House On Fire?

snake river rufus said:
Well I was trained as an engineer and I spent 30 years in the aerospace industry removing extraneous B.S. from real world problems be of more value than training in super oops theistic matters?

The reason not to believe in supernatural stuff is (pay attention LG;)) is that it is not rational.
Click to expand...

Is it rational to think that 30 years of experience in the aerospace industry lends any credibility to one's (personal) claims in the fields of geology or archeology?
How about theology or philosophy?

Professor Lewis Wolpert, erudite biologist at London's University College, writes that most scientists today are ignorant of philosophical issues. Though at the beginning of the twentieth century a professional scientist normally had a background in philosophy,
Today things are quite different, and the stars of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic.
("The Unnatural Nature of Science")
:shrug:
 
the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic. ("The Unnatural Nature of Science")

/pats/head

i say
thats reiku to a tee
 
Gustav said:
the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic. ("The Unnatural Nature of Science")

/pats/head

i say
thats reiku to a tee
Click to expand...
given the absence of philosophy in the curriculum of contemporary scientific training, its hardly unique.

Unfortunately this has predictable results

Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything
Benjamin Wooley - Virtual Worlds

:shrug:
 
lightgigantic said:
No you haven't.
For a start, ALL systems of knowledge begin with belief (or inductive knowledge) and not all systems of theistic disciplines (in fact i would say hardly any of them) maintain that belief is the end in itself.

thus it's not clear why you say that if you follow the rules of that system it is irrational
Click to expand...

Yes most systems start with with belief. Theists stop at this point. All other seekers of knowledge test, and test and the offal falls to the wayside.
Theists are content to ignore every bit of evidence that contradicts their beliefs to the point of absurdity. " god did it", "we can't know the way of god". Those are pretty short biology lessons no? or anthropology or geology.
To grant credit to something that cannot be tested or examined, particulary when absolutely every shred of evidence points elsewhere is nothing but irrational. I cannot see any other word for it. But again I'll ask you to provide a definition for the word/s 'logic' & 'rational thought' that includes believing in the supernatural. It's one thing for bronze age people looking for ways to explain what they don't under stand. that justification no longer exists.
 
snake river rufus said:
Yes most systems start with with belief. Theists stop at this point.
Click to expand...
if that is what you believe, no wonder that you are now an atheist

All other seekers of knowledge test, and test and the offal falls to the wayside.
Theists are content to ignore every bit of evidence that contradicts their beliefs to the point of absurdity. " god did it", "we can't know the way of god". Those are pretty short biology lessons no? or anthropology or geology.
To grant credit to something that cannot be tested or examined, particulary when absolutely every shred of evidence points elsewhere is nothing but irrational. I cannot see any other word for it. But again I'll ask you to provide a definition for the word/s 'logic' & 'rational thought' that includes believing in the supernatural. It's one thing for bronze age people looking for ways to explain what they don't under stand. that justification no longer exists.
Click to expand...
I am not sure if I understand your argument, so I will try and play it back to you before I begin.

Is this your argument?

P1 All evidence points towards god's non existence
p2 All theistic claims are contradictory
p3 All theistic claims are attempts to compensate for lacks of knowledge
conclusion - therefore all theistic claims are irrational
 
lightgigantic said:
Is it rational to think that 30 years of experience in the aerospace industry lends any credibility to one's (personal) claims in the fields of geology or archeology?
How about theology or philosophy?

Professor Lewis Wolpert, erudite biologist at London's University College, writes that most scientists today are ignorant of philosophical issues. Though at the beginning of the twentieth century a professional scientist normally had a background in philosophy,
Today things are quite different, and the stars of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic.
("The Unnatural Nature of Science")
:shrug:
Click to expand...
Yes 30 years is enough for the real world. There is absolutely no reason to study theology any more than flint knapping. Philosophy,, I'll leave that to the likes of Depak. It is inane to think that a physicist needs a knowledge of philosophy.:rolleyes:
 
snake river rufus said:
Yes 30 years is enough for the real world. There is absolutely no reason to study theology any more than flint knapping. Philosophy,, I'll leave that to the likes of Depak. It is inane to think that a physicist needs a knowledge of philosophy.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
you are certainly fitting this quote to the letter


Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything
Benjamin Wooley - Virtual Worlds
 
if that is what you believe, no wonder that you are now an atheist


No that is what I've observed. You may deny it, but you can't demonstrate it

I am not sure if I understand your argument, so I will try and play it back to you before I begin.

I'm up for the 2nd night with insomnia. But barring typos I'm sure that you get my point.


P1 All evidence points towards god's non existence
p2 All theistic claims are contradictory
p3 All theistic claims are attempts to compensate for lacks of knowledge
conclusion - therefore all theistic claims are irrational

P1 it certainly does
P2 the ones that can be tested are false or contradictory or meaningless.
P3 Lack of knowledge or desire to fit in with friends etc.
Until you can provide one shred of proof, yes. That is pretty much the definition of irrational.
 
snake river rufus said:
if that is what you believe, no wonder that you are now an atheist


No that is what I've observed. You may deny it, but you can't demonstrate it

I am not sure if I understand your argument, so I will try and play it back to you before I begin.

I'm up for the 2nd night with insomnia. But barring typos I'm sure that you get my point.


P1 All evidence points towards god's non existence
p2 All theistic claims are contradictory
p3 All theistic claims are attempts to compensate for lacks of knowledge
conclusion - therefore all theistic claims are irrational

P1 it certainly does
P2 the ones that can be tested are false or contradictory or meaningless.
P3 Lack of knowledge or desire to fit in with friends etc.
Until you can provide one shred of proof, yes. That is pretty much the definition of irrational.
Click to expand...

ok now before I begin, what evidence or bodies of work are you referencing for your three premises?
 
lightgigantic said:
you are certainly fitting this quote to the letter


Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything
Benjamin Wooley - Virtual Worlds
Click to expand...

Science most certainly not ask for all explainations. Just the natural ones. I'm too tired to google Wooley now, is there any reason to think a quote from Virtual Worlds or this man should mean anything to me?
 
snake river rufus said:
Science most certainly not ask for all explainations. Just the natural ones. I'm too tired to google Wooley now, is there any reason to think a quote from Virtual Worlds or this man should mean anything to me?
Click to expand...
I had hoped it may cause you to reconsider what you meant by saying science has superseded philosophy .....
 
snake river rufus said:
before you begin you are going to provide the definitions that I asked for. I'm going to hit the rack.
Click to expand...

definitions of rationality are already established

this is a rational statement
p1 all pigs can fly
p2 all horses are pigs
therefore all horses can fly
(of course there are a few problems with the premises)

this is a truthful statement
p1 I am hungry
p2 it is almost night time
therefore it is thursday
(of course it has a few problems with rationality)

people often make the claims that theism is not rational, when actually they mean something else- at the moment I am just trying to help you form a coherent argument
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top