Underlying Philosophy

Why don't you drop yours?there goes that crap anti"elitist" mentality that cons seem to have. We know something or may even simply believe something you don't and some how that makes us arrogant. Instead of trying to understand that you have this bizarre psychosis that these people are attacking you when the reality is you're attacking them and they may simply be defending themselves. It isn't a message or truth they appear to be baseless assumptions.Why should I ever listen to a Christian if one won't listen to me? We have many creationists we have civil debates with on this board now and in the past. I have respect for these people while not having respect for the belief. If they attack us.... well it seems only fair to call them on it and some may bite back.If you want to discuss specifics start a new topic other wise you're trolling. We're here to discuss not for YOU to falsely tell us what we believe.

quote:

---

Since I presume you know what I meant by abstract entities, I will continue to use this term, and if it confuses you, then just simply try to understand what I originally meant, and do not become to picky about terminology.

---

The problem is that the laws of logic really ARE abstract entities. And abstract entities are very different from hypothetical non-physical concrete entities. And you really, really, need to respect the differences. You see the problem is less whether I know what I mean, but whether YOU know what you are talking about. Which is why you should attempt to get the terminology correct so that you know whether you are talking about something that is really an abstract entity or about something that you believe to be a concrete entity.

quote:

---

Yes, I got that term from Greg Bahnsen, but my arguments are not simply copies of what he said, but are merely based on the basic, presuppositionalist argument that you must believe in a god to know anything.

---

Which is really the "argument" that if you don't accept Greg Bahnsen's version of Christianity you can't know anything - because Greg Bahnsen says so. It's pretty obviously nonsense.

Rule #6 - Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.Rule #7 - Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.Please adjust accordingly and be sure to link or give credit to the source of your material. Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.Thank you
AdminPD

Rule #10 = Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.The tone of your response to IchiBan was unwarranted in this thread. A simple reminder of the rules would have been sufficient or a note to an Admin.Argue the position, not the person. Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.Thank you
AdminPD

I do not believe in a god (though Thor might become a bit more popular again when the Avengers movie comes out) and yet I know many things -- besides being a working software engineer and polyglot, I can be a formidable force in Trivial Pursuit (as long as I can stay away from Sports, though I won a game once against our minister, a master at the game, by being able to identify what a "California Prayer Book" was). There are many other individuals who do not believe in a god and yet they know much more than I do.So now that the basis of your arguments has been shown to be completely and utterly false, we can abandon it and you can then move this discussion towards something more interesting and fruitful.

---

One of the things I know, having completed the Navy's Quartermaster course, is how a ship's navigator operates. He starts with the ship's current position, which he determines with a navigational fix (taking sightings and performing the math). Then as the ship steams on its course, he periodically plots dead reckoning fixes which determine where the ship should be along its course at any given time. He does that by noting the ship's heading and measured speed and the elapsed time since the last fix and extrapolating where the ship should be now. Then after some dead reckoning fixes, he pokes his head outside, takes some more sightings and plots the ship's plot with a correction to its actual position with a navigational fix.The point is that as useful as dead reckoning is, it is subject to error and the accumulation thereof. If the navigator were to rely solely on dead reckoning, there's no telling where his ship would end up. So every once in a while, he must go outside and look to see where they really are. Or as a friend was once told by his flight instructor when he was focussing too much on the instruments: "Get your head out of the cockpit!"In a way, we use logic to perform our daily "dead reckoning" and observations of the real world to get our corrective fixes; science uses this approach, while theology only has logic and nothing that they can actually observe to give them a corrective fix. As this story illustrates (was attributed to an essay by Carl Sagan):

quote:

---

The Physicist and the Metaphysicist

​

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast. This was a time when people stood up, made a toast, and then selected someone to respond. Nobody knew what toast they'd be asked to reply to, so it was a challenge for the quick-witted. In this case the toast was: "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy -- truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

​

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.

---

If all you can ever use is dead reckoning (or logic), then you have no way of knowing where you will end up. Grounded on a shoal, broken up on the rocks, or irretrievably lost at sea.Time to get your head out of the cockpit.

I just occurred to me to ask you: do you know anything about logic?Have you studied formal logic? Do you know what a syllogism is, how to construct it, and how to determine its validity? Have you ever visited the Square of Oppositions and do you understand it? Have you ever constructed a Venn diagram? And what sophistry is and how it works?For that matter, do you understand what validity is? And the relationship between a syllogism's validity and its truth?Edited by dwise1, : changed title

Your teacher side is showing through, you understand the abilities of your student.

I agree that physics aka emperical science has an edge over metaphysics aka philosophy in that it can be validated through observation and experimentation whest philosophy for the most part is brain games and at most educated guessing. Not to say that philosophical musings and/or religious propositions can not be true, just that they do not have the emperical verifiability that true scientific exploration does.I believe metaphysics/philosophy is important to the evolution of human self-discovery and exploration but it needs to be tempered with emperical evidence and observation or as you put the ability to "get your head out of the cockpit" and verify these musings and propositions.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Still in the reserves until they kick me out in a couple years. ETC. Congrats on making CWO. As a former DS and professionally a software engineer, I tried to apply for a warrant in the DS field. It isn't easy; kudos to you.You're an HM? I've noticed that the vast majority of Navy recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor are either HMs or SEALs. I've also noticed that in the reserve center, since medical readiness is so highly prized, the HMs (with the DTs having been recently merged into that rating) are the most overworked members of the FTS staff, as well as the reserves on drill weekend. If it's any consolation, I had long ago established a solid reputation with our "docs" of always taking care of all my medical issues immediately. You're too over-worked as it is, so why should I add to that work load?Also in 34 years, I've never come across a CWO; I assume one rates a salute. We're about to move to an Army-run joint-services reserve center, so I'd better get that straight.In college, "what's your sign" was very popular -- that was back in the early 70's, shortly before mood rings came out (just to establish the ambiance). I was always confused that everybody would back off when I'd answer with my sun sign and absolutely refuse to explain why, so I started studying astrology. Fascinating subject. Even came in very handy in astronomy classes; not only was I able to visualize celestial coordinates and the rates and manners in which the planets move, but with my current ephemeris I could tell the class what planets would be visible in the night sky that night and where to look for it (of course, I no longer have a current ephemeris, but I'm working on software to do some of that, as part of my personal C# training).The thing about astrology is that it's a very intricate system with inexerable logic that ties everything together. Unassailable logic. But does it actually work? The thing about logic (and part of what I have asked sac) is that it is not true, but only valid. In order for logic to prove something to be true, at least two conditions must be met: 1) the syllogisms must be valid and 2) the premises must all be true -- that is where sophistry comes in, by getting your victims to accept false premises as true. In astrology, all the logic is valid. So what about the premises? Well, we have no way to test the premises and the results turn out to be inconsistent. And, OBTW, what about the premises of theology? Well, they've hardly been proven to be true, especially as we get into each individual denomination's additional premises of each denomination's chains of syllogisms.It was around in 1974/5 when I learned that lesson, an important lesson about the supernatural: there's no way to test any claims involving the supernatural, so you can get all wrapped up in a web of intricate and valid logic and still end up so far away from reality. That was before I had ever received any training in navigation, so I relied on my father's experience in a short stint of mining with a friend. They wanted to dig a tunnel to another shaft, the exact location of which they knew for certain. So they started digging in the direction that they knew for certain that other shaft was. And they kept digging well past where they should have hit that shaft. Never did hit it.I immediately realized that the same applied to every investigation into the supernatural, including theology. You can devise the most intricate and logically valid system possible, but if even one of your premises is false, or if even one step in your intricate chain of syllogisms went wrong, then you end up with nothing. Well, nothing that you could absolutely depend upon.Now, as already expressed, as an engineer I do not have much faith in philosophy. And as an atheist I do not have much faith in theology. But at the same time I do have respect for theology. The ideal approach is that of science, but science is very limited in what kinds of questions it can handle. Theology attempts -- nay, dares -- to tackle questions that science could never even think of considering to attempt to approach. Questions that reach to the very core of what it is to be human. I may approach various theologies' conclusions with skepticism, but I do absolutely respect their efforts. I am a Unitarian-Universalist, of the atheist stripe. Our first minister (whom I met during a Boy Scouts of America, Inc, lawsuit in federal court, where BSA had gathered a notebook full of messages posted on CompuServe (this was circa 1990/1991, and the lawsuit was Welsh vs BSA circa 1991 -- and, yes, many of those messages, including my own, were taken out-of-context)) once present to us the most basic religious question: "How, then, are we to live our lives?" Our church is identified by the catch-phrase, "To question is the answer", and I do believe that constantly questioning our beliefs and preconceptions and assumptions is a fundamental religious duty.Science could never consider such a question as "how then are we to live our lives?", nor should we ever expect it to. At the same time, the questions that science can consider, it does extremely well, far better than any theology ever possibly could. I guess that this is a call for division of labor: let science handle what it can handle best and theology/philosophy handle what it can handle best and don't let the two encroach into each other's territory. Science rarely encroaches, though almost only in personal statements, whereas "creation science" encroaches on a regular basis, as in ICR's John Morris':

quote:

---

"If evolution is true, then the Bible is not true."
(What is the Purpose of Creation Ministry, in Institute for Creation Research Back to Genesis Report No. 78, June 1995)

​

"If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning."
(The 1986 International Conference on Creationism by Robert Schadewald, Creation/Evolution Newsletter, Volume 6, Number 5, September/October 1986, NCSE, pp 8-14, in direct response to Glenn R. Morton's question of "How old is the earth?")

---

The fundamental problem is that while science is far superior to theology in its ability to answer questions, it is also extremely limited in the kinds of questions that it is able to answer. At the same time, theology is more than ready to tackle those kinds of questions, but their methodology leads to extremely unrealiable conclusions. This leaves us with science telling us about the real world, whereas theology and philosophy telling us about the really important questions.

Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Aye, that is true.But sometimes that black cat is all ye've got.Yes, theologians can persuade themselves of anything, but at least they are trying to address the important questions that science could never even begin to approach (nor would be able to approach).The point, as a confirmed atheist (having become one around the traditional age of confirmation), is that there are very important questions that are normally only addressed by theology and philosophy. And that simply because somebody provides an answer does not mean that it's a correct answer.I'm a Unitarian-Universalist. The UU catch-phrase is "To Question is the Answer." My interpretation of that (which was originally meant as a "question authority" type of catch-phrase) is that answers are unimportant, but rather asking the right questions is what is important. The right questions keep us searching, whereas the wrong answers stop that search. A quote that I've obtained that is attributed to Andre Gide is:

quote:

---

Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

---

Well of course it is. How would we find out the truth about any proposition about the real world without regard to the evidence?Without reference to the evidence, one could believe that pigs have wings, that the sky is green with purple spots, that the Moon is made of green cheese ... or even that there's an invisible magic pixie who lives in the sky and who really really hates lobsters, cotton-polyester fabrics, and people who pick up sticks on Saturdays.The only reason people ever ignore the evidence is that they want to believe daft stuff like that. You may wish to diminish the importance of evidence, but the fact is that you do accept it as "supreme" for all practical purposes --- you just ignore it when it gets in the way of your religious fantasy life. Fortunately, this is unlikely to kill you or even stub your toe. If you took the same attitude about something of real significance, such as crossing the road, you'd be dead.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Thanks, it has been a ride for me as well. Congrats on your long tenure. I love astronomy as well. I need to start taking my daughter out to do some stargazing through our 6 reflector now that the weather is warmer. One thing I like about living in the country is the dark sky’s where you can actually see the Milky Way with the unaided eye and minimal city lights. Astrology served its purpose in pre and early human history but honestly we live in the 21st century and have walked on the moon. It’s coffin needs to be nailed shut and it needs to be buried 6 feet under in the flowerbed of human endeavors. How is it unassailable? It has been disproven repeatedly over and over for the past 400-500 years.Astrology premise is predicated on the reliable and sustainable predictions of natural and human events, behavior, character, etc soley determined by the positioning and events of celestial bodies in the night sky. Can you please tell me when astrology has repeatedly and accurately depicted events to occur? I take it this is a rhetorical question. Well, true, but then you can say that it is possible for an capsule of blue cheese to be orbiting Saturn. This may be logical but it is not scientifically sound. The same can be said with the concept of supernatural beings such as God. Logic has to be tempered with empirical evidence otherwise these propositions and musings are just that, pure unadulterated and unverified (and sometimes unverifiable) conjecture. The problem with astrology though is that often the syllogisms themselves are not logical. I am not sure about that, for example. The entire premise of astrology can be summed up as a premise in which events in the heavens (the sky) directly affect events on earth. However, astrology besides making a total leap of logic by not explaining how this takes place, does not even adequately describe these events in the first place. An astrological definition of a conjunction of two or more planets does not even remotely come close to the modern scientific definition of these celestial events. Trying to dress up astrology with modern scientific terminology is like saying that an ancient Egyptian chariot can compete in speed with a Lamborghini. In each (the practice of astrology and the Egyptian chariot), these artificats are relics which served a useful purpose of historical periods long past but should be put out to pasture. Sure we do. One premise of astrology is that astrological birthcharts as determined by birthday, birthtime, birthplace, and other similar factors, can determine the future prognosis of a human beings life and can provide insight of that human beings personality, vices, virtues, etc. This is an verifiable and unverified premise to begin with. One cannot just assume that a premise is true. It has to be proven true. That is one of the main tenants of logic. If one cannot prove the premise to be true than it fails the logic test to begin with. If one had to test every premise to its maximum conclusion, i.e. are there teacups orbiting Uranus, than science would be in a miserable state. No, the burden of proof lies on the one making the claim (or premise), in this case astrology.It is up to the astrology proponents to show that astrology is a valid science until then it is relegated to the dustbins of human evolution. The same can be said with the belief in supernatural entities.This is not to say that these things cannot be true. Just that as to date, there is no conclusive evidence that they are. The same can be said of astrology. Every crackpot has his idea of what astrology is and what it predicts. That is why science is so reliable. If they had used proper tools of underground navigation than they probably would have been successful, considering that the Romans could build underground tunnels and cisterns dating back nearly 2000 years using the limited technological and scientific tools of the time. I have thought of attending a Unitarian-Universalist church however I think my wife would have serious issues. She was raised Independent Baptist (myself Independent Christian Church)and currently we attend a Methodist church. Myself, I am an agnostic though I would be open to be a theist if the evidence was stronger suggesting that the supernatural realm is real. I just have yet to see enough evidence suggesting this to be true. I half-way agree with you on this. I think human ethics can be traced scientifically. Though you are right in that you cannot use the scientific method to determine whether it is right or wrong to be kind to your neighbor. These questions lie in the realm of philosophy. This is were humanism steps in.As a non-religious humanist I attempt to determine correct and appropriate human behavior based on my scientific, historical and psychological understanding of the world around me and the place of humans in it. In other words, one does not need to be religious or believe in the supernatural to be an ethical person. Agreed. You do not need theology or belief in the supernatural to ask questions about morality. I think the only question that science really cannot answer that theology tries to is this: What is the purpose of why we are here. This cannot be answered by science, or I should say it can but most people do not like the answer: There is no purpose for human existence. However what humanists do is put a spin on this.What I mean is that the question itself requires there to be a pre-existing meaning for human existence in the universe. What I and many humanists believe is this: We determine our own destiny and our own purpose for our existence in the universe. Any other metaphysical/philosophical question can be derived using scientific methodology in my opinion.So to sum it up, instead of relying on some sky-daddy for all the questions I think it is better to rely on naturalism to determine what are purpose is and how we should govern our lives. As least this is what drives me until someone can show me that God really does exist. I believe this to be a cop-out on the part of science. Humanism (scientific methodology applied to ethical decision making) can fill the gap of how and why we should self-govern our actions.Theology is now relegated to a god-of-the-gaps mentality. This tells us that there is something seriously wrong with its primary tenants IMHO. However, as a husband of a Christian woman, I do respect though not agree with the religious belief of others and am not an advocate for people like Dawkin’s bludgeoning people’s beliefs (if they themselves respect others philosophies and religious beliefs). I am a proponent of tolerance of religious belief as I believe it is the cornerstone of modern society.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

OS got to be a tricky course for me when I got to the chapter on the maneuvering board where we were plotting intercept courses, formation change courses, etc. The earlier examples worked OK, but as it progressed, it became increasingly difficult to work the problems out solely from the course's text; it became increasingly apparent to me that some practical was sorely needed. I also remember from elsewhere reference to submarine officers being able to calculate firing solutions in their heads faster than the equipment could provide it, testament to what the human mind can accomplish. When we chiefs proctor the advancement exams, I inwardly shudder a bit every time I see the dividers and parallel rulers we provide to the OSes.As for getting used to salutes ... . Towards the end of basic training, we slowly started to regain some priviledges, such as a few hours of TV time in the evening. "Star Trek" (TOS was all there was in 1976) and "MASH" took on a whole new meaning with our new-found military background. Remember that episode of MASH where Hawkeye talked someone into giving Radar a field commission ("for bugling above and beyond the call of duty")? At first, he was thrilled at being saluted-to, but then he saw all kinds of enlisted pouring out of the mess tent and he quickly ducked into another tent to avoid them.Well, one morning during tech school (I was active duty Air Force, BTW), we had our early morning formation in front of the school squadron building as usual and then went through the squadron building breezeway to form up in back for marching to class (OSK ("other side of Keesler"), my fate for the first month before graduating from Basic Electronics Doctrine). Our barber shop was there on the other side of the breezeway. We could not help but notice how our squadron XO, a 1LT (O2, for you non-fly-boy types), quickly ducked into the barber shop rather than have to salute each and every airman individually. I can't blame him. One drill weekend, I had the quarterdeck watch at the reserve center. Everybody who entered or left the building had to request permission to enter or leave and we had to return the salute each and every time. The worst part was the Marines, who would individually leave and re-enter the building repeatedly to form up outside, multiple times during the day. By the end of the watch (which seemed much longer than 4 hours), it felt like my arm was going to fall off!I also remember one day in the "Keesler Triangle" (Keesler AFB, MS -- like the "Bermuda Triangle, only infinitely worse!), I was walking down the sidewalk and my squadron CO, a CAPT (O-3, no eagle), was walking toward me. OK, so what does every enlisted man do? He tries to avoid the salute. But what did I see my CO doing? He was trying to avoid looking at me, trying to avoid the salute! At the last moment, he knew he was trapped so he returned my salute. And he gave an "Air Force" salute. OK, we enlisted were trained to salute with the upper arm parallel to the ground, as I'm sure that sailors are trained. Well, Air Force officers would salute with their elbow lowered. I've even seen a film of Army Air Corps officers from WWI (OK, whatever that part fo the Army was back then) salute using the exact-same low-elbow salute. OK, inside a cramped cockpit, what kind of salute do you render? When our VTU gets another airdale, I'll gave to ask him. Thoroughly enjoy having to salute all day!
It's not Schadenfreude. Getting warrant is a helluva achievement! I failed at getting in in the DS field, whereas you succeeded in the medical field. You really have your work cut out for you. You take God damned good care (this from a confirmed atheist) of our people! Sailor, Marine, Airman, Sailor, Guardsman, what the frak ever! Medical is always on the front line! Never fail us!

(system wouldn't let me simply delete content)Edited by dwise1, : need to regroup