54   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,21:02)
faith can be used as a means to acquire knowledge if tenets for the faith are extrapolated to address new questions. ?Abortion is not addressed as such in the Bible but an understanding of the murder concept allows abortion to be addressed. ?New knowledge is thus gained using faith alone.

I dissagree. In that example faith has not been used to aquire knowledge at all.

In your example you know murder is wrong and have faith that murder is wrong.

Along comes abortion.

You then use reason to decide that abortion=murder. Hence, abortion is wrong.

Faith did not make you make that decision, it could have gone the other way.

Reasoning could go. Murder is wrong. Abortion is making certain that another potential human being does not come into existence. However a handfull of cells is not a human being. Preventing a handfull of cells from becoming a human being is different from lawlessly ending the life of a human being. Hence, abortion is not murder.

Do you dissagree?

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,12:12   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 02 2007,11:54)
Reasoning could go. Murder is wrong. Abortion is making certain that another potential human being does not come into existence. However a handfull of cells is not a human being. Preventing a handfull of cells from becoming a human being is different from lawlessly ending the life of a human being. Hence, abortion is not murder.

This goes back to one of the original questions posed by Louis.

How do you distinguish between two faith-based claims?

If my faith tells me that abortion is a necessary medical procedure, and your faith tells you that it is murder, what authority do we turn to in order to resolve this disagreement?

etc...

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,12:24   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 02 2007,12:12)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 02 2007,11:54)
Reasoning could go. Murder is wrong. Abortion is making certain that another potential human being does not come into existence. However a handfull of cells is not a human being. Preventing a handfull of cells from becoming a human being is different from lawlessly ending the life of a human being. Hence, abortion is not murder.

This goes back to one of the original questions posed by Louis.

How do you distinguish between two faith-based claims?

If my faith tells me that abortion is a necessary medical procedure, and your faith tells you that it is murder, what authority do we turn to in order to resolve this disagreement?

etc...

Well yes.

Don't forget Louis actual claim was validity rather than difference.

It is easy to distinguish beween two faith based claims if they give different answers. It is the validity that is hard/difficult/maybe impossible to discern.

As to the authority thing. I reckon it should be a personal decision providing it is only that person it affects. Otherwise it should probably be down to the law and the law should be made on common greatest good. Although good would have to be defined. Probably common as well.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,17:01   

faith is probed to determine the original premise that murder is wrong.  That is the original source of knowledge and used in the answering of is abortion wrong.  You take for granted that we know that murder is wrong.  That knowledge had to come from somewhere and in this example it is faith.  To be fair the same answer can come from other sources as well as the opposite answer, makes no difference for our purposes as we're not really discussing whether murder is wrong but the source of the knowledge.

Erasmus, this nonsense says that murder is wrong based upon faith and then extrapolates that out to societal norms that agree that murder is wrong theoretically resulting in a more humane culture.  Is that nonsense achieving something constructive?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,17:09   

Sorry Erasmus, we're gonna have to agree to disagree.  As far as I'm concerned we're still arguing over whether or not the Emperor is really nude.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,17:29   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 02 2007,17:01)
Erasmus, this nonsense says that murder is wrong based upon faith and then extrapolates that out to societal norms that agree that murder is wrong theoretically resulting in a more humane culture.  Is that nonsense achieving something constructive?

Sure, we can agree that murder is wrong (although there is an evolutionary explanation that makes more sense than your faith-based one).

But back up a bit for another critical definition that makes your abortion example just another case of special pleading for your faith, and another case of ignoring the question about how can two faith-based claims be adjudicated.

What is murder? Taking the life of a human being (I presume we can agree on that). What is a human being? A cultured HeLa cell? An egg? A sperm? A fertilized egg? A blastocyst? A 3-week embryo? 6-week? I presume we don't agree on that. The point is that we need to agree on a definition of a human being, and that is a grey area, rather than the black-and-white delineation that faith requires.

And faith alone won't get us any further. Faith alone gives us no knowledge, no information on this matter. Never has, and never will.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,18:50   

Actually, that's not true either.  If you're specifically referring to the Judeo-Christian religions there are references to God knowing an individual inside the womb.  This does not give us a specific day of life but leaves that an open argument for interpretation.  What is does do is offers knowledge that life begins in the womb and is then subject to the murder definition.  I'm not sure what you mean by a black and white determination.  I personally don't see this requirement, especially in the example presented.  

It appears that faith can give us information on this matter and in some cases has.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,21:55   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 02 2007,17:01)
faith is probed to determine the original premise that murder is wrong. ?That is the original source of knowledge and used in the answering of is abortion wrong. ?You take for granted that we know that murder is wrong. ?That knowledge had to come from somewhere and in this example it is faith. ?To be fair the same answer can come from other sources as well as the opposite answer, makes no difference for our purposes as we're not really discussing whether murder is wrong but the source of the knowledge.

Erasmus, this nonsense says that murder is wrong based upon faith and then extrapolates that out to societal norms that agree that murder is wrong theoretically resulting in a more humane culture. ?Is that nonsense achieving something constructive?

Sorry but I just don't buy it. Faith is not a source of knowledge, it is something that you accept to the point where you no longer test it.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 02 2007,23:03   

No way Skeptic would just simply drop a line of inquiry, because that would create the impression that he is unable to respond. Can't have that.

So Skeptic,

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,13:27)
You're making an assumption about the nature of the INTERACTION that is unwarranted. ?In fact you could extend this assumption to all spiritual or non-physical concepts and say you've proved that they don't exist. ?The problem is that the assumption is based upon your opinion of how you think the universe operates.?You are free to have this opinion as are others to disagree.

SKEPTIC!!

Begin with my last statement:

"this remains the case even if the religious picture is right, and the scientific picture (which assigns most of the functions religions attribute to souls to living tissue) is wrong, because this is a claim about a necessary conceptual clash, or rift, not a claim about the correctness of the scientific picture."

1) Do you understand that I am not making claims (in these posts) about which picture of things is correct? That I am not here arguing "there are no souls?"

2) What I am claiming is that many - probably most - conventional conceptions of soul include, part and parcel, the notion of soul as locus of human agency and moral responsibility, from which human actions arise and become apparent in the natural world. Souls that retain accountability for those actions even after the body has died. From within this framework human behavior within the natural world is ultimately understood to originate from soul. Hence souls and the natural world interact. I have no idea how, why, where or in what way this interaction is supposed to occur, because this is a religious proposition that I don't share. I do understand that it is YOUR WORLD PICTURE that necessarily entails interaction of this sort.

Are you disputing this? Can you state it more accurately?

3) I am also claiming the behavior of organisms (that would make a catchy title for a book...), including that of human beings, is part of the natural world, and hence firmly within the domain of science. Although many conceptual and empirical problems remain to be solved, the solutions are almost certainly monistic, with most human attributes that were formerly attributed to soul now understood to be instantiated in living tissue (ultimately, even those with origins in culture, learning, etc.)

Are you disputing that this characterizes the modern scientific world picture (I am NOT asking if you dispute the picture itself. I am asking if you dispute that this is an acurrate characterization of that picture). If so, can you describe the scientific world picture more accurately?

4) I am therefore claiming that within the domain of understanding human actions, science and religion offer very different, incompatible, and hence clashing accounts of the origins of human behavior. As I think even you stated earlier, religion gets into trouble when it ventures into domains that are the legitimate concern of science. I am arguing that this is the case in this instance.

Do you disagree? Can you reconstruct or modify the above such that they don't clash?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,01:56   

Bill, I disagree on two points.  First, the soul is not the source of behavior.  Behavior is the actions taken by an individual as allowed through free will.  I agree that these actions have some impact on the soul but I can in no characterize that impact.  Second, whatever human attributes that we think we can explain scientifically still have no bearing on the functions of the soul.  You believe there is a conflict here because you believe this represents a contradiction.  I do not because I see nothing in science that says anything at all about a soul except for failed methods to try to detect it.  Again, I believe this is a subtly veiled attempt to disprove the existence of the soul because science has eliminated the need for it by explaining away its functions through physical processes.

Finally, don't take it personally if I don't respond to you.  There are many lines of inquiry here and I have limited time so I usually respond where I'm most interested as time allows.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,01:58   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 02 2007,21:55)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 02 2007,17:01)
faith is probed to determine the original premise that murder is wrong. ?That is the original source of knowledge and used in the answering of is abortion wrong. ?You take for granted that we know that murder is wrong. ?That knowledge had to come from somewhere and in this example it is faith. ?To be fair the same answer can come from other sources as well as the opposite answer, makes no difference for our purposes as we're not really discussing whether murder is wrong but the source of the knowledge.

Erasmus, this nonsense says that murder is wrong based upon faith and then extrapolates that out to societal norms that agree that murder is wrong theoretically resulting in a more humane culture. ?Is that nonsense achieving something constructive?

Sorry but I just don't buy it. Faith is not a source of knowledge, it is something that you accept to the point where you no longer test it.

then we must disagree because I see faith as a source of knowledge and I can point to specific instances where that would be the case, unless we have different understandings of the nature of knowledge.

is "murder is wrong" knowledge?

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,03:03   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 03 2007,01:58)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 02 2007,21:55)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 02 2007,17:01)
faith is probed to determine the original premise that murder is wrong. ?That is the original source of knowledge and used in the answering of is abortion wrong. ?You take for granted that we know that murder is wrong. ?That knowledge had to come from somewhere and in this example it is faith. ?To be fair the same answer can come from other sources as well as the opposite answer, makes no difference for our purposes as we're not really discussing whether murder is wrong but the source of the knowledge.

Erasmus, this nonsense says that murder is wrong based upon faith and then extrapolates that out to societal norms that agree that murder is wrong theoretically resulting in a more humane culture. ?Is that nonsense achieving something constructive?

Sorry but I just don't buy it. Faith is not a source of knowledge, it is something that you accept to the point where you no longer test it.

then we must disagree because I see faith as a source of knowledge and I can point to specific instances where that would be the case, unless we have different understandings of the nature of knowledge.

is "murder is wrong" knowledge?

Yes. Did you come to it by faith? I hope not.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,06:57   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 03 2007,02:56)
Bill, I disagree on two points. First, the soul is not the source of behavior. Behavior is the actions taken by an individual as allowed through free will. I agree that these actions have some impact on the soul but I can in no characterize that impact. Second, whatever human attributes that we think we can explain scientifically still have no bearing on the functions of the soul. You believe there is a conflict here because you believe this represents a contradiction. I do not because I see nothing in science that says anything at all about a soul except for failed methods to try to detect it. Again, I believe this is a subtly veiled attempt to disprove the existence of the soul because science has eliminated the need for it by explaining away its functions through physical processes.

Of course, there is no gainsaying your particular beliefs about soul, although from where I sit your position creates a number of absurdities. BUT, I don't personally care about those nuances, and I'll leave it to you to wrestle with them.

I will assert that there is (obviously) a huge variety of socially constructed construals of "self' and "soul" in the world. Many of those parse things quite differently than you have above; I'd argue that most people who believe in something like a soul attach agency to it. For them there is an inherent clash, as I describe.

Naturally, all those many construals are grounded, in one way or another, upon "faith" as they cannot be touched by anything like observation or the methods of science (as you state). Some generate a severe clash with the scientific picture of the world, but I doubt that those who hold such faiths (or dispute them, and assert another) are likely to resort to science to resolve those contradictions. So far as I can tell, all claims based upon faith (yours, the claims of those who assert that souls have agency) have equal standing, and there really is no objective basis on which to decide which is correct, and which is not, as Louis and others have stated and restated.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,07:11   

Quote ("Rev Dr" Lenny Flank @ Sep. 01 2007,19:19)
(sigh)

Louis, did it ever occur to you that maybe, just MAYBE, mind you, not everyone who disagrees with you is a lying dishonest troll?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just MAYBE, mind you, your logic is not so perfect, and your views are not so infallible, that an honest reasonable person cannot hear all of your arguments, understand them completely, and simply disagree with them?

Has that thought ever occurred to you?

(sigh)


Ya know, there WAS a time when coming to ATBC was fun.

It is no longer.

Now it's the same as PT -- some people (and oddly, they all seem to be of the same viewpoint) seem constitutionally unable to disagree with someone without being disagreeable.

I have better things to do with my time.

So, best of luck to everyone -- I wish you all the best.

Bye.

Lenny,

Not only did it (and does it) occur to me that people can disagree pleasantly and honestly, but I have said as much ooooooohhh about a gazillion times. Several times in this thread alone. I disagree with people daily on a range of topics (personal, professional, etc) and the ONLY time I get annoyed is when I (or my arguments) have been misrepresented. I'm lucky, I rarely get annoyed, most people I deal with are intelligent, honest and (really rather importantly) capable of admitting when they have fucked up. You have fucked up, and now it seems are keen to a) chuck teddy from the pram, b) blame other people and c) take your toys home and sulk. Fine, but you're simply bonkers to do so.

I know you are simply not getting this so I'll repeat it again. You have quote mined my arguments, made a straw man of them and THEN attacked that. I KNOW the "atheist fundamentalist" line Lenny, and IF I were making those arguments I'd be forced to agree with your assessment of them. The thing is old son, I AM NOT MAKING THEM. The fact that I repeatedly begged and pleased both publically and privately for you to go back and deal with my arguments AS STATED and NOT as the caricature you had (wittingly or unwittingly) created should have given you pause. It obviously didn't.

If you HAD understood my arguments and disagreed on a dissection of what I actually said, then (shock horror) I would not be even slightly annoyed about it. Disagreement is good. Not dealing with the ACTUAL arguments expressed is bad. IS it possible you STILL don't see the difference yet? Is it possible that you don't realise that a) you can make a mistake and b0 in this instance DID make a mistake?

As for the rest? Meh, I've thought the same thing a lot recently. My VAST ennui with the whole shebang (not AtBC, but the whole "dealing with creationists at all" business in ANY sense) is massively strong. So who knows how far behind you I'll be. Bandying words with morons is getting seriously old (and that category really, REALLY does NOT include the VAST majority of people at AtBC or anywhwre), encountering the same well worn apologetic drivel is getting seriously old, and like you say, I have vastly better uses for my time. The two things that prevent me from chucking it in is that a) I still meet a plethora of interesting and intelligent people, and b) I still learn the occasional thing. So despite the severe ennui, I wade on through the shit and sift out the occasional nugget of gold.

So Lenny, you find me unsympathetic but disappointed. If you HAD read and understood my arguments you wouldn't have made the comments about them you have done. It really is that simple. Abandon AtBC all you like, it doesn't change the simple fact that you have bashed up an argument I haven't made. Blaming me for that is a little stupid.

And considering it is YOU who is castigating anyone for being disagreeable Lenny, I'm going to do you a favour and consider that a joke, because the lack of self awareness it would reveal otherwise borders on the...ahem...ahahahaha...ummm should I say this?.....fundamentalist.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,07:31   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 02 2007,18:24)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 02 2007,12:12)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 02 2007,11:54)
Reasoning could go. Murder is wrong. Abortion is making certain that another potential human being does not come into existence. However a handfull of cells is not a human being. Preventing a handfull of cells from becoming a human being is different from lawlessly ending the life of a human being. Hence, abortion is not murder.

This goes back to one of the original questions posed by Louis.

How do you distinguish between two faith-based claims?

If my faith tells me that abortion is a necessary medical procedure, and your faith tells you that it is murder, what authority do we turn to in order to resolve this disagreement?

etc...

Well yes.

Don't forget Louis actual claim was validity rather than difference.

It is easy to distinguish beween two faith based claims if they give different answers. It is the validity that is hard/difficult/maybe impossible to discern.

As to the authority thing. I reckon it should be a personal decision providing it is only that person it affects. Otherwise it should probably be down to the law and the law should be made on common greatest good. Although good would have to be defined. Probably common as well.

Steve,

You're right of course, but then so is Albatrossity. I guess I need to be clearer.

If I say "I believe abortion is wrong" by faith and you say "I believe abortion is right" by faith then there is no way to distinguish between these claims at all, for the reasons I gave at length before (again in absence of context, yadda, yadda, yadda).

If however I say "I believe unicorns exist" by faith and you say "I believe unicorns do not exist" by faith then there IS a way to distinguish between these claims and to determine their validity.

If I say "I believe unicorns are blue" by faith and you say "I believe unicorns are pink" by faith then not only can we distinguish between these claims and determine their validity with reference to each other but we can determine their validity with reference to the unspoken claim that unicorns exist being implicit within them.

If we stay away from the first sort of claims for the minute and deal with the second sort, then these are explicitly claims about the nature of the universe (I think the others are too, but more complicatedly so as expressed before).

I'm tempted to ask Skeptic if there's a real world.

I'm scared I might get an answer.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,07:36   

Skeptic - although this is hardly deep research, Wikipedia summarizes some Christian views of soul that are at odds with yours. I am NOT arguing that they are correct, or you incorrect (I don't think any of it is really intelligible); I post this in support of my assertion above that many construals of soul, including many Christian construals (such as that of Augustine), attach agency to soul, and therefore postulate that the "actions" of souls interact with the natural world:
Quote
Some Christians regard the soul as the immortal essence of a human - the seat or locus of human will, understanding, and personality - and that after death, God either rewards or punishes the soul. Different groups dispute whether this reward/punishment depends upon doing good deeds, or merely upon believing in God and in Jesus....

Augustine, one of the most influential early Christian thinkers, described the soul as "a special substance, endowed with reason, adapted to rule the body". The apostle Paul said that the "body wars against" the soul, and that "I buffet my body", to keep it under control. Philosopher Anthony Quinton said the soul is a "series of mental states connected by continuity of character and memory, [and] is the essential constituent of personality. The soul, therefore, is not only logically distinct from any particular human body with which it is associated; it is also what a person is". Richard Swinburne, a Christian philosopher of religion at Oxford University, wrote that "it is a frequent criticism of substance dualism that dualists cannot say what souls are.... Souls are immaterial subjects of mental properties. They have sensations and thoughts, desires and beliefs, and perform intentional actions. Souls are essential parts of human beings..." Roman Catholic beliefs:... The soul is the center of the human will, intellect (or mind), and imagination (or memory), and the source of all free human acts, although good acts are aided by God's grace.

And so on.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,07:46   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 03 2007,07:58)
is "murder is wrong" knowledge?

If you mean it absolutely, then no, it is a non sequitur as such it cannot be said to be "knowledge" of any kind. As demonstrated. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over by philsophers who didn't assume their conclusions beforehand, throughout history.

If you mean it in a specific context, then yes. As explained. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over by philsophers  who didn't assume their conclusions beforehand, throughout history.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,08:22   

Bill, I was struck by one similarity in your argument.  God is a spiritual or non-physical or meta-physical agent that in some way interacts with the world, by definition.  If God exists and is undetectable via this interaction then it stands to reason (lol) that souls would fall into this same situation.  In regard to others' opinions as to the actual nature of the soul, I have no real comment as my opinion is no more valid than any other.  I can just say that my view offers no conflict that you are referring to.

[sigh] Louis, both of these statements are knowledge:

The sky is blue.

Murder is wrong.

The only thing that you've demonstrated is your opinion.  Everything else is open for discussion and has been throughout history.  If what you say were actual fact then these question would have been answered long ago by people wiser and smarter than us.  The fact that the questions are still being asked and answered hints at the prospect that your assertion is wrong or at the minimum there are those who disagree.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,08:35   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 03 2007,14:22)
Bill, I was struck by one similarity in your argument. ?God is a spiritual or non-physical or meta-physical agent that in some way interacts with the world, by definition. ?If God exists and is undetectable via this interaction then it stands to reason (lol) that souls would fall into this same situation. ?In regard to others' opinions as to the actual nature of the soul, I have no real comment as my opinion is no more valid than any other. ?I can just say that my view offers no conflict that you are referring to.

[sigh] Louis, both of these statements are knowledge:

The sky is blue.

Murder is wrong.

The only thing that you've demonstrated is your opinion. ?Everything else is open for discussion and has been throughout history. ?If what you say were actual fact then these question would have been answered long ago by people wiser and smarter than us. ?The fact that the questions are still being asked and answered hints at the prospect that your assertion is wrong or at the minimum there are those who disagree.

Is there a real word Skeptic? Or is everything merely opinion?

If there IS a real world, Skeptic, then is it possible that one person's idea of what it is could more closely match it than another?

Louis

P.S. Oh and you've managed to miss the point AGAIN. Have you demonstrated that, for example, absolute morality exists, or are you merely asserting it does. AGAIN? You do realise that the evidence that morality is relative exists in contradiction to your claim don't you? Why are you avoiding that?

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,08:42   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 03 2007,09:22)
Bill, I was struck by one similarity in your argument. ?God is a spiritual or non-physical or meta-physical agent that in some way interacts with the world, by definition. ?If God exists and is undetectable via this interaction then it stands to reason (lol) that souls would fall into this same situation. ?In regard to others' opinions as to the actual nature of the soul, I have no real comment as my opinion is no more valid than any other. ?I can just say that my view offers no conflict that you are referring to.

The analogy is certainly there, but your reasoning about that analogy is the reverse of mine. Rather than solving the problem, this characterization of God recapitulates it.

The notion that God exists and in some way interacts with the world, by definition, generates problems that are quite analogous to those raised by the "agentic soul" I have previously described. The assertion that this interaction is inherently undetectable renders the supposed interaction meaningless - Louis has pointed repeatedly to the fact that there is no meaningful difference between objects that are defined as inherently undetectable and those that don't exist. Yet the moment you attempt to characterize that interaction in specific terms, a clash with science occurs. The mangled result is the shrinking God of the Gaps. Similarly, souls that interact with the world are quickly being rendered Souls of the Gaps by neuroscience.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,08:52   

evidence please?

If a real world exists, and by this I assume you mean an absolute and universal world, opinions may be more or less correct but we would have no way of making this determination.  We can make statements about the shadows on the cave wall but any statements about the light behind us is purely opinion.  If you're interested in my opinion, the yes, I think the real world exists, we're just can't directly access it.

Bill, again I disagree.  If you place God in the gaps then you have a problem, not you personally.  I do not and I have no problem and I still fail to see anything in neuroscience that says anything about the soul.

As I asked earlier.  Does a triangle exist?  Is a triangle meaningful?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,10:04   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 03 2007,09:52)
Bill, again I disagree. ?If you place God in the gaps then you have a problem, not you personally. ?I do not and I have no problem and I still fail to see anything in neuroscience that says anything about the soul.

Certainly neuroscience has nothing to say about the soul as you have defined it. Neuroscience speaks to the neural basis of human actions. As you have defined it, souls don't originate human actions (contra Augustine and many others): "First, the soul is not the source of behavior."
Quote
As I asked earlier. Does a triangle exist? Is a triangle meaningful?

Skeptic: I hand you a card. On the front of the card you read, "Is the statement on the back of this card true or false." You flip the card and read, "This statement is false." Now answer the question printed on the front of the card.

What does this have to do anything? Nada, other than as a demonstration of the fact that one can pose ill-formed questions that sound deep ("I wrapped a newspaper 'round my head so I looked like I was deep") but don't really advance a discussion.

Ditto your question vis circles and triangles and (I guess) the dwelling place of their Platonic ideals.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,10:33   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 03 2007,09:52)
If a real world exists, and by this I assume you mean an absolute and universal world, opinions may be more or less correct but we would have no way of making this determination. ?We can make statements about the shadows on the cave wall but any statements about the light behind us is purely opinion. ?If you're interested in my opinion, the yes, I think the real world exists, we're just can't directly access it.

You should be reading Richard Rorty (who just died), if you like your relativism strong.

Actually, if Lenny is still lurking out there: you'd enjoy Rorty. And Louis, you'd find him challenging:

"Habermas, like Putnam, believes that 'reason cannot be naturalized.' Both philosophers think it important to insist on this point in order to avoid the 'relativism' which seems to them to put democratic politics on par with totalitarian politics. Both think it important to say that the former sort of politics is more rational than the latter. I do not think that we should say this, because I do not think that the notion of 'rationality' can be stretched this far."

(Rorty and his Critics, 2000, Blackwell Publishers, p. 2)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,12:41   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 03 2007,07:31)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 02 2007,18:24)
?
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 02 2007,12:12)
?  
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 02 2007,11:54)
Reasoning could go. Murder is wrong. Abortion is making certain that another potential human being does not come into existence. However a handfull of cells is not a human being. Preventing a handfull of cells from becoming a human being is different from lawlessly ending the life of a human being. Hence, abortion is not murder.

This goes back to one of the original questions posed by Louis.

How do you distinguish between two faith-based claims?

If my faith tells me that abortion is a necessary medical procedure, and your faith tells you that it is murder, what authority do we turn to in order to resolve this disagreement?

etc...

Well yes.

Don't forget Louis actual claim was validity rather than difference.

It is easy to distinguish beween two faith based claims if they give different answers. It is the validity that is hard/difficult/maybe impossible to discern.

As to the authority thing. I reckon it should be a personal decision providing it is only that person it affects. Otherwise it should probably be down to the law and the law should be made on common greatest good. Although good would have to be defined. Probably common as well.

Steve,

You're right of course, but then so is Albatrossity. I guess I need to be clearer.

If I say "I believe abortion is wrong" by faith and you say "I believe abortion is right" by faith then there is no way to distinguish between these claims at all, for the reasons I gave at length before (again in absence of context, yadda, yadda, yadda)...
Louis

Louis,
There is a difference between "abortion is wrong" and "abortion is not wrong" (both from faith). The thing you cannot distinguish/measure is the validity.

Am I missing something?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,13:31   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 03 2007,18:41)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 03 2007,07:31)
?
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 02 2007,18:24)
?  
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Sep. 02 2007,12:12)
? ?
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 02 2007,11:54)
Reasoning could go. Murder is wrong. Abortion is making certain that another potential human being does not come into existence. However a handfull of cells is not a human being. Preventing a handfull of cells from becoming a human being is different from lawlessly ending the life of a human being. Hence, abortion is not murder.

This goes back to one of the original questions posed by Louis.

How do you distinguish between two faith-based claims?

If my faith tells me that abortion is a necessary medical procedure, and your faith tells you that it is murder, what authority do we turn to in order to resolve this disagreement?

etc...

Well yes.

Don't forget Louis actual claim was validity rather than difference.

It is easy to distinguish beween two faith based claims if they give different answers. It is the validity that is hard/difficult/maybe impossible to discern.

As to the authority thing. I reckon it should be a personal decision providing it is only that person it affects. Otherwise it should probably be down to the law and the law should be made on common greatest good. Although good would have to be defined. Probably common as well.

Steve,

You're right of course, but then so is Albatrossity. I guess I need to be clearer.

If I say "I believe abortion is wrong" by faith and you say "I believe abortion is right" by faith then there is no way to distinguish between these claims at all, for the reasons I gave at length before (again in absence of context, yadda, yadda, yadda)...
Louis

Louis,
There is a difference between "abortion is wrong" and "abortion is not wrong" (both from faith). The thing you cannot distinguish/measure is the validity.

Am I missing something?

Steve,

The "validity" I was talking about in that example was (as Lenny and I agreed as it happened) that you cannot decide the universal validity of a non-universal concept. Of course we thought this for different reasons but the result was the same.

HTH

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,15:29   

Re "As I asked earlier.  Does a triangle exist?  Is a triangle meaningful?  "

What does it mean to ask if a triangle exists? I'm assuming here that this refers to the mathematical concept rather than to a particular physical representation of one. In terms of physical existence, how would a mathematical concept differ from a fictional character in a novel or film? If triangles exist, would equations, sets (finite and infinite), and real numbers exist as well?

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,16:15   

You're very close.  Triangles do not actually exist and yet we use the concept in unlimited practical applications.  It has been said here that "nonsense" can not produce knowledge and yet here is an example where it apparently does.  Granted, the source of knowledge is not faith but another abstract source.  The point is knowledge can come from something other than physical measurements and observation.  This seems counter-intuitive since science has whole-heartedly adopted this abstract source of knowledge but if examined deep enough it is apparent that the existence of the triangle has no more physical reality than the existence of God.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,16:41   

skeptic again you are providing context.  it's not some arbitrary foolishness such as 'god' or 'triangle' that exists in the ether.

what are you smoking dude?  i wanna lay off that.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,16:45   

What's really boring about this is that Platonic solids, Platonic forms etc have been well refuted. By his student (IIRC). Who was that? I may have mentioned this ooooooooh right back at the start of this thread!

No a triangle qua triangle doesn't exist. The concept of an arrangement or shape of points or objects which we call a triangle does exist. The uses to which we can put that concept exist. The fact that something exists as a model or a concept does not mean it is unreasoned or faith based.

Again as I mentioned back at the start, religions might well have uses as meta systems. This doesn't mean that their claims are all somehow validated. Similarly with the triangle, the concept of a triangular arrangement or shape etc exists and we can do things with that idea, this doesn't mean that a perfect triangle exists as a Platonic entity somewhere.

In the instance of the triangle the "knowledge" comes from logic, i.e. the formation of a coherent description of a system or of a connected series of logical concepts. We do not know that triangles exist as some separate set of entities, we know that certain relationships of things we do know exist can be described as triangular (for example, there are others, maths for example, which falls under "connected series of logical concepts" in this instance).

Reason INCORPORATES logic. Logic is part of reason (this may have been mentioned before). Your strawman is noted.

I'm rapidly losing patience with this crap.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,16:47   

P.S. Logical system = useful concept does not equate to "knowledge comes from faith" which is what you are trying to prove Skeptic. Nice try, no dice. As usual.

Now are you going to answer those questions without recourse to a swathe of logical fallacies, special pleads and mere assertions, or will you admit you cannot answer them?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,17:06   

Louis what are you blabbering about.  I do nothing but answer questions.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,19:03   

Mathematics is basically an extension of logic; mathematical knowledge comes from reason (i.e., thinking). That doesn't require faith in the religious sense of the word. That has nothing to do with answering moral type questions.

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,19:35   

sorry Henry but thinking does not equate to reason in the context that we are using.  Otherwise would imagination be reason?  Art becomes science?  No, you might want to think rational rather than reason and I'd be interested in a discussion concerning the rationality of geometry but that is way of subject for us.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2007,21:52   

Skeptic,
I was talking specifically about formal mathematics in that comment. I didn't mean the kind of thinking as in imagination or art; that'd be a different subject.

I'm not sure what rationality of geometry would mean.

Henry

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2007,00:27   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 04 2007,05:52)
Skeptic,
I was talking specifically about formal mathematics in that comment. I didn't mean the kind of thinking as in imagination or art; that'd be a different subject.

I'm not sure what rationality of geometry would mean.

Henry

Something like Jesus Tomb numerology ...I imagine.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2007,02:34   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 03 2007,23:06)
Louis what are you blabbering about. ?I do nothing but answer questions.

Response =/= answer.

Look up the democratic fallacy.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2007,02:35   

Art and imagination aren't reasoned eh? Are you sure about that?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2007,08:02   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 03 2007,13:31)
?
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 03 2007,18:41)
Louis,
There is a difference between "abortion is wrong" and "abortion is not wrong" (both from faith). The thing you cannot distinguish/measure is the validity.

Am I missing something?

Steve,

The "validity" I was talking about in that example was (as Lenny and I agreed as it happened) that you cannot decide the universal validity of a non-universal concept. Of course we thought this for different reasons but the result was the same.

HTH

Louis

HTH=Hope This/That Helps?

Not really Louis, I am still confused. Saying that, it is only a minor thing and not worth worrying about.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2007,10:13   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 04 2007,14:02)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 03 2007,13:31)
?  
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 03 2007,18:41)
Louis,
There is a difference between "abortion is wrong" and "abortion is not wrong" (both from faith). The thing you cannot distinguish/measure is the validity.

Am I missing something?

Steve,

The "validity" I was talking about in that example was (as Lenny and I agreed as it happened) that you cannot decide the universal validity of a non-universal concept. Of course we thought this for different reasons but the result was the same.

HTH

Louis

HTH=Hope This/That Helps?

Not really Louis, I am still confused. Saying that, it is only a minor thing and not worth worrying about.

Re HTH: yup.

Re: me not communicating what I mean right and thus confusing you: minor issue? No no! My bad entirely. If I've phrased something poorly or inadvertently made some mistake, then let me know by all means.

Could you explain to me (probably AGAIN! ;) ) what you're confused about/I've misphrased and I'll do my level best to clear it up/correct it. Sound fair?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2007,10:52   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 04 2007,10:13)
Re HTH: yup.

Re: me not communicating what I mean right and thus confusing you: minor issue? No no! My bad entirely. If I've phrased something poorly or inadvertently made some mistake, then let me know by all means.

Could you explain to me (probably AGAIN! ;) ) what you're confused about/I've misphrased and I'll do my level best to clear it up/correct it. Sound fair?

Louis

You stated that there is no way to differentiate between two faith based claims and gave the abortion thing as an example.

I was saying that there is a difference. The two claims resulted in two completely different outcomes.

Which one is right or wrong is the bit that is hard/impossible to distinguish (universally). Indeed either is probably right/wrong depending upon the individuals and situations of the people involved.

I am sure this is just semantics BTW.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,01:29   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 03 2007,08:22)
Bill, I was struck by one similarity in your argument. ?God is a spiritual or non-physical or meta-physical agent that in some way interacts with the world, by definition. ?If God exists and is undetectable via this interaction then it stands to reason (lol) that souls would fall into this same situation.

Skeptic,

You seem to be suggesting that something can interact with the physical universe, yet be entirely undetectable. Is that right?

How is that not a logical contradiction? Doesn't "interaction" imply that the physical universe is somehow affected? In other words, wouldn't the physical universe be different after an interaction than it was before? And if the physical universe changes as a result of interaction, wouldn't that change be detectable (at least in principle)?

Aside to Louis: I've been mostly lurking this thread since the beginning. My sympathies to you; it's been both fascinating and repulsive. I haven't read anywhere near everything you've written, but what I have read seemed quite clear and unambiguous, and I'm frankly baffled at the way some have responded.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,04:58   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 04 2007,16:52)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 04 2007,10:13)
Re HTH: yup.

Re: me not communicating what I mean right and thus confusing you: minor issue? No no! My bad entirely. If I've phrased something poorly or inadvertently made some mistake, then let me know by all means.

Could you explain to me (probably AGAIN! ;) ) what you're confused about/I've misphrased and I'll do my level best to clear it up/correct it. Sound fair?

Louis

You stated that there is no way to differentiate between two faith based claims and gave the abortion thing as an example.

I was saying that there is a difference. The two claims resulted in two completely different outcomes.

Which one is right or wrong is the bit that is hard/impossible to distinguish (universally). Indeed either is probably right/wrong depending upon the individuals and situations of the people involved.

I am sure this is just semantics BTW.

Yeah Steve,

I must have fucked up somewhere and confused the issue.

I'll try to explain:

1) Trying to distinguish the universal validity of a non universal proposition (e.g. is abortion wrong, where "wrong" is not a universally applicable concept) is impossible. It's impossible because it is a non sequitur.

2) Trying to distinguish the validity of a non universal proposition within its relevant context (e.g. is abortion wrong within this specific moral context, whatever that context is. e.g. I am a Catholic, I want to have an abortion, is it wrong to have that abortion? Answer: if you accept the Catholic beliefs and moral system then yes having an abortion would be wrong by that definition, i.e. within that context) is perfectly possible as you note. One can also do this on a consequentialist basis as you suggest (e.g. how can we legislate on aborition based on these consequences etc). It's not the only way, but it's a damned good one.

Better?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,05:08   

Quote (qetzal @ Sep. 05 2007,07:29)
Aside to Louis: I've been mostly lurking this thread since the beginning. My sympathies to you; it's been both fascinating and repulsive. I haven't read anywhere near everything you've written, but what I have read seemed quite clear and unambiguous, and I'm frankly baffled at the way some have responded.

Qetzal,

Don't get me started! I have my failings (Lordy, Lordy do I have them!) but at least I try to deal with the argument in front of me with a degree of honesty and intellectual ability. I think I do this with some degree of success, but I could be biased! ;)

One day I am hoping Skeptic will be able to follow a simple line of reasoning. I'm not holding my breath until then because of course everything is just opinion! ;)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,05:11   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,04:58)
...
Better?

Louis

Much better Louis.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,05:18   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 03 2007,23:06)
Louis what are you blabbering about. ?I do nothing but answer questions.

{slaps forehead}

As I explained Skeptic, responded to =/= answer.

If I ask 2+2=?

And you reply BANANA! You have NOT answered the question, you have responded to it. The response you have given dooes not flow from the question. If you answered "5" at least THAT is an answer. Rightness or wrongness is in this instance irrelevant.

The "answers" you have provided to everything are chock full of logical fallacies: appeals to antiquity, popularity etc, goalpost shifts, democratic fallacy and so on They do not answer the question and they do not even follow from the question. This is NOT simply my opinion, Skeptic.

Try again and PLEASE stop avoiding the issues. You have questions to answer from prior to the Lenny escapade. Lenny had to ignore what I actually argued to respond to what I have written, so don't think you had even a modicum of support there.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,05:19   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 05 2007,11:11)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,04:58)
...
Better?

Louis

Much better Louis.

{doffs cap}

Glad to be of service, Sir!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,08:10   

Sorry, Louis but you have your opinion and I have mine.  Because you refuse to accept the answer that's not my fault.  Because you refuse to accept a question is a question again that's not my fault.  By your reasoning faith does not exist because the questions it attempts to answer do not exist either.  You have basically defined away the issue so that only science and reason remain and then they are the only sources of knowledge.  Your opinion certainly but it denies the fact that there are those that disagree, MANY who disagree.  Read Jaron Laneir's article in the September issue of Discover for just one opposing opinion.

Jaron

Getzal, that's a tough question.  To actually answer that I'd have to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe.  I would say that by definition those interactions would be undetectable by methods that we consider to be science but I in no way know how that is.  You're looking at this very rationally which may not be in order but if we knew the answer then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?  One example that I hesitate to offer but it does put the idea of interaction in perspective is those people that claim to be able to talk to the dead or have out of body experiences.  Personally, I don't place much on these claims but who's to say and it points to the kind of interaction that we may need to be looking at not a measurable, observable on.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,08:19   

Quote
You're looking at this very rationally which may not be in order


yeah stop it with all that rational stuff.  I'm trying to be a moonbat here and you are ruining it.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,08:44   

Mein Gott, is Skeptic channeling FtK?

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,08:49   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 05 2007,08:10)
Getzal, that's a tough question. ?To actually answer that I'd have to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe. ?I would say that by definition those interactions would be undetectable by methods that we consider to be science but I in no way know how that is.

OK, so far, so good. You are saying something can interact with the physical universe, yet be undetectable (I don't agree, but I appreciate the straightforward answer to this part.)

So can you answer the second part? Let me restate.

Do these interactions result in *any* objective change in the physical universe? If so, how can they be undetectable in principle? (Note: not undetectable given current or forseeable scientific limitations; rather, undetectable regardless of any objective knowledge or technology that could ever be attained.)

If not, in what sense are they interactions at all?

Quote
One example that I hesitate to offer but it does put the idea of interaction in perspective is those people that claim to be able to talk to the dead or have out of body experiences. ?Personally, I don't place much on these claims but who's to say and it points to the kind of interaction that we may need to be looking at not a measurable, observable on.

But in fact, if such interactions really occur, they do have an effect on the universe: they change the beliefs/statements/actions of the people who (supposedly) have such interactions.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,08:53   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,05:19)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 05 2007,11:11)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,04:58)
...
Better?

Louis

Much better Louis.

{doffs cap}

Glad to be of service, Sir!

Louis

Oh, BTW Louis. Thanks for taking the effort to clarify, it wasn't necessary and I am sure you must be getting pretty frustrated.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,10:38   

There is an impact upon the universe if only in the Minds of those experiencing the interaction.  But again I can not describe or quantify this even though as you say in principle it must be true.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,10:39   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 05 2007,14:53)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,05:19)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 05 2007,11:11)
 
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,04:58)
...
Better?

Louis

Much better Louis.

{doffs cap}

Glad to be of service, Sir!

Louis

Oh, BTW Louis. Thanks for taking the effort to clarify, it wasn't necessary and I am sure you must be getting pretty frustrated.

Steve,

I have no problem clarifying anything for anyone. I am happy to admit that on occasion my communication skills need a polish or two (or even a rewrite!).

Frustrated? At what? Lenny chucking teddy from the pram because he refused to deal with my arguments and Skeptic refusing to deal with my arguments and playing the democratic fallacy for all he is worth? Yeah it's frustrating. I didn't expect it from Lenny, but it's par for the course when dealing with Skeptic.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,10:54   

Skeptic,

I am trying to be as nice as possible, but you are clearly trying as hard as you can to be frustrating. Please stop it and try to follow a chain of reasoning as it is stated.

1) People disagree. Yes this is true. This does not mean that all disagreement is meaningful, based on genuine well reasoned controversies etc. Of course it doesn't mean it's not either.

2) I don't say faith doesn't exist. Far from it. I DO question what knowledge faith garners us. You've failed to provide one example that is distinguishable from fantasy despite your grandiose claims. Keep trying.

3) You don't even know what my arguments are Skeptic because you clearly haven't read/understood them. I'm going to suggest AGAIN that you go back, read and restate them. It really won't take you very long, the actual arguments are very simple to summarise, most of the words there are to avoid misunderstandings like the ones you've made.

I cannot correct these errors for you. YOU have to do this. Everyone else who has read them, Lenny's lunacy aside, has at least understood them (regardless of agreement). You stand alone in this lack of understanding (regardless of agreement). This is not merely a matter of opinion. You are making comments and claims that have been a) predicted as possible strawmen by me BEFORE you made them or b) are based on clear straw man versions of my arguments.

A great example is your comment "you refuse to accept a question is a question". I simply don't do this. I have explained precisely WHY some things that appear to be questions are in fact NOT questions. This isn't some fancy of my own confection, this is very basic epistemology and propositional logic. Uncontroversial in any basic level philosophy course. People disagree with reality only on the basis of ignorance. I can't help that. I also cannot help the fact that you have not responded to trhat argument in ANY sense other than to simply handwave it away. This is intellectually barren and dishonest Skeptic, have some respect for yourself and try to do better.

4) Lanier, whilst I agree with him on much, is appealing to the Gouldian NOMA ideas. These are ideas that have been shown to be wrong by many people. I have parrotted parts of those refutations on this thread (I certainly don't claim novelty!). The Lanier article doesn't help you Skeptic, you haven't demonstrated your claims, you have merely continually reasserted them. Posting an article which itself is a mere reassertion of parts of them isn't dealing with the arguments I have made. I have even told you precisely what you have to do to refute my arguments. Disagreeing is immaterial, refutation isn't. SHOW how my arguments are wrong, don't merely assert it. Or admit you cannot.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,10:56   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,05:18)
If I ask 2+2=?

3.99999999999999999999999999

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,11:03   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 05 2007,16:56)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,05:18)
If I ask 2+2=?

3.99999999999999999999999999

Wrong! It's 5, + or - 1.

I haven't fully enumerated the sign and magnitude of the errors yet.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,11:17   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,10:39)
Steve,

I have no problem clarifying anything for anyone. I am happy to admit that on occasion my communication skills need a polish or two (or even a rewrite!).

Frustrated? At what? Lenny chucking teddy from the pram because he refused to deal with my arguments and Skeptic refusing to deal with my arguments and playing the democratic fallacy for all he is worth? Yeah it's frustrating. I didn't expect it from Lenny, but it's par for the course when dealing with Skeptic.

Louis

I am a bit baffled by Lenny on this thread. He has done you a misjustice (IMO). It could have been easily sorted out without throwing a teddy. ? ?Sheesh!

Skeptics tactics/behaviour is also very underwhelming. I can't remember a single coherent/reasonable counter response to any of your posts.

I don't think that Skeptic has worked out that response=/=answer yet despite your several "hints".

PS. Drinking now, so any more responses from me today should be taken with a pinch of salt (as always).

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,11:19   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,11:03)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 05 2007,16:56)
 
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,05:18)
If I ask 2+2=?

3.99999999999999999999999999

Wrong! It's 5, + or - 1.

I haven't fully enumerated the sign and magnitude of the errors yet.

Louis

Bollocks. It is...

5 +or- 1.5

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,11:21   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Sep. 05 2007,17:17)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,10:39)
Steve,

I have no problem clarifying anything for anyone. I am happy to admit that on occasion my communication skills need a polish or two (or even a rewrite!).

Frustrated? At what? Lenny chucking teddy from the pram because he refused to deal with my arguments and Skeptic refusing to deal with my arguments and playing the democratic fallacy for all he is worth? Yeah it's frustrating. I didn't expect it from Lenny, but it's par for the course when dealing with Skeptic.

Louis

I am a bit baffled by Lenny on this thread. He has done you a misjustice (IMO). It could have been easily sorted out without throwing a teddy. ? ?Sheesh!

Skeptics tactics/behaviour is also very underwhelming. I can't remember a single coherent/reasonable counter response to any of your posts.

I don't think that Skeptic has worked out that response=/=answer yet despite your several "hints".

PS. Drinking now, so any more responses from me today should be taken with a pinch of salt (as always).

Ah well 'tis the beloved Mrs' birthday today, so I am off to make a special dinner. There may also be drinking.

Skeptic will just have to avoid my arguments without further help from me.

Louis

P.S. Yup Lenny's antics are regretful, but as I said, I cannot go over to these people's houses and actually lead them through things step by step with a blackboard, some chalk, some books and a big stick. There has to be some effort on their part. Lenny clearly wasn't willing to make it, Skeptic clearly is incapable. Annoying? Yes. Sad fact of real life? Also yes.

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,11:35   

Louis you're hopeless.  Until you decide that there are other people in the world other than you this is a meaningless endeavor.

I'll give you one example.  Prove that NOMA is false.  I'm sure you're much smarter than SJG and this should be child's play for you.  Just please back up just one of your idiot assertions.  Oh and for the record, your condescending "trying to me nice to me" comments are wasted on me.  I don't take you seriously enough to be bothered by what you say.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,12:59   

Here, just on the slight chance that you will have a clue about what you are referring to:

NOMA

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,13:28   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 05 2007,12:59)
Here, just on the slight chance that you will have a clue about what you are referring to:

NOMA

C'mon Skeptic. I would agree that there is no need for a conflict between science and religion. My emphasis is on the word "need". To me it seems that religion is engaging upon persuing a war against science.

More specific. Some evangelical (mainly USA sects of religion) are atacking scientific claims.

Now get this. I am not an atheist. I consider myself a Christian. A week one to be sure.

This argument (as I see it) Louis has made several claims and backed them all up with pesky stuff such as reason and evidence. You have not done the same thing. You have simply ignored the evidence and claimed that it is all opinion. Colour me unimpressed.

Another disclaimer from me is that I have used the word "religion" here. What I really mean is "certain specific religions/creeds".

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,14:00   

i wanna play skeptic, too!!!

well stephen you know those are just your opinions.

<yawns>
<goes back to ontological proofs of elan vitale>

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,14:19   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,11:03)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 05 2007,16:56)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 05 2007,05:18)
If I ask 2+2=?

3.99999999999999999999999999

Wrong! It's 5, + or - 1.

I haven't fully enumerated the sign and magnitude of the errors yet.

Louis

I changed my mind.

2 + 2 = {{},{{}},{{},{{}},{{},{{}},{{},{{}}}

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,15:20   

Stephan, I agree with you.  There is no "need" for a conflict and it is only when either side forces the issue that a conflict arises.  Louis on the other hand believes there must be a conflict.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,15:24   

skeptic who is forcing the issue???

hint:  see the UD thread.

another hint:  your presuppositionalism guarantees that you see dawkins et al as religious.  so you can't claim that they represent science in forcing the issue.  

final hint:  if all people are inherently religious (perhaps i grant you too much presuppositionalism, but given your other statements in this thread it may not be too far off) then you are just blabbering about nothing anyway when you wave your hands and talk about NOMA.  try dividing by one and see what you get.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,15:31   

Does Louis believe there must be a conflict, or is he simply acknowledging that it exists?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,18:22   

Henry, Louis said in his opening post:

Quote
1) Epistemiology: Very briefly and roughly speaking science at its core is the acquisition of knowledge by the application of reason and observation. Religion at its core claims to garner knowledge by faith and relevation. These mechanisms (faith/revelation and reason/observation) are diametrically opposed.

Now I want to be very careful about a potential misreading here, I do not mean that in the day to day practise of science there is no use of "faith" by individual scientists (with a very small f), or that people who practise religion are incapable of reason or that in religious teachings no reasoned or observational elements exist. To claim that would be a rampant straw man version of the epistemological argument, so best to get it out the way right now. I also do not mean that a false dilemaa exists; one is either 100% a person of reason, or 100% a person of faith, again this is a straw man.

What I DO mean is that the mechanisms of acquiring knowledge about the universe advocated by science and religion are very different and give different results. They are absolutely anathema to each other, and this is where the very real, very valid conflict between science and religion has its basis.


I take that to mean must but you may interpret that differently.

Erasmus, I know many here are focused on the IDers and from that perspective it is they who are forcing the issue.  From the other side you could highlight Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and say the same.  I believe both groups to be wrong.

As far as Dawkins, I have stated in the past that atheism is like a religion to his like and not merely a lack of religion.  I have taken a lot of slack for that statement and we don't need to rehash that discussion but in the context of the present discussion I'm not saying exactly what you're implying.  Not exactly.

I would say that Dawkins replaces religion with science or that science is his religion.  The science itself is still based on quantifiable data and looses none of its rational basis when applied appropriately.  Dawkins then extends it into the realm of Faith to answer questions that would typically be answered by religion.  He has faith that science can answer these questions.  That's the distinction as I see it and I hope I was able to communicate it effectively.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,18:27   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 05 2007,22:22)
As far as Dawkins, I have stated in the past that atheism is like a religion to his like and not merely a lack of religion.  I have taken a lot of slack for that statement and we don't need to rehash that discussion but in the context of the present discussion I'm not saying exactly what you're implying.

I would say that Dawkins replaces religion with science or that science is his religion.  The science itself is still based on quantifiable data and looses none of its rational basis when applied appropriately.  Dawkins then extends it into the realm of Faith to answer questions that would typically be answered by religion.  He has faith that science can answer these questions.  That's the distinction as I see it and I hope I was able to communicate it effectively.

Firstly, I don't think you can take slack. I think you mean flak, as in what they use(d?) to shoot down aeroplanes with.

Secondly, what, precisely is wrong with "No faith, just science, if not science now, maybe science later"?

I fail to understand why this is a problem.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,18:49   

Skeptic,

In one post, you said:

Quote
I would say that by definition those interactions would be undetectable by methods that we consider to be science but I in no way know how that is.


I took this to mean that you believe some things (e.g. God) can interact with the universe yet be undetectable in principle.

But then you said:

Quote
There is an impact upon the universe if only in the Minds of those experiencing the interaction. ?But again I can not describe or quantify this even though as you say in principle it must be true.


Now it seems (to me) that you're saying the opposite. Interaction does result in objective impacts on the universe.

Have you changed your mind, have I misinterpreted, or other?

BTW - just because we can't currently describe or quantify an interaction scientifically doesn't mean it is beyond the realm of science in principle. I hope you agree with that.

So again I will ask, do you believe that something can interact with the universe, such that it has an observable effect on the physical universe, yet be forever beyond the reach of science? Yes or no will do for a start. Then, if yes, and if you are able, please explain what sort of interaction would fit that category. (If you believe it but are unable to explain any further, that's OK with me, too.)

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,21:19   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 05 2007,11:38)
There is an impact upon the universe if only in the Minds of those experiencing the interaction. ?But again I can not describe or quantify this even though as you say in principle it must be true.

This statement is itself an instance of a religious view that clashes, inherently, with the contemporary scientific world picture.

To wit: Whatever human minds are, they are natural phenomena indisputably instantiated in brain tissue, and any "interaction" that, however subtly, modifies experience at some level also of necessity modifies brain functioning. Hence, at least in principle (if not by means of contemporary tools), your postulated interaction entails a detectable causal intrusion into domains already addressable by science, namely neural functioning.

Again, you may dispute this picture, but you can't credibly dispute that this well-summarizes the contemporary scientific world picture (in this domain), or that your position ultimately clashes with it.

Skeptic, the collision is inevitable. What you are stating can't be formulated otherwise.

<edit> "detectable" added to second paragraph. Edits for clarity in third.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,22:37   

Quote
1) Epistemiology: Very briefly and roughly speaking science at its core is the acquisition of knowledge by the application of reason and observation. Religion at its core claims to garner knowledge by faith and relevation. These mechanisms (faith/revelation and reason/observation) are diametrically opposed.


Ah, back to the month old parent note. Well, first, faith is confidence in something one already knows or thinks; it isn't  a way of getting new information.

Second, revelation, if it worked, would produce similar answers whenever different people asked the same questions. (If anybody thinks otherwise - WHY?)

Since revelations from different people are known to have produced widely different answers, that pretty much proves that it is not reliable as a way of getting accurate knowledge. (which I presume is Louis' main point, or one of them.)

Reason by itself can generate principles of logic or pure mathematics, such as set theory, geometry, real numbers.

Then there's science, which is basically a way of inferring general principles from consistent repeatable patterns across some category of observations and measurements. That's been shown to be very reliable as long as (1) there's enough data and (2) the relevant patterns are consistent and repeatable across all the relevant observations.

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2007,23:56   

I'm pressed for time but you guys have raised two questions I'd like to get into in more depth.  One, a concept of a soul that somehow does not cross into the realm of scientific investigation and two, how faith can generate knowledge through various sources such as revelation and what that knowledge looks like.  The second is certainly a rehash but I don't feel (and I assume you all agree) that I've adequately expounded on this topic in a coherent manner.  I'll get to work on these two and get back to you.

sidenote, Ian, I apologize for the American slang.  Slack and flak are somewhat interchangeable over here but let's try to avoid the discussion of the failings of American English (or more specifically, my use of it, lol).

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,04:12   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 05 2007,21:31)
Does Louis believe there must be a conflict, or is he simply acknowledging that it exists?

Great question. I'll answer it (although I suspect that everyone except Skeptic knows the answer):

I do NOT want any conflict at all. I don't think there "needs" to be conflict, for given values of the word "need". I am merely acknowledging the existence of a genuine epistemological conflict.

I'll explain the "need" thing. An epistemological conflict between faith and reason (and hence aspects of science and religion) is a simple fact (one that Skeptic has habitually avoided). I think that there is a great deal of equivocation about the words "need" and "conflict". Does my acknowledgement and understanding of undisputable fact mean that I DESIRE conflict? No. Does this mean that I think that the relationship between science and religion MUST be based on antipathy? Nope. Does this mean I am advocating some specific strategy? Nope.

I've mentioned the Is/Ought fallacy before, and I am not committing it! The simple fact that people make (faith based) claims that they cannot and will not support and demand that they are treated the same way that more rigourously established claims are is a source of interpersonal conflict. Note the difference between epistemological conflict and interpersonal conflict. These are two different problems with two different solutions.

The epistemological one I think is in principle insoluble, it represents a genuine limit on what can be known. Acknowledgement of that fact doesn't equate to antipathy of any kind. The interpersonal conflict is more tricky, I cite the "framing" debate of recent months as a good example. If one were to (purely arbitrarily) take PZ Myers and his arguments as one pole and Chris Mooney as the other pole in this debate (it wouldn't be exactly fair to do this btw, but it's merely an example by hypothetical analogy) one could make a successful case for individual uses of each position and at the same time demonstrate that neither position is applicable generally. I think THAT is what is being missed in that debate btw. I think that like Lenny and Skeptic with reference to moral questions, they are extending (unspokenly) non-universal concepts beyond their context.

The question however that Henry asks is not phrased the way I would phrase it (that's no criticism, just a difference of style. He has it, I don't!):

Does Louis think that the acknowledgement of the fact that there is a genuine epistemological conflict between reason and faith, and thus a fundamental disconnect between their greatest exponents science and religion, means that religion and science must be in conflict as a matter of social antipathy?

The answer is no.

Louis

P.S. I find it highly interesting that both Lenny and Skeptic are COMPLETELY incapable of dealing with my arguments and as such have had to paint ME as a fundamentalist/extremist so they can avoid dealing with what I have actually said.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,04:19   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 05 2007,17:35)
Louis you're hopeless. ?Until you decide that there are other people in the world other than you this is a meaningless endeavor.

I'll give you one example. ?Prove that NOMA is false. ?I'm sure you're much smarter than SJG and this should be child's play for you. ?Just please back up just one of your idiot assertions. ?Oh and for the record, your condescending "trying to me nice to me" comments are wasted on me. ?I don't take you seriously enough to be bothered by what you say.

Skeptic,

I don't claim to be smarter than SJG, very far from it! I also don't claim that SJG is infallible.

If you'd bothered to read what I've written in past posts you'd see what I have done (or more accurately, my restatement of what other people have done) to refute some of the NOMA claims of SJG. SO at the risk of repeating myself, you have to actually go back, read what I have written and deal with those arguments. It's those arguments that (in part at least) show the errors in some aspects of NOMA (there are other aspects of NOMA which aren't incorrectm but then Skeptic, unlike you, I know what NOMA is as opposed to linking to it on the net). My "idiot assertions" as you call them have already been backed up, they are back there in the posts you have neither read nor understood. Simply saying "No they're not!" doesn't constitute and argument Skeptic.

I'm waiting for you to deal with the arguments made. They've been there a while. Any time now will be fine.

Louis

P.S. You don't take me seriously? Wah wah wah. You're breaking my heart. Now how about you stop making excuses for being incapable of dealing with my arguments and admit you can't or start dealing with them. Your choice. Of course it's clear to everyone which option you'll take.

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,04:36   

Louis, thank you for missing the point and failing to answer a question once again.  You just don't understand that assertions based on your say-so are nothing more than opinions and prove or refute nothing except to yourself.  The World According to Louis must be a disappointing place where everyone else is constantly so wrong and you're the only one who sees things correctly, eh?  Wake up, Louis.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,04:53   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 06 2007,10:36)
Louis, thank you for missing the point and failing to answer a question once again. ?You just don't understand that assertions based on your say-so are nothing more than opinions and prove or refute nothing except to yourself. ?The World According to Louis must be a disappointing place where everyone else is constantly so wrong and you're the only one who sees things correctly, eh? ?Wake up, Louis.

Skeptic,

Since:

a) I don't claim that everyone else is wrong
b) I don't claim that I am the only person who is right
c) I have admitted quite opnely that the comments I have made re: NOMA and a variety of things are not my own original thoughts but pared down versions of arguments made by many other people

Your post is a nonsensical irrelevance.

Are you going to stop making excuses and start dealing with my arguments any time soon? Part of this could be to point out any assertions I have made that are supported only by my say so. If you read back in the thread you'll find a series of chains of reasoning and in some cases I've even mentioned the sources of data on which these are based. However, since you continually avoid my actual arguments I'm not sure how you're going to do this.

Please try harder.

Louis

ADDED IN EDIT: P.S. Skeptic, since I have ALREADY answered this question in this thread, I find your claim that I haven't answered it a little confusing. If you had read and had understood my arguments you'd know at least that I had answered it already. I'm not saying that argument/answer is correct or incorrect or even that you and I agree about its correctness (or lack of) but it is there. It does exist in black and white on this very thread.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,04:55   

I have just found this on Pharyngula. Comment number 11 by Denis Loubet. The relevant quote:

Quote
Just because I agree with the theory of gravity doesn't mean I want to fall down.


The best refutation of the Is/Ought fallacy I've ever seen. Hilarious.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,06:46   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 06 2007,00:56)
I'm pressed for time but you guys have raised two questions I'd like to get into in more depth. ?One, a concept of a soul that somehow does not cross into the realm of scientific investigation and two, how faith can generate knowledge through various sources such as revelation and what that knowledge looks like. ?The second is certainly a rehash but I don't feel (and I assume you all agree) that I've adequately expounded on this topic in a coherent manner. ?I'll get to work on these two and get back to you...

As you develop your thoughts on "a soul that somehow does not cross into the realm of scientific investigation" I'd be interested to hear your acknowledgment that that THIS sort of soul:
Quote
"a special substance, endowed with reason, adapted to rule the body" (Augustine)...Souls are immaterial subjects of mental properties. They have sensations and thoughts, desires and beliefs, and perform intentional actions. Souls are essential parts of human beings..." Roman Catholic beliefs:... The soul is the center of the human will, intellect (or mind), and imagination (or memory), and the source of all free human acts, although good acts are aided by God's grace.

IS central to many religious systems and DOES cross into the realm of scientific investigation. Your previous response was to assert a different sort of soul, but my point is that this very common conception is in conflict with science, since it postulates a basis for human behavior that competes with naturalistic accounts.

No one is arguing that ALL notions that are religious in nature conflict with the scientific world picture. But some clearly do. This one does. And it is quite central to most Christian views of morality and it's consequences, as well as the consequences of belief vs. "unbelief" (the Christian made-up word that lands with a groaning "thud"). I find it difficult to see how a concept of soul designed not to entail agency can do the moral work that this more common conception accomplishes.

I for one would be grateful if you would acknowledge the above and either assent to it or state why it is incorrect, rather than maneuver around it, before going on to report your own view.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,07:12   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 06 2007,10:46)
IS central to many religious systems and DOES cross into the realm of scientific investigation.

[skeptic ]......NUH UH!!!!!!!!1111!1!1ONEONE [ /skeptic]

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,07:42   

well RB that is just your opinion and if i can imagine a soul that doesn't do those things yet retains all those soul-esque properties then it must exist, or surely one greater than it, so i have just proved jesus.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,10:13   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 06 2007,04:55)
I have just found this on Pharyngula. Comment number 11 by Denis Loubet. The relevant quote:

Quote
Just because I agree with the theory of gravity doesn't mean I want to fall down.


The best refutation of the Is/Ought fallacy I've ever seen. Hilarious.

Louis

Or rephrase it using the ToE: Just because I agree with evolution theory doesn't mean I want to catch a disease that evolved in birds or chimpanzees.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,10:17   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 06 2007,13:42)
well RB that is just your opinion and if i can imagine a soul that doesn't do those things yet retains all those soul-esque properties then it must exist, or surely one greater than it, so i have just proved jesus.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Louis

P.S. I liked your comment too Ian, I just quoted Erasmus' one! ;-) He is after all a fellow Friend of Charles Darwin.

Anyway since it's all just my opinion, I've decided that it's just my opinion that I can fly. Your atheist materialist laws of gravitation don't apply to me so I am off to fly. I'm starting nice and low down until I get the hang of it.

{Takes a run up}

{Hurls self at ground}

Oooh look! Isn't that my bag? I'm sure it contains a bottle of retsina, a towel and some olives.

{Misses}

{Soars}

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,10:32   

Skeptic - I am sure that ALL your questions will be answered in this book by one of the greatest non-thinker and hack writer of the modern era:



--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,10:37   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 06 2007,12:46)
I for one would be grateful if you would acknowledge the above and either assent to it or state why it is incorrect, rather than maneuver around it, before going on to report your own view.

Count me in as a second.

Good luck with it too, Bill. I've been trying to get the tiresome individual to respond to one single argument I've made for what feels like eons. I've even tried.....being nice.

Eurgh. I can't even say that without shuddering. It jolly well hurt too.

Ooooh wait. I feels me a revelation coming on:

And on this day, the Prophet Louis, of the great God Diazonamide A, who had previously tangled with the Mighty Heddle (aka Mr Poo) on the issue of all religious people being paedophiles and all atheists hating god spake thusly:

Yay verily, on the day that Skeptic actually answers a question (as opposed to just avoiding it or wafting some ineffectual irrelevance at it) then shall this conversation, which could be quite interesting, proceed beyond the kindergarden level.

And on that day shall also Skeptic (henceforth to be known as Obliviot the Ineffectual and Intellectually Barren) manage to justify his claims on some basis other than mere assertion. And there will be much rejoicing.

And also on that fateful day, that most beautiful of days, will Obliviot the Ineffectual and Intellectually Barren, actually return to the arguments made by the Prophet, read them, comprehend them and accurately reproduce them so as to foment understanding. As opposed to ironically demonstrating the original point of the Prophet that faith and reason stand in conflict as evidenced by the Obliviot's witless denials and dishonest sub-intellectual shennanigans. He may even manage to follow a chain of reasoning, but let's not ask too much of the frustrating simpleton.

Until then, however, the dark days of sarcasm and mockery are upon us. And until that day the lame shall see and the blind shall walk but never the twain shall meet. And there will be a wailing and gnashing of teeth and a wearing of sackcloth and ashes because it is SO this season. And in the Land of AtBC there will be great humour. And occasional lampooning.

Verily I vouchsafe this sooth to thee. So it has been written, so it shall be done.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,11:00   

At that rate Louis could lose his non-prophet status...

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,11:03   

and the bears will come from the woods and devour the mockers.

carry on, skeptic.  your windmills await.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,11:51   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 06 2007,17:03)
and the bears will come from the woods and devour the mockers.

carry on, skeptic. ?your windmills await.

There's bears?

No one said anything about bears.

I guess that means Obliviot the Ineffective and Intellectually Barren (The Artist formerly known as Skeptic) is a couple of Yogis short of a pic-a-nic basket, Booboo.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 06 2007,12:06   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 06 2007,04:36)
Louis, thank you for missing the point and failing to answer a question once again. ?You just don't understand that assertions based on your say-so are nothing more than opinions and prove or refute nothing except to yourself. ?The World According to Louis must be a disappointing place where everyone else is constantly so wrong and you're the only one who sees things correctly, eh? ?Wake up, Louis.

My bolding

Well yes, I think Louis (and everyone else) undrstands that. Can you however point out just where he is doing such a thing? Please be specific.

I would like to say though that your post (in its entirety) did make me laugh (pretty hard). Just wondering, was it a parody (maybe a P-A-R-O-D-Y)?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,06:57   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 05 2007,20:00)
<yawns>
<goes back to ontological proofs of elan vitale>

Don't forget essentialism, aka what Dawkins would call the tyranny of the discontinuous mind. Essentialism is the (ahem) essence of Skeptic's Obliviot's position.

Which is, erm, well ANOTHER reason why it's a huge crock of horseshit.

Anyway, I'm off on holiday tomorrow, so have fun all. Email me if Obliviot actually deals with an argument made or provides anything resembling an argument in favour of his claims. As opposed to current standards of flannelling, flapping, accusations of fundamentalism and assertion.

Until then, Adios Amoebas! ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,08:25   

Quote
Email me if Obliviot actually deals with an argument made or provides anything resembling an argument in favour of his claims. As opposed to current standards of flannelling, flapping, accusations of fundamentalism and assertion.


don't count on it louis.  or the email part either.  

by the way you atheist darwinist frustrated materialist from ATBC can't explain the meaning of yellow either.  

</chases rabbit back down hole>

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,12:17   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 07 2007,06:57)
...
Anyway, I'm off on holiday tomorrow, so have fun all. Email me if Obliviot actually deals with an argument made or provides anything resembling an argument in favour of his claims. As opposed to current standards of flannelling, flapping, accusations of fundamentalism and assertion.

Until then, Adios Amoebas! ;-)

Louis

Toodle pip old chap.
Have fun.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,15:06   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 06 2007,06:46)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 06 2007,00:56)
I'm pressed for time but you guys have raised two questions I'd like to get into in more depth. ?One, a concept of a soul that somehow does not cross into the realm of scientific investigation and two, how faith can generate knowledge through various sources such as revelation and what that knowledge looks like. ?The second is certainly a rehash but I don't feel (and I assume you all agree) that I've adequately expounded on this topic in a coherent manner. ?I'll get to work on these two and get back to you...

As you develop your thoughts on "a soul that somehow does not cross into the realm of scientific investigation" I'd be interested to hear your acknowledgment that that THIS sort of soul:
 
Quote
"a special substance, endowed with reason, adapted to rule the body" (Augustine)...Souls are immaterial subjects of mental properties. They have sensations and thoughts, desires and beliefs, and perform intentional actions. Souls are essential parts of human beings..." Roman Catholic beliefs:... The soul is the center of the human will, intellect (or mind), and imagination (or memory), and the source of all free human acts, although good acts are aided by God's grace.

IS central to many religious systems and DOES cross into the realm of scientific investigation. Your previous response was to assert a different sort of soul, but my point is that this very common conception is in conflict with science, since it postulates a basis for human behavior that competes with naturalistic accounts.

No one is arguing that ALL notions that are religious in nature conflict with the scientific world picture. But some clearly do. This one does. And it is quite central to most Christian views of morality and it's consequences, as well as the consequences of belief vs. "unbelief" (the Christian made-up word that lands with a groaning "thud"). I find it difficult to see how a concept of soul designed not to entail agency can do the moral work that this more common conception accomplishes.

I for one would be grateful if you would acknowledge the above and either assent to it or state why it is incorrect, rather than maneuver around it, before going on to report your own view.

It would be very difficult for me to make a determination as to the universal nature of this definition.  To be honest, I've never read this before and it may well represent a common view but there is no way I could know that.  One thing that struck me after reading this was the insistence that the soul directs actions and has some independent existence.  On a personal note, I see a direct contradiction with the notion of free will that is also central to many religious beliefs.  Again, that is just my thoughts and I am at a loss to make a judgment concerning a conflict.  I would say, and agree with you, that this definition of a soul would open itself up to possible conflict depending upon interpretation.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,15:33   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 07 2007,16:06)
It would be very difficult for me to make a determination as to the universal nature of this definition.  To be honest, I've never read this before and it may well represent a common view but there is no way I could know that.  One thing that struck me after reading this was the insistence that the soul directs actions and has some independent existence.  On a personal note, I see a direct contradiction with the notion of free will that is also central to many religious beliefs.  Again, that is just my thoughts and I am at a loss to make a judgment concerning a conflict.  I would say, and agree with you, that this definition of a soul would open itself up to possible conflict depending upon interpretation.

Skeptic: Thank you.

I would argue that this notion of soul is quite widespread, evident throughout many religions and informal beliefs: many forms of Christian soul, the souls that transmigrate from incarnation to incarnation in Hinduism, spirits of the departed that can be contacted following death, etc. I would also argue that it is central to those religions that postulate such a soul.

It is certainly NOT universal, nor have I maintained that it was. I offered it as an example of a central (so some) religious belief that conflicts with the scientific world picture, as some have maintained that there are no such conflicts.

With respect to "free will" I would argue that, within this soulful world picture, persons are essentially ("really") souls (not their bodies) and it is ultimately the soul that expresses free will. Just a guess - naturally, these propositions are not decidable by objective (or any other) means.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,18:34   

I've always pictured the soul as a passive object similar to a vessel.  It contains the essence of the person almost as if an impression was left upon by the actions and behaviors of the person.  The idea of the soul in that quote reminds me more of what I would call the Mind.  But I agree there's no objective way we can talk about it.  In the same way, I think this leaves science out of it because that is the language that science speaks in.  The problem also with the potential conflicts with science is we have no real was to assess these conflicts.  As I see it, even if we were to assume that the souls directs behaviors and we isolate the chemical processes associated with said behaviors does this rule out the existence of the soul.  No, maybe it eliminates the necessity of the soul but that's not entirely the same thing.  Since we can not completely describe the universe there's limitations to science even in those areas we can objectively pursue.  Who knows how much more is objective and beyond our understanding and subjective and applicable to different methods of understanding, i.e. irrational methods?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2007,20:33   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 07 2007,19:34)
I've always pictured the soul as a passive object similar to a vessel.  It contains the essence of the person almost as if an impression was left upon by the actions and behaviors of the person.  The idea of the soul in that quote reminds me more of what I would call the Mind.  But I agree there's no objective way we can talk about it.  In the same way, I think this leaves science out of it because that is the language that science speaks in.  The problem also with the potential conflicts with science is we have no real was to assess these conflicts.  As I see it, even if we were to assume that the souls directs behaviors and we isolate the chemical processes associated with said behaviors does this rule out the existence of the soul.  No, maybe it eliminates the necessity of the soul but that's not entirely the same thing.  Since we can not completely describe the universe there's limitations to science even in those areas we can objectively pursue.  Who knows how much more is objective and beyond our understanding and subjective and applicable to different methods of understanding, i.e. irrational methods?

You make valuable points with which I don't have a quarrel.

I personally find the assertion of a "soul" that lives beyond the body a form a denial (death isn't "really" death), one that takes us further from authentic human experience rather than closer, but that itself is certainly a personal, not scientific, assertion.

That said, while it is certainly true (as you say) that there are many things human beings don't and maybe can't represent and grasp by means of scientific understanding, it doesn't follow that the human animal will itself remain one of them. What has been scientifically clear ever since Darwin is that human beings emerged from the natural world, and no special explanation is required relative to other organisms with regard to our origins. Moreover, it is equally plain that all of the astonishing (and appalling) deeds of which we are collectively capable, which sometimes seem so qualitatively different from those of other animals, are clearly hosted within brains that differ only quantitatively, rather than qualitatively, relative to our, well, relatives. As the organization of this brain is disclosed by neuroscience and incorporated into cognitive science, it is clear that many of the powers long assigned to "souls" or "immaterial selves" will be in fact seen to emerge from this quantitatively enhanced brain, adapted as it is to be immersed in language and culture.

Persons who deny the facts of organic evolution and human history on religious bases certainly do make assertions that intrude into and compete with this scientific picture - even, as you say, the abstract notions of god and soul remain scientifically untestable. ID is obviously the worst offender with respect to biology, as it claims to offer a causal account of the facts of biology that is religious at heart (their tiresome denials notwithstanding). Hence ID intrudes into a scientific domain while making no contributions to it, all the while making assertions are inherently untestable. The fact that their claims are beyond objective adjudication is a weakness of their position, not a strength. And they do damage, as the public is often unable to evaluate their claims.  

I haven't read Uncommonly Denyse's latest book, but I'll be astonished if she doesn't, on behalf of the same community, make analogous claims vis human neurobiology and cognitive functioning and seek to deny humanity's place in nature and in history. Perhaps you will cringe too as you read it, if the anticipated prosaic portrait of a "soul" that is pulling and organizing neural strings is indeed there.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2007,23:15   

skeptic, Phineas Gage?

show me 'the essence of a person' and i will show you their gym socks.  nothing more.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,07:47   

Bloody hell.  I go away on some extended fieldwork for a few weeks and look at all the verbiage.  Anyone care to summarise for me where this discussion is in three lines or less?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,09:07   

George:

Skeptic:  Essences exist, you just can't see them.
Louis:  Show me how you know that.
Skeptic:  I imagine essences can exist, therefore they do, and you are dishonest.  And mean.  Lenny agrees.  Lenny?  Lennnnnny?  where'd you go?

<snipped a lot of peanut gallery heckling>

that help?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,15:54   

one correction, Erasmus:

Louis: and you're dishonest

there, that's better.

  
swbarnes2



Posts: 78
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,16:53   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 07 2007,18:34)
I've always pictured the soul as a passive object similar to a vessel.  It contains the essence of the person almost as if an impression was left upon by the actions and behaviors of the person.


So you are saying that the people who think otherwise are flat out wrong.

So I say to you "No, there is no such thing as a soul.  There are only quizkerfloofs.  They are passive objects similar to vessals.  They contains the essence of the person almost as if an impression was left upon by the eactions and behaviors of the person...but they absolutely are NOT souls.  They just aren't.  Souls are made of soul stuff, and quizkerfloofs are made of snurfladoodles.  Totally different things."

You don't actually have a response, do you?  I have a perfectly ready one, which is that it's utterly insane to talk about the properties of objects that can't even be shown to exist.  But that's not open to you.

Can you explain to me why I am wrong?  Can you give my ideas the same respect that you believe yours are worth?

I think not.

 
Quote
idea of the soul in that quote reminds me more of what I would call the Mind.


Oh, good grief.  You haven't shows that the Mind exists, remember?  Everyone asked you to, and then you eventually realized that you didn't dare to try.  Mostly because the only way to prove that the Mind wasn't physical would be to remove the physical (your brain) from the equation, and see what was left.  And you are absoutely 100% sure than when put to the test, your vaunted magic "Mind" simply won't work without the physical proceses of your brain.

But since that's what the rest of us have been telling you, you can't admit it.  It's transparently pathetic.

 
Quote
The problem also with the potential conflicts with science is we have no real was to assess these conflicts.


Yes, which is why you are doing exactly what most undisciplined human beings do in this situation.  You solve the conflict by picking the side that is most convenient and comfortable.

The rest of us recognize that this is a terrible way of approaching problems.  Satisfying yes.  Revel in the feeling of self-satisfaction today, deal with the consequences...whenever they come.  We understand the appeal.  

But the rest of us recognize that the scientific method (namely, the notion that you don't accept any idea as true unelss 1) it's possible for it to be proved false and 2) there is positive evidence supporting the truth of the idea) works, really, really well.  If you name a disease, you could generate a whole list of scientific papers, documenting how treatment and cures on that disease are progressing.  How much progress can you point out into the question "Is the soul passive or active"?

You are asking us to throw away a system of thinking that actually works, so that you can indulge in your happy fantasies.

Well, no one here is ready to do that for you.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,19:02   

Actually you couldn't be more wrong.  I'm not asking you to do anything.  I'm telling you what I do and nothing more.  Personally, I wouldn't throw away a perfectly good way of thinking I'd augment it.  This is not an either-or-situation.

Lenny, if you're still out there, you might be interested to know that I'm reading Capra's Web of Life and it's interesting to hear his explanation of why there is and isn't conflict.  Essentially, we represent the intersection of the two realms of faith and reason and we can not separate them within ourselves but at the same time we should know the difference where one applies and the other doesn't.  Seems very neat and tidy but I'll keep reading to see what I think.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 10 2007,21:47   

skeptic fair enough, but i figured that was the general consensus of all involved and that is dividing by one.

now, i will give my decree about where the NOMA line is.  It is precisely where the boundaries of your body (hence the subjective notions you carry around with you) ends.  Once your faith/religion/denial/dualism/woo assertions extend beyond your corporeal body, they are up for falsification.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,00:43   

I would say that that is the point where you put your thoughts, ideas, etc into action.  I'm not so sure that a blanket statement can be made that those ideas are up for falsification.  The actions may be and that falls right into Louis' context argument.  The actions under said conditions can then be judged against expected outcomes.  I wouldn't say in all cases that the initial idea is necessarily up for falsification.  Does that make any sense?  It may be just my bias as an idealist but I would view the idea as "pure" until utilized by man and that makes it subject to "corruption."  It's getting late and I'm not sure that even makes sense to me.  I'll get some sleep and try again tomorrow.

  
George



Posts: 316
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 11 2007,07:17   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Sep. 10 2007,09:07)
George:

Skeptic:  Essences exist, you just can't see them.
Louis:  Show me how you know that.
Skeptic:  I imagine essences can exist, therefore they do, and you are dishonest.  And mean.  Lenny agrees.  Lenny?  Lennnnnny?  where'd you go?

<snipped a lot of peanut gallery heckling>

that help?

Thanks for the uber-summary!  Not sure if I want to dip my toes in this discussion again.  There's uncharted reefs and mudsharks in there.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,00:02   

I seem to remember that we had some physicists here and I was trying to digest what I was reading today so here goes.  If all matter reduces down to the quantum foam and is essentially probabilities, what are the implications for physical reality?  Just got me thinking.  Thanks for any replies.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2007,08:51   

Quote
If all matter reduces down to the quantum foam


It doesn't.  Just because you may describe something a certain way doesn't imply that it IS that way.

Emergent properties are not reducible.  (or are they?  I summon Laplace)

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
SpaghettiSawUs



Posts: 77
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,10:29   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 14 2007,06:02)
I seem to remember that we had some physicists here and I was trying to digest what I was reading today so here goes.  If all matter reduces down to the quantum foam and is essentially probabilities, what are the implications for physical reality?  Just got me thinking.  Thanks for any replies.

Stick the observer in there and it all becomes clear.
Its all probabilities: to the observer at a given time.
It all reduces to a quantum foam: i.e from the observers standpoint the underlying reality is "formless", and can be analogised to a foam (and the observer gets one bubble or another, but can never see the whole foam).
Does that help?

--------------
On June 23, 2007, 01:06 PM AFDave wrote: "How can we dismiss their theories without first reading their work?"

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,19:06   

doesn't this always require an observer?  Some kind of tree falling in the woods analogy?

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,21:17   

skeptic:
Quote
I am at a loss


Got that right!  

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,07:19   

Two weeks. Two WHOLE weeks. Two weeks in which I haven't even been available online to use the word "bastard" and in that time no actual dealing with any argument I have made has been accomplished by Skeptic.

Pearls before bloody swine.

Someone remind me that treating Skeptic as capable of a rational conversation (as opposed to the asinine ad nauseum restatement of his original claims without any support) is a mistake should I attempt it in future.

Louis

P.S. Had a wonderful time in Cyprus btw. Sun, sea, sand, mountain climbing, halloumi from my ancestral village, zivaniya (don't ask), lots of family visits and  controversial discussions about land, religion, corruption and the Turkish invasion (pleasantly executed due to the participation of honest, rational, intelligent individuals. They exist!). Swimming, mountain hikes, drinking (oh yes, there was drinking), comedically insecure girlfriends of villa mates, drinking (did I mention the drinking?) and the consumption of vastly too many mezes. The only downside of the holiday was travelling to a local (ish) bar to watch the England v South Africa game and watch a very capable and suprised South Africa completely decimate a pathetic and ill-disciplined England. Still the tournament has provided some massive upsets and close matches so far, I am still watching with interest.

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,08:08   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2007,08:19)
Two weeks. Two WHOLE weeks. Two weeks in which I haven't even been available online to use the word "bastard" and in that time no actual dealing with any argument I have made has been accomplished by Skeptic.

Pearls before bloody swine.

Someone remind me that treating Skeptic as capable of a rational conversation (as opposed to the asinine ad nauseum restatement of his original claims without any support) is a mistake should I attempt it in future.

Louis

P.S. Had a wonderful time in Cyprus btw. Sun, sea, sand, mountain climbing, halloumi from my ancestral village, zivaniya (don't ask), lots of family visits and  controversial discussions about land, religion, corruption and the Turkish invasion (pleasantly executed due to the participation of honest, rational, intelligent individuals. They exist!). Swimming, mountain hikes, drinking (oh yes, there was drinking), comedically insecure girlfriends of villa mates, drinking (did I mention the drinking?) and the consumption of vastly too many mezes. The only downside of the holiday was travelling to a local (ish) bar to watch the England v South Africa game and watch a very capable and suprised South Africa completely decimate a pathetic and ill-disciplined England. Still the tournament has provided some massive upsets and close matches so far, I am still watching with interest.

Hey dude, welcome back.

Don't forget about the Tour de Frank, which passes through London tomorrow. You won't regret attending.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,08:27   

I knew there was a reason it was so quiet and peaceful.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,10:36   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 24 2007,14:08)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2007,08:19)
Two weeks. Two WHOLE weeks. Two weeks in which I haven't even been available online to use the word "bastard" and in that time no actual dealing with any argument I have made has been accomplished by Skeptic.

Pearls before bloody swine.

Someone remind me that treating Skeptic as capable of a rational conversation (as opposed to the asinine ad nauseum restatement of his original claims without any support) is a mistake should I attempt it in future.

Louis

P.S. Had a wonderful time in Cyprus btw. Sun, sea, sand, mountain climbing, halloumi from my ancestral village, zivaniya (don't ask), lots of family visits and  controversial discussions about land, religion, corruption and the Turkish invasion (pleasantly executed due to the participation of honest, rational, intelligent individuals. They exist!). Swimming, mountain hikes, drinking (oh yes, there was drinking), comedically insecure girlfriends of villa mates, drinking (did I mention the drinking?) and the consumption of vastly too many mezes. The only downside of the holiday was travelling to a local (ish) bar to watch the England v South Africa game and watch a very capable and suprised South Africa completely decimate a pathetic and ill-disciplined England. Still the tournament has provided some massive upsets and close matches so far, I am still watching with interest.

Hey dude, welcome back.

Don't forget about the Tour de Frank, which passes through London tomorrow. You won't regret attending.

Thanks Bill.

Tour de Frank? Enlighten me, I may be able to be in the heart of the old metrop tomorrow....

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,10:37   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 24 2007,14:27)
I knew there was a reason it was so quiet and peaceful.

I wonder, is this a pathetic attmept at sarcasm or yet further evidence that Skeptic can't actually read?

Either way, it says little that is good about the tiresome excresence.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,10:41   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2007,11:36)
Quote
Don't forget about the Tour de Frank, which passes through London tomorrow. You won't regret attending.

Thanks Bill.

Tour de Frank? Enlighten me, I may be able to be in the heart of the old metrop tomorrow....

Louis

Refers to the Zappa Plays Zappa concert I mentioned earlier - Dweezil Zappa touring with a band that does a incredible job performing and memorializing his father and his music.

Edit: Website for tour here.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,10:48   

{slaps forehead}

Ah! Yes I remember you mentioning it (crickey, I'm senile at 32! Worrying!).

I haven't got tickets so I doubt I'll go.

{sound of Louis hitting Google}

Mmmm tickets available eh?

I'll do some constructive begging of the Mrs and see what I can come up with. ;-) Doubtful because I spent a fortune in Cyprus (this month is going to be well behaved) and I'm off to India soon (ish), but I'm keen.

Louis

ADDED IN EDIT: I'd love to see it in the Melkweg, but sadly am REALLY not going to be able to swing that with work, wife or wallet!

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,11:32   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2007,10:48)
{slaps forehead}

Ah! Yes I remember you mentioning it (crickey, I'm senile at 32! Worrying!).

I haven't got tickets so I doubt I'll go.

{sound of Louis hitting Google}

Mmmm tickets available eh?

I'll do some constructive begging of the Mrs and see what I can come up with. ;-) Doubtful because I spent a fortune in Cyprus (this month is going to be well behaved) and I'm off to India soon (ish), but I'm keen.

Louis

ADDED IN EDIT: I'd love to see it in the Melkweg, but sadly am REALLY not going to be able to swing that with work, wife or wallet!


Short of Funds?  Well, worry no more friend!  All you need to do is start The First Church Of The Designer, link up to the DI, promise to fight The Darwinists and watch the funds roll in.

Correct spelling and grammer is optional.  Ideas do not have to be original, nor make sense.  Bad sweaters however, are required.

ps:  Welcome back, it looks like you had fun.  Don't overlook ERV's blog where Demsbksi got pantsed.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 24 2007,15:41   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2007,10:37)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 24 2007,14:27)
I knew there was a reason it was so quiet and peaceful.

I wonder, is this a pathetic attmept at sarcasm or yet further evidence that Skeptic can't actually read?

Either way, it says little that is good about the tiresome excresence.

Louis

Just a statement of fact (you do know what is, don't you).  It has been quiet and peaceful.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,09:07   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 24 2007,21:41)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 24 2007,10:37)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 24 2007,14:27)
I knew there was a reason it was so quiet and peaceful.

I wonder, is this a pathetic attmept at sarcasm or yet further evidence that Skeptic can't actually read?

Either way, it says little that is good about the tiresome excresence.

Louis

Just a statement of fact (you do know what is, don't you).  It has been quiet and peaceful.

Awwwwwwwww I'm sowwy. Did I come back and remind you that your flannelling about and not dealing with people's arguments does not constitute rational argumentation on your part and thus disturb the fragile peace that exists when no one challenges you to actually support the crap you spout?

You're breaking my heart, Sweetie. Now, before I become sarcastic is there any faint hope that you will, oh I don't know, pull your head directly out of your perfectly puckered posterior and actually present some form of argument/contribution that doesn't rely on:

a) bald assertion and reassertion of your original claims
b) straw man versions of other people's arguments
c) attempting to claim all is merely "opinion" because of your own demonstrable ignorance and because (shock horror) someone somewhere disagrees (no specifics yet we note)
d) whining that I am a big old meanie

Because Sweetie, for 26 pages of this crap that has been your entire contribution. Oh and don't let's mistake my frustration and annoyance for hostility (one of your favourite gambits btw), I'm annoyed at your flannelling not hostile to discussion. Incidentally, I see you are willing to play nicely with some of the other children in the playground, has it occured to you that we children mostly agree and that perhaps people would play nicer with you if you'd actually play by the rules instead of breaking down into snotty tears every time someone says something you don't like?

Any time you're ready to present an actual argument Skeptic, I'll be waiting. I won't be holding my breath however, I've long since given up hope that you are capable. Prove me wrong.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,09:59   

Louis old chap whilst you were cavorting amongst the isles padding about toting toddies and nursing a chronic hangover, you missed one of the biggest explosions of mind searing tard on this board I have been privy to since AFDave blew his choad.  Supersport made skeptic look like a mereological nihilist.  

Since you are back, check out 'challenge to evolutionists' or whatever.  skeptic, to his credit, said to supersport [paraphrase] jesus you are stupid, that is taking the cart before the horse cut off at the knees or something like that.[/] IOW there is a bound to skeptic's willingness to huff the mind/body tard and it is at first approximation limited by the sheer blithering stupidity of Supersport.  

carry on.  welcome back

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,10:36   

I see that I missed something of great tard import.

I'll check it out more thoroughly.

{Whispers}

Look, I actually think that Skeptic isn't too bad and has the potential (at least) to be a very sensible and useful discussion participant. Don't tell him I said that, it would ruin our relationship.

However, he seems to be under some very odd impressions, not least of which is that he can assert anything he likes by fiat alone and demand it be treated as valid. I've made it more than abundantly clear on several occasions that IF people are going to engage in reasoned discourse or debate that they should AT LEAST do so honestly, with some modicum of intellectual rigour, and with no fear of being wrong (if indeed they are wrong at all). I find the stupid games Skeptic is playing in this thread to be anathema to reasoned discourse, and as such I am mercilessly mocking the silly sod. It's my sweet little way of letting people know that things aren't being dealt with. Of course I also take some trouble to point out what things aren't being dealt with, where and why. I get exceedingly annoyed that when I take the time to do this certain other people don't seem to think they are honour bound to reciprocate. Hence, abuse, mockery, and even (drum roll) sarcasm.

Louis

P.S. From the little I have read our chum Supersport was galloping for the UberTard Award 2007. He seems to have come and gone in a flash though, which surprises me.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,10:56   

Also, gems like this one from Skeptic reveal much of his mindset:

Quote
Also, SS, you really didn't expect to get an answer to your question here, did you?


As if Skeptic is some hard done by seeker for knowledge who has asked us questions we refuse to answer. Delusional fuckwittery on his part at its finest.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,12:12   

Louis, the truth is you tire me.  Not only are you frequently wrong in your extrapolations but you are rude and wrong.  I have better ways to apply my time then to deal with your immature whining.  You hit the nail on the head when you noted that I engage in civil conversations on this board.  But I don't really expect you to identify the common denominator in that analogy.  I'll give you a hint, go ask Lenny.  Not that I really expect anything different so carry on.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,13:08   

so if you rephrase skeptic's question in context of 'what the fuck is an idiot like you doing in a place like this' then it becomes less erm how do you say perhaps 'revealing'.  

although skeptic i did wonder as well if you weren't saying ala vmartin 'these frustrated darwinist materialist from ATBC' or something similar.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,14:01   

I'm not sure which you are referring to, my comments to SS or to Louis?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,14:57   

your comments to SS.  IIRC you thought his mind theory was bull shit too.

but 'you didn't really to get an answer here' could imply more than just that.  and i think that was louis' point.  

RB thing-think is the bottom line there.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,16:08   

I quickly came to the conclusion that he had no idea what he was talking about.  The only thing I was convinced of was that he could cut and paste.  As far as the first comment, I made that early on when I assumed he was actually interested in some kind of discussion.  Clearly, I was wrong.  But to my point, or alleged point, there tends to be much more emphasis on the individual here rather than the idea.  I find that unfortunate and distracting.  I know this forum is largely entertainment and real discussion is secondary but I do long for civil discourse sometimes.

There we go, I'm done with my "I have a dream..." moment.  :D

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,16:42   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 25 2007,18:12)
Louis, the truth is you tire me.  Not only are you frequently wrong in your extrapolations but you are rude and wrong.  I have better ways to apply my time then to deal with your immature whining.  You hit the nail on the head when you noted that I engage in civil conversations on this board.  But I don't really expect you to identify the common denominator in that analogy.  I'll give you a hint, go ask Lenny.  Not that I really expect anything different so carry on.

ME? Wrong?

Where?

Oh right. I remember. Not only won't you point out where but you've amply demonstrated time and again that you can't.

Rude. Yup. Guilty as charged. Hands held high, openly admitted to etc. Now tell me Skeptic, which is less conducive to rational discourse: my use of words like fuck and moron and total lack of ability to tolerate pseudointellectual clueless apologist poseurs like yourself, or your total lack of intellectual rigour and honesty, your constantly shifting goalposts, your inability to deal with an argument as it is stated, your tangential whining about rudeness etc....I could go on.

And get one thing straight: Lenny didn't even begin to deal with my arguments, and neither have you. Both of you have had to create straw men to bash, straw men I not only demonstrated were straw men after they appeared but in several cases predicted before you erected the. Until you or someone else does actually deal with my arguments as they are stated, they stand unrefuted. Saying they are wrong doesn't cut it. You can flannel about all you like sweetie, but you are fooling no one but yourself. Lenny ran away because he was incapable of admitting his errors. Nothing more. Kid yourself all you want.

Strange isn't it Skeptic that I also have perfectly civil conversations on and off this board with myriad people,many of whom I disagree with quite vehemently. Equally strange that you fail to find the common denominator in that and seek to foist your own lack of civility in debate onto me. What amuses me most Skeptic is that it is merely a matter of going back to the early posts in this thread to find you losing your pathetic little rag and whining about the evils and limitations of materialists, long before any rudeness came your way.

How about you remove the beam from your own eye you nauseating sub intellectual hypocrite, before you try to remove the mote from mine.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,16:45   

Quote
I know this forum is largely entertainment and real discussion is secondary but I do long for civil discourse sometimes


I call bullshit. If this was even remotely true Skeptic, you would:

a) justify your claims beyond merely asserting them. Something you have not done.

b) deal with people's arguments as they are stated and not via a series of irrelevant straw men. Something you also have not done.

Of course you could at any point go back, restate my arguments to my satisfaction and point out the errors (rather than asserting they exist with no basis). You won't do this. You CAN'T do this. But you will whine about it.

What a self-unaware ignoramus you truly are. You have my pity and my contempt.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,16:59   

I'm telling you skeptic, go to the desert (bring water) and ingest 300-500µ of lysergic acid diethylamide-25. Don't drive for a while (8-12hours) and resume this discussion. You might be surprised what an enlightened re-reading of your comments might do.

Of course, I am not a doctor and you should always consult a health care professional before taking any medication.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,18:42   

is "flanneling" a real word?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,18:49   

Yep, It's right there in Louis' post.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,18:56   

lol, must be in the Oxford's.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,21:08   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 26 2007,02:42)
is "flanneling" a real word?

It's whats done to boys in private schools in England as foreplay to buggery.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 25 2007,21:10   

how graphic, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry!

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,02:04   

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 26 2007,03:08)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 26 2007,02:42)
is "flanneling" a real word?

It's whats done to boys in private schools in England as foreplay to buggery.

No, no, no! What is done prior to buggery in British boarding schools is either:

a) Getting a B in Latin (Please Sir, can I have an A?)
b) Offending a prefect (Boy, behind the Fives courts 8pm.
c) Having a homosexual crush on another homosexual boy.

I thought I'd include c) just in case it ever happens.

Flannelling:

flan·nel      /?flænl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[flan-l] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -neled, -nel·ing or (especially British), -nelled, -nel·ling.
–noun 1. a soft, slightly napped fabric of wool or wool and another fiber, used for trousers, jackets, shirts, etc.  
2. a soft, warm, light fabric of cotton or cotton and another fiber, thickly napped on one side and used for sleepwear, undergarments, sheets, etc.  
3. flannels, a. an outer garment, esp. trousers, made of flannel.  
b. woolen undergarments.  

4. British. a. a washcloth.  
b. Informal. nonsense; humbug; empty talk.  
c. Informal. flattery; insincere or overdone praise.  

–verb (used with object) 5. to cover or clothe with flannel.  
6. to rub with flannel.  

4b as a verb. It's a British colloquiallism. There is an implication that flannelling in the 4b sense contains some form of desperation. I.e. people flannel  when they are trying to cover their oown obvious inadequacies. Hence why I find the word peculiarly appropriate for Skeptic's antics on this thread.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,02:16   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 26 2007,03:10)
how graphic, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry!

You and me both. I still can't fully conjugate the verb fero, ferre, tuli, latumwithout wincing.*

That aside, are you going to stop flannelling, telling me I'm rude, immature and whiny (with no basis for the last two), avoiding demonstrating/supporting your own claims with anything other than appeals to prejudice or simple assertion, actually deal with my arguments as they are stated instead of bashing straw men around, and demonstrate some tiny scintilla of intellectual honesty and ability? Any time soon? We're all waiting.

Louis

* I was never actually buggered at boarding school. My teachers were universally brilliant and uninterested in buggery, or at least uninterested in buggering me. Perhaps because I went to a boarding school from the age of 13 that had girls in it, perhaps because they didn't fancy me. The buggery at British boarding schools saw is a pervasive and inescapably funny urban myth. It's good for many bits of great comedy.

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,02:54   

4a, b and c I rest my case.

Behind the fives court at *cough* 8PM???

That is just too much detail.

An urban myth as in hazing at Westpoint?

No foot tapping from an effete Maths Teacher? Almost too hard to believe.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,04:48   

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 26 2007,08:54)
No foot tapping from an effete Maths Teacher? Almost too hard to believe.

But but but my maths teacher had a wide stance!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,09:48   

sorry, never took latin so that particular reference leaves me scratching my head otherwise I'll have to defer to your experience in these matters.   :D   Yes. yes, I know.  I just read that you were never actually violated.  It was a joke.  Had to get that out there before I was accused of something else.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,09:56   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 26 2007,15:48)
sorry, never took latin so that particular reference leaves me scratching my head otherwise I'll have to defer to your experience in these matters.   :D   Yes. yes, I know.  I just read that you were never actually violated.  It was a joke.  Had to get that out there before I was accused of something else.

ferois the Latin verb "I bring, bear or carry" (ferre, tuli and latum are the infinitive [to bring etc], the first person future indicative active [I will bring etc] and the past participle [brought etc] IIRC [paging Arden Chatfield], respectively). It is probably the most irregular Latin verb and notoriously tricky for early students to conjugate correctly. Hence why what the Latin master did to me for failing to conjugate it was quite severe. Buggery would have been preferable
Hmmm. Perhaps not.

And I KNOW you are only joking about the buggery. Have no fear. Unlike you I don't assume hostility in people I disagree with no matter how frustrated/frustrating they might be with a specific discussion.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,10:25   

Quote (Louis @ Sep. 26 2007,17:56)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 26 2007,15:48)
sorry, never took latin so that particular reference leaves me scratching my head otherwise I'll have to defer to your experience in these matters.   :D   Yes. yes, I know.  I just read that you were never actually violated.  It was a joke.  Had to get that out there before I was accused of something else.

ferois the Latin verb "I bring, bear or carry" (ferre, tuli and latum are the infinitive [to bring etc], the first person future indicative active [I will bring etc] and the past participle [brought etc] IIRC [paging Arden Chatfield], respectively). It is probably the most irregular Latin verb and notoriously tricky for early students to conjugate correctly. Hence why what the Latin master did to me for failing to conjugate it was quite severe. Buggery would have been preferable
Hmmm. Perhaps not.

And I KNOW you are only joking about the buggery. Have no fear. Unlike you I don't assume hostility in people I disagree with no matter how frustrated/frustrating they might be with a specific discussion.

Louis

How the hell do you remember all that? I studied latin for 2 years (40 years ago now...geez) and did reasonably well. One of my teachers was a rhodes scholar so I can't blame them.

--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,10:48   

Quote (k.e @ Sep. 26 2007,16:25)
Quote (Louis @ Sep. 26 2007,17:56)
Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 26 2007,15:48)
sorry, never took latin so that particular reference leaves me scratching my head otherwise I'll have to defer to your experience in these matters.   :D   Yes. yes, I know.  I just read that you were never actually violated.  It was a joke.  Had to get that out there before I was accused of something else.

ferois the Latin verb "I bring, bear or carry" (ferre, tuli and latum are the infinitive [to bring etc], the first person future indicative active [I will bring etc] and the past participle [brought etc] IIRC [paging Arden Chatfield], respectively). It is probably the most irregular Latin verb and notoriously tricky for early students to conjugate correctly. Hence why what the Latin master did to me for failing to conjugate it was quite severe. Buggery would have been preferable
Hmmm. Perhaps not.

And I KNOW you are only joking about the buggery. Have no fear. Unlike you I don't assume hostility in people I disagree with no matter how frustrated/frustrating they might be with a specific discussion.

Louis

How the hell do you remember all that? I studied latin for 2 years (40 years ago now...geez) and did reasonably well. One of my teachers was a rhodes scholar so I can't blame them.

Ah, well I did Latin (and Ancient Greek) for 6 years and it was only 20 years ago. So three times the Latin at half the distance! I also got a fully funded scholarship to go to public school (that's big, expensive, posh, private boarding school in the UK. Complete with buggery, crazy rules about various things, funny uniforms/dress codes, insane teachers, antique buildings, 1850s attitudes and living conditions, Tom Brown's Schooldays, Jennings, Sanderson, side burns, the whole shebang) based on my 13 year old Classics.

Buggered if I can remember much of it now. Almost literally!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:49   

I take it by the silence that Skeptic has ceased trying to defend the indefinsible his claims?

That or he is busy. Wherefore art thou Obliviot, Lord of the underservingly patronising aside?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,07:55   

I also feel it necessary to confess to an addiction to LOLcats and ICHC. Hopefully this confession will go unnoticed.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
k.e



Posts: 1948
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,08:17   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 04 2007,15:55)
I also feel it necessary to confess to an addiction to LOLcats and ICHC. Hopefully this confession will go unnoticed.

Louis

u is mizzing a ? mark



--------------
The conservative has but little to fear from the man whose reason is the servant of his passions, but let him beware of him in whom reason has become the greatest and most terrible of the passions.These are the wreckers of outworn empires and civilisations, doubters, disintegrators, deicides.Haldane

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2007,19:13   

yep, pretty busy, in fact, I don't think I've posted anywhere in a few days.  Besides the obvious, I don't having any urge to listen to anymore of your crap so the silence suits me just fine.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2007,03:39   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 05 2007,01:13)
yep, pretty busy, in fact, I don't think I've posted anywhere in a few days.  Besides the obvious, I don't having any urge to listen to anymore of your crap so the silence suits me just fine.

My crap? MY crap?? This from the "man" who asserts mind/brain dualism with no evidence. Who claims that "love" exists as a separate entity with no evidence (for example). Who insults people with comments about rational/material "love" being "hollow and swallow"?

Fuck me quite deftly Skeptic, like I said you are trully the master of the undeservingly patronising.

Face it, you have been once again exposed as a delusional little muppet with neither the ability nor honesty to defend any claim you make. What really amuses me is that I had nothing to do with it, you did it to yourself.

Bwaaahahahahahahahahahaha. Enjoy!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2007,07:27   

The point of a discussion is an exchange of ideas and a broadening of a topic, at least those are two productive  results.  I have to be able to justify that my time will be utilized constructively or it's just not worth it.  You have no interest in discussion or any exchange of ideas.  You're a hack who's only interested in scoring points and witty profanity.  In short, you have nothing to add to this discussion and I have no interest in playing games.  Sorry, you'll have to exercise your delusions and obscene incredulity elsewhere and on someone else.  Also, don't bother responding because I won't and I don't want to waste your time either.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2007,07:46   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 05 2007,13:27)
You have no interest in discussion or any exchange of ideas.  You're a hack who's only interested in scoring points and witty profanity.  In short, you have nothing to add to this discussion and I have no interest in playing games.

Bullshit on all counts.

The profanity etc arise from my extreme frustration at  being continually confronted with unsupported assertions from you and ridiculous straw men versions of what I actually argue for. I've tried repeatedly (for example) when I've accused you of misrepresenting my arguments to get you to go back and restate them accurately. I've also offered to reciprocate. This is not some game or trick to score points it is a very genuine attempt to clarify your understanding of my arguments (which btw you have shown no ability to understand) and to progress the discussion. It's a clear indication that I actually am trying to move things along. An equally clear indication is you utter refusal to do so in all cases.

I'm happy to exchange ideas, that's all well and good. What I am not happy to do is claim (implicitly, by omission or explicitly) that all ideas are equally valid or well supported. The intent of this thread was to get you to justify your claims, claims you make rather frequently. You have singularly failed to do this.

You can whine about how mean I am and whine about how my motivations are what you say they are (and not what I say they are), but all you are doing is avoiding supporting your claims. This is why I mock you, and will continue to do so. You are using "convenient" get out clauses to avoid the ramifications of your claims and to avoid suppporting them, nothing more, nothing less. Blame me all you like, the record of this thread shows very differently.

As I have said Skeptic, as long as I am here, I will never let you get away with making unsupported claims in the manner you like to. You can whine about it, ignore me, claim to know my own motivations better than I do but it will serve you not one jot.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2007,08:30   

Incidentally, in case you have forgotten, the thread started with this:

Quote
The wheel turns, and yet again we are getting the following from Skeptic:

Quote
Louis, referencing our earlier discussion, this is the damage that radical atheists can do.  There is no reason for a rift between science and religion and to perpetuate the lie is damaging.  This in no means exonerates the religious who attempt to do the same thing but I hold science to a higher standard and you can not have an argument by yourself.


Skeptic has been remarkably silent about the evidence for the wanton damage we nasty old radical atheists (if indeed we are all nasty old radical atheists, which I know we're not, but seems to have escaped Skeptic) cause, but he does rear up every now and again and tell us that religion and science are not in conflict and (along with certain naughty religious people) we are responsible for world destruction and kittens dying. Or something.

We also get the very strong claim from Skeptic that it is a LIE (not merely wrong, but intentionally dishonest no less) to perpetuate the claim that the existance of a deity or set of deities is open to scientific scrutiny. Well dear friends, Skeptic included of course, I am going to shock you all to your cores and disagree with Skeptic. I know, I know, an amazing surprise!


As it stands I reckon I can make the relatively bold claim that no argument or evidence has yet been advanced that demonstrates my contention, i.e. that there is a very real basis for conflict between science and religion, false.

Skeptic has certainly failed to do it by any objective standard as anyone reading the thread can attest. In fact the majority of Skeptic's whining seems to be based around his use of the Is/Ought fallacy: i.e. he is denying that there is a basis for science and religion to be in conflict because he believes they ought not to be in conflict. The neccessity of antipathy (which I would disagree with) and the acknowledgement of a genuine basis for conflict (which I wouldn't) are different things. It seems that Skeptic is incapable of comprehending this distinction.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2007,04:58   

BUMP

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,16:56   

Ported from "Wrong? Moi?"

Why should existence be deemed possible evidence of something (however you capitalise words*)?

The existence or otherwise of a deity like being is a question open to reason, perhaps even science (I've defined the differences between the two at length as you undoubtedly know). Whether or not such a thing exists is dependant on the evidence. If we know something exists, we have evidence to base that knowledge upon. Hence why I am trying to get you, me and everyone to take this aspect of conversation to the relevant thread. Discussions of epistemology etc will only derail this thread further.

I make no such requirement, it's a simple fact. Otherwise how can we claim such a thing exists at all? That which is undetectable is indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist. You have yet to justify how anything is known by any means other than utilising reason. Pretending you have doesn't serve you (because everyone knows you haven't) and, like I said, only further derails this thread.

You seem under the impression that I am somehow forcing/trying to force things to be examinable by science. You're wrong. Again, as you'd know if you'd read what I'd written on the relevant thread. Trying to ressurrect your claims (unsupported AGAIN) in a different thread might be considered by some to be less than fulsomely honest. If your deity interacts with the universe (i.e. is a theist not a deist deity) then it is in principle detectable on the basis of those interactions. If those interactions are rendered mysterious/undetectable then on what basis can such an entity be said to interact withh the universe at all? Retreating to mystery renders your deity effectively non existant. If you wish to indulge the realms of fantasy and say that your deity COULD do these mysterious things, then fine, I agree, it COULD be the case. It COULD also be the case that the pixies are doing it or my mum is doing it, or the universe is really a banana fritter with a lychee glaze. You haven't yet managed to find a method for distinguishing between the validity of undetectable pixies and undetectable gods.

You are presenting a positive claim: X exists (what X is is irrelevant). You claim X exists because you believe X exists. Anything can be claimed on that basis, X = anything and no actual knowledge is gained, X could be pixies, X could be banana fritters, there is no way to know. The two claims are indistinguishable on any epistemological basis. Claiming personal, internal revelation or sincerity of faith doesn't help you either because a person advancing a mutually exclusive claim could make the same appeals, and we're right back to where we started.

Just to head off your standard nonsense, when I've asked you to distinguish your specific claim from the fantastic unreal claim of a madman, you've been under the impression that I am asking you to justify your claim to an outsider. Not so. I am asking you to distinguish your claim from a fantastic unreal hallucination of your own confection. How do you know that all your oft touted faith and revelation is not the ravings of a madman? The answer of course is you do not know this. Equally, I don't know that anything I claim is not the raving of a madman....except for one rather vital thing: recourse to external observation. It could all be STILL the ravings of a madman, or lots of madmen agreeing with each other BUT at least it is coherent and appears to work.

This retreat into relativist solipsism and nihilism that you usually plumb for again won't save you, because it demonstrates the fundamental hypocrisy of your case: i.e. that you are perfectly content to use reason and observation, and the products and systems derived thereof, until their irrestistable scrutiny lights on your internal faith/revelation, at which juncture you declare by assertion alone that they do not work and retreat to the "ultimately we all know nothing, it could all be an hallucination, I don't know so you don't know" idiocy you are well known for. What's so tiring about that is that not only does everyone know that there are limits to what can be known by any means, but that it is always admitted up front and yet you conveniently forget that this is the case in order to treat the fact that doubt exists as a basic consequence of the nature of knowledge as some kind of support for your faith. It isn't.

Watch how, yet again, this will be misunderstoof. Hence why I said this epistemological angle of the conversation is best continued in the relevant thread.

Louis

*capitalisation does not change the meaning. Remember "mind" "Mind"? Define your terms.

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,18:26   

Existence can be taken as evidence of something.  By our understanding, the universe began, at least as we now know it, at the Big Bang.  By our methods of observation anything before the Big Bang is undefinable and yet we know, or we think we know,that there was something before the Big Bang.  This something opens the door for many things and while it doesn't demand a deity it certainly includes one.

As far as detection, who gets to define detectable?  If we limit detection to human terms then we unduly frame the universe with unwarranted restraints.  Imagine bat sonar.  Without the advent of technology there would be no way we would be able to detect or understand bat sonar. We would have to conclude that it doesn't exist if proposed and it's future existence is dependent upon our level of technology.  We ran into this very case with the electron.  Consider a Star Wars example for the metaphysical case.  The Force is detectable but not by any except the Jedi.  Does the Force only exist for the Jedi?  Are normal people like Han correct is saying it doesn't exist because they've never seen it.  What if God is beyond our level of understanding and forever beyond our understanding, does that lack of understanding eliminate the existence of God?  It comes down to how much credit we're willing to give to human understanding and what limitations we're willing to accept.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,18:40   

Quote

Without the advent of technology there would be no way we would be able to detect or understand bat sonar.


Spallanzani did OK in the 1790s. Or does beeswax count as "technology"?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,19:18   

I would include anything beyond the five senses.  All artificial meanings are a result of application of our intelligence and that would render all knowledge relative to our ability to apply that intelligence.  In essence, reality would be dictated by us and I'm pretty sure nobody here wants concede that reality.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,19:56   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 29 2007,19:18)
I would include anything beyond the five senses.  All artificial meanings are a result of application of our intelligence and that would render all knowledge relative to our ability to apply that intelligence.  In essence, reality would be dictated by us and I'm pretty sure nobody here wants concede that reality.

Is language technology? It certainly augments cognition..

Chatterbox, RTH wants you to affirm his excellent point. Chop-chop.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,22:01   

that is a good question but as much as I'm tempted by language I'm going to have to say no.  Language is certainly necessary for coherent thought but it still is on the processing end of observation not the detection end.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,22:06   

What about math?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,22:47   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 29 2007,19:56)
 
Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 29 2007,19:18)
I would include anything beyond the five senses.  All artificial meanings are a result of application of our intelligence and that would render all knowledge relative to our ability to apply that intelligence.  In essence, reality would be dictated by us and I'm pretty sure nobody here wants concede that reality.

Is language technology? It certainly augments cognition..

Chatterbox, RTH wants you to affirm his excellent point. Chop-chop.

Sorry, six hours with your mom has worn me out. Check back with me tomorrow. (Before she wakes up, of course.)

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,22:55   

Quote
Is language technology? It certainly augments cognition..


That's an interesting question. Offhand I'd say yes. If technology = study of techniques = study of ways of doing things then language would fit.

Using my dictionary: technology = applied science, or technical method of achieving a practical purpose.

Imnsho, language fits that definition, too. At least the second part of it, and maybe the first.

Henry

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,22:56   

I was adopted by two cross-dressers.

RTH was unaffected socially, though.

*Adjusts lace*

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,23:09   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 30 2007,01:18)
I would include anything beyond the five senses.  All artificial meanings are a result of application of our intelligence and that would render all knowledge relative to our ability to apply that intelligence.  In essence, reality would be dictated by us and I'm pretty sure nobody here wants concede that reality.

Five senses? There are more than that.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,23:09   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 29 2007,22:55)
Quote
Is language technology? It certainly augments cognition..


That's an interesting question. Offhand I'd say yes. If technology = study of techniques = study of ways of doing things then language would fit.

Using my dictionary: technology = applied science, or technical method of achieving a practical purpose.

Imnsho, language fits that definition, too. At least the second part of it, and maybe the first.

Henry

But doesn't language have to precede science else there would be no science?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 29 2007,23:17   

No, cognition does. When a squirrel or a crow solves a problem to gain food, are they using language?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,00:18   

yes but in some sense they must be when they pass that lesson on to their offspring otherwise its just new knowledge each and every time it's learned.  maybe cognition and language are not so far apart, two aspects of a whole so to speak.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,06:36   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 29 2007,23:55)
Quote
Is language technology? It certainly augments cognition..


That's an interesting question. Offhand I'd say yes. If technology = study of techniques = study of ways of doing things then language would fit.

Using my dictionary: technology = applied science, or technical method of achieving a practical purpose.

Imnsho, language fits that definition, too. At least the second part of it, and maybe the first.

Henry

Is bipedal walking a technology?

Human speech likely has a significant evolutionary basis, so has components that aren't analogous to acquired/learned/culturally invented techniques.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,07:54   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 29 2007,23:26)
Existence can be taken as evidence of something.  By our understanding, the universe began, at least as we now know it, at the Big Bang.  By our methods of observation anything before the Big Bang is undefinable and yet we know, or we think we know,that there was something before the Big Bang.  This something opens the door for many things and while it doesn't demand a deity it certainly includes one.

As far as detection, who gets to define detectable?  If we limit detection to human terms then we unduly frame the universe with unwarranted restraints.  Imagine bat sonar.  Without the advent of technology there would be no way we would be able to detect or understand bat sonar. We would have to conclude that it doesn't exist if proposed and it's future existence is dependent upon our level of technology.  We ran into this very case with the electron.  Consider a Star Wars example for the metaphysical case.  The Force is detectable but not by any except the Jedi.  Does the Force only exist for the Jedi?  Are normal people like Han correct is saying it doesn't exist because they've never seen it.  What if God is beyond our level of understanding and forever beyond our understanding, does that lack of understanding eliminate the existence of God?  It comes down to how much credit we're willing to give to human understanding and what limitations we're willing to accept.

Obliviot,

1) There was something "before" the big bang? Not as far as I know. For starters "before" means nothing in that context and furthermore there are formulations of big bang cosmology consistent with the idea that the whole universe is a vacuum fluctuation (IIRC, IANAPhysicist). Appealing to "there is a creation so there must be a creator" and "there was a beginning so there must be a beginner" won't save your claims. firstly because these arguments have been refuted in the past and secondly because they push the problem one step back. One can go into an infinite "it's turtles all the way down" regress.

2) No one is defining detectable. If one is claiming an interventionist deity then the very fact that they are claiming that their deity intervenes means that either those interventions are detectable (and thus open to rational, reason based, observational enquiry IN PRINCIPLE, if perhaps not in practise at any specific moment in time) or those interventions are defined away by the theist claimant as undetectable (and thus are not actually interventions at all, but wishful thinking and an appeal to mystery).

Neither is anyone putting artificial limits on the universe, this as usual is a confection of your own delusion as explained several times in this very thread. Of course you'd know that having read and understood it all....but I digress! No one is saying that "the universe is definitely 100% all we can detect" what people are saying is "the universe appears to work a certain way, we have developed methods for teasing out how the universe appears to work, whatever the universe might "really" be underneath that appearance is irrelevant because we can by definition never know about it, so let's deal with the universe as it appears to work". There's a big difference. Forgive me if I am less than optimistic that you understand this difference despite the fact that this is about the seventeenth time I've explained it on this thread (in several different ways).

3) No one is saying "because we have not seen it, it definitely does not exist". What people ARE saying is "because there is no evidence for it existing, it is not reasonable or rational to claim it does exist and thus there is no practical reason to suppose it DOES exist and thus we can act as if it does not exist until such time as evidence is forthcoming which demonstrates it does exist". The distinction is a pragmatic one. We appreciate the philsophical nuances, we are aware of the limitations of knowledge

I don't do my day to day activities in the expectation that an evil zombie monkey is staring at me from the shadows waiting to shit in my sandwich. It might well be the case that this evil zombie monkey is just lurking there laughing at my foolish scepticism and waiting to shit in my sandwich but I have no evidence supporting the existence of a crap happy evil zombie monkey. Thus I carry on my day to day life merrily ignoring even the remotest possibility of evil zombie monkey turds finding their way into my brie, bacon and cranberry on a sourdough baguette. I treat god(s), unicorns, homeopathy, voodoo and turd obssessed evil zombie monkeys the same way.

Likewise for bat sonar (really bad example by the way), although you run into a real problem with this example. Bat sonar is not supernatural. It operates on principles that are entirely natural, and for which we had plenty of evidence before we even knew the phenomenon existed. The fact that we didn't discover bat sonar until we did is not significant. We haven't understood every phenonmenon in the universe even now, the process of discovery is slow and painstaking and difficult. Demonstrating the existence of a phenomenon takes time and effort. Describing it accurately takes even more effort. Not every issue is easily resolved. Only recently have we as a species had the social and cultural conditions necessary to do this in a coordinated and sustained manner.

4) What if god is beyond out "level of understanding"? What does that even mean? Again you seem under the impression that the opposing view to your own is that we know and can know everything absolutely. This is very far from the case. The provisional nature of knowledge, the limits of observation, the problem of induction etc are not only all known but all gleefully accepted. Didn't you read those quotes from Feynman? Didn't you read that story from Sagan? Didn't you read what Douglas Adams had to say? I don't quote them as authorites (far from it) rather as people who have had the ideas I have had before me (if you see what I mean!). All this has been covered in this thread several times before. Hence why I urge you and everyone to keep this epistemological/philsophical conversation here where it is relevant and equally why I have all but fucking begged you to go back and actually read what I have written for some modicum of comprehension. The conversation with you cannot advance UNTIL you stop merely repeating yourself ad nauseum and learn to understand what someone else's argument actually is as opposed to what you think it is.

Get on with it.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,07:55   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 30 2007,03:56)
I was adopted by two cross-dressers.

RTH was unaffected socially, though.

*Adjusts lace*

You mean both your dads are actually women?

Damn well *I'm* disappointed for one.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,08:05   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 30 2007,00:18)
I would include anything beyond the five senses.  All artificial meanings are a result of application of our intelligence and that would render all knowledge relative to our ability to apply that intelligence.  In essence, reality would be dictated by us and I'm pretty sure nobody here wants concede that reality.

Nope reality is demonstrably not dictated by us. The world appears to work a certain way whether we like it or not. Don't believe me? Then come with me up to the top of the nearest tall building of convenience (I'm happy to travel to witness the first unpowered, unassisted human flight). When we get up there I want you to put on a tinfoil hat, paint the words "I repeal the law of graviity. I can fly, me" on your chest and leap off the top. I'll follow shortly after.

Sound good?

No you say? Whyever not?

Oh is it because you'll fall to your death (barring some happy concatenation of open windows and gusts of wind)?

It rather seems like the real world exists even for you. This is the curious thing, the models we have made of how the world works by actually looking at how the worlds works appear to {ahem} work. Better even than that, they work even if you don't believe in them or know about them. When I was just a little boy I didn't know about Einsteinian Relativity, I didn't know about supergravity and string theory (which were being invented about that time), I didn't even know about Newton. I still fell down though. The world was still round even when we thought it wasn't.

Incidentally your "we don't know everything, therefore god" antiintellectual gubbins is noted. Again.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,08:30   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 30 2007,06:36)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 29 2007,23:55)
Quote
Is language technology? It certainly augments cognition..


That's an interesting question. Offhand I'd say yes. If technology = study of techniques = study of ways of doing things then language would fit.

Using my dictionary: technology = applied science, or technical method of achieving a practical purpose.

Imnsho, language fits that definition, too. At least the second part of it, and maybe the first.

Henry

Is bipedal walking a technology?

Human speech likely has a significant evolutionary basis, so has components that aren't analogous to acquired/learned/culturally invented techniques.

Vocabulary was certainly created.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,10:12   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 30 2007,08:30)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 30 2007,06:36)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 29 2007,23:55)
 
Quote
Is language technology? It certainly augments cognition..


That's an interesting question. Offhand I'd say yes. If technology = study of techniques = study of ways of doing things then language would fit.

Using my dictionary: technology = applied science, or technical method of achieving a practical purpose.

Imnsho, language fits that definition, too. At least the second part of it, and maybe the first.

Henry

Is bipedal walking a technology?

Human speech likely has a significant evolutionary basis, so has components that aren't analogous to acquired/learned/culturally invented techniques.

Vocabulary was certainly created.

Just for the record, I have really looked at my hands.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,10:55   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 30 2007,15:12)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 30 2007,08:30)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 30 2007,06:36)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 29 2007,23:55)
 
Quote
Is language technology? It certainly augments cognition..


That's an interesting question. Offhand I'd say yes. If technology = study of techniques = study of ways of doing things then language would fit.

Using my dictionary: technology = applied science, or technical method of achieving a practical purpose.

Imnsho, language fits that definition, too. At least the second part of it, and maybe the first.

Henry

Is bipedal walking a technology?

Human speech likely has a significant evolutionary basis, so has components that aren't analogous to acquired/learned/culturally invented techniques.

Vocabulary was certainly created.

Just for the record, I have really looked at my hands.

No but dude, have you ever, you know really, really looked at them. They're like, you know, man. I mean nothing can touch my hands except for themselves, you know.



Booooooooooooooooooooong.

Snoogans

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2007,22:43   

Quote
(skeptic @ Oct. 29 2007,22:09)
Quote
(Henry J @ Oct. 29 2007,22:55)

Quote

Is language technology? It certainly augments cognition..



That's an interesting question. Offhand I'd say yes. If technology = study of techniques = study of ways of doing things then language would fit.

Using my dictionary: technology = applied science, or technical method of achieving a practical purpose.

Imnsho, language fits that definition, too. At least the second part of it, and maybe the first.

Henry


But doesn't language have to precede science else there would be no science?  


Science? I was considering whether language is technology, not whether it's science. Okay, maybe it wasn't originally applied science*, but it is a technique for achieving a purpose.

* Nore likely it was try various things, and keep using what worked.

Quote
(Reciprocating Bill @ Oct 30 2007,05:36)
Is bipedal walking a technology?

Human speech likely has a significant evolutionary basis, so has components that aren't analogous to acquired/learned/culturally invented techniques.


Hmmm. Good point. Maybe the definition of "technology" should include something about having been invented by the user of it, rather than being an inherent ability evolved from ones ancestry. The later part of the definition I quoted isn't clear on that point.

Henry

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,06:47   

Yes, and I have to apologize as I got side tracked because the questions were very thought provoking.  The essential point is that language isn't observation or involved in detection of data.  Language comes in after data collection and interprets, communicates and extends the understanding of the data but cannot generate new original data, as I see it.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,07:21   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 31 2007,11:47)
Yes, and I have to apologize as I got side tracked because the questions were very thought provoking.  The essential point is that language isn't observation or involved in detection of data.  Language comes in after data collection and interprets, communicates and extends the understanding of the data but cannot generate new original data, as I see it.

Language isn't observation? Perhaps not, but it is a tool we use to make observations. In the simplest sense of this we use language to communicate with other organisms, that is precisely an observational activity: if I do X to object Y, what happens to object Y?

Langauge is a tool, like a stick to probe a hole for bugs is a tool, we use it to probe the states of other organisms. Langauge is a means of collecting certain types of data, whether or not language itself generates new data it is used to acquire new data.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,09:18   

This all gets really wishy-washy.  It could or couldn't depending upon how closely we're relating language to thought.  If we use the analogy that man is an instrument then language could be the readout but it also could be the internal communication between probe, detector and processor.  I think it all depends upon how far we want to extend the definition.

I'm content to say that language is fundamental and necessary and any other nuances make for good philosophical discussion.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,10:42   

I've now spent a considerable amount of time reading this entire thread.  To put it nicely I'd like my money back please.

Thank you

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,11:31   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,15:42)
I've now spent a considerable amount of time reading this entire thread.  To put it nicely I'd like my money back please.

Thank you

Fair enough. Tell me where to send the refund.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,11:48   

Isn't anyone on this thread going to address that whole "God-microwaving-a-burrito" dilemma?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,11:58   

Actually if someone could provide one shred of evidence for the existance of a "soul" I'd think I'd gotten my money's worth.

I'm not looking for a definition of a soul, I'm looking for evidence.  I know the IDjust have a difficult time distinguishing between the two.

So, according to Christian mythology I (and you, gentle reader) have a soul.  Where is it?  Can you prove it. Or is this just another bible lie?

Anyone?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,12:03   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,16:58)
Actually if someone could provide one shred of evidence for the existance of a "soul" I'd think I'd gotten my money's worth.

I'm not looking for a definition of a soul, I'm looking for evidence.  I know the IDjust have a difficult time distinguishing between the two.

So, according to Christian mythology I (and you, gentle reader) have a soul.  Where is it?  Can you prove it. Or is this just another bible lie?

Anyone?

I'd have got my money's worth too.

I spent a reasonable amount of effort on this thread trying to explain very simple philosophy 101 to a dunderhead who seems to think that disagreement is sufficient to overturn observed reality.

It would have been worth it to discover some evidence for a soul.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,12:05   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 31 2007,16:48)
Isn't anyone on this thread going to address that whole "God-microwaving-a-burrito" dilemma?

Ahhh the Diego El Cartesian paradox.

Eh Gringo, can god mikrowave a burrito so hot he cannot eeeeeet it.

A timeless classic.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,12:08   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 31 2007,12:05)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 31 2007,16:48)
Isn't anyone on this thread going to address that whole "God-microwaving-a-burrito" dilemma?

Ahhh the Diego El Cartesian paradox.

Eh Gringo, can god mikrowave a burrito so hot he cannot eeeeeet it.

A timeless classic.

Louis

Hmmpphh. Not providing any answers, I see.  :angry:

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,12:12   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 31 2007,17:08)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 31 2007,12:05)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Oct. 31 2007,16:48)
Isn't anyone on this thread going to address that whole "God-microwaving-a-burrito" dilemma?

Ahhh the Diego El Cartesian paradox.

Eh Gringo, can god mikrowave a burrito so hot he cannot eeeeeet it.

A timeless classic.

Louis

Hmmpphh. Not providing any answers, I see.  :angry:

The answer I shall give is the answer I have always received from theists:

"Yes.....

No.....

Why should he want to? Who are you to demand anything of god....."

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,12:23   

It would have been worth it to discover some evidence for a soul.

Louis[/quote]
Eh... Souls Gringo?  We don't need no stinkin' souls...



--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,12:30   

Well if no one can offer any evidence for a soul perhaps we might discuss whether teaching cannibalism and not just believing in zombies but actually praying (telepathy?) to them (begging zombies for special favors/treatment) is good for children.

I'm all for children enjoying make believe time but I think at some point you have to draw the line.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
SpeedDemon



Posts: 22
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,12:47   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 29 2007,18:26)
Consider a Star Wars example for the metaphysical case.  The Force is detectable but not by any except the Jedi.  Does the Force only exist for the Jedi?  Are normal people like Han correct is saying it doesn't exist because they've never seen it.


The Force is detectable, via midi-chlorians, with a simple blood test.  Qui-Gon Jinn showed us that in The Phantom Menace.  So in that fantasy world, the Force does exist for everyone.

In your fantasy world, things are looking pretty bleak.

SD

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,13:03   

Actually that was the point I was trying to make.  The Force is detectable in this example and maybe in 5000 years God will be too, who can say?

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,13:18   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 31 2007,13:03)
Actually that was the point I was trying to make.  The Force is detectable in this example and maybe in 5000 years God will be too, who can say?

WTFF??!! You can "what if" yourself to death skeptic!

I know this is Halloween, but you're really scaring me here!  No rational person over the age of 6 could possibly be making this as a semi-rational argument!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,13:18   

Well according to leading intelligent design scientist, William Dimski, there is an invisible world inhabited with winged humanoids.  Maybe the Father of the Sacred Zombie lives in that invisible world.  

If that's the case the only way we'll ever detect him is to buy Dimski's books.

You can also detect the Father of the Sacred Zombie by reading the bible codes which is also advocated by William Dimski.  You see, this Zombie Father put little secret codes in the bible so we could...well who the fuck knows...But anyhow...

See skeptic, I'm not a believer and yet I know all the ways you can detect Him now and spare yourself the 5000 year wait.

You're welcome!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,13:43   

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 31 2007,13:18)
Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 31 2007,13:03)
Actually that was the point I was trying to make.  The Force is detectable in this example and maybe in 5000 years God will be too, who can say?

WTFF??!! You can "what if" yourself to death skeptic!

I know this is Halloween, but you're really scaring me here!  No rational person over the age of 6 could possibly be making this as a semi-rational argument!

Or, as Elvis supposedly used to say, "and if my aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle."

A wise old man there, Mister Presley. I bet HE would have answered my burrito question, except of course he's dead.

:(

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,13:59   

Obliviot,

Re: your "what if" type argument, I'll play the same game I did with you before:

Right now other people have been detected murdering children and raping their corpses, maybe in a week you'll be detected murdering children and raping their corpses. Therefore my belief that you murder children and rape their corpses is justified because maybe it will be shown to be factual in the future.

By the way I choose this example very deliberately because it is so abhorrent and so unlike anything I would even conceive of thinking about you or anyone. Its massively unlikely probability and its visceral unpleasantness is a rhetorical slap to the face. The point is that ANYTHING no matter how extreme or wishful or whacky or vile or good etc can be justified on this basis. Hence why I say by your own standards shall you be judged. If you keep promoting these fallacious pseduo arguments as support for your claims (which they do not even support) then I'm sorry but I'll keep pointing out to you how vacuous they are. It seems you don't understand nuanced argument so the sledgehammer version is being used.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
SpeedDemon



Posts: 22
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,14:29   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 31 2007,13:03)
Actually that was the point I was trying to make.  The Force is detectable in this example and maybe in 5000 years God will be too, who can say?


So there is no evidence for your god interacting in the observable universe.  Check.

We might be able to detect your god in 5,000 years.  Or maybe not.  Check.

Other than your wishful thinking, do you have anything at all to offer?

SD

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,14:39   

as for objective evidence, no, there is none.  But if you ask for evidence on an individual basis you get a completely different answer.  Also, it is the height of arrogance to say that just beause I don't see something now, then I will never see and in truth that something doesn't really exist anyway.  This is not a scientific argument but a faith-based one.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,14:43   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 31 2007,19:39)
as for objective evidence, no, there is none.  But if you ask for evidence on an individual basis you get a completely different answer.  Also, it is the height of arrogance to say that just beause I don't see something now, then I will never see and in truth that something doesn't really exist anyway.  This is not a scientific argument but a faith-based one.

So you agree that we'll be seeing you murder kids and rape their corpses in the future then?

Oh Officer! I think we've found him!

Obviously it would be the very HEIGHT of arrogance to say that because we haven't seen you do this now, then we will never see you do this.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,14:55   

In 5,000 years we might prove that Elvis Presley is the intelligent designer. I mean we cannot detect this now, but who knows what science might be able to detect in 5,000 years.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,15:02   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,14:55)
In 5,000 years we might prove that Elvis Presley is the intelligent designer. I mean we cannot detect this now, but who knows what science might be able to detect in 5,000 years.

Is that Early Elvis, or the Fat Vegas Elvis?

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,15:14   

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 31 2007,15:02)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,14:55)
In 5,000 years we might prove that Elvis Presley is the intelligent designer. I mean we cannot detect this now, but who knows what science might be able to detect in 5,000 years.

Is that Early Elvis, or the Fat Vegas Elvis?

Why, the Elvis as the Intelligent Designer Elvis of course.



--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,15:16   

Quote (J-Dog @ Oct. 31 2007,20:02)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,14:55)
In 5,000 years we might prove that Elvis Presley is the intelligent designer. I mean we cannot detect this now, but who knows what science might be able to detect in 5,000 years.

Is that Early Elvis, or the Fat Vegas Elvis?

And did he kill kids and rape their corpses? Because I believe Skeptic is going to and just because we haven't seen him do it yet is no evidence he won't do it in the future. And because I believe it that makes it true until someone disproves it. Good luck finding that evidence of Skeptic never killing kids and raping their corpses anywhere at all time with any kid. It MIGHT be true so it's just as good as any alternative you can come up with. So there. With knobs on.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,15:17   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,20:14)

Ok where did Richard T Hughes' photo from?

HAR HAR THAT IS RTH AND NOT TEH SEXI_HAWT!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,15:24   

That's not Richard Hughes, that is the Intelligent Designer, you rube!

I put the evidence right in front of you and you make it into a Richard Hughes joke.  

You Darwinists are all alike!  Damn you, damn you all to hell!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,16:32   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 31 2007,15:17)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Oct. 31 2007,20:14)

Ok where did Richard T Hughes' photo from?

HAR HAR THAT IS RTH AND NOT TEH SEXI_HAWT!

Louis

Richard doesn't dress that well.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2007,23:08   

Wow, that was truely uncalled for.  For the first time I think I'm considering a cleansing exercise to rid myself of that image.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,11:01   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 31 2007,23:08)
Wow, that was truely uncalled for.  For the first time I think I'm considering a cleansing exercise to rid myself of that image.

No one said the Intelligent Designer was HWP or even handsome.  

I'm telling you people HE is the intelligent designer and science may prove it in 5,000 years.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,12:02   

I mean, like, after all, one explanation is as good as another, right?

Aren't we ALL just trying to explain the world?  Like, in our own ways and stuff?

Just because you have presuppositions that you have not dealt with yet (I mean, like, c'mon, 'k, all you evilutionists are atheists.  'sup with that?) doesn't mean that you are like more right than me.  

I'm sooooooo over facts.  Just ask Walt Brown.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,12:04   

Hurry, someone, pull Erasmus away from the Mtv, it's really screwing up his speech patterns!!!!

  
SpeedDemon



Posts: 22
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2007,13:09   

Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 31 2007,14:39)
as for objective evidence, no, there is none.  But if you ask for evidence on an individual basis you get a completely different answer.  Also, it is the height of arrogance to say that just beause I don't see something now, then I will never see and in truth that something doesn't really exist anyway.  This is not a scientific argument but a faith-based one.


The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

I'm amused by your complete lack of argument, and your army of strawmen, but not surprised.  You need to come up with something  other than rhetorical games to explain reality better than what we've already got.

SD

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2007,11:33   

Not to revisit this but I just finished The Universe in a Single Atom.  This book offers a different perspective to those wishing to pursue this topic on their own.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2007,12:24   

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 21 2007,17:33)
Not to revisit this but I just finished The Universe in a Single Atom.  This book offers a different perspective to those wishing to pursue this topic on their own.

{Asks self "Do I bother?", flips coin, flips coin again, best two out of three, flips coin again. Damn.}

How can you "revisit" a topic (or rather series of topics) you have repeatedly refused to "visit" in the first place? Yes, I know as far as you're concerned I'm a giant meanie out to persecute the universe or something but come on Skeptic, do you think people have no memory or that they cannot simply go back and read? Your assertions and denials and utter lack of engagement with the substance of any argument (let alone one that opposes your "views" whatever they might be) do not constitute "visiting" a topic and are a matter of public record. Stop deluding yourself.

I'm chuffed to bits that you're reading the Dalai Lama though (This is a good thing btw, it's a British colloquialism for "pleased"), he advocates a very reasoned approach to matters (one which, incidentally, demonstrates my points earlier in this thread in part at least) Why start there though?

Any time you want to deal with my actual arguments and continue what could have been an interesting topic, you're welcome to do so.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2007,14:21   

I doubt that there is any way to deal with your arguments Louis. At least from a religous POV.

You have had me thinking for a few months now and I must admit that I can see zero evidence for a God /Heaven/Allah etc.

I reckon that I would now have to consider myself as agnostic. In a way, that seems ok in another it is kinda disturbing. Long held beliefs are troubling to change and I really would like to see lost loved ones again. Then again, not having a belief in an afterlife does make me realise how precious life actually is.

OH well. Guess I should try to make more of the life I do know that I have.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2007,14:40   

Even though the post wasn't really aimed at you, Louis, because I've come not to expect much, I have no intention of revisiting the topic.  This was just a suggestion to anyone who may be interested.  BTW, you might want to actually read the book because you're sorely mistaken if you think the Dalai Lama's views in any way reflect yours.  In fact, your world view is treated rather unkindly by the Dalai Lama, or at least as close as he can get to unkindness.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2007,15:20   

Skeptic,

You actually make a good point. And it's one I deleted from the previous post (it was in a section I thought too mean. Amazing I know).

I haven't read the book, and thus have no idea what's in it. What I do know is that the Dalai Lama favours an evidence based approach, wherever that evidence leads, he's said as much on many many occasions (even to the detriment of his beliefs as it happens). That at least he and I agree upon. Perhaps the nuances of this book are different, I don't know. I'll pick up a copy, I've been meaning to read more Dalai Lama!

Oh and I don't have a "worldview" such as these things are. Which of course you'd know having, erm, and I hate to say this, well, you know, read, understood and dealt with any argument I have made.

The thing is Skeptic, I'd bet doillars to dust motes that you couldn't even restate the Dalai Lama's views with any accuracy. Reading, comprehension and you are not close bedfellows. But like I said, any time you're willing to actually deal with arguments made and reality as it can be demonstrated to be, I'll cheerfully play along..

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2007,15:33   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 21 2007,20:21)
I doubt that there is any way to deal with your arguments Louis. At least from a religous POV.

You have had me thinking for a few months now and I must admit that I can see zero evidence for a God /Heaven/Allah etc.

I reckon that I would now have to consider myself as agnostic. In a way, that seems ok in another it is kinda disturbing. Long held beliefs are troubling to change and I really would like to see lost loved ones again. Then again, not having a belief in an afterlife does make me realise how precious life actually is.

OH well. Guess I should try to make more of the life I do know that I have.

Steve,

You raise an interesting conundrum for me. Amazing though some might find it, I have absolutely no desire to deconvert people/destroy personal faith. I'm of the opinion that what works for you works for you.

What I am NOT content to ignore is the extension of that personal faith into observable reality WITHOUT any evidence or corroboration. It could turn out god(s) exist in some manner or another, it's not likely given the ones described thus far, but in principle I see no reason why some form of "higher being" could not exist.

I am happy with "I believe this and it helps me in some manner", I'm not happy with "I believe this therefore it is true because I believe it". Skeptic and his ilk do the latter (and more). I'm also perfectly au fait with the non-evidenciary nature of faith, zero evidence of god does not neccessarily equate to evidence of zero god, or that belief in such a god has no use. Again it's the extension of that faith beyond its applicable bounds that is a cause for concern. Of course I'd want to see everybody adopt a rational approach to evidence and the universe around them, but I don't have any expectation that this will happen so I'm more than content for people to simply realise the limits of what faith can acheive epistemologically.

That's not a social comment btw, it's a philsophical one, it bears only upon the issue of epistemology.

Anyway, I'd say "Welcome to the real world" but you were already here! ;-) I agree btw, enjoy the life you have, make the most of the people you love while they are here to be loved. Strange isn't it, when the unrealities of false beliefs are stripped away, how life becomes infinitely more valuable and valued.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2007,21:50   

No, you're right, the Dalai Lama restates in the book that in the light of scientific evidence to the contrary Buddist scripture must be reevaluated or even discarded.  It is the boundaries and scope of science and faith that I think you would find interesting.  That is not to say that you would agree with him but I think you might appreciate his eloquence and the personal nature of his investigation.  Then again, I'm just guessing on that last point.  In any event, if you find the time, it's a good read and you might find it worthwhile.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2007,04:47   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 21 2007,15:33)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 21 2007,20:21)
I doubt that there is any way to deal with your arguments Louis. At least from a religous POV.

You have had me thinking for a few months now and I must admit that I can see zero evidence for a God /Heaven/Allah etc.

I reckon that I would now have to consider myself as agnostic. In a way, that seems ok in another it is kinda disturbing. Long held beliefs are troubling to change and I really would like to see lost loved ones again. Then again, not having a belief in an afterlife does make me realise how precious life actually is.

OH well. Guess I should try to make more of the life I do know that I have.

Steve,

You raise an interesting conundrum for me. Amazing though some might find it, I have absolutely no desire to deconvert people/destroy personal faith. I'm of the opinion that what works for you works for you.

What I am NOT content to ignore is the extension of that personal faith into observable reality WITHOUT any evidence or corroboration. It could turn out god(s) exist in some manner or another, it's not likely given the ones described thus far, but in principle I see no reason why some form of "higher being" could not exist.

I am happy with "I believe this and it helps me in some manner", I'm not happy with "I believe this therefore it is true because I believe it". Skeptic and his ilk do the latter (and more). I'm also perfectly au fait with the non-evidenciary nature of faith, zero evidence of god does not neccessarily equate to evidence of zero god, or that belief in such a god has no use. Again it's the extension of that faith beyond its applicable bounds that is a cause for concern. Of course I'd want to see everybody adopt a rational approach to evidence and the universe around them, but I don't have any expectation that this will happen so I'm more than content for people to simply realise the limits of what faith can acheive epistemologically.

That's not a social comment btw, it's a philsophical one, it bears only upon the issue of epistemology.

Anyway, I'd say "Welcome to the real world" but you were already here! ;-) I agree btw, enjoy the life you have, make the most of the people you love while they are here to be loved. Strange isn't it, when the unrealities of false beliefs are stripped away, how life becomes infinitely more valuable and valued.

Louis

You are correct about life seeming more valuable without a belief in an afterlife. Pretty much reminds me of this cheesy song;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mHaFMqde6A

A tad corny but not a bad way to live. Now if I could just get my ass in gear...

Quote
What I am NOT content to ignore is the extension of that personal faith into observable reality WITHOUT any evidence or corroboration. It could turn out god(s) exist in some manner or another


I agree. Religious fruitcakes are very dangerous. Death threats about jokes make me uncomfortable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_kyNIevsIs

All over cartoons. Nice to know that these are UK citizens.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2007,05:13   

Steve,

If it were only the fruitcakes who did this, I'd be out of a hobby!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2007,20:26   

Louis when you get done deconverting all the believers, you and skeptic should swap handles.

Not that the artist currently known as skeptic would be better served as Louis, but perhaps otherwise.  And this would free him up to be Obliviot.

I just thought I would add this part.  Louis you have converted me to be a Jehovah's Witness.  The strength and cogency of your arguments are irrefutable and strip me of all my inborn (satanic) defenses.  So, if I am one of the 144,000 that makes it to Heaven, I will pray that Yahweh takes mercy on your godless little materialist soul that hates puppies and strangles little old quadraplegic eskimo lesbian nuns.  

So, anytime you want to take this show to UD, there is a sockpuppet school out there I heard.  it's called UD.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2007,23:59   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 22 2007,06:13)
Steve,

If it were only the fruitcakes who did this, I'd be out of a hobby!

Louis

"mmmm fruit cake...."

drool drool drool

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,09:29   

Steve and/or Wes,

I've been watching the conversation in this thread, to see where it would go.

While Stephen does make an excellent and topical point about Fundies' inability to let go of their nonsense for any reason short of their own demise, it was probably not phrased as well as it might have been and the conversation has keyed on that and whether it was humor for a while now.

If you get a moment, I'd appreciate it if one of you might move everything from that comment to this one to the BW, with the exception of Steve's Homer Simpson illustration which was in response to something said earlier.

I'll duplicate this note to you both via PM.

Thanks,

BWButtonless Lou

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,09:36   

Hey, whilst your policing the thread can you get Skeptic to deal with arguments as they are put to him? Do you have a stick that big?

EDIT: Actually, I'd ask you not to move these things.

This thread was set up by me for Skeptic to defend a specific set of claims. That he cannot do so and that he has to resort to assumptions of hostility (even to the extent of seeing threats of violence in obviously humourously intended comments) and persecution to distract from the fact that he cannot do so is very releavnt to the topic of this thread and the way it has progressed.

Please leave those posts where they are.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,10:17   

I have a little proposal:

Louis' Law:

In any debate or conversation where a topic is discussed in which two more people disagree about aspects of that topic, the probability of that discussion topic to mutate into "offense trolling"* and discussion of offense trolling increases proportionally with the length of debate or conversation. This is independent of medium, i.e it could be online in chat or on a message board, or in a spoken conversation etc. I.e. As a discussion progresses the chance of offense trolling occuring increases to 1.

The term "offense trolling" is only applicable IF the person doing the pupported "offense trolling" has not actually presented a coherent argument or case and/or has failed to counter or comprehend the opposing argument or case. It is specifcally the use of personal "offense", or its cognates, to distract from the inability/vacuity of the partipant/argument. [ADDED IN EDIT] It is the juxtaposition between the stated concern for productive discourse and the demonstrable inability of the offense troll to engage in it that delineates the fundamental tension at play here.

Corollary to Louis' Law:

The person/people/side who start the offense trolling is the person incapable of defending their argument, or is defending an argument which they either:

a) know to be wrong and do not wish to admit it.

b) do not know to be wrong but know that they are incapable of defending it and are unwilling to admit it.

c) know it to be wrong, know they cannot defend it but are (for reasons unstated) unwilling to admit it.

Thus they attempt to shift nature, mode and topic of the discussion in order to present a "subtle" argumentum ad hominem. I.e. I would be able to defend my argument/you'd see my argument is correct if my opponent was not so cruel/rude/mean/persecuting of me/offensive etc. Ergo offense trolling in such a context is an indication and admission of the vacuity of a person's arguments and claims/a person's inability to defend their claims.

Louis

*Offense trolling might be thought of as a subset of "concern trolling". The shared aim in this case is productive discourse, and the offense troll acts out of supposed "concern" for the discussion members' ability to engage in productive discourse. I.e. The demonstrably dishonest (whether consciously used or not) use of "offense" as a disruptive method in debate/discussion in roder to obfuscate in inadequate argument or defense of an argument.

--------------
Bye.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,11:32   

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 26 2007,09:36)
Hey, whilst your policing the thread can you get Skeptic to deal with arguments as they are put to him? Do you have a stick that big?

EDIT: Actually, I'd ask you not to move these things.

This thread was set up by me for Skeptic to defend a specific set of claims. That he cannot do so and that he has to resort to assumptions of hostility (even to the extent of seeing threats of violence in obviously humourously intended comments) and persecution to distract from the fact that he cannot do so is very releavnt to the topic of this thread and the way it has progressed.

Please leave those posts where they are.

Louis

I second the motion.  Skeptic was too thin-skinned, and is "blessed" with a typical creationist "sense of humor" *(which is zero).

*Please see UD Fart-Noise Thread, Jib-Jab thread, and UD's "brite" threads.

Skeptic's whine, and Louis' response threads need to remain to give a lurker the proper sense of skeptic.

My $.02

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,11:44   

IIRC Skeptic's not a creationist in the "antievolution" sense. I could be wrong, I don't remember every detail of Skeptic's initial forays here. He's certainly more than a little fond of the odd ludicrous proclamation, he's certainly and very demonstrably incapable of either making or following a coherent argument, other than that....

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,12:50   

Yeah well Louis all them big faintsy words and stuff don't impress me none.  All you had to say was 'Not Even Wrong' and then step out to the pub.

Looked for and couldn't find a nifty essay about debating presuppositionalists (which i think skeptic might be).  Pity.  It would have been quite apropos.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,13:39   

Good point. But tonight the pub has come to me! Yay for carry out!

I do like the "not even wrong...then pub" approach, it's a tad unsatisfying sometimes because the other chap gets all "oh yeah, well HOW is it not even wrong?" and by that point I'm seriously drunk and into my bag of cheese and onion.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:21   

Louis, if at any point you wish to present a coherent argument that doesn't amount to "because I said so" I'd probably fall over from disbelief.  As far as persecution, don't flatter yourself.  I have no intention of portraying myself in any oppressed light.  I find it funny how you can miss the point of what I say so many times.  My comments have nothing to do with how I feel or what I'm defending and have everything to do with pointing out the idiocy of the conversation you and Stephan were having.  Simply reviewing the context of this board and those statements dismisses the  ridiculous "it was just a joke" defense.  Again, this isn't said to defend anything of my interest but to hint to you guys that you're bordering on stupidity and maybe it's time to engage your brains and disengage your mouths (or fingers, in this case).

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:42   

Do you REALLY think they were serious?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2007,15:50   

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 26 2007,21:21)
Louis, if at any point you wish to present a coherent argument that doesn't amount to "because I said so" I'd probably fall over from disbelief.  As far as persecution, don't flatter yourself.  I have no intention of portraying myself in any oppressed light.  I find it funny how you can miss the point of what I say so many times.  My comments have nothing to do with how I feel or what I'm defending and have everything to do with pointing out the idiocy of the conversation you and Stephan were having.  Simply reviewing the context of this board and those statements dismisses the  ridiculous "it was just a joke" defense.  Again, this isn't said to defend anything of my interest but to hint to you guys that you're bordering on stupidity and maybe it's time to engage your brains and disengage your mouths (or fingers, in this case).

Please point out anywhere I have argued for anything on the basis of "because I said so". Just one example, any thread, any topic will do.

If you can't do that I'll simply go ahead and consider that you are a demonstrated liar. Again.

As for the rest, you're, um, joking right?

Thanks

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,08:40   

Hmmm a few days of silence again. Well we all have lives to be getting on with. No worries about that. But I AM curious. Surely it would be trivial to demonstrate I am arguing for any case in any thread by the use of mere assertion that "X is true because I say so". I wonder why Skeptic hasn't done it? It can't be because he isn't interested, after all he made this specific claim. I wonder why he isn't defending it as asked?

I think it's because Skeptic is a liar. I reckon I can prove my assessments of his arguments using his own words, I'm also pretty gosh-darned sure he cannot prove his assessments of my arguments using my own words.

Yet again I think it is more than fair for me to accuse Skeptic of lying, publically and very deliberately. My opinion, a guess I can only base on supposition, is that he is doing this because he is an incapable incompetant with nugatory reasoning capabilities.

Of course I'm happy to be proven wrong. I wonder, will the liar bother to do this? Or does he lack both the personal and intellectual integrity and ability required?

I think it's time for me to break out the "Brave Sir Robin Award for Intellectual Cowardice" again.

Well done Skeptic, you are this year's winner.



And now for the Award Ceremony Song:

Bravely bold Sir Skeptic
Rode forth on t'Internet.
He was not afraid to lie,
Oh brave Sir Skeptic.
He was not at all afraid
To look like a total pratt.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Skeptic

He was not in the least bit scared
To fail to support his claims.
Or to make poor arguments,
And not learn to read.
To have his claims destroyed
And his notions burned away,
And to lie when cornered
Brave Sir Skeptic.

His claims smashed in
And their heart cut out
And their assumptions bust
And their basis exposed
And their incoherence shown

And their consequences mocked
And their vacuity--

Sir Skeptic: "That's... that's enough music for now lads, I' afwaid that you is all big big meanies WAH!"

Brave Sir Skeptic ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When asked to prove his worthless shit,
He bravely turned his tail and quit.
Yes, brave Sir Skeptic turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.

Bravely taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Skeptic!

Louis

P.S. Let's all have a golf clap for Skeptic and his AMAZING NON-EXISTANT INTELLECTUAL HONESTY!!! YAY! Three cheers: Hip hip....

--------------
Bye.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,08:46   

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 26 2007,21:21)
pointing out the idiocy of the conversation you and Stephan were having.  Simply reviewing the context of this board and those statements dismisses the  ridiculous "it was just a joke" defense.  Again, this isn't said to defend anything of my interest but to hint to you guys that you're bordering on stupidity and maybe it's time to engage your brains and disengage your mouths (or fingers, in this case).

Are you (sorry Steve, Lou and Wes) out of your tiny fucking mind?


Seriously, have you gone totally insane? You seriously think that anyone on this board wants to kill fundies (or anyone, for that matter)?

If that is the case, you're madder than Mad Jack McMad, winner of this years Mr Mad competition.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,09:03   

HE SAID "FUCK"!!!!! I'M OFFENDED!!!! IT MEANS HE WANTS TO RAPE AND KILL ME!!!!! SERIOUSLY!!!!!! HE IS BORDERING ON STUPIDITY ETC!!!!

About right?

Louis

P.S. I want to kill fundies. Uh huh. Oh yeah. I really, really do. I want to put them in a big vat of killing stuff and kill them until they are dead. Really dead, not like, pretend TV dead but PROPER not coming back (unless they is Jebus) dead. I even have an argument that supports this. Are you ready: I say killing fundies is right and proper and good and everyone should do it BECAUSE I SAY SO. There, that should be good enough. Ok, now I don't have to defend that, obviously, it's right and true and completely unarguable. I have spoken therefore it is true. In no way do I have to defend that. In fact asking me to defend it just shows how wicked and mean you are because you're not allowing me to exchange my opinion with you, which because I said it is at least as valid as anything you can say, if not more because I believe in Jebus. So there. With knobs on.

EDITTED TO ADD: P.P.S. It should also go without saying that I wish to bathe in their blood, piss in their egg nog and use the flayed skin of their children as a series of special hats.

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,16:26   

I have to apologize for the long delay but life has gotten in the way, no that that's a bad thing.  I was actually formulating an fairly extensive response when I came to the sudden realization that I was wasting my time.  For one thing, I'm dealing with an individual that doesn't know the meaning of very basic words like liar and opinion.  So really, what's the point?  I think I'll pass.

P.S.  I'm fully aware of the coming onslaught and I'm man enough not to be bothered by that childish behavior.  I just don't have the time right now for this inevitably kindergarten level discussion.  You may all carry on as you wish.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,16:40   

Y'all hear that? apoplectic sez we can go back ta burnin'churches an' killin' fundies!

YeeeeeHaw!
What a guy.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,17:00   

LOL, I didn't see that one coming.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,17:06   

Quote

P.S.  I'm fully aware of the coming onslaught and I'm man enough not to be bothered by that childish behavior.  I just don't have the time right now for this inevitably kindergarten level discussion.  You may all carry on as you wish.


I'll make no bones about it, I haven't checked to see who is right between you and Louis, nor do I really care. While I am more inclined to agree with Louis' opinions on the original subject, you could well be right about him going off on one at you for no reason after that, whatever you like.

However, I would like to point out I don't think it's childish to display where you either stupidly failed to understand a joke (irrespective of whether it was a GOOD one) or, alternatively, lied in order to make out like Louis et al are a bunch of homicidal psychopaths who honestly think fundies should be killed.

ow, I'm not saying you ARE a liar, or that you are stupid, but boy, either you lied or made one hell of a mistake.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,18:36   

Ian, I neither lied nor made a mistake.  If you go back and read the context of my comments you might see the intent.  Based upon the remarks made on this board consistently I made my determination.  IMO, those comments were not meant as a joke, they represent an actual sentiment that is shared by many here regarding the relative worth of a "fundie" life compared to that of a right-thinking individual.  Just a look back at the comments made at the time of Falwell's death reaffirm that.  No, I don't think Louis or Stephan have either the capacity or inclination to put a bullet in a fundie's head but at the same time I wouldn't expect them to shed a tear if it happened and based upon past experience they might even cheer.  

We had that same situation in this country a few years back when christian fundamentalists were putting bullets into the heads of abortion doctors and very few members of the christian right made a great effort to express their condemnation.  That was equally repugnant and I would hope that we were beyond that here.  I guess that remains to be seen.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,18:49   

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 30 2007,00:36)
Ian, I neither lied nor made a mistake.  If you go back and read the context of my comments you might see the intent.  Based upon the remarks made on this board consistently I made my determination.  IMO, those comments were not meant as a joke, they represent an actual sentiment that is shared by many here regarding the relative worth of a "fundie" life compared to that of a right-thinking individual.  Just a look back at the comments made at the time of Falwell's death reaffirm that.  No, I don't think Louis or Stephan have either the capacity or inclination to put a bullet in a fundie's head but at the same time I wouldn't expect them to shed a tear if it happened and based upon past experience they might even cheer.  

We had that same situation in this country a few years back when christian fundamentalists were putting bullets into the heads of abortion doctors and very few members of the christian right made a great effort to express their condemnation.  That was equally repugnant and I would hope that we were beyond that here.  I guess that remains to be seen.

You're insane.

While I was in no way saddened by the loss of the "good reverend" he to me, as I'm sure the others will also state, was a special case. If some random perso who happened to believe in fundementalist religion died, I wouldn't mourn them either, just as I wouldn't mourn anyone who has made no impact on my life. Likewise, if one or more mmbers of this forum died, while I wouldn't exactly be apathetic, it would strike me less than the death of a friend who I see day to day.

Point is Skep, you seem to think we want fundyism to die with them, we don't, we want it to die without them having to go first. There are a number of very special cases of people, with a great number of religions I would be less than unhappy to see go because of who they are and what they do. Just because he believed jeebus is coming didn't make Falwell unpopular, it was his hate speech, lying, and bigotry.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,19:18   

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 29 2007,19:36)
...IMO, those comments were not meant as a joke, they represent an actual sentiment that is shared by many here regarding the relative worth of a "fundie" life compared to that of a right-thinking individual.

Skeptic, I was making ready to weigh in on your behalf, because I think "bullets to the head' is, at minimum, pretty bad taste and I can understand offense being taken at that remark, even were it intended as humor, and recognized as such. Lots of humor is intended to offend.

But this literalist comment is ridiculous. REALLY ridiculous.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,20:29   

Skeptic, I hope you don't leave.

I think you are a purty good queer as far as that goes.  Minus all the presuppositional bullshit and the inability to assert that you believe something without good evidence, you are a good sport.  

Falwell was a douchebag.  Objectively.  Don't be one.

toodles

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,20:36   

Ian, while I'm not going to debate Falwell with you, it's clear from your comments that you feel strongly about him, someone that I'm fairly certain you never knew personally.  To extend that to the hypothetical fundie that you don't know, I'd bet if you ever talked to them about their beliefs you'd feel the same way about them.  In short, I'm saying that I don't believe you.  The level of acceptance you hope to convey with your words is completely contradicted by the hostility contained by them.

Erasmus, I have no intention going anywhere but I don't always have the time to be here.

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,21:04   

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 30 2007,02:36)
Ian, while I'm not going to debate Falwell with you, it's clear from your comments that you feel strongly about him, someone that I'm fairly certain you never knew personally.  To extend that to the hypothetical fundie that you don't know, I'd bet if you ever talked to them about their beliefs you'd feel the same way about them.  In short, I'm saying that I don't believe you.  The level of acceptance you hope to convey with your words is completely contradicted by the hostility contained by them.

Erasmus, I have no intention going anywhere but I don't always have the time to be here.

By your logic we can't attack Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao because we never knew them personally.

Absolutely ANYONE who espouses killing others (or even demonising them) deserves no respect. If they are just REALLY crazy on Jesus, (as an uncle of mine is, although he's no sciece denier) then I would be apathetic toward them.

In a similar way to how you don't believe I would be apathetic towards those who don#t share my beliefs, I am completely unconvinced a sane reasonable human being could have found anything that repulsive man did as anything other than objectional. I didn't cheer when he died, but boy was I glad to see him go.He was a dangerous raving bigot, much like Nick griffin of the BNP is in Britain. I don't think he's massively religious, and his views on god don't fuel HIS vile tirades against anyone who he doesn't like, but that doesn't stop me wishing ill on that foul scumbag every time he comes up in the news, does this mean I want all anti immigration people to fall foul of life? No,because they aren't all like him, but I certainly disagree with them, and I CERTAINLY will weep no tears for Nick and his disgusting ilk (all those racists and bigots who pollute the world, of all religions, creeds and colours).

Does that make me a bad person? Up to you I guess.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,22:32   

What's "bad?"  I will say that Louis should read your comments closely.  They are an example of opinion.  Nothing of what you say actually confirms that Falwell or Nick Griffin (not at all familiar with him) are what you say they are but you certainly believe it and you even go so far to assume that no reasonable person would disagree with you.  As to that, you know that you are quite wrong.  There are probably millions of people who would be objectively considered to be sane that completely disagree with you about both men.  If this were not the case then neither of them would have gained the level of notoriety for you to have learned so much about them.  So again, what is "bad?"  Do you want your definition or mine?

  
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,23:10   

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 30 2007,04:32)
What's "bad?"  I will say that Louis should read your comments closely.  They are an example of opinion.  Nothing of what you say actually confirms that Falwell or Nick Griffin (not at all familiar with him) are what you say they are but you certainly believe it and you even go so far to assume that no reasonable person would disagree with you.  As to that, you know that you are quite wrong.  There are probably millions of people who would be objectively considered to be sane that completely disagree with you about both men.  If this were not the case then neither of them would have gained the level of notoriety for you to have learned so much about them.  So again, what is "bad?"  Do you want your definition or mine?

Oh, I quite agree that it's opinion, but I'm not trying to argue I am "right" in anything more than a vauge sense, right for myself, and right for how I see the world perhaps, but nothing more. However, Nick Griffin doesn't have that much support, and all of it is from Neo-Nazis, and other extreme right-wingers.

In my personal opinion, anyone who is bigoted against a group of people for absolutely no reason, AND actively promotes hate and/or violence against that group is "bad". I totally accept that there is no definite "bad" because there is nothing in the universe by which we can hold up a measuring stick and state "this is bad, this is good". That is, I am an absolute moral relativist, but I believe that the social norms of the time dictate what is moral to the people, and my personal experience mediates that norm to form MY morality.

Personaly, if you DON'T consider the actions of these men (not ALL their actions, but those which I find reprehensible) to be disgusting then I don't think I wan't to talk to you. The promotion of hate and violence for any cause is, to me, "bad". I would never, ever advocate killing, or even hurting these people (except in certain circumstances and so on) despite how much I hate them. I am absolutely opposed to the death pealty, ad think that torture is never acceptable. However, I also realise these are MY opinions, but that doesn't mean that I can't regulate who I talk to and how I talk to them based upon them.

Just because someone hates all non white people doesn't make them ABSOLUTELY bad, but in my eyes, they ARE bad, and I would hope that the vast majority of people would agree with me on that. I understand that not everyone does, and that's OK with me, I hate their opinions, but I would fight to the death to defend their right to express them, to paraphrase a famous quote.  However, just because I think they should be allowed to state them, and that I don't think they are any more definitely "correct" than me doesn't mean I can't loathe the opinions of these people, and consider their bigoted views the opinions of vile pond scum of society who promote their own narrow views in order to force their ridiculous hate filled nonsense on others.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
IanBrown_101



Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 29 2007,23:13   

Sorry the above is so wordy.

--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.

You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK

Roddenberry is my God.

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,01:02   

I can agree with most of your sentiment and not knowing anything about NG nor really wanting to debate Falwell I'll just say that what you hear Falwell say and interpret from that and what someone else hears may be two different things.  All things considered I think we both see where the other is coming from.  BTW, you don't have to know someone to criticize them (i.e. Hitler or Stalin) but before you decide on a death sentence, figuratively, it would do well to have a very complete and objective knowledge of that individual, jut my opinion.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,03:17   

Quote
No, I don't think Louis or Stephan have either the capacity or inclination to put a bullet in a fundie's head but at the same time I wouldn't expect them to shed a tear if it happened and based upon past experience they might even cheer.


You have to be fucking kidding me! Erm, I'm a pacifist Skeptic and opposed to the death penalty for all and any crime, and didn't even cheer slightly when that cretin Falwell died (to name but one example). I think your assumption of hostility is, as usual, a convenient ruse for you to avoid supporting your arguments.

Once again you lack the intellectual capacity to understand the difference between frustration at your manifest lack of intellectual honesty and ability, and genuine hostility.

You have claimed that my arguments are supported by nothing more than me asserting them. I say that this is untrue and for you to persist in this claim is dishonest in the face of the available evidence (take the record of this thread as an example). I have asked you to demonstrate your claim with just ONE example. It's quite simple Skeptic, you have made a claim, I and others know for a fact that that claim is untrue. This fact is easy for anyone to demonstrate, all they have to do is look back over this thread (and many others) and see that on not even one single occasion have I EVER made an argument and asserted its veracity on the basis that I made it therefore it is true.

Your "opinion" about the matter is irrelevant, the facts speak for themselves. Again, if you disagree then it is up to you to SUPPORT that claim by providing EVIDENCE. Until you do so then my calling you a liar is not only perfectly justified but horrendously accurate. You have told an untruth, an untruth you cannot and will not support, ergo you re a deliberate purveyor of untruth, a LIAR. Simple English Skeptic, no wonder it's beyond you.

It would also be fun for you to point out any statement I've made advocating or supporting killing fundamentalists (or anyone) as a means of, well, anything positive at all. You won't find one. I don't make them except in the most blatant form of jest, and even then couched in so many disclaimers and obvious caveats as to be utterly obvious.

You as usual clearly have no understanding of either liberal philosophy or ethics, and I do not mean "liberal" in the bowdlerised sense it is used in the USA. Start here: A quote attributed to Voltaire (But actually said by Evelyn Beatrice Hall writing under the pseudonym of Steven J Tallentyre):

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Dear old Falwell, am I sorry he's dead? Nope. Do I (and did I) extend my condolences to his family on the event of his death? Yes. Because I strongly, vehemently, passionately disagree with him and nearly all he stood for does this mean I wanted him dead? No. See the differences yet?

I've said before and I'll say it again Skeptic, you have NO, that is zero, zip, nada, fuck all, comprehension of ANY aspect of my "worldview" (a term that simply doesn't even apply, but I'll use it as a convenient shorthand). You see those who disagree with you as reflections of yourself, just polar opposites on some matters. get it through your skull that this is not the case. Lack of sympathty for your delusions and intellectual vacuity does not equate to hostility in the sense you mean it. Try again, liar.

You are basically playing the "WAH! You're fundies too" card, or more accurately attempting to use the tu quoque fallacy as an attack on me (and others) so you can avoid the responsibilities of your claims. You're also covertly trying to play another silly game: because it's written on a message board it's not fact it's mere opinion. Bullshit Skeptic, I can (and on occasion have) support absolutelty every claim I make with real world evidence, you and I both know that. You can disagree with any comment or claim I make all you like but in the end it's settled on THE EVIDENCE. You have none to support your case and as demonstrated time and again I have plenty. The fact that you continually refuse to support your claims stalls any discussion about them (or related issues) with you at the first hurdle.

Try supporting just ONE claim Skeptic. The claim about my arguments being based on nothing more than my say so. PROVE IT.

I say you cannot and are a liar for continually promoting something that is a demonstrable falsehood. The power to demonstrate that claim is yours. I am saying that every argument I have made here and elsewhere is defended by reems of evidence because I only make arguments I can so defend (my opinion, my arguments are formed by the evidence not the other way around. A point I've made before that you've missed).

To that end I am calling you out Skeptic. Support your claim or retract it. Stop weaselling.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,07:23   

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 30 2007,02:02)
I can agree with most of your sentiment and not knowing anything about NG nor really wanting to debate Falwell I'll just say that what you hear Falwell say and interpret from that and what someone else hears may be two different things.  All things considered I think we both see where the other is coming from.  BTW, you don't have to know someone to criticize them (i.e. Hitler or Stalin) but before you decide on a death sentence, figuratively, it would do well to have a very complete and objective knowledge of that individual, jut my opinion.


A couple of things that I'd like to interject here:

Firstly, on the extreme end of things, I'm going to go further than Louis or Ian on Falwell.  Here's about all anyone needs to know about Falwell, from his own mouth:

   
Quote
   “Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions”

   “AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals”

   “The idea that religion and politics don’t mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country”

   “If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being”

   “Textbooks are Soviet propaganda”

   “There is no separation of church and state. Modern US Supreme Courts have raped the Constitution and raped the Christian faith and raped the churches by misinterpreting what the Founders had in mind in the First Amendment to the Constitution.”

   “The Bible is the inerrant … word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.”

   “The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior.”

   “I do not believe the homosexual community deserves minority status. One’s misbehavior does not qualify him or her for minority status. Blacks, Hispanics, women, etc., are God-ordained minorities who do indeed deserve minority status.”

   “Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them.”

   “And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’”


I'm not sure how "interpretation" is going to help your case here, Skeptic.

Falwell was a disgusting, evil excuse of a human being, whose raison d'être was spreading hate and ignorance, and the world is a better place for his loss.  My only regret is that he didn't publicly choke on his own vomit before he ever had a chance to open his mouth.

Am I happy that he's dead?  I did a jig when I heard the news, so I suppose that could probably be construed as a "yes".

Would I have advocated that someone (to include but not limited to a governmental agency) remove that vile life from this planet?  No.

But as Ian has pointed out, his was an extreme case when all is said and done.  His very public, very loud, very influential voice was the direct and deliberate cause of much suffering and even the deaths of innocent human beings, so I will neither for one second mourn his passing, nor will I extend one iota of sympathy to anyone over his loss, including to his family that strives to continue his legacy of pain and death.

The point of all that is that hearkening back to your comment "people who would be objectively considered to be sane that completely disagree with you", in this instance I think questioning the sanity of anyone who would support Falwell is rather appropriate.

Now, just to be clear so you do not in any wise misunderstand and so that you are not tempted to misquote me, the immense depth of my utter contempt for Jerry Falwell does not extend to all religious people, or to all Christians, or to all fundies.

While I personally think religion in general is inherently silly, Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions in particular are very silly, and fundamentalism specifically is just plain dumb and extremely dangerous, I'm pretty OK with people believing whatever silly things they want - with the caveat that they not be allowed to impose their silliness on the rest of us.

I'd like to see less silliness in the world, but I'd like to see that accomplished with words, not bullets.  I sincerely hope all of that is clear to you, and that you see that some of your previous comments about what others on this board believe about religion and religious people are simply not accurate.  To the best of my knowledge, not one single person who posts here has ever expressed, implied, or would even consider supporting the idea of killing fundies as you have previously, and erroneously, inferred.

The second thing I'm going to interject here is that you've asserted that Louis makes unsupported claims and he has called you on that assertion.

Please support your claim or retract it so the thread can move on.  One example will do.

The third thing I'm going to interject is that if you've read every word of this comment, you really need to get a life.  Go smell some roses.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,12:50   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 26 2007,09:29)
Steve and/or Wes,

I've been watching the conversation in this thread, to see where it would go.

While Stephen does make an excellent and topical point about Fundies' inability to let go of their nonsense for any reason short of their own demise, it was probably not phrased as well as it might have been and the conversation has keyed on that and whether it was humor for a while now.

If you get a moment, I'd appreciate it if one of you might move everything from that comment to this one to the BW, with the exception of Steve's Homer Simpson illustration which was in response to something said earlier.

I'll duplicate this note to you both via PM.

Thanks,

BWButtonless Lou

I consider that rather patronising and since so many posts have been removed it is now difficult to defend my post in context.

I do not really advocate killing religious people because of their views. Good grief, most religious people that I know use their beliefs to help people who are worse-off than they are. That is kinda admirable.

That is not always the case. Some people use religion to justify persecution of others. I do not like that.

Now. (Becoming a tad more agressive.) Had I been in the right place at the right time on the 7th July. I would have happilly shot those bombers in the head if it would save the lives of those poor people that got killed by fundies. Anyway, who would that harm? The suiciders would have got their way and become martyrs and the inocents would have got home/to work/wherever.

My reply to Skeptic was delliberately flipant because I think he(?) has been doing nothing more than winding people up on this (and other) threads. So I did a bit of winding up too.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,14:31   

Quote (Louis @ Aug. 30 2007,12:15)
Or even, for the sake of completeness Steve, if I have made a mistake Skeptic/Lenny could point that out. Using things like quotes from my posts and explanations of where the mistake is, you know, things like that. Of course this would rely on them actually dealing with the arguments I have made, which both of them are statedly unwilling to do. Such a dilemma!

After all, as I am a mere pitiable, reductionist, biased, fundamentalist, materialist, atheist my mistakes should be easy to find and point out.

Right?

I wonder why, when these erudite and intellectually honest gentlemen who never misunderstand an argument, raise straw men or quote mine have me on the ropes, they don't actually point out where the error is.

I think it's because they are above such petty things as reason and evidence.

Louis

OK. I see two errors.

One: Lenny's point wasn't particularly complicated nor necessarily sophisticated but for some reason he couldn't just go over the edge and say it: maybe some kind of a restatement of Gödel's theorum, Emotion is what makes us tick and all science can do is quantify our experiences, it cannot measure them because the actual scale is subjective. Even though Louis's point of defining the terms to make them make sense is valid, it does not address what I saw as the underlying problem lenny was addressing. Which is, the only way to find the answer to a subjective question is to ask the subject. We have to learn to believe or not believe the results based on many things but we can't ever use them to assume truth the same way we can know how many neurons it takes to screw in a light bulb.

And two: Lenny mixed up the marbles or stirred the beans or whatever when he equated religion with subjective truth. He didn't notice that he'd done it and you all thought he did. Oops. I'm betting he basically meant that science can only make a map of the landscape, it cannot be the landscape.

All in all though, some impressive obtuseness, insults and skeptic-isms in there so far. We'll see. I'll have to pick it back up on monday.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,17:46   

Louis, since I have a free moment I'll point something elementary out to you.  The basic premise of this thread is a question of whether or not there is a necessary conflict between science and faith.  Any answer to that is nothing more than opinion.  There is no empirical measure of science intersecting faith.  There are many different views voiced by many different people bu there is no definitive right answer.  All your so-called "facts" supporting your belief are nothing more than justification for your opinion.  Just because your personal justification convinces you does not mean that the matter has been settled, i.e. your say-so.  

Failure to understand this simple logic is rampant throughout your writing.  You can become as frustrated as you like but I find it unnecessary to completely justify my opinion because it is nothing more than that.  I'm fully capable of recognizing an impasse and saving my breath.  Plus, I personally do not care if you agree with me; your lack of agreement in no way nullifies my position.

Just to clarify, I've never lied on any post on any thread on this board and I have stated my opinion frequently.  Again, I tell you to learn what those two words actually mean and not what you wish them to mean.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,18:31   

Quote
The basic premise of this thread is a question of whether or not there is a necessary conflict between science and faith.

Huge difference between faith and religion. Once you make a specific claim that is OBJECTIVE, there a reason for a rift begins.


Quote
Any answer to that is nothing more than opinion.  There is no empirical measure of science intersecting faith.  There are many different views voiced by many different people bu there is no definitive right answer.  


I beg to differ. There are empirical measures. Those measures would be any positive claim arising from faith. Any, that is, that go beyond internal subjective states.

Quote
All your so-called "facts" supporting your belief are nothing more than justification for your opinion.  Just because your personal justification convinces you does not mean that the matter has been settled, i.e. your say-so.


Louis did an excellent job of stating his case IMHO.  He stated in the OP,
Quote
What I DO mean is that the mechanisms of acquiring knowledge about the universe advocated by science and religion are very different and give different results. They are absolutely anathema to each other, and this is where the very real, very valid conflict between science and religion has its basis.
If I may be so bold as to presume, Louis' point is that faith/ revelation cannot achieve objective truth. For example, faith cannot inform us about the creation of the universe nor any events thereafter. This, I think, is not in dispute. Religion has no role in determining any kind of moral or subjective truth either because those are personal decisions even though they may be based on common experience. Which puts religion in a bit of a tricky place. Itself, it has no value. As a framework for meditation, office space for thinkers, it is a shell that is utterly interchangeable with other shells.

Quote
Failure to understand this simple logic is rampant throughout your writing.  You can become as frustrated as you like but I find it unnecessary to completely justify my opinion because it is nothing more than that.  I'm fully capable of recognizing an impasse and saving my breath.  Plus, I personally do not care if you agree with me; your lack of agreement in no way nullifies my position.


I don't agree. You do appear to be writing in good faith and my answer is in good faith, but it appears that you really don't understand what the good Louis is saying. He is saying that, once you put your opinion into words, or perhaps more appropriately put it into a positive claim, it becomes empirically testable and then falls apart.

What Lenny was getting at, and what you might have missed, is something that at least looks familiar to me. Whether I got it right I only assume. Faith and internal subjective experiences of existence are not the words used to describe them just as the terrain is not  a map. Thus the words can never substitute for the experience, they can merely describe them. Louis covered this in his deism stuff in the OP but then began clubbing about with a large stick those who wish to maintain this separation. I very much wish to maintain this separation but I enjoy his style so it didn't irk me.

If religion is simply acknowledging the scope of the universe and having some reverence for existence, then there is no rift. This is where I am religiously for example. I call myself a Unitarian because I have been to a Unitarian church and that seems to me to be what they are saying. They make no promises nor any special claims to knowledge. But they state a compassion and reverence toward life and they try to live according to those principles.  If that were religion, I doubt this board would have a need to exist.

However, it is not what our common experience of religion looks like.

Quote
Just to clarify, I've never lied on any post on any thread on this board and I have stated my opinion frequently.  Again, I tell you to learn what those two words actually mean and not what you wish them to mean.


If your opinion makes no positive claims then you appear to be on solid footing here. As far as lying goes, I like to use the word when it seem apropos but I have to say, I don't see it as lying. It's a complicated subject and I think the differences have been semantic. I don't think they are differing opinion however, I think they are differing definitions. For example, faith/=religion. Subjective/=nonsense. Objective/=experience.

Those words are hanging you up I think.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,19:58   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 30 2007,13:50)
I consider that rather patronising and since so many posts have been removed it is now difficult to defend my post in context.

Apologies Stephen, I did not intend to be patronising.

I understand the current position in which I have inadvertently put you, I was really trying to steer this conversation away from its current course.

I have obviously failed miserably.

Ya live, Ya learn I suppose.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,20:13   

I think all this business might be distilled down to the Mumonkoan (google it up, jerks).  

There is no conflict, in principle, between faith and science.  There is, in practice, as soon as any particular empirical claim from faith is evaluated.

The mumonkoan gives multiple ways to resolve this paradox.  I have used one upstream:  what skeptic searches for is like riding the oxen in search of the oxen.

the most satisfactory resolution of this dilemma, to me, is to acknowledge the patent absurdity of the relation of the two.  of course this has ontological implications (I can no longer seriously maintain that there are in fact Little People in the woods, but I sure can't prove that there aren't.  and there is a lot of history behind this story).  Compartmentalizing just prolongs the friction.  Somewhere in an orthogonal dimension lies the resolution.

It is not the flag moving, it is not the wind moving, it is your mind moving.

And some sort of deconstructionist disassociative non-realism is healthy for a personal narrative, I think.  All the while recognizing that our daily lives are bounded by empirical realities.

Now I am wondering if I am high, or if I should be high?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,20:15   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 30 2007,21:13)
Now I am wondering if I am high, or if I should be high?

Oddly enough, so was I.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,20:29   

In case you are already high


Quote
CASE 16. UN-MON'S SEVEN-FOLD ROBE

Un-mon said, "The world is vast and wide; for what is it you put on your seven-piece robe at the sound of the bell?"

Mumon's Comment:
When one meditates and studies Zen, one extinguishes the attachment to sound and color. Even though some have attained enlightenment by hearing a sound, or an awakening by seeing a color, these are ordinary matters. Those who intend to master Zen freely master sounds or colors, see clearly the nature of things and every activity of mind. Even though this is so, now tell me: Does the sound come to the ear, or does the ear go to the sound? But when both sound and silence are forgotten, what would you call this state? If you listen with your ear, it is hard to hear truly, but if you listen with your eye, then you begin to hear properly.

If you are awakened, all things are one and the same,
If you are not awakened, all things are varied and distinguished.
If you are not awakened, all things are one and the same,
If you are awakened, all things are varied and distinguished.


Also a poem written by Ho Chi Minh and reproduced in the Anarchist Cookbook is quite beautiful and speaks to the disassociative element that is the (IMHO) most fruitful method of resolving the NOMA conflict (the orthogonal axis).

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,20:44   

I anticipated this but I thought I could offer a short example to at least present my position.

There a thousands of questions that have no empirical answer.  How do you feel?  What is the meaning of life?  How does blue feel?  Is there a God? The issue that follows is whether or not the answers to these questions constitute knowledge.  I think this is the crux of the matter.

Let's look at the following example.  What does blue feel like?  Assume the answer "blue feels cold."  Critics will say that this answer can not be considered knowledge, that it means nothing.  This is where I disagree.  The answer represents knowledge to the individual answering the question as they are able to relate a color to an emotion and then use this analogy to further their understanding of colors, emotions, the universe, etc.  Additionally, if this answer is presented to others then they will nod their heads in agreement as they agree that blue is cold.  Also, others may say "no, green is cold not blue."  It isn't even important that everyone agrees how blue feels but that the concept is shared and it offers knowledge concerning the nature of colors, emotions, the universe, etc.  Is this answer testable?  No.  There is no empirical measure of how blue feels.  Obviously, this question can be converted to an empirical one: "based upon this test group, what does blue feel like to the majority?"  It is also obvious that these two questions are not the same.

What this amounts to is there are sources of knowledge that are not empirically based because the answers given are not empirical answers.  Take the question, does God exist?  This is not a scientific question because it can never be falsified.  This restricts science from examining questions such as this and there is nothing wrong with that.  Additionally, there really shouldn't be any competition between answers given by science and answers given by faith because the questions will not be the same and the scope of the answers are not comparable.

I think the conflict is invoked when science attempts to answer non-empirical questions and faith attempts to answer empirical ones.  My contention is that it is required of faith to answer empirical questions nor is it required of science to answer non-empirical ones.  Thus there is no necessary conflict.  Mistakes are made when the question is asked in the wrong way and the answer is required in the wrong scope.

I hope I've stated this in a coherent manner.  If not, as this is not a unique opinion, feel free to consult any number of other authors who have stated this position much more eloquently than I.  But, most important, this is my opinion and a shared opinion which means it is not the answer.  It is an answer but by it's very existence it proposes a situation in which science and faith do not necessarily conflict which means that there is no need for science and faith to conflict.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,20:53   

and that is all the 'in principle' world of faith.

but, and we can point to bazillions of examples, this is not the actual practice of faith.

the actual practice of faith is to go about spewing unwarranted assertions about everything from dinosaur diets to the sex life of Jeeeeeesus to the ass end of fracterial blagellums to the distance to Alpha Centauri.  And like it or not skeptic you have been guilty of this as well with all of your contrived metaphysical dualism gambit.  

All that any of us have ever said (strike that, I'll speak for myself) is the acknowledgment that you are talking out of your ass when you do that.  Perhaps it is my fault for not acknowledging that implicitly whenever you speak, but the history of this thread is exactly that particular problem, plus some hilarious diversions.

So by pointing out that there are nonsensical questions that have nonsensical answers in no way have you reduced all questions to that same level of foolishness.  Love ya, mean it, but you can't do that.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,21:30   

Quote (skeptic @ Nov. 30 2007,20:44)
There a thousands of questions that have no empirical answer.  How do you feel?  What is the meaning of life?  How does blue feel?  Is there a God? The issue that follows is whether or not the answers to these questions constitute knowledge.  I think this is the crux of the matter.

Let's look at the following example.  What does blue feel like?  Assume the answer "blue feels cold."  Critics will say that this answer can not be considered knowledge, that it means nothing.  This is where I disagree.  The answer represents knowledge to the individual answering the question as they are able to relate a color to an emotion and then use this analogy to further their understanding of colors, emotions, the universe, etc.  Additionally, if this answer is presented to others then they will nod their heads in agreement as they agree that blue is cold.  Also, others may say "no, green is cold not blue."  It isn't even important that everyone agrees how blue feels but that the concept is shared and it offers knowledge concerning the nature of colors, emotions, the universe, etc.  Is this answer testable?  No.

Quote
There a thousands of questions that have no empirical answer.  How do you feel?  What is the meaning of life?  How does blue feel?  Is there a God? The issue that follows is whether or not the answers to these questions constitute knowledge.  I think this is the crux of the matter.
I agree here.

Quote
Let's look at the following example.  What does blue feel like?  Assume the answer "blue feels cold."  Critics will say that this answer can not be considered knowledge, that it means nothing.  This is where I disagree.  


I think a critic would be a lot more likely to say that cannot be considered objective knowledge. I doubt a critic would say it means nothing. It is words that describe the inner landscape. It is a partial map of the unquantifiable thing. But it adds nothing to objective knowledge. It is subjective information that allows others to navigate emotional states. There is no positive claim about objective truth. Even if 100% of us feel the same way, it has no objective value other than as a statistic about how we say we feel about it. That's a bit narrow and I'll have to revisit in the morning.

Quote
The answer represents knowledge to the individual answering the question as they are able to relate a color to an emotion and then use this analogy to further their understanding of colors, emotions, the universe, etc.  Additionally, if this answer is presented to others then they will nod their heads in agreement as they agree that blue is cold.  Also, others may say "no, green is cold not blue."  It isn't even important that everyone agrees how blue feels but that the concept is shared and it offers knowledge concerning the nature of colors, emotions, the universe, etc.  Is this answer testable?  No.


Right there. You went off track right there. It offers subjective knowledge but not objective knowledge. It is in and of itself a subjective piece of knowledge. In other words, once you define the terms enough to quantify it, it becomes testable and thus would create conflict between science and religion.

Here's a link to some good woo on the subject.

Not that I endorse the views of the author(s) but it talks about subjective/objective reasonably well in a kind of western way.

It's a bit of a read but I can't condense it easily.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 30 2007,22:56   

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush. Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, so early in the morning.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,00:24   

But this time it's my turn.
:)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,02:36   

I think the distinction between subjective and objective is largely irrelevant.  To go further it may actually be redundant.  The question may actually be whether or not subjective knowledge has any value.  I believe it does and it can not be approached empirically.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,03:36   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 01 2007,04:56)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush. Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, so early in the morning.

Oh for fuck's sake.

You know Bill, I couldn't agree with you more.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,03:37   

BWE,

You've missed a couple of points of my arguments. I'll have to expand that for you later as I'm off to the gym in a minute.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,03:42   

Skeptic,

Yet again you demonstrate you cannot read for even basic comprehension.

The word "necessary" does not appear in the title of the thread and changes its meaning entirely. There IS conflict between science and religion based on the underlying differences in basic epistemological claims being made and methods being used. That is, sorry to say, an undeniable fact. Never the twain shall meet. What we do about that, how it is handled in practical terms is an entirely different question. It does not follow that because there is an epistemological conflict between two things that there must be antipathy. This simple fact has been pointed out to you time and time and time again. You simply reaasserting your already demonstrably false buillshit doesn't constitute an argument. The rest of your utterly vacuous shite I'll eviscerate AGAIN later.

Oh and while you're at it I noticed you haven't demonstrated even the basic backbone and honesty required to support your claim that I am arguing by assertion alone. Please do so. Both I and a moderator have asked you to do this. Until then you are demonstrated liar. Again.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,07:44   

Sorry, Louis, I don't have to do so because you're about to do it yourself.  Remind me at any point in your upcoming blundering that you do anything more than state opinion.

Quote
There IS conflict between science and religion based on the underlying differences in basic epistemological claims being made and methods being used. That is, sorry to say, an undeniable fact.


That sure sounds necessary to me.  And just a small hint, there's no "fact" there, again that's your opinion.  You haven't even started talking yet and I'm already growing tired of pointing this out.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,08:54   

Skeptic,

I'm completely unwilling to play your silly games any further. I have, over the course of several posts, taken some reasonable quantity of time and effort to explain these issues in some detail. What do you want? References? They're easy enough to provide after all. Why do you think I have to go back and repeat arguments that you failed to deal with in any sense the first 3 or 4 times I made them? I cannot engage in any form of discussion or debate with someone who simply will not engage the arguments made.

Throughout this thread you have deliberately a) avoided supporting any of your claims by any means other than assertion (i.e. you failed the point of this thread), b) completely failed to deal with any of the actual arguments I and others have made (i.e. you failed the point of reasoned discourse), and c) continually shifted goalposts, bashed up strawmen and relied on a series of logical fallacies and appeals to ignorance (i.e. you have failed to manage even the very basics of coherency). These are not my opinions, they are demonstrable facts, the evidence being your own posts on this thread. If you had managed to deal with my arguments you would have managed to do the one basic thing I've been asking you to do and restate them to my satisfaction. It's not a trick, it's not a time waste, it's a simple request made to at least attempt to engender some basic understanding. I'm more than happy to do the same for your arguments by the way...well I WAS more than happy. Your manifest lack of honesty, intellectual ability and good will prevents any rational, reasoned discourse. I may have mentioned this before.

Even in your last post you yet again fall foul of the Is/Ought fallacy. The fact that there are unresolvable epistemological differences between reason and faith does not in any way dictate our actions. I can recognise (for example) that there are theological differences between Protestants and Catholics, that does not in any way mean I support or advocate the Northern Irish Troubles as a means of resolving some of those differencees. DO you understand what the Is/Ought fallacy is and why it is fallacious?

ARGH! I'm wasting my time. You are a dishonest moron, demonstrated as such time and again, and you are manifestly not interested in discussion of ANY kind because you simply refuse to participate in it. Not my opinion, simple, observable fact based on YOUR behaviour here. There is ONLY one person who can change this: YOU. YOU can deal with my arguments as stated. YOU can support your claims. I cannot do this for you. The first thing you need to justify is your claim that I have made ANY argument supported ONLY by "Because I said it, it is true". I know for a fact that I have never done this. Everyone reading these threads knows for a fact that I have never done this. You are delieberately perpetuating an untruth, i.e. you are lying. Sort yourself out.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,09:08   

Oh and just to remind everyone:

I started out right from the beginning making a distinction between faith and reason, and religion and science. The epistemological conflict I am talking about exists between faith and reason as mechanisms of acquiring knowledge about the universe. This is, amazingly enough, not a controversial claim! Even NOMA proponents recognise this conflict. Even religious philosophers and theologians recognise this conflict. It's existance is not controversial. How to deal with it is. The arguments I have made on this thread have been ONLY to deal with explaining the existance of the conflict and the ramifications that has in episemological terms. I have not in any way stated a series of practical solutions for how to deal with it.

But I have gone over this several times in this thread already. As anyone who has actually bothered to read what I've posted would know. Someone please tell me, when did not reading or listening to your partner's comments in a conversation or debate, and then subsequently fail to deal with them at all suddenly become a reasoned discourse. I've got to be blunt, I'm fucking disgusted.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,09:19   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 01 2007,13:44)
Sorry, Louis, I don't have to do so because you're about to do it yourself.  Remind me at any point in your upcoming blundering that you do anything more than state opinion

WHERE??? Quote me! Prove your claim that ANYWHERE I make an argument of the form "X is true because I say so". Find just ONE instance of me doing this, anywhere at anytime.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,09:29   

blah ,blah, blah.  same old crap again.  I'm beginning to think that English is your second language, which would explain a lot.  Look up the word conflict.  Faith and reason are not necessarily in conflict.  When applied appropriately, faith and reason never cross paths because they don't even address the same questions and therefore NO CONFLICT.  It is only when YOU force Faith to be something it is not or Reason to be something it is not does conflict arise.  This is a FALSE conflict engineered by you, or whomever else forces this situation.  To be clear, many on both sides make this mistake but it is unnecessary.  Peaceful co-existence is an option, a very good option, it just requires people to take it without being ruled by their prejudices.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,09:31   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 01 2007,09:19)
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 01 2007,13:44)
Sorry, Louis, I don't have to do so because you're about to do it yourself.  Remind me at any point in your upcoming blundering that you do anything more than state opinion

WHERE??? Quote me! Prove your claim that ANYWHERE I make an argument of the form "X is true because I say so". Find just ONE instance of me doing this, anywhere at anytime.

Louis

Show me where you state anything other than an opinion?

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,09:56   

Honestly, Skeptic.

You made the claim, you should at least be able to point to one instance.

If your objective is nothing more than to rile Louis up, then just knock it off.  It's quickly becoming annoying.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,10:16   

Skeptic,

See, erm, every one of my previous posts. Follow the chain of reasoning, follow the arguments, follow them back to the very real world evidence I've mentioned. Do you understand that I am not stating my opinion and fitting evidence to it (something you would do but have failed to manage EVEN this!), but that I fit my opinion to the evidence? Do you not even see the distinction?

I've explained precisely what the nature of the epistemological conflict is. I've explained why it exists, on what basis. I've explained it in very simple terms I'd expect a reasonably bright high school student to comprehend. AND YET! You simply do not engage it at all in any sense, you hand wave it away totally. How is that honest behaviour from you? Like I said do you want references? Will that keep you happy?

Fine, just picking the books I've read that support the epistemological conflict between reason and faith on the bottom two shelves of the philosophy, history, religion and humanities bookcase in my home office, and that have some relevance to the topics discussed previously:

Hegel: The Science of Logic, The Philosophy of History,

Benedictus de Spinoza: The Complete Works (I was too lazy to buy all the books individually)

Andrew Dickson Wright: History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom: v. 1, Pt. 1  and Pt II.

A C Grayling: Against All Gods, The Form of Things

Paul Boghossian: Fear of Knowledge

Rudolf Carnap and R.A. George (Translator): The Logical Structure of the World and Pseudoproblems in Philosophy

Daniel Dennett: Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness, Breaking the Spell, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Consciousness Explained, Freedom Evolves

Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Peter Gay: The Enlightenment vols 1 and 2

Norman Hampson: The Enlightenment

Roy Porter: Enlightenment

Charles Freeman: The Closing of the Western Mind

Immanuel Kant: A Critique of Practical Reason, A Critique of Pure Reason

Douglas Hofstadter: Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid.

David Hume: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, A Treatise of Human Nature, On Suicide

Frederick Nietsche: Human, All Too Human, The Gay Science, Beyond Good and Evil, Thus Spake Zarathustra, The Antichrist

Albert Camus: The Myth of Sisyphus

Bertrand Russell: Sceptical Essays, Why I Am Not A Christian and Other Essays, Religion and Science, The Problems of Philosophy, The History of Western Philosophy

James Rachels: The Elements of Moral Philosophy (With a Dictionary of Philosophical Terms....VERY USEFUL!!!)

John Cottingham: Western Philosophy: An Anthology

George Smith: Atheism, the Case Against God

H Mackie: The Miracle of Theism

St Thomas Aquinas: Summa Theologica, Selected Writings (admittedly I've only read the first three and a half volumes out of five. I started to get bored)

St Augustine: The Confessions

Various: The Bible (King James Translation), The Qu'Ran, The Guru Granth Sahib.... ok that's enough

Ok that's nearly the whole bottom of that bookcase! I'm not even mentioning the hoardes of popular science books by people like Dawkins, Gould etc, or the books on the philosophy of biology for example or on consilience or just about atheism or scepticism. Believe me when I say that these books are JUST THE BEGINNING. I'm aware of how limited my knowledge of these topics is. Nor do I claim to agree with every facet or claim or argument of every book. All I am saying is that every one of them acknowledges the epistemological conflict between faith and reason and at the most basic level the context based explanation I have given for the types of questions asked earlier in the thread. The majority of these books and philosophers etc SUPPORT my view, or rather I should say that my views are based on the majority of those books because THAT is the way around it happens. What do you want next? Lists of sociological studies I've read demonstrating the relativist nature of morals? Lists of other books demonstrating the failure of faith as an epistemological method? Is it still possible that you DON'T Understand the distinction I have been making since the first post.

Handwaving an argument away and not dealing with it is not discussion or debate Skeptic. Do you understand that very simple thing? When will you learn to read?

Again Skeptic, for the love of all that is wonderous in the universe: try restating my arguments to my satisfaction. Just try. I guarantee you that understanding will flow. Note: I don't say agreement, I say understanding. Try it. You might be amazed.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,10:25   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 01 2007,15:56)
Honestly, Skeptic.

You made the claim, you should at least be able to point to one instance.

If your objective is nothing more than to rile Louis up, then just knock it off.  It's quickly becoming annoying.

Lou,

Skeptic is and clearly has been trolling for a while. He is not in ANY WAY engaging in a debate or discussion. He has singularly and completely failed to support even ONE of his claims in any way and equally singularly and completely failed to engage any argument put to him by anyone.

His asinine assumptions of hostility are more than evident, never so clearly as in this latest "bullet" episode of his manufacture. He DEMONSTRABLY is a pig ignorant, dishonest, concern troll and wind up merchant. Why the fuck he is tolerated at all by anyone is beyond me.

Granted, I am not the most polite fucker on the planet by any means. A charge I openly and frequently hold my hands up to at any opportunity. But at least I try, and try very very hard, to engender a reasoned discourse with people I disagree with. My frustration stems ONLY from dealing with people like Skeptic who refuse to engage in that discourse honestly, fairly and with the same modicum of intellectual rigour and humility I would expect from anyone.

Why even these very, very basic aspects of rational discourse are deemed so difficult as to be unrequired as a condition of being able to post here is beyond me. Why people like Skeptic are tolerated beyond the point where it is undeniably demonstrated that their sole purpose is to annoy is equally beyond me. Banning dishonest, disruptive morons because they are dishonest, disruptive morons is not equitable with UD banning people for simply dissenting. There is a categorical difference between banning someone because you don't like what they say (despicable) and banning someone because they contribute nothing positive and cannot even begin to support the simplest and most basic of claims or argue in a coherent, honest fashion. I'm reminded of something I reads in the Lipstadt book recently: Freedom of Speech does not equate to providing a platform for that speech.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,10:34   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 01 2007,10:29)
Faith and reason are not necessarily in conflict.  When applied appropriately, faith and reason never cross paths because they don't even address the same questions and therefore NO CONFLICT.

There's the rub.

For the sake of discussion, I'll stipulate your assertion, with the emphasis upon the bolded proviso. We can then conclude that when conflict IS evident between the claims of faith and the claims of reason/science, that either faith, reason, or both have been misapplied.

Way upthread I offered the example of agentic souls. Although you don't personally conceptualize soul in this way, many Christians, as well as adherents of other faiths, do integrate agentic souls into their picture of morality and its consequences. There is no question that agentic souls, to the extent that they are the wellspring of actions, DO enter into a domain claimed (at least in principle) by neuroscience, cognitive science, psychology, etc.

Similarly, ID (when honestly presented) makes claims in that conflict with the natural sciences, and advocates modes of reasoning that conflict with those employed by the natural sciences for the purpose of admitting a supernatural designer into the picture. 

In these instances, in which conflict is clearly evident, which is inappropriately applied? In what way was it inappropriately applied?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,12:23   

OK, I'm at page 25.

Skeptic: Thick
Louis: Angry

I'm getting to the really good part.

Louis, I see you've answered my earlier post already so, unless you want to drill down a bit and critique that woo link I posted, or unless you've modified your reasonnong, I'm good with that.

Damn, this is a good thread.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,12:31   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 01 2007,18:23)
OK, I'm at page 25.

Skeptic: Thick
Louis: Angry

I'm getting to the really good part.

Louis, I see you've answered my earlier post already so, unless you want to drill down a bit and critique that woo link I posted, or unless you've modified your reasonnong, I'm good with that.

Damn, this is a good thread.

LOL

No wait...

ROFLMAO

Louis: Angry.

Yup that about sums up slightly too many aspects of my life for comfort!

The rest: erm woo link? I must have missed it. Sorry, I was at the gym earlier (as explained) and I've got a game tomorrow, that always makes me a little more {ahem} "pumped" than perhaps I should be. And no I don't take 'roids. That would be very very bad.

Louis

P.S. Added in edit:  Good thread? Not for me. We didn't even get past the starting gate as far as I'm concerned. This thread (apart from a very few highlights provided by Bill and others) has yet to get beyond "Intro to Basic Philosophy 101".

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,12:54   

Quote (skeptic @ Sep. 01 2007,21:02)
faith can be used as a means to acquire knowledge if tenets for the faith are extrapolated to address new questions.  Abortion is not addressed as such in the Bible but an understanding of the murder concept allows abortion to be addressed.  New knowledge is thus gained using faith alone.

See, it's stuff like this. I think it's simply blinkers that keep out the outside world. I don't think you mean the implied parts of your words Skeptic. You are a bit thick here. Subjective knowledge and objective knowledg are substantially different things and do not inform our actions the same way. Our knowledge of gravity informs our actions in a much different way than does our knowledge of love.

Thanks.

BWE

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,13:02   

Quote (BWE @ Nov. 30 2007,21:30)
Right there. You went off track right there. It offers subjective knowledge but not objective knowledge. It is in and of itself a subjective piece of knowledge. In other words, once you define the terms enough to quantify it, it becomes testable and thus would create conflict between science and religion.

Here's a link to some good woo on the subject.

Not that I endorse the views of the author(s) but it talks about subjective/objective reasonably well in a kind of western way.

Here's my woo link.

BTW, Immanuel Kant: A Critique of Practical Reason, A Critique of Pure Reason- Did you read that in German or were you flogged by your ethics professor until you could understand the English translation? For me it was the second. I'm glad I read it but I will probably never open it again.

OTOH, a lot of other authors reference Kant so I probably would never have to.

Added in Edit: It's a good thread for me because I love brawling. Also because Bill, erasmus and stephen elliot (and others, that just happens to be where i am at the moment) dug down deep for some exceptional additions and running commentary.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,13:07   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 01 2007,12:31)
And no I don't take 'roids. That would be very very bad.

I can't believe no one took the bait here. It was masterfully baited Louis. It was us who were too thick rather than any reflection on your baiting technique.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,13:09   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 01 2007,19:07)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 01 2007,12:31)
And no I don't take 'roids. That would be very very bad.

I can't believe no one took the bait here. It was masterfully baited Louis. It was us who were too thick rather than any reflection on your baiting technique.

It wasn't bait per se. It was merely an opportunity to explore some humourous asides.

You lot too thick? Doubtful. Very doubtful. Very, very doubtful. With some exceptions.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,14:05   

I haz come to decision. Don't get mad, get LOLcats.

Until Skeptic decides to deal with arguments in a rational manner I shall mock him via the medium of the LOLCat.



Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,15:16   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 01 2007,09:19)
 
Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 01 2007,13:44)
Sorry, Louis, I don't have to do so because you're about to do it yourself.  Remind me at any point in your upcoming blundering that you do anything more than state opinion

WHERE??? Quote me! Prove your claim that ANYWHERE I make an argument of the form "X is true because I say so". Find just ONE instance of me doing this, anywhere at anytime.

Louis

Sticking pins in my eyes might be less painfull than reading skeptics posts.

A good example about believing that religious thinking is a bad idea can be seen in the teacher mallarky in Sudan. Reality, reason, evidence does not matter with those lunatics. Despite all the evidence they want to kill her anyway.

Skeptic is not much different. Argue all you want. Show all the evidence you have. Skeptic will still say it is only your opinion and his* opinion is just as valid despite not providing any evidence for his* claims.


*Gender is just a guess.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,15:53   

Apparently there is a rift between science and religion.
see this thread.

Where I wrote:
Quote
So, that all said, my perspective on whether you can have an intellectually honest christian/muslim/pagan/hindu/whatever depends on their take on the belief. If they believe the stories in theor books then I have to say no, you can't. Have you ever heard the old saying, "give us the child till he's 7 and we'll give you the man"? It's a catholic school saying. I say give the books to a reasonably bright kid and let him read them before you talk about it and you get someone who has been innoculated against the evolutionarily advantagous trait of our species to use hate and fear to galvanize small bands of semi helpless animals together to fight the competitors for whatever niche or child labor force they happen to be exploiting. I have never gotten over my shock when I learned that a girl I wanted to , er, take to the movies or a malt shop, was xian. Really xian! She actually believed! In all outward ways she appeared normal. In fact in some areas, she was above average. But scratch the surface and bizzarro world lay out before you. She offered to take me to her church but i never went. The first time I ever attended a church was with my wife. She dragged me. Insisted. I might have been 25 or so? It turned out to be evangelical and the pastors very first words were "No amount of good deeds could have saved Ghandi from ####."

My suspicions were confirmed and so far, it's 100%. Those who appear normal yet profess faith, it's a code word. It means something on the continuum between "I Like to hang out with other people and do things in my community" and I" like this stuff. What did you say it was again?"

And I think I was right.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,16:24   

Louis, I have to assume that you're just not that smart.  You've proven that you can cut an paste but have you ever read any of those books?  If you have then you should know that they are loaded with opinion, in fact, what is philosophy but opinion.  Making a valid argument does not constitute evidence.  Group think does not constitute evidence.  Providing others opinions agreeing or disagreeing with yours still does not constitute evidence.  The answers to these questions are not found in formulas, in statistics, through chemical analysis, etc.  Two people are not certain to get the same answer by asking it the same way.  Your denial is telling here but it is also exhausting.  Go find someone else to argue with about faith and reason cause I'm really not sure that you understand either.

Bill, I think the conflict arise from both ignorance and a need to categorize everything.  In the question of the soul, if it exists, we're dealing with something beyond our ability to describe at this time or maybe ever.  We may simply lack the ability to access the soul.  The need to force a definition of it's nature in terms we can understand is the problem.  From a theological standpoint, the so-called physical component of the soul has no impact.  The important aspects of the soul are all transcendent and are meant to teach the individual.  There is no requirement of an understanding of the soul's relation to physical reality in order to learn those lessons.

BWE, the two types of knowledge are different, true.  I would never dispute that.  What I am saying is there is no reason to make this distinction because that is the nature of this whole discussion.  Faith and Reason, Objective and Subjective...same topic.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,16:32   

Well there is a rift between orthodox religion and science. Religion once served as a method to explain the world around them. It's not that wierd that 2 millenia ago the most logical answer to lots of answers was a supreme being. People just couldn't imagine anything else. Only recently we're been exploring other options with reason and no longer with emotion. That way of thinking is pretty young, only about 2 century's. But the other way, the emotional or religious way is as old as mankind. No wonder there is conflict, the emotional way is totally baked into our society. People generally don't like change, don't like uncertanty's. Religious explanations offer security because they're so old and thus lots of people are emotionally bonded to those explanations.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,16:45   

Skeptic you are no longer Sophist, Obliviot, or anything else.

You are now Solipcist.

How do you even know that you are really here posting on this board?  Perhaps I dreamed you up?  Perhaps you dreamed me up?  What is the criterion for distinguishing between the two?  What if that criterion conflicts with my faith?  What then should I do?

I know you really don't believe this bullshit.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,17:10   

Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 01 2007,16:32)
Well there is a rift between orthodox religion and science. Religion once served as a method to explain the world around them. It's not that wierd that 2 millenia ago the most logical answer to lots of answers was a supreme being. People just couldn't imagine anything else. Only recently we're been exploring other options with reason and no longer with emotion. That way of thinking is pretty young, only about 2 century's. But the other way, the emotional or religious way is as old as mankind. No wonder there is conflict, the emotional way is totally baked into our society. People generally don't like change, don't like uncertanty's. Religious explanations offer security because they're so old and thus lots of people are emotionally bonded to those explanations.

Yes, religion is a completely different matter and from what I see it is purposefully conflicting with science but the opposite is also true.  I will not defend either one in this case.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,17:13   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 01 2007,16:45)
Skeptic you are no longer Sophist, Obliviot, or anything else.

You are now Solipcist.

How do you even know that you are really here posting on this board?  Perhaps I dreamed you up?  Perhaps you dreamed me up?  What is the criterion for distinguishing between the two?  What if that criterion conflicts with my faith?  What then should I do?

I know you really don't believe this bullshit.

No, there is no solution to the Absolute Skeptic argument so you have to make some primary assumptions and go with them.  Funny thing is, you make those assumptions on nothing more than faith and proceed with your understanding of the Universe from there.  How ironic.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,17:22   

Skeptic squeaked


Quote
Funny thing is, you make those assumptions on nothing more than faithprior experience and proceed with your understanding of the Universe from there.  How ironic.


There fixed that for you.  You're welcome.

You could call it a Bayesian approach.  Or not.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,17:25   

The opposite? How? Science is about learning, is about progress. It's just a tool to find out more about the world around us.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,18:52   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 01 2007,17:22)
Skeptic squeaked


 
Quote
Funny thing is, you make those assumptions on nothing more than faithprior experience and proceed with your understanding of the Universe from there.  How ironic.


There fixed that for you.  You're welcome.

You could call it a Bayesian approach.  Or not.

no, actually, to resolve the Absolute Skeptic there is no prior experience.  You have to define reality within personal experience, not prior experience, and that is nothing but subjective.  It requires faith in something or a whole heap of denial.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,18:54   

Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 01 2007,17:25)
The opposite? How? Science is about learning, is about progress. It's just a tool to find out more about the world around us.

How about the science community then?  I'm referring to the obvious, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc.  The purposeful extension of science outside of it's scope into an area where it has no relevance.  Same MO as religion intruding into science.

  
swbarnes2



Posts: 78
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 01 2007,19:13   

[quote=skeptic,Dec. 01 2007,09:29]
 
Quote
Faith and reason are not necessarily in conflict.  When applied appropriately, faith and reason never cross paths because they don't even address the same questions and therefore NO CONFLICT.


Sure, I'll buy that.

Science deals with reality, faith deals with non-reality.  

As long as faith says on its side of the fence, everything's fine.  

Science is actually quite good at staying on the reality side of the fence.  It has to, because all the data's on this side.

But can the faith supporters stay on their side?  Stick to hammering out if grace is a gift given to all, or just some?  Or whether one is saved without works?  

Or will they ignore science, and push their faith when they find the science distasteful?

What do you think the last 100 years of Creationism demonstrates to be the answer to that question?

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2007,01:54   

what is and what could be are two different things but as I pointed out there's plenty of blame to go around.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2007,04:02   

Skeptic,

So your answer to my providing you with references is to be bloody rude and undeservingly patronsing yet again. Interesting. Like I said, what do you want as evidence? The relevant sociological studies demonstrating the relativist nature of morals? The logicial and philosophical demonstrations that Platonic essences such as "perfect love" etc are simply fallacious? It's all in those (and other) books and publications. Why do I need to cut and paste a list of books? It's a pretty eclectic list Skeptic, one that has evolved rather than been designed. Ask a philsophy prof if they'd start at those specific books and I'd guarantee you they'd come up with a different list. Anyway your accusation of "group think" is HILARIOUS! Any list that includes the bible and George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God" is not an homogenous list! I'm too stupid? Erm manifestly not, Skeptic! Rather the stupid is being exded by someone who cannot even read a simple list of book titles for basic comprehension!

Incidentally, there's a little more to philsophy than opinion. Things like propositional logic, the coherence of an argument (i.e. does one thing flow from another etc), small insignificant things like these. It really is hilarious to be accused of a) not reading books I own and have read, and being stupid by someone who clearly demonstrates his own ignorance and stupidity with every post. If you'd bother to go back and read any of the posts I've written Skeptic you'd understand the distinctions I've been making, as it is, you make the same errors and erroneous assertions you did at the start of the thread and frankly, you look a fool for doing so. So in this vein, I have a question: Is pure mathematics just opinion, Skeptic?

That aside. Your example (The one BWE quotes from Sep 01) about faith generating new knowledge is bullshit yet again:

Quote
faith can be used as a means to acquire knowledge if tenets for the faith are extrapolated to address new questions.  Abortion is not addressed as such in the Bible but an understanding of the murder concept allows abortion to be addressed.  New knowledge is thus gained using faith alone.


Explain how this is different from a lawyer reading a law text about current statutes on murder and deriving new legislation from it for abortion (in the case of this example abortion is a hitherto unlegislated for phenomenon). The point is you are describing a REASONED process. As of course you'll know having completely read and understood my arguments, there is a distinction I've been making since post one that might be relevant here.

An example might help you. I was once sat in one of the regular chemistry symposia I go to and a young chap was speaking about this new cyclisation reaction he'd developed (I'm sorry I forget his name and my notes are at work). He claimed, very quietly since Jack Baldwin was sat in the front row, that this cyclisation proceeded by a proposed mechanism that violated Balwin's rules (if you don't know what Baldwin's rules are, look them up). At the end of the talk, dear old Sir Jack (who if you know anything about him is a bluff cove of the first water. And that's an understatement) shot up out of his chair and proceeded to write a very complex mechanism on the blackboard by which this new cyclisation reaction could go, containing several ring opening and ring closing processes all allowed by Baldwin's rules. Now there are of course a variety of spectroscopic and kinetic methods by which one could determine which of these mechanisms (if it was either of them) operates during that reaction, but at the time (and to date AFAIK, I'd have to check) none of this work had been done. The point is very simple: you are making a mechanistic claim analogous to the one this young chap did, i.e. that you have a reaction with a mechanism that violates known principles or uses new ones. This may well be the case but it falls to you to demonstrate this by whatever means you can (bearing in mind the caveat that one can never truly PROVE a mechanism of a reaction, one can only eliminate alternatives). Baldwin's point was that there was no need, in that initial phase where no mechanistic data was forthcoming, to claim a novel mechanism which violated known chemical behaviour. The same applies to your example of "faith". We know the reason based mechanisms that people use to develop moral precepts and legal matters (to name but two examples), if you are claiming a familiar looking process is genuinely novel then that is a claim that falls to you to support in some manner. Hence why I asked the question I did. Granted, it might be the case that you HAVE discovered a new mechanism, BUT simply asserting you have when that mechanism is so familiar is insufficient, the scales of evidence are not weighed in your favour, it's not a level paying field. On the one hand we have a huge quantity of empirical, philosphical and logical data supporting a particular type of mechanism (or a limited set of mechanisms) for phenomena like the one you describe (but not exactly the same), and on the other hand you have nothing but your assertion that it is not going to fall into that known category. You need to provide data to support that claim. Something you can easily do if you have it. Something I KNOW you're going to obfuscate and weasel out of because you and I KNOW you don't have it. Forgive me is, as usual, I have no hope that you will see this distinction.

As for your "you base those assumptions on faith" charge, this as usual is purest bullshit, yet again! Hooray! Do you know what, I'm not going to bother expaining why, I've already done it if you'd bothered to read, I'll let the Wilkins do it, he does it better than I do. The principle is contained within:

Quote
Physicists on science
Category: Logic and philosophy • Philosophy of Science • Sermon
Posted on: November 25, 2007 5:00 AM, by John S. Wilkins

I have a rule (Wilkins' Law #35, I think) that if any scientist is going to draw unwarranted metaphysical conclusions, it will be a physicist, and in particular a cosmologist. Witness Paul Davies in the New York Times.

Davies wants to argue something like this:

Premise: there are laws of the universe and we cannot explain the existence of laws
Premise: the assumption that laws are to be found is the basis for doing science
Conclusion: Ergo, science rests on an act of faith

Can anyone spot the enthymeme? That's very good, children. You spotted the easy mistake. Davies moves from "assume that there are laws" to "make an act of faith", as a number of the advanced students in other classes did. Assumptions are not acts of faith, they are the starting point for an act of reasoning. Well done.

But did you spot the difficult mistake? Anyone? Bueller?

OK, let me take you through it.

Suppose I say something like this - "Fido is a black Labrador". I describe and name Fido for you. Is it an assumption that names exist in the physical world? Descriptions? Does the act of naming Fido mean that we must now explain the essence of Fidoness? Or, for that matter Labradority? Of course not. To say that would be to confuse the name or description with the thing named or described. This is what Alfred North Whitehead once called the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness", also known as the Fallacy of Reification (by me, anyway). Take words and declare them properties of the universe.

Now, what does Davies say? He says "there are laws of the universe" that rely on a belief in the rationality of the universe. But like Fido, the universe just is - it has a structure (which is what extreme physics tries to explain). We describe this structure in terms of laws. Sure, we assume that the universe has a structure, for without that assumption we cannot gather knowledge (imagine if the sun rose when it felt like it, or pigs flew), but the description of laws is just a provisional summary of what we now know. Just as there is no Fidoness other than the dog standing in front of you, there is no "lawfulness" out there in the universe, just a structured world. We find out that structure, but we no more need to make an act of faith to do this than we need to believe that 1 plus 1 will equal 2; it is a necessary presumption in order for the business of science to get going, but it is most definitely not a metaphysical foundation.

That's not to say you couldn't make it a metaphysical foundation if you liked, and clearly Davies likes, but it need not be. To say other wise is to confuse the knowledge with the thing known (or, in philosophese, epistemology for ontology).

It's a common mistake made by scientists (and more than a few philosophers and others). I find it in taxonomy, where people argue over the "reality" of a taxon when they are in fact discussing the warrantability of a diagnosis of a taxon. But nullius in verba as the motto of the Royal Society has it. Nothing in words Take no one's word. As Maynard Smith used to say to lunchers in his cafeteria, "Are you discussing words, or the world? If it is the world, I will stay, but if it is words, I will go".

Let us go, and leave the confused physicist to his own meanderings.


From here

Like I have said tirelessly since almost the first page of this thread, if, Skeptic, you'd bothered to read what I've written for some basic modicum of understanding you wouldn't keep erecting strawmen like the one in your post on "blue feels cold", nor would you keep assuming some asinine hostility to faith etc, nor would you be able to honestly and continually restate the same drivle as if it weren't already shown to be logically fallacious wishful thinking and blind assertion on your part.

Oh and when are you going to get around to justify your claim that I have made any argument based just on my say so? The longer you leave it Skeptic, the more people will know you to be a demonstrated liar and charlatan.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2007,04:16   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 01 2007,22:24)
The answers to these questions are not found in formulas, in statistics, through chemical analysis, etc.  Two people are not certain to get the same answer by asking it the same way.  Your denial is telling here but it is also exhausting.  Go find someone else to argue with about faith and reason cause I'm really not sure that you understand either.

1) You do know that in previous posts I have explained PRECISELY this problem and shown what it's limits etc are? No? Oh would that be because you have neither read nor comprehended even the most basic aspects of my arguments since post one. Please do so. What is exhausting is to have to explain the same thing to you a half dozen or so times and have you IGNORE it. I'd be happy if you refuted it, or showed me where the holes in it are. In fact I'd be over the moon. But you don't do this. You handwave it away, just like you do with everyone else's arguments, and simply reassert your original, unsupported claims. Do you understand why that is frustrating? Do you understand why that is not reasoned discourse? Do you understand why nothing you have done demonstrates you claims? Do you understand why no one disagrees with me when I say that I have demonstrated my case?

2) Denial? Of what? What have I denied? Quote any post of phrase that demonstrates I am denying anything at all. Provide an explanantion of why the quote(s) you find are denial. PLEASE!

3) I will, AGAIN, offer you the hand of reasonable discourse Skeptic. Bury the hatchet, restate my arguments to my satisfaction, I'll do the same for yours. Start justifying your claims by more than assertion (as you will see when you read my posts that I have taken pains to do for mine), try to find the area of common ground and work from there. I am exceptionally willing to do this. I cannot do it alone.

4) Provide a quote which demonstrates I am making an argument by assertion, provide an explanantion demonstrating this. I ask this because you are alone in thinking I have done this. Not one single other person who has read this thread thinks I have done this. Not me, not Bill, not even Lenny did. Not a single person but you Skeptic. And it's not because they agree with me.

Skeptic, all I have ever tried to do is to get you to do the very basic things that would actually turn this into a discussion. You cannot have a discussion with someone if they refuse to engage what you've actually said. Come on Skeptic, raise the bar.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2007,04:38   

Oh yeah and whilst I think of it I want this little gem front and centre.

When I provided a list of books I have read and I own from just two shelves of a specific bookcase, all of which deal with the issue of the epistemological conflict between reason and faith in some manner and all of which acknolwedge its existence, some even explaining it, some not, Skeptic's reponse was simply to hand wave that away.

When I have tried very hard to explain an argument or the flaws in another argument etc, Skeptic's repsonse has always been to hand wave it away.

Don't those simple, undeniable facts speak volumes?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2007,13:20   

Quote
Like I said, what do you want as evidence? The relevant sociological studies demonstrating the relativist nature of morals?


I'm gonna stop reading your crap right here, way too many words, btw.

This is the root of your problem.  You can not empirically assess morals.  Morality is an abstract concept.  In order study morals in this manner you must convert the subject in order to be viewed objectively.  You don't get any evidence about morals all you answer is the question that you construct.  This is what Lenny was trying to tell you and you still don't get.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2007,14:28   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 02 2007,19:20)
i'm gonna stop reading your crap right here, way too many words, btw.

BWAAHAHAHAHA!

What an amazingly intellectual attitude! Such scholarship!

Ok then, I'm wrong. Wonderful. Show me where. Show me how I am wrong, show me where I made my mistakes and teach me how to do it right.

I'm serious. I'll accept that I've fucked up if all you do is show me how and where. That simple. Quote my arguments, explain the flaws in them, show me the logical errors, provide some evidence and I'll cheerfully celebrate my wrongness, and your rightness. Please do it.

Oh and FYI, Lenny showed nothing, like you, he didn't even deal with the argument I was making, he dealt with the argument he wanted me to be making. There is a difference you know.

You know what doing that entails don't you?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2007,20:08   

I was mulling over this and realized that we are never really gonna agree on much.  This goes beyond stated arguments.  If given any situation I don't see us coming to the same determination.  This is not a bad thing but I think unavoidable based upon our difference in thinking.  Not a criticism but an observation.  For example, I'm gonna bet you'll find my final statement shocking.  Even if I were to go into extensive detail as to why I think this you would disagree.  In many ways it would completely contradict the way you think and again this is not a bad thing I think it's just where we're at.

Philosophy, in many ways sociology, and pure mathematics are not science.  To stipulate otherwise, in any way, is to completely misunderstand science and the nature of knowledge, IMO.  I could go into this in greater detail and maybe even extensive but really, what's the point?  You saying to yourself "What the @$%!?" and that's just where we're at with no resolution in sight.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2007,20:29   

That's just the thing.  It's really easy to render presuppositionalists incoherent.  simply claim different presuppositions, then render them unvailable to retrospection via some sort of po-mo compartmentalization.  so skeptic i agree with you completely about 'we are never going to agree'.    

by the way, you did it again.  the evidence free fact free argument by assertion thing.  thought someone should tell you.  we all know your opinion by now.  

i am curious, what is the difference between 'personal' experience and 'prior' experience?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,02:12   

just making a distinction between personal and extra-personal.  That's not the right word really but I'm trying to say evidence that comes from an external source.  That's better, external-personal.  In the Absolute case we can never be sure that external personal experience actually exists.  We have to make the assumption that reality as we experience it actually exists and is not our own personal construct.  Is that a better distinction?

As for the rest of your comments, I'm not ashamed to say I didn't really understand them.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,03:14   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 03 2007,02:08)
I was mulling over this and realized that we are never really gonna agree on much.  This goes beyond stated arguments.  If given any situation I don't see us coming to the same determination.  This is not a bad thing but I think unavoidable based upon our difference in thinking.  Not a criticism but an observation.  For example, I'm gonna bet you'll find my final statement shocking.  Even if I were to go into extensive detail as to why I think this you would disagree.  In many ways it would completely contradict the way you think and again this is not a bad thing I think it's just where we're at.

Philosophy, in many ways sociology, and pure mathematics are not science.  To stipulate otherwise, in any way, is to completely misunderstand science and the nature of knowledge, IMO.  I could go into this in greater detail and maybe even extensive but really, what's the point?  You saying to yourself "What the @$%!?" and that's just where we're at with no resolution in sight.

Skeptic,

No actually, once again you are a poor predictor of my thinking. You'd actually have to have read something I've written for comprehension to know what I think. You manifestly have not done this, and Skeptic, you manifestly do not even begin to understand what I think. Not my opinion, but the clear record that a moderately intelligent reader of this thread would spot in an instance. I may have mentioned it.

When you say philosophy, sociology and pure maths are not science (or at least not science in every way in the case of sociology), guess what? I agree. They're not (entirely in one case) science, but they ARE reasoned.

This may have been a distinction I've been banging on about since page one. It may also have been a distinction I've been very clearly making just so we didn't get the kind of asinine straw men that you and Lenny raised. Please, I beg of you, try reading for some modicum of comprehension.

Just in case you chuck another tantrum and don't read further, did you see that bit there about the stuff I agree with? If not, double check.

In fact if you go back and read what I've written Skeptic, you'll find that not only do I agree but I've said EXACTLY this from the very first post. Is it possible you are STILL missing the distinctions I have been clearly making in big bold letters right from the start? Wow! Everyone else seems to have understood them (except Lenny, but then he was on his anti-fundy trip and wasn't listening to anyone).

You've been duffing up straw men since page one Skeptic. Please, PLEASE stop. All the very genuine frustration and anger you've seen from me is based on simply that single thing: i.e. you have not been engaging what I HAVE said, you've been engaging what you want me to have said. They're different! Very, very different. I think I've made a few very key, very relevant, distinctions too, you might want to check them out, I've repeated them at least 4 times IIRC, in long and short posts, with and without explanation.

As I've said from the very start Skeptic, you don't know what my arguments are or my thinking is because you haven't read my arguments and thus couldn't encapsulate my thinking if you tried.

I may have pointed this out once or twice. It was subtle, you might have missed it.*

If you want resolution, which may indeed be possible, then sorry old fruit but you are going to have to deal with the arguments I have actually made at some point.

You love to define things as impossible don't you? "We can't understand this so faith's the only way, we can't do understand that so faith's the only way, because I don't know you can't know etc etc etc." I wish you'd stop. Another thing I wish you'd stop is declaring any agreement out of the realms of possibility based on your gross misundertandings of what I actually think.

No one agrees with your interpretation of what I have written Skeptic. Not one person (again excepting Lenny, but he had to quote mine me to manage this, I wouldn't cite him as a supporter if I were you). This doesn't mean they agree with me about the conclusions or arguments I've made, it simply means that almost everyone but you has read what I've written and demonstrably understood it. This should wake you up, Skeptic. After 33 pages of someone telling you "WHOA!!!!! I DIDN'T SAY THAT! GO BACK AND DEAL WITH WHAT I DID SAY!" the thought should at least flit across your mind that it is actually YOU who has fucked up. Is any of this getting through I wonder?

Louis

*Sorry but this IS sarcasm. Thhe rest? Not so much sarcasm.

P.S. ADDED IN EDIT: A question for you Skeptic: Can you understand how, if what I say about you misrepresenting my arguments is true (assume for the moment, whether you agree in reality or not, it is) that a) it might be a little frustrating to deal with someone who continually misrepresents your arguments and b) having you define the limits of what we can and cannot agree on and the state of the current discussion when you don't even understand what I have said but are simpoly arguing against the bunnies in your head is so laughably sanctimonious, stupid and ignorant, that it beggers belief?

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,03:16   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 03 2007,02:29)
by the way, you did it again.  the evidence free fact free argument by assertion thing.  thought someone should tell you.  we all know your opinion by now.

Erasmus,

I'm shocked. No one, least of all on this thread, has EVER pointed out this to Skeptic. The very idea is unthinkable.

Louis

P.S. Yes I AM a sarcastic prick, what of it?

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,08:28   

Actually, I do find it frustrating dealing with someone who hears nothing but their own voice.  Also, on many instances, individuals on this thread have voiced agreement with something I have said.  I'm sorry "Budda" but you're position isn't correct just because you sayso.

One question for you, if philosophy is not science how can you continually promote ideas to "fact" and toss these out as evidence that you are right and everyone else is wrong?  A specific case, Hume vs. Paley, is one of these positions right?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,08:33   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 03 2007,14:28)
Actually, I do find it frustrating dealing with someone who hears nothing but their own voice.  Also, on many instances, individuals on this thread have voiced agreement with something I have said.  I'm sorry "Budda" but you're position isn't correct just because you sayso.

One question for you, if philosophy is not science how can you continually promote ideas to "fact" and toss these out as evidence that you are right and everyone else is wrong?  A specific case, Hume vs. Paley, is one of these positions right?

One is logically coherent and consistent with what we observe in the natural world (incidentally it takes a little more than this to manage to be science. I've explained this before 'twould seem). One isn't.

Oh and FYI, where do I claim I am right and everyone else is wrong? Are you making little straw men again Skeptic? Like I've said: try agruing against what I have said, NOT what you think I have said.

Guess which.

Have you STILL missed the distinction I made, right at the start, between science and reason?

Please go back and read Skeptic.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,08:38   

Oh and Skeptic, to be accused by you of only hearing my own voice is so ironically ignorant of demonstrable reality as to have caused a rift in spacetime. Find me one question you've got that I haven't already answered.

Do you understand that you a) haven't understood any argument I've made, and b) certainly haven't presented any rebuttal of them (or indeed support for your own claims and assertions, you've yet to make an argument)?

Why do I ask? Of course you don't. Pity, everyone else understands it, again as demonstrated by the written words in this very thread. Try reading them, you might be amazed!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,11:20   

Quote
No one agrees with your interpretation of what I have written Skeptic. Not one person (again excepting Lenny, but he had to quote mine me to manage this, I wouldn't cite him as a supporter if I were you). This doesn't mean they agree with me about the conclusions or arguments I've made, it simply means that almost everyone but you has read what I've written and demonstrably understood it. This should wake you up, Skeptic. After 33 pages of someone telling you "WHOA!!!!! I DIDN'T SAY THAT! GO BACK AND DEAL WITH WHAT I DID SAY!" the thought should at least flit across your mind that it is actually YOU who has fucked up. Is any of this getting through I wonder?


1. Lenny didn't agree with Skeptic. Lenny was talking about zen. He tried to use shorthand that didn't work. He actually agreed with Louis but couldn't manage to allow Louis' monological gaze upon the world as the only source of truth. Of course definitions matter. Lenny couldn't go down that path and skeptic didn't seem to get that Louis had offered definitions for his quite philosophical question.

And apparently there is a reason for a rift as least between scientists and religious apologists.

2. Skeptic, you missed the boat. How the heck could you have written that last post?

Seriously, go back and reread this thread. It's long but it's good. Louis has been quite clear.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,11:28   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 03 2007,17:20)
Quote
No one agrees with your interpretation of what I have written Skeptic. Not one person (again excepting Lenny, but he had to quote mine me to manage this, I wouldn't cite him as a supporter if I were you). This doesn't mean they agree with me about the conclusions or arguments I've made, it simply means that almost everyone but you has read what I've written and demonstrably understood it. This should wake you up, Skeptic. After 33 pages of someone telling you "WHOA!!!!! I DIDN'T SAY THAT! GO BACK AND DEAL WITH WHAT I DID SAY!" the thought should at least flit across your mind that it is actually YOU who has fucked up. Is any of this getting through I wonder?


1. Lenny didn't agree with Skeptic. Lenny was talking about zen. He tried to use shorthand that didn't work. He actually agreed with Louis but couldn't manage to allow Louis' monological gaze upon the world as the only source of truth. Of course definitions matter. Lenny couldn't go down that path and skeptic didn't seem to get that Louis had offered definitions for his quite philosophical question.

And apparently there is a reason for a rift as least between scientists and religious apologists.

2. Skeptic, you missed the boat. How the heck could you have written that last post?

Seriously, go back and reread this thread. It's long but it's good. Louis has been quite clear.

Whoa!

I do not claim any monological view that is the only route to truth. I claim that thus far reason, in all its very varied forms, is the only working mechanism of acquiring knowledge about the universe we can demonstrate we have. That's a bit different, and doesn't involve "truth" which is an awfully slippery concept.

And I know Lenny didn't 100% agree with Skeptic, but he had to quote mine me to disagree with me on the bits he disagreed with me on. I'd say Skeptic would have quote mined me too, but that would mean he'd have actually had to read what I have written and done so for some modicum of comprehension. He hasn't. You can't quote mine something you have neither read nor understood. The similarities in their arguments lie on precisely that line: they both accused me of making a claim I'm not making, admittedly for different reasons. That claim being that science can do anything and tell us everything. Never said that. Never will.

I've made the distinctions pretty clearly several times. Skeptic and Lenny both had to work pretty hard in their own individual ways to miss them. THAT, incidentally, is what annoys me. I may have mentioned it.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,11:36   

You're getting semantic, Louis.  You've said that science or reason is the only thing able to tell us anything.  You say so just in the above post, and anything in the absense of an alternative is everything.

Also, concerning Hume and Paley, neither is more true than the other.  Both are opinion and nothing more.  You may like one argument over the other but that still can not make it more true.  The idea that one reflects reality and the other doesn't is just your personal justification for accepting that argument.  This is a very easy concept and something I assumed you could grasp.  Why is it so difficult for you?

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,11:37   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2007,12:28)
You can't quote mine something you have neither read nor understood.

Sure ya' can.  Slimy Sal (and by extension Ftk via cut n paste) does it all the time.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,11:42   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 03 2007,17:36)
You're getting semantic, Louis.  You've said that science or reason is the only thing able to tell us anything.  You say so just in the above post, and anything in the absense of an alternative is everything.

Also, concerning Hume and Paley, neither is more true than the other.  Both are opinion and nothing more.  You may like one argument over the other but that still can not make it more true.  The idea that one reflects reality and the other doesn't is just your personal justification for accepting that argument.  This is a very easy concept and something I assumed you could grasp.  Why is it so difficult for you?

No Skeptic, I'm NOT getting semantic. It's a distinction I made in the first post. Try reading it, and some of the subsequent ones sometimes.

You missed the comment about logical coherence, invalidating the rest of your post. Philosophy being entirely mere opinion is a claim I think you need to justify, because, erm, well everyone who knows even basic philsophy disagrees with it.

Why do I have to retype every post I've made for you Skeptic when you didn't read them the first time around?

GO BACK AND READ!

Louis

P.S. Also, you haven't supported your claim that I've done nothing but argue by assertion. Find me one example. Stop lying.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,11:48   

Incidentally I can't believe you are putting Paley's watchmaker analogy up there as an unrefuted argument. Not only did Hume eviscerate it's basis (before it was even written btw) but a few minor subsequent things have happened like....oooooh I don't know....the theories of biological evolution....that destroy the analogy all over again.

As usual Skeptic, your attempt to retreat to almost post modernist lengths is astoundingly stupid. I may have mentioned that before too.*

Louis

*EDITTED TO ADD: Just HOW on earth do you think the sort of extreme solipsist/nihilist crap you are tacitly advocating is going to fly for even a second? If I walk up to some chap in the street and smack him in the head with a 2 by 4 is it merely his opinion that I have done this? Is my opinion that I haven't done so equally valid? Is the opinion of the CCTV camera operator that caught the whole thing on tape equally valid? There comes apoint, Skeptic, when your hypocrsiy gets the better of you. Now get on with your reading my arguments and supporting your claims. You have a lot to do.

--------------
Bye.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,12:24   

Almost postmodern relativism, Hell!

Louis, your opinions about opinions are in my opinion just opinions about opinions and therefore no more valid than any other opinions about opinions.  it is the opinion of this commenter that opinions thus are immaterial proving the existence of Moses and also quantifying the number of angels that can have a celestial moresome on the apex of a pin (the head of a pin being just an opinion anyway).  Finally, the corollary of this opinion, in my opinion, proves that you are a materialist and also a mean bastard who probably beats puppies and very likely an atheist too.  And your shoes stink.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,12:30   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 03 2007,18:24)
Almost postmodern relativism, Hell!

Louis, your opinions about opinions are in my opinion just opinions about opinions and therefore no more valid than any other opinions about opinions.  it is the opinion of this commenter that opinions thus are immaterial proving the existence of Moses and also quantifying the number of angels that can have a celestial moresome on the apex of a pin (the head of a pin being just an opinion anyway).  Finally, the corollary of this opinion, in my opinion, proves that you are a materialist and also a mean bastard who probably beats puppies and very likely an atheist too.  And your shoes stink.

All true. For a given value of true.

I want to know if Skeptic would stand by his retreat to a weird combination of solipsism, nihilism and post modernist relativism if the chap in the street I hit with a 2 by 4 (see addition in editted post above) was him.* I'm betting not.

Louis

*This is not in any way shape or form a) an advocacy of hitting ANYONE with a 2 by 4, least of all Skeptic, b) a statement of desire to hit ANYONE with a 2 by 4, least of all Skeptic. My point is simply that the hypocritical deniers of reality seem curiously keen to un-deny it when it is convenient for them. Watch how this will be misunderstood. It should be funny.

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,12:53   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2007,11:28)
Whoa!

I do not claim any monological view that is the only route to truth. I claim that thus far reason, in all its very varied forms, is the only working mechanism of acquiring knowledge about the universe we can demonstrate we have. That's a bit different, and doesn't involve "truth" which is an awfully slippery concept.

And I know Lenny didn't 100% agree with Skeptic, but he had to quote mine me to disagree with me on the bits he disagreed with me on. I'd say Skeptic would have quote mined me too, but that would mean he'd have actually had to read what I have written and done so for some modicum of comprehension. He hasn't. You can't quote mine something you have neither read nor understood. The similarities in their arguments lie on precisely that line: they both accused me of making a claim I'm not making, admittedly for different reasons. That claim being that science can do anything and tell us everything. Never said that. Never will.

I've made the distinctions pretty clearly several times. Skeptic and Lenny both had to work pretty hard in their own individual ways to miss them. THAT, incidentally, is what annoys me. I may have mentioned it.

Louis

Louis, I know you didn't claim the only route to truth. I used the word sloppily to illustrate the problem lenny was trying to address. Truth in fact is something you addressed head on between p.1 and 3 and between p.15 and 22.

That is the part that both of them missed. Like I said, Lenny actually agreed with you on your point (knowledge rather than truth) but wanted you to be far more explicit (and thus  precise-possibly too precise) about excluding truth from your point:
 
Quote
What I DO mean is that the mechanisms of acquiring knowledge about the universe advocated by science and religion are very different and give different results. They are absolutely anathema to each other, and this is where the very real, very valid conflict between science and religion has its basis.


What I was getting at is summed up (sort of) in this summary of another work (oh the irony) which I linked to earlier:

 
Quote
 Hierarchically ordered structures and emergents (properties or capacities that emerge de novo at certain levels of hierarchy) cannot be interpreted simply in terms of, nor considered as parts of, lower order phenomena. For example, when atoms of hydrogen and oxygen combine, the result is a molecule of water with novel emergent properties, such as wetness. These emergent properties are totally unpredictable from the properties of its constituent atoms and cannot be described in terms of atoms--and, of course, the water molecule is not contained within its atoms.

So too life, or the biosphere, is not simply contained in, reducible to, or explicable simply in terms of, the physiosphere: the realm of pure matter. Life has emergent properties not found in the properties of its chemical constituents. Life, in other words, has properties and capacities that seem to defy description in terms of the movements of the mere molecules. Likewise, the noosphere (the realm of sentient life) emerges from and is not simply in the biosphere. That is, the noosphere is not a component of the larger whole called biosphere but is an emergent that in some sense transcends it. Ontologically, the noosphere thus cannot be reduced to, or considered merely as, a strand of the biosphere. And humans are compound individuals comprised of all three "spheres" or levels; we cannot be regarded simply as strands of the biosphere which comprises only the physical and biological levels.

This is a difficult but important argument which can only be sketched briefly here. It appears to resolve a number of puzzles that have plagued ecological thinking such as how one can accord greater value to some forms of life, including humans, than others while simultaneously honoring all life. Wilber argues at length that this perspective is not antiecological, as it might appear at first glance. Rather, he insists that it naturally results in an enhanced concern for life and the environment which are now recognized as parts of one's own compound individuality.

The Four Quadrants

The schemes and hierarchies considered so far all deal exclusively with exteriors since general systems theories try to be empirical. Hence they almost entirely overlook interiority or subjectivity. Systems theories are essentially theories of surfaces or exteriors.

To understand interiors--subjectivity, experience and consciousness--requires another approach, namely empathy, introspection and interpretation. In short, systems theories have given us a very valuable but very partial view of systems and evolution. This in itself is not bad. However, major troubles ensue when systems scientists claim, as all too many of them do, to be mapping, or at least capable of mapping, all domains of reality.

Wilber wants to expand this view. He argues that comprehensive approaches need to include objective studies not only of the external behavior of individual holons but also of social or group holons and, in addition, the interior or subjectivity of both individuals and groups. He therefore introduces what he calls "the four quadrants" model, with individual and social holons in the upper and lower halves respectively, and exterior and interior in the right and left halves respectively.

Reductionism can seem reasonable since all holons do in fact have both left- and right-hand quadrants and empirical data can be so obvious. However no quadrant is wholly reducible to another and both gross and subtle reductionism can be destructive. This can be insidious in the case of systems theorists, for example, because these people believe that they are truly embracing all reality in a holistic manner and seem quite unaware of just how much, and how much of value, is often missing from their worldview.


And, while this has both a WTF? and a Woo element, it is summarily supported and speaks to lenny's issue (ithink). Skeptic's issue on the other hand, appears to be the assertion that religion has value. (That period at the end of the last sentence denotes finality)

Skeptic wrote:
 
Quote
Religion, on the other, does not rely upon empirical data.  In fact, actual sources of knowledge are varied and open to interpretation.  Appropriately enough so are the questions that religion attempts to answer.  How do I treat others?  What is goodness?  What is the purpose of my life?  The answer to any of these questions can hardly be "42" or some other hard answer.  Whether through inspiration or revelation the answers given still must be digested individually and implemented personally.  This again is in contrast to science as each answer is technically universal.  It is not for religion to say how the heavens work just where Heaven is and how to get there.  This leaves open the question concerning the existence of God and which discipline should claim superiority.  We'll get back to that question later.


Louis wrote:
 
Quote
There are of course others, for example your repeated use of the falsehood that religion is about telling people how to live their lives/morals etc. Morality does not derive from religion...but this is an issue I'll get to later. My point here is that ethics, morals, social behaviour and so on ARE things that are precisely within the remit of reasoned, rational, observational study, i.e. science.
...

Be clear about this, religion is the specific use of faith and revelation as mechanisms of acquiring knowledge about the universe, science is the most refined use of reason and observation as such a mechanism. So whilst we won't perhaps get a "grand unified theory of morals" in the same sense as we would say a physical or biological (or even sociological) theory, we CAN get reasoned and rational theories of social behviours, derivations of ethics and so on that are based on the evidence (for example).
...

So to head off a strawman before it comes, I am not saying that the religions of the world have nothing useful to say, but that the useful things they have to say are those based on reason, rational thought and observation. Or at least those things that turn out to be supported by reason, rational thought and observation (if you see the distinction).

Using faith or relevation to decide an issue is a total non starter. Appeals to faith and revelation alone can be used to justify ANYTHING. Where an article of faith or revelation coincides with reality it is not faith or revelation that determines or decides this, it is reason, rational thought and observation. I.e. an appeal to the evidence.


Which is the point that skeptic and Lenny both seem to have stopped cold with. They set up the strawman to use Louis' words.

I'm going to guess that Lenny's objection flows from his meditation training. Being someone who practices some zen meditation techniques I can attest to the claim that zen practitioners make that there is something actually learned by meditation, purely experiential and which is exactly impossible to describe. This thing eludes quantification. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with faith. Lenny either actually achieved this knowledge or at least got close enough to see it through the only means available: meditation. This objection I wholeheartedly agree with but couldn't defend in any perfect way other than to teach you to meditate.

I said it differs from faith. It is actually more like a tool or instrument to record a previously unseen spectrum. The trick is to learn to see your brain work. It takes a fair bit of practice and leads to an experiential understanding of the difference between the words we use to describe and the things we describe.

Skeptic wants to piggyback "meditation on a mythology until it becomes true" on that notion. Not the same thing.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,13:15   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 03 2007,18:53)
I'm going to guess that Lenny's objection flows from his meditation training. Being someone who practices some zen meditation techniques I can attest to the claim that zen practitioners make that there is something actually learned by meditation, purely experiential and which is exactly impossible to describe. This thing eludes quantification. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with faith. Lenny either actually achieved this knowledge or at least got close enough to see it through the only means available: meditation. This objection I wholeheartedly agree with but couldn't defend in any perfect way other than to teach you to meditate.

I said it differs from faith. It is actually more like a tool or instrument to record a previously unseen spectrum. The trick is to learn to see your brain work. It takes a fair bit of practice and leads to an experiential understanding of the difference between the words we use to describe and the things we describe.

Skeptic wants to piggyback "meditation on a mythology until it becomes true" on that notion. Not the same thing.

Ok I'll cut to the interesting bit.

How is this an UNreasoned process? The fact that it is a) difficult to put into words/the results are difficult to put into words or b) derived from an unconscious set of brain processes doesn't make it either UNreasoned, ANTIreason, or something else. Again my analogy with catching a ball is relevant here.

I'm more than happy to admit we don't know everything about brain function, I'm more than happy to admit to a plurality of techniques for generating knowledge in a personal sense, but how you go about actually figuring out if these personally generated items actually constiute anything useful or real is a precisely reasoned process (i.e. comparison with external reality).

You're caught coming and going with this one. If you claim it is knowledge that you have acquired by this mechanism then the question is "how do you know it's knowledge?". If at any point in the answer there is reference to a reasoned process or some form of experience or communication then it's exactly as I have been arguin. If there is no reasoned or external reference then it's indistinguishable from any faith claim, and faces exactly the same problems.

Nota bene: I am not saying meditation provides you with invalid ideas or is it self invalid. It could be a perfectly valid way to access other brain processes and thus move the brain's attention from current stream of consciousness type thoughts to other aspects of the brain and its interaction with the world around it.

The only thing I can think it sounds like to me, and I have tried to meditate with limited success (I need to try more often. It's not that I lack the capacity if you see what I mean), is a hallucinogenic experience. Taking mushrooms gave me a few clues. My brain didn't create anything that wasn't already there it merely focussed on different processes. How accurate any of this is I simply don't know, I am no expert on neuroscience.

I've drifted!

The point is simple: meditation gives you some form of knowledge, right? How do you know this? The only way you can know this is by some reason based process either as a mechanism of generating this knowledge in your head, or as a mechanism of checking what is in your head and demonstrating it to be not-fantasy, or more precisely, both.

Erm, that wasn't particularly clear, mibad. Did it come through ok? I think I explained it better before.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,16:01   

Louis -

BWE's experience is not unlike those I reported to you by PM.

Try this:

Central to meditation is "de-verbalizing" experience. What one harvests thereby is not propositional content, but a different sort of experience, one that is available throughout life but that remains un-accessed by most people because obscured by the constant representational threshing of language.

I conceptualize that experience after the fact by means of images and similies. Language is an extraordinarily importent and successful human adaptation, wired into us by evolution. The engine of language begins running at age 12 months and, barring unusual circumstances such as a stroke or dementia, never ceases. So effective is language as a representational tool, so crucial is it to erecting the common conceptual space we inhabit with our fellows, and so accustomed to residing within the representations we create individually and jointly by means of language, that we often don't even recognize that we are dwelling within that real-time representational matrix. Moreover, we mistake our own unceasing contribution (both public and silent) to that matrix for one's "self." We travel down the corridors we communally erect by means of language with ever recognizing that we are thereby contained.

Successful meditation sets that all aside. One comes to parse one's own internal experience somewhat differently - very like the above 99% of the time, but with the option of setting that aside and doing it somewhat differently if one desires. This takes practice and repeated effort. And although only a small portion of each day may be given to the practice, my experience has been that a measure of calm and of reduced anxiety carries throughout one's life by virtue of that practice.

Simultaneously, the perhaps necessary drive to verbalize (internally or privately) and the engine of anxiety (and the foreknowledge of death that stokes that engine) become more apparent by virtue of these brief respites from that drive. One comes away with a better understanding of the role that language plays within that experiental/neural economy, and a bit freer of it, as well. One can't really come to that understanding by traveling the corridors of language ever more rapidly or skillfully or cumulatively - ultimately, one must at least briefly sit aside from that maze and rest away from it to clearly see it, and its essential place in one's life. When that occurs, it is reasonable to state that one 'knows' something that was previously unknown - not 'knowledge' in the sense of public propositional content, but rather a more skillful real-time parsing of one's own internal states, yielding better rest, and, at times, interesting insights.

Of course, any propositional content stimulated by such an experience can and does become lumber for the mills of reasoning. And, the above describes somewhat of an ideal state; the reality (at least with the limited levels of skill I attained) is much more an admixture of internal chatter and brief moments of free of that chatter.

[minor edit vis chatter]

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,16:10   

Wow...doesn't Bill write elegantly?

Didn't understand a word of it, but, man it was beautiful.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,16:15   

If you take meditation as the soft example then I will illustrate the same point by jumping to the extreme.

Assume for a moment that God exists and is the Absolute Judge of Moral behavior.  God says "thou shalt not kill!"  I agree that God is the Absolute Judge so I agree to abide by "thou shalt not kill."  It makes no difference whatsoever that in retrospect I look back and say "God sure makes a lot of sense here, I shouldn't kill."  I gained knowledge from His first statement everything after that is just the processing of that knowledge.  The only avenue left is to say that God came by that command through a reasoned process but we'll never know that.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,16:46   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 03 2007,22:01)
Louis -

BWE's experience is not unlike those I reported to you by PM.

Try this:

Central to meditation is "de-verbalizing" experience. What one harvests thereby is not propositional content, but a different sort of experience, one that remains available throughout life but that remains un-accessed by most people because obscured by the constant representational threshing of language.

I conceptualize that experience after the fact by means of images and similies. Language is an extraordinarily importent and successful human adaptation, wired into us by evolution. The engine of language begins running at age 12 months and, barring unusual circumstances such as a stroke or dementia, never ceases. So effective is language as a representational tool, so crucial is it to erecting the common conceptual space we inhabit with our fellows, and so accustomed to residing within the representations we create individually and jointly by means of language, that we often don't even recognize that we are dwelling within that real-time representational matrix. Moreover, we mistake our own unceasing contribution (both public and silent) to that matrix for one's "self." We travel down the corridors we communally erect by means of language with ever recognizing that we are thereby contained.

Successful meditation sets that all aside. One comes to parse one's own internal experience somewhat differently - very like the above 99% of the time, but with the option of setting that aside and doing it somewhat differently if one desires. This takes practice and repeated effort. And although only a small portion of each day may be given to the practice, my experience has been that a measure of calm and of reduced anxiety carries throughout one's life by virtue of that practice.

Simultaneously, the perhaps necessary drive to verbalize (internally or privately) and the engine of anxiety (and the foreknowledge of death that stokes that engine) become more apparent by virtue of these brief respites from that drive. One comes away with a better understanding of the role that language plays within that experiental/neural economy, and a bit freer of it, as well. One can't really come to that understanding by traveling the corridors of language ever more rapidly or skillfully or cumulatively - ultimately, one must at least briefly sit aside from that maze and rest away from it to clearly see it, and its essential place in one's life. When that occurs, it is reasonable to state that one 'knows' something that was previously unknown - not 'knowledge' in the sense of public propositional content, but rather a more skillful real-time parsing of one's own internal states, yielding better rest, and, at times, interesting insights.

Of course, any propositional content stimulated by such an experience can and does become lumber for the mills of reasoning. And, the above describes somewhat of an ideal state; the reality (at least with the limited levels of skill I attained) is much more an admixture of internal chatter and brief moments of free of that chatter.

[minor edit vis chatter]

Bill,

Gotcha! (BTW that was wonderfully expressed).

Thanks for taking this to the public arena. I should have saked you to do it (again) sooner!

So if I have this correctly, and being a little geeky, it's akin to the concept of "grokking" an idea, right? An understanding of an idea that consumes one and transcends one's ability to describe it?

Again though, as you note, the minute a propositional element enters the bargain, reason snaps back into place.

At the risk of getting a little self-referential, could this be thought of as the one set of brain processes acting on another set? i.e.The shift of emphasis I mentioned above in relation to hallucinations. What evidence is there, or even could there be, that this is not merely (and I use the word with some trepidation because nothing about this is "mere") the synthesis of existing data collected the usual ways, that synthesis being obscured by the everyday chatter. Again, as mentioned in PM (IIRC) wasn't there some thought that dreams were the brain "shuffling" experiential data? Whatever the rightness or wrongness of that specific idea, the principle I'm groping towards is that of altered brain states. Silencing the chatter being one mechanism by which other brain states become examined.

The thing that concerns me a little is that this is really a discussion of the mechanisms of internal thought and brain operation, and not as epistemologically significant as it might first appear. The thing that concerns me a lot is I don't know enough about it! ;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,21:30   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 03 2007,17:46)

So if I have this correctly, and being a little geeky, it's akin to the concept of "grokking" an idea, right? An understanding of an idea that consumes one and transcends one's ability to describe it?

What I am describing is much more concrete and, in a sense, more physical or perhaps immediate than an "idea." Much more inhabiting one's body with less mediation, settling into one's breathing (and the urgencies that ensure that you take the next breath), and resting within one's embodied, creaturely consciousness with less distracting intrusion from the "idiot monologue." So this yields less an idea and more an alternative way of directly experiencing yourself as an instance of conscious organism in the world (quite an astonishing thing, really). Having done so you "know" more about what it is to be an embodied, conscious organism. But what you know is more easily shown than said.
         
Quote
At the risk of getting a little self-referential, could this be thought of as the one set of brain processes acting on another set? i.e.The shift of emphasis I mentioned above in relation to hallucinations.

Yes. Or perhaps observing another set. Not just horizontally, to other areas of cortex and the high level processing, but also "downward," into what we know by other means to be mid and hind brain and probably hypothalamic maintenance of internal milieu. But I don't want to overstate that - I'm not claiming to have experienced my hindbrain (which would sound pretty whack to me, too). But I have experienced the quiet, immediate urgency that results in my next breath being taken - something I observe, but don't directly participate in - as have we all, an urgency that certainly originates at levels far below cortex. It can be interesting to dwell there for a bit.  
         
Quote
What evidence is there, or even could there be, that this is not merely (and I use the word with some trepidation because nothing about this is "mere") the synthesis of existing data collected the usual ways, that synthesis being obscured by the everyday chatter. Again, as mentioned in PM (IIRC) wasn't there some thought that dreams were the brain "shuffling" experiential data? Whatever the rightness or wrongness of that specific idea, the principle I'm groping towards is that of altered brain states. Silencing the chatter being one mechanism by which other brain states become examined.

"Data" expresses something more propositional than I am describing above. But I think what you suggest does happen, too. What is interesting about dreams is that they arise when the cortex is stimulated utterly randomly by characteristic bursts of hindbrain activity, activating various representations that other brain levels work heroically to integrate into a coherent narrative.
 
Quote
The thing that concerns me a little is that this is really a discussion of the mechanisms of internal thought and brain operation, and not as epistemologically significant as it might first appear. The thing that concerns me a lot is I don't know enough about it! ;-)

At some level, it certainly IS really that. Everything in experience is, at some level, a manifestation of the physical organization of and processes going forward within one's brain and body.

(Errrp, sounding gnomish I am.)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,21:37   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 03 2007,17:15)
If you take meditation as the soft example then I will illustrate the same point by jumping to the extreme.

Assume for a moment that God exists and is the Absolute Judge of Moral behavior.  God says "thou shalt not kill!"  I agree that God is the Absolute Judge so I agree to abide by "thou shalt not kill."  It makes no difference whatsoever that in retrospect I look back and say "God sure makes a lot of sense here, I shouldn't kill."  I gained knowledge from His first statement everything after that is just the processing of that knowledge.  The only avenue left is to say that God came by that command through a reasoned process but we'll never know that.

But what you are describing, Skeptic, is emerging with a strongly felt proposition in hand: "Murder is absolutely wrong." There the analogy breaks down. Our ordinary thinking and reasoning processes certainly ARE (IMHO) the sole origins of such propositional content - that's what we all do so effortlessly by means of language, 24/7, from year one to year 91. Meditation doesn't yield propositional content. Were I to emerge from a deep session with the notion that "there are a lot of cats in the neighborhood," it is a safe bet that I've distilled into awareness something that was already there, as suggested by Louis.

It would be a strange world indeed if we were compelled to accept assertions as true because someone strongly believes them to be true.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2007,22:03   

No, not simply because we believe them to be true but because the Absolute Judge says that they are.  In the case of murder we can look to God's command to Moses.  If God really exists and He really commanded Moses "thou shalt not murder" where in this process does reason belong?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,00:16   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 03 2007,22:03)
No, not simply because we believe them to be true but because the Absolute Judge says that they are.  In the case of murder we can look to God's command to Moses.  If God really exists and He really commanded Moses "thou shalt not murder" where in this process does reason belong?

Sorry, I haven't read past this yet. I was writing a beautiful and eloquent response to Louis when I noticed that Bill pre-empted me and phrased it better. Language is a barrier to a certain experience. Therefore science can't really help you gain that knowledge. I have no doubt that science will be able to describe what it looks like to possess that knowledge but the method of quantifying information can't get you there. But Bill said it better. I had to laugh that FTK chimed in and said she had no idea what he was talking about. (FTK, That's positively freudian-I forget the stage).

Anyway, Skeptic, How the fuck can ou be so dense? If little fairies wanted me to jack off at LAX in the luggauge taxi line, wouldn't I know something?

Have your god, go have chips and soda pop with him if you want. But you haven't demonstrated jack. Nada. And that last comment plus this one- sheesh. Where in this process does reason belong? Right before the part that goes, "If God really exists..."

You have demonstrated no knowledge of anything god says and I'm beginning to wonder if you have knowledge of what anyone says. You would be making a positive claim and thus subject to science. In this case psychiatry.

Try to go back and respond to Louis' posts just with answers. Look at his arguments, and respond to them. You aren't doing that and you're being thick.

Edit:

HAHAHA. I was at the end but stopped at Skeptic's comment because it just needed response so dearly.

Louis,

I am still digesting the thread. AFAICT, all your arguments are valid, clear and even sprinkled with a bit of wit and possibly a little sweat and semen. Or maybe that's my monitor. Who knows.

I will try to respond intelligently as soon as I can. In the meantime, R. Bill expressed my reservations clearly. You may see a little bit more on it form me on the morrow. Now it's bedtime.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,01:13   

BWE, you missed my point.  "When God says..." can be replaced by revelation, meditation, whatever, but it's an external source.  Once knowledge comes from that external source there is no need for reason if you accept the source.  Is reason required to accept the authority of the source?  In some cases, maybe, but not always and hence the knowledge can come externally without the use of reason.  This is all predicated on the assumption that you believe in the source, in this case God.  If you believe in God then this makes perfect sense and if you don't then it appears that I'm out to lunch.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,02:35   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 04 2007,04:03)
No, not simply because we believe them to be true but because the Absolute Judge says that they are.  In the case of murder we can look to God's command to Moses.  If God really exists and He really commanded Moses "thou shalt not murder" where in this process does reason belong?

There's a LOT of ifs in that sentence. Even a few you forgot to put in there.

How do you know that the revelation you are havig is from the god you think it is? How do you know it's not from satan or the pixies or it's merely a fantasy? How do you know god said that to Moses? How do you know Moses even existed? How do you know that, for example, sikhism is not the correct religion, and your christianity is a sham?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAND we're back to the start. Again.

Answer those for starters.

The other thing is meditation, from what I understand from Bill and BWE is not an external source of knowledge but a different internal process of generating knowledge to the set of internal processes we use to interact with the universe around us. I'm sure they'll correct me if I messed that up!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,04:55   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 04 2007,01:13)
BWE, you missed my point.  "When God says..." can be replaced by revelation, meditation, whatever, but it's an external source.  Once knowledge comes from that external source there is no need for reason if you accept the source.  Is reason required to accept the authority of the source?  In some cases, maybe, but not always and hence the knowledge can come externally without the use of reason.  This is all predicated on the assumption that you believe in the source, in this case God.  If you believe in God then this makes perfect sense and if you don't then it appears that I'm out to lunch.

I don't think I missed your point Skeptic. "When God says" can't be replaced by those things. Without the bible (which is quantifiable, falsifiable and subject to rational investigation) you have no way to find out about "GOD ™". God declines all personal invitations to speak with those who failed to first meet a Christian or read the bible.

Spirit, or cosmic awareness or general woo however, is accessible through all kinds of delightful means- none of which provide any clue whatsoever to jesus' existence or teachings. Neither you nor any living Christian discovered christianity through any means other than another human. I'd say that pretty well negates the "external source" line of reasoning.

Louis,
Quote
The other thing is meditation, from what I understand from Bill and BWE is not an external source of knowledge but a different internal process of generating knowledge to the set of internal processes we use to interact with the universe around us. I'm sure they'll correct me if I messed that up!

Sort of. More like an internal process of generating knowledge of the relationship between the organism and the world. Actually, while it is certainly fascinating, it only bears a tangential relationship to the main idea of the thread. At some point Lenny melted down over something and it looked to me like he objected to the idea that all knowledge comes from rational investigation. Because he somehow equated subjective positive declarations with that idea, he went down the frustration path rather than understanding  your argument.

Faith gets you almost nowhere. There is a rift between science and religion because religion makes up stories and scientists don't get to. I think they're just jealous. As soon as someone makes a positive statement based on faith, that statement is surely subject to quantification. But through a process of taming the mind, knowledge can occur.

We will soon know a whole lot more about it though. My uncle (in Law) is currently involved in a 3 month (yes you read that right, 3 month) meditation research project-big budget, big names, prestigious universities etc. I lost my address card so I can't remember the name of the retreat center nor who the researchers are. I know that's a cop out but it's over at the end of dec. so I'll definitely be posting about it when he gets back. The researchers assembled a fairly large group it seemed of hardcore meditators, buddhist monks, yogis and others and brought them up to some retreat center on a mountain I think where they are literally trying to meditate for several hours a day every day and they are subject to a multitude of tests and scans.

I'm not sure of very many details but I'll have them in January.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,05:19   

BWE,

Ok I just scratched the long and slightly naughty Devil's advocate post I was doing as I saw your reply.

So meditation helps you to intellectually/conceptually clarify the nature of the interaction between you as a conscious organism and your environment?

The more I read from you both about this the more fascinating it sounds, however, I'm forced to agree that the more I read the more tangential it seems, as you note. However, I'm more than happy to chalk that up to something I'm missing. As Bill notes, when we're talking about experience etc, then we are really talking about brain states, the mechanisms of memory etc. I can definitely see how an understanding of neuroscience, perhaps "future neuroscience" might provide complications to a simplistic "train of logic" type approach.

Whenever I read this stuff about meditation though I keep getting a nagging feeling that it's all to do with things like qualia. It strikes me that this uncommunicable knowledge you've gained is indistinguishable from a variety of other epiphenomena, for example a claim of revelation or intuition that refuses to put itself to examination. Could it be that meditation is like an exercise in that rather than granting you new knowledge it grants you new abilities?

More than that I am concerned that there is some reification of presumed internal states. The fact that this new knowledge has been generated for you is incommunicable flashes a little warning light in my head! That's probably my problem though! I understand the limitations of language in communicating internal states and I understand the difference between what Bill describes as the "idiot monologue" and different modes of cognition. I'm just concerned we are granting too much reality to something very anecdotal and possibly a greater reflection of the model building behaviour of the brain rather than something actually epistemologically useful. If you see what I mean.

Sorry if I'm making obvious blunders, neuroscience is not my field of expertise by a long margin!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,06:29   

Quote
Sorry if I'm making obvious blunders, neuroscience is not my field of expertise by a long margin!

Louis

And since I've actually read a science news article or two I feel that I am qualified to preach the doctrines of neuroscience. However, this part of todays lesson doesn't involve neuroscience because it's fucking complicated and everything's always an appeal to some authority.

Quote
So meditation helps you to intellectually/conceptually clarify the nature of the interaction between you as a conscious organism and your environment?

The more I read from you both about this the more fascinating it sounds, however, I'm forced to agree that the more I read the more tangential it seems, as you note. However, I'm more than happy to chalk that up to something I'm missing. As Bill notes, when we're talking about experience etc, then we are really talking about brain states, the mechanisms of memory etc. I can definitely see how an understanding of neuroscience, perhaps "future neuroscience" might provide complications to a simplistic "train of logic" type approach.

It may be that we can imagine the science that brings the experience into the realm of quantification. I think you'd have a hard time explaining what you quantified. :) Anyway, we weren't going to talk about neuroscience, remember?

Quote
Whenever I read this stuff about meditation though I keep getting a nagging feeling that it's all to do with things like qualia. It strikes me that this uncommunicable knowledge you've gained is indistinguishable from a variety of other epiphenomena, for example a claim of revelation or intuition that refuses to put itself to examination. Could it be that meditation is like an exercise in that rather than granting you new knowledge it grants you new abilities?
I get that nagging feeling sometimes too. But there are some pretty stark differences between meditation and intuition. First, meditation or that quality that defies description doesn't translate. Any good revelation immediately starts a war or two or at least gets someone killed. You can't really share quiet. You can teach people how to find it but it doesn't convey any kind of imperative. They might say "thanks" and walk off. You can get rich fleecing the rubes with any kind of claim of spiritual superiority but sitting doesn't give that power very easily.  Once you add trappings, well, ... then you've got religion.

Quote
More than that I am concerned that there is some reification of presumed internal states. The fact that this new knowledge has been generated for you is incommunicable flashes a little warning light in my head! That's probably my problem though! I understand the limitations of language in communicating internal states and I understand the difference between what Bill describes as the "idiot monologue" and different modes of cognition. I'm just concerned we are granting too much reality to something very anecdotal and possibly a greater reflection of the model building behaviour of the brain rather than something actually epistemologically useful. If you see what I mean.

I'm a skeptical SOB Louis. All I can say is that there is an awareness outside of reason that I have experienced through practice and I like it. When I learned to do it reasonably well I was in art school. I think it was a required extracurricular activity. That might have something to do with it. I suppose I could be indoctrinated but I have never heard anyone use that word relating to me before. I'm pretty far outside mainstream.

You asked earlier about hallucinogens. I don't think they are the same thing. Sitting or meditating peels away the layers and tripping wraps you up in them. I have experienced both sensations and I like them both although at my age I've started a program trying to conserve my remaining brain cells so I am rusty with the latter experience. I don't think they are really the same thing. You might have moments of similarity though. I don't know.

Even if you could understand the brain functioning, I'm not sure you could understand the experience.

God damn this post reads like a fucking telegram. stop.
Cheers. Stop.

BWE

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,06:45   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 04 2007,02:13)
BWE, you missed my point.  "When God says..." can be replaced by revelation, meditation, whatever, but it's an external source.  Once knowledge comes from that external source there is no need for reason if you accept the source.  Is reason required to accept the authority of the source?  In some cases, maybe, but not always and hence the knowledge can come externally without the use of reason.  

The process I have described doesn't refer to any external source.
   
Quote
This is all predicated on the assumption that you believe in the source, in this case God. If you believe in God then this makes perfect sense and if you don't then it appears that I'm out to lunch.

What you are stating is that you started with your conclusion. Which is fine - but don't claim you got there by means of a process of reasoning. Reasoning backward from a "predicated" conclusion doesn't count.

Here you've just declared your conclusion, again and again. And declared lots of things that follow from your conclusion. Again and again. This is what has got Louis way up in his tree and I'm not even sure we can get him down again. I don't even think he should come down, because he is playing chess, and you are jumping rope.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,07:03   

BWE,

Ok there are three some (!) things that spring to mind:

1) The "is it new knowledge or is it new abilities?" is a very key issue that needs to be addressed.

2) I think we might be using "reason" in different ways. Remember I'm not restricting this issue to just science or crude empiricism, and also remember as with the analogy about "catching a ball" I'm not merely referring to consciously worked out things or processes as reason. I've used a very bare, epistemological definition of reason that I took some pains to elucidate early on.

3) The "experience". This falls foul of comments I've already made about how you and I might (for example) see the colour purple differently. It seems with the "experience" of meditation you are retreating ever backwards to a similar situation. I cannot ever know what the colour purple looks like to you, and vice versa. Similarly I cannot know what knowledge (if any) you've gained by meditation What I CAN do is set up series of scenarios by which we can come to some agreement about what purple is and isn't and what things are purple and what are not. These are explicitly reasoned processes and are the only things that can tell us anything about the issue of "seeing purple". I've explained this all before a couple of times. Remember I am not claiming that everything is knowable, and thus everything is knowable by reason alone. I AM claiming that, as far as anyone can tell, verything that is knowable is knowable only through processes of reason.

The meditation stuff thus far doesn't seem to be an un-reasoned process. They seem to be an internal reasoned process, i.e. training a conscious process of the brain to examine other (perhaps normally unconscious) operating brain processes and to ignore other conscious processes.  They seem to be reason/observation based interactions with the multifarious workings of the brain.

To use a "lady's area" analogy, it's like exercising the pelvic floor muscles. The lady is not doing pull ups on a bar or lifting weights but she is training an ability that is certainly not immediately apparent to all and sundry, i.e it produces subtle but detectable results. The brain is a mutable, trainable organ, this sounds to me very much like what you are doing with meditation. Perhaps the analogy doesn't work too well because pelvic floor exercises yield results verifiable by {ahem} observation of various kinds, and perhaps meditation does too but I think from what Bill and you are saying that isn't the controversial aspect.

Did I just compare your brain to a lady's special area? I think I did, but I seriously didn't mean to insult any party by it! ;-) In the words of Jo Brand "Oi! You've gone very lady's area early on!". My reply is the same as Jimmy Carr's "Why thank you!".

But I digress! Now for the really controversial, deliberately Devil's Adcocate bit I left out earlier:

4) Maybe I'm wrong but despite the vast diffferences in the nature of the claims being made by Skeptic and yourselves there is a common element, correct me if I'm wrong on this btw. That common element is an appeal to an unobservable. Skeptic KNOWS god exists, just like you KNOW meditation has done something for you, both seem to be a reification of an undemonstrable, undemonstrated quantity. I'm not saying it's the SAME process, or feels the same, I'm saying it appears to have that similarity. The question then becomes why is your anecdote better than his? What seperates your unsupportable claim from his, other than their relative sophistication of course?

That last bit is deliberately provocative btw. The reason I'm asking those questions is because I'm trying to tease out what is novel and unique about meditation and its results.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,07:07   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 04 2007,12:45)
Here you've just declared your conclusion, again and again. And declared lots of things that follow from your conclusion. Again and again. This is what has got Louis way up in his tree and I'm not even sure we can get him down again. I don't even think he should come down, because he is playing chess, and you are jumping rope.

I'm always happy to climb down from my tree. I confess to amazingly rapid climbing skills, especially in the upward direction! ;-)

I'm also happy to jump a little rope, but I'm not keen to pretend it makes me a grandmaster.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,07:21   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 04 2007,06:19)
Whenever I read this stuff about meditation though I keep getting a nagging feeling that it's all to do with things like qualia. It strikes me that this uncommunicable knowledge you've gained is indistinguishable from a variety of other epiphenomena, for example a claim of revelation or intuition that refuses to put itself to examination. Could it be that meditation is like an exercise in that rather than granting you new knowledge it grants you new abilities?

That's probably my problem though! I understand the limitations of language in communicating internal states and I understand the difference between what Bill describes as the "idiot monologue" and different modes of cognition. I'm just concerned we are granting too much reality to something very anecdotal and possibly a greater reflection of the model building behaviour of the brain rather than something actually epistemologically useful. If you see what I mean.

Ultimately, the only response to that is not to "argue" these points vis meditation, but to suggest that one practice it. Perhaps the sorts of experience that emerge are better disclosed in language that is more like poetry than scientific discourse - NOT particularly epistemologically (or politically) "useful," not intended to compete with scientific discourse, and difficult to express discursively. One can't build a science upon this practice. One CAN build a practice upon it, however. And neuroscientific disclosures certainly shed light upon the experiences.

But I think "epiphenomenal" takes you the wrong direction; the experiences I am describing are no further away than the feel of the weight of my body in this chair at this moment, and no more epiphenomenal. Actually, "epiphenomenal" is probably a category error with reference to these experiences - unless you are asserting that all conscious experience is epiphenomenal, and that in upon having disclosed a complete description of the physical substrates of consciousness one has described consciousness. This goes to your question of qualia - and calls to mind Jackson's "Mary's room" thought experiment:
       
Quote
Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal chords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?

[Edit] I say she does.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,07:46   

You guys are getting caught up in the details.  I know the God-concept puts your skirts up but look past that for a minute.  It makes no difference what the external source is be it God, Devil, Little Green Men.  The "if" is a big if but if you believe then that problem goes away.  I'm not trying to justify that God exists what I'm saying is if he exists then knowledge given by God is external and not generated by reason AND if one accepts this knowledge then their not exercising a reasoned process but accepting revelation.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,07:53   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 04 2007,07:03)
BWE,

Ok there are three some (!) things that spring to mind:

1) The "is it new knowledge or is it new abilities?" is a very key issue that needs to be addressed.

I'm not sure. Meditation bears some more than passing resemblance to certain kinds of athletic training. The process is absolutely one of training the mind. The hard part about it is that you are training it to stop doing something so you can see? experience? whatever you want to call it, so you can become aware of what the noise is blocking out. Does that make sense? I'll think about it some more.

   
Quote
2) I think we might be using "reason" in different ways. Remember I'm not restricting this issue to just science or crude empiricism, and also remember as with the analogy about "catching a ball" I'm not merely referring to consciously worked out things or processes as reason. I've used a very bare, epistemological definition of reason that I took some pains to elucidate early on.
That's the problem I'm having. I suspect it's the problem Lenny encountered. You aren't learning to "do" something. You learn to stop doing something. Specifically you learn to quiet the background noise of your mind. I think reason is a part of the noise. That's the interesting part; the fact that you quiet logic and reason to experience meditation suggests that they inhibit the process. You may end up in a semantic game where two different phrasings of the statement give two opposing correct answers.

In one sense you acquire new knowledge in that you gain awareness of something which previously eluded you. In another you develop an ability to do just that. Mmmm. I might have to go back to read a couple of your posts again.

   
Quote
3) The "experience". This falls foul of comments I've already made about how you and I might (for example) see the colour purple differently. It seems with the "experience" of meditation you are retreating ever backwards to a similar situation. I cannot ever know what the colour purple looks like to you, and vice versa. Similarly I cannot know what knowledge (if any) you've gained by meditation What I CAN do is set up series of scenarios by which we can come to some agreement about what purple is and isn't and what things are purple and what are not. These are explicitly reasoned processes and are the only things that can tell us anything about the issue of "seeing purple". I've explained this all before a couple of times. Remember I am not claiming that everything is knowable, and thus everything is knowable by reason alone. I AM claiming that, as far as anyone can tell, verything that is knowable is knowable only through processes of reason.

I don't think so. I may not be able to know exactly what you are feeling when you experience some particular kind of happiness but I can deduce an awful lot. When someone figures out what the noise  blocks out they appear to have the same reactions.

   
Quote
The meditation stuff thus far doesn't seem to be an un-reasoned process. They seem to be an internal reasoned process, i.e. training a conscious process of the brain to examine other (perhaps normally unconscious) operating brain processes and to ignore other conscious processes.  They seem to be reason/observation based interactions with the multifarious workings of the brain.

Well, we can train ourselves to have perfect pitch for example. The process makes sense and the requirements are similar enough between people to treat as identical. Since perfect pitch can be mathematically expressed or described, the training follows all your stipulations easily. But what if you are training yourself to experience a place removed from language and actually placed so firmly at the nose of the shuttle of time that it can't be recorded? Like you can't stay in front of a photon. It may just be far enough outside our lexicon that it feels more removed than it is. Again I don't know.

   
Quote
To use a "lady's area" analogy, it's like exercising the pelvic floor muscles. The lady is not doing pull ups on a bar or lifting weights but she is training an ability that is certainly not immediately apparent to all and sundry, i.e it produces subtle but detectable results. The brain is a mutable, trainable organ, this sounds to me very much like what you are doing with meditation. Perhaps the analogy doesn't work too well because pelvic floor exercises yield results verifiable by {ahem} observation of various kinds, and perhaps meditation does too but I think from what Bill and you are saying that isn't the controversial aspect.

Did I just compare your brain to a lady's special area? I think I did, but I seriously didn't mean to insult any party by it! ;-) In the words of Jo Brand "Oi! You've gone very lady's area early on!". My reply is the same as Jimmy Carr's "Why thank you!".

:) gave me a beautiful mental image there Louis. If I weren't busy damning you for making me think* I'd thank you.

   
Quote
But I digress! Now for the really controversial, deliberately Devil's Adcocate bit I left out earlier:

4) Maybe I'm wrong but despite the vast diffferences in the nature of the claims being made by Skeptic and yourselves there is a common element, correct me if I'm wrong on this btw. That common element is an appeal to an unobservable. Skeptic KNOWS god exists, just like you KNOW meditation has done something for you, both seem to be a reification of an undemonstrable, undemonstrated quantity. I'm not saying it's the SAME process, or feels the same, I'm saying it appears to have that similarity. The question then becomes why is your anecdote better than his? What seperates your unsupportable claim from his, other than their relative sophistication of course?

Well, for one I can offer a means of falsification. I could support my claim by teaching you a few concentration techniques. Remember, I've made no positive claims other than that there is a knowledge gained through a mental workout regimen that presents itself as not-reason. I don't have to ask you to take anything on faith. Nothing at all.

   
Quote
That last bit is deliberately provocative btw. The reason I'm asking those questions is because I'm trying to tease out what is novel and unique about meditation and its results.

Cheers

Louis


I'm not particularly provoked because I don't particularly care about the outcome. It's like, once you've discovered masturbation, no one can take it away.

With religion, or any rigid view of the cosmos, learning threatens to take it away. In fact learning succeeds in taking it away. Always. That puts the religious apologist in a deucedly awkward position in a conversation like this one.


*this is a joke. I am not actually damning Louis nor would I ever intentionally condemn any sentient being to an everlasting lake of hellfire and other sundry torments.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,07:54   

Bill,

Ok, epiphenomena is the wrong direction. Good! That's one thing knocked off the list! I certainly would not claim that states of mind have no influence on the body by the way, one of the most counterfactual aspects of epiphenomenalism IMO.

I'm glad you brought up Mary's Room because this example is precisely why I brought up the notion of "ability rather than knowledge".

In fact your opening paragraph is really convincing that this is a trained ability rather than a gain in knowledge. It really "sounds like" to me a marathon runner describing a runner's high after 26 miles of gruelling race. There's only one way to get the runner's high and that's to run the race. To experience the same (or similar or analogous) runner's high you have to actually train yourself to be able to run 26 miles at sufficent pace to cause this phenomenon. You have to train yourself to be able to experience it.

I'm afraid that (as I've read Consciousness Explained) I'm going to have to plumb with Dennett on the Mary's Room thing (i.e. it's a flawed example to certain extents etc). However the response to qualia that interests me the most is the "knowledge that" and "knowledge how" (i.e. ability) distinction made by David Lewis. I honestly don't know enough about it to go beyond that because I only read about David Lewis' work last night, unless I'm forgetting I read about it earlier which is always a possibility!

I'd argue the same way as Dennett, at least initially, that if Mary had perfect knowledge of the "science of seeing red" that would include data about the internal states of the human brain when it sees red. If, as in the RoboMary example, Mary could duplicate those states then she'd know what seeing red feels like without ever having seen it. So the answer I'd give to the problem when Mary has complete knowledge is Dennett's, BUT the answer I'd give if Mary has incomplete knowledge is Lewis'. The distinction I'm making is the same one I made before: i.e. does meditation grant you novel information (know that) OR a novel way of dealing with information (know how).

I think that's a very key distinction.

This again relates back to the "purple problem" I mentioned before. We're edging remarkably close to what is knowable by any means.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,07:55   

Damn. Happened again. Bill beat me to it and said it better and Skeptic posted the same thing.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,08:03   

Quote
BUT the answer I'd give if Mary has incomplete knowledge is Lewis'. The distinction I'm making is the same one I made before: i.e. does meditation grant you novel information (know that) OR a novel way of dealing with information (know how).
I think it grants novel information. But Louis, one thing about me is that I'm far more lyrical than rational. I do rational shit all day long (well, er, you know what I mean) and it's humdrum. I get a deeper truth out of a reread of the Illiad than I do out of the lastest scientific paper. Don't get me wrong, I'm fascinated by the latest issue of "Transactions of the American Fisheries Society" but it's the icing rather than the cake.

Edit: oops, deleted this part when I posted:

You already defined a problem that became only academically interesting with your definition.

Sing O muse of the anger of Louis Achilles.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,08:05   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2007,13:53)
Quote
3) The "experience". This falls foul of comments I've already made about how you and I might (for example) see the colour purple differently. It seems with the "experience" of meditation you are retreating ever backwards to a similar situation. I cannot ever know what the colour purple looks like to you, and vice versa. Similarly I cannot know what knowledge (if any) you've gained by meditation What I CAN do is set up series of scenarios by which we can come to some agreement about what purple is and isn't and what things are purple and what are not. These are explicitly reasoned processes and are the only things that can tell us anything about the issue of "seeing purple". I've explained this all before a couple of times. Remember I am not claiming that everything is knowable, and thus everything is knowable by reason alone. I AM claiming that, as far as anyone can tell, verything that is knowable is knowable only through processes of reason.

I don't think so. I may not be able to know exactly what you are feeling when you experience some particular kind of happiness but I can deduce an awful lot. When someone figures out what the noise  blocks out they appear to have the same reactions.

Which of course was entirely my point in previous posts. What we can learn about each other's experiences is precisely due to reason.

BTW, masturbation analogy: good work. Lady's area and wnaking in a discussion of neuroscience and meditation. We both get a gold star.

Serious point though, the more you and Bill explain this the more it seems to me like an ability you are training. Obviously it goes without saying that this does not in any way diminish it, but it is a reasoned process: you are training one part of your brain to observe another part of your brain and gather information based on those observations. That is an explicitly reasoned process (again using the definition of reason I laid out carefully before).

When you say "not-reason" and things like it, I'm struck by the impression that you think I mean "reason as a conscious working out of something". Please correct me if I'm wrong, because if you DO think that then that's really not what I've been saying.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,08:11   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2007,14:03)
Quote
BUT the answer I'd give if Mary has incomplete knowledge is Lewis'. The distinction I'm making is the same one I made before: i.e. does meditation grant you novel information (know that) OR a novel way of dealing with information (know how).
I think it grants novel information. But Louis, one thing about me is that I'm far more lyrical than rational. I do rational shit all day long (well, er, you know what I mean) and it's humdrum. I get a deeper truth out of a reread of the Illiad than I do out of the lastest scientific paper. Don't get me wrong, I'm fascinated by the latest issue of "Transactions of the American Fisheries Society" but it's the icing rather than the cake.

Edit: oops, deleted this part when I posted:

You already defined a problem that became only academically interesting with your definition.

Sing O muse of the anger of Louis Achilles.

I think this is a difference of style rather than substance.

Do you remember the distinction I've been banging on about to do with reason and science?

Your reading of the Illiad and the thoughts you generate from doing so are certainly not scientific, but they certainly are reasoned (in the manner I've been describing). At the very crudest most basic level you are reacting to a stimulus. At a slightly more sophisticated level you are interacting with the Illiad, thinking about the ideas communicated in it, relating those ideas to ideas, memories and experiences of your own etc. This isn't science, and of course you won't find me claiming it is, but it IS based on reason, observation, rational enquiry. Again, I've explained this before.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,08:14   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2007,14:03)
Quote
BUT the answer I'd give if Mary has incomplete knowledge is Lewis'. The distinction I'm making is the same one I made before: i.e. does meditation grant you novel information (know that) OR a novel way of dealing with information (know how).
I think it grants novel information. But Louis, one thing about me is that I'm far more lyrical than rational. I do rational shit all day long (well, er, you know what I mean) and it's humdrum. I get a deeper truth out of a reread of the Illiad than I do out of the lastest scientific paper. Don't get me wrong, I'm fascinated by the latest issue of "Transactions of the American Fisheries Society" but it's the icing rather than the cake.

Edit: oops, deleted this part when I posted:

You already defined a problem that became only academically interesting with your definition.

Sing O muse of the anger of Louis Achilles.

What you're telling me is it's more fun for you to catch a ball than do the calculus to predict its position on a parabola.

Again, I'm not decrying or reducing the experience or preference, I'm simply saying that simply because something is unconscious does not mean it is not derived from reason, observation/interaction etc.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,08:17   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 04 2007,13:46)
You guys are getting caught up in the details.  I know the God-concept puts your skirts up but look past that for a minute.  It makes no difference what the external source is be it God, Devil, Little Green Men.  The "if" is a big if but if you believe then that problem goes away.  I'm not trying to justify that God exists what I'm saying is if he exists then knowledge given by God is external and not generated by reason AND if one accepts this knowledge then their not exercising a reasoned process but accepting revelation.

The god concept does not put anyone's skirts up.

What annoys people (very different from skirts up) is the continual referral to it as a valid concept when it isn't. Even if you believe god exists, the problem of revelation doesn't go away, even for you as an individual, and certainly not as a genuinely extendable issue relevant to epistemology.

How do you know your revelation is from god?

You seem curiously unwilling to address the question. I've only been asking it for the majority of 34 pages in one form or another. Shall I go back and resurrect that short list of questions I have for you?

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,08:40   

Well, here are some of what I'm going by:

Quote
Epistemiology: Very briefly and roughly speaking science at its core is the acquisition of knowledge by the application of reason and observation. Religion at its core claims to garner knowledge by faith and relevation. These mechanisms (faith/revelation and reason/observation) are diametrically opposed.
At this point I would track because of your use of the word observation. But then you go on to this which muddies things a bit for me:

Quote
The argument was based on your claim that there exist things that are in principle unexamineable by the use of reason and that where reason fails faith/revelation succeed. I am not asking you to prove things to me personally (my assent or dissent is irrelevant) I am asking you to justify the claims you make on some basis other than "Because I say so".
so how do you examine the state of being? Endorphins? Alpha waves? I don't think it's the same as a runners high. That's just a cool feeling. You can't know what it feels like until you have it but you know what it is. Then your ball analogy:

Quote
Of course if you sit down and do the calculus required to catch the ball by hand the ball is on the fround before you've written the first equation, but this doesn't deny the fact that sound mathematical calculation underpins your ability to catch (either balls or blondes!). Simply put: like it or not these things are products of reason, conscious or unconscious, not any other mysteriosu mechanism.
What if you could learn to experience the ball differently? I think this goes to the root of the issue. Is that new experience knowledge? You had to learn to do this so by your reasoning :) you employed reason to acquire the knowledge but that misses the crucial step- you have to learn how to stop analyzing the ball in order to gain the knowledge. You don't learn the altered experience, you learn the ability to experience differently. That ability, whether the product of reason or training, is the ability to know something new through a skill. I'm getting loopy now. I might have just negated my position. I'll have to find out after I sleep tonight.

Quote
Similarly for morals and ethics, these things can and have been developed and understood by reason alone. No recourse to faith or what have you. Is our understanding of them perfect? Nope, never said it was. But this doesn't mean that they are somehow inaccessible to rational enquiry which is Skeptic's (and your it would appear) basic claim. Can reason tell us about abortion or wallet finding and keeping being right or wrong? Sure it can! Carefully define the parameters for what constitute right and wrong and BOOM you can reason your way through it. That ethical and moral systems proceed from axioms doesn't mean that they are unreasoned. Nor does it mean that we have to naively appeal to the Is/Ought fallacy to set those axioms. We can agree to a set of axioms for moral/ethical systems.
But quiet IS inaccessible. The only way to know it is to learn how to do it. Hmmm. And again. Am I trying to win or lose here? Am I scoring own goals?

Quote
Also, morals and ethics are situational. Can anything tell you if any act is ultimately, once and for all, independant of all context Right or Wrong? No! Can anything tell you if any act is right or wrong within a given social context, and/or proceeding from certain given axioms? Yes! The abortion example is a great one.
Except this. Quiet or meditation is THE independence of context. I think.

Well Louis, If I ever get in a bar quarrel with Schopenhauer, I know I'll want you on my side. Maybe.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,08:46   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 04 2007,08:14)
What you're telling me is it's more fun for you to catch a ball than do the calculus to predict its position on a parabola.

Well, yeah. I mean, sheesh. I'm just keeping it real here.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,09:14   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 04 2007,07:46)
You guys are getting caught up in the details.   what I'm saying is if [god] exists then knowledge given by God is external and not generated by reason AND if one accepts this knowledge then their not exercising a reasoned process but accepting revelation.

Skeptic, not to sound like a stinker but how can you claim anything when your first premise has not been proven.

If god exists then....

Ok, prove it. You can't because you've never proven your if premise, it's all make believe.

I might as well say if god exists, Elvis lives in my shorts.  And guys, don't get caught up in the details please, my shorts fit tight so this could be true.

My "if then" makes as much sense as yours and  I have as much evidence that you do to prove my point (my shorts do fit tightly).  You're just making shit up and telling us to not get caught up in the details.   I think that's the IDC approach, no?  

Here is our unsupported claim and don't get caught up in the details.

My 4 yo daughter can come up with more interesting if/then fantasies that are grounded in make believe.

Don't get me wrong, I have no issue with you or anyone else making things up because it makes you feel better.  But when you make fantastic claims people are naturally going to want to know the details, especially when it has to do with the supernatural, ghosts, goblins, zombies, etc.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,10:15   

A great deal of the above differences revolve around definitions of terms such as "knowledge" and "reason." At the core of those definitional questions is the question, "Is there such a thing as knowledge that is not propositional." Perhaps "knowledge" isn't the appropriate term - although I think Louis' distinction between "knowlege of" and "knowledge how" is also helpful.

Louis, vis the latter, I found your application of "reasoned" to the sensory motor abilities that underlie catching a ball a bit strange - because I ultimately associate "reasoning" with "justification or warrant" for holding a conclusion or engaging in a behavior. Here is an behavior equivalent to catching a ball; I wonder if you would describe it as the underlying process as entailing "reasoning":

In my old home we had a water problem in an upstairs bathroom that went undetected for awhile and ruined the living room ceiling below. For a time a fairly large hole was opened in the ceiling, exposing the bottom of the bathtub. I had a step ladder leaning on the wall in the living room, which I had used to inspect the damage. The folded ladder leaned against the wall at a point something like four feet below the ceiling, and was resting four feet from a position under the hole in the ceiling. The exposed structure above presented narrow beams and some plumbing.

I found one of my cats trapped in the crawl space behind the tub. To free it, I opened an access door behind the tub on the second floor. Somehow, this cat had climbed the ladder and leapt from the ladder and up into the hole - only to find that the maneuver can't be repeated in reverse.

Would you ascribe the descriptor "reasoning" to the cluster of (amazing) sensory-motor abilities demonstrated by this utterly non-verbal, non-propositional animal? Or are those abilities really more "like" reasoning, in some respects, but missing significant elements?

When people demonstrate similar behaviors, I would assign "reasoning" to the process of selecting and justifying one behavior over another, but not to the operation of the underlying non-propositional neural nets that apparently underlie such accomplishments. We often attach some idiot monologue to the moments during which we make such calculations ("If I run fast enough I can make the leap"), but I doubt that narration increases the likelihood of success. Indeed, it may impede it, and a lot of training in sports is geared toward silencing the narration - much as in the "Zen of Archery" stuff.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,13:10   

I'll have to clarify this for you a bit later. But you're right I need to do so.

See you in the morning!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,13:43   

Excellent conversation Bill, BWE, and Louis.  One in which I will only observe because I think it will proceed much better without me in it and I like the direction it's going.

On the other hand, Chris has opened my eyes and I'm ashamed to say that it took this long for me to see the trap I had walked into.  So much for my chess-playing skills.

It took me 34 pages to realize that until and if I can prove God exists, or some similar agent, then I have no right to claim that knowledge can come from external sources.  

The question of whether or not revelation is coming from God, the Devil or my own diseased head is irrelevant to the conversation.  Why?  Because the premise is unprovable.  I convice you that God spoke to me and told me "thou shalt not kill" unless you also believe in God.  Certainly God could be more blatent and tell me the winning six numbers but I'm pretty sure that still wouldn't constitute convincing evidence.  The knowledge that "thou shalt not kill" did come from somewhere and it is foolish to argue about it's source because there is no resolution to that discussion.

Here's the situation.  If God or some similar agent exists and imparts knowledge to mankind then my position stands.  If God doesn't exists there may be some other source of knowledge but my position is seriously harmed.  Fortunately, my goal is not to prove that God exists nor should that be required in order to defend my position.  What I offer is an example of how knowledge can come from an external source.  To be honest, I don't know if Moses and Aaron sat down together and worked this out together based upon what made sense to them or if the proverbial Burning Bush spelled it out for Moses.  Funny thing is neither does anyone else.  If you do know then I'd have to ask you to prove it.

The moral of the story is that I'm offering my opinion and it is based upon my faith.  My faith dictates that knowledge can come from God.  If you don't believe in God or you can prove that God doesn't exist then you have nullified my position; otherwise, the best we can do is understand each other and move on.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,14:18   

Quote
My faith dictates that knowledge can come from God.

It's not about your faith, it's about the world outside your head. Your faith is about the same world you and I live in. Your form of "God" does not exist just because you beleive in it. If so, it has nothing to do with the reality outside your mind.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,14:41   

Skeptic,

From my perspective, your position derives from faith but not directly in God; rather it appears faith in the people who told you about God and the book those people showed you. They told you what God was like. They told you what God thinks. They told you what God expects. If you hear God talk to you and he says the things you heard in church and read in a book but he doesn't ever ever ever say those things to people who haven't read the book, then we might be able to employ reason to that little tidbit.

I am tracking with your comment (I think) but do you contradict yourself here?

Quote
It took me 34 pages to realize that until and if I can prove God exists, or some similar agent, then I have no right to claim that knowledge can come from external sources.  

The question of whether or not revelation is coming from God, the Devil or my own diseased head is irrelevant to the conversation.  Why?  Because the premise is unprovable.  I convice you that God spoke to me and told me "thou shalt not kill" unless you also believe in God.  Certainly God could be more blatent and tell me the winning six numbers but I'm pretty sure that still wouldn't constitute convincing evidence.  The knowledge that "thou shalt not kill" did come from somewhere and it is foolish to argue about it's source because there is no resolution to that discussion.

It's all fun and games till God tells you to go kill him a son or obliterate an entire city, people and all. Not that I'm going down the bad things in the bible road but it looks to me like you cherry pick a bit. Sure, I can't tell you God didn't speak to you. I wholeheartedly agree. But what god says is a whole different story.

Imagine if a native from the deepest darkest part of the Amazon, he's never seen nor even heard of humanity outside his own hunting grounds. Imagine if he walked out of the Jungle and told the story of Jesus. Or the miracles in the bible. Or imagine that he says "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife. God told me that."

But actually, that's not what happens is it? What seems to happen is this:
Quote
The Huaorani were contacted only 50 years ago. Before that time, these hunter-gatherers were roaming in small groups on an area three times bigger than their present day territory. Recently, the Ecuadorian government granted the Huaorani communal rights over their current territory....
The Huaorani are known for their spears, which are long, with both ends sharpened. One of the ends is carved with sharp barbs. Once the spear enters the body, there is no way of taking it out without tearing the flesh and causing more damage.  They are feared by neighboring tribes for their violent reputation.  Huaoranis are indeed very temperamental, moody, and unpredictable.  They have a long history of bloody vengeances; violent payback was part of their culture.  Most of the conflicts were solved by spearing the other party, then the family of the victim would seek revenge, thus perpetuating the vicious cycle.

In 1956 the Huaorani were contacted by missionaries of the Summer Language Institute and the process of evangelization began. The missionaries translated the Bible in Huao Terero. They taught the Huaorani it was shameful to walk around naked as they were accustomed, making them ashamed of their traditions and lifestyle.  The influence of missionaries became very apparent to me when I was playing cards with young adults in a Kichwa community in the jungle just outside Huaorani territory.  I was accompanied by a young Huaorani man who had been my guide in a trip to Huaorani territory.  To make the game more entertaining, I proposed that whoever loses, get punished (made to do something funny, like sing, dance, or act silly).  My guide immediately let me know that he was not allowed to dance, because in the Bible it is written that dancing is bad.  When he was punished, my Huaorani guide started singing a religious hymn learned from missionaries.  Huaoranis were lured to live in fixed areas (reservations) where the missionaries built houses and schools, thus destroying their nomadic lifestyle, and disrupting their social structure.  The missionaries paved the way for oil companies to enter Huaorani territory and start drilling. Money, clothing, and new diseases made the Huaorani dependent on consumer goods and western medicines.  In exchange for salt, sugar, and Nike shoes, they gave missionaries and oil companies permission to do pretty much whatever they wanted on their land.

http://www.amazon-indians.org/page11.html

Right?

So, when you talk about a God that you didn't invent, we can look at things like where the idea originated. Right? Or wrong? I'm not talking about disproving God, I'm talking about myth. It can be traced, diagrammed, mapped over time using GIS software like Arcsoft and Arcview, broken down into its constituent bits analyzed and set upon a platter for display.

At that point, reason would tell us that the revelation didn't come from God. Not that knowledge can't come from revelation -

*An aside: and until Louis refines the definitions to draw at least narrow gray areas, his point regarding knowledge looks a bit like "opium makes you sleepy because of its soporific effects" to me right now. But skeptic, watch how he deals with that statement and then watch how I respond. I do suppose that logical soft spot to be the case in this one narrow part of the OP so I expect Louis will vigorously defend his definitions and I will consider his definitions. I suspect Louis will either not be able to support his definition in which case he will blush, giggle and say "oops, quite right.", or he will support his definition in such a way that reason can be reasonably delineated in which case I will concede the point and probably muse on the subject for a good while later because I might see it in a new way. I however, will not say "oops, quite right." Only a Brit would say that and that's because they aren't afraid of looking homosexual like we americans are. Sorry, I can't speak for aussies or kiwis.

- but that previously known knowledge isn't by definition revelation.

Maybe that makes sense. I don't care what you believe but if you claim yesterday's headline as a revelation and also immutable truth and rational investigation leads to a conflicting conclusion the that is the spot where the rift between science and religion begins.

Woo. Gotta go. Bye.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,14:48   

"opium makes you sleepy because of its soporific effects"

virtus dormitiva is the technical term.

/delurk

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,16:00   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ Dec. 04 2007,14:48)
"opium makes you sleepy because of its soporific effects"

virtus dormitiva is the technical term.

/delurk

technical is subjective. In this case there can be no a priori knowledge of a reference point from  which to make that assertion because I haven't had enough sleep. The can be no knowledge of the subject without reason but there can be no reason because this is the internet.

Go ahead. I'd like to see you try.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 04 2007,16:36   

Me? Heavens no. Wouldn't touch it. Let's let Dr. Pangloss 'ave a go, shall we?

The sleep of reason produces, not monsters, but LOLCats. For the internet surely suggests insomnia, and subjective whingeing is the most tiresome activity to witness. Therefore, your lack of sleep proves that internet bulletin boards are the highest acheivement of man in this, the best of all possible worlds.

/Panglossian nonsense

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,13:53   

Morning all....well nearly.

Forgive my lateness, I didn't get a moment's peace today. When I wasn't in the lab tinkering with chemicals I was in meetings with supervisees discussing their rosy futures and how wonderful they've been all year. I haven't had a chance to sneak into the office for a cheeky skive...I mean power relax...and a coffee. I've been on the go since 6 am when I strolled into work. Ahhh I love it when it's like this, office work bores the piss out of me. Give me a busy day in the lab interspersed with a bit of literature reading and developing a new research proposal any day.

So on with the excitement:

Bill and BWE,

I'm rather surprised. I have been using the word "reason" in its clear philosophical, epistemological sense (openly stated) since the word go, and NOW the definition is in question? Oh well, my own fault I suppose. I checked back and I haven't seen me say that the ball toss was "reasoned" but that it was a process that is based on the use of reason.

For example:

Quote
What you're telling me is it's more fun for you to catch a ball than do the calculus to predict its position on a parabola.

Again, I'm not decrying or reducing the experience or preference, I'm simply saying that simply because something is unconscious does not mean it is not derived from reason, observation/interaction etc.


From here.

But maybe I should take a step back and explain it better. First, to the BatDictionary! (sorry if this is dull, I don't mean to patronise you, that is definitely not my intention, I am just trying to be uber-clear! Apologies in advance)

I'll bold the main usage(s) I've been making, and subsidiary uses that are relevant to the main point I'll italiscise.

Reason

–noun 1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.: the reason for declaring war.  
2. a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action.  
3. the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.  
4. sound judgment; good sense.  
5. normal or sound powers of mind; sanity.  
6. Logic. a premise of an argument.
7. Philosophy. a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument.
b. the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought, or of conduct influenced by such thought.  
c. Kantianism. the faculty by which the ideas of pure reason are created.  

–verb (used without object) 8. to think or argue in a logical manner.  
9. to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.  
10. to urge reasons which should determine belief or action.  
–verb (used with object) 11. to think through logically, as a problem (often fol. by out).  
12. to conclude or infer.  
13. to convince, persuade, etc., by reasoning.  
14. to support with reasons.  
—Idioms15. bring (someone) to reason, to induce a change of opinion in (someone) through presentation of arguments; convince: The mother tried to bring her rebellious daughter to reason.  
16. by reason of, on account of; because of: He was consulted about the problem by reason of his long experience.  
17. in or within reason, in accord with reason; justifiable; proper: She tried to keep her demands in reason.  
18. stand to reason, to be clear, obvious, or logical: With such an upbringing it stands to reason that the child will be spoiled.  
19. with reason, with justification; properly: The government is concerned about the latest crisis, and with reason.  

Fromhere. (sorry but my online OED subscription has expired.)

More precisely:

Reason

<philosophical terminology> the intellectual ability to apprehend the truth cognitively, either immediately in intuition, or by means of a process of inference

From here.

Knowledge    

–noun 1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.  
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.  
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.  
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.  
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.  
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.  
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.  
9. Archaic. sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.  
–adjective 10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.  
—Idiom11. to one's knowledge, according to the information available to one: To my knowledge he hasn't been here before.  

From here.

Knowledge

1. see <epistemology>

2. <artificial intelligence, information science> The objects, concepts and relationships that are assumed to exist in some area of interest. A collection of knowledge, represented using some knowledge representation language is known as a knowledge base and a program for extending and/or querying a knowledge base is a knowledge-based system.

Knowledge differs from data or information in that new knowledge may be created from existing knowledge using logical inference. If information is truthful data plus meaning then knowledge is information plus justification/explanation.

A common form of knowledge, e.g. in a Prolog program, is a collection of facts and rules about some subject.

For example, a knowledge base about a family might contain the facts that John is David's son and Tom is John's son and the rule that the son of someone's son is their grandson. From this knowledge it could infer the new fact that Tom is David's grandson.

From here.

Rational

–adjective 1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.  
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.  
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.  
4. endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.  
5. of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.  
6. proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning: a rational explanation.
7. Mathematics. a. capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two integers.  
b. (of a function) capable of being expressed exactly by a ratio of two polynomials.  

8. Classical Prosody. capable of measurement in terms of the metrical unit or mora.  
–noun 9. Mathematics. rational number.  

Or more precisely:

Rational

<logic, epistemology> respecting logical principles of
validity and consistency and answering to the evidence
of experience.

From
here.

Faith

–noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.  
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.  
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.  
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.  
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.  
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.  
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.  
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.  
—Idiom9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.  

From here.

Revelation

–noun 1. the act of revealing or disclosing; disclosure.  
2. something revealed or disclosed, esp. a striking disclosure, as of something not before realized.  
3. Theology. a. God's disclosure of Himself and His will to His creatures.

b. an instance of such communication or disclosure.  
c. something thus communicated or disclosed.

d. something that contains such disclosure, as the Bible.  

4. (initial capital letter) Also called Revelations, The Revelation of St. John the Divine. the last book in the New Testament; the Apocalypse. Abbreviation: Rev.  

From here.

Specifically I have been using "revelation" as a shorthand for "divine revelation" or "supernatural revelation", i.e. the direct revealing of knowledge by a supernatural source to a person.

Ok enough dictionary! Sorry for the length and general turgidness. I included a full definition list in case we need to refer back to it.

If it's not now obvious what I mean by (for example) catching a ball being an unconsciously processed act derived from reason, observation and rational "thought" (in inverted commas because it is an unconscious process intersecting with a set of conscious processes), then allow me to elaborate a touch.

You aren't born able to catch a ball. Your nervous system (i'll use "brain" for shorthand) gradually develops better control over muscles etc, making a consciously controllable motor system. There are obviously unconscious controls over the motor system (for example the stepping reflex in young babies) too. Those unconscious processes do what I call "the hard part", i.e. they calculate how to move parts of the motor system to do consciously directed tasks. The development of this system is a learning process, a process of interacting with one's environment, observing the effects, improving one's interactions based on those observations. This is, using the definition above a process that utilises REASON. Successful interactions with one's environment by use of one's motor system improve one's ability to make those successful interactions, a classic feedback system. The fact that you don't consciously have to sit down and do the calculus necessary to catch a ball as part of your conscious processing does not mean that calculus is not going on at some unconscious level in the brain. It has to be for you to be able to catch the ball. This does not mean some brain cells are sitting down doing the neuronal equivalent of writing dx/dt etc! And that is a crazy way to misunderstand what I am saying.

More than this it is an evolutionary, and highly evolved, system. Very generally: motile organisms over time had to improve their interactions with their environment (selection pressures dictating) and part of that improvement is to develop "subroutines" for rapid processing of motor system tasks. I don't have a sufficiently computer science based background to give a better, more technical explanation than that, but I think the analogy suffices.

The process of ball catching improves by interaction and observation, by better calculating "subroutines", by interacting with one's environment as if it were a consistent, logically coherent system. That is a reason based process. One's conscious control of it, or one's conscious working out of every tiny detail is not the point I was making, and is unneccessary. The brain doesn't believe the ball will be at point X at time T, it doesn't think it will by some faith proposition, it determines the ball will be at point X at time T by a process of observation, experience, reason and calculation.

Is that clearer now?

Please don't confuse "reason" in the sense I am using it (and have clearly and statedly been doing so since post one) with "reason" as in a verb implying conscious thought. I've been very clear about this.

How is this relevant to meditation?

Well, from what you gents have told me, meditation, or rather the insights/knowledge gained from it ,is derived from a series of processes all of which are, like working out a hard sum, forming a coherent argument, catching a ball etc a combination of conscious thought and effort and unconscious "subroutines" based on reason and observation etc.

It seems to me, from what you've said, that meditation is like learning to catch a ball, but for the brain alone! You are training your brain to do a trick it can, but normally wouldn't, do. You are training your brain to seperate out different running processes and get some of those processes to interact with, to observe, other processes. Whether those processes are conscious or unconscious isn't important. The very acts you are committing when meditating are acts of reason and observation, e.g. one process observing another and gaining knowledge from those observations.

Again, correct me if I'm wrong about what your reports of meditation are telling me!

Two final things, ok three final things:

1) BWE, I hope you see how my arguments are definitely not like:

"opium makes you sleepy because of its soporific effects"

2) Bill, cats don't reason? I don't think you'll want to let them hear you say that. Be good to your Feline Overlords. But seriously, cat brains are evolved things, just like our brains are. The same processes underpin each. Your cat's ability to get it's body into that awkward position is a function of the reason and observation based processes of it's brain, they are not a (to use a different definition of reason) a hallmark of a carefully reasoned course of action. Have I clarified the distinction I was making a little better this time?

3) I see on another thread some Yanks having become uppety. I'm off to give them a good kicking. Cheeky fuckers. Honestly, you have an early night with the beloved Mrs and you get this sort of shit from lowly colonials. There should be a law!

;-)

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,13:58   

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

LInk 5

Link 6

Link 7

Link 8

Link 9

Link 10

Link 11

Link 12

Link 13

Link 14

Link 15

Link 16

Link 17

Link 18

Link 19

Link 20

Link 21

Link 22

Link 23

Link 24

Link 25

Link 26

Ok, this is a series of links to the posts that contain my core arguments. Some of them might be repetitions or claifications, but I think I've included everything I need to.

This is really a resource for me to help me remember what I've said and how.

Sorry for the unneccessary space filling!

Louis

P.S. I'm going to go back and edit the link titles when I get a chance, so it's clearer what one to look at.

--------------
Bye.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,14:11   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 05 2007,13:53)
3) I see on another thread some Yanks having become uppety. I'm off to give them a good kicking. Cheeky fuckers. Honestly, you have an early night with the beloved Mrs and you get this sort of shit from lowly colonials. There should be a law!

Hey Louis, be fair! I stood up for you when Carlsonjok said that you were so fat that you had other fat people in orbit around you!

However, the jury is still out on whether your ass has its own member of Parliament. Maybe you could set us straight on that?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,14:24   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 05 2007,20:11)
Quote (Louis @ Dec. 05 2007,13:53)
3) I see on another thread some Yanks having become uppety. I'm off to give them a good kicking. Cheeky fuckers. Honestly, you have an early night with the beloved Mrs and you get this sort of shit from lowly colonials. There should be a law!

Hey Louis, be fair! I stood up for you when Carlsonjok said that you were so fat that you had other fat people in orbit around you!

However, the jury is still out on whether your ass has its own member of Parliament. Maybe you could set us straight on that?

My blood type is NOT "gravy". I do not have my own post code. The reason I have my own MP is due to my INTELLECTUAL stature, not my steatopygous nature (which I neither confirm nor deny).

Granted, as a prop forward I am not a lithe and lissome fellow. However, some rampaging sack of unrepentant lardiness I am not. The very suggestion!

Now, just because you have a face that makes babies cry, reminiscent of a bulldog licking piss off a nettle or perhaps shite off a razor blade, it doesn't give you the right to go around casting aspertions at other people's physical nature. We all know you're still bitter about the Mornington Crescent thing, NOW you're bitter because you are a 145 lb weakling who could be knocked over by a delicate fart from a loose boweled five year old.

{shakes head}

Arden, Arden, Arden. When will you learn? Don't worry, I still love you for who you are. You don't need to get all excited and prove anything to me. I still think you're REALLY big and clever. Now, do you want a sweetie?

Louis

P.S. I think Arden's tired and is showing off.

--------------
Bye.

  
Steviepinhead



Posts: 532
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,14:30   

This paragraph of BWE's tickled my funny bone (while also lighting up the "fond reminiscence" region of my gray matter), and then I got to thinking about it:
Quote
Sitting or meditating peels away the layers and tripping wraps you up in them. I have experienced both sensations and I like them both although at my age I've started a program trying to conserve my remaining brain cells so I am rusty with the latter experience. I don't think they are really the same thing. You might have moments of similarity though. I don't know.

What happens if you sit/meditate while tripping?  I seem to remember doing that...  Needless to say, I'm a little rusty with the latter experience as well (hell, I'm rusty with the ladder experience, which is really inexcusable...), but I sense an experiment lurking in the weeds.

If the CIA didn't already run it.  Maybe a FOIA request?

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,14:40   

Louis, you still haven't addressed these concerns. Therefore, they must be true. :angry:

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,15:06   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Dec. 05 2007,20:40)
Louis, you still haven't addressed these concerns. Therefore, they must be true. :angry:

Sorry Arden, Hadn't seen them.

{reads quickly}

Nope nothing true or original there. Wake me when you come up with something useful

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,16:15   

I'm going to jump in for just a second but I'll promise to jump out just as quick.  I think what you're trying to do is analyze meditation and break it down in a manner that makes sense to you. Nothing wrong with that but there are alternatives.

While your view of how meditation works may be right it can also be wrong.  Take this analogy.  You're not training yourself to use different thought processes but rather you're teaching yourself to quiet down so you can "hear" what's always been out there.  If it is the conscious thinking process getting in the way then meditation inhibits that process to make you more receptive to addition stimuli that is normally lost in the noise.  Of course, there's no real way to tell the difference and that's the rub.

If I were to apply this in a faith context.  Again, with the assumption that God is out there and talking, meditation or prayer opens you up so you can hear him.  This would then be a conduit to external knowledge that has no basis we know of in reason.

One disclaimer, I'm in no way implying that meditation is communion.  Certainly in the Eastern sense, meditation has an entirely different context and purpose I just wanted to point out how this concept can also extend into realm of faith.  I just wanted to head off the yelling that this is not what you're saying, Bill and BWE, I understand that and I'm not trying to hijack your comments.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,17:27   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 05 2007,14:30)
This paragraph of BWE's tickled my funny bone (while also lighting up the "fond reminiscence" region of my gray matter), and then I got to thinking about it:
   
Quote
Sitting or meditating peels away the layers and tripping wraps you up in them. I have experienced both sensations and I like them both although at my age I've started a program trying to conserve my remaining brain cells so I am rusty with the latter experience. I don't think they are really the same thing. You might have moments of similarity though. I don't know.

What happens if you sit/meditate while tripping?  I seem to remember doing that...  Needless to say, I'm a little rusty with the latter experience as well (hell, I'm rusty with the ladder experience, which is really inexcusable...), but I sense an experiment lurking in the weeds.

If the CIA didn't already run it.  Maybe a FOIA request?

Not me. We (and you from what I've heard) received the gift of somewhere between 30 and 100 inches of rain on Sunday and Monday and my pear  tree decided to use that opportunity to deposit all its remaining leaves in my gutters.

I am not only freshly acquainted with ladders but also now posses a highly developed skill which gives me faith should I ever need to use a ladder in 50 mph winds during a downpour again.

My suspicions on meditating while tripping tend toward the idea that you probably should just call it tripping no matter what position your body happens to take. Someday I'll experiment.


Louis,
Sorry, I was sleepy when I wrote the opium bit :) . Let's see now... Very good. I need you to answer one question before I deliver my devastating critique.

What does it mean to say that I have faith in reason?

Please use the quote below as a reference.
   
Quote ("louis @ Mornington,Crescent")
This is the thing with religion. I'd be singularly amazed if all relgious ideas from all religions over all time turned out to be totally useless. In fact it would be a staggering (and interesting) clue if they were. As it turns out, not all the ideas contained in religion are totally useless, some of them, many of them are quite useful. But a) how do we know they are useful, b) how did they develop, and c) how do we examine them and extract the useful bits? The answer to those three questions is not "faith and revelation". The answer is "by careful reasoning, rational examination of their claims and coherence, careful observation of their effects and basis, and scrutiny of the evidence they claim in support". The useful bits of religions are not only discernable by reason and observation, they are derived from them and can be reverse engineered on that basis. The fact that we have forgotten how they arose, or that their workings are hidden is no more significant than the fact that some part of our brain does very rapid and complex differential calculus when we catch a ball, or that we don't show the full proofs of number theory when we add two and two to get four.



Skeptic,
Quote
While your view of how meditation works may be right it can also be wrong.  Take this analogy.  You're not training yourself to use different thought processes but rather you're teaching yourself to quiet down so you can "hear" what's always been out there.  If it is the conscious thinking process getting in the way then meditation inhibits that process to make you more receptive to addition stimuli that is normally lost in the noise.  Of course, there's no real way to tell the difference and that's the rub.

If I were to apply this in a faith context.  Again, with the assumption that God is out there and talking, meditation or prayer opens you up so you can hear him.  This would then be a conduit to external knowledge that has no basis we know of in reason.


You are directly at odds with the scientific method. Sure quiet down to "hear what's out there" but then decipher the new information based on your experience of it. If you assume that there is some toga clad bearded man in there flailing about with a can o' whup ass on unbelievers before you get there, you short circuit the scientific process. If you discover god while you're in there, that's a different story.

Also, do you have a response to my earlier question about why you assume god?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,17:40   

sorry, BWE, missed that one but I'll go back and give it a look.

not sure exactly what you're saying in the first comment unless it is to say that faith operates outside the scientific method (I don't think you're actually saying that) and if so then I whole-heartedly agree.

  
Annyday



Posts: 583
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,18:36   

Quote (Steviepinhead @ Dec. 05 2007,14:30)
This paragraph of BWE's tickled my funny bone (while also lighting up the "fond reminiscence" region of my gray matter), and then I got to thinking about it:
 
Quote
Sitting or meditating peels away the layers and tripping wraps you up in them. I have experienced both sensations and I like them both although at my age I've started a program trying to conserve my remaining brain cells so I am rusty with the latter experience. I don't think they are really the same thing. You might have moments of similarity though. I don't know.

What happens if you sit/meditate while tripping?  I seem to remember doing that...  Needless to say, I'm a little rusty with the latter experience as well (hell, I'm rusty with the ladder experience, which is really inexcusable...), but I sense an experiment lurking in the weeds.

If the CIA didn't already run it.  Maybe a FOIA request?

I've done it a few times. Meditating makes you trip harder. My personal explanation is that pruning out external stimuli through meditation frees up resources with which to exercise the mind, whether it's being fueled by conscious contemplation or hallucinogens. Isolation tanks supposedly do similar things.

I'm, uh, not reading the parts of this thread that aren't about hallucinogens. I surmise, sort of, that it's a form of argument about the validity of experience, faith, qualia and suchlike and is probably very dull.

--------------
"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,20:53   

Some responses to Louis. Apologies: this is way too long.
                 
Quote
I'm rather surprised. I have been using the word "reason" in its clear philosophical, epistemological sense (openly stated) since the word go, and NOW the definition is in question?

Actually, I don't see that the definition of "reason" is at issue here at all, and am unsure of the source of your surprise. What I said was "I ultimately associate 'reasoning' with 'justification or warrant' for holding a conclusion or engaging in a behavior." That, obviously, is essentially identical to the first dictionary definition of reason you've reproduced above: "1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc." This also seems right at home within the context of the theme of this entire thread, and specifically your argument with Skeptic: You have repeatedly asked him to provide explicit warrant for his conclusions in the form of evidence and explicitly articulated reasoning over that evidence, and repeatedly expressed exasperation over his unwillingness to do so. Instead, he has tended to restate his assertions, asserting the warrant to do so on "faith." Further, central to the thread has been your argument regarding the power and value of explicit reasoning over states of affairs (evidence) as a means to justify conclusions, relative to statements asserted from faith.

                             
Quote
Oh well, my own fault I suppose. I checked back and I haven't seen me say that the ball toss was "reasoned" but that it was a process that is based on the use of reason.

Vis the very specific form "reasoned" I was recalling your PM to me. There you said "...It's an operation of your brain based on interaction between your CNS and its environment, it is the very essence of a reasoned process based on observation and interaction."

I do take note of the fact that you've also, in the above definitions, favored a related definition of "reason" that carries a somewhat different emphasis: "Philosophy. a. the faculty or power of acquiring intellectual knowledge, either by direct understanding of first principles or by argument." Then, you provided a supportive definition of "knowledge," with this emphasis: "something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities...the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time"  I don't dispute any of these definitions, and accept the emphasis that you've preferred above (although I would say that a definition of knowledge as "something that is or may be known" is pretty close to tautological and therefore not very helpful).

So. We agree on the definition of "reason," yet I still find your application of "reason" to an exquisite motor act such as catching a ball somewhat inappropriate. Given our agreement on definition, it is likely that we are differing on applicability. For me this difference flows,

1) from elements implicit within the definition of "reasoning" reported above (namely its propositional nature), and

2) from the actual neural basis of such acts, which is not propositional, or even representational.

The short version is that "reason" and "reasoning" are inherently representational and often propositional in nature, while the visual networks that guide motor actions are not.

----------------------------------

I have repeatedly emphasized "propositional" versus "non-propositional" insights in discussing meditation. A proposition entails a representation of a possible state of affairs in the world ("there are a lot of cats in the neighborhood") and may be factual or counterfactual. Propositions may be articulated as first principles or stated as assertions about states of affairs that may be affirmed by public observation (e.g. evidence). As one reasons, one then operates logically over those propositions to attain conclusions that are also expressed propositionally. Hence reasoning, as I construe it, is inherently propositional/representational in nature. Similarly, "knowledge" as you define it, and incorporate to your preferred definition of "reason," is inherently propositional: inherent to any notion of "truths" (as in "the body of truths") is propositional content; truths are that subset of propositions we know to be factual rather than counterfactual. It may be that reasoning in this sense can be accomplished unconsciously, but I think it inherent in the definition that, on demand, the evidence, propositions, operations across those propositions, and resulting assertions can be explicitly articulated. I don't think you'd be impressed if Skeptic claimed "My conclusions ARE based on reasoning - only this is unconscious reasoning that I can't articulate. But I know it is reason, and that my conclusions are reasonable." You would ask that he make his reasoning explicit, or request that he cease characterizing his process as "reason."

----------------------------------

Given the above: I don't believe that the mechanisms that underlie skills such as catching a ball are necessarily propositional or even representational. In fact, the contrary appears to be true: rapid visual-motor coordination and actions are guided by an unconscious stream of visual processing that is NOT representational - and hence is not propositional (because all propositions are representations, athough the reverse is not true). Nor is this non-concious process amenable to explicit articulation in terms of propositional reasoning, even upon demand. The following draws upon Milner and Goodale's 1996 book The Visual Brain in Action:

From an evolutionary perspective, the original function of vision was to enable organisms to perform skilled actions.  It was only in mammalian evolution, particularly with the evolution of the primates, that the ability to build and store manipulable perceptual representations of the visual world appeared, representations that are the basis of visual "observation." In the primate brain these functions are accomplished by two relatively independent streams of neural processing which progress from back to front of the brain along independent ventral and dorsal pathways. The output of the ventral stream is perception; the output of the dorsal stream is action.  

Persons who suffer lesions that interrupt then ventral "what" stream suffer various “form agnosias” that render them unable to recognize or discriminate common objects, simple geometric shapes, and faces.  The ventral stream’s sole source of input is the primary visual cortex (V1); hence complete disruption or disconnection of V1 results in “cortical blindness.”  Persons suffering such brain damage report no visual experience.  

The dorsal "where/how" stream of visual information processing is, in contrast, responsible for the guidance of immediate motor actions, such as reaching one’s arm, posturing one’s hand and opening one’s fingers to grasp an object - and catching a ball. The dorsal stream receives a variety of subcortical inputs, particularly from the superior colliculus, at points beyond area V1, and hence continues to receive some input even when V1 has been destroyed and cortical blindness is present. Moreover, the motor guidance accomplished by the dorsal stream appears to occur entirely outside awareness, and does not directly contribute to direct perceptual experience at all, including the perception of space and objects within it. These computations must be constantly and rapidly updated “online” in a real-time fashion - hence this action-based stream of visual processing has very little memory, does not create or utilize stored representations, and does not directly contribute to conscious perception.
   
In short, many rapid visual-motor actions are accomplished by means of visual processing that does NOT contribute to the construction of the visual scene, and hence to anything resembling observation.

Persons who have suffered damage to the “what” pathway and hence suffer various visual agnosias often remain capable of performing visually guided manual tasks with considerable precision, even as they remain utterly incapable of reporting, on the basis of vision alone, the size, shape, orientation, identity or function of the objects they successfully manipulate. For example, one exhaustively studied patient (D. F.), who suffered damage to the ventral pathway (secondary to carbon monoxide poisoning), is completely unable to recognize forms or objects (her perception of color and texture remain quite vivid, however). However, D. F. is capable of orienting her hand to post a card into a slot oriented at various angles with adeptness equal to controls, while remaining utterly unable to report or describe either verbally or by gesture the orientation of the slot at a level above chance. She is similarly able to reach and grasp objects of various sizes with normal precision, opening her fingers in preparation for a grasp in a normal fashion and grasping the objects across physically efficient axes, yet remains completely unable to identify, describe or discriminate these objects on the basis of size or form. Damage to the ventral pathway has completely disrupted her ability to recognize or describe visual forms, yet she continues to be guided in her motor actions by dorsal visual processing to which she has no conscious access and that results in no visual experience.

In contrast, persons who suffer dorsal stream damage remain largely perceptually intact while exhibiting severe impairment of visually guided behavior.  They have comparatively little difficulty giving accurate verbal reports of the orientation and location of objects, and are capable of making various discriminations.  Nevertheless, they exhibit a narrowing of attention, fixed gaze, difficulty executing saccadic eye movements, and difficulty reaching their arms and forming their hands to complete a grasp of target objects.  In short, they are able to contemplate the perceptual scene constructed by the ventral pathway, yet have difficulty utilizing that information to guide motor actions.  This is not a deficit of the motor system, as demonstrated by the fact that these persons remain capable of adeptly guiding motor actions using other sensory modalities such as touch.

In short, the vision-action neural nets that guide rapid and precise motor actions such as catching a ball are NOT representational in nature, are not at all propositional, and do not result in observations, unconscious or otherwise. Yes, they adapt us beautifully to circumstances in the external world, but they do not represent "reasoning" over experience in any of the senses defined above, because they do not entail representations. Something other than reasoning, even unconscious reasoning, is going on when this dorsal stream of processing guides one's hand as one catches a ball.

[very minor edits for clarity]

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,21:08   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2007,14:41)
Skeptic,

From my perspective, your position derives from faith but not directly in God; rather it appears faith in the people who told you about God and the book those people showed you. They told you what God was like. They told you what God thinks. They told you what God expects. If you hear God talk to you and he says the things you heard in church and read in a book but he doesn't ever ever ever say those things to people who haven't read the book, then we might be able to employ reason to that little tidbit.

I am tracking with your comment (I think) but do you contradict yourself here?

Quote
It took me 34 pages to realize that until and if I can prove God exists, or some similar agent, then I have no right to claim that knowledge can come from external sources.  

The question of whether or not revelation is coming from God, the Devil or my own diseased head is irrelevant to the conversation.  Why?  Because the premise is unprovable.  I convice you that God spoke to me and told me "thou shalt not kill" unless you also believe in God.  Certainly God could be more blatent and tell me the winning six numbers but I'm pretty sure that still wouldn't constitute convincing evidence.  The knowledge that "thou shalt not kill" did come from somewhere and it is foolish to argue about it's source because there is no resolution to that discussion.

It's all fun and games till God tells you to go kill him a son or obliterate an entire city, people and all. Not that I'm going down the bad things in the bible road but it looks to me like you cherry pick a bit. Sure, I can't tell you God didn't speak to you. I wholeheartedly agree. But what god says is a whole different story.

Imagine if a native from the deepest darkest part of the Amazon, he's never seen nor even heard of humanity outside his own hunting grounds. Imagine if he walked out of the Jungle and told the story of Jesus. Or the miracles in the bible. Or imagine that he says "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife. God told me that."

But actually, that's not what happens is it? What seems to happen is this:
Quote
The Huaorani were contacted only 50 years ago. Before that time, these hunter-gatherers were roaming in small groups on an area three times bigger than their present day territory. Recently, the Ecuadorian government granted the Huaorani communal rights over their current territory....
The Huaorani are known for their spears, which are long, with both ends sharpened. One of the ends is carved with sharp barbs. Once the spear enters the body, there is no way of taking it out without tearing the flesh and causing more damage.  They are feared by neighboring tribes for their violent reputation.  Huaoranis are indeed very temperamental, moody, and unpredictable.  They have a long history of bloody vengeances; violent payback was part of their culture.  Most of the conflicts were solved by spearing the other party, then the family of the victim would seek revenge, thus perpetuating the vicious cycle.

In 1956 the Huaorani were contacted by missionaries of the Summer Language Institute and the process of evangelization began. The missionaries translated the Bible in Huao Terero. They taught the Huaorani it was shameful to walk around naked as they were accustomed, making them ashamed of their traditions and lifestyle.  The influence of missionaries became very apparent to me when I was playing cards with young adults in a Kichwa community in the jungle just outside Huaorani territory.  I was accompanied by a young Huaorani man who had been my guide in a trip to Huaorani territory.  To make the game more entertaining, I proposed that whoever loses, get punished (made to do something funny, like sing, dance, or act silly).  My guide immediately let me know that he was not allowed to dance, because in the Bible it is written that dancing is bad.  When he was punished, my Huaorani guide started singing a religious hymn learned from missionaries.  Huaoranis were lured to live in fixed areas (reservations) where the missionaries built houses and schools, thus destroying their nomadic lifestyle, and disrupting their social structure.  The missionaries paved the way for oil companies to enter Huaorani territory and start drilling. Money, clothing, and new diseases made the Huaorani dependent on consumer goods and western medicines.  In exchange for salt, sugar, and Nike shoes, they gave missionaries and oil companies permission to do pretty much whatever they wanted on their land.

http://www.amazon-indians.org/page11.html

Right?

So, when you talk about a God that you didn't invent, we can look at things like where the idea originated. Right? Or wrong? I'm not talking about disproving God, I'm talking about myth. It can be traced, diagrammed, mapped over time using GIS software like Arcsoft and Arcview, broken down into its constituent bits analyzed and set upon a platter for display.

At that point, reason would tell us that the revelation didn't come from God. Not that knowledge can't come from revelation -

*An aside: and until Louis refines the definitions to draw at least narrow gray areas, his point regarding knowledge looks a bit like "opium makes you sleepy because of its soporific effects" to me right now. But skeptic, watch how he deals with that statement and then watch how I respond. I do suppose that logical soft spot to be the case in this one narrow part of the OP so I expect Louis will vigorously defend his definitions and I will consider his definitions. I suspect Louis will either not be able to support his definition in which case he will blush, giggle and say "oops, quite right.", or he will support his definition in such a way that reason can be reasonably delineated in which case I will concede the point and probably muse on the subject for a good while later because I might see it in a new way. I however, will not say "oops, quite right." Only a Brit would say that and that's because they aren't afraid of looking homosexual like we americans are. Sorry, I can't speak for aussies or kiwis.

- but that previously known knowledge isn't by definition revelation.

Maybe that makes sense. I don't care what you believe but if you claim yesterday's headline as a revelation and also immutable truth and rational investigation leads to a conflicting conclusion then that is the spot where the rift between science and religion begins.

Woo. Gotta go. Bye.

Skeptic. This one.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,21:10   

As an addendum (I don't want to lengthen the above post any further), the above points on visual-motor guidance can be extended to the experiences harvested by meditation. There is a LOT of neural and bodily action going on within our brains, nervous systems, and bodies that is similarly not at all propositional. This functioning isn't directly encountered during travels through the corridors of language and reason, however skillful, and aren't derived products of propositional reason. Yet one can pause to dwell within those streams of activity, which are also part of oneself, part of one's organism, and indeed embody the many strata evolutionary history that lie within each of us. Meditation is one way to so dwell.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,21:49   

Quote
often remain capable of performing manual tasks with considerable precision, even as they remain utterly incapable of reporting, on the basis of vision alone, the size, shape, orientation, identity or function of the objects they successfully manipulate.


Weird!

Makes me wonder if those internal calculations might be analog rather than digital - using some sort of signal strength or chemical concentration instead of any sort of symbols for the variables in the "calculation".

Henry

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2007,21:54   

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 05 2007,22:49)
Quote
often remain capable of performing manual tasks with considerable precision, even as they remain utterly incapable of reporting, on the basis of vision alone, the size, shape, orientation, identity or function of the objects they successfully manipulate.


Weird!

Makes me wonder if those internal calculations might be analog rather than digital - using some sort of signal strength or chemical concentration instead of any sort of symbols for the variables in the "calculation".

Henry

That's probably right. Neural-net computation doesn't use procedures nor variables (although it can simulate algorithmic computation that does). Rather, strengths of connections are established and modified between nodes, very much an analog process.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2007,07:29   

Bill,

Re: reasoned. AH! Thanks very much! I had an inkling I'd said it somewhere (and knew that it was an error) but when I checked back on the thread I couldn't find it so I figured I'd corrected it. My mistake entirely. My apologises for the confusion caused (at least to myself!). I recently deleted all my PMs ad my inbox had filled, sorry. Consider my surprise retracted. ;-) Delete that "reasoned" and insert a "based on a process derived from reason, observation etc.". Wrong or right that at least makes it consistent with what I've said before.

Also I didn't mean to imply that you or BWE were using invalid definitions of "reason" etc, just that you (plural) and I were probably using different ones, or that I had inadvertantly used two different ones poorly (as above). And yes, I have used "reason" in different contexts, but I'd hoped until now I'd been clear, obviously I haven't! I'll try harder. (Incidentally, I've also always found the definition of "knowledge" to be as you describe it, and I think that it marks one of the foundational difficulties of these discussions. I was thinking of adding a "communicable" caveat to the definition, but I didn't because I haven't worked out all the details of its implications yet)

I'm not sure however if I'm being thick (always a possibility) or if we're talking at cross purposes with reference to ball catching and reason. Knowing me, probably the former! I understand the point about propositional/representational aspects inherent in the definitions of reason and knowledge I've used. I think maybe where I've made the mistake is saying "knowledge" regarding ball catching when perhaps I meant data or information. Let me think about this.

{time passes}

I think we're both caught up in the propositonal nature of reasoning, and my (perhaps poor) use of the term "reason" for unconscious processes. I'm not even sure that ball catching is not propositional. The problem I'm having is in articulating that distinction. Maybe I've used the wrong words, maybe the emphasis I've been trying to make is not coming across.

Bear with me whilst I try to work this out:

1) The ability to catch a ball is derived in part from the interaction of conscious and unconscious brain processes with the environment.

2) Inherent in those learning processes are a "trial and error" style series of "observations". I.e. the brain "observes" the behaviour of balls in flight and learns how to intercept their trajectories via a series of interactions with balls in flight.

3) By this process the brain develops a picture of how balls in flight behave, that "data" (knowledge? information? Maybe I've been using the wrong words) is, as mentioned, derived from brain-environment interaction, be that for an individual organism or as an evolved ability, both require that interaction to develop.

4) I think that this is precisely what you describe as "A proposition entails a representation of a possible state of affairs in the world ("there are a lot of cats in the neighborhood") and may be factual or counterfactual." The brain has developed a representation of a possible state of affairs in the world, i.e. how balls behave in flight, and learned how to interact with that state of affairs to produce a specific result (catching of ball). How permanent or temporary that representation is, how quickly or consciously it is used/maintained are besides the point. It is an interaction of brain and environment in a consistent manner.

5) I think I see where we're diverging, it's the conscious/unconscious dichotomy and how the data is processed. I am not saying that brain processes underlying ball catching are part of the conscious processes of the brain, or even that we are aware of them, or represent a conscious model of what the environment around the brain is, and perhaps my use of the words "reason" and "observation" imply a conscious element I don't intend, but I'm not sure what other words to use (maybe "reason-like proccess"?). How that data is processed, the multifarious layers and pathways through the brain, whilst not irrrelevant, are not the point of what I was trying to say.

The distinction I have been making is that brains learn to catch balls by interaction with their environment (trivially true), that interaction  is an example of reason in the same way that the distribution of petals on specific flowers are examples of the Fibonnacci sequence. The distinction being that faith and revelation are not processes that utilise interaction with their environment, they are the internal generation of concepts within the brains of individuals, they eschew interaction deliberately. Idea X is true as an article of faith, comparing idea X to the universe around one is in opposition to having faith in it. No knowledge/data/information is generated or acquired by the process of having an idea untested by any form of interaction even though that idea might, by coincidence represent something externally verifiable. If the brain made models of the environment around it without interacting with that environment in anyway, those models are more likely to be inaccurate. So the brain makes models that are based on interaction with the environment (observations made using sense data. I don't think that implies CONSCIOUS/AWARE observation btw). I think our process of reason as a conscious thing is a representation of this underlying mechanism of generating models via interaction.

6) Maybe I've missed the point and been a bit thick, if so, please explain it to me! Maybe I haven't got across the distinction I'm trying to make very well. Maybe the distinction is a poor one or maybe I'm using the wrong words to describe it. I know, for example, you are not and cannot be saying that the brain's ability to do the processing necessary to catch a ball is informed by something other than the brain's interaction with its environment via the senses. I think I've just used the wrong words to describe the process and you are trying to sort out those poorly chosen terms.

Either way, maybe I've fucked up.

Cheers

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2007,11:45   

Louis -

That is clarifying. I think what you want to say is not that the mechanisms that catch a ball use a form of reasoning, but rather that both propositional reasoning across evidence and the mechanisms that enable one to catch a ball are instances of a more general phenomenon: "processes that interact with and derive feedback and correction from the environment." That certainly characterizes scientific reasoning, and also characterizes the homeostasis to target that characterizes catching a ball, while avoiding the hang up on propositions. It doesn't characterize the process of deriving propositions from faith, because there the correction from environmental input is absent.

Your Fibonnacci sequence observation raises an interesting point. Of course, it was natural selection that enabled the emergence of plant organization around the extremely efficient arrangement described by the Fibonnacci sequence. Yet we know that natural selection generates only apparent design - structures that appear for all the world to have been designed, and hence to have emerged by means of a process of representational reasoning, yet emerged from a process that is completely absent actual reasoning (or representation of any kind). That is the essence of "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (both the book and the dangerous idea itself). Hence, in the flower petals, we have an arrangement that appears to have been devised by means of reasoning and even the ultra-abstract representational art we know as "mathematics," and that may be described with exquisite precision by means of this mathematical computation - yet did NOT originate by means of a process of mathematical reasoning. So too the apparent unconscious "reasoning" that underlies motor behavior may also be only apparent.  Which is not to gainsay the point of the first paragraph, above.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2007,13:02   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 06 2007,17:45)
Louis -

That is clarifying. I think what you want to say is not that the mechanisms that catch a ball use a form of reasoning, but rather that both propositional reasoning across evicence and the mechanisms that enable one to catch a ball are instances of a more general phenomenon: "processes that interact with and derive feedback and correction from the environment." That certainly characterizes scientific reasoning, and also characterizes the homeostasis to target that characterizes catching a ball, while avoiding the hang up on propositions. It doesn't characterize the process of deriving propositions from faith, because there the correction from environmental input is absent.

Your Fibonnacci sequence observation raises an interesting point. Of course, it was natural selection that enabled the emergence of plant organization around the extremely efficient arrangement described by the Fibonnacci sequence. Yet we know that natural selection generates only apparent design - structures that appear for all the world to have been designed, and hence to have emerged by means of a process of representational reasoning, yet emerged from a process that is completely absent actual reasoning (or representation of any kind). That is the essence of "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (both the book and the dangerous idea itself). Hence, in the flower petals, we have an arrangement that appears to have been devised by means of reasoning and even the ultra-abstract representational art we know as "mathematics," and that may be described with exquisite precision by means of this mathematical computation - yet did NOT originate by means of a process of mathematical reasoning. So too the apparent unconscious "reasoning" that underlies motor behavior may also be only apparent.  Which is not to gainsay the point of the first paragraph, above.

That's exactly it. I done broke my language bone today.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2007,13:27   

Louis,

Either reason is a conscious process or it approaches a tautology for the purposes of this discussion. Skeptic's concept of God ™ as an unconscious process is subject to reason in that he has a definition of God which he employed reason (however incorrectly or correctly) to create. My example of the amazonian witch Dr. finding Jesus without ever meeting a christian speaks to that point.

Learning to be conscious of unconscious processes blurs the distinction between reason as a conscious process and the ability to learn through experience. For example, somewhere in this thread someone mentioned instinct. Does a cat use reason to catch a mouse? Kind of. But it knows how to stalk instinctively. Does an infant use reason to know that it is afraid of falling? Do you use reason to know how to breath? No.

If you want to claim that there can be no non-propositional truth regardless of where you draw the line but then draw the line to include instinctual or trained motor skills you've effectively claimed that all consciousness is propositional and that religion is simply an incorrect proposition. But then you've also claimed that the zen archer is using propositional reasoning and that the training he used to learn to avoid using the process formerly known as reason is actually itself a form of reasoning.

The rift between science and religion apparently involves propositions that fail to flow from evidence but surely you aren't claiming that consciousness itself is a product of reason are you? My question once again, what does it mean when you say you have faith in reason?

Bill,

Where did you learn to write like that? What do you do for work? I'm impressed FWIW.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2007,13:46   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 06 2007,19:27)
Louis,

Either reason is a conscious process or it approaches a tautology for the purposes of this discussion. Skeptic's concept of God ™ as an unconscious process is subject to reason in that he has a definition of God which he employed reason (however incorrectly or correctly) to create. My example of the amazonian witch Dr. finding Jesus without ever meeting a christian speaks to that point.

Learning to be conscious of unconscious processes blurs the distinction between reason as a conscious process and the ability to learn through experience. For example, somewhere in this thread someone mentioned instinct. Does a cat use reason to catch a mouse? Kind of. But it knows how to stalk instinctively. Does an infant use reason to know that it is afraid of falling? Do you use reason to know how to breath? No.

If you want to claim that there can be no non-propositional truth regardless of where you draw the line but then draw the line to include instinctual or trained motor skills you've effectively claimed that all consciousness is propositional and that religion is simply an incorrect proposition. But then you've also claimed that the zen archer is using propositional reasoning and that the training he used to learn to avoid using the process formerly known as reason is actually itself a form of reasoning.

The rift between science and religion apparently involves propositions that fail to flow from evidence but surely you aren't claiming that consciousness itself is a product of reason are you? My question once again, what does it mean when you say you have faith in reason?

Bill,

Where did you learn to write like that? What do you do for work? I'm impressed FWIW.

BWE,

I didn't say I had faith in reason IIRC. I think Bill gets what I was trying to say, and perhaps it was my poor phrasing of it that's caused the confusion. I don't think I am claiming what you think I am claiming.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2007,14:23   

Gaak! No. I didn't mean to imply whether you do or don't have faith in reason (although I'm curious now as to the answer) but what does it mean as far as the definition of terms to say "I have faith in reason."?

That said, I missed Bill's last post until just now. Hmmm. That doesn't really leave you anywhere though. I think I've been discussing a slightly different topic. Typical. My issue was the contention that Lenny got caught up in. I think he objected to the idea that all knowledge is a result of reason. It's a definition problem and the more specific you were the more you included.

If you agree with what Bill (once again eloquently) wrote:
 

Quote
both propositional reasoning across evicence and the mechanisms that enable one to catch a ball are instances of a more general phenomenon: "processes that interact with and derive feedback and correction from the environment." That certainly characterizes scientific reasoning, and also characterizes the homeostasis to target that characterizes catching a ball, while avoiding the hang up on propositions. It doesn't characterize the process of deriving propositions from faith, because there the correction from environmental input is absent.


Imagine Lenny sitting there writing this:

Quote
The question I am asking is a simple one: ?are brunettes hotter than blondes? ?And, of course, the relevant question behind that question is: is there any area that reason (or logic, or science, or kohlinar, or whatever anyone wants to call it) cannot answer (which is itself the result of the question "do science and religion necessarily conflict?"). ?My assertion, of course, is that no, science and religion need not inherently conflict, because yes, there are areas that science simply cannot answer -- one of those areas being moral, ethical or aesthetic judgements such as "are brunettes hotter than blondes?".

Louis, instead of just admitting that science and reason cannot answer ethical, moral or aesthetic questions, wants to change the question to make it into an "objective" question that science CAN answer, and that is why he is so hung up on the matter of "precise definitions". ?Indeed, when Louis asks me to DEFINE exactly what I mean by "hotter", he is, in essence, just asking me to answer the question for him, since science and reason simply can't answer it.

See, all Louis is doing is setting up an algorithm -- a perfectly rational algorithm that ruthlessly follows all the laws of logic. ?All you have to do is input the correct "definitions", turn the crank, and voila, out pops your perfectly rational logical answer. ?Simple, and works on any possible question.

The problem is that Louis's algorithm isn't actually ANSWERING anything. ?After all, it is the "definitions" themselves which determine the answer. ?If I define "hotter" as X, Y and Z, then lo and behold, Louis's algorithm will simply tell me that Girl A meets criteria X, Y and Z (according to the rational laws of logic) while Girl B doesn't. ?In other words, Louis is simply saying, "tell me what you think, and I'll tell you if this is what you think". ?Louis is simply measuring whether this or that thing meets my definition that I have already given him. ?

Given the last 10 relevant posts from the past few days. So, while is example was propositional, I see the problem he attempted to deal with as one of definitions. If actions or preferences rely on unconscious or even subconscious decision making then at some point you've defined yourself right out of a point. I can imagine getting frustrated if he got caught up in it.

Does that make sense? I'm having a difficult time recovering from sleep deprivation this week.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2007,18:39   

Yes, I'm going to agree with BWE here (I think, lol).  The initial premise of whether or not knowledge can come from sources other than human reason is the problem.  Without agreement on this question, we can not even approach the rift.

BWE, I'm going to look at your post again.  I'm trying to find "a" question but I think you want something a little more indepth.  I'll see what I can do.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 06 2007,20:32   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2007,14:41)
Skeptic,

From my perspective, your position derives from faith but not directly in God; rather it appears faith in the people who told you about God and the book those people showed you. They told you what God was like. They told you what God thinks. They told you what God expects. If you hear God talk to you and he says the things you heard in church and read in a book but he doesn't ever ever ever say those things to people who haven't read the book, then we might be able to employ reason to that little tidbit.

I am tracking with your comment (I think) but do you contradict yourself here?

Quote
It took me 34 pages to realize that until and if I can prove God exists, or some similar agent, then I have no right to claim that knowledge can come from external sources.  

The question of whether or not revelation is coming from God, the Devil or my own diseased head is irrelevant to the conversation.  Why?  Because the premise is unprovable.  I convice you that God spoke to me and told me "thou shalt not kill" unless you also believe in God.  Certainly God could be more blatent and tell me the winning six numbers but I'm pretty sure that still wouldn't constitute convincing evidence.  The knowledge that "thou shalt not kill" did come from somewhere and it is foolish to argue about it's source because there is no resolution to that discussion.

It's all fun and games till God tells you to go kill him a son or obliterate an entire city, people and all. Not that I'm going down the bad things in the bible road but it looks to me like you cherry pick a bit. Sure, I can't tell you God didn't speak to you. I wholeheartedly agree. But what god says is a whole different story.

Imagine if a native from the deepest darkest part of the Amazon, he's never seen nor even heard of humanity outside his own hunting grounds. Imagine if he walked out of the Jungle and told the story of Jesus. Or the miracles in the bible. Or imagine that he says "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife. God told me that."

But actually, that's not what happens is it? What seems to happen is this:
Quote
The Huaorani were contacted only 50 years ago. Before that time, these hunter-gatherers were roaming in small groups on an area three times bigger than their present day territory. Recently, the Ecuadorian government granted the Huaorani communal rights over their current territory....
The Huaorani are known for their spears, which are long, with both ends sharpened. One of the ends is carved with sharp barbs. Once the spear enters the body, there is no way of taking it out without tearing the flesh and causing more damage.  They are feared by neighboring tribes for their violent reputation.  Huaoranis are indeed very temperamental, moody, and unpredictable.  They have a long history of bloody vengeances; violent payback was part of their culture.  Most of the conflicts were solved by spearing the other party, then the family of the victim would seek revenge, thus perpetuating the vicious cycle.

In 1956 the Huaorani were contacted by missionaries of the Summer Language Institute and the process of evangelization began. The missionaries translated the Bible in Huao Terero. They taught the Huaorani it was shameful to walk around naked as they were accustomed, making them ashamed of their traditions and lifestyle.  The influence of missionaries became very apparent to me when I was playing cards with young adults in a Kichwa community in the jungle just outside Huaorani territory.  I was accompanied by a young Huaorani man who had been my guide in a trip to Huaorani territory.  To make the game more entertaining, I proposed that whoever loses, get punished (made to do something funny, like sing, dance, or act silly).  My guide immediately let me know that he was not allowed to dance, because in the Bible it is written that dancing is bad.  When he was punished, my Huaorani guide started singing a religious hymn learned from missionaries.  Huaoranis were lured to live in fixed areas (reservations) where the missionaries built houses and schools, thus destroying their nomadic lifestyle, and disrupting their social structure.  The missionaries paved the way for oil companies to enter Huaorani territory and start drilling. Money, clothing, and new diseases made the Huaorani dependent on consumer goods and western medicines.  In exchange for salt, sugar, and Nike shoes, they gave missionaries and oil companies permission to do pretty much whatever they wanted on their land.

http://www.amazon-indians.org/page11.html

Right?

So, when you talk about a God that you didn't invent, we can look at things like where the idea originated. Right? Or wrong? I'm not talking about disproving God, I'm talking about myth. It can be traced, diagrammed, mapped over time using GIS software like Arcsoft and Arcview, broken down into its constituent bits analyzed and set upon a platter for display.

At that point, reason would tell us that the revelation didn't come from God. Not that knowledge can't come from revelation -

*An aside: and until Louis refines the definitions to draw at least narrow gray areas, his point regarding knowledge looks a bit like "opium makes you sleepy because of its soporific effects" to me right now. But skeptic, watch how he deals with that statement and then watch how I respond. I do suppose that logical soft spot to be the case in this one narrow part of the OP so I expect Louis will vigorously defend his definitions and I will consider his definitions. I suspect Louis will either not be able to support his definition in which case he will blush, giggle and say "oops, quite right.", or he will support his definition in such a way that reason can be reasonably delineated in which case I will concede the point and probably muse on the subject for a good while later because I might see it in a new way. I however, will not say "oops, quite right." Only a Brit would say that and that's because they aren't afraid of looking homosexual like we americans are. Sorry, I can't speak for aussies or kiwis.

- but that previously known knowledge isn't by definition revelation.

Maybe that makes sense. I don't care what you believe but if you claim yesterday's headline as a revelation and also immutable truth and rational investigation leads to a conflicting conclusion the that is the spot where the rift between science and religion begins.

Woo. Gotta go. Bye.

this one skeptic.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,06:39   

BWE,

In no particular order:

1) Lenny's mischaracterisation of my arguments is well documented, and the post you quote is one of the more egregious examples. I have never, and will never fail to acknowledge the limits of what is knowable by any means. I don't think what Lenny and I differed on was the conscious/subconscious issue, that I admit I have confused due to poor selection of teminology for it.

Lenny repeatedly, irrationally and erroneously insisted that "are blonder hotter than brunettes?" etc were questions. I repeatedly demonstrated that in that form and in the absence of context they are not. That was the core of our disagreement. He kept accusing me of having to change the question, and whether he liked it or not, I wasn't changing it. I explained the errors he made at some length. It'll be in that links post I made.

2) Read again what Bill rote, he's phrased it better than I have. Stop importing "conscious" "aware" "human" etc as prefixes for the "unconscious reason-like" process I have been describing (admittedly poorly). I take full blame for the misunderstanding. I hadn't thought how to phrase what I wrote carefully enough to remove intentionality/awareness implications from it.

3) Faith in reason? No I don't have it. I go with what works as best I can. To quote Feynman:

Quote
I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.


Quote
The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty—some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question—to doubt—to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.


I quote Prof Feynman for at least one reason: he expresses what I think vastly better than I do.

If someone has faith in reason, they've missed the point.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,09:10   

Quote
If someone has faith in reason, they've missed the point.

Well, ofcourse you've got different grades of faith. Trust is also an example of faith. But the key difference is the foundation of that trust. For example scientists trust other scientists that they can do there work, but the foundations of that trust are the proof that those scientists can be trusted. Phd's, peer-reviewd work and things like that. That's the main difference with the faith in religion. It's, in a way, blind. It has no solid foundation.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,13:26   

Quote (Assassinator @ Dec. 07 2007,15:10)
Quote
If someone has faith in reason, they've missed the point.

Well, ofcourse you've got different grades of faith. Trust is also an example of faith. But the key difference is the foundation of that trust. For example scientists trust other scientists that they can do there work, but the foundations of that trust are the proof that those scientists can be trusted. Phd's, peer-reviewd work and things like that. That's the main difference with the faith in religion. It's, in a way, blind. It has no solid foundation.

Assassinator,

Sure, but I think BWE's question was specifically referring to the definitions of faith and reason I gave a page or so ago. I mentioned Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back on this thread that "lowercase f" faith was commonplace in science as part of the iterative process of developing ideas.

And of course you;re also right that "lowercase f" faith in experts is present in all walks of human life, science included. There obviously are important distinctions, none phrased better than Feynman's:

"Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation ... Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. "

Or I suppose the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in verbia.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,13:42   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 07 2007,06:39)
BWE,

In no particular order:

1) Lenny's mischaracterisation of my arguments is well documented, and the post you quote is one of the more egregious examples. I have never, and will never fail to acknowledge the limits of what is knowable by any means. I don't think what Lenny and I differed on was the conscious/subconscious issue, that I admit I have confused due to poor selection of teminology for it.

Lenny repeatedly, irrationally and erroneously insisted that "are blonder hotter than brunettes?" etc were questions. I repeatedly demonstrated that in that form and in the absence of context they are not. That was the core of our disagreement. He kept accusing me of having to change the question, and whether he liked it or not, I wasn't changing it. I explained the errors he made at some length. It'll be in that links post I made.

2) Read again what Bill rote, he's phrased it better than I have. Stop importing "conscious" "aware" "human" etc as prefixes for the "unconscious reason-like" process I have been describing (admittedly poorly). I take full blame for the misunderstanding. I hadn't thought how to phrase what I wrote carefully enough to remove intentionality/awareness implications from it.

3) Faith in reason? No I don't have it. I go with what works as best I can. To quote Feynman:

   
Quote
I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong.


   
Quote
The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty damn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty—some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question—to doubt—to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.


I quote Prof Feynman for at least one reason: he expresses what I think vastly better than I do.

If someone has faith in reason, they've missed the point.

Louis

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. The thread has an interesting narrative and sub-narrative regarding how people deal with their own interpretations of the world around them. I very much enjoyed the premise and the human stories told through the force of opinion and frustration of limitations that words impose.

Horace Walpole once wrote in a letter to the queen of upper Austria that "The world is a comedy to those that think and a tragedy to those that feel." Whether that statement has any meaning at all or not, ever since I first read it I have tried to blend the two perspectives so I can see the comic and the tragic elements in our world. This thread blends those elements in a way that only rarely happens in a message board thread.

I saw Lenny's quote from above characterizing one of the more emotional appeals to a world view. The lens he used - his initial assumptions or platform - was a complimentary color to yours. When combined, they made gray. It's not so much that he used poor logic as that he developed a stake in the outcome. Once he had a stake, he couldn't edit his own ideas down to where they made sense within the framework you laid out. The stake ended up needing defense because the discussion got hung up in definitions. You got pretty wound up too around that point and moved into saying that science gives better insight into preferences than religion. 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.

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.

Lenny's poorly worded point is that what you know from experience with consciousness- internal dimensions- is different from what you know from measurement and quantification- external dimensions. Quantifying feeling provides mechanistic knowledge of the feeling but no living conscious knowledge. Lenny's POV uses a different model than yours. The resulting argument ended up weird, intractable and mildly aggressive.

You can't change that Lenny went off in a snit. He got all uptight defending his viewpoint. He used logical fallacies and questionable tactics to try to make you stop or change or whatever. Then he decided to leave rather than deal. Oops. But he wasn't exactly "wrong" so much as he used the wrong examples. And he made the mistake of taking himself seriously at an inopportune time. Live and learn. That was his decision and you being you isn't a problem.

As goofy as it sounds, there is a community here at a virtual after-hours bar. The idea of "Louis" to me resembles the parallel of people I know in real-life that I like. So does the idea of "Lenny". Iconoclastic assholes that you can trust with your life. Great fishing or drinking buddies. Guys who wade right into a brawl simply for the fun of it. The real point of figuring out how to deal with the problem of dogma an increasingly complicated and delicate world, the rift between science and religion, got subverted by a pissing match over definitions. That's part of the fun. It's up to Lenny to decide to come back so don't stress on that on my account.

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.

And Skeptic's claims that there is no reason for a rift between science and religion ended up as battered as any claim could be. His own definitions were clear and at odds with his claim. Since we tend to gather at this particular tavern to discuss that particular topic it seems appropriate that it got such a thorough hearing. Nothing helps expose the implications of dogma like someone trying to defend it.

BWE

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,14:04   

BWE and Louis - Twin sons of different mothers... And that's a good thing!

You guys should sign up for the Genome Project and compare results - My guess is that you are 99.99% homologous.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,14:32   

Quote
As goofy as it sounds, there is a community here at a virtual after-hours bar. The idea of "Louis" to me resembles the parallel of people I know in real-life that I like. So does the idea of "Lenny". Iconoclastic assholes that you can trust with your life. Great fishing or drinking buddies.




--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,14:35   

Thanks Arden. I needed that. I feel better.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,15:01   

I feel there were several difficulties associated with Lenny's questions that were never addressed, some stylistic and some vis content. Stylistically, I was put off by the declamatory voice in which he repeated his assertion, and his lack of engagement with objections that were well taken. There were also formal problems with his argument (which varied dependent upon which question is considered) that flowed from the fact that while his questions were permissible English, they were logically ill-formed in one respect or other. The result was that his questions weren't answerable not because they pointed to domains over which science/reason can make no claims, but rather they were not questions at all. "Are blonds hotter than Brunettes," standing alone in space free of context is not simply subjective, and hence undecidable, but it really isn't a question at all. Louis strove to make this point in various ways, but Lenny persisted with his blank declarations that, in his unwillingness to engage, read as unwarrantedly dismissive. Other questions were problematic not because they are subjective, but rather because they are normative. It doesn't follow from these defects that science/reason can address all domains, but Lenny's examples were inadequate demonstrations that it cannot.  

But I say it's all good. This is a VERY difficult medium in which to accomplish anything, and here I think some interesting things were accomplished, especially recently. Props to the participants.

[edit for clarity]

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,15:05   

Dang. I meant to say what you said Bill. Maybe I should just filter my posts through you before I post them. They seem to come out better after you get a hold of them.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,21:33   

35 pages of comments and no one is any closer to an answer then they were on the 1st page.

Are all you guys smoking pot?  I'm trying to figure out the lure of this thread.  Maybe if I was high I could go along with it.

If we assume X (make shit up) then we can conclude Y (made up shit).

Ok, I got that part.  It's like make believe for grown ups.  I get it.  

What's the point though?  Did I not tell you god exists and the evidence is that Elvis (the TRUE king) lives in my shorts?

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,22:16   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 07 2007,22:33)
35 pages of comments and no one is any closer to an answer then they were on the 1st page.

Blonds are hotter.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,22:27   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 07 2007,22:16)
Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 07 2007,22:33)
35 pages of comments and no one is any closer to an answer then they were on the 1st page.

Blonds are hotter.

Thanks, now I get it and that actually makes sense.

Ok, carry on!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 07 2007,23:37   

Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Dec. 07 2007,21:33)
35 pages of comments and no one is any closer to an answer then they were on the 1st page.

Are all you guys smoking pot?  I'm trying to figure out the lure of this thread.  Maybe if I was high I could go along with it.

If we assume X (make shit up) then we can conclude Y (made up shit).

Ok, I got that part.  It's like make believe for grown ups.  I get it.  

What's the point though?  Did I not tell you god exists and the evidence is that Elvis (the TRUE king) lives in my shorts?

Shit? Stuff.

Smoke some pot I guess.

:)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,08:20   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 06 2007,20:32)
Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2007,14:41)
Skeptic,

From my perspective, your position derives from faith but not directly in God; rather it appears faith in the people who told you about God and the book those people showed you. They told you what God was like. They told you what God thinks. They told you what God expects. If you hear God talk to you and he says the things you heard in church and read in a book but he doesn't ever ever ever say those things to people who haven't read the book, then we might be able to employ reason to that little tidbit.

I am tracking with your comment (I think) but do you contradict yourself here?

 
Quote
It took me 34 pages to realize that until and if I can prove God exists, or some similar agent, then I have no right to claim that knowledge can come from external sources.  

The question of whether or not revelation is coming from God, the Devil or my own diseased head is irrelevant to the conversation.  Why?  Because the premise is unprovable.  I convice you that God spoke to me and told me "thou shalt not kill" unless you also believe in God.  Certainly God could be more blatent and tell me the winning six numbers but I'm pretty sure that still wouldn't constitute convincing evidence.  The knowledge that "thou shalt not kill" did come from somewhere and it is foolish to argue about it's source because there is no resolution to that discussion.

It's all fun and games till God tells you to go kill him a son or obliterate an entire city, people and all. Not that I'm going down the bad things in the bible road but it looks to me like you cherry pick a bit. Sure, I can't tell you God didn't speak to you. I wholeheartedly agree. But what god says is a whole different story.

Imagine if a native from the deepest darkest part of the Amazon, he's never seen nor even heard of humanity outside his own hunting grounds. Imagine if he walked out of the Jungle and told the story of Jesus. Or the miracles in the bible. Or imagine that he says "Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife. God told me that."

But actually, that's not what happens is it? What seems to happen is this:
 
Quote
The Huaorani were contacted only 50 years ago. Before that time, these hunter-gatherers were roaming in small groups on an area three times bigger than their present day territory. Recently, the Ecuadorian government granted the Huaorani communal rights over their current territory....
The Huaorani are known for their spears, which are long, with both ends sharpened. One of the ends is carved with sharp barbs. Once the spear enters the body, there is no way of taking it out without tearing the flesh and causing more damage.  They are feared by neighboring tribes for their violent reputation.  Huaoranis are indeed very temperamental, moody, and unpredictable.  They have a long history of bloody vengeances; violent payback was part of their culture.  Most of the conflicts were solved by spearing the other party, then the family of the victim would seek revenge, thus perpetuating the vicious cycle.

In 1956 the Huaorani were contacted by missionaries of the Summer Language Institute and the process of evangelization began. The missionaries translated the Bible in Huao Terero. They taught the Huaorani it was shameful to walk around naked as they were accustomed, making them ashamed of their traditions and lifestyle.  The influence of missionaries became very apparent to me when I was playing cards with young adults in a Kichwa community in the jungle just outside Huaorani territory.  I was accompanied by a young Huaorani man who had been my guide in a trip to Huaorani territory.  To make the game more entertaining, I proposed that whoever loses, get punished (made to do something funny, like sing, dance, or act silly).  My guide immediately let me know that he was not allowed to dance, because in the Bible it is written that dancing is bad.  When he was punished, my Huaorani guide started singing a religious hymn learned from missionaries.  Huaoranis were lured to live in fixed areas (reservations) where the missionaries built houses and schools, thus destroying their nomadic lifestyle, and disrupting their social structure.  The missionaries paved the way for oil companies to enter Huaorani territory and start drilling. Money, clothing, and new diseases made the Huaorani dependent on consumer goods and western medicines.  In exchange for salt, sugar, and Nike shoes, they gave missionaries and oil companies permission to do pretty much whatever they wanted on their land.

http://www.amazon-indians.org/page11.html

Right?

So, when you talk about a God that you didn't invent, we can look at things like where the idea originated. Right? Or wrong? I'm not talking about disproving God, I'm talking about myth. It can be traced, diagrammed, mapped over time using GIS software like Arcsoft and Arcview, broken down into its constituent bits analyzed and set upon a platter for display.

At that point, reason would tell us that the revelation didn't come from God. Not that knowledge can't come from revelation -

*An aside: and until Louis refines the definitions to draw at least narrow gray areas, his point regarding knowledge looks a bit like "opium makes you sleepy because of its soporific effects" to me right now. But skeptic, watch how he deals with that statement and then watch how I respond. I do suppose that logical soft spot to be the case in this one narrow part of the OP so I expect Louis will vigorously defend his definitions and I will consider his definitions. I suspect Louis will either not be able to support his definition in which case he will blush, giggle and say "oops, quite right.", or he will support his definition in such a way that reason can be reasonably delineated in which case I will concede the point and probably muse on the subject for a good while later because I might see it in a new way. I however, will not say "oops, quite right." Only a Brit would say that and that's because they aren't afraid of looking homosexual like we americans are. Sorry, I can't speak for aussies or kiwis.

- but that previously known knowledge isn't by definition revelation.

Maybe that makes sense. I don't care what you believe but if you claim yesterday's headline as a revelation and also immutable truth and rational investigation leads to a conflicting conclusion the that is the spot where the rift between science and religion begins.

Woo. Gotta go. Bye.

this one skeptic.

Ok, I understand your point but this has the potential of going into a completely different direction.  The main thing that must first be recognized is that nothing in The Bible, The Koran, Budda's teachings really has anything to say about the actual existence of God.  Those are all works of men who take then initial premise that God exists and then try to understand then nature of God in human terms.  This could quickly degenerate into theology and he said, he said but that's not the point.  The point is whether or not knowledge can come from sources other than human reason.  

I was thinking about this and faith itself and I may have to concede some ground to Louis.  I was working on an analogy involving aliens coming to Earth and sharing their technology.  It would naturally be assumed that these aliens came from a much more advanced culture than ours so when they shared their thoughts on the nature of the universe we would, naturally, be influenced.

So the question then becomes, where is reason working.  We reason that these aliens are much more advanced than us and so we're going take them at their word as to the nature of the universe.  This is faith also.  We don't actually have any reason to accept this knowledge but we do.  Now, knowing human nature we would immediately start trying to cooraborate this knowledge and in doing so we'd actually answer two questions.  Is this knowledge rational and are these aliens atually more advanced then we?

Taking this back to God.  I accept what God says because he's God and that's a reasoned (not rational) decision.  My initial belief in God may or may not be based upon reason depending upon my route to this belief.  This may not be something that can be determined as it with be individual to each person and that person may not even know the actual reason.  But the knowledge that God has passed down is not based upon reason.  This is a source of knowledge that we can not access and have no way of evaluating at it's source.  The same as the aliens, we will try to cooraborate it but that is still just the process of putting it in our terms.  To go back and try to find the source of this knowledge in human terms is a historical exercise and thus open for interpretation.  We can never truely be confident as the exact source and impact of myth so uncertainty will always remain.

So, my faith in God may be a reasoned choice and I can view God's revelation in a reasoned manner but the I can not say that the knowledge itself originated from an application of reason...as long as the premise of God is accepted.  Of course, if there is no God then all knowledge is sourced from human reason and there is no rift between faith and reason because faith doesn't really exist, it's just an illusion and there can be no actual conflict with an illusion.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,08:22   

Blondes are more beautiful,
Brunettes are hotter.

There, now that we've settled that.

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,10:41   

Quote
The point is whether or not knowledge can come from sources other than human reason.

Depends on what knowledge you want to have.
 
Quote
Taking this back to God.  I accept what God says because he's God and that's a reasoned (not rational) decision.

And who says he's actually saying that? And who says he's still saying that now? It's like something from a Dutch comedian (wroughly translated): So how do you know that God exists? Well the Bible says that. But how do you know that what the Bible says is right? Well the Bible says that.
What's sad in the Bible, is sad by humans. Who says God has ever spoken? People who hear voices in there head nowadays are called schizofrenics, why would the old prophets be different? And also, who says that who claims to be God, is actually God? Why would I trust such a voice?
O and about Buddha, he actually has nothing to do with God, yes nature gods are in most buddhist teachings (the original nature religions mixed with buddhism, as also happend with christianity or the islam at some places) but the original teachings only involved life after death.
Quote
Blondes are more beautiful,
Brunettes are hotter.

There, now that we've settled that.

Tsk tsk tsk, you're totally forgetting Asians wich are generally more cute ;)

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 08 2007,17:56   

amended,

Blondes are more beautiful,
Brunettes are hotter,
Asians are cuter.

That better?

As for the rest, that's a completely different conversation.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

Gaaaaah!

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:

Quote
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!

Quote
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.

TICK!

Quote
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.


OH FUCK ME!!!!! NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO  NO NO NO!!!!!!

;-)

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!

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

TICK!

Skeptic:

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


{Louis faints}

BOOOM!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2007,10:46   

Quote
{Louis faints}

BOOOM!


MEDIC!

This guy just fainted!

:O

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2007,13:25   

Quote
 
Quote ("BWE @ late@the bar")

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 think you mean "the reason that you have to stop importing intentionality into your counters of my arguments is because I want you to. It's irritating and annoying to me. I have a good reason for wanting you to stop but goddammit would you please fucking just stop already? "

:) I'm glad I didn't hurt your feelings.

I was just trying to help out ol' Len with some different words. I think he got annoyed and lost his ability to reason. :)

After the discussion on the previous few pages, I think the epistemological issue is resolved. I didn't mean to imply that I wasn't satisfied. Actually, I just savored a ham sandwich and 3 little bitty orange-like fruits and I'm even more satisfied if that's possible.

My little pokey stick was a pokin' away but I'm safe on the other side of the bars here. Every once in a while I like to pop my grizzled head up and point out the difference between a description and an experience. I think that's one of the problems with Skeptic's claim actually. His Faith appears to come from information he recieved somewhere along the line. He then confused his thinking about that information with his recieving it at some point long ago and put his learned map right over his real landscape. He looks at the map and claims knowledge about the landscape. Ok, the accuracy of that knowledge depends on the accuracy of the map but the knowledge (whether true or false) didn't come from some outside source, it came from his map. The map's accuracy can be falsified in most places because it makes specific claims and right there! Bingo! A rift between science and religion.

 
Quote
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!


I didn't say you defined faith as something stupid. I said silly. Jeeze. I don't think I said you were biased although I should probably take this opportunity to do so. I should add, since that might be annoying, that you show a remarkable willingness to confront your biases and try to recognize them. Point being, that is part of learning how not to fool yourself.

 
Quote
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.
:) It was an honest mistake. I'll probably do it again. But if it helps, I recommend some of the whiskey's they make in the north country over there. That always helps me anyway.

 
Quote
{Louis faints}


--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2007,13:43   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 13 2007,14:25)
He then confused his thinking about that information with his recieving it at some point long ago and put his learned map right over his real landscape. He looks at the map and claims knowledge about the landscape. Ok, the accuracy of that knowledge depends on the accuracy of the map but the knowledge (whether true or false) didn't come from some outside source, it came from his map. The map's accuracy can be falsified in most places because it makes specific claims and right there! Bingo! A rift between science and religion.

This sort of error prompted me to coin the phrase, "The map is not the territory."

(*shoves Korzybski behind a rock*)

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2007,14:23   

Hmmm. Learn something everyday. Korzybski. Thanks Bill. Now I've got another behemoth to add to my reading list.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,04:14   

Oh and blondes women of Indian extraction are hotter.*

I can prove this using an Etch-A-Sketch.

Louis

* My wife in no way made me say this. She does not have any form of secateurs poised around my testicles.

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,04:34   

Quote
I think you mean "the reason that you have to stop importing intentionality into your counters of my arguments is because I want you to. It's irritating and annoying to me. I have a good reason for wanting you to stop but goddammit would you please fucking just stop already? "


No BWE. I meant what I said. Those issues were not relevant to the arguments I have been making. Not relevant to one thing =/= not relevant to another thing or =/= I don't like it. I take my part in creating a misunderstanding, I'm a big boy, I can see how I phrased something in such a way as to create misunderstandings. What I won't do is pretend that the misunderstandings are relevant. Don't stop because it annoys me, stop because it's irrelevant. See the difference?

Quote
I didn't say you defined faith as something stupid. I said silly. Jeeze. I don't think I said you were biased although I should probably take this opportunity to do so. I should add, since that might be annoying, that you show a remarkable willingness to confront your biases and try to recognize them. Point being, that is part of learning how not to fool yourself.


I didn't mean YOU personally had accused me of bias, although it's lovely to find you doing so! Thanks! I meant, and I think I said, that throughout the course of the thread I had been accused of bias. If you think I've got some bias, great! Point it out, point out where that bias invalidates my arguments (if it does). As you note I'm not oly willing to learn, I'm willing to correct myself. You come up with a better idea, a better explanation, a more accurate hypothesis or whatever, I'll cheerfully discard the old and accept the new. Like you say, it's  a vital part of not fooling yourself.

Indicentally I DON'T think faith is silly or stupid or useless or worthless. That doesn't mean I think it's epistemologically useful or worthy or clever or serious. That's a MASSIVE distinction. As I said very early on (and illustrated with the Douglas Adams "Feng Shui" example) even a set of ideas that is manifestly wrong and mostly faith based can involve some reason or reason-like processes which have actually produced a few nuggets of gold in amongst the mud. I freely acknowledge the value and utility of faith as an emotional and human thing, and I even go so far as to support it in that context. That says absolutely NOTHING about the validity of it as an epistemologically useful method.

In real life it just isn't that simple, religious people don't exclusively rely on faith and revelation to tell them about the world. If they did the situation would be ridiculous! Religions themselves, as mentioned early on again, have a great deal to offer us, but what they offer that works and is valid has been derived from reason or some reason-like process. The faith elements are entirely intercangeable. If I tell X is true based on faith alone, you can tell me X is false based on faith alone. We are at an epistemological impasse. The "truth" (I prefer "accuracy") of proposition X is not discernable by faith assertion alone, there is another way. That way is in this case explicit, conscious use of reason, itself a manifestation of a reason-like process of interacting with the universe as mentioned. It's the separating out of these various strands of religion and science that leads to the conclusion that there is a genuine epistemologcial basis for conflict. Again, NONE of that dictates or even suggests HOW WE ACT on that fact. No one, least of all me, is advocating antipathy between science and religion. All in fact I would and do advocate is we stop kidding ourselves that faith is a valid epistemological method. The rest, the churches, art, architecture, charities, music, harmony, social cohesiveness (if it works, there is some debate) etc we get to keep. The only thing we throw away are ideas based on wishful thinking that we cannot support. Does that mean everyone becoes an atheist? Of course not. It does mean that everyone (as far as is possible! Obviously) recognises the limitations of what their faith can and does do. That is a very small thing to ask.

Even then, as Steve Elliot mentioned, there might be a case when we throw the baby out with the bath water. It might not be possible for us to acknowledge the facts of the epistemological vacuity of faith without destroying the very real positive personal and social benefits it brings. BUT! AT LEAST allow people to ask the question and investigate this. Don't pretend that the very asking of the question or act of investigation is an attempt to destroy rather than to understand. Stop ring fencing these claims off as special when they are very very far from it.

Simple!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,04:40   

Oh yeah, whilst I remember. Of course the map is not the territory, and you'll find I am certainly not arguing it is. All I am arguing for is using a method of mapmaking that at least looks at the territory once in a while and tries to represent it as it is rather than perhaps as one might desire it to be.

Your map's no good if for the sake of saving your legs you put a flat road where a mountain range is.

I'm reminded of the old Cornish joke: A bloke is out for a nice country walk in Cornwall. As he wends his way o'er hill and dale he encounters a farmer and his wife leaning on their gate and asks them how far it is to St Just. The farmer replies "It's ten miles west of here, just keep goin' drekly that way." and his wife interrupts "Ah Bob, he's walkin', tell him it's five miles".

Get the point? Nice of her, potentially very useful (psychologically) for our walker, but as a representation of the territory: bloody useless, and at worse dangerously false.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,08:51   

Quote (Louis @ Dec. 14 2007,04:34)
Indicentally I DON'T think faith is silly or stupid or useless or worthless. That doesn't mean I think it's epistemologically useful or worthy or clever or serious. That's a MASSIVE distinction. As I said very early on (and illustrated with the Douglas Adams "Feng Shui" example) even a set of ideas that is manifestly wrong and mostly faith based can involve some reason or reason-like processes which have actually produced a few nuggets of gold in amongst the mud. I freely acknowledge the value and utility of faith as an emotional and human thing, and I even go so far as to support it in that context. That says absolutely NOTHING about the validity of it as an epistemologically useful method.

In real life it just isn't that simple, religious people don't exclusively rely on faith and revelation to tell them about the world. If they did the situation would be ridiculous! Religions themselves, as mentioned early on again, have a great deal to offer us, but what they offer that works and is valid has been derived from reason or some reason-like process. The faith elements are entirely intercangeable. If I tell X is true based on faith alone, you can tell me X is false based on faith alone. We are at an epistemological impasse. The "truth" (I prefer "accuracy") of proposition X is not discernable by faith assertion alone, there is another way. That way is in this case explicit, conscious use of reason, itself a manifestation of a reason-like process of interacting with the universe as mentioned. It's the separating out of these various strands of religion and science that leads to the conclusion that there is a genuine epistemologcial basis for conflict. Again, NONE of that dictates or even suggests HOW WE ACT on that fact. No one, least of all me, is advocating antipathy between science and religion. All in fact I would and do advocate is we stop kidding ourselves that faith is a valid epistemological method. The rest, the churches, art, architecture, charities, music, harmony, social cohesiveness (if it works, there is some debate) etc we get to keep. The only thing we throw away are ideas based on wishful thinking that we cannot support. Does that mean everyone becoes an atheist? Of course not. It does mean that everyone (as far as is possible! Obviously) recognises the limitations of what their faith can and does do. That is a very small thing to ask.

Even then, as Steve Elliot mentioned, there might be a case when we throw the baby out with the bath water. It might not be possible for us to acknowledge the facts of the epistemological vacuity of faith without destroying the very real positive personal and social benefits it brings. BUT! AT LEAST allow people to ask the question and investigate this. Don't pretend that the very asking of the question or act of investigation is an attempt to destroy rather than to understand. Stop ring fencing these claims off as special when they are very very far from it.

Simple!

Louis

I don't think you can have it both ways.  If you remove any special knowledge from faith then I do think it becomes meaningless.  All the other benefits you mentioned (emotional, social, etc) have no real value if they're built on an illusion.  I'm not sure how exposed you are to not only religious people but spiritual people.  They actually do believe that God spoke and here's some of the things he said.  You remove that and just start looking at some ideas that some man seems to think makes sense and you end up with nothing more than a social club or something like scientology.

If I may be so bold, I think you're trying to say that religion, as a social institution, is not silly but faith as a source of knowledge is silly.  Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

BTW, everyone has a worldview even if they don't know what it is.  :D

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,10:25   

Skeptic,

Nope, faith as a source of knowledge is not silly, it simply isn't a source of knowledge. It doesn't work. This source of knowledge has run up the curtains to join the choir invisibule, it has gone to meet its maker, it's bereft of epistemological value it rests in peace, it's fucking snuffed it, it is an ex source of knowledge.

Ok maybe not. It never lived as a source of knowledge to start with.

"Silly" would imply it gives us answers that are nonsensical. Sadly, faith doesn't give us answers of any kind. Like Pauli once said to a young physicist after his presentation it is "ganz falsch", or "not even wrong". That's the problem, the use of faith as an epistemological tool gives us nothing, not even wrong answers, there's no way to know if they're right or wrong. It's a cock up to use faith epistemologically. In a lot of ways, and based on some of the theology I've read, I'd even say it's a category error to use it that way, it's not what it's for....that however might be a very debatable point that I need to read more about, certainly some theologians think that way.

I'm not trying to have it both ways at all, look at the Feng Shui example on page...whatever it was, very early on anyway. The systems of religion/belief we have developed might well have uses. We need to study this more. We need to take the ideas apart, polish the bits that work, repair the bits that are broken and discard the bits that don't work and never did. Those bits that will be discarded are the faith bits. That's because faith simply doesn't work as an epistemological tool. Does it work as a comfort, or as a source of potential inspiration etc in emotional and social terms? Perhaps it does (I think it varies to be frank) but it doesn't actually work in an epistemological sense.

Like I said above, all I want is unimpeded study. No ideas off limits, no ring fencing claims, no hiding behind veils of easily claimed mystery and prejudice. We humans KNOW these things can be used to cover up glaringly bad ideas, we've seen and done it before. It may be that we need to give credence to some form of "noble lie" (look it up, it's not a new idea), but at least let us discover this by investingating the topic, because it is by no means clearly the case. How do I know? Easy! People not only live with a variety of religious beliefs and faith claims, some of which are mutually contradictory, but in some cases live with none at all. That's a bit of a giveaway. Based on that alone I don't think investigation with harm anyone or anything. We already live in a world where faith based claims are investigated and busted daily, we always have done. From the earliest critics and schisms to the latest heretics, people have always scrutinised faith based claims of others and found them wanting. It's curious that the same analysis almost never seems to be made of one's OWN faith based claims. I'll have to look it up but there was a rather revealing survey/piece of research I read about recently to do with exactly this. Hmmm. Now where did I see it?

As for "everyone's got a worldview"? Oh really? I defy you to find mine (other than "go with the best evidence you can get as best you can", which hardly constitutes a "worldview"). I also guarantee that if I do have a worldview, then you will be incapable of describing it. Give it a go. It might involve some reading ;-) The implication you are (and have been since page one) trying to make is that this is somehow all relative, all a mere matter of opinion. Decidable by the individual. The consequences of this, and the logical incoherence of this have been pointed out to you before. It's not even consistent with your claimed faith! Whether you or I like it or not, the universe around us APPEARS to work a certain way. Our best evidence supports this and our best ideas try to model and explain it. Those ideas are not concrete, being mutable on the basis of new evidence. Disagree? Provide some evidence. Not conjecture, not assertion, but evidence.

Does this mean we know it all? Nope. Does this mean there is a quest for certainty? Nope. Does this mean that there is no room for a person to have faith in something? Nope. Does this mean that we should persecute religions and religious people? Nope. All it means is that we should acknowledge our limitations and try to improve upon them in as careful and precise a manner as possible.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,11:23   

We're just gonna have to disagree on a few points.  I see no utility is believing in any thing that has no real foundation.  If faith has provided no knowledge then nothing stemming from has any foundation and in about 5 minutes you could destroy any claims to comfort, security, well-being because there is no rational basis to believe these things.

Silly, now becomes semantic but I would certainly think it was silly to adhere to any belief that you know is unfounded just for the sake of feeling better about yourself or the world around you.

The worldview comment was jest but if I had to bet I'd say you had one whether you wanted to admit it or not.  I'm certainly in no position to describe it.  Maybe it just comes down to what definition of "worldview" we're using.  One thing, and I've noted it before, I'm really confused how you could reach the conclusion that I believe in relativism in any way.  I would think that by this point you would see that I reject relativism completely.

As for the rest, again we disagree, I see faith as a source of knowledge which allows you to justify your "conflict."  If faith isn't a source of knowledge then the comparison of reason and faith is like apples and blue birds and there can be no conflict except by the ignorant.

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,12:33   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 14 2007,08:51)
I don't think you can have it both ways.  If you remove any special knowledge from faith then I do think it becomes meaningless.  All the other benefits you mentioned (emotional, social, etc) have no real value if they're built on an illusion.  I'm not sure how exposed you are to not only religious people but spiritual people.  They actually do believe that God spoke and here's some of the things he said.  You remove that and just start looking at some ideas that some man seems to think makes sense and you end up with nothing more than a social club or something like scientology.

If I may be so bold, I think you're trying to say that religion, as a social institution, is not silly but faith as a source of knowledge is silly.  Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

BTW, everyone has a worldview even if they don't know what it is.  :D

Skeptic, I apologize for the derail earlier. One semantic issue needed clarification in order for me to engage the issue. That issue was the precise meanings (in this context) of the words "knowledge", "reason", "faith", and "truth".

Louis isn't asking to have it both ways. I think he explicitly points out that since you can have opposing faiths and no way to rate the truth of a faith based claim, that they don't fall into the realm of knowledge.

Your claim looks to me to be based on utility and not faith at all. What it looks like to me is that you are claiming that the value (social, emotional etc.) you get from your "faith" which you have defined as your acceptance of cultural traditions regarding the nature of God, overrides the benefit you would receive from modifying your reference point.

Fair enough.

Edited to add:
Quote
As for the rest, again we disagree, I see faith as a source of knowledge which allows you to justify your "conflict."  If faith isn't a source of knowledge then the comparison of reason and faith is like apples and blue birds and there can be no conflict except by the ignorant.
I would modify that to read:"except by the ignorant as brought to the human stage through fundamentalism." Which then goes on to define the lines even further until you end up at the point where the moment Faith leads you to make a positive claim...
...

791 else
792 goto page 1

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,14:11   

Yes, I agree, the loop persists.  It does all come down to what knowledge is and it seems we all have our own definitions there.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,17:16   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 14 2007,09:51)
If you remove any special knowledge from faith then I do think it becomes meaningless.  All the other benefits you mentioned (emotional, social, etc) have no real value if they're built on an illusion.  I'm not sure how exposed you are to not only religious people but spiritual people.  They actually do believe that God spoke and here's some of the things he said.

Skeptic - this reads backward to me.

I would argue that it is precisely the absence of both support by means of empirical knowledge and the receipt of "special knowledge" that endows an act of faith with the quality of faith. "I believe in God" as an act of faith acknowledges that this belief is sustained in the absence of the possibility of proof - or even the possibility of conclusively persuasive evidence - in support of that belief. THAT is what makes it faith, and THAT is what perhaps enables us to attribute to the faithful a measure of courage.

Many people believe in God, and that "here are some of the things he said." But they must acknowledge that there is no warrant to believe these assertions - they simply believe them, and act on those beliefs, as an act of faith. It doesn't follow that the "things he said" now have a privileged status as somehow "known" in an epistemological sense - to hold an assertion by faith alone neither confers nor reflects epistemological warrant. This is hinted by the fact that the "things he said" are often mutually exclusive and contradictory both within and between religious traditions.

[edit for clarity]

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,18:02   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 14 2007,14:11)
Yes, I agree, the loop persists.  It does all come down to what knowledge is and it seems we all have our own definitions there.

No!! The definitions all got hammered out. Go back and figure out which part you specifically refer to.

The loop is on your end, not one ours. The map. The map represents knowledge. Faith can't generate a map. If there is knowledge for which we have no adequate expressive form (as of yet) it might come from, as Louis' example, catching a ball, or perhaps the Zen archer, or meditation as we discussed earlier, and that information may not be subject to specific quantification (at least easily) but none of those are particularly "faith" and quite specifically none are religion. Religion is "trust" not faith. Trust that those who told us about it (it doesn't come spontaneously-the amazonian tribe example I used) were correct. Trust that the language they used to communicate the nature of the sublime and the words as abstracted symbols could communicate their knowledge accurately to you. Faith in terms of believing some idea that came to you through non-rational causes is not religion at all and has never led one person to find another person's God in the history of all humanity. The trust from the first example is in direct confrontation with science which requires a mapmaker to show his work.

That is the only thing science is good for: mapmaking. Its maps are the best humanity has for the natural universe. It doesn't say anything about God except what God is not.  God is not intervening in our physical universe in any measurable way and exerting any physical forces outside of relativity, quantum mechanics, physics in general.Faith doesn't contribute anything to that map for the simple reason that there can be opposing faiths.

Now, that in no way denigrates a belief in god. I very passionately believe in god and I don't think Louis would have any issue at all with my beliefs. I don't make claims about god however because of essentially this reason. And for the same reason, I understand that there is a rift between science and religion. Also for this reason, I take sides.

Please watch the link if you haven't before. Even if you have. It is one of the most coherent expressions of faith I have ever come across.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,18:21   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 14 2007,19:02)
Please watch the link if you haven't before. Even if you have. It is one of the most coherent expressions of faith I have ever come across.

Beautiful. (And you've got to hand the little dot one thing: It has produced some good films.)  

Another moment in cinema that arouses similar feelings - and that, not surprisingly, is also connected with Carl Sagan - is the opening moments of the movie Contact, during which the camera starts at earth, then recedes to cosmological distances, and into silence.

[Edit: Watch it here. Even in this little YouTube format it brings tears to my eyes.]

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,21:43   

Wow Bill. I've never seen Contact. The silence means so much.

Still, the poetic statement from the first is about as good as it gets for me.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2007,21:49   

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 14 2007,22:43)
Wow Bill. I've never seen Contact. The silence means so much.

Still, the poetic statement from the first is about as good as it gets for me.

I recommend Contact. Seeing that little clip of the opening prompts me to rent the DVD - very much about the place of science in the world, and the nature of faith.

What may not be apparent in that little YouTube clip is that the sequence terminates in the pupil of a human eye (that of the Jane Arroway character).

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,04:42   

Skeptic,

I'll only second what Bill said, a) because he said it before I could get here to say it and b) because I reckon he said it better than I would have done!

We're back to the questions I asked you at the start. How do you distinguish between two mutually contradictory faith claims?

The answer is: unless you use reason of some description, or some reason-like process, you can't even attempt to do this (I make no claim that one will be successful if one does use reason etc). And if you do use reason you eliminated the need to make the claim on faith in the first place, you've destroyed the faith nature of the claim and replaced it with some intuition or conjection that you are advancing as a testable hypothesis.

It's a classic Catch 22 of epistemology! If you're claiming that Article of Faith X is "knowledge" by some personal, idiosyncratic definition of "knowledge" then you must, by the force of your own arguments, acknowledge that a mutually contradictory Article of Faith Y is also "knowledge". You defeat your own claim of "knowledge" because the same justification can be used for the exact opposite.

Even more than that even if this faith derived thing IS knowledge (which it isn't) it is uncommunicable. The second you communicate it, you are making it available for scrutiny on a rational basis. And that stuffs the claim that faith is valid epistemologically oce again, because the second that an idea or claim is scrutinsied on a rational, reason based, footing it survives or dies on the evidence and therefore is explicitly a product of reason.

That's the problem with claiming faith is valid epistemologically, it catches you coming and going. You trap yourself by the force of your own arguments. Personally (and again there are a few theologians who would agree with this), I think this cheapens faith and makes it available for mockery at the least.

Look at it this way Skeptic, if you are claiming that without a factual faith derived knowledge basis for your beliefs, then they would all be invalid and easily destroyed, how do you cope when someone else makes a claim to a factual faith derived knowledge basis for their beliefs that completely contradicts your own? Take a trivial example: you, as a christian think that Jesus is the son of god, a muslim thinks that Jesus is an important prophet. Both of these things are based on the faith derived teachings of those two religions, and they are mutually exclusive. Jesus can't both be the son of god and not the son of god. A and not A. The ideas are mutually contradictory. (Hint: appeals to mystery will not help you here). You're stuck. Any appeal to historical evidence or ay form of reasoned theological argument proves my point: reason (and reason-like processes) are the only way we know anything at all, faith doesn't work. If you make no use of reason etc and ONLY assert these things by faith alone then you're also stuck, because your muslim chum can do exactly the same, no reconcilliation is possible. No distinction can be made.

Incidentally, on a related but separate note, this is precisely why advocacy of reason is INCLUSIVE. Look again at the Sagan video BWE posts. Our human concerns and biases are infinitesimally small things compared to the majesty of the cosmos (and yes I know the origins of that word!). Simple acknowledgement of certain of our limitations, the failure of faith as a valid epistemological method being one of them, allows us to try to place things on a reason based footing. To follow the evidence, to eschew some of the rather chimpy, evolved, instinctual and petty concerns of our species. These are the first steps on a highly inclusive and productive road.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,05:57   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 13 2007,13:43)
This sort of error prompted me to coin the phrase, "The map is not the territory."

(*shoves Korzybski behind a rock*)

*BBzzzz*
Wrong!

If you actually go and check "Science and Sanity", you'll find it is "A map is not the territory".  Putting it the other way means  there is only one real distinct map because of the way "The" is used, and is therefore against the way/ tenets/ suggestions/ advice of General Semantics.  

(I read Science and sanity at uni.  It was quite helpful, although it could be boiled down into something maybe 50 pages long)

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,08:52   

Quote (guthrie @ Dec. 15 2007,06:57)
             
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 13 2007,13:43)
This sort of error prompted me to coin the phrase, "The map is not the territory."

(*shoves Korzybski behind a rock*)

*BBzzzz*
Wrong!

If you actually go and check "Science and Sanity", you'll find it is "A map is not the territory".  Putting it the other way means  there is only one real distinct map because of the way "The" is used, and is therefore against the way/ tenets/ suggestions/ advice of General Semantics.  

(I read Science and sanity at uni.  It was quite helpful, although it could be boiled down into something maybe 50 pages long)

You're referring to Korzybski's famous passage, which equivocates on the pronoun: "A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness. If the map could be ideally correct, it would include, in a reduced scale, the map of the map, the map of the map of the map, and so on, endlessly, a fact first noticed by Royce."

But I wasn't alluding to Korzybski. I was referring to my wholly original phrase, "The map is not the territory," which I originated and which has no relationship to Korzybski. The passage in which it appears, a passage your grandchildren will be repeating to their children:

"Nor are there walking trees. The world stands tall around us, first cold, then fast, then silent. Neither is the candy the sweet, nor the sweet the kiss, nor the kiss the wedding ceremony, nor is the pastor, or minister, or justice of the peace, or the priest, witch doctor, etc. depending upon the venue in which your doom is consecrated and upon who (or is it whom?) completes the documentation any sort of substitute for the marriage license. Yet with respect to the human heart (and here I am referring to the emotional ins and outs of a person or woman and not his/their blood pumping muscle) there is pointing to it and showing you around it a very detailed map, namely this sensitive and wise book, yet the map is not the territory which you will remember is the strictly metaphorical heart. And it is in my heart that I long for walking trees, but there aren't any, which I could see by looking at a map of the area (which is to say by reading this book)."

*wipes tears* I can't continue...

[edit] But in the LoTR their are walking trees.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,10:04   

I'm in trouble here.  After 36 pages I've come across some problems of definition and as BWE pointed they are my problems.  I went back and did some reading, not to ignore you guys but I sought third parties, and I've found that what I thought I was talking about was not really what I was talking about.  I hope that makes sense.

Let's look at faith first.  Faith is not a source of knowledge.  (pause, somebody help Louis back up again)

From Websters: faith: 2) 1. belief and trust in and loyalty to God, 2. belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion, 3. belief in something for which there is no proof.

*all the first definitions referred to personal loyalty and fidelity*

Anyway, it is obvious that faith is evaluating information post-discovery and as has been pointed out to me, possibly using a reasoned method.  There can be the instance where a claim is believed just because but that is not the exclusive case.  Either way, no new knowledge is gained so faith is not a method for gaining knowledge.  In this same way, faith and reason can not be compared as methods but can be compared as means of evaluating claims.

Now all along I've been saying one thing and thinking another.  *Louis, you may just want to sit down*  When thinking of non-reasoned based methods of gaining knowledge I've been saying faith but I not sure that I have a word.  You guys might want to supply me one.  What I'm looking for is a method of gaining knowledge that is not based upon reason, such as revelation, meditation, prayer, etc.  For me, that is the opposite of reason in terms of method and faith will be the opposite in terms of evaluation.

So lets look at your example.  Jesus is or is not the Son of God.  The knowledge gained is either Jesus is or is not the Son of God.  Logic tells us that something can not be and not be simultaneously so one statement is true and one statement is false.  There is a way of evaluating both statements but there's no way to know which evaluation is correct.  You may say that this renders the answer meaningless, I'm not sure if you'd say that, but I would disagree.  

The source of both of these statements lie outside of a reasoned method of discovery.  In the Jesus is Son case, multiple instances of angels and God proclaiming the case to individuals and groups of people.  In Jesus is not case, The Prophet receiving direct communication from God.  Either there are two different Gods, which raises multiple contradictions or one statement is false.  There is no reasoned way of evaluating these claims directly as both are technically non-repeatable events.  But let's look a case that makes this actual knowledge.

For the sake of argument, imagine that an angel appeared to Mary and told her that her son would be the Son of God and it turned out to be true.  This constitutes knowledge as it correctly describes reality but it is based only upon human experience and a one time experience at that.  It is still true but we have to believe Mary to accept it.  We could take a reasoned approach and look at her character, whether she was really in the place she claimed when this event supposedly happened, an so forth.  Unfortunately, this considerations may have no connection to whether this event occurred and that's where faith comes in.

So I guess there's no reasoned way to differentiate between faith-based claims but that in itself does not exclude the knowledge contained in these claims.  One of them will be correct even if for the wrong reasons.

Does that put faith and reason at odds, yes in a sense.  The evaluation of information can be either reasoned-based or taken as a matter of faith.  Are revelation and reason at odds, no.  Revelation may contradict reason or the other way around but they still can not be compared because there is no overlap.  I can see that this may seem vague so I'll work on it.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,11:38   

Quote (skeptic @ Dec. 15 2007,11:04)
For the sake of argument, imagine that an angel appeared to Mary and told her that her son would be the Son of God and it turned out to be true.  This constitutes knowledge as it correctly describes reality but it is based only upon human experience and a one time experience at that.  It is still true but we have to believe Mary to accept it.  We could take a reasoned approach and look at her character, whether she was really in the place she claimed when this event supposedly happened, an so forth.  Unfortunately, this considerations may have no connection to whether this event occurred and that's where faith comes in.

Good post, Skeptic. I've dispatched emergency vehicles to Louis' address.

But IMHO you get yourself into trouble with hypotheticals like the above, because you smuggle the truth of the matter (angels really did appear, Jesus really is the son of god) into your hypothetical scenario. THEN you say "we have to believe Mary to accept it," and address problems such as it having the status of a report of a human experience, and a one-time experience at that.

But we are never in that position. In the instance of faith claims we never have a priori knowledge of he truth of the central claim of divinity, and we have already agreed that there is no way to obtain it. The hypothetical scenario should start here: "Suppose Mary came to you and said, 'An angel appeared to me and told me that my son is the Son of God. It has turned out to be true.'" That would be the claim you would have to evaluate; in reality we are NEVER in possession of "it's still true, but..." We have her claim, and that is that. We may indeed then engage in reasoning about the factual components of her claim, her character, etc. For example, my knowledge of the relevant facts may convince me that claim is false (she was in actually in Schenectady that evening); similarly, my knowledge of her personality may convince me of the same (I know her to be inappropriately credulous, and prone to fabricate fantastic stories). But this is not symmetrical; I can never confirm her claim by such reasoning.

Indeed, I engage in such a processes vis the faith claims of the religions to which I have been exposed. Some of them simply can't be true in light of the location of Schenectady: claims that the earth is 6,000 years young have the status of being factually incorrect, and I reject those claims. Others intersect less with the empirically discernible world (we possess souls that carry our personalities beyond death); in addition to noting that the claim is increasingly untenable in light of contemporary neuroscience, I also take note of the "personality" of the human animal, which includes the protean ability to invent culturally sustained narratives with little factual basis, not to mention endless deliberately contrived falsehoods and cons. I conclude that it is vastly more likely that this improbable story is a cultural invention or falsehood with no factual basis than an instance of esoteric knowledge.

[edits and additions for clarity; correction of egregious "convince" vs. "persuade" error.]

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,12:56   

Seems to me that before trying to figure out of somebody is "son of God", the first step is to figure out what the heck that phrase even means. Maybe somebody else can, but I can't think of an objective meaning that fits the common usage of the phrase.

------------

Is there a way of gaining knowledge other than reason? I'd think that observation using the senses is a way of gaining information (i.e., useful data), which is a form of knowledge, and I wouldn't offhand classify observation as a form of reason.

------------

Re "[edit] But in the LoTR their are walking trees. "

But as one Hobbit said (more or less; I'm unsure of exact phrasing and too lazy to look it up), "Nonsense. Elm trees can't walk. So you can't have seen one do so."

Henry

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,18:43   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 15 2007,08:52)
You're referring to Korzybski's famous passage, which equivocates on the pronoun: "A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness. If the map could be ideally correct, it would include, in a reduced scale, the map of the map, the map of the map of the map, and so on, endlessly, a fact first noticed by Royce."

But I wasn't alluding to Korzybski. I was referring to my wholly original phrase, "The map is not the territory," which I originated and which as no relationship to Korzybski. The passage in which it appears, a passage your grandchildren will be repeating to their children:

"Nor are there walking trees. The world stands tall around us, first cold, then fast, then silent. Neither is the candy the sweet, nor the sweet the kiss, nor the kiss the wedding ceremony, nor is the pastor, or minister, or justice of the peace, or the priest, witch doctor, etc. depending upon the venue in which your doom is consecrated and upon who (or is it whom?) completes the documentation any sort of substitute for the marriage license. Yet with respect to the human heart (and here I am referring to the emotional ins and outs of a person or woman and not his/their blood pumping muscle) there is pointing to it and showing you around it a very detailed map, namely this sensitive and wise book, yet the map is not the territory which you will remember is the strictly metaphorical heart. And it is in my heart that I long for walking trees, but there aren't any, which I could see by looking at a map of the area (which is to say by reading this book)."

*wipes tears* I can't continue...

[edit] But in the LoTR their are walking trees.

You might claim it is wholly original with yourself, but I've seen people misquote it before.  Hence why I jumped in.  That yout quote it out of context is bad and evil, but you know, this isn't UD so nobody's going to ban you.


P.S.- I don't have any children.  Know any nice single women in their late 20's in Scotland?

P.P.S.- I wonder how advanced biotech will get before we make some walking trees.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2007,20:46   

Quote (guthrie @ Dec. 15 2007,19:43)
You might claim it is wholly original with yourself, but I've seen people misquote it before.  Hence why I jumped in.  That yout quote it out of context is bad and evil, but you know, this isn't UD so nobody's going to ban you.


P.S.- I don't have any children.  Know any nice single women in their late 20's in Scotland?

P.P.S.- I wonder how advanced biotech will get before we make some walking trees.

Truth be told, I first posted it with "The," then edited to "A," then did a quick check on Wikipedia where it is prominently presented with "The" in several locations - so I switched it back. I stand corrected. As do trees.

[And you did get that I made up that silly passage on the spot, right?  Whew.]

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
guthrie



Posts: 696
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2007,04:44   

I was suspicious of the gradndiose claims regarding that passage, but since I havn't read an appreciable fraction of the worlds books, I assumed it was some obscure publication, but it was irrelevant to what I was saying anyway.  Actually it's quite a nice paragraph.  Have you thought of writing a book?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 15 2009,16:06   

Sorry about bumping this but I'm re-reading it and my bookmark keeps going to the wrong link.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2009,14:31   

A large part of chapter 4 in my eternal writing project derives from things I thought while participating in this thread. I just finished re-reading it. Excellent thread.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2009,14:44   

Quote (BWE @ July 15 2009,15:06)
Sorry about bumping this but I'm re-reading it and my bookmark keeps going to the wrong link.

So there's a rift between thread and bookmark? :p

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2009,15:13   

Quote (Henry J @ July 17 2009,12:44)
Quote (BWE @ July 15 2009,15:06)
Sorry about bumping this but I'm re-reading it and my bookmark keeps going to the wrong link.

So there's a rift between thread and bookmark? :p

Yes. Oddly enough, the bookmark worked about 3 times and them brought up a search box after that. Resetting it did the same. Finally, I just bumped the thread. :)

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2009,21:50   

Quote
Oddly enough, the bookmark worked about 3 times and them brought up a search box after that. Resetting it did the same.


That sounds weird. Did the bookmark link through another machine or application that might have ceased relaying it properly?

Henry

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 17 2009,22:19   

Quote (Henry J @ July 17 2009,19:50)
Quote
Oddly enough, the bookmark worked about 3 times and them brought up a search box after that. Resetting it did the same.


That sounds weird. Did the bookmark link through another machine or application that might have ceased relaying it properly?

Henry

It was weird. It somehow reverted to the search I used to find the thread (searched threads with "rift" in the titles.) but knew which thread to choose. The search function eventually lost the search ID I guess. I dunno.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2013,09:21   

Spam deleted.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
  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]