Originally posted by JimL
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
An infinite series of finite causes.
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostYou are conflating the scientific method and scientific findings. It is not a misuse of science. There is nothing really more to say other than that it is wrong for you to claim what scientific findings can and cannot be used for. I have really never heard anyone say this before.
Well yes there is Methodological Naturalism clearly limits the use of objective evidence and science and the findings of science to the hypothesis and theories of science. If it does fit it is not science. Scientific objective verifiable evidence, and the findings are neutral to any theological nor philosophical questions that do not satisfy the criteria of Methodological Naturalism.
Example provide scientific evidence or findings that can be used to support a theological belief.
That is why natural theology uses scientific data in its arguments.
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostJust because scientific methodology operates under the assumption of methodological naturalism doesn't mean that the findings of science are some how off limits.But they aren't using the scientific method, they are using the conclusions.
The conclusions generated by the scientific method are distinct from the process.
This is not feasible because cross discipline studies are necessary to provide a complete picture of reality. The findings in both the hard and soft sciences often guide the other.I am not arguing this.
I am arguing that WLC uses scientific findings in his philosophical argument and that there is nothing wrong with this.
Again, he isn't using the scientific method..just the conclusions from science. This is not the abuse of science because WLC doesn't claim to be "doing" science.Originally posted by element771 View Post
"Not God" or "Without God" is still a claim to knowledge.Last edited by Tassman; 04-19-2018, 12:02 AM.
Comment
-
You nailed it!Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostExcept all those other things can be proven or disproven.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYes they can - and have. I was comparing the amount of further attention they need from me - not how I came to the conclusion.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWell I'm glad that we agree there are some things that we take as fact that we can not prove.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
We may as well stop here.
There is no reason for scientific findings to be "off limits" to any argument.
Certain things are "off limits" to being studied by science because they cannot fit into the scientific method. I agree 100%.
But to just make a blanket statement about who can and cannot use scientific findings is absurd. I can think of several hypothetical situations that would show this position to be completely ridiculous.
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostWe may as well stop here.
There is no reason for scientific findings to be "off limits" to any argument.
Certain things are "off limits" to being studied by science because they cannot fit into the scientific method. I agree 100%.
But to just make a blanket statement about who can and cannot use scientific findings is absurd. I can think of several hypothetical situations that would show this position to be completely ridiculous.
...would seem to me to be true is a bit...(looking for a word)...authoritarian...(i.e., off limits)...but the general sense of it seems to be pretty obvious to me. Indeed, I look at the sentence and find I could soften it a bit, and then give it the general form:
The findings of <discipline> should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which <discipline> was not intended nor suitable.
So:
The findings of theology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which theology was not intended nor suitable.
The findings of philosophy should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which philosophy was not intended nor suitable.
The findings of biology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which biology was not intended nor suitable.
The findings of astrophysics should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which astrophysics was not intended nor suitable.
You would disagree with these statements? They almost seem trivial to me.
Are you reading them differently than me?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI have to admit I have not tracked this exchange from its outset, but this response caught my eye. The sentence...
...would seem to me to be true is a bit...(looking for a word)...authoritarian...(i.e., off limits)...but the general sense of it seems to be pretty obvious to me. Indeed, I look at the sentence and find I could soften it a bit, and then give it the general form:
The findings of <discipline> should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which <discipline> was not intended nor suitable.
So:
The findings of theology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which theology was not intended nor suitable.
The findings of philosophy should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which philosophy was not intended nor suitable.
The findings of biology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which biology was not intended nor suitable.
The findings of astrophysics should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which astrophysics was not intended nor suitable.
You would disagree with these statements? They almost seem trivial to me.
Are you reading them differently than me?
A couple of things...
Cross disciplinary research uses findings as they were not intended to all of the time. Some of these are the most novel areas of research.
Let's take theology out of the question so there is no idea of bias or presuppositions.
If astrology claims that a certain planetary alignment predicts the birth of a new king in country X. Does it really follow that those astrologers cannot use astronomical data needed to show that this alignment happens? This alignment data certainly doesn't pertain to astrology but there is no reason that they cannot use the alignment data to support their claim.
IMO, there should not be any restriction on what data that you can use for an argument...the argument should stand or fall on the quality of the argument and data used not the type of data.
The idea that science cannot underpin arguments as a starting point leaves the impression that critics do not like the conclusion of the argument but can't find away to counter it. Instead, they just want to make science "off limits" because that allows the argument to just be dismissed as opposed to countering it.Last edited by element771; 04-19-2018, 09:51 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostOh I agree that it is too authoritarian and arbitrary.
A couple of things...
Cross disciplinary research uses findings as they were not intended to all of the time. Some of these are the most novel areas of research.
Let's take theology out of the question so there is no idea of bias or presuppositions.
If astrology claims that a certain planetary alignment predicts the birth of a new king in country X. Does it really follow that those astrologers cannot use astronomical data needed to show that this alignment happens? This alignment data certainly doesn't pertain to astrology but there is no reason that they cannot use the alignment data to support their claim.
IMO, there should not be any restriction on what data that you can use for an argument...the argument should stand or fall on the quality of the argument not the data used in it.
The findings of theology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which theology is not suitable.
The findings of philosophy should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which philosophy is not suitable.
The findings of biology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which biology is not suitable.
The findings of astrophysics should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which astrophysics is not suitable.
P.S. I have to admit, I do enjoy taking apart language and seeing what makes it tick. You are one of the few people here I appear to be able to do that with with no concern I may insult you in some fashion.Last edited by carpedm9587; 04-19-2018, 09:54 AM.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI think you might be focusing entirely on "not intended" and ignoring "nor suitable." Indeed, upon reflection, the "not intended" part is superfluous, given the presence of "nor suited." If he had said "or suited," I would agree with your statements because I agree conclusions from one discipline CAN be used for purposes not originally intended. Would you agree that these sentences are almost trivially true?
The findings of theology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which theology is not suitable.
The findings of philosophy should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which philosophy is not suitable.
The findings of biology should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which biology is not suitable.
The findings of astrophysics should not be used by those seeking to use it for purposes for which astrophysics is not suitable.
P.S. I have to admit, I do enjoy taking apart language and seeing what makes it tick. You are one of the few people here I appear to be able to do that with with no concern I may insult you in some fashion.
Theological point: Universe had a beginning.
Scientific point: Currently science says the universe has a beginning.
To say that someone cannot use this data to support this theological point is ridiculous.
I don't get insulted easily ....especially if I know that it is not intended as such. I don't get that from you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI don't think I ever said otherwise...indeed, we have to take many of these things "on faith."Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by element771 View PostSure but that is where Tass' argument falls apart.
Theological point: Universe had a beginning.
Scientific point: Currently science says the universe has a beginning.
To say that someone cannot use this data to support this theological point is ridiculous.
Originally posted by element771 View PostI don't get insulted easily ....especially if I know that it is not intended as such. I don't get that from you.
However, it is my experience that a significant number of theists find the atheist position inherently insulting. I guess that is to be expected. Belief in god is not an abstraction to most of the theists I know, and wasn't to me either (back in the day). So to hear someone say, "god doesn't exist" is to hear someone essentially claim that people who believe god exists are worshipping/relating to something unreal, a "figment of their imagination," if you will. I can easily see how that would be received as "inherently insulting."The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment