| Philosophers Corner. |
|
My point was and is, that any and all systems of belief, proof and fact are completely justified to those who share that perceptual filter. Before you even look at methods of confirmation, you need to look at how such things are processed. We're all organic perception machines, and to hold up one as more right than another to anyone but yourself makes no sense. You need to step back from the religion vs science thing, I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm saying they're incompatible at a basic level.
It's how we process input and synthesise input into a model of reality that I'm talking about, not which model hold what virtues.
GG Sigillite
Stuff in Other Places (05-10-2014, 02:59 AM)wetwork Wrote: My point was and is, that any and all systems of belief, proof and fact are completely justified to those who share that perceptual filter. Before you even look at methods of confirmation, you need to look at how such things are processed. We're all organic perception machines, and to hold up one as more right than another to anyone but yourself makes no sense. You need to step back from the religion vs science thing, I'm not saying one is better than the other, I'm saying they're incompatible at a basic level.Believing in a system doesn't nake it true. Facts don't change based on interpretation, that's contrary to the very definition of the word. When Science says something is a fact it is because it has made a conclusion after checking all reasonable interpretations of available evidence. Religion has been notorious for finding interpretations which support their belief and declaring it fact. Science and religion are incompatible, but not for the reason you said. I read an interesting response to the "God cannot be proven/disproven" argument. Because of the nature of the universe, if god interacted with the world then evidence would be left behind. If he didn't interact with the world then the whole belief is null.
Where'd ya read that?
The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) Provost, Magisterium Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army Journalist, East Pacific News Service Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific
I actually wrote a long and humorous rebuttal to Farengeto and Belschaft's , but then I remembered something so very simple it was shocking.
This is Philosophers Corner. This is not the Tenured Scientists Massively Funded University Lab With Full Staff Of Grad Students Prepared To March Through Fire And Water For A Positive Recommendation. (Note to somebody: Make that thread exist) Now, I respect your philosophy, and welcome you to expound upon it's merits, but I will not see this thread devolve into a war of the worldviews. This is supposed to be a safe place to ponder the Why's of the universe, not the How's (Science) When's (Even More Science) What's (Terminology) or Who's (Sociology). Now, I don't want to see another post here debating the existence of God or the Value of Religion. In fact I don't want to see any debating at all, just civilized theorizing. Now that that has been firmly settled and shall surely never come back to haunt me later, heres what I want to know. Please answer freely, an answer of "No reason" is just as acceptable as an answer of "Atomic Raptor Space Zombie Ghosts" just don't say "and my answer is the only answer and all other answer's are wrong and infantile/heretical". Why: *Was the Universe created? *Is Humanity on Earth, and what is our purpose? *Do humans have spirituality in the first place? *Is morality what it is? *Is there the quiet breathing of a serial killer stalking through my room? (Ok that one is just to see if you were paying attention. See, I'm not murdered or anything.)
"Liberty is the Gate and the Key to Prosperity"
My threads: Philosophers Corner The Ice-creamist Movement for Peaceful Unification of Desserts
Pffffp. No probs Threadgod.
*Nope, it turned outside in from it's previous form. *Humanity actually exists on several planets throughout the cosmos, yet genetic memory compels us to call each of them 'Earth'. Our purpose is to teach reality what it is to exist with consciousness. *Actually, spirituality has us, yet is quite frustrated with the burden at times. *Sometimes, when people lack imagination. *No but you do need a new fan in your power supply. Look at that, all in under 60 secs. Damn, I should do this for a living! (my wife would say I do, but we'll pretend not to know that)
GG Sigillite
Stuff in Other Places
Why:
*Was the Universe created? By accident *Is Humanity on Earth, and what is our purpose? By accident, and any we choose to adopt. *Do humans have spirituality in the first place? Due to the way our brains work. We are primarily a rationalizing animal, not a rational one. *Is morality what it is? All things are what they are. *Is there the quiet breathing of a serial killer stalking through my room? You have sinned.
Strolling punster from Canada
Eat o' teh eye pie is teh one!
First member and Procrastinator in Chief of the ice creamists movement(05-12-2014, 04:38 AM)The Union of Free Individuals Wrote: I actually wrote a long and humorous rebuttal to Farengeto and Belschaft's , but then I remembered something so very simple it was shocking.You're the ones who brought religion into it. If you want to raise the topic of religion or god you have to accept the scientific opinions. Anything else is a restriction on our freedoms. Especially when does offer its response to philosophical questions. Origin of the universe (cosmology), purpose of man (evolutionary biology), the nature of ethics (neurobiology), etc. Quote:Now that that has been firmly settled and shall surely never come back to haunt me later, heres what I want to know. Please answer freely, an answer of "No reason" is just as acceptable as an answer of "Atomic Raptor Space Zombie Ghosts" just don't say "and my answer is the only answer and all other answer's are wrong and infantile/heretical".Now then, on to your questions: *The universe was created approximately 13.8 billion years ago by an "explosion" of indeterminate origin. The cause is unknowable through current ability, as all evidence came from or after the big bang itself. *Spirituality is an artificial concept created by humanity to give significance to life and humanity, to prevent nihilism. *Morality is also an artificial construct, to promote ideals which benefit the greater good of society rather than the individual. *Damnit, though I could sneak in there undetected.
Ya may be one of the few people who think there're definite answers to philosophical questions. My atheist philosophy professor didn't even think so.
The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) Provost, Magisterium Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army Journalist, East Pacific News Service Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific
(Disclaimer: Crazy Vegan Bicyclist is entirely fictitious. Any resemblance to any persons living or dead, while hilarious, are completely unintentional.)
Thank you all for your intelligent responses. Farengeto, dear, clever Farengeto, I have so many things to talk to you about, and only so much time before insomnia wears off and I fall into blissful unconsciousness. First let me apologize for not using the quote macro, but I lost patience with it and just copy/pasted your responses, and added quotation marks and italicized the parts I'm pointing out. "You're the ones who brought religion into it. If you want to raise the topic of religion or god you have to accept the scientific opinions. Anything else is a restriction on our freedoms. Especially when does offer its response to philosophical questions. Origin of the universe (cosmology), purpose of man (evolutionary biology), the nature of ethics (neurobiology), etc." Wow, I actually take exception to all three of those sentences. First, this thread was created to as a safe place to discuss philosophy, including religious philosophy, so as to keep such material away from easily offended people. In fact in the first post I specifically said not to devolve the thread into a debate over religion. If that is such an important thing to have then please tell me so, and I'll make a bloody Attacks On Religion And Science And Their Corresponding Apologetics thread, and in there we can rage until the stars grow cold about which of our mutually unprovable theories is true. Transitional point between one and two. Look, I've been a Christian for a pretty long time, and just about half of my friends are atheists/irreligious, I've had to do all of these rebuttals and apologetics and counterarguments before, and frankly it just gets really freaking boring. I'm sure that you have a similar story concerning your conversations with people of faith, so can we just agree to drop it and move onto the pseudo-logical demi-topic of philosophy? Is it so much to ask for one corner of truce between religion and science, so that we may have a port in the storm, a quiet center, a harmonious bay, in which to merely ponder the existential questions of the universe? Second, I am under no obligation to listen to anything you say. Freedom of speech means that you can not be jailed for saying something, not that everyone has to put up with you saying it. Allow me to explain via parable. Imagine if you will, you invite your friend Crazy Bicyclist over to a nice dinner with all of your other friends. During dinner, Crazy Bicyclist begins talking about how automobiles are the cause of all evil in the world, and it begins a heated debate about the environment, politics, and the relative softness of bunnies at various ambient air temperatures and how that effects the micro economy of bunny based agriculture. You, not wishing your dinner party to be spoiled by such heated debate, politely, yet forcefully ask Crazy Bicyclist to drop the topic and move on to something else. Yet Crazy Bicyclist persists in the line of conversation. So you, having almost had enough gently take him aside and lay down an ultimatum, either he stops instigating the argument further, or you will throw him out. Do you notice the similarities? You are not infringing on any of Crazy Bicyclists rights, your just showing him the door, as you are no longer inclined to put up with what he's saying. Now there are some notable differences between the scenario I describe and our current state of affairs. Primarily, I'm just the creator of the thread, I have no control (I think. Still exploring all the options.) so I have to rely on you having enough respect for me to comply with what is essentially a strongly worded request. Also you, unlike Crazy Bicyclist are neither crazy nor irrational and must therefore be treated with intellectual respect. And on a final, humorously thought provoking note for this sentence, I once heard someone say 'Claiming freedom of speech is basically the ultimate concession, all you're really saying is that something is not technically illegal'. Thirdly, I am well aware of how science brings about new information and understanding about the nature of the cosmos, but this thread is not for that, this thread is for the REASON of the cosmos. It's like this, I'm asking "who planted this apple tree?" and your telling me that "an apple tree typically bears 88-441 pounds of apples when mature, is most easily harvested using three point ladders, and is of the same species credited for inspiring Sir Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravity" which are all good things to know that humanity would be far poorer for the absence of, but does not address my question of who planted the damn tree? And when I ask you to stop giving me facts about apple trees and answer my question you say it's my fault for asking who planted it. Whew the big part of the rant is over, I hope you're still there and haven't broken out the torches and pitchforks yet. Because now the mildly humorous stuff begins. "Now then, on to your questions: *The universe was created approximately 13.8 billion years ago by an "explosion" of indeterminate origin. The cause is unknowable through current ability, as all evidence came from or after the big bang itself. *Spirituality is an artificial concept created by humanity to give significance to life and humanity, to prevent nihilism. *Morality is also an artificial construct, to promote ideals which benefit the greater good of society rather than the individual. *Damnit, though I could sneak in there undetected." Again. Apple tree. Planter. 88-441 pounds. Gravity. Also congratulations, you are either a theoretical astro-physicist, or know how to navigate Wikipedia. Possibly both. Regardless I would like an answer as to why there is a universe. What is artificial? If it means made by man, then is not the whole of human existence an artificial construct? Even if it is, so what? In that case, what would make it any less real then the feel of rain on your skin, the taste of the first peach of spring, or the overwhelming feeling of love? In short, how is a soul any less real then emotions? After all, all you can be sure of is that you think, therefore you are. Lets run with this and imagine that your right about it being an artificial construct, my reasoning for the soul above still holds. However, I want to point out that morality is far more then a mere benefit to society, it is also of extreme value to the individual, especially when dealing with other humans one on one. If an individual is immoral, other people will dislike him, above and beyond the social construct of ethics and sanctions and law. I am sure that you know someone who is, for lack of a better term, a total @$$hole. He's not breaking any societal regulations, but something about them is just completely offputting, on a level that most would recognize as immoral, or wrong, without doing anything against society. I think the root of morality goes far deeper then our herd mentality. Finally, aha! Nothing gets passed insomnia enhanced hearing, not even techno-magical bartenders! Well that's all I have to say about that. Sorry it was another long post. Good night sir and/or madame! TL,DR; Quit being lazy and expecting cliff notes! Go back and actually read it, I don't do these things for fun you know! Well actually I do but you should read it any way!
"Liberty is the Gate and the Key to Prosperity"
My threads: Philosophers Corner The Ice-creamist Movement for Peaceful Unification of Desserts (05-13-2014, 06:46 AM)The Union of Free Individuals Wrote: If that is such an important thing to have then please tell me so, and I'll make a bloody Attacks On Religion And Science And Their Corresponding Apologetics thread, and in there we can rage until the stars grow cold about which of our mutually unprovable theories is true.I take offence to that last part, as provability is contrary to the very nature of science. Quote:Thirdly, I am well aware of how science brings about new information and understanding about the nature of the cosmos, but this thread is not for that, this thread is for the REASON of the cosmos. It's like this, I'm asking "who planted this apple tree?" and your telling me that "an apple tree typically bears 88-441 pounds of apples when mature, is most easily harvested using three point ladders, and is of the same species credited for inspiring Sir Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravity" which are all good things to know that humanity would be far poorer for the absence of, but does not address my question of who planted the damn tree? And when I ask you to stop giving me facts about apple trees and answer my question you say it's my fault for asking who planted it.My argument isn't any less valid because my why includes scientific detail. I did say why, my why just contains science. Quote:Again. Apple tree. Planter. 88-441 pounds. Gravity. Also congratulations, you are either a theoretical astro-physicist, or know how to navigate Wikipedia. Possibly both. Regardless I would like an answer as to why there is a universe.It's engineer, and thank you. Quote:What is artificial? If it means made by man, then is not the whole of human existence an artificial construct? Even if it is, so what? In that case, what would make it any less real then the feel of rain on your skin, the taste of the first peach of spring, or the overwhelming feeling of love? In short, how is a soul any less real then emotions? After all, all you can be sure of is that you think, therefore you are.Hold on... is this entire paragraph "emotion is real, therefore the soul is real"? That's not an argument, that's making arbitrary connections to say something is true. But the whole of human existence is a manmade construct. Even consciousness is an illusion we create to give sentient life the idea of value. The main reason we are the one species with the ability to really think is thousands of years of scientific advancement resulting from our higher brain size which have reduced the time one needs to spend gathering food, allowing more time for our other pursuits. Of course, emotions don't really exist either. Emotions are just our way of quantifying the chemical reactions which regulate our behaviour. They're just a built-in way to make us do what benefits ourselves and others. And by your logic, since emotions don't exist then the soul doesn't exist. Quote:Lets run with this and imagine that your right about it being an artificial construct, my reasoning for the soul above still holds. However, I want to point out that morality is far more then a mere benefit to society, it is also of extreme value to the individual, especially when dealing with other humans one on one. If an individual is immoral, other people will dislike him, above and beyond the social construct of ethics and sanctions and law. I am sure that you know someone who is, for lack of a better term, a total @$$hole. He's not breaking any societal regulations, but something about them is just completely offputting, on a level that most would recognize as immoral, or wrong, without doing anything against society. I think the root of morality goes far deeper then our herd mentality. Nothing else to really to debate here, though I did touch on the morality part above. Quote:Finally, aha! Nothing gets passed insomnia enhanced hearing, not even techno-magical bartenders!If you haven't guessed by now, I'm an atheist and a nihilist. And no, not the depressed kind. To me, life's lack of meaning gives it its own little meaning. But that's its own topic. And I'm not lazy, I'm concise. I don't like writing paragraphs when a couple sentences will do. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |