that same doctor wont "many times" wont operate on a mother who got raped or has a child she does not want..
Religious people aren't built for logical debate.
- Thread starter universaldistress
- Start date
that same doctor wont "many times" wont operate on a mother who got raped or has a child she does not want..
even if we want to accept your assessment of religion as accurate, science is guilty of the exact same misdemeanor, the moment it lays claim to the nature of the micro and macrocosm (the two extremes that are logically inaccessible by empiricism) - IOW laying claim to something about the universe (macrocosm) or that all things (such as consciousnes) can be materially reduced (microcosm)
BTW IMHO its not so much that religion or even science that isn't built for logical debate - its individuals who start with their values and then attempt to bring logic to dress them that aren't built for logical debate.
As a classic example, much of the pandering going on this thread is about how there is no "evidence" for religious claims, despite the fact that even if one is willing to theoretically accept the definitions of the claim, one wouldn't expect empiricism to be capable of the job (How can investigation with the senses hope to isolate and control something that empowers the senses and is hence independent from them?)
Never encountered a normative description (IOW how you have to be in order to know something) in scripture?
same as anywhere else - in the application
If you are willing to accept that theoretically, then it stands that god would only be knowable on his terms.
IOW god as a knowable object would be knowable like any other person that operates out of a superior identity
empiricism is a poor choice for the task
Last edited:
You took this without following comments I made. It will cause change but existing systems, default systems still work as they did. If there is more to find then great. We may even be able to revolutionise default systems with new found knowledge of quantum physics. Again great. But there are still defaults that work as they do the same jobs as they did 100 years ago?
only within certain contexts
then you are left with "maybe's"
:shrug:
even outdated philosophy has a few rudimentary basics for all seasons
:shrug:
But isn't this always so; and could there be any discussion at all if the individuals would not start with their values (and the values of the individuals are likely to differ)?
It easy to make the experience that like-minded people have relatively little to talk about.
Well sure, generalisations and viewpoints abound. . . doesn’t change the viewpoint I am choosing to take at the moment? the context that i have already established.
Maybe; The nature of the maybe is within a different context though. Is this point valid within the context I intitially forged when I amde the "maybe" point. Sounds like more fudging is inferred.
Based on rudimentary science? Problem is a philosophical outlook can strip back to nothing if it wants. Philosophy is supremely flexible. I suppose a union of the two can be also. But therewas a context established at the beginning of this thread?
I agree.
There are, for example, Christian scholars who popularize the idea that the basis for the Christian faith are the archaeological and historiographic findings. Ie., first you believe the archaeologists and historiographers, and then you believe in Jesus and the Bible.
Then there are people from various traditions who, directly, but usually indirectly, propose that a religious teaching be used as a tool, so that one can feel good, and they use medical research to back up their claims (e.g. "the positive effects of meditation and prayer can be observed on brain measurements") .
I think this is completely messed up.
You will need to provide evidence for that.
Deeper you dig, the more furcations tend to arise?
Could you restate it, please?
Do you wish to focus on whether the religious should feel guilty and whether the scientists ought to be on their toes; or on "religious people not being built for debate"?
Because that is two topics.
Ok Ok, how about this. Science is prepared (purports to be prepared(pure science)), in the face of evidence, to change any part of its "BELIEF".
But religion is not prepared to make the concession that god may not exist. Therein lies the flaw.
A flexible system (if followed without biase) against a deeply biased mode of thought.
But religion is not prepared to make the concession that god may not exist. Therein lies the flaw.
A flexible system (if followed without biase) against a deeply biased mode of thought.
This statement immediately precludes itself from the debate because, as I have already stated, there is a difference between theory and agreed upon fact. Also you are fudging with narcissistic/solipsistic suggestions that somehow consciousness transcends the physical body. Fringe science is fun to contemplate but do not mix it with mainstream thought.
This is a black and white statement. Greys exist by the bucket load here. But I stand by my initial claim. Using elements of logic like "god exists because he does and I said so", doesn't cut it with intellectuals. And in fact the statement you make reinforces my statement because that is what followers do. Of course there are always going to be scientists who are also capable of fudging up logic, but the whole process weeds them out gradually. There is no comparable weeding out process in religion though. I really think for religion to move forwards successfully it is going to have to drastically alter its present mind-set. Church attendance levels in UK are dire and dropping I believe, and civilised europe seems set to follow?
Its all in the brain. Evolution at its best and worst. It helped to establish civilisation and cooperation, but fostered tribal hatreds. For me a break down of differences is the only way social evolution has a chance of getting the world on the same page?
To say that religious feeling is somehow separate from the body/mind is ringing alarm bells in my head. I thought you were doing rather well but I think you are about to admit to fostering a religious belief? exactly the action that spurred this threads inception.
sorry left my Bible at home (thank God (excuse the pun))
Could you elaborate please?
Personification is an error here I think. Also you assume god would have terms or interests in anyone knowing anything. Ever thought unarrogantly that humans aren't the focus of the universe? Or that god isn't even conscious. Or that you youself are the consciousness of god itself. Should god be named with a theory instead of a name? How many views are possible, why fix yourself to traditional modes.
I have my own theory.
I agree at present. But were I to accelerate my mind forward into a possible future viewpoint I may find "hyper-empiricism" allows human thought to grant god council.
Last edited:
My bad, I meant to say throughout this thread, I thought some of my posts were earlier than they were.
I suppose the fudging of science by religious thought is my general focus.
The title was the hook.
"On their toes" as a kickstart statement. Does that help?
The title was the hook.
"On their toes" as a kickstart statement. Does that help?
Like I said:
Actually, you seemed to be implying that because the philosophers who were surveyed were teachers that it necessarily demonstrated that they weren't of the same caliber as the greats throughout history. I gleaned this from your assertion that science teachers couldn't be compared to the key figures in the various branches of science.
That wasn't my notion. It seemed to be yours. In my post I went on to point out that there is no reason to believe that we don't have philosophers alive today who are just as brilliant and insightful as the greats throughout history. Obviously I know that most of them are university teachers, so how does it make sense to interpret my comments to suggest that I think that the number of philosophers who have obtained funding for research is in any way indicative of how credible the discipline is? I was saying the opposite.
What are you even talking about? It was a joke.
Science is a perfect illustrative example. Most of the big discoveries that have radically altered our understanding of reality have already been made: the earth is round, it revolves around the sun, how gravity works, everything is made of atoms, atoms are made of still more fundamental stuff, the laws of thermodynamics, electromagnetism, the true nature of light, special and general relativity, quantum mechanics... the list goes on. But even though the fabric of reality becomes more fundamental the deeper we probe into it, the mathematical framework that is required to make sense of it becomes much more complex and the calculations required so lengthy that we have hundreds of people working on the problem and are becoming increasingly reliant on computers to do much of the work for us.
I'm not saying that there are no big discoveries left to make, but it is increasingly likely that such discoveries will be collaborative efforts. So we might not end up with too many big household names like Newton or Einstein anymore, but rather lists of names. But those people wont necessarily be any less brilliant. They are simply dealing with more complex problems.
Philosophy is somewhat different I know. But similarly, because so much philosophy has already been hashed out over the centuries, almost everything ends up being a derivation or an extension of something else. All the major questions have already been tackled exhaustively. But there are indeed many great minds at work today who are continuing the tradition by refining and extending upon the knowledge that we've already gained. Occasionally someone finds a new and interesting application or devises a fresh approach, but it's still all mostly derivative. But it would be insulting to suggest that this is because there's just no-one alive today who possesses a mind that it as brilliant as those who have come before us.
Are you kidding.
Looking to the past the big discoveries have already been made???
So you've looked into your crystal ball, and see that human knowledge has peaked. All down here from here.
You cannot be serious, but I'll bet you are.
Has there ever been a time when fools did not think this.
I'll bet the foolish Romans did, (not all of them were fools).
I'll be all of the foolish Greeks did too (not all of them foolish).
I imagine even during the dark ages, fools were declairing the very same thing.
Every generation thinks it is the best thing since sliced bread, and all of the great discoveries have been made.
Hint: Black holes
Worm holes.
Time travel.
~ ~ ~
I hear you think philosophers rely on science. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
Philosophers rely on religion as much as science.
You're a hoot.
That's not what I said at all. I said that most of the big discoveries that have radically altered our understanding of reality have already been made, and I gave examples to characterize what I meant.
I believe that we are still heading up hill, but that any future big discoveries are likely to be the result of more complex theoretical frameworks and greater collaboration.
Think about this. Who is going to be credited with the discovery of the Higgs Boson if we find it? Just one person? I don't think so. And what if String Theory does indeed turn out to be the Theory of Everything. That would be a pretty big deal. But will that be attributed to just one person? Not a chance.
I said philosophers are influenced by science.
You're an excitable nut.
Cut and thrust, lol; I love it. I think there is space for individual discovery, who knows what the future may hold, or the nature of discoveries in a thousand years time. And I am not so sure that all the biggies are already dusted. I truly believe if you keep on digging, you keep on afinding. But I do accept a steep curve has panned out over the last couple hundred. Just wouldn't feel right to jump to any conclusions/assumptions though . . .
You think this somehow change things?
You haven't seen nothing yet.
Most of the big discoveries that will radically alter our understanding of reality have NOT occured, if past performance is any indication of future expectations.
Most of those radical dicscoveries you mentioned started with philosophy.
Yes, we can say philosophy is influenced by science, about half as much as science is influenced by philosophy.
You still have it backwards.