Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix
View Post
Or are you saying "truths of virtue" has been shown to be true?
What exactly do you mean by "truths of virtue", and why do you hold to them with more confidence than, say, the theory of relativity? If you can show me why we can be more confident of these things 9or just as confident), then I will admit defeat.
In some cases, sure. In other cases, no. In fact, this is a philosophical claim that the field that supposedly gives us more confidence is the one that we should put our trust in with the idea that fields that earn confidence are those that it is wiser to trust, but that itself is a philosophical claim and not a scientific claim.
Somehow, this is supposed to be relevant to the charge? The problem is that these are not scientific observations but based on knowing through other means, perhaps sociology or personal experience. For all the talk about how science is the most trustworthy system, no one has done any science in the thread. All the debates have been about epistemology ultimately, which is a field of philosophy.
But that is still better than philosophy; it does give us a high level of confidence in some areas (and we know what areas) and it is self-correcting, self-improving.
Suggest a philosophy that does that.
Suggest a philosophy that does that.
No philosopher will bat 1,000. I think Plantinga is wrong on the ontological argument, but I did bring out that I think he is right on the logical problem of evil as most of his critics if not all have agreed with.
In other words, it was a consensus opinion.
Or can you find proof that Arianism is wrong?
Or can you find proof that Arianism is wrong?
Can you do that for Arianism?
Well I'd do the same with Arianism to show that it is false and use the data that is accepted as well be it philosophy or revelation.
In fact, why not start a thread about Arianism, and I will do my best to argue for it. If you are right, you should be able to prove it with no trouble at all.
All of them! It's just a different kind of data. It could rely on our own thoughts, our experience, and it often includes observation of the world around us. It all depends on the field you're arguing in, but all fields use data.
THis is false. There are people who look at the arguments from the outside and come to believe just as there are people who look at atheist arguments from the outside and come to disbelieve. If the case is that the data can only convince those who already believe, then I could just as well say your position will only convince people who already believe that you can only convince people who already believe.
The same is true in any other field. People are convinced by the arguments. That's why someone like Antony Flew abandoned atheism. He said he was following the evidence where it led.
And that is the problem. The evidence is scant and ambiguous, and it comes down to how you choose to inteprete it. Opinion, in other words.
Compare to science, which has good and unamgiuous evidence to support its strong claims.
Oh it is fine to say we all have opinions, which can be said in the matter of science as well as there can be disagreements, but there is a problem with saying it's all just opinion. Some opinions are wrong and some are not. If you wish to point to disagreements in philosophy and theology and then say that shows that we all have opinions, then I just ask that you do the same with science.
This is what Neil DeGrasse Tyson is talking about. In science we do have things like the theory of relativity that are well-established.
And how do we know when philosophy is right with any confidence? We do not.
But this is not a scientific statement but a philosophical one. Since it is philosophical, by your standard, I should not put any confidence in it.
But wait, you say we can be confident in philosophy, so as far as you are concerned, my statement is good!
In philosphy we know there is an answer, we just do not know what it is.
In science, we can have a high degree of confidence that we do know what it is.
In science, we can have a high degree of confidence that we do know what it is.
WHich I could say then is obviously why creation and evolution are no longer debated at all today!
On the other hand, certain interpretations of the Bible point to creationism. It depends on whether you follow the evidence or faith.
This is what was behind Neil DeGrasse Tyson's comment, I guess. It does not matter whether or not you think God created a flat world with a firmament in six days; science tells us the universe is billions of years old, the world is round and orbits the sun, and the diversity of life is due to evolution.
Comment