This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1JGL53
Wow. How often do those come along?
http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/17/17797756-stephen-hawking-lays-out-ca...
Here's a chance for you lucky few (and I think you know who you are) to call a guy with a 200 I.Q. stupid and/or call a paralyzed guy bitter.
Please. Knock yourselves out.
http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/17/17797756-stephen-hawking-lays-out-ca...
Here's a chance for you lucky few (and I think you know who you are) to call a guy with a 200 I.Q. stupid and/or call a paralyzed guy bitter.
Please. Knock yourselves out.
2aleng
Before we get to attacking anyone, I would like to point out that Stephen Hawking, like and scientist, is not infallible, and as a matter of fact, he has lost several bets regarding how theories would turn out and the like, such as on the existence of the Higgs Boson.
3rrp
Stephen Hawking is certainly not stupid. He is, however, not infallible, even in matters of physics. His opinions on cosmology are worth listening to, but many have criticized his philosophy. His arguments for a "Big Bang without God" were laid out in his co-authored book The Grand Design.
A nice short rebuttal is God and Stephen Hawking by John Lennox. Lennox is, like Hawking, a Professor of Mathematics at a very prestigious university, except his has been around longer than Cambridge.
Now, it would probably be in vain, but I could invite you to post some substantial point from Hawking's thesis (in your own words rather than some second-hand video) and we could correct your and his misconceptions. But then again, maybe not.
A nice short rebuttal is God and Stephen Hawking by John Lennox. Lennox is, like Hawking, a Professor of Mathematics at a very prestigious university, except his has been around longer than Cambridge.
Now, it would probably be in vain, but I could invite you to post some substantial point from Hawking's thesis (in your own words rather than some second-hand video) and we could correct your and his misconceptions. But then again, maybe not.
4timspalding
Hawking is not stupid, but he commits a fundamental category error.
It may well be that "because of the law of gravity" the universe can create itself out of nothing. But it takes an odd understanding of explanation to imagine that "because of the law of gravity" does anything more than move the question. It's clear he realizes this because, in the last chapter, the focus is changed to the energy of vacuums, which, while also perfectly possible as a cause, doesn't change the fundamental problem.
It may well be that "because of the law of gravity" the universe can create itself out of nothing. But it takes an odd understanding of explanation to imagine that "because of the law of gravity" does anything more than move the question. It's clear he realizes this because, in the last chapter, the focus is changed to the energy of vacuums, which, while also perfectly possible as a cause, doesn't change the fundamental problem.
5Tsarizard
> It may well be that "because of the law of gravity" the universe can create itself out of nothing.
I'm always confused when people make that statement. Would you mind if you explain it to me?
I'm always confused when people make that statement. Would you mind if you explain it to me?
6aleng
In general, I think Hawking is a genius, but I don't agree with him. After all, he supports M-Theory, a version of string theory, and I'm pretty sure it's established that string theory doesn't work.
7nathanielcampbell
Can I just point out that the article linked in the OP doesn't actually say anything new OR explain how Hawking has disproved the existence of God?
He basically runs through a bunch of discredited theories, and seems to settle in at the end on the multiverse idea. But, as has been pointed out before, there is a fundamental logical problem with the multiverse theory: it necessarily posits that all of the other universes are causally disconnected from our own, meaning that there is no empirical way to demonstrate their existence.
Science claims as its greatest tool the method of empirical verification. Theists are routinely derided because they cannot provide empirical verification of their claims about God. Yet now, a couple of astrophysicists somehow can "explain away God" with their own claims that, by definition, cannot have empirical verification.
The multiverse theory is, from the point of view of philosophical structure, identical to theism, i.e. it posits (1) a necessary rather contigent cause for all existence and (2) that necessary cause is beyond empirical verification.
He basically runs through a bunch of discredited theories, and seems to settle in at the end on the multiverse idea. But, as has been pointed out before, there is a fundamental logical problem with the multiverse theory: it necessarily posits that all of the other universes are causally disconnected from our own, meaning that there is no empirical way to demonstrate their existence.
Science claims as its greatest tool the method of empirical verification. Theists are routinely derided because they cannot provide empirical verification of their claims about God. Yet now, a couple of astrophysicists somehow can "explain away God" with their own claims that, by definition, cannot have empirical verification.
The multiverse theory is, from the point of view of philosophical structure, identical to theism, i.e. it posits (1) a necessary rather contigent cause for all existence and (2) that necessary cause is beyond empirical verification.
8Arctic-Stranger
So one either agrees with Hawking 100 percent or they think he is stupid. That makes perfect sense.
9nathanielcampbell
>5 Tsarizard:: "It may well be that "because of the law of gravity" the universe can create itself out of nothing."
As far as I understand it, the idea is that gravity makes a pure vacuum inherently unstable, such that a quantum void/vacuum will inherently "collapse" into itself, thus creating energy, thus creating matter (since, as Einstein established, energy and matter are really the same thing).
The problem, from the philosophical perspective, is that the law of gravity is itself still contingent, i.e. it is not self-explanatory. In other words, the physicists may have explained how you can get something from nothing without invoking God, but they can't explain how you get the law of gravity in the first place.
Or rather, folks like Lawrence Krauss have proposed the multiverse, which posits that the reason each law of physics has the particular "setting" that it does in our universe is that there, in fact, a practically infinite number of universes, to correspond with the practically infinite permutations of different "settings" for each law of physics. Our universe is simply one of those permutations.
Which would be great, except for the fact that this multiverse idea is necessarily incapable of empirical verification, making it just as "hypothetical" and ungrounded in evidence as claims for God.
As far as I understand it, the idea is that gravity makes a pure vacuum inherently unstable, such that a quantum void/vacuum will inherently "collapse" into itself, thus creating energy, thus creating matter (since, as Einstein established, energy and matter are really the same thing).
The problem, from the philosophical perspective, is that the law of gravity is itself still contingent, i.e. it is not self-explanatory. In other words, the physicists may have explained how you can get something from nothing without invoking God, but they can't explain how you get the law of gravity in the first place.
Or rather, folks like Lawrence Krauss have proposed the multiverse, which posits that the reason each law of physics has the particular "setting" that it does in our universe is that there, in fact, a practically infinite number of universes, to correspond with the practically infinite permutations of different "settings" for each law of physics. Our universe is simply one of those permutations.
Which would be great, except for the fact that this multiverse idea is necessarily incapable of empirical verification, making it just as "hypothetical" and ungrounded in evidence as claims for God.
10KUnger
Having a high I.Q. or a huge amount of knowledge does not save a person from being stupid, or unwise if you prefer. I have no further interest in this debate but wanted to see what was going on and had to comment on the 'he can't possibly be stupid because he has so much knowledge' inference. I have known plenty of very intelligent, very stupid people. I don't know Stephan Hawking though.
12aleng
>10 KUnger: Unwise is very different from stupid. I think you mean the former.
13JGL53
> 2 through 12
Like I said.
So it's not that Hawking is stupid, it is just that he makes an intellectual "mistake" that wise theists don't. So he's not stupid, he's just not as smart and wise as some brilliant theists.
Right. Got it. Simply brilliant.
But I'm waiting for someone to play the "bitter cripple" card. Will I have to wait many more posts? I know some of you want to. Go ahead. Indulge yourselves.
BTW, I see that Lawrence Krauss is also lacking in wisdom and spiritual discernment compared to many of you. That is ashamed. Maybe he should read a bible and learn about the nonexistent god that created the universe out of nothing for reasons we the created can only guess about.
lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg
Like I said.
So it's not that Hawking is stupid, it is just that he makes an intellectual "mistake" that wise theists don't. So he's not stupid, he's just not as smart and wise as some brilliant theists.
Right. Got it. Simply brilliant.
But I'm waiting for someone to play the "bitter cripple" card. Will I have to wait many more posts? I know some of you want to. Go ahead. Indulge yourselves.
BTW, I see that Lawrence Krauss is also lacking in wisdom and spiritual discernment compared to many of you. That is ashamed. Maybe he should read a bible and learn about the nonexistent god that created the universe out of nothing for reasons we the created can only guess about.
lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjaGktVQdNg
14aleng
>13 JGL53: Are you really that cynical? I feel sorry for you, and as a matter of fact, the intellectual mistake he has made is supporting M-Theory. And I can think of very few reasons someone who supports M-Theory would be a theists-In general, people in Hawking's profession are not that religious, so it's unlikely that a theists would even seriously be able to fully and mathematically understand M-Theory to be able to have any kind of informed decision on it's validity. And yes, I think that all atheists and agnostics should read some holy book with the intent of understanding religion. Then, you could hopefully have an atheist who actually respects religion, and not call God an "imaginary friend". Besides, "Know thy enemy" and such would also be applicable.
15JGL53
> 14
What you react to as cynicism I view as realism. But that is an argument that has no resolution, I guess.
If M-theory and string theory, etc. ultimately are discarded as the wrong way to go, then what? - god? No, I think the scientific endeavor will continue on without bowing the knee to superstition.
Science, and scientists, are dedicated on the whole to modeling our experienced reality as close to an objective ideal as is possible. In their fallible way they do pretty darn good.
Science is about understanding what ACTUALLY IS, regardless of whose feelings get hurt or who doesn't get pie for dessert, or pie in the sky by and by.
Let's be honest. Religion is and has always been about the ASSUMED importance of humans in general and the individual human in particular. It is dedicated to a subjective search for - and then establishment of - this human importance. That is all. Because, according to the religious theory of life, if humans are animals that naturally evolved and who all ultimately utterly die and become utterly nonexistent, then what is the point in even becoming interested in anything whatsoever? Game over at that point is religion's position.
THAT is why science and religion are as incompatible as two things can be.
If you think that religion is superior to science because it will somehow get us what we want - and to where we want, ultimately - then believe that - have faith in that - wish that - hope that - but please don't insist on that for all.
If I see religion as narcissism and childishness, pretty much, and I say so - and I AM saying so - then that is not ad hominem - to me that is pointing out the obvious - like pointing out that hungry tigers are dangerous, or that cyanide is bad for one's health.
Science is THE way of knowing. Get on board, get out of the way, or get run down. Religion is a mere place-holder for ignorance.
What you react to as cynicism I view as realism. But that is an argument that has no resolution, I guess.
If M-theory and string theory, etc. ultimately are discarded as the wrong way to go, then what? - god? No, I think the scientific endeavor will continue on without bowing the knee to superstition.
Science, and scientists, are dedicated on the whole to modeling our experienced reality as close to an objective ideal as is possible. In their fallible way they do pretty darn good.
Science is about understanding what ACTUALLY IS, regardless of whose feelings get hurt or who doesn't get pie for dessert, or pie in the sky by and by.
Let's be honest. Religion is and has always been about the ASSUMED importance of humans in general and the individual human in particular. It is dedicated to a subjective search for - and then establishment of - this human importance. That is all. Because, according to the religious theory of life, if humans are animals that naturally evolved and who all ultimately utterly die and become utterly nonexistent, then what is the point in even becoming interested in anything whatsoever? Game over at that point is religion's position.
THAT is why science and religion are as incompatible as two things can be.
If you think that religion is superior to science because it will somehow get us what we want - and to where we want, ultimately - then believe that - have faith in that - wish that - hope that - but please don't insist on that for all.
If I see religion as narcissism and childishness, pretty much, and I say so - and I AM saying so - then that is not ad hominem - to me that is pointing out the obvious - like pointing out that hungry tigers are dangerous, or that cyanide is bad for one's health.
Science is THE way of knowing. Get on board, get out of the way, or get run down. Religion is a mere place-holder for ignorance.
16aleng
>15 JGL53: There are many other, much better scientific theories. You are ASSUMING that all scientific explanation goes back to string theory, or that I was saying that all scientific theories are false. Either way, this is wrong-I have heard of many much better alternatives to string theory, such as quantum gravity. As for your point about the importance of humans, I would think that is true, but the conclusions you draw are complete and utter BS. Science is objective, Religion is subjective, but have you not realized that the subjective viewer can gain a grasp of objectivity? While Religion can be a place-holder for ignorance, Religion should be a set of beliefs that some humans turn to when they face a problem that science cannot yet reach.
17prosfilaes
#14: And yes, I think that all atheists and agnostics should read some holy book with the intent of understanding religion.
We have; the average US atheist is more familiar with the Bible then the average US Christian. And Christianity in practice could hardly be predicted by reading the Bible. Trinitarianism is something I never would have predicted from reading the Bible, nor modern rules about slavery or many other things.
Then, you could hopefully have an atheist who actually respects religion, and not call God an "imaginary friend".
I'd rather find a religious person who wouldn't get bent out of shape at someone calling God an "imaginary friend". Having read the Bible, I consider that rather friendly; I've always been surprised at how placid people can be at the Egyptian plagues; "God hardened the Pharaoh's heart", apparently because the innocent Egyptians under him hadn't suffered enough.
Besides, "Know thy enemy" and such would also be applicable.
Perhaps that would be applicable to you. I don't see any correlation one way or the other with how much you have read the Bible and how much you respect Christianity. Instead of asking that atheists and agnostics read the Bible, maybe you should work on understanding where they're coming from.
We have; the average US atheist is more familiar with the Bible then the average US Christian. And Christianity in practice could hardly be predicted by reading the Bible. Trinitarianism is something I never would have predicted from reading the Bible, nor modern rules about slavery or many other things.
Then, you could hopefully have an atheist who actually respects religion, and not call God an "imaginary friend".
I'd rather find a religious person who wouldn't get bent out of shape at someone calling God an "imaginary friend". Having read the Bible, I consider that rather friendly; I've always been surprised at how placid people can be at the Egyptian plagues; "God hardened the Pharaoh's heart", apparently because the innocent Egyptians under him hadn't suffered enough.
Besides, "Know thy enemy" and such would also be applicable.
Perhaps that would be applicable to you. I don't see any correlation one way or the other with how much you have read the Bible and how much you respect Christianity. Instead of asking that atheists and agnostics read the Bible, maybe you should work on understanding where they're coming from.
18aleng
>17 prosfilaes: maybe you should work on understanding where they're coming from.
I know where they're coming from because I was an atheist, and I am an agnostic atheist (admittedly, I'm more agnostic than atheist). I just take the side of whoever's being more justified or wronged.
I know where they're coming from because I was an atheist, and I am an agnostic atheist (admittedly, I'm more agnostic than atheist). I just take the side of whoever's being more justified or wronged.
19prosfilaes
#18: I know where they're coming from because I was an atheist, and I am an agnostic atheist
You know where you're coming from; that doesn't necessarily give you perspective on where everyone else is coming from.
You know where you're coming from; that doesn't necessarily give you perspective on where everyone else is coming from.
20aleng
>19 prosfilaes: The question is if you know where theists are coming from.
21prosfilaes
#20: Pretty much. I know full well that reading the Bible isn't going to improve it any.
22aleng
>21 prosfilaes: Now I see the problem.
23stevenhgl
prosfilaes, I don't think you understand this. From the perspective of a Christian, God deserves respect. He created the universe, and if that doesn't demand a certain level of reverence, I don't know what does. While some people may not find it offensive (to quote Thomas Jefferson, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg") you should recognize that not every Christian you meet will feel this way.
24prosfilaes
Don't understand what? Christians seem happy enough depicting Mohammed and forgetting to say PBUH, or using godless as a nasty word. They're asking for something they aren't willing to give. You may not feel happy when someone calls God your invisible friend, but we're not going to silence ourselves for one sect.
Masterpieces deserve respect. Their creators are at least as likely to be SOBs as the next person.
Masterpieces deserve respect. Their creators are at least as likely to be SOBs as the next person.
25timspalding
I'm unclear how the cause of rational scientific discussion is advanced by an ipse dixit.
Not one of us has claimed that Hawking is stupid, still less "played the bitter cripple card." But, with all rational people, we regard arguments as true or false based on their value, not who said them. Since that doesn't seem to be understood—by the champion of SCIENCE!—we've offered the obvious points that Hawking hasn't been right about anything, that many smart people disagree him, etc.
As usual, however, JGL53 can't rise up and make the case. I think another atheist might think that we are all fools, who could be knocked over by simple arguments. It would pain that person to find this hasn't happened, and that "his side" is supported only by invective, vulgarity and intellectual mistakes a drunk eight-year old could cut down to size.
Not one of us has claimed that Hawking is stupid, still less "played the bitter cripple card." But, with all rational people, we regard arguments as true or false based on their value, not who said them. Since that doesn't seem to be understood—by the champion of SCIENCE!—we've offered the obvious points that Hawking hasn't been right about anything, that many smart people disagree him, etc.
As usual, however, JGL53 can't rise up and make the case. I think another atheist might think that we are all fools, who could be knocked over by simple arguments. It would pain that person to find this hasn't happened, and that "his side" is supported only by invective, vulgarity and intellectual mistakes a drunk eight-year old could cut down to size.
26JGL53
timspalding -
I'm not seeing atheists as the ones who have to prove anything. What - we are burdened with the onus of proving a universal negative - that there is no god? Ditto santa and the easter bunny? You make me laugh.
Atheists just point out that superstitionists have nothing. Nothing at all. You just believe in your god because you feel your god in your heart. Well maybe it is just indigestion.
People who make ridiculous claims do not deserve respect for doing so, nor do the ridiculous claims deserve respect. A person's mere right to believe ridiculous crap is all that need be respected and that is all I do.
In the final analysis the burden is on those who yammer on and on about invisible persons. In science you would have to put up or shut up, but with religion, as with any stand-alone opinion, you can just yammer 'til the cows come home. If you get mad because rational people call you out then too bad. You no longer get a free pass on religious BS. Religious claims do not constitute a special class with special privileges regarding respect. That idea itself is crap.
As time goes on this little "problem" of religionists will just get worst because rational people are speaking up. The old methods of suppression of the voices of rationalists are less and less operative every day - at least in the democracies.
If the emperor has no clothes then that is that. If you are one who says he is so wearing beautiful clothes then get used to "lack of respect" - if not here then in the real world more and more as each day ticks off the calendar.
Intellectually, religion has had its day. Time to move on to living in the real world. Science is part of that. The very idea of invisible persons jerking us around behind the scenes is not really that intellectually respectable an idea anymore. To pretend that it is is crap.
I'm not seeing atheists as the ones who have to prove anything. What - we are burdened with the onus of proving a universal negative - that there is no god? Ditto santa and the easter bunny? You make me laugh.
Atheists just point out that superstitionists have nothing. Nothing at all. You just believe in your god because you feel your god in your heart. Well maybe it is just indigestion.
People who make ridiculous claims do not deserve respect for doing so, nor do the ridiculous claims deserve respect. A person's mere right to believe ridiculous crap is all that need be respected and that is all I do.
In the final analysis the burden is on those who yammer on and on about invisible persons. In science you would have to put up or shut up, but with religion, as with any stand-alone opinion, you can just yammer 'til the cows come home. If you get mad because rational people call you out then too bad. You no longer get a free pass on religious BS. Religious claims do not constitute a special class with special privileges regarding respect. That idea itself is crap.
As time goes on this little "problem" of religionists will just get worst because rational people are speaking up. The old methods of suppression of the voices of rationalists are less and less operative every day - at least in the democracies.
If the emperor has no clothes then that is that. If you are one who says he is so wearing beautiful clothes then get used to "lack of respect" - if not here then in the real world more and more as each day ticks off the calendar.
Intellectually, religion has had its day. Time to move on to living in the real world. Science is part of that. The very idea of invisible persons jerking us around behind the scenes is not really that intellectually respectable an idea anymore. To pretend that it is is crap.
27timspalding
>26 JGL53:
I don't demand proof. I demand arguments, or at least blather, not bad arguments. "Hawking said it" is a bad argument. It's pretty the textbook case of them. Mocking us for saying he's stupid is a bad argument made far worse by the fact it's not true--nobody said it. Speculating we're going to call him a cripple is the cherry on top. Nobody called him stupid. Nobody called him a cripple--well, truth be told, you seem drawn to the description.
Can I ask you a question? Do you intend to make arguments? Do you intend to convince anyone of anything? Or do you see what you do as nothing more than stupid and vulgar performance art? Because that's how it comes off.
I don't demand proof. I demand arguments, or at least blather, not bad arguments. "Hawking said it" is a bad argument. It's pretty the textbook case of them. Mocking us for saying he's stupid is a bad argument made far worse by the fact it's not true--nobody said it. Speculating we're going to call him a cripple is the cherry on top. Nobody called him stupid. Nobody called him a cripple--well, truth be told, you seem drawn to the description.
Can I ask you a question? Do you intend to make arguments? Do you intend to convince anyone of anything? Or do you see what you do as nothing more than stupid and vulgar performance art? Because that's how it comes off.
28JGL53
> 27
If you were an astrologer you could make the same complaints.
Non-believers in astrology have a burden to prove it is pseudoscientific crap? I don't think so. Astrologers have to demonstrate at the get go that it is reasonably true.
But believe in astrology if you wish. That is your right. I (or Hawking) can't disprove astrology to your satisfaction. In the world you have created for yourself and live in astrology (or a situation ontologically similar) is ipso facto true.
Well, enjoy.
If you were an astrologer you could make the same complaints.
Non-believers in astrology have a burden to prove it is pseudoscientific crap? I don't think so. Astrologers have to demonstrate at the get go that it is reasonably true.
But believe in astrology if you wish. That is your right. I (or Hawking) can't disprove astrology to your satisfaction. In the world you have created for yourself and live in astrology (or a situation ontologically similar) is ipso facto true.
Well, enjoy.
29vy0123
To those who usemention Hawking and any number of repetitions of the word stupid in the one paragraph, if gravity is a possible starting point to understanding Hawking's ideas, what is the starting point to understanding your's?
30prosfilaes
#22: What, that I don't agree with you? You've made no argument for your claim that atheists would be helped by reading the Bible.
32jburlinson
> 31. Insofar as no one has called him stupid
The OP did, didn't he?
The OP did, didn't he?
33aleng
>30 prosfilaes: I say that atheists would be helped by reading the bible in order to understand and respect Christianity. You seen unable to understand the concept or respect, at least when relating to Religion, so I sense that you will continue to fight on with your blind arguments regardless. You keep calling Religion out on being irrational, but you do not logically support it! You deny that one should have respect for other religions, saying "Don't understand what? Christians seem happy enough depicting Mohammed and forgetting to say PBUH, or using godless as a nasty word. They're asking for something they aren't willing to give. You may not feel happy when someone calls God your invisible friend, but we're not going to silence ourselves for one sect.". However, if you disrespect a religion with the grounds that they disrespect other religions, you become a hypocritical idiot. I see no point in continuing discussion with you, as you have demonstrated a stubbornness that I have only seen before in those with strong YEC beliefs. I do not think this discussion is able to enlighten those who partake in it, so I will cease posting in this thread, at least until someone presents a rational argument.
34prosfilaes
#33: I say that atheists would be helped by reading the bible in order to understand and respect Christianity.
I understand that you say that, but where's the evidence? There are many facets of modern Christianity that no amount of Bible reading will help you understand. There are many people who have read the Bible who don't respect Christianity; I see no correlation in that respect.
You keep calling Religion out on being irrational, but you do not logically support it!
I certainly haven't said anything about religion as a whole in this thread.
if you disrespect a religion with the grounds that they disrespect other religions
I'm not. I'm arguing that one is entitled to only so much deference, and that the greater society (a largely Christian society) has set that level fairly low for other religions.
I will cease posting in this thread, at least until someone presents a rational argument.
You've made testable claims about the results of reading the Bible; how about backing them up? Such a request is not irrational by any definition of the word I'm familiar with.
I understand that you say that, but where's the evidence? There are many facets of modern Christianity that no amount of Bible reading will help you understand. There are many people who have read the Bible who don't respect Christianity; I see no correlation in that respect.
You keep calling Religion out on being irrational, but you do not logically support it!
I certainly haven't said anything about religion as a whole in this thread.
if you disrespect a religion with the grounds that they disrespect other religions
I'm not. I'm arguing that one is entitled to only so much deference, and that the greater society (a largely Christian society) has set that level fairly low for other religions.
I will cease posting in this thread, at least until someone presents a rational argument.
You've made testable claims about the results of reading the Bible; how about backing them up? Such a request is not irrational by any definition of the word I'm familiar with.
35LolaWalser
Why should we respect religion? Why should we respect Christianity?
36paradoxosalpha
The more I've read the Bible (and believe me, I've read it a lot, and continue to do so), the less respect I have for conventional Christianity.
38paradoxosalpha
> 37
Sorry, what? Are you addressing me? How does Tim's #27 address my experience of Christianity and/or my understanding of the Bible?
Sorry, what? Are you addressing me? How does Tim's #27 address my experience of Christianity and/or my understanding of the Bible?
39aleng
You do not make any good arguments. I say you should read the Bible if it helps you understand Christianity-however, you have demonstrated nothing will convince you to respect Christianity. Thus, my argument is invalid, because I had assumed that I was talking to a sensible open minded person with a strong sense of logic. It appears that this is not the case.
40timspalding
Christians seem happy enough depicting Mohammed and forgetting to say PBUH, or using godless as a nasty word
The most important thing for me isn't respect but that great American discovery: religious tolerance. Tolerance is a form of respect, but it is a respect for an individuals' choice to hold beliefs, not for the beliefs themselves. It is not "your views are convincing" but "I respect your convictions." Many hostile "internet atheists" have a "pre-American" attitude toward religion.
When it comes to respect, I think our own consciences impose reasonable limits. I don't say "peace be upon him" after Muslim prophets for the same reason I don't expect a non-Catholic to bow before the Eucharist. I don't believe Muhammed was a prophet. My respect for muslims is shown in defense of their moral right (not just legal right) to think he was. In the case of atheists, I do think it means not calling them godless, if they object to the term.
Dawkins recent attack on a muslim employed at the New Statesman--that they should fire him because no believing muslim could be a "serious journalist" ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/richard-dawkins-islamophobic )--is pretty much the definition of intolerance.
The most important thing for me isn't respect but that great American discovery: religious tolerance. Tolerance is a form of respect, but it is a respect for an individuals' choice to hold beliefs, not for the beliefs themselves. It is not "your views are convincing" but "I respect your convictions." Many hostile "internet atheists" have a "pre-American" attitude toward religion.
When it comes to respect, I think our own consciences impose reasonable limits. I don't say "peace be upon him" after Muslim prophets for the same reason I don't expect a non-Catholic to bow before the Eucharist. I don't believe Muhammed was a prophet. My respect for muslims is shown in defense of their moral right (not just legal right) to think he was. In the case of atheists, I do think it means not calling them godless, if they object to the term.
Dawkins recent attack on a muslim employed at the New Statesman--that they should fire him because no believing muslim could be a "serious journalist" ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/richard-dawkins-islamophobic )--is pretty much the definition of intolerance.
41LolaWalser
that great American discovery: religious tolerance
Oh, that's funny.
Oh, that's funny.
42aleng
40 Indeed-that is the current problem with atheism, just as the Vatican used to have the problem of denying science.
43paradoxosalpha
> 39
Where is it that I "have demonstrated nothing will convince" me to respect Christianity? Are you intending to imply that if reading the Bible doesn't make me respect Christianity, then nothing will?
I wasn't offering an argument in #36, just an ironclad anecdote. I was not responding directly to your #14, which touched off this read the Bible and you will respect Christianity subthread, but as I re-read it, I find it to be totally bankrupt and disproven by my own experience. You wrote:
Where is it that I "have demonstrated nothing will convince" me to respect Christianity? Are you intending to imply that if reading the Bible doesn't make me respect Christianity, then nothing will?
I wasn't offering an argument in #36, just an ironclad anecdote. I was not responding directly to your #14, which touched off this read the Bible and you will respect Christianity subthread, but as I re-read it, I find it to be totally bankrupt and disproven by my own experience. You wrote:
And yes, I think that all atheists and agnostics should read some holy book with the intent of understanding religion. Then, you could hopefully have an atheist who actually respects religion, and not call God an "imaginary friend".I formerly read the Bible as a Christian "with the intent of understanding religion." Now that I am not a Christian (although neither an atheist nor an agnostic in the ordinary senses of those words), I continue to read the Bible "with the intent of understanding religion." Having read in the scriptural canons of many religions, I don't think that such texts reflect equal credit on their partisans, and I can't understand how you could be so naive as to suppose that they do, unless you have yourself read only superficially in them.
44aleng
I am sorry-I confused you with prosfilaes. I do not say you should respect fundamental christianity, but Modern, more reasonable Christianity.
45nathanielcampbell
I'm specially bookmarking this thread for future use whenever JGL claims that religious believers are being "illogical".
After all, his entire case is this: if you critique any pronouncement of Stephen Hawking, then you are calling him "stupid" and "a bitter cripple" (which, thus far, are statements made only by JGL, thus making them "straw men" -- if you don't know what that means, JGL, look it up), and, most importantly, you are an enemy of science.
Several actual critiques of Hawking's claims were offered, and JGL did not bother to refute any them with an actual argument. Instead, his entire claim rests on the authority of Stephen Hawking, the Grand Master of Science, Peace be upon Him.
Because didn't you know that Stephen Hawking, Peace be upon Him, is the great and powerful, invincible and infallible, Grand Master of All Science? And didn't you know that it is heretical even to question the Grand Master, Peace be upon Him?
So far, we've got straw men and the argument from authority, all offered in defense of Science and as an attack on religion. Are there any other logical fallacies that JGL wants to give a whack at?
After all, his entire case is this: if you critique any pronouncement of Stephen Hawking, then you are calling him "stupid" and "a bitter cripple" (which, thus far, are statements made only by JGL, thus making them "straw men" -- if you don't know what that means, JGL, look it up), and, most importantly, you are an enemy of science.
Several actual critiques of Hawking's claims were offered, and JGL did not bother to refute any them with an actual argument. Instead, his entire claim rests on the authority of Stephen Hawking, the Grand Master of Science, Peace be upon Him.
Because didn't you know that Stephen Hawking, Peace be upon Him, is the great and powerful, invincible and infallible, Grand Master of All Science? And didn't you know that it is heretical even to question the Grand Master, Peace be upon Him?
So far, we've got straw men and the argument from authority, all offered in defense of Science and as an attack on religion. Are there any other logical fallacies that JGL wants to give a whack at?
46prosfilaes
#39: I say you should read the Bible if it helps you understand Christianity
You said "all atheists and agnostics should read some holy book with the intent of understanding religion. Then, you could hopefully have an atheist who actually respects religion". Do you reject that statement, or do you reject the concept that you should establish a connection between the course of action you recommended and the results you suggested would occur?
#44: I do not say you should respect fundamental christianity, but Modern, more reasonable Christianity.
So basically your idea of having a sensible open mind is having the same prejudices as you. And you don't find that definition a tiny bit problematic.
You said "all atheists and agnostics should read some holy book with the intent of understanding religion. Then, you could hopefully have an atheist who actually respects religion". Do you reject that statement, or do you reject the concept that you should establish a connection between the course of action you recommended and the results you suggested would occur?
#44: I do not say you should respect fundamental christianity, but Modern, more reasonable Christianity.
So basically your idea of having a sensible open mind is having the same prejudices as you. And you don't find that definition a tiny bit problematic.
47Settings
>44 aleng:
That sounds like you are saying your own version of Christianity should be respected, but there is no reason to respect other versions of Christianity. I doubt you will find many people who think their religion is unreasonable. Maybe it will be clearer if you clarify?
Religious people deserve respect because they are people, and so on some level their beliefs deserve respect because they hold them. It is not okay that this respect be demanded, especially from minority groups or people who do not hold such beliefs.
That sounds like you are saying your own version of Christianity should be respected, but there is no reason to respect other versions of Christianity. I doubt you will find many people who think their religion is unreasonable. Maybe it will be clearer if you clarify?
Religious people deserve respect because they are people, and so on some level their beliefs deserve respect because they hold them. It is not okay that this respect be demanded, especially from minority groups or people who do not hold such beliefs.
48JGL53
I just reread my OP to see if I was misremembering what I had written.
Nope. It is exactly what I remembered I had written. And I haven't altered it at any time from the original posting.
So, I find it interesting that certain people on this thread have read into the OP assertions which are just not there. At all. In any way.
So I won't respond to charges that I said X when any unprejudiced and disinterested person can clearly see I did not say X - nor did I in any way insinuate X - or anything similar to X.
There. Glad I cleared up all that misunderstanding and all those false charges against me.
Nope. It is exactly what I remembered I had written. And I haven't altered it at any time from the original posting.
So, I find it interesting that certain people on this thread have read into the OP assertions which are just not there. At all. In any way.
So I won't respond to charges that I said X when any unprejudiced and disinterested person can clearly see I did not say X - nor did I in any way insinuate X - or anything similar to X.
There. Glad I cleared up all that misunderstanding and all those false charges against me.
49nathanielcampbell
>48 JGL53:: Quoting from your OP: "Here's a chance for you lucky few (and I think you know who you are) to call a guy with a 200 I.Q. stupid and/or call a paralyzed guy bitter."
The only person on this thread who has called Hawking stupid or mocked his paralysis is you. No other person has made that argument. This is called a "straw man", and it is a logical fallacy, i.e. a failure in logic (if you don't know what that is, look it up).
In all of your posts so far, you have not actually explained why our criticisms of Hawking et al. are flawed, beyond the assumption that Hawking et al. are so smart that ordinary folks like us can't possibly know any better.
In other words: you have argued that that claims of Hawking et al. must be true, not because they are logically sound, but because they are made by really smart people whose authority we should accept. That's the logical fallacy of arguing from authority -- in fact, it's the very same logical fallacy that you charge Christians of abusing when they say, "X is true because God said so in the Bible." You are saying, "X is true because Stephen Hawking said so."
The only person on this thread who has called Hawking stupid or mocked his paralysis is you. No other person has made that argument. This is called a "straw man", and it is a logical fallacy, i.e. a failure in logic (if you don't know what that is, look it up).
In all of your posts so far, you have not actually explained why our criticisms of Hawking et al. are flawed, beyond the assumption that Hawking et al. are so smart that ordinary folks like us can't possibly know any better.
In other words: you have argued that that claims of Hawking et al. must be true, not because they are logically sound, but because they are made by really smart people whose authority we should accept. That's the logical fallacy of arguing from authority -- in fact, it's the very same logical fallacy that you charge Christians of abusing when they say, "X is true because God said so in the Bible." You are saying, "X is true because Stephen Hawking said so."
50Arctic-Stranger
Nathaniel, you are using LOGIC and REASON! Stop it. You are only frustrating yourself.
51JGL53
^
Christ on a crutch, dipped in chocolate and rolled in nuts. You two have now taken absurdist humor to its logical conclusion and thereby ruined it for us all.
Your entertainment value has sunk to zero.
Your home planet of chartreuse sky, plaid clouds and mauve oceans is certainly different but I'm due back on Planet Earth now. Good-bye.
Christ on a crutch, dipped in chocolate and rolled in nuts. You two have now taken absurdist humor to its logical conclusion and thereby ruined it for us all.
Your entertainment value has sunk to zero.
Your home planet of chartreuse sky, plaid clouds and mauve oceans is certainly different but I'm due back on Planet Earth now. Good-bye.
52Arctic-Stranger
Just dropping in for a visit?
54rrp
you are using LOGIC and REASON! Stop it. You are only frustrating yourself.
He can't help it. It just comes out. However, JGL53 seems allergic to it. (Just what do you call an atheist who shies away from logic and reason?)
I thought to take a similar tack, applying logic and reason, but taking issue with JGL53's own words back at #15. "Science is THE way of knowing."
Now at first blush, many sensible people would take this as a simple declaration of JGL53's faith. A tad zealous maybe, but expected. But he probably wouldn't want us to take it that way. He wouldn't want us to point out that Science is his "invisible friend".
I am guessing he would want us to take it as meaning something like "the methods used by scientists provide useful information about the physical world, and only information about the physical world is meaningful". I am guessing there, perhaps he will enlighten us about what he did mean.
But the interesting question is how did JGL53 come the know that "Science is THE way of knowing"? Through Science? That reasoning is as sound as saying that I know "Astrology is THE way of knowing" and that I came to that knowledge through Astrology. (BTW, as has been remarked, Hawkins makes similar fundamental mistakes in the Grand Design.)
He can't help it. It just comes out. However, JGL53 seems allergic to it. (Just what do you call an atheist who shies away from logic and reason?)
I thought to take a similar tack, applying logic and reason, but taking issue with JGL53's own words back at #15. "Science is THE way of knowing."
Now at first blush, many sensible people would take this as a simple declaration of JGL53's faith. A tad zealous maybe, but expected. But he probably wouldn't want us to take it that way. He wouldn't want us to point out that Science is his "invisible friend".
I am guessing he would want us to take it as meaning something like "the methods used by scientists provide useful information about the physical world, and only information about the physical world is meaningful". I am guessing there, perhaps he will enlighten us about what he did mean.
But the interesting question is how did JGL53 come the know that "Science is THE way of knowing"? Through Science? That reasoning is as sound as saying that I know "Astrology is THE way of knowing" and that I came to that knowledge through Astrology. (BTW, as has been remarked, Hawkins makes similar fundamental mistakes in the Grand Design.)
55aleng
>54 rrp: Thank you rrp, for pointing out JGL53's logical fallacies. There are many ways of gaining logic- for one example, you can learn by analyzing material object, or in the case of mathematics, deductive logic. You cannot assert such a strong claim if you say that you follow reason, but we already know that he doesn't.
56prosfilaes
#40: Tolerance is a form of respect
I would say that tolerance is a form of tolerating.
In the case of atheists, I do think it means not calling them godless, if they object to the term.
Not as applied to atheists, but as applied to bad people and things, like in http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/04/15/on-twitter-the-godless-a... .
I would say that tolerance is a form of tolerating.
In the case of atheists, I do think it means not calling them godless, if they object to the term.
Not as applied to atheists, but as applied to bad people and things, like in http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/04/15/on-twitter-the-godless-a... .
57JGL53
> 55
If I am so illogical and you are the logical one here, then why am I an atheist and you a superstitionist? Logic your way to that scenario.
lol.
If I am so illogical and you are the logical one here, then why am I an atheist and you a superstitionist? Logic your way to that scenario.
lol.
58aleng
>57 JGL53: Superstitionist? I think not. There are (ironically) many illogical atheists, which is why I stopped being an atheist, but I never was, and in my current worldview, cannot, be a theist or "superstitionist".
60JGL53
> 59
If I take the course will I then see the logic of presuming invisible persons and free-floating all-powerful minds thinking universes into existence?
I think I'll pass.
If I take the course will I then see the logic of presuming invisible persons and free-floating all-powerful minds thinking universes into existence?
I think I'll pass.
61aleng
>60 JGL53: You'll see mathematical logic. Anyways, did you really think I was a theists? I only defend theism because you make bad arguments-I'd support you if you made good ones that used logic.
62JGL53
BTW, misrepresenting and misstating pretty much every thing I say on these threads is all nc does. I don't think that is proof of logical fallacy on my part, just mendacity on the part of nc.
But you are nevertheless an admirer of nc? Hmmmmm.
But you are nevertheless an admirer of nc? Hmmmmm.
63nathanielcampbell
>61 aleng:: A minor aside, but I'd point out that John Duns Scotus actually invented a form of contemporary modal logic precisely in order to prove the existence of God (for a great discussion, see here: https://intentiolectoris.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/underrated-philosophers-iv-joh... ).
64JGL53
> 61
I don't recall you pointing out a bad argument I made. You seem to only be a cheering section for others who have, apparently, asserted I used faulty logic.
Did I miss something? I apologize. Please point out my illogic.
I don't recall you pointing out a bad argument I made. You seem to only be a cheering section for others who have, apparently, asserted I used faulty logic.
Did I miss something? I apologize. Please point out my illogic.
65aleng
>62 JGL53: I don't admire nc, I admire that he actually made a logical argument, as opposed to the senseless bickering we're having. And if you haven't gotten used to everything you say being misstated by someone, you must be pretty new to this stuff. ;) Anyways, I'd still say it is still something of a logical fallacy.
67nathanielcampbell
>62 JGL53:: Did you or did you not write the following: "Here's a chance for you lucky few (and I think you know who you are) to call a guy with a 200 I.Q. stupid and/or call a paralyzed guy bitter."
Are you or are you not the only person on this thread to call Hawking "stupid" or to mock his paralysis?
Where did I lie?
Pony up the evidence -- here's your chance. Give us the evidence of my mendacity on this thread. Put up or shut up, as they say.
Are you or are you not the only person on this thread to call Hawking "stupid" or to mock his paralysis?
Where did I lie?
Pony up the evidence -- here's your chance. Give us the evidence of my mendacity on this thread. Put up or shut up, as they say.
68Arctic-Stranger 
Notice how the only person who thinks JGL is a genius is....JGL.
69JGL53
> 66
No comment other than you are either too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time - OR you are a troll who is just spewing utter insanity just to see what reaction it evokes.
It has to be one or the other. I can see no other alternative that even begins to make sense.
You are back on ignore.
No comment other than you are either too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time - OR you are a troll who is just spewing utter insanity just to see what reaction it evokes.
It has to be one or the other. I can see no other alternative that even begins to make sense.
You are back on ignore.
70JGL53
This message has been flagged by multiple users and is no longer displayed (show)
> 68
Your entire ancestry back to the tenth generation sucks cock in hell.
(OK - now it's your turn again. We'll keep doing this until it becomes fun.)
Your entire ancestry back to the tenth generation sucks cock in hell.
(OK - now it's your turn again. We'll keep doing this until it becomes fun.)
71aleng
>64 JGL53: I'm not sure if it's illogic or a mix of idiocy and sarcasm, but assuming it is illogic, it would be the various times in which you mock religion for "the nonexistent god that created the universe out of nothing for reasons we the created can only guess about." I'm sure we are all fairly nice and reasonable people, so I don't see why you have a reason to act so arrogant, undermining basic premises in their belief system, while claiming that
"If you think that religion is superior to science because it will somehow get us what we want - and to where we want, ultimately - then believe that - have faith in that - wish that - hope that - but please don't insist on that for all.
If I see religion as narcissism and childishness, pretty much, and I say so - and I AM saying so - then that is not ad hominem - to me that is pointing out the obvious - like pointing out that hungry tigers are dangerous, or that cyanide is bad for one's health.
Science is THE way of knowing. Get on board, get out of the way, or get run down. Religion is a mere place-holder for ignorance."
By doing this, you show extreme arrogance, effectively equation religion with ignorance and stupidity while placing Science as "THE way of knowing", while any scientist could tell you that we only have theories and models of the universe we live in. These models are used because they are useful to understand the universe-you can't logically claim that they are definite truths as you do. While I agree that religious people should not "insist on that for all", you are going a step further, not acknowledging the fact that religion has not been scientifically dis-proven, and claiming that religion in itself is ignorance. The problem I have is that you do not, or maybe are not able, to even begin to see the debate from "the other side".
"If you think that religion is superior to science because it will somehow get us what we want - and to where we want, ultimately - then believe that - have faith in that - wish that - hope that - but please don't insist on that for all.
If I see religion as narcissism and childishness, pretty much, and I say so - and I AM saying so - then that is not ad hominem - to me that is pointing out the obvious - like pointing out that hungry tigers are dangerous, or that cyanide is bad for one's health.
Science is THE way of knowing. Get on board, get out of the way, or get run down. Religion is a mere place-holder for ignorance."
By doing this, you show extreme arrogance, effectively equation religion with ignorance and stupidity while placing Science as "THE way of knowing", while any scientist could tell you that we only have theories and models of the universe we live in. These models are used because they are useful to understand the universe-you can't logically claim that they are definite truths as you do. While I agree that religious people should not "insist on that for all", you are going a step further, not acknowledging the fact that religion has not been scientifically dis-proven, and claiming that religion in itself is ignorance. The problem I have is that you do not, or maybe are not able, to even begin to see the debate from "the other side".
72aleng
>70 JGL53: Just a piece of advice-getting mad and raging like that will only make you look stupid. You don't need to listen to me of course-you can brush this post aside if you feel like it-but I would strongly advise not losing your cool/ not bringing up baseless personal insults.
73nathanielcampbell
>69 JGL53: (presuming, if there is sufficient evidence to do so, that your "66" wasn't directed at yourself but at my 67): "No comment other than you are either too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time"
You accused me of, "misrepresenting and misstating pretty much every thing {JGL} says on these threads." I asked you for evidence thereof. You responded with insult, and a pledge to ignore me.
Is that how atheists respond when asked for evidence of their claims? By insult and ignorance?
Had you any evidence, the reasonable thing to do would have been to provide it. The logical conclusion is that you have no evidence -- and that makes you the mendacious one.
You accused me of, "misrepresenting and misstating pretty much every thing {JGL} says on these threads." I asked you for evidence thereof. You responded with insult, and a pledge to ignore me.
Is that how atheists respond when asked for evidence of their claims? By insult and ignorance?
Had you any evidence, the reasonable thing to do would have been to provide it. The logical conclusion is that you have no evidence -- and that makes you the mendacious one.
74timspalding
I remind members that LibraryThing's rules prohibit personal attacks ( http://www.librarything.com/privacy ). Thank you for your cooperation in abiding by the rules and reporting when a situation gets out of hand.
75aleng
>66 JGL53: Your argument that religion is ignorance and that science is the way of knowing.
76Arctic-Stranger
69, 70
That is atheist logic!
That is atheist logic!
77aleng
74: What counts as a personal attack? Would 68 count? Would 70 count? Where does it cross the line?
78aleng
76: Don't jump to conclusions-that is bad atheist logic. Wait a second... if you use good atheist logic, you end up at... Agnosticism! So I guess that's right... But you know, I've seen quite a few atheists who were actually agnostics. As Russell said, "I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist."
79nathanielcampbell
By the way, I'd like sincerely to thank aleng for challenging JGL in these matters. Too often, charges are laid at the feet of theists because of the company they keep (think of the number of times we are charged with answering for the blather of Westboro Baptist or Pat Robertson). In this instance, it would be too easy to return the favor, and charge atheists for the crimes against logic and decency their comrade JGL commits.
But aleng is stepping up to the plate and making it clear that JGL does not speak for the whole bunch. I would encourage all of the other regular atheists in this group to follow his example, lest by your silence you seem to give consent to JGL's methods of "argumentation" and attack.
But aleng is stepping up to the plate and making it clear that JGL does not speak for the whole bunch. I would encourage all of the other regular atheists in this group to follow his example, lest by your silence you seem to give consent to JGL's methods of "argumentation" and attack.
80Arctic-Stranger
I concede that 68 is a personal attack. I will not delete it, because then it would look like I was doing a hit and run attack, but it is not a post I am proud of.
Apologies to all.
Apologies to all.
81JGL53
> 71
I am not seeing illogic in anything you quoted of me. E.g.,
Yes, I did say science is THE way of knowing, but of course any reasonable person would see I was simply stating that the only way we humans have to a real understanding of any thing is through science - within the social context of repeatability, obviously. (I.e., an epiphany by you or me or another person is great but such is useless to all others - or it should be.)
Obviously I know science produces and test models of what is or might be. We model the universe in our heads. Kant settled that issue years ago.
You are now getting as bad as nc at understanding what I am saying. Am I that bad a communicator? Or is your mind distorting what I am saying into some imagined worst case scenario?
I think the latter.
I would ask you to cut it out but that would be wasted energy, huh?
I am not seeing illogic in anything you quoted of me. E.g.,
Yes, I did say science is THE way of knowing, but of course any reasonable person would see I was simply stating that the only way we humans have to a real understanding of any thing is through science - within the social context of repeatability, obviously. (I.e., an epiphany by you or me or another person is great but such is useless to all others - or it should be.)
Obviously I know science produces and test models of what is or might be. We model the universe in our heads. Kant settled that issue years ago.
You are now getting as bad as nc at understanding what I am saying. Am I that bad a communicator? Or is your mind distorting what I am saying into some imagined worst case scenario?
I think the latter.
I would ask you to cut it out but that would be wasted energy, huh?
82aleng
>81 JGL53: Maybe it's not illogic-I may have mistaken attacks with no logical reason as illogic. If so, I apologize.
83JGL53
> 78 "...if you use good atheist logic, you end up at... Agnosticism! So I guess that's right... But you know, I've seen quite a few atheists who were actually agnostics. As Russell said, "I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist."
NOW we are getting some where. I am an agnostic atheist similar to Bertrand Russell.
Have a nice day. And thanks for clearing things up somewhat.
NOW we are getting some where. I am an agnostic atheist similar to Bertrand Russell.
Have a nice day. And thanks for clearing things up somewhat.
84paradoxosalpha
> 44
Prosfilaes was right to call you out on the unsoundness of your prescription ("all atheists and agnostics should" etc.).
The verb "to respect" has become murky enough to me in this context that I don't know what you're advocating, but I consciously departed from previous association with "Modern, more reasonable Christianity," so it won't get any special comfort from me.
Prosfilaes was right to call you out on the unsoundness of your prescription ("all atheists and agnostics should" etc.).
The verb "to respect" has become murky enough to me in this context that I don't know what you're advocating, but I consciously departed from previous association with "Modern, more reasonable Christianity," so it won't get any special comfort from me.
85aleng
>83 JGL53: More atheist than agnostic I presume? I'm also an agnostic atheist, except I'm more agnostic than I am atheist, and I do think that Russell has a lot of good points.
86aleng
>84 paradoxosalpha: In retrospect, I was making wide generalizations, which usually, as in this case, leads to unsound claims. I apologize for that, but I do think that atheists and agnostics should look at their criticisms of religion and really, really think about their logical validity and usefulness.
87nathanielcampbell
>86 aleng:: "I do think that atheists and agnostics should look at their criticisms of religion and really, really think about their logical validity and usefulness."
As perhaps when those criticisms amount to declaring that anybody who disagrees with Stephen Hawking is themselves stupid and must, in their criticisms, stoop to mocking the man's disability? Because that seems to be JGL's approach, as witnessed by the OP and post 13.
As perhaps when those criticisms amount to declaring that anybody who disagrees with Stephen Hawking is themselves stupid and must, in their criticisms, stoop to mocking the man's disability? Because that seems to be JGL's approach, as witnessed by the OP and post 13.
88JGL53
> 86
There are sound logical reasons to ignore the claims of religion as logical absurdities. And there are also bad arguments used by atheists against religion, obviously.
The multitude of both good arguments and bad arguments by atheists are beside the point. Religion must make its case or it loses by default. The problem for religionists is that there is no sound logical path to "therefore god". That is the fact of the matter. If it isn't then put up.
- BTW, the worst case of logical fallacy in the religion vs. atheism argument is the assertion by religionists that "atheists can't prove there is no god."
Such a statement goes beyond illogic. It is hard core ST.u.Pi.D.
There are sound logical reasons to ignore the claims of religion as logical absurdities. And there are also bad arguments used by atheists against religion, obviously.
The multitude of both good arguments and bad arguments by atheists are beside the point. Religion must make its case or it loses by default. The problem for religionists is that there is no sound logical path to "therefore god". That is the fact of the matter. If it isn't then put up.
- BTW, the worst case of logical fallacy in the religion vs. atheism argument is the assertion by religionists that "atheists can't prove there is no god."
Such a statement goes beyond illogic. It is hard core ST.u.Pi.D.
89aleng
>88 JGL53: Religion must make its case or it loses by default.
Why? Wouldn't atheism also lose by default unless you can show that you're correct.
BTW, the worst case of logical fallacy in the religion vs. atheism argument is the assertion by religionists that "atheists can't prove there is no god."
How? Against completely non-agnostic atheists, it works. The thing is just that most atheists are partly agnostic, which would make the claim useless. After all, the idea that there is no god is a scientifically un-falsifiable claim, right? Therefore, you need to provide a proof, which I've not seen.
Why? Wouldn't atheism also lose by default unless you can show that you're correct.
BTW, the worst case of logical fallacy in the religion vs. atheism argument is the assertion by religionists that "atheists can't prove there is no god."
How? Against completely non-agnostic atheists, it works. The thing is just that most atheists are partly agnostic, which would make the claim useless. After all, the idea that there is no god is a scientifically un-falsifiable claim, right? Therefore, you need to provide a proof, which I've not seen.
90JGL53
> 89
Your post is a lesson in false logic. Where do I even begin?
One cannot - and is not required to - prove a universal negative.
Logic 101
One HAS to understand this or we cannot proceed.
There. So much for your entire post.
Have a nice day.
Your post is a lesson in false logic. Where do I even begin?
One cannot - and is not required to - prove a universal negative.
Logic 101
One HAS to understand this or we cannot proceed.
There. So much for your entire post.
Have a nice day.
91aleng
Lets see here...
All even numbers greater than two are not prime.
The universe here is "all even numbers"
The negative is "are not prime".
Firstly, any even greater than 2 may be expressed as 2*a, where a is an integer greater than 1.
Therefore, as any even greater than 2 would have a number as a factor that is not 1 or itself, namely 2, we have proven that all even numbers greater than two are not prime.
There-I have just defined a universe and proved a universal negative for that universe. So what was that about not being able to prove a universal negative again? I see no difference in the provability of a universal negative with a ordinary negative within the universe.
All even numbers greater than two are not prime.
The universe here is "all even numbers"
The negative is "are not prime".
Firstly, any even greater than 2 may be expressed as 2*a, where a is an integer greater than 1.
Therefore, as any even greater than 2 would have a number as a factor that is not 1 or itself, namely 2, we have proven that all even numbers greater than two are not prime.
There-I have just defined a universe and proved a universal negative for that universe. So what was that about not being able to prove a universal negative again? I see no difference in the provability of a universal negative with a ordinary negative within the universe.
92JGL53
> 91
Rather than including mathematical abstractions, I was using the word "negative" to mean "not existing", as in a person, place or material thing not existing. I thought that was obvious to the meanest intelligence but I was obviously wrong.
So, then, e.g.,
No where in the entire universe does there exists a planet that is a trillion miles in diameter and made of solid uranium and is also fully conscious.
Prove it?
It cannot be done. A universal negative cannot be proved.
Likewise the non-existence of a theistically-defined god cannot be proved.
I rest my case - once again.
And have a nice day.
Rather than including mathematical abstractions, I was using the word "negative" to mean "not existing", as in a person, place or material thing not existing. I thought that was obvious to the meanest intelligence but I was obviously wrong.
So, then, e.g.,
No where in the entire universe does there exists a planet that is a trillion miles in diameter and made of solid uranium and is also fully conscious.
Prove it?
It cannot be done. A universal negative cannot be proved.
Likewise the non-existence of a theistically-defined god cannot be proved.
I rest my case - once again.
And have a nice day.
93paradoxosalpha
Getting back to Hawking, I was pretty powerfully disappointed in The Grand Design, which I read as an LTER. See my review.
94JGL53
> 93
I think Hawking's big point was that armchair philosophizing is pretty retarded compared to experimental empirical science.
Science makes models and actually tests them and works up increasingly explanatory models in time. Armchair philosophizing tests nothing, and proves nothing (unless the philosophizing is based entirely on the experimental evidences of science).
I think Hawking's big point was that armchair philosophizing is pretty retarded compared to experimental empirical science.
Science makes models and actually tests them and works up increasingly explanatory models in time. Armchair philosophizing tests nothing, and proves nothing (unless the philosophizing is based entirely on the experimental evidences of science).
95rrp
Yes, it's cute. Hawking is doing some armchair philosophizing decrying armchair philosophizing. One wonders how he rates his own work.
96aleng
92: I apologize-I have a tendency to mathematize everything to a degree. Regardless, It can be done. For example, if you were able to show that any such planet would instantly collapse on itself, you would have just proven that there cannot exist said planet.
98rrp
A universal negative cannot be proved.
Here's a logical inconsistency. JGL has refined his definition of negative to mean not physically existing, thus removing his statement from the field of logic to that of science. And in doing so, denies the principle of induction and thus completely undermines his "Science is THE way of knowing".
Here's a logical inconsistency. JGL has refined his definition of negative to mean not physically existing, thus removing his statement from the field of logic to that of science. And in doing so, denies the principle of induction and thus completely undermines his "Science is THE way of knowing".
99aleng
Oh wait! I just realized that. So stupid of me. If you define something to not exist, then by definition, you have just proven it's non-existence. Q.E.D., and we can all get on with our lives.
100aleng
And if you define a universal negative as something which doesn't exist, you can't apply it a a deity, since you don't originally know of it's non-existence. However, you are right that a universal negative can't be proven-If something does not exist in a universe, it can not be proven to exist in that universe.
101nathanielcampbell
I'd also point out that, in a certain form of modal logic, one can in fact entirely sidestep the existence/non-existence issue, as for example was done by John Duns Scotus (as explained here):
Scotus starts out by assuming that, if you’re going to do a proper proof, you can’t base it on anything that could possibly be different—like, say, the fact that the world exists.(I must admit that I am not anything like an expert in technical philosophical logic of this kind, so I offer all of this for correction to others, like aleng, who appear to understand it far better than I do. If I've completely misunderstood the point, please tell me!)
Instead, Scotus ends up inventing contemporary modal logic—or, really, what we today call S5. Scotus uses the two alternate formulations of the fifth axiom in S5 to start off his proof, like so:
The world exists.
Whatever exists, must be possible.
Whatever is possible, must necessarily be possible.
Therefore, it is necessarily possible for the world to exist.
This gives him a premise that is necessarily true in any possible situation, including those in which the world does not exist.
102rrp
There have been more recent attempts to apply modal logic to the ontological argument, including by Kurt Gödel (he of the incompleteness theorem.)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
103JGL53
My original point was that the challenge traditionally offered by some theists to atheists "You can't prove god doesn't exist" is stupid beyond words.
And no one here seems to offer any real argument to the contrary.
So okeydokey.
And no one here seems to offer any real argument to the contrary.
So okeydokey.
104stevenhgl
Would you like to explain why said challenge is "stupid beyond words"?
And on that note, could you explain your thoughts on Russell's teacup?
And on that note, could you explain your thoughts on Russell's teacup?
105JGL53
> 104
1. Because one can't prove a universal negative, as any intelligent person should know, so challenging one to do so is stupid beyond words. (Besides the fact that those who yammer about the god they believe exists can and do move the goal posts of definition of god as they see fit.)
2. Are you referring perchance to Russell's teapot? Well, that is his illustration that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others.
I agree.
Those were easy. Got any difficult questions?
BTW, if you look up Russell's Teapot on Wikipedia you find this quote of Russell's that expresses my own position precisely and exactly:
"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.2"
1. Because one can't prove a universal negative, as any intelligent person should know, so challenging one to do so is stupid beyond words. (Besides the fact that those who yammer about the god they believe exists can and do move the goal posts of definition of god as they see fit.)
2. Are you referring perchance to Russell's teapot? Well, that is his illustration that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others.
I agree.
Those were easy. Got any difficult questions?
BTW, if you look up Russell's Teapot on Wikipedia you find this quote of Russell's that expresses my own position precisely and exactly:
"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely.2"
106rrp
Because one can't prove a universal negative.
But you just did. A universal negative is of the form "No S are P". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition#E_form)
Simply substitute S="a person who posts here under the label JGL53" and P="a person who understands logic" and you have proved it. Congratulations!
But you just did. A universal negative is of the form "No S are P". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_proposition#E_form)
Simply substitute S="a person who posts here under the label JGL53" and P="a person who understands logic" and you have proved it. Congratulations!
107jburlinson
> 64. Please point out my illogic.
Well, let's see. Here are a few examples. In # 66 you ask yourself (in # 64) "What?" And then you make a bizarre remark about the word "it".
Then, in # 69, you get flagged for telling yourself (in # 66), "you are either too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time." Then you vow to put yourself on ignore.
Then, in # 81 you say, " the only way we humans have to a real understanding of any thing is through science," when even a 2-year old could refute you. (How do you think a 2-year old has an understanding of any thing?)
Maybe "illogic" isn't the right word.
Well, let's see. Here are a few examples. In # 66 you ask yourself (in # 64) "What?" And then you make a bizarre remark about the word "it".
Then, in # 69, you get flagged for telling yourself (in # 66), "you are either too dumb to walk and chew gum at the same time." Then you vow to put yourself on ignore.
Then, in # 81 you say, " the only way we humans have to a real understanding of any thing is through science," when even a 2-year old could refute you. (How do you think a 2-year old has an understanding of any thing?)
Maybe "illogic" isn't the right word.
108Settings
>105 JGL53:
You are confusing "proving a negative" and "burden of proof." The word "universal" you added doesn't help. Just Google "can you prove a negative" or something like that.
>107 jburlinson:
I also believe the only way humans can have a real understanding of anything is through science. Why can even a 2-year old refute that? Things like logic and language are part of science's framework, and the definitions of "real" and "understanding" are too amorphous and depend too much on personal beliefs.
Edit- Nevermind, I missed your argument and I agree with you. I was only thinking of "real understanding of anything" as "advancing understanding of things," not instinctual knowledge.
You are confusing "proving a negative" and "burden of proof." The word "universal" you added doesn't help. Just Google "can you prove a negative" or something like that.
>107 jburlinson:
I also believe the only way humans can have a real understanding of anything is through science. Why can even a 2-year old refute that? Things like logic and language are part of science's framework, and the definitions of "real" and "understanding" are too amorphous and depend too much on personal beliefs.
Edit- Nevermind, I missed your argument and I agree with you. I was only thinking of "real understanding of anything" as "advancing understanding of things," not instinctual knowledge.
109jburlinson
> 108 (&81) Why can even a 2-year old refute that?
Can we agree that a 2-year old human is a human? Can we agree that a 2-year old human "has a real understanding" of something? (S)he can walk and talk, after all. How did (s)he acquire this understanding? Science? I think not. Having raised someone who was once 2 years old, I can tell you that, bright as he was/is, he was not propounding hypotheses at age two.
Can we agree that a 2-year old human is a human? Can we agree that a 2-year old human "has a real understanding" of something? (S)he can walk and talk, after all. How did (s)he acquire this understanding? Science? I think not. Having raised someone who was once 2 years old, I can tell you that, bright as he was/is, he was not propounding hypotheses at age two.
110timspalding
>109 jburlinson:
Right. The same might be said of a sea slug--that the only way they understand the world is through science.
Sure, if you define science as all perceptible physical reality--and no metaphysical reality--then you can argue that sea slugs are little scientists. But your "science" is thereby just begging the question we're all interested in answering.
Right. The same might be said of a sea slug--that the only way they understand the world is through science.
Sure, if you define science as all perceptible physical reality--and no metaphysical reality--then you can argue that sea slugs are little scientists. But your "science" is thereby just begging the question we're all interested in answering.
111JGL53
Science is the only real way of knowing - as opposed to the various types of superstitious false "knowledge" on offer.
Science is the only real way of knowing - in the public sphere, where a theory/observation can be retested again and again in an reliable way and thus verified to a greater and greater degree - or refuted - and actual discernible progress is made.
And "knowing" in the sense of knowing how reality is and how it works, ontologically and epistemologically speaking - not in the simplest sense wherein a two-year old knows not to touch a hot stove again after having touched it once.
Etc.
It would be nice if certain people would cease and desist from reading a worst-case scenario into every statement I make. (Not gonna happen, right?)
Really - either I am the worst communicator in the effing world, or some of you are just disingenuous to such a degree I want to slap your mothers. I.e., certain people here continue to take presumption of what I am "really" saying to some very strange places - where I have never been and will never go.
I am 64 years old and have no discernible problem in communicating to others in the real world and on a few other internet forums. It is only on the LT forum wherein misunderstanding and misinterpretation and reductio ad absurdum ad nauseam are pretty much all I can get out of certain people.
Is it me - or is it those certain people? Well, since this is the only place I experience this phenomenon as I tread my way cautiously through life, I'm thinking the latter.
Science is the only real way of knowing - in the public sphere, where a theory/observation can be retested again and again in an reliable way and thus verified to a greater and greater degree - or refuted - and actual discernible progress is made.
And "knowing" in the sense of knowing how reality is and how it works, ontologically and epistemologically speaking - not in the simplest sense wherein a two-year old knows not to touch a hot stove again after having touched it once.
Etc.
It would be nice if certain people would cease and desist from reading a worst-case scenario into every statement I make. (Not gonna happen, right?)
Really - either I am the worst communicator in the effing world, or some of you are just disingenuous to such a degree I want to slap your mothers. I.e., certain people here continue to take presumption of what I am "really" saying to some very strange places - where I have never been and will never go.
I am 64 years old and have no discernible problem in communicating to others in the real world and on a few other internet forums. It is only on the LT forum wherein misunderstanding and misinterpretation and reductio ad absurdum ad nauseam are pretty much all I can get out of certain people.
Is it me - or is it those certain people? Well, since this is the only place I experience this phenomenon as I tread my way cautiously through life, I'm thinking the latter.
112aleng
111: Really? I think it's because here you are communicating with more intelligent people who can see the potential flaws in your logic, and are happy to point them out. And is you make a large generality for a premise and use the premise to prove something, you can't expect us to think the proof is valid if you can easily construct an example that contradicts the generality.
113JGL53
> 112
"...I think it's because here you are communicating with more intelligent people who can see the potential flaws in your logic.."
You flatter yourself but, no, that is certainly not it. But thanks for the laugh.
"...you make a large generality for a premise and use the premise to prove something, you can't expect us to think the proof is valid if you can easily construct an example that contradicts the generality..."
That is so very wrong. If just "the truth of the matter" was the only concern of certain people then they would not assume that I always speak in absolutist and thus absurd terms. They instead would ask questions first like "Do you mean.....?" or "I might interpret your statement as .... is that correct or not?" or "In what context is that applicable...?"
But that never happens, or rarely so. Certain people disingenuously (or unintelligently?) immediately jump to absurd conclusions about what I am really saying, then put words in my mouth saying what they think or allege I said. That is unsanitary and wrong.
But I think I've complained enough now about the obvious failings of others. From now on when something I say here is distorted to hell and back by some disinterested searcher for the truth (ha) I will just merely restate what I said in clearer and more precise terms so that any non-schizophrenic person WILL be able to understand EXACTLY what I am saying without ASSUMING things not in evidence and WRONGLY contributing them to me.
I'm not sure I can explain all this more clearly. Am I breaking through the brick wall or will I need to elucidate further?
"...I think it's because here you are communicating with more intelligent people who can see the potential flaws in your logic.."
You flatter yourself but, no, that is certainly not it. But thanks for the laugh.
"...you make a large generality for a premise and use the premise to prove something, you can't expect us to think the proof is valid if you can easily construct an example that contradicts the generality..."
That is so very wrong. If just "the truth of the matter" was the only concern of certain people then they would not assume that I always speak in absolutist and thus absurd terms. They instead would ask questions first like "Do you mean.....?" or "I might interpret your statement as .... is that correct or not?" or "In what context is that applicable...?"
But that never happens, or rarely so. Certain people disingenuously (or unintelligently?) immediately jump to absurd conclusions about what I am really saying, then put words in my mouth saying what they think or allege I said. That is unsanitary and wrong.
But I think I've complained enough now about the obvious failings of others. From now on when something I say here is distorted to hell and back by some disinterested searcher for the truth (ha) I will just merely restate what I said in clearer and more precise terms so that any non-schizophrenic person WILL be able to understand EXACTLY what I am saying without ASSUMING things not in evidence and WRONGLY contributing them to me.
I'm not sure I can explain all this more clearly. Am I breaking through the brick wall or will I need to elucidate further?
114aleng
>133 jbbarret: My question is this: You have said multiple times you can't prove or disprove an universal negative, yet you don't show why this is necessarily true. If you are able to explain and prove your premise, then I can understand your logic, but otherwise, it looks like a bunch of idiotic rabble. Oh, and next time I put words in quotes, check through your posts to see if I'm quoting you.
115JGL53
> 114
"...You have said multiple times you can't prove or disprove an universal negative, yet you don't show why this is necessarily true. If you are able to explain and prove your premise..."
Really? You still think it possible to disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny - as an absolute?
I think we are done here.
"...You have said multiple times you can't prove or disprove an universal negative, yet you don't show why this is necessarily true. If you are able to explain and prove your premise..."
Really? You still think it possible to disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny - as an absolute?
I think we are done here.
116aleng
115: If you can show that scientific law prohibits the existence of such a being, then yes, you can disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny.
117JGL53
> 116
Lord love a duck and pass the potatoes...
Human understanding of what is or what is not an immutable "scientific law" changes sometimes and, in any case, does not initially come with an irrevocable guarantee.
Humans are by definition fallible. In any way conceivable.
Humans have no guarantee (that I know of) that ALL existing data relevant to a question of ontology can be had. (And even if it could how could we fallible humans have absolute knowledge of that? Plus, who knows for sure what may happen in the future? See David Hume.)
Thus your universal negative "The Easter Bunny does not exist." is forever beyond proof. Ditto any god you wish to posit.
(Rather than being an agnostic you seem to be arguing for gnosticism of some type. That's weird.)
Lord love a duck and pass the potatoes...
Human understanding of what is or what is not an immutable "scientific law" changes sometimes and, in any case, does not initially come with an irrevocable guarantee.
Humans are by definition fallible. In any way conceivable.
Humans have no guarantee (that I know of) that ALL existing data relevant to a question of ontology can be had. (And even if it could how could we fallible humans have absolute knowledge of that? Plus, who knows for sure what may happen in the future? See David Hume.)
Thus your universal negative "The Easter Bunny does not exist." is forever beyond proof. Ditto any god you wish to posit.
(Rather than being an agnostic you seem to be arguing for gnosticism of some type. That's weird.)
118aleng
>117 JGL53: Well, how about this: I say that there cannot be a planet with radius of 100 light years, made of pure plutonium, in this universe. This is because any such planet would instantly collapse on itself because of gravity. However, you say that
"Humans are by definition fallible. In any way conceivable.
Humans have no guarantee (that I know of) that ALL existing data relevant to a question of ontology can be had. (And even if it could how could we fallible humans have absolute knowledge of that? Plus, who knows for sure what may happen in the future? See David Hume.)"
Therefore, wouldn't it be reasonable for me to say that "You cannot trisect an angle in euclidean geometry with a finite number of steps?" I mean, by your claim, you can't possibly know all data relevant to trisecting an angle, right? So therefore, you cannot prove that it is impossible to trisect an angle in euclidean geometry with a finite number of steps.
"Humans are by definition fallible. In any way conceivable.
Humans have no guarantee (that I know of) that ALL existing data relevant to a question of ontology can be had. (And even if it could how could we fallible humans have absolute knowledge of that? Plus, who knows for sure what may happen in the future? See David Hume.)"
Therefore, wouldn't it be reasonable for me to say that "You cannot trisect an angle in euclidean geometry with a finite number of steps?" I mean, by your claim, you can't possibly know all data relevant to trisecting an angle, right? So therefore, you cannot prove that it is impossible to trisect an angle in euclidean geometry with a finite number of steps.
119JGL53
> 118
I am arguing against absolutism, not against a "beyond all reasonable doubt" standard. Perhaps that is where the big misunderstanding here lies.
I am certainly NOT an absolutist subjectivist, i.e., that if one can not know something with absolute certainty then one can know nothing at all and all theories are thus equal.
So- by any reasonable standard to every level of knowledge within the sphere of human understanding, a planet with a radius of 100 light years of pure plutonium cannot exist.
Yes. I can go with you there, just as with the existence of god theistically-defined (or defined non-materially in any way for that matter).
But in using the word "universal" with the word "cannot" I am saying there no absolute way to know X does not and cannot exist - that your planet CANNOT exist, that a god CANNOT exist - in an absolute sense of "cannot".
To elucidate I can offer an example involving an act rather than an ontological reality. If in a murder trial there is 110 separate pieces of evidence pointing to the accused person's guilt, and no real evidence pointing to his possible innocence, i.e., his defense attorney can offer no alternative theory of another person's guilt which the 12 jurors find plausible, then when the jury returns a verdict of guilty both you and I can agree that their verdict is completely rational.
If you go a step further and say guilt has been established absolutely then you and I part company.
Thus even a universal positive cannot be proven. Universal = 100 per cent guaranteed knowledge, based on a review of 100 per cent of the data in existence. Not gonna happen.
I am arguing against absolutism, not against a "beyond all reasonable doubt" standard. Perhaps that is where the big misunderstanding here lies.
I am certainly NOT an absolutist subjectivist, i.e., that if one can not know something with absolute certainty then one can know nothing at all and all theories are thus equal.
So- by any reasonable standard to every level of knowledge within the sphere of human understanding, a planet with a radius of 100 light years of pure plutonium cannot exist.
Yes. I can go with you there, just as with the existence of god theistically-defined (or defined non-materially in any way for that matter).
But in using the word "universal" with the word "cannot" I am saying there no absolute way to know X does not and cannot exist - that your planet CANNOT exist, that a god CANNOT exist - in an absolute sense of "cannot".
To elucidate I can offer an example involving an act rather than an ontological reality. If in a murder trial there is 110 separate pieces of evidence pointing to the accused person's guilt, and no real evidence pointing to his possible innocence, i.e., his defense attorney can offer no alternative theory of another person's guilt which the 12 jurors find plausible, then when the jury returns a verdict of guilty both you and I can agree that their verdict is completely rational.
If you go a step further and say guilt has been established absolutely then you and I part company.
Thus even a universal positive cannot be proven. Universal = 100 per cent guaranteed knowledge, based on a review of 100 per cent of the data in existence. Not gonna happen.
120Settings
>109 jburlinson:
Yes. I realized what you were saying 5 seconds after I posted and didn't edit fast enough.
Yes. I realized what you were saying 5 seconds after I posted and didn't edit fast enough.
121aleng
>119 JGL53: Okay, thank you for clarifying. However, you can prove something absolutely, given certain axioms. However, this is usually confined to mathematics and related things.
122jburlinson
> 120. This happens to me all the time. Timing is everything. Hope you're having a good day.
123JGL53
> 121
Yes, I agree, in math class it is fine for the professor to use absolutist terms in describing proofs.
In the real world I think it perfectly (ha ha) acceptable to emote poetically using whatever words you wish, e.g., "I absolutely love this lemon custard ice cream!"
But I think it best to stay away from serious pronouncements like "I absolutely know that X is true." or "It has been absolutely proved that X is true.", etc.
So I think we agree.
Yes, I agree, in math class it is fine for the professor to use absolutist terms in describing proofs.
In the real world I think it perfectly (ha ha) acceptable to emote poetically using whatever words you wish, e.g., "I absolutely love this lemon custard ice cream!"
But I think it best to stay away from serious pronouncements like "I absolutely know that X is true." or "It has been absolutely proved that X is true.", etc.
So I think we agree.
124aleng
>123 JGL53: I.E. in the "real world" (can I use "normal world"?), it's not a good idea to say "I know God exists" or "I'm sure there is no God".
125JGL53
> 124
Agreed.
A few years back I used to go to a large atheist forum and when a poll was taken regarding the use of absolutist language only one out of five atheists were basically willing to go on record as saying "I am sure there is no god." Another poll a year later turned up almost the exact same results - another 80/20 split among atheists being agnostic/dogmatists.
I was pleased to see that 80 per cent of atheists polled were agnostic atheists.
I wonder what per cent of western religionists are agnostic theists? I have no data on that but from experience I would guess the dogmatists would be a much higher per cent.
Agreed.
A few years back I used to go to a large atheist forum and when a poll was taken regarding the use of absolutist language only one out of five atheists were basically willing to go on record as saying "I am sure there is no god." Another poll a year later turned up almost the exact same results - another 80/20 split among atheists being agnostic/dogmatists.
I was pleased to see that 80 per cent of atheists polled were agnostic atheists.
I wonder what per cent of western religionists are agnostic theists? I have no data on that but from experience I would guess the dogmatists would be a much higher per cent.
126aleng
>125 JGL53: That would make sense-if you are an atheist because you fell it is more logical, then you should be an agnostic atheist, since absolutest atheism isn't logical either. I'd say that there's more dogmatic theists-you can just look at the number of young earth creationists in the US, and some of the things they've said.
127JGL53
> 126
Forget the crazy YECs - I'm not so sure that a majority - or even a impressive plurality - of what we might term liberal or sophisticated theists are agnostic theists.
E.g., I think if you asked a hundred Episcopalians picked at random "Do you know there is a god?" some extremely large per cent would answer "Why, yes, I do."
I think my point here is I see theists as accusing atheists as a group of a "sin" that they (the theists) are far more guilty of, on average.
And that's not right.
Forget the crazy YECs - I'm not so sure that a majority - or even a impressive plurality - of what we might term liberal or sophisticated theists are agnostic theists.
E.g., I think if you asked a hundred Episcopalians picked at random "Do you know there is a god?" some extremely large per cent would answer "Why, yes, I do."
I think my point here is I see theists as accusing atheists as a group of a "sin" that they (the theists) are far more guilty of, on average.
And that's not right.
128aleng
>127 JGL53: Possibly-a theist could say that they have faith, but they don't know, which would be the more reasonable answer. I have seen people who have said this.
129jbbarret
>127 JGL53:, 128 According to the Pew Forum U.S.Religious Landscape Survey , roughly seven-in-ten Americans say they are absolutely certain of God’s existence.
That report also shows the remakable statistic that 21 % of atheists in the United States believe in God or Universal Spirit, and that 8% of U.S. atheists are "absolutely certain" that such a being exists. Agnostics appear to be even more certain in their belief.
Sam Harris commented that Claiming to be an atheist who believes in God is like claiming to be a happily married bachelor. Rarely does one discover nonsense in such a pristine state. Still this hasn’t stopped many people from concluding that there is a schism in the atheist community. ... Among 35,556 people, Pew seems to have found 40 especially confused God-fearing men and women who think they are “atheists.”
That report also shows the remakable statistic that 21 % of atheists in the United States believe in God or Universal Spirit, and that 8% of U.S. atheists are "absolutely certain" that such a being exists. Agnostics appear to be even more certain in their belief.
Sam Harris commented that Claiming to be an atheist who believes in God is like claiming to be a happily married bachelor. Rarely does one discover nonsense in such a pristine state. Still this hasn’t stopped many people from concluding that there is a schism in the atheist community. ... Among 35,556 people, Pew seems to have found 40 especially confused God-fearing men and women who think they are “atheists.”
130paradoxosalpha
There are certainly blithe and regular churchgoers who firmly disbelieve in God. If people use "atheist" to mean voluntarily outside the bounds any of religious community, then the "nonsense" decried by Harris isn't as incoherent as he indicates.
131JGL53
> 129 > 130
Well there is quite a large area of confusion concerning the definition of "god", or even the word "spiritual", as we can see from these and similar polls.
That aside - just focusing on theists and atheists who stick to the traditional (in Harris's opinion "sensible") definition of such, I think I can discern a MUCH greater willingness by theists, a.k.a. believers, to go on record with absolutist language describing their position on god and such than do atheists (to reiterate, those "atheists" who Harris would view as proper atheists, i.e., philosophical materialists).
So I stick to what seems to be true as I stated in posts #125 and #127 as I still see no evidence to the contrary.
I.e., the charge of dogmatism directed by "believers" at atheists is a false generalization based in prejudice - and maybe even projection.
Are there any other false generalizations about atheists believed and proclaimed by "believers"? You bet your sweet bippy there are.
Does the false generalization problem go the other way too? Yes, of course. But does that fact constitute a good excuse? No.
But here's a analogy about the severity comparison -
Do some blacks fear that ALL white people may not be trustworthy friends - based on the historical treatment of many blacks by many whites? Yes, yes they do.
Is that right? No, no that is not right.
But can we understand how they got that way?
Yes, yes we can*.
* Pun?
Well there is quite a large area of confusion concerning the definition of "god", or even the word "spiritual", as we can see from these and similar polls.
That aside - just focusing on theists and atheists who stick to the traditional (in Harris's opinion "sensible") definition of such, I think I can discern a MUCH greater willingness by theists, a.k.a. believers, to go on record with absolutist language describing their position on god and such than do atheists (to reiterate, those "atheists" who Harris would view as proper atheists, i.e., philosophical materialists).
So I stick to what seems to be true as I stated in posts #125 and #127 as I still see no evidence to the contrary.
I.e., the charge of dogmatism directed by "believers" at atheists is a false generalization based in prejudice - and maybe even projection.
Are there any other false generalizations about atheists believed and proclaimed by "believers"? You bet your sweet bippy there are.
Does the false generalization problem go the other way too? Yes, of course. But does that fact constitute a good excuse? No.
But here's a analogy about the severity comparison -
Do some blacks fear that ALL white people may not be trustworthy friends - based on the historical treatment of many blacks by many whites? Yes, yes they do.
Is that right? No, no that is not right.
But can we understand how they got that way?
Yes, yes we can*.
* Pun?
132aleng
>129 jbbarret: Where is any mention of agnostics in your cited sources?
133jbbarret
Page 5 of the document, which is page 9 of the pdf has the table which shows the percentage of atheists and agnostics believing in god, and also in a "personal god", linked HERE.
The Certainty of Belief in God or Universal Spirit table is on page 9 of the document, page 13 of the pdf, linked HERE.
In both tables agnostics are shown in the 3rd line up from the bottom.
The Certainty of Belief in God or Universal Spirit table is on page 9 of the document, page 13 of the pdf, linked HERE.
In both tables agnostics are shown in the 3rd line up from the bottom.
134JGL53
> 132
E.g., page 110 lists per cent of U.S. population as:
Unaffiliated 16.1
(Atheist 1.6)
(Agnostic 2.4)
(Nothing in particular 12.1)
E.g., page 110 lists per cent of U.S. population as:
Unaffiliated 16.1
(Atheist 1.6)
(Agnostic 2.4)
(Nothing in particular 12.1)
135jbbarret
No doubt those posting on this forum, who have a better understanding of statistics than I have, could claim that the margin of error in the research makes the findings about such a small percentage of the population meaningless. However, it is an amusing sideline. We in the UK can smugly say, "Do you know that 21% of American atheists believe in God?".
But the results for "true believers" are significant enough to support JGL's claim in #127.
But the results for "true believers" are significant enough to support JGL's claim in #127.
136quicksiva
>134 JGL53:
Atheists should stop trying to claim that all or most of the "Unaffiliated" 16.1%, the "Agnostic" 2.4%, or those who call themselves "Nothing in particular" 12.1%' should be considered as closet "Atheist" 1.6%.
Atheists should stop trying to claim that all or most of the "Unaffiliated" 16.1%, the "Agnostic" 2.4%, or those who call themselves "Nothing in particular" 12.1%' should be considered as closet "Atheist" 1.6%.
137aleng
>133 jbbarret: By definition, if you are actually an agnostic, you do not believe in god.
138timspalding
>137 aleng:
An eternal debate. For many agnostics, you don't believe there isn't a god either. You're genuinely unsure whether there is.
There are, of course, a tiny minority of agnostics with the developed notion that atheists are all really agnostics. They don't absolutely disbelieve in a God, because you can't prove a negative, but they are not in a position of doubt. I think that sort of view is very much the minority among agnostics, who are usually somewhere on the fence, not one one side of the fence sophistically claiming that their side of the fence is the default position.
An eternal debate. For many agnostics, you don't believe there isn't a god either. You're genuinely unsure whether there is.
There are, of course, a tiny minority of agnostics with the developed notion that atheists are all really agnostics. They don't absolutely disbelieve in a God, because you can't prove a negative, but they are not in a position of doubt. I think that sort of view is very much the minority among agnostics, who are usually somewhere on the fence, not one one side of the fence sophistically claiming that their side of the fence is the default position.
139aleng
>138 timspalding: That is true by definition-an agnostic is someone who is unsure about the existence or non-existence of God or gods.
140stevenhgl
138: I've learned through experience that if someone identifies themselves as either "agnostic" or "atheist" it's a really good idea to begin asking follow-up questions-everyone has a different personal definition for those two words.
141JGL53
> 138 > 139
I believe if you read T. Huxley's book defining what he meant by "agnosticism" you will probably just get confused. But is seems that what he was getting at - in his own uniquely convoluted way - was that absolutism is bad and is to be avoided. I.e., he was bummed out by both sides - in his era - being rather dogmatic and absolutist in their language.
He could have avoided creating a new and confusing word by just calling himself a non-absolutist atheist. Which he was.
Huxley did not see theism as a creditable concept, he just wanted to emphasize we should never rule any idea out absolutely.
To say that you are "unsure" of the reality of theistic claims, or to say you neither believe nor disbelieve in such claims - what does that really mean? If one were to substitute astrology or the god Thor or scientology or leprechauns or the evil eye in the place of "theistic claims" in the above sentence, would that make any sense? I am thinking not.
Then why the exception for a theistic god or soul/matter duality or Christianity or supernatural miracle, etc.?
This is why I readily admit to being an agnostic atheist - to show these are not points on a sliding scale but below to different sliding scales.
I am an agnostic and I am an atheist. I do not KNOW and I do not BELIEVE.
I also do not care - in any serious way - about the subject (because of the agnosticism), i.e., the subject is just a form of entertainment. So I guess that I am most importantly an ignostic and an apatheist:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090208134234AAYwh8m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
........
And of course there is the option of primitive allognosticism - see
http://hermetic.com/dionysos/apatheist.htm
fourth paragraph:
"...The bulk of American "Christianity" can be described as allognostic, from the Greek root allo, meaning "other." Allognosticism consists of the belief that direct human experience of the divine is possible only for other people, such as the Pope, Old Testament Prophets, popular televangelists or dead relatives. It is sometimes codified in a doctrine of sacerdotalism: the requirement that a priest intercede on behalf of the worshipper in order to make religion efficacious. Allognosticism should invite derision from any thinking individual. In the contemporary development of American mass culture, allognosticism is implicit everywhere, to the point that it discredits most established religious forms..."
I believe if you read T. Huxley's book defining what he meant by "agnosticism" you will probably just get confused. But is seems that what he was getting at - in his own uniquely convoluted way - was that absolutism is bad and is to be avoided. I.e., he was bummed out by both sides - in his era - being rather dogmatic and absolutist in their language.
He could have avoided creating a new and confusing word by just calling himself a non-absolutist atheist. Which he was.
Huxley did not see theism as a creditable concept, he just wanted to emphasize we should never rule any idea out absolutely.
To say that you are "unsure" of the reality of theistic claims, or to say you neither believe nor disbelieve in such claims - what does that really mean? If one were to substitute astrology or the god Thor or scientology or leprechauns or the evil eye in the place of "theistic claims" in the above sentence, would that make any sense? I am thinking not.
Then why the exception for a theistic god or soul/matter duality or Christianity or supernatural miracle, etc.?
This is why I readily admit to being an agnostic atheist - to show these are not points on a sliding scale but below to different sliding scales.
I am an agnostic and I am an atheist. I do not KNOW and I do not BELIEVE.
I also do not care - in any serious way - about the subject (because of the agnosticism), i.e., the subject is just a form of entertainment. So I guess that I am most importantly an ignostic and an apatheist:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090208134234AAYwh8m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apatheism
........
And of course there is the option of primitive allognosticism - see
http://hermetic.com/dionysos/apatheist.htm
fourth paragraph:
"...The bulk of American "Christianity" can be described as allognostic, from the Greek root allo, meaning "other." Allognosticism consists of the belief that direct human experience of the divine is possible only for other people, such as the Pope, Old Testament Prophets, popular televangelists or dead relatives. It is sometimes codified in a doctrine of sacerdotalism: the requirement that a priest intercede on behalf of the worshipper in order to make religion efficacious. Allognosticism should invite derision from any thinking individual. In the contemporary development of American mass culture, allognosticism is implicit everywhere, to the point that it discredits most established religious forms..."
142JGL53
> 140
In this book by Huxley he says that each self-identified agnostic has the right to define agnosticism individually for himself or herself. So right there is your problem:
http://www.amazon.com/Agnosticism-Christianity-Other-Essays-Great/dp/0879757493/...
In this book by Huxley he says that each self-identified agnostic has the right to define agnosticism individually for himself or herself. So right there is your problem:
http://www.amazon.com/Agnosticism-Christianity-Other-Essays-Great/dp/0879757493/...
143jbbarret
>137 aleng: Precisely.
If I were an interviewee in such research, and had answered to one question that I am an agnostic or atheist, I would find it rather perverse to be asked subsequently whether I believed in god. Perhaps that says something about the structure of the research.
If I were an interviewee in such research, and had answered to one question that I am an agnostic or atheist, I would find it rather perverse to be asked subsequently whether I believed in god. Perhaps that says something about the structure of the research.
144JGL53
> 143
They do things like that on psychological tests to look for consistency and to see if you are lying.
They do things like that on psychological tests to look for consistency and to see if you are lying.
145rrp
because you can't prove a negative
I am sorry, but this has really gone too far when a sensible person like Tim (#138) propagates this common misconception. You really can prove a negative, even a universal negative.
Accepting that the meaning of the words vary, what we is generally meant when someone uses the phrase "you can't prove a negative" is that we cannot prove one of the two categorical statements, E: "There are no things in the category S that are also in the category P" or O: "Some things in the category S are not in the category P", where S and P represent two different categories of things. Both of these are labeled negative categorical propositions.
Now it is easy to show how a statement of the form O could be proved, just find one thing in category S that is not in category P. To prove that there are some bottles of beer that are not among the things in my fridge, I can show you a bottle of beer that is not in my fridge.
Now, it's the E form, the universal form, that is taken to be unprovable. But, again, that's not universally true. The universal version of beer bottles and fridges would be "There are no bottles of beer among the things in my fridge." And I can prove that to you by showing you there are no bottles of beer in my fridge. I have proved a universal negative. If the categories S and P are defined suitably, we can prove any universal negative.
Another way of looking at is that that the universal negative is the complement of the universal affirmative. "No S are P" is logically equivalent to "All P are Q" where Q is the category "not S" ("No swans are black" is equivalent to "All black things are non-swans".) Science often relies on the principle of induction, and a scientist might prove that no swans are black by accumulating many observations of black things which are non-swans. Enough observations of black non-swans would convince the scientific community that no swans are black, proving a universal negative.
What everyone really wants to say here is that no one can prove the statement "God does not exist". The difficulty lies not with the logical universal negative form of the statement but in the categories "God" and "exist", and in particular whether "God" and "existence" are even categories in the first place.
I am sorry, but this has really gone too far when a sensible person like Tim (#138) propagates this common misconception. You really can prove a negative, even a universal negative.
Accepting that the meaning of the words vary, what we is generally meant when someone uses the phrase "you can't prove a negative" is that we cannot prove one of the two categorical statements, E: "There are no things in the category S that are also in the category P" or O: "Some things in the category S are not in the category P", where S and P represent two different categories of things. Both of these are labeled negative categorical propositions.
Now it is easy to show how a statement of the form O could be proved, just find one thing in category S that is not in category P. To prove that there are some bottles of beer that are not among the things in my fridge, I can show you a bottle of beer that is not in my fridge.
Now, it's the E form, the universal form, that is taken to be unprovable. But, again, that's not universally true. The universal version of beer bottles and fridges would be "There are no bottles of beer among the things in my fridge." And I can prove that to you by showing you there are no bottles of beer in my fridge. I have proved a universal negative. If the categories S and P are defined suitably, we can prove any universal negative.
Another way of looking at is that that the universal negative is the complement of the universal affirmative. "No S are P" is logically equivalent to "All P are Q" where Q is the category "not S" ("No swans are black" is equivalent to "All black things are non-swans".) Science often relies on the principle of induction, and a scientist might prove that no swans are black by accumulating many observations of black things which are non-swans. Enough observations of black non-swans would convince the scientific community that no swans are black, proving a universal negative.
What everyone really wants to say here is that no one can prove the statement "God does not exist". The difficulty lies not with the logical universal negative form of the statement but in the categories "God" and "exist", and in particular whether "God" and "existence" are even categories in the first place.
146vy0123
I am an agnostic and I am an atheist. I do not KNOW and I do not BELIEVE.
Is that disbeliefinat the unknowable?
What about Pooper's Objective Knowledge? Squeezed down to …
belief is an insecure kind of human knowledge
Is that disbelief
What about Pooper's Objective Knowledge? Squeezed down to …
knowledge is a secure kind of human belief,- and -
scientific knowledge is a secure kind of human knowledge
belief is an insecure kind of human knowledge
147JGL53
> 146
I have no position on the unknowable. It's unknowable. I really don't have a method for identifying the unknowable.
I do know what I do believe and I do know what I don't believe - believe/disbelieve beyond any reasonable doubt (I must clarify).
I tend to be as skeptical of claims of the supernatural and of the paranormal (as traditionally defined) as it is humanly possible to be.
I don't tend to believe right off the bat in conspiracy theory either. I do accept there are some conspiracies now and in the past but my belief in them is based on what I consider good evidence - evidence which, in my humble opinion, is itself highly improbable of being a production of conspiracy.
I tend to accept science as The way of knowing. I think I mentioned that before. Maybe I am wrong but it has worked for me for 64 years so I have confidence I am not being made a fool of by conspiratorial scientists.
Of course I am aware that, e.g., many christians also say they believe in what they believe because it works for them. So there you go - loggerheads, I suppose.
Rather than use the words knowledge, belief, or faith maybe I should say I have certain positive understandings and convictions that I can defend intellectually, conceding that new information could theoretically come forth in the future that would cause me to seriously reassess or change in one or more of my convictions. If that happens then great.
I have met people who are of the school of "My opinions change but not the fact that I am right." I try not to be like that. When I am proved wrong, or not exactly right, I give it up. I could actually give you examples of when I changed my thinking on some serious subjects due to exposure to previously unknown evidence and then readily conceded I was wrong.
BTW, one of my intellectual heroes was the late psychologist Albert Ellis. Now there was a guy who took his agnosticism seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Ellis
See "Ellis and Religion"
I have no position on the unknowable. It's unknowable. I really don't have a method for identifying the unknowable.
I do know what I do believe and I do know what I don't believe - believe/disbelieve beyond any reasonable doubt (I must clarify).
I tend to be as skeptical of claims of the supernatural and of the paranormal (as traditionally defined) as it is humanly possible to be.
I don't tend to believe right off the bat in conspiracy theory either. I do accept there are some conspiracies now and in the past but my belief in them is based on what I consider good evidence - evidence which, in my humble opinion, is itself highly improbable of being a production of conspiracy.
I tend to accept science as The way of knowing. I think I mentioned that before. Maybe I am wrong but it has worked for me for 64 years so I have confidence I am not being made a fool of by conspiratorial scientists.
Of course I am aware that, e.g., many christians also say they believe in what they believe because it works for them. So there you go - loggerheads, I suppose.
Rather than use the words knowledge, belief, or faith maybe I should say I have certain positive understandings and convictions that I can defend intellectually, conceding that new information could theoretically come forth in the future that would cause me to seriously reassess or change in one or more of my convictions. If that happens then great.
I have met people who are of the school of "My opinions change but not the fact that I am right." I try not to be like that. When I am proved wrong, or not exactly right, I give it up. I could actually give you examples of when I changed my thinking on some serious subjects due to exposure to previously unknown evidence and then readily conceded I was wrong.
BTW, one of my intellectual heroes was the late psychologist Albert Ellis. Now there was a guy who took his agnosticism seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Ellis
See "Ellis and Religion"
148vy0123
Comte revealed his conception of the ideal positivist society in his System of Positive Polity. He believed that the organization of the Roman Catholic church, divorced from Christian theology, could provide a structural and symbolic model for the new society, though Comte substituted a “religion of humanity” for the worship of God. A spiritual priesthood of secular sociologists would guide society and control education and public morality. The actual administration of the government and of the economy would be in the hands of businessmen and bankers, while the maintenance of private morality would be the province of women as wives and mothers.
…
By arranging the six basic and pure sciences one upon the other in a pyramid, Comte prepared the way for logical positivism to “reduce” each level to the one below it. He placed at the fundamental level the science that does not presuppose any other sciences—viz., mathematics—and then ordered the levels above it in such a way that each science depends upon, and makes use of, the sciences below it on the scale: thus, arithmetic and the theory of numbers are declared to be presuppositions for geometry and mechanics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology (including physiology), and sociology. Each higher level science, in turn, adds to the knowledge content of the science or sciences on the levels below, thus enriching this content by successive specialization.
…
the genuine task of philosophy is to clarify the meanings of basic concepts and assertions (especially those of science)—and not to attempt to answer unanswerable questions such as those regarding the nature of ultimate reality or of the Absolute.
…
innate idea, in philosophy, an idea allegedly inborn in the human mind, as contrasted with those received or compiled from experience. The doctrine that at least certain ideas (e.g., those of God, infinity, substance) must be innate, because no satisfactory empirical origin of them could be conceived, flourished in the 17th century and found in René Descartes its most prominent exponent. The theory took many forms: some held that a newborn child has an explicit awareness of such ideas; others, more commonly, maintained that innate ideas have some implicit form, either as a tendency or as a dormant capacity for their formulation, which in either case would require favourable experiential conditions for their development.
…
the French theologian and philosopher Nicolas Malebranche (1638–1715), believed with Descartes that animals are merely machines and thus incapable of thought or feeling; he is said to have kicked a pregnant dog and then to have chastised critics such as Jean de La Fontaine (1621–95), the French writer of animal fables, for expending their emotions over such inconsiderable creatures rather than concerning themselves with human misery. In Paris, the lectures of Pierre-Sylvain Régis (1632–1707) on Cartesian physics—which he accompanied with spectacular demonstrations of physical phenomena such as optical illusions—created such a sensation that Louis XIV forbade them. Because Cartesianism challenged the traditional Aristotelian science, which was supported by the Roman Catholic Church, and because the church also stood behind the so-called “divine right” of kings to rule, the king feared that any criticism of traditional authority might give rise to revolution. (Later, in the 18th century, Descartes’s emphasis on the ability of each individual to think for himself lent support to the cause of republicanism.)
source: eb.com
149JGL53
> 148 "...the genuine task of philosophy is to clarify the meanings of basic concepts and assertions (especially those of science)—and not to attempt to answer unanswerable questions such as those regarding the nature of ultimate reality or of the Absolute..."
Yes.
So whose job is it, if any, "to attempt to answer unanswerable questions such as those regarding the nature of ultimate reality or of the Absolute."?
Also, now do we discern with absolute confidence what is an unanswerable question (outside of mathematics, of course) as opposed to answerable in theory questions?
Yes.
So whose job is it, if any, "to attempt to answer unanswerable questions such as those regarding the nature of ultimate reality or of the Absolute."?
Also, now do we discern with absolute confidence what is an unanswerable question (outside of mathematics, of course) as opposed to answerable in theory questions?
150rrp
#148 The actual administration of the government and of the economy would be in the hands of businessmen and bankers
It good to see that Comte got at least one thing right.
It good to see that Comte got at least one thing right.
152rrp
And before we again get carried away by the wonders of science and it's unique path to knowledge, it is worth pointing out that science tells us that "Most Published Research Findings Are False."
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
153vy0123
Cartesians were forced to satisfy themselves with uncertainty in science because they believed that God is omnipotent and that his will is entirely free; from this it follows that God could, if he so wished, make any apparent truth a falsehood and any apparent falsehood—even a logical contradiction—a truth. The human intellect, by contrast, is finite; thus, humans can be certain only of what God reveals and of the fact that they and God exist. Descartes argues that one has certain knowledge of one’s own existence because one cannot think without knowing that one exists; this insight is expressed as “Cogito, ergo sum” (Latin: “I think, therefore I am”) in his Discourse on Method (1637) and as “I think, I am” in his Meditations (1641). In the Meditations, Descartes also argues that because we are finite, we cannot generate an idea of infinity, yet we have an idea of an infinite God, and thus God must exist to cause us to have that idea. He also says that although we have no direct acquaintance with the material world, not even with our own bodies, but only with ideas that represent the material world, we cannot know the material world directly. We know it exists only because God is not a deceiver.
…
Human beings learn by experience what to seek and to avoid, and the memory of these experiences is preserved in the brain. Once the body dies, however, both the need for sensible ideas and their memory traces in the brain are destroyed. All the soul knows of matter after death is the general idea of extension. Because all bodily associations and memories are eliminated, however, individual personality is lost; each human being survives death only as an impersonal soul, identical to all other bodiless souls. Like the notion that animals are mere machines, the Cartesian conclusion that the sensible manifestations of this life are neither continued nor remembered in the next was unpopular.
source: eb.com
___
“We must try to return, in history, to that zero point in the course of madness at which madness is an undifferentiated experience, a not yet divided experience of division itself.”
in Foucault's Madness and Civilization
154JGL53
> 153
Well, I will never bother to argue in a serious manner against the armchair philosophizing of either Foucault or Descartes.
- Because I can't make sense of 95 per cent Foucault's writings - maybe he is talking over my head, maybe he is talking bull pucky- who the hell knows, I sure as hell don't.
- Because Descartes's speculations were either obviously wrong, esp. in the light of subsequent scientific progress, or when true they were just statements of the obvious, or they were otherwise just meaningless expressions concerning non-falsifiable concepts.
Or maybe I just don't "get" French philosophers because I am only reading the translations. lol.
Well, I will never bother to argue in a serious manner against the armchair philosophizing of either Foucault or Descartes.
- Because I can't make sense of 95 per cent Foucault's writings - maybe he is talking over my head, maybe he is talking bull pucky- who the hell knows, I sure as hell don't.
- Because Descartes's speculations were either obviously wrong, esp. in the light of subsequent scientific progress, or when true they were just statements of the obvious, or they were otherwise just meaningless expressions concerning non-falsifiable concepts.
Or maybe I just don't "get" French philosophers because I am only reading the translations. lol.
155Arctic-Stranger
153
Nice quote from Foucault. I am currently doing a paper on a therapeutic method derived from his philosophy in Discipline and Punish (narrative therapy). I have found his insights difficult and rewarding.
Nice quote from Foucault. I am currently doing a paper on a therapeutic method derived from his philosophy in Discipline and Punish (narrative therapy). I have found his insights difficult and rewarding.
156JGL53
> 155
And that is why we all love Arctic-Stranger so much. He is a loving christian AND a bona fide genius.
And humble too.
And that is why we all love Arctic-Stranger so much. He is a loving christian AND a bona fide genius.
And humble too.
157rrp
#155 Nice quote from Foucault.
If you can explain it to us mere mortals, I am sure we would appreciate the insight.
If you can explain it to us mere mortals, I am sure we would appreciate the insight.
158Arctic-Stranger
it is all about power. And reconstructing the narrative to allocate power along different lines.
159rrp
Like sending electrical power down different distribution lines; routing it via Oklahoma rather than Arkansas? But only in a scene in a novel, which is being revised.
I know it probably means something else, but we would probably need a graduate course in the meaning of the words "power" and "reconstructing the narrative", because I haven't a clue what you could mean by them.
I know it probably means something else, but we would probably need a graduate course in the meaning of the words "power" and "reconstructing the narrative", because I haven't a clue what you could mean by them.
160jburlinson
> 159. “We must try to return, in history, to that zero point in the course of madness at which madness is an undifferentiated experience, a not yet divided experience of division itself.”
It might be interesting if we were each to take a crack at explicating this sentence. To me, it says the following: We all, individually and collectively, are born into a world of division and chaos. Perceptions and sensations that have no meaning and no coherence. Put biblically, "without form and void." In short, it is a mad world and our mentality upon first confronting it is pure undifferentiated madness. We are mad -- at one with a mad universe, our minds equal to and undifferentiated from the division and chaos that surrounds us. Slowly, we start to painstakingly build a structure of conscious coherence, dividing out pieces of the chaos in a manner analogous to God's creation. Perhaps this construction of seeming coherence is God's creation. At any rate, we are involved in a process of differentiating experience which gives us the impression we are becoming less mad and the world in which we exist is making sense. This does not mean that we are no less mad, however; we are only mad in a different way -- in a way that inauthentically postulates a sane world.
It might be interesting if we were each to take a crack at explicating this sentence. To me, it says the following: We all, individually and collectively, are born into a world of division and chaos. Perceptions and sensations that have no meaning and no coherence. Put biblically, "without form and void." In short, it is a mad world and our mentality upon first confronting it is pure undifferentiated madness. We are mad -- at one with a mad universe, our minds equal to and undifferentiated from the division and chaos that surrounds us. Slowly, we start to painstakingly build a structure of conscious coherence, dividing out pieces of the chaos in a manner analogous to God's creation. Perhaps this construction of seeming coherence is God's creation. At any rate, we are involved in a process of differentiating experience which gives us the impression we are becoming less mad and the world in which we exist is making sense. This does not mean that we are no less mad, however; we are only mad in a different way -- in a way that inauthentically postulates a sane world.
161rrp
#160
Seriously. That's very interesting. But how did you do that? As I said, I don't really know where to start. Someone presumably translated Foucault's french into English, but it is not a version of English I am familiar with. One thing I find difficult to do is separate trying to understand what he is saying from criticizing what I think he is saying. And why should we have to explicate it in the first place. Why didn't he just say what he meant in a way that communicates understanding to the reader?
This is how I react to it...
"We must try to return" -- OK, that's straight forward.
"in history" -- I suppose he means "in time", so why say "history"? Perhaps he means to a previous "version", but of what. Of ourself? If so, why not say "return to a previous version of ourself"?
"to that zero point " -- the only zero points I can think of are the origin of the number line, absolute zero temperature, zero point energy in quantum physics and the point in space at which a bomb is exploded. But what any of those have to do with madness I don't know. It's not the point of zero madness apparently, because there is madness not no madness (zero madness) so it doesn't make any sense at all.
"in the course of madness" -- OK, that's straight forward
"at which madness is an undifferentiated experience" -- when you are mad but you don't know that you are mad? Isn't it true that most people who are mad never recognize that they are mad? So this sentence can't apply to them. Getting more confused.
"a not yet divided experience of division itself" -- and now I am completely lost. What on earth is a divided experience? Two different experiences of the same thing at the same time? That's not possible it is? And what is "division itself"? A division implies division of two or more things, it doesn't have meaning independently of the things it divides (unless it is something like a military division, which is a large body of soldiers).
Seriously. That's very interesting. But how did you do that? As I said, I don't really know where to start. Someone presumably translated Foucault's french into English, but it is not a version of English I am familiar with. One thing I find difficult to do is separate trying to understand what he is saying from criticizing what I think he is saying. And why should we have to explicate it in the first place. Why didn't he just say what he meant in a way that communicates understanding to the reader?
This is how I react to it...
"We must try to return" -- OK, that's straight forward.
"in history" -- I suppose he means "in time", so why say "history"? Perhaps he means to a previous "version", but of what. Of ourself? If so, why not say "return to a previous version of ourself"?
"to that zero point " -- the only zero points I can think of are the origin of the number line, absolute zero temperature, zero point energy in quantum physics and the point in space at which a bomb is exploded. But what any of those have to do with madness I don't know. It's not the point of zero madness apparently, because there is madness not no madness (zero madness) so it doesn't make any sense at all.
"in the course of madness" -- OK, that's straight forward
"at which madness is an undifferentiated experience" -- when you are mad but you don't know that you are mad? Isn't it true that most people who are mad never recognize that they are mad? So this sentence can't apply to them. Getting more confused.
"a not yet divided experience of division itself" -- and now I am completely lost. What on earth is a divided experience? Two different experiences of the same thing at the same time? That's not possible it is? And what is "division itself"? A division implies division of two or more things, it doesn't have meaning independently of the things it divides (unless it is something like a military division, which is a large body of soldiers).
162JGL53
Apropos of nothing much, there is nothing sadder in life than the death of your favorite beaver:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/dog-mourns-beaver-video_n_3166292.html
And Descartes, obviously, was an A-hole.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/dog-mourns-beaver-video_n_3166292.html
And Descartes, obviously, was an A-hole.
163vy0123
One of the strongest contemporary attacks on traditional Cartesian dualism is that of the British philosopher Gilbert Ryle (1900–76). In The Concept of Mind (1949), Ryle dismisses the Cartesian view as the fallacy of “the ghost in the machine,” arguing that the mind—the ghost—is really just the intelligent behaviour of the body. A different criticism has been advanced by the American pragmatist Richard Rorty (1931–2007), who claims (in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature 1979 and other works) that the Cartesian demand for certain knowledge of an objectively existing world through representative ideas is a holdover from the mistaken quest for God. That is, whereas certain knowledge of God’s existence may be necessary for salvation, to seek certainty in science and in the ordinary affairs of life is both hopeless and unnecessary. Philosophy in the Cartesian tradition, Rorty contends, is the 20th century’s substitute for theology and should, like the concept of God, be gently laid to rest.
…
Searle believes that consciousness, like digestion, is a biological phenomenon (albeit a very complex one) that can in principle be fully explained in scientific terms.
…
Locke helped to draft The Fundamental Constitutions for the Government of Carolina (1669), which, among other provisions, guaranteed freedom of religion for all save atheists.
…
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689), began at a meeting with friends in his rooms, probably in February 1671. The group had gathered to consider questions of morality and revealed religion (knowledge of God derived through revelation). Locke pointed out that, before they could make progress, they would need to consider the prior question of what the human mind is (and is not) capable of comprehending.
…
according to Locke, in the state of nature one is not entitled to hoard surplus produce—one must share it with those less fortunate. God has “given the World to Men in common…to make use of to the best advantage of Life, and convenience.” The introduction of money, while radically changing the economic base of society, was itself a contingent development, for money has no intrinsic value but depends for its utility only on convention.
source: eb.com
164JGL53
> 163
Well I never. When it came to freedom of speech questions it is Locke who is the A-hole. Although he was right about money, obviously.
I've been aping this Rorty fellow here at LT forums and didn't even know it. I'm sure his lessors put him down in his time for being anti-absolutist too. (The cross-to-bear cliché comes to mind here.)
Descartes believed that only human beings had souls and that all non-human animals were automatons who didn't even experience emotions.
Rather than an A-hole, I will retract that and identify Descartes instead as a narcissistic craphead.
Well I never. When it came to freedom of speech questions it is Locke who is the A-hole. Although he was right about money, obviously.
I've been aping this Rorty fellow here at LT forums and didn't even know it. I'm sure his lessors put him down in his time for being anti-absolutist too. (The cross-to-bear cliché comes to mind here.)
Descartes believed that only human beings had souls and that all non-human animals were automatons who didn't even experience emotions.
Rather than an A-hole, I will retract that and identify Descartes instead as a narcissistic craphead.
165jburlinson
> 163. Searle believes that consciousness, like digestion, is a biological phenomenon (albeit a very complex one) that can in principle be fully explained in scientific terms.
That suggests that the contents of consciousness (like God and hamburgers) are biological ingredients like those of digestion (like hamburgers), in a very complex way, of course.
That suggests that the contents of consciousness (like God and hamburgers) are biological ingredients like those of digestion (like hamburgers), in a very complex way, of course.
166vy0123
The significance of Locke’s vision of political society can scarcely be exaggerated. His integration of individualism within the framework of the law of nature and his account of the origins and limits of legitimate government authority inspired the U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) and the broad outlines of the system of government adopted in the U.S. Constitution. George Washington, the first president of the United States, once described Locke as “the greatest man who had ever lived.” In France too, Lockean principles found clear expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and other justifications of the French Revolution of 1789.
…
Locke’s works is the best available introduction to the intellectual environment of the modern Western world. His faith in the salutary, ennobling powers of knowledge justifies his reputation as the first philosopher of the Enlightenment.
source: eb.com
167Arctic-Stranger
Sorry I have been working on a paper all yesterday, which I discovered was NOT due last night, it is due NEXT Monday!
“We must try to return, in history, to that zero point in the course of madness at which madness is an undifferentiated experience, a not yet divided experience of division itself.”
A to the quote, it is from Madness and Civilization, where Foucault proposes that before the Age of Reason, madness was seen as a different way of knowing. (The best example of this is the Russian notion that the insane (probably referring to schizophrenics and people with bipolar disorder) were considered to be holy men and women, and saw reality in a different way than other people. When the Age of Reason took sway, these people were viewed much like the church views heretics--the apostasy of madness, and were punished, not revered for their crimes. What Foucault is getting at in the quote is a return to an age where Reason is not the be all and end all that drive modern persecution. In Discipline and Punish he takes this further, and says that society is responsible, not for punishing criminals, but for REFORMING them. They have strayed from the straight and narrow and again, rather than calling them bad or evil, we see it as a breach of reason, and try to rehabilitate that person back into reasonable society.
You also see this argument in Karen Armstrong's book on the crusades, where she makes the argument that the modernization of Spain required a populace that was more uniform, i.e. held to the same notions of reason, and anyone who deviated from those notions (Jews) were subject to persecution.
We see that on here when a member says that anyone who believes in Creation Science should be banished from society.
For Foucault this is a power move by the dominant society to perpetuate their power. As a gay man, he was always interested in societal outcasts, be they "saints" (he was working on a biography of St. Antony when he died) or "sinners" (the mentally ill, sexual deviants, criminals).
In terms of narrative therapy, the job is to take the given societal construct (two gay men cannot be fathers, because fathers are not nurturing) and help the clients reconstruct a new narrative based on the real constructs of their own lives. Foucault believes that society places constructs on people to keep them in their place.
Something like that.
“We must try to return, in history, to that zero point in the course of madness at which madness is an undifferentiated experience, a not yet divided experience of division itself.”
A to the quote, it is from Madness and Civilization, where Foucault proposes that before the Age of Reason, madness was seen as a different way of knowing. (The best example of this is the Russian notion that the insane (probably referring to schizophrenics and people with bipolar disorder) were considered to be holy men and women, and saw reality in a different way than other people. When the Age of Reason took sway, these people were viewed much like the church views heretics--the apostasy of madness, and were punished, not revered for their crimes. What Foucault is getting at in the quote is a return to an age where Reason is not the be all and end all that drive modern persecution. In Discipline and Punish he takes this further, and says that society is responsible, not for punishing criminals, but for REFORMING them. They have strayed from the straight and narrow and again, rather than calling them bad or evil, we see it as a breach of reason, and try to rehabilitate that person back into reasonable society.
You also see this argument in Karen Armstrong's book on the crusades, where she makes the argument that the modernization of Spain required a populace that was more uniform, i.e. held to the same notions of reason, and anyone who deviated from those notions (Jews) were subject to persecution.
We see that on here when a member says that anyone who believes in Creation Science should be banished from society.
For Foucault this is a power move by the dominant society to perpetuate their power. As a gay man, he was always interested in societal outcasts, be they "saints" (he was working on a biography of St. Antony when he died) or "sinners" (the mentally ill, sexual deviants, criminals).
In terms of narrative therapy, the job is to take the given societal construct (two gay men cannot be fathers, because fathers are not nurturing) and help the clients reconstruct a new narrative based on the real constructs of their own lives. Foucault believes that society places constructs on people to keep them in their place.
Something like that.
168JGL53
> 165
The use of the phrase "the contents of consciousness" makes consciousness and/or its alleged constituents, into a thing, like a hamburger.
There is no evidence that consciousness is a thing - it is an adjective, or a verb at best.
Consciousness seem to be a function or a description, not a thing. It is what the brain does, as the stomach digests. Can it be proven otherwise? I say no.
> 166
So Locke was really a great guy who just happened to be unreasonably prejudiced against atheists. He thought they were somehow less than human - or not deserving of the same level of political rights as non-atheists.
Well that's a fine kettle of fish. As an atheist I would p*ss on his grave - except he was a good guy otherwise, so I guess just spitting on it would suffice.
> 167
On Foucault:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/postmodernism-foucault-8568-2.html
"...Foucault was wrong. AIDS did begin in the homosexual community. He also was not in a position to state that AIDS was or was not strictly a homosexual disease simply by virtue of the fact that little was known about AIDs during the early and mid 80s..."
"...In his book The Reckless Mind, Mark Lilla, a professor at the University of Chicago's Committee on Social Thought, suggests that Foucault was so blinded by his conviction that medical claims to knowledge were merely claims to power that he denied the existence of AIDS - even as he was dying from the disease. In the autumn of 1983, after Foucault's health had collapsed and less than a year before his death, he continued to frequent gay bathhouses and bars. According to Lilla, Foucault laughed at the idea of 'safe sex' and apparently said, 'To die for the love of boys: what could be more beautiful?' (9)..."
"......Foucault claimed not that there is no such thing as truth, but that truth is imbedded in power relations to the point where a dominant discourse such as a science not only is capable of speaking the "truth" but that it actually shapes the space wherein truths and falsehoods can be uttered. A system of truths and falsehoods are made possible by a discourse of knowledge/power. For example, biology makes it possible to speak both truth and falsehoods about the human body, and any statements made about the body must conform to the discourse of biology before they can be decidedly true or not. That itself is a function of power relations, regardless of whether truth exists objectively...."
"...Foucault would question the dichotomy between rational and irrational. He would say that dichotomy is itself imbedded in power relations and to label something "irrational" or "rational" is a function of a discourse of power/knowledge i.e. domination.
He doesn't argue that anything is valid such as the statement "I am god" but that validity is not produced by statements equaling observable phenomena or something like that. Statements "become true" within a system of power/knowledge, not transcendently.
Yes, he was influenced greatly by Nietzsche, but he goes way beyond Nietzsche. He was also influenced greatly by Marx, Merleau-Ponty, Hypolite, and especially Althusser who provided him with the basic question of his project (How are people made subjects?)." end quotes.
What a swell philosopher Foucault was - he believed all claims of truth, facts and knowledge were just people engaging in purely subjective power-tripping. WTF - be a scientist or a scientologist or a fundamentalist christian or an astrology-believer - or a god damn head-hunting cannibal animist. Apparently to Foucault there was no good reason to prefer one conviction over another.
Foucault was also a homosexual who denied the existence of AIDS, denied he had AIDS, and engaged in promiscuous unprotected anal sex until the day he died.
He was sort of an exclusively gay Marque de Sade on steroids. With friends like him do gays need any enemies?
But I can see why Artic-Stranger is so enamored of him - what a role model for the kids.
Uh, lol?
The use of the phrase "the contents of consciousness" makes consciousness and/or its alleged constituents, into a thing, like a hamburger.
There is no evidence that consciousness is a thing - it is an adjective, or a verb at best.
Consciousness seem to be a function or a description, not a thing. It is what the brain does, as the stomach digests. Can it be proven otherwise? I say no.
> 166
So Locke was really a great guy who just happened to be unreasonably prejudiced against atheists. He thought they were somehow less than human - or not deserving of the same level of political rights as non-atheists.
Well that's a fine kettle of fish. As an atheist I would p*ss on his grave - except he was a good guy otherwise, so I guess just spitting on it would suffice.
> 167
On Foucault:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/postmodernism-foucault-8568-2.html
"...Foucault was wrong. AIDS did begin in the homosexual community. He also was not in a position to state that AIDS was or was not strictly a homosexual disease simply by virtue of the fact that little was known about AIDs during the early and mid 80s..."
"...In his book The Reckless Mind, Mark Lilla, a professor at the University of Chicago's Committee on Social Thought, suggests that Foucault was so blinded by his conviction that medical claims to knowledge were merely claims to power that he denied the existence of AIDS - even as he was dying from the disease. In the autumn of 1983, after Foucault's health had collapsed and less than a year before his death, he continued to frequent gay bathhouses and bars. According to Lilla, Foucault laughed at the idea of 'safe sex' and apparently said, 'To die for the love of boys: what could be more beautiful?' (9)..."
"......Foucault claimed not that there is no such thing as truth, but that truth is imbedded in power relations to the point where a dominant discourse such as a science not only is capable of speaking the "truth" but that it actually shapes the space wherein truths and falsehoods can be uttered. A system of truths and falsehoods are made possible by a discourse of knowledge/power. For example, biology makes it possible to speak both truth and falsehoods about the human body, and any statements made about the body must conform to the discourse of biology before they can be decidedly true or not. That itself is a function of power relations, regardless of whether truth exists objectively...."
"...Foucault would question the dichotomy between rational and irrational. He would say that dichotomy is itself imbedded in power relations and to label something "irrational" or "rational" is a function of a discourse of power/knowledge i.e. domination.
He doesn't argue that anything is valid such as the statement "I am god" but that validity is not produced by statements equaling observable phenomena or something like that. Statements "become true" within a system of power/knowledge, not transcendently.
Yes, he was influenced greatly by Nietzsche, but he goes way beyond Nietzsche. He was also influenced greatly by Marx, Merleau-Ponty, Hypolite, and especially Althusser who provided him with the basic question of his project (How are people made subjects?)." end quotes.
What a swell philosopher Foucault was - he believed all claims of truth, facts and knowledge were just people engaging in purely subjective power-tripping. WTF - be a scientist or a scientologist or a fundamentalist christian or an astrology-believer - or a god damn head-hunting cannibal animist. Apparently to Foucault there was no good reason to prefer one conviction over another.
Foucault was also a homosexual who denied the existence of AIDS, denied he had AIDS, and engaged in promiscuous unprotected anal sex until the day he died.
He was sort of an exclusively gay Marque de Sade on steroids. With friends like him do gays need any enemies?
But I can see why Artic-Stranger is so enamored of him - what a role model for the kids.
Uh, lol?
169Arctic-Stranger
Was that last post Everything I Know About Foucault I Just Googled On Wikipedia?
170JGL53
> 169
Pretty much. And if there was some safe way to purge the affect of being exposed to that horror from my brains neurons and dendrites I would damn sure do it.
I wish I didn't know anything whatsoever about your buddy Foucault, like I wish I didn't know who Anne Coulter was, or Donald Trump, or the Kardashians, or Honey Boo Boo.
Pretty much. And if there was some safe way to purge the affect of being exposed to that horror from my brains neurons and dendrites I would damn sure do it.
I wish I didn't know anything whatsoever about your buddy Foucault, like I wish I didn't know who Anne Coulter was, or Donald Trump, or the Kardashians, or Honey Boo Boo.
171Arctic-Stranger
What is interesting is that if I had slammed Foucault as an gay atheist and an example of what atheism was like, you would have jumped to his defense right away.
173JGL53
> 171
I would defend anyone's right to be an atheist or not or gay or not or anything else, as long as no laws pertaining to inappropriate force or fraud are broken.
I would not defend anyone - defend their personal moral standards that is - be he or she hetero, bi, or gay - who knowingly has AIDS and then engages in unprotected sex with others, especially by the dozens.
If you slammed Foucault as a gay atheist and an example of what atheism was like, I think I would be quite surprised, firstly, and seriously concerned that you may have just had a mini-stroke, second.
I would defend anyone's right to be an atheist or not or gay or not or anything else, as long as no laws pertaining to inappropriate force or fraud are broken.
I would not defend anyone - defend their personal moral standards that is - be he or she hetero, bi, or gay - who knowingly has AIDS and then engages in unprotected sex with others, especially by the dozens.
If you slammed Foucault as a gay atheist and an example of what atheism was like, I think I would be quite surprised, firstly, and seriously concerned that you may have just had a mini-stroke, second.
174JGL53
> 172
An amusing take-off on the original:
God is dead.
- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead.
- God
God is Nietzsche.
- The Dead.
An amusing take-off on the original:
God is dead.
- Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead.
- God
God is Nietzsche.
- The Dead.
175vy0123
Barlow
grateful dead is dead
176Arctic-Stranger
175
Oh ye of little faith!
Oh ye of little faith!
177Arctic-Stranger
its just that you sounded so much like...a fundamentalist.
Enjoy the irony. The Christian is thinking Foucault is worth reading, and the anti-Christian (I say with respect, if you define yourself differently I defer to that) says he is degenerate and therefore all this theories are bunk, and he feels dirty for having read a Wikipedia article about him.
Enjoy the irony. The Christian is thinking Foucault is worth reading, and the anti-Christian (I say with respect, if you define yourself differently I defer to that) says he is degenerate and therefore all this theories are bunk, and he feels dirty for having read a Wikipedia article about him.
178JGL53
> 175
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
- Ecclesiastes 9:5
Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.
- Ecclesiastes 4:2
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
- Ecclesiastes 9:5
Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.
- Ecclesiastes 4:2
179JGL53
> 177
The Marque de Sade was one of the highest rated perverts in history. He would have eaten little Foucault for lunch with relish - both kinds.
I can relate to his - and Foucault's - atheism but I wouldn't have wanted to touch either of them, or their various sex partners. Germs, you know.
De Sade's Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man is a classic. (free to read on line.)
What did Foucault ever contribute to actually understanding anything about anything?
Forget my post - your post about him is enough to see he was a fool - assuming you were reporting correctly.
The Marque de Sade was one of the highest rated perverts in history. He would have eaten little Foucault for lunch with relish - both kinds.
I can relate to his - and Foucault's - atheism but I wouldn't have wanted to touch either of them, or their various sex partners. Germs, you know.
De Sade's Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man is a classic. (free to read on line.)
What did Foucault ever contribute to actually understanding anything about anything?
Forget my post - your post about him is enough to see he was a fool - assuming you were reporting correctly.
181vy0123
What did Foucault ever contribute to actually understanding anything about anything?
Foucault's position and direction may be interpreted at opposite to Popper's.
____
Foucault's position and direction may be interpreted at opposite to Popper's.
____
Ideas can be held before the mind simply as meanings, and their logical relations to one another can then be detected by rational inspection. The idea of a plane triangle, for example, entails the equality of its internal angles to two right angles, and the idea of motion entails the ideas of space and time, irrespective of whether there really are such things as triangles and motion.
source: eb.com
182JGL53
> 181
Well, I've never been thrilled by Popper's arguments either - particularly.
I could be wrong but my allergic reaction to Foucault's philosophy is that he seems to making the case that, since all ideas are subjective productions of the human brain/mind, then all ideas are in some real sense equal and thus must be taken as equally likely of the best model of reality. Plus, everybody is out to get theirs - and I mean everybody - so then we must take all ideas with an equal grain of salt since there is a motivation to power behind all theories about all aspects of human experienced reality.
This kind of crap thinking reminds me too much of the radical feminists of the 60s and 70s - from Gloria Steinem on her bad days to maniacs like Andrea Dworkin and Kathleen MacKinnon - who expressly said that all of societies ills is traceable to MEN - in their attempt control and dominate women - i.e., its all about the power struggle, with all other considerations being incidental to the will to power by MEN. I.e., ALL men want to dominate and keep women in their place - ALL men do, ALL the time, pretty much. E.g., ALL heterosexual sex is rape by definition - and nothing else is worth discussion in the context of human society.
Maybe Foucault was not as big an ass as these radical feminists. OK, I will give you that.
Well, I've never been thrilled by Popper's arguments either - particularly.
I could be wrong but my allergic reaction to Foucault's philosophy is that he seems to making the case that, since all ideas are subjective productions of the human brain/mind, then all ideas are in some real sense equal and thus must be taken as equally likely of the best model of reality. Plus, everybody is out to get theirs - and I mean everybody - so then we must take all ideas with an equal grain of salt since there is a motivation to power behind all theories about all aspects of human experienced reality.
This kind of crap thinking reminds me too much of the radical feminists of the 60s and 70s - from Gloria Steinem on her bad days to maniacs like Andrea Dworkin and Kathleen MacKinnon - who expressly said that all of societies ills is traceable to MEN - in their attempt control and dominate women - i.e., its all about the power struggle, with all other considerations being incidental to the will to power by MEN. I.e., ALL men want to dominate and keep women in their place - ALL men do, ALL the time, pretty much. E.g., ALL heterosexual sex is rape by definition - and nothing else is worth discussion in the context of human society.
Maybe Foucault was not as big an ass as these radical feminists. OK, I will give you that.
183Settings
>182 JGL53:
Could you by any chance direct me to where they said that? I don't doubt you, but the narrative of the feminist who blames men for all of society's ills is thrown around a lot, and I've never looked at a primary source.
Could you by any chance direct me to where they said that? I don't doubt you, but the narrative of the feminist who blames men for all of society's ills is thrown around a lot, and I've never looked at a primary source.
184rrp
#167 Arctic-Stranger
Thanks for the insights; I found them very interesting. Can I reflect back what I got from your explanation to see if I am on the right track?
Foucault believes that society places constructs on people to keep them in their place.
There is no dispute that societies construct norms of behavior and thought. Whether those each of those constructs are good or bad is a matter of dispute. One of those constructs must be a set of agreed methods of deciding on a common course of action, including which members of society are allowed to contribute to those methods. It seems to me that labeling someone as mad is one way that a society excludes someone from that process. Now we all probably agree that there are, in fact, mental conditions that render a person incapable of helping a group come to what the group would consider a good decision. We all probably agree that the dynamics groups of humans is often less than optimal; people are excluded for petty and trivial reasons leading to bad group decisions and outcomes. All societies develop constructs which keep some people in their place, away from the common forum. Our societies have such constructs. Are they the right ones? How do we justify the ones we do have? These seem to me to be very important questions.
One principle that I agree with is, where possible, to maximize tolerance of different view points on any topic. I don't like the exclusion of people on religious grounds. I don't like exclusion of people on the grounds that they don't subscribe to THE ONE TRUE WAY, whether it is Religion or Reason or The Scientific Method (where my use of capital letters is deliberate.) I do see, however, that like everything in life, a little pragmatism goes a long way. I don't advocate toleration of those who are intolerant.
Thanks for the insights; I found them very interesting. Can I reflect back what I got from your explanation to see if I am on the right track?
Foucault believes that society places constructs on people to keep them in their place.
There is no dispute that societies construct norms of behavior and thought. Whether those each of those constructs are good or bad is a matter of dispute. One of those constructs must be a set of agreed methods of deciding on a common course of action, including which members of society are allowed to contribute to those methods. It seems to me that labeling someone as mad is one way that a society excludes someone from that process. Now we all probably agree that there are, in fact, mental conditions that render a person incapable of helping a group come to what the group would consider a good decision. We all probably agree that the dynamics groups of humans is often less than optimal; people are excluded for petty and trivial reasons leading to bad group decisions and outcomes. All societies develop constructs which keep some people in their place, away from the common forum. Our societies have such constructs. Are they the right ones? How do we justify the ones we do have? These seem to me to be very important questions.
One principle that I agree with is, where possible, to maximize tolerance of different view points on any topic. I don't like the exclusion of people on religious grounds. I don't like exclusion of people on the grounds that they don't subscribe to THE ONE TRUE WAY, whether it is Religion or Reason or The Scientific Method (where my use of capital letters is deliberate.) I do see, however, that like everything in life, a little pragmatism goes a long way. I don't advocate toleration of those who are intolerant.
185Arctic-Stranger
To start with, the narrative of feminists who blame men is one of those social constructs, used best by Rush when he talks about feminazis.
As to tolerance as an organizing principle, I recommend Herbert Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance, where he outlines how tolerance is used to stifle dissent.
Foucault is definitely a hard slog, and there is garbage there, but also many gems. I find it interesting that JGL is so dismissive of him. I would have thought that an appreciation of him would be one thing we had in common.
Nathaniel reminded me of the other aspects of Foucault's thought that insightful for understanding modernity, and while I certainly do not buy into him lock, stock and barrel, I am influenced by him through the work of others, (most notably Peter Brown) but also by the school of narrative therapy. Stephen D. Moore in his work Post Structuralism and the New Testament relates the work of Foucault and Derrida (the latter is a mystery to me) to New Testament studies.
As to de Sade, Thomas Moore, who wrote The Care of the Soul and other works on spiritualty wrote an insight book on de Sade, Dark Eros, which apparently his handlers want to forget, but which is, I think, one of his best books.
As to tolerance as an organizing principle, I recommend Herbert Marcuse's Repressive Tolerance, where he outlines how tolerance is used to stifle dissent.
Foucault is definitely a hard slog, and there is garbage there, but also many gems. I find it interesting that JGL is so dismissive of him. I would have thought that an appreciation of him would be one thing we had in common.
Nathaniel reminded me of the other aspects of Foucault's thought that insightful for understanding modernity, and while I certainly do not buy into him lock, stock and barrel, I am influenced by him through the work of others, (most notably Peter Brown) but also by the school of narrative therapy. Stephen D. Moore in his work Post Structuralism and the New Testament relates the work of Foucault and Derrida (the latter is a mystery to me) to New Testament studies.
As to de Sade, Thomas Moore, who wrote The Care of the Soul and other works on spiritualty wrote an insight book on de Sade, Dark Eros, which apparently his handlers want to forget, but which is, I think, one of his best books.
186JGL53
> 185
I think most people, even those without any formal education in philosophy, can just listen to the feminist rant and detect that it is merely a "social construct" - in the sense that it just insanity in the form of a (presumed) argument.
My objection to Foucault is his convoluted writing style. I previewed some of his books years ago at my local library and decided that life was too short to put in the time to see if my limited I.Q. could possibly grok what enlightening points he was conveying, if any.
But, yes, secondarily, people who have AIDS, deny that they have AIDS and deny that AIDS even exists, then proceed to enjoy UNPROTECTED and PROMISCUOUS anal sex until they keel over dead - such people are not high on my list to see if they have any profound philosophical insights to share. I.e., absolutist hedonists and social anarchists and nihilists don't have a great track record for helping the rest of us out with our various philosophical questions concerning "What is the good life?"
As to the Marquis, years ago I read most of his books (yes, I guess that makes me weird). I don't think I am presently up to reading a philosophical treatise involving the exegeses and hermeneutics of de Sade's thoughts and actions as regards sexuality.
I think most people, even those without any formal education in philosophy, can just listen to the feminist rant and detect that it is merely a "social construct" - in the sense that it just insanity in the form of a (presumed) argument.
My objection to Foucault is his convoluted writing style. I previewed some of his books years ago at my local library and decided that life was too short to put in the time to see if my limited I.Q. could possibly grok what enlightening points he was conveying, if any.
But, yes, secondarily, people who have AIDS, deny that they have AIDS and deny that AIDS even exists, then proceed to enjoy UNPROTECTED and PROMISCUOUS anal sex until they keel over dead - such people are not high on my list to see if they have any profound philosophical insights to share. I.e., absolutist hedonists and social anarchists and nihilists don't have a great track record for helping the rest of us out with our various philosophical questions concerning "What is the good life?"
As to the Marquis, years ago I read most of his books (yes, I guess that makes me weird). I don't think I am presently up to reading a philosophical treatise involving the exegeses and hermeneutics of de Sade's thoughts and actions as regards sexuality.
187rrp
Thanks for the pointer to Repressive Tolerance. I will have to check it out. I googled and came across this review which had a delicious quote
Marcuse argues that there is no such thing as tolerance in the abstract. We tolerate this particular something, but that each act of tolerance assumes the non-tolerance of not tolerating the thing we tolerate.
That's what I wished I meant when I said I can't tolerate intolerance.
Marcuse argues that there is no such thing as tolerance in the abstract. We tolerate this particular something, but that each act of tolerance assumes the non-tolerance of not tolerating the thing we tolerate.
That's what I wished I meant when I said I can't tolerate intolerance.
188vy0123
My objection to Foucault is his convoluted writing style.
I approached the ideas as introduced in A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the Subject and Foucault: A Critical Reader and intend to do Rabinow's The Foucault reader
AIDS, deny that they have AIDS and deny that AIDS even exists, then proceed to enjoy UNPROTECTED and PROMISCUOUS anal sex until they keel over dead
Haven't been delayed by that side of the lifescape, the Marquis I put back on the shelf after one page. You are free to pick and choose the ideas you like, like individual music tracks on iTunes.
I approached the ideas as introduced in A Foucault Primer: Discourse, Power and the Subject and Foucault: A Critical Reader and intend to do Rabinow's The Foucault reader
AIDS, deny that they have AIDS and deny that AIDS even exists, then proceed to enjoy UNPROTECTED and PROMISCUOUS anal sex until they keel over dead
Haven't been delayed by that side of the lifescape, the Marquis I put back on the shelf after one page. You are free to pick and choose the ideas you like, like individual music tracks on iTunes.
