RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (37) < ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... >   
  Topic: No reason for a rift between science and religion?, Skeptic's chance to prove his claims.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
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.

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

Pages: (37) < ... 26 27 28 29 30 [31] 32 33 34 35 36 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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