Dwise writes:
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.
Thanks, it has been a ride for me as well. Congrats on your long tenure.
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).
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.
The thing about astrology is that it's a very intricate system with inexerable logic that ties everything together.
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.
Unassailable logic.
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?
But does it actually work?
I take it this is a rhetorical question.
The thing about logic (and part of what I have asked sac) is that it is not true, but only valid.
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.
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.
The problem with astrology though is that often the syllogisms themselves are not logical.
In astrology, all the logic is valid.
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.
So what about the premises? Well, we have no way to test the premises and the results turn out to be inconsistent.
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.
Well, we have no way to test the premises and the results turn out to be inconsistent.
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.
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.
The same can be said of astrology. Every crackpot has his idea of what astrology is and what it predicts.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Science could never consider such a question as "how then are we to live our lives?", nor should we ever expect it to.
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.
At the same time, the questions that science can consider, it does extremely well, far better than any theology ever possibly could.
Agreed.
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.
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.
This leaves us with science telling us about the real world, whereas theology and philosophy telling us about the really important questions.
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
™ Version 4.2
