|
God and Evolution.. (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
People should really be taught about logical fallacies in school... |
Nice post, I’ll be the first to admit I’ve never taken a class in logic and wasn’t aware of most terminology u listed, but I'm always open to learning new things.
But, I'd say there are a lot of ppl (especially religious types) who fear questioning church teachings would either be a sin or undermine their faith and intern destroy their purpose in life. It’s kind of like in the movie the Matrix; it’s easier to live in the bliss of ignorance than face the cold hard truth of reality.
My point is some ppl aren't open to your ideas not because you aren't making a clear and believable arguement. Because it's their life is built upon faith-based facts laid out by their religion. |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by speedracer_mec
Also non-god believers...wut do u think about life? after we die..we decompose and rot and insects eat our corpse up?
arent yall scared that life is just a bag of feelings and memories gather togethered to later be dumped into a heap of soil for eternity. All feelings and memories to be destroyed? |
I -agnostic- love life. When I die, I wish I could go to some heaven and have an infinite afterlife. That would indeed be really nice, but I am not placing my bets on it. Yes, I will die, decompose and that's it.
The idea is that my thinking that after I am dead there it's over, makes me strive harder when I am here. I want to have children who will remember me and I want to leave the planet a better place for them than it was now. The only way to 'immortality' is through achievement. If I do something extraordianry, I might end up in a history book and some 500 years from now, people will read my name, just like they read Christopher Columbus' name today.
Anyhow, if there is an afterlife, then I will be more than happy, but I will not take my chances by assuming there is one. I have this one chance at life and I better do well at it. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
objective:Having actual existence or reality.
truth: Reality; actuality.
|
The concept os one absolute truth has disappeared over the last few centuries in all but the minds of the most ignorant. So now there can exist a multitude of truths... (or even a heirarchy of truths). Certain things may be "objectively true" (eg. "this is a table") other things may be subjectively true (eg. "it is wrong to do x"). This distinction is common in philosophical discussions (esp. existentialism) or debates of "science v religion". However more modern philosophy undermines teh certainty even of such distinction as even statements like "this is a table" lose much of their objectivity when we realise that even a word like "table" is constructed and has no absolute meaning. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
The idea is that my thinking that after I am dead there it's over, makes me strive harder when I am here. I want to have children who will remember me and I want to leave the planet a better place for them than it was now. The only way to 'immortality' is through achievement. |
Or stealing someone else's, i.e. Christopher Columbus! :p :p |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
The concept os one absolute truth has disappeared over the last few centuries in all but the minds of the most ignorant. So now there can exist a multitude of truths... (or even a heirarchy of truths). Certain things may be "objectively true" (eg. "this is a table") other things may be subjectively true (eg. "it is wrong to do x"). This distinction is common in philosophical discussions (esp. existentialism) or debates of "science v religion". However more modern philosophy undermines teh certainty even of such distinction as even statements like "this is a table" lose much of their objectivity when we realise that even a word like "table" is constructed and has no absolute meaning. |
Don't want to be pissing anyone off here, but I've always thought of existentialism as a lot of bollocks. I mean, the idea itself has some merit, but it's been twisted and distorted far too often in order to qualify unprovable theories or notions using the relativist fallacy.
The word "table" may be a human creation, but no matter what you call it, it's still a table in the physical sense. Changing its name doesn't change what it is.
Science may be full of "subjective" definitions and terms, but it's still based on observable behaviour, and that behaviour doesn't change no matter how the science is applied. One might say that the birth of quantum physics proved classical physics "wrong", but that's not correct; classical physics still perfectly explains physical behaviour on a macro scale, which is exactly what the science was intended to do. Quantum mechanics just explains how classical mechanics work on a subatomic level, it doesn't show up classical mechanics as "subjective" or prove it to be any less "true."
Maybe that example seems irrelevant, but my point is, it's easy to get caught up in semantics about truth, but simply stated, the difference between objective and subjective truth is exactly what you'd expect: objective truth is based on the object, subjective truth is based on the subject (i.e. yourself). I think it's stretching it a bit to say that only the most ignorant people think an objective truth exists.
Deeply philosophical topics are supposed to be debated with accepted logical principles, not used to trivialize them. Unfortunately, certain topics seem to exist for the sole purpose of defying common logic... |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Science may be full of "subjective" definitions and terms, but it's still based on observable behaviour, and that behaviour doesn't change no matter how the science is applied. One might say that the birth of quantum physics proved classical physics "wrong", but that's not correct; classical physics still perfectly explains physical behaviour on a macro scale, which is exactly what the science was intended to do. Quantum mechanics just explains how classical mechanics work on a subatomic level, it doesn't show up classical mechanics as "subjective" or prove it to be any less "true."
|
well, isn't that the scientific method. One tries deduce rules about behavior. These based on observations and verified using repeatable experiments. Nowadays one might have to add that these experiements are repeatable within the same reference frame (remembering that tunnel/ train question a while ago), but that doesn't change the underlying principle.
The problem is just that there is a limit to science. What are subatomic particles made of? Wouldn't you say that there is a point, where science does not have the answers - yet? That is where belief begins and that is where god belongs, imho. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
The problem is just that there is a limit to science. What are subatomic particles made of? Wouldn't you say that there is a point, where science does not have the answers - yet? That is where belief begins and that is where god belongs, imho. |
Is there? Of course there is a limit to what we'll likely know in our lifetime, but I would never place any limits as to what science can ultimately determine given enough time. Do you think there will ever be a day when the scientists simply run out of things to study or know and become laborers? :p |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Of course there is a limit to what we'll likely know in our lifetime |
that is what i am talking about. There are things that we do not know at this point, and for those things, we have religion to help us. I guess.
| quote: |
, but I would never place any limits as to what science can ultimately determine given enough time. |
that is a question. Maybe there is something that is just plain indeterminable?
| quote: | | Do you think there will ever be a day when the scientists simply run out of things to study or know and become laborers? :p |
not really, but i think there might be things that just cannot be explained. at some point, there might be a limit to what you can explain? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by drizzt81
well, isn't that the scientific method. One tries deduce rules about behavior. These based on observations and verified using repeatable experiments. Nowadays one might have to add that these experiements are repeatable within the same reference frame (remembering that tunnel/ train question a while ago), but that doesn't change the underlying principle.
The problem is just that there is a limit to science. What are subatomic particles made of? Wouldn't you say that there is a point, where science does not have the answers - yet? That is where belief begins and that is where god belongs, imho. |
To be honest, I'm not sure what you're asking me. If it was just a general question, then yes, there is a point where science does not have the answers yet, and that is where your belief comes into play. That doesn't mean that there is no objective truth, though, it just means we don't know it yet.
Even if there's a bearded old man in the sky calling the shots and making particles move, it would still be an objective truth if it could ever be proven. I don't think existentialism would hold up too well as a defense in court...
I've never tried to say that there's no place in this world for faith or religious beliefs. I just think that organized religion is a sham - and besides, "God" throughout history has been used to describe phenomena that are now commonly understood but weren't in ancient times, so I would be very hesitant to try and use that explanation for currently unexplainable phenomena. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Don't want to be pissing anyone off here, but I've always thought of existentialism as a lot of bollocks. I mean, the idea itself has some merit, but it's been twisted and distorted far too often in order to qualify unprovable theories or notions using the relativist fallacy. |
Well I was speaking more of postmodernism/poststructuralism
| quote: | | The word "table" may be a human creation, but no matter what you call it, it's still a table in the physical sense. Changing its name doesn't change what it is. |
I was suggesting it was constantly undergoing construction, rather than "created". A table to you is slightly different to a table to me. Of course there must be some consensus other wise communication would be impossible/pointless.
| quote: | | Science may be full of "subjective" definitions and terms, but it's still based on observable behaviour, and that behaviour doesn't change no matter how the science is applied. One might say that the birth of quantum physics proved classical physics "wrong", but that's not correct; classical physics still perfectly explains physical behaviour on a macro scale, which is exactly what the science was intended to do. Quantum mechanics just explains how classical mechanics work on a subatomic level, it doesn't show up classical mechanics as "subjective" or prove it to be any less "true." |
Scientific discourse is far less objective than it first appears. I had some great material on this I'll dig it up later
| quote: | | Maybe that example seems irrelevant, but my point is, it's easy to get caught up in semantics about truth, but simply stated, the difference between objective and subjective truth is exactly what you'd expect: objective truth is based on the object, subjective truth is based on the subject (i.e. yourself). I think it's stretching it a bit to say that only the most ignorant people think an objective truth exists. |
But objects don't exist in a vacuum and when we observe them we inevitably impose our own definitions on them and construct them.
| quote: | | Deeply philosophical topics are supposed to be debated with accepted logical principles, not used to trivialize them. Unfortunately, certain topics seem to exist for the sole purpose of defying common logic... |
Just to play devil's advocate... are you sugesting science can be used to asess philosophy, yet philosophy can't be used to analyse science?
Again... I highly value logic and science and usually approach arguments from that direction... but i have recently begun to see some value in the postmodern paradigm.... Just provoking some thought (aka stirring up ) :toothless |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I don't think existentialism would hold up too well as a defense in court...
|
To a true existentialist it wouldn't matter, as long as he didn't act in bad faith (read Camus' The Outsider). |
|
|
| drizzt81 |
| quote: | Originally posted by astroboy
Scientific discourse is far less objective than it first appears. I had some great material on this I'll dig it up later |
Well it all depends what research you are talking about. If you mean stuff like "Why Windows is cheaper to run than Linux - sponsored by Microsoft Corp." then yes, there is BAD science, but in its essence science research is bound to be objective, because the observations need to be repeatable. |
|
|
|
|
