Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on June 11, 2012 at 9:20am

Of course atheism is not a philosophy. Strictly speaking, no opinion is philosophy, which is search for knowledge, science, wisdom. - Atheism is an opinion, not a stance (strange word to use when it comes to matters of thought).

Opinions depend on the ground on which they are argued; but the ground on which the question of God is argued is the most important question for man as man, because it decides whether understanding man requires obedience to God or to reason. Hence, people consider atheism a philosophical matter, i.e., because philosophers have made atheism fashionable, even in some sophisticated way respectable.

Atheists can only use materialist doctrines in order to argue their case, so that restrains the playing field tremendously. Strictly speaking, only a materialism that grounds an exhaustive, definitive theoretical science can justify atheism. Otherwise, it's just stupid.

Now, I said earlier that atheism is associated with philosophy: So it has been since philosophy first emerged. (Consider this: Homer & Hesiod, who seem to have invented both heroism & nature, & of whom Herodotus says that the Greek gods were their most famous children, appeal to the Muse for poetry, whereas Aristotle shifts this ground to nature in his On Poetics.)

Therefore, atheism need not be stupid, but atheism in the strict sense depends on a skeptical philosophy. The problem is that skepticism would show that modern natural science is stupid, because its findings, however powerful, are based on unexamined hypotheses, specifically neither the account of being nor that of cause are proved to be true.

From the point of view of philosophy, the tests done to validate scientific findings are stupid: They only deal with this or that particular case empirically settled. To constitute knowledge, to be true, they would have to somehow feed into rules of logical construction of theories that depend on theories of causation & being -- but those theories are themselves not empirical. In short, scientific experimentation requires a leap of faith, or axioms, unexamined first principles.

So you can have atheism without science & science without atheism. You cannot have both, so far as I understand things. Of course, the consequences of applying skeptical philosophy to modern natural science entail the radical destruction of modern political science, which depends on modern natural science, but has none of the practical power. It would seem that skepticism leaves untouched scientific practice, however much it threatens scientific theory (quaintly called epistemology, i.e., the discourse about belief...) - not so with political science, on which all modern policy is based, which has no practical proofs...

P.S. You realize, of course, that you imply that 'crappy' is substantial, whereas 'creed' & 'cause' are derivative, epiphenomenal. In order for that to be true, at the very least it would need to be true, in previous, that 'crappiness' has nothing to do with morality - meanness certainly does, so congrats for the substitution - or that 'creeds' & 'causes' have nothing to do with morality, which they obviously do. Tough sell, Liam. On the face of it, you're hard-pressed to refute the contention about Baptists. I'll make sure to avoid them hereafter-

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on June 11, 2012 at 9:36am

How did you manage to type so much, without saying anything? 

If I understand you properly - atheism relies on skepticism, but science doesn't meet the skeptical burden, in as much as you understand it. So you feel one can be a scientist or an atheist, but not both. And further, since only materialist science supports atheism, you argue that atheism is self contradictory.

Is that a fair summary? 

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on June 11, 2012 at 9:45am

I think about the time when I pointed out your incompetent use of the word philosophy I lost you. It probably has to with your use of words like stance, childishly inappropriate for all scientific & philosophic discussions...

Executive summary here: To argue for atheism is to argue against religion. To argue against religion, its claims must be understood. To understand those claims, they must be subjected to rational (philosophical) skepticism. -- But the side-effect of that scrutiny is a scrutiny into science. There is no way to come up with an empirical account of being & causation, so there is no theoretical defense of scientific assumptions about experiments. So philosophy will destroy in its path modern political science & then natural science, if the question about God is engaged between philosophy & religion.

Permalink Reply by Liam S. on June 11, 2012 at 9:51am

There is no way to come up with an empirical account of being & causation, so there is no theoretical defense of scientific assumptions about experiments.

You've tried to make this argument against science before, Titus. I still maintain that you fundamentally misunderstand both science and reality. 

The rest of your words are just wind. You've hinged your entire argument on my conversational language, your own a priori assumptions about causality, and your hope that nobody can see through your dense, overly academic language, to your fundamental argument. 

You don't trust science. We get it. Go away.

I think about the time when I pointed out your incompetent use of the word philosophy I lost you. It probably has to with your use of words like stance, childishly inappropriate for all scientific & philosophic discussions...

Screw you.

Permalink Reply by Rick Shelton on June 11, 2012 at 10:05am

T.T. does not seem to understand and will probably never understand science.  From what I've been able to determine he writes a blog about theater and movies.  I gather from this he has a humanities based education most likely because he cannot seem to grasp science and scientific thinking.  He's writes as though he is Plato but uses specious arguments and assumptions to promote his own brand of thought.  Put crap on a canvas and call it art.

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on June 11, 2012 at 10:58am

Crap on a canvas is called art sometimes, unless you are being literal; perhaps even then. If you like to claim you can disprove that, I'd love to hear about it. But perhaps you just mean common sense should disdain uncommon claims. Perhaps you would not feel comfortable answering a question like, What is art?

Your gathering about my education is stupid: No man's doings or in this case sayings are a proof of his education. -- You might as well conclude, if you do not like my sayings, that my professors must have been cretins. Perhaps I simply failed them. Perhaps, just as well, I write essays on other things than those for which I hold degrees, if that's what you mean by education.

As for Plato, you show your stupidity again: There is no dialogue of his that does not include specious arguments & assumptions. Perhaps he did it on purpose. You ought to have said, I write like Plato & therefore use them. But of course, if you ever read Plato, you'll see I do not write like him, whether I am able to or not. Of course, other philosophers felt the need to employ specious arguments as well... Your implied disdain for them shows if anything that you do not know them at all. Just read the opening phrase of the first part of Descartes' Discourse. -- It is of course possible that I do not understand science; if that is true, I may also never understand it. But I understand full well its origins; the extent to which they are ignored in our days leads me to think I need not hurry to approve of what others approve...

Permalink Reply by Rick Shelton on June 11, 2012 at 11:26am

You may call crap on a canvas art and defend your position but I will continue to state that it is simply, to me, crap on a canvas.

As for Plato and specious arguments and assumptions I know he used them in his discussions of philosophy but if he is wrong in using them then how much more, educated as you are, are you wrong in following his example?  Who is more foolish, the fool who leads or the fool who follows the fool who leads?  You try to write like a philosopher smart on words but weak on content.  You also discourse mightily about things I don't think you know anything about such as science.  You keep referring back to other philosophers to back your assumptions and ascertations when they, themselves, were making assumptions and ascertations.  Kind of a weak foundation if you ask me.

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on June 11, 2012 at 10:49am

Your conversational language is a wonder, that may be said safely.

As for my mistrust of science - you do not get it. You do not even pretend to get it. This may be called honesty. I am not sure you are even able - not to say inclined - to distinguish the great power of science, which is undeniable, from theoretical underpinnings which are at best questionable. As for my having tried this particular argument against science before, I am somewhat doubtful. I usually prefer the negative argument about the impossibility of denying miracles & therefore revelation. Or the argument about the self-forgetfulness of the scientist, i.e., that there is no science nor no scientific theory of why a man rationally decides to become a scientist, not to say a scientist in a particular science, expertise, etc. Of course, when you say I've tried the argument before, you leave unsaid whether the argument is successful or deserves to be successful. - Unless you imply that repetition - implying failure to persuade - is proof against an argument...

My language in this case is not overly academic; it is the language used in all discussions about the theoretical part of science. People usually say things or kinds of things, but in philosophy the word 'being' is used. Suck it up. The word 'cause' I'm sure is known in politics as much as in science & philosophy, because it has different, if related, meanings.

Some scientist who is used to the jargon of his profession would use other language, geared perhaps to the concerns of his profession.

People who are neither scientists nor educated in the language of philosophy must use some other language, but it is not clear to me which. -- Perhaps your conversational language...

Permalink Reply by Rick Shelton on June 11, 2012 at 11:03am

Have you ever been or will you ever be... A scientist?  Non.  As a scientist (yes in a past life of which I have had several) I discussed research, theories, and experimentation and I have NEVER used such flowery language as you use.  Get to the point man, stop gumming up the works with phrases, say what you want to say in the simplest possible way (A direct quote from one of my professors regarding a dissertation).  Even in theoretical science you don't get into such language that obsures the focus of the discussion.  Yes they talk about Lamdas, Betas, Alphas, etc. because they are part of the language of science and have meaning (definition).  I can also say that MOST of the scientists that I have known and interacted with talk in common, everyday English, the few who didn't were afraid of their own unimportance.

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on June 11, 2012 at 11:17am

I'm glad to hear about how the scientists with whom you talk talk. I can tell you that just about two weeks ago I had the chance to talk shop with a half-dozen to a dozen young physicists who work on satellites, for the most part, & my own experience confirms what you say about how they talk. However, they were both congenial & interested in the kind of arguments I make. I believe this should suffice to suggest that maybe particular scientists are insufficient to base general statements.

My argument does not depend on the language of any particular scientific thoery. It deals with what is meant by scientific truth, what experiments are said to prove or disprove, & what is meant ultimately by cause & being. These are not scientific terms of art in the sense of the science of physics or chemistry. They are terms of art in philosophy. Before it became a pastime for people who graduate departments of philosophy, to say nothing of those who just throw the word around because it's cool, philosophy was said to be the quest for wisdom, science or knowledge about the whole, specifically about the most important things. It is not their unimportance that caused people like Bacon & Descartes, or Pascal or Spinoza, to consider the matter of cause & being or a language most people do not feel they need or know. They just took it for granted that the most important questions are philosophical & they used the terms of art of philosophy.

The plainest way I can put my argument about the theoretical weakness of science is this. All scientific experiments are meant to prove or disprove hypotheses. Considered as questions of truth, all depend not on the empirical part primarily, but on the non-empirical (theoretical) assumption that what holds in a given practical case holds everywhere & always. What happens in a lab may simply stay in a lab; if in many labs, then in many labs. The theoretical implication or assumption is that being & cause are unchanging; it is unproven that cause & effect have always & everywhere worked as they do in this or that lab. It is perhaps impossible to prove that...

Permalink Reply by Rick Shelton on June 11, 2012 at 11:40am

Proving or disproving a theory?  You cannot, in any way shape or form, prove a theory you can only disprove it.

Descarte, et al. were concerned with being and ways of being, this is not science it is philosophy.  Yes they had some theories and, again, none were ever proven, but alternatively none were ever disproven as being is not something you can prove or disprove.  Can you really ever disprove that you are\ a figment of some god's dream and when he wakes up you will simply cease to exist?  You can't.  Science is not about things that are provable they are about things that are disprovable.  Quantum Theory is still and always be a theory the only reason it is still around is that it hasn't been disproven, once it is then scientists will again search for a theory that fits what they see in experiments and seek to disprove the new theory, that is scientific progress.  Even Einstein's theory of Relativity is a theory and it seems to work for macroscopic scales and has not been disproven at those scales; however, at microscopic scales it breaks down and scientists are still searching for a Theory of Everything (all the forces).  Several TOEs have been brought up and many have been disproven so the science has advanced.

Permalink Reply by Titus Techera on June 11, 2012 at 12:38pm

Yeah, I hear this about not being able to prove theories a lot. When I was a kid reading Popper, it seemed clever. Nowadays, I just shake my head. At any rate, I am tired of hearing about it, so I do not use that expression. It seems people who talk about it are masters of the meaning of theory, though none of them seem to know what the word really means, much less why. The word hypothesis is much more useful, inasmuch as scientific first principles are themselves nothing more than that...
If you ever want to talk about what Descartes thought & why, I'd be pleased; meanwhile, I suspect you are as ignorant about him as most everyone else. I am not sure I can explain why everyone ignores the origins of science, except if they assume progress means the past is essentially inferior, dated...
As for your distinction between science & philosophy, to me it sounds like science is for people who have no idea that there is a problem with talk about knowledge & truth, whereas philosophy is for people who wonder at these people...
As for some god's dream, I'll say just this. The philosopher is intent on understanding what is meant by god. The scientist could not understand it to save his soul: A god is not a being with which any science concerns itself.
Now, two problems. 1 Disproving something cannot advance science. It can only say: this is not true. Where's the advance? 2. How do findings in an experiment 'fit with' a theory?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 43
• 44
• 45
• 46
• 47
• …
• 65
• Next ›
• Page