Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evolution of an atheist.
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 121 of 280 (575129)
08-18-2010 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by bluescat48
08-18-2010 10:33 PM


bluescat48 writes:
It isn't up to me to disprove your hypothesis. The Burden of proof is on the claimant. The reason it is a false dichotomy is that there could be a non intelligent designer or the creationist view could be true. there are not only 2 possibilities. You are stating that its either your view or mine with no other point.
A non-intelligent designer would be an oxy-moron. Any designer requires intelligence no matter how small or how large the intelligence. A sparrow can design, (a nest for example) a rock can't. Creationism certainly requires a designer. I still say that there either is a designer or there isn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by bluescat48, posted 08-18-2010 10:33 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 122 of 280 (575130)
08-18-2010 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Bikerman
08-18-2010 8:38 PM


I'm suggesting that the style of comment from Tacitus makes it much more likely that he is referring to Roman source than Christian.
Really? I see it the exact opposite - it's clear from the context that Tacitus is merely explaining why Christians think they have cause to be antagonistic towards the government of Rome, he's not confirming that their grievance (the execution of Jesus) is actually legitimate.
It's like saying "Muslims say they hate Israel because of the Jewish conspiracy that runs the world and keeps them poor." It's merely repeating the claim, not providing support for the notion of a world-spanning Jewish conspiracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Bikerman, posted 08-18-2010 8:38 PM Bikerman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 08-19-2010 3:06 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 123 of 280 (575143)
08-18-2010 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by crashfrog
08-18-2010 10:53 PM


crashfrog writes:
Philosophy has no standard of evidence whatsoever, because philosophy isn't a process where explanatory models are generated from evidence. Are you aware of that? Philosophy is a process where certain premises are assumed, and then statements are derived from those assumed premises by a series of transformations that are known to preserve truth values. But ultimately all philosophical reasoning is circular - your conclusions are only true if you assume your premises are, as well. It's much like mathematics in this regard. But the result is that philosophy is a way to arrive at statements that are valid, not necessarily ones that are likely to be true.
OK sort of. Philosopher's still refer to what they call evidence on which they can base their premise.
The following quote is from this site. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
quote:
The concept of evidence is central to both epistemology and the philosophy of science. Of course, ‘evidence’ is hardly a philosopher's term of art: it is not only, or even primarily, philosophers who routinely speak of evidence, but also lawyers and judges, historians and scientists, investigative journalists and reporters, as well as the members of numerous other professions and ordinary folk in the course of everyday life. The concept of evidence would thus seem to be on firmer pre-theoretical ground than various other concepts which enjoy similarly central standing within philosophy. (Contrast, for example, the epistemologist's quasi-technical term ‘epistemic justification’.)
I agree though that philospher's mean something quite different when they speak of evidence. Science it seems as often as not will lead to an answer that is completely non-intuitive, (such as QM), whereas I can't see that happening in philosophy, which I suppose, would make the evidence less rigorous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2010 10:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 12:56 AM GDR has replied
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2010 2:47 AM GDR has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 124 of 280 (575162)
08-19-2010 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by GDR
08-18-2010 11:50 PM


It depends which branch of philosophy. Philosophical logic doesn't generally require evidence since it is tautologous in nature. Since the primary concerns of Philosophy are human - mind, existence, knowledge, values, reason, language - then evidence is bound to be of a different quality than in the physical sciences.
Science long ago did away with common sense as a guide to good theory. It was so often wrong that it proved not only useless but positively counter-productive. As I keep pointing out common-sense is based on the experience of a limited sub-set of conditions, filtered through a perceptual system which junks much of the data coming in and imposes subjective processing on the rest, and processed by a brain designed to hurl insults and warnings to other apes. It would be astonishing if the universe DID correspond to any notion of 'common sense'.
My favourite was to summarise is 'common sense in science is often neither'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by GDR, posted 08-18-2010 11:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by GDR, posted 08-19-2010 2:32 AM Bikerman has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 125 of 280 (575186)
08-19-2010 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Bikerman
08-19-2010 12:56 AM


I have no problem with any of that.
Bikerman writes:
My favourite was to summarise is 'common sense in science is often neither'.
By the way. Don't you ever sleep? It looks like you've been up all night.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 12:56 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 2:46 AM GDR has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 126 of 280 (575190)
08-19-2010 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by GDR
08-19-2010 2:32 AM


I suffer from insomnia quite frequently. Actually tonight wasn't bad for an insomnia night, I did get some sleep.
Hits me about 1 day in 6 or 7 normally and always been that way....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by GDR, posted 08-19-2010 2:32 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by GDR, posted 08-19-2010 2:49 AM Bikerman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 127 of 280 (575191)
08-19-2010 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by GDR
08-18-2010 11:50 PM


Philosopher's still refer to what they call evidence on which they can base their premise.
Some philosophers do, yes. Some philosophers reject evidence-based reasoning altogether. Some demand rigorous symbolic syllogisms in support of arguments; some are content with informal explanations.
The problem with philosophy as a field is that all these different means of practicing philosophy are on precisely equivalent ground. You can just pick whatever standard you want. The result is a field that, substantially, has not contributed to human knowledge in over two centuries (and, largely, has been responsible for an unjustified erosion of confidence in the notion of empiricism.)
Science it seems as often as not will lead to an answer that is completely non-intuitive, (such as QM), whereas I can't see that happening in philosophy, which I suppose, would make the evidence less rigorous.
I guess what I'm getting at is that there's no way to know if a philosopher is wrong. Nothing in philosophy can be falsified except in so far as it isn't philosophy; it's some kind of empiric claim that can be subject to testing (and is therefore really more of a science.)
Theology has the exact same problem. All the interesting questions are about the human phenomenon of religion, which is more properly a question of anthropology. The field of theology, proper, is a rigor-free form of text criticism; the study of a being theologists can't even prove exists (nor seem to want to.) As an academic field it's little more than a way to introduce religious affiliation to the academic setting. That's why there's Catholic theology, Evangelical theology, Islam theology, and so on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by GDR, posted 08-18-2010 11:50 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 2:58 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 133 by GDR, posted 08-19-2010 3:20 AM crashfrog has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 128 of 280 (575193)
08-19-2010 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Bikerman
08-19-2010 2:46 AM


I think that if I had all that physics in my head I'd have trouble sleeping too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 2:46 AM Bikerman has not replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 129 of 280 (575196)
08-19-2010 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
08-19-2010 2:47 AM


quote:
Theology has the exact same problem. All the interesting questions are about the human phenomenon of religion, which is more properly a question of anthropology.
But philosophy has SOME rigour and there are branches that can be falsified (not really refuted, more errors in logic). If something has no internal consistency (in most branches of philosophy) then it doesn't stand.
Theology, on the other hand, has no rigour at all. Any statement containing an infinite entity cannot be falsified and the appeal to the supernatural is always available if things get sticky.
(I studied theology for 2 years a while ago so I know a little of which I speak). It is almost entirely self-referential (justfy any proposition by reference to a likely looking passage from the bible, ignore logical cons and arrive at the conclusion you started with - QED.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2010 2:47 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2010 3:05 AM Bikerman has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 130 of 280 (575197)
08-19-2010 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Bikerman
08-19-2010 2:58 AM


But philosophy has SOME rigour
Some of it does; the problem is that the philosophy with rigor is put on the same level as the philosophy without.
You can demonstrate that a philosophical position is invalid, is ill-formed, and can't be derived from the premises used to support it, but you can't demonstrate that such a position is wrong. And that a position is ill-formed may simply not matter to a philosopher; they may insist that it is intuitively correct regardless of whether it can be derived from premises.
The truth is that the world around us is what is real, our notions about it slightly less real, and our notions about notions the least real of all. For whatever reason many philosophers are keen to promote the fiction of the exact opposite.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 2:58 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 3:22 AM crashfrog has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 131 of 280 (575198)
08-19-2010 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
08-18-2010 11:00 PM


I have a different view to both of you.
Firstly the idea of Tacitus tracking down Roman records seems odd. Which records would those be, why would he be looking at them and how would he connect what he found to the Christians of his day ?
On the other hand given that Tacitus strongly disapproves of Christianity it seems likely to me that the reference is to further condemn Christianity. He's saying: See ! The founder of this depraved cult was a rebel and a traitor !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 08-18-2010 11:00 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 3:16 AM PaulK has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 132 of 280 (575200)
08-19-2010 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by PaulK
08-19-2010 3:06 AM


The Romans were beaurocrats as well as builders. They invented the registry filing system and there would have been daily records containing details of crucifixions, as well as more mundane diaries, records of meetings/agreements etc.
50 years later much of this was probably still available, and Tacitus was a Roman Historian so consulting records and archives was all routine for him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by PaulK, posted 08-19-2010 3:06 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by PaulK, posted 08-19-2010 3:35 AM Bikerman has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 133 of 280 (575201)
08-19-2010 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
08-19-2010 2:47 AM


crashfrog writes:
The result is a field that, substantially, has not contributed to human knowledge in over two centuries (and, largely, has been responsible for an unjustified erosion of confidence in the notion of empiricism.)
Certainly the focus has been on science and it's applications in the last couple of centuries but I can't see philosophy as being the problem. Bikerman was right when he talks about science not reflecting common sense. I think that is what has caused the erosion of confidence in empiricism. Try telling most people that the time for the people in the car driving by is going more slowly than it is for them and they look at you like you have two heads and yet that science is 100 years old.
crashfrog writes:
Theology has the exact same problem. All the interesting questions are about the human phenomenon of religion, which is more properly a question of anthropology. The field of theology, proper, is a rigor-free form of text criticism; the study of a being theologists can't even prove exists (nor seem to want to.) As an academic field it's little more than a way to introduce religious affiliation to the academic setting. That's why there's Catholic theology, Evangelical theology, Islam theology, and so on.
The thing is though, that statement pretty much assumes that all religion is strictly a human invention. If you are wrong and there is a god or gods then the end result of perfect theology is just as true as is perfect science, and certainly worthwhile studying.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2010 2:47 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Bikerman, posted 08-19-2010 3:24 AM GDR has replied
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2010 3:36 PM GDR has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 134 of 280 (575202)
08-19-2010 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by crashfrog
08-19-2010 3:05 AM


quote:
The truth is that the world around us is what is real, our notions about it slightly less real, and our notions about notions the least real of all. For whatever reason many philosophers are keen to promote the fiction of the exact opposite.
Sure about that are you? What do you mean by 'world' and 'real'? Is a virtual photon 'real'?
How do you assign the term 'real' to superpositions, when we cannot really describe the concept in anything other than high level maths?
Is a table 'real' or is it simply a set of disturbances in a non-material quantum field, given mass by the interaction of that field with the higgs field. Can we touch things or is that simply a sensory illusion of touch which is actually an electromagnetic interaction of the fields?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2010 3:05 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by crashfrog, posted 08-19-2010 3:45 PM Bikerman has replied

  
Bikerman
Member (Idle past 4955 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 135 of 280 (575204)
08-19-2010 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by GDR
08-19-2010 3:20 AM


quote:
The thing is though, that statement pretty much assumes that all religion is strictly a human invention. If you are wrong and there is a god or gods then the end result of perfect theology is just as true as is perfect science, and certainly worthwhile studying.
Leaving aside the unattainability of perfection in any human model, the notion is not true. A very good theology, since it cannot be tested, cannot be defined. There is no way to tell whether a particular theology is better than another one, let alone how far along a notional scale to 'correctness' it might be. You may as well throw dice with no numbers and hope to score double six.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by GDR, posted 08-19-2010 3:20 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by GDR, posted 08-19-2010 2:06 PM Bikerman has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024