|
Science vs. Creationism (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Deducing truth through non-empirical means. I think creationism is. Then again, you can't cite the definitive definition of philosophy, so if we can't agree on what philosophy is, we're just going to keep going on this circular argument path... |
I'll step in, then.
Although it's famously difficult to define philosophy, Thomas Nagel's explanation is quite enlightening:
Philosophy is different from science (...). Unlike science it doesn't rely on experiments or observation, but only on thought. (...) It is done just by asking questions, arguing, trying out ideas and thinking of possible arguments against them, and wondering how our concepts really work. [from What Does it All Mean]
In spite of the lack of consensus, most definitions point out the fact that philosophy is a sceptic activity based on enquiries and doubts (reason why it's so difficult to come up with a definition that will not be disputed by anyone). It's blatantly obvious, therefore, that intelligent design has got nothing to do with philosophy whatsoever. The only questions it raises are about the validity of facts that they think refutes their dogmatic world-view, adding unnecessary variables and favouring obscurantism. In that sense, intelligent design does exactly what philosophy shouldn't do, according to Geoffrey Warnock and Ludwig Wittgenstein:
What is the aim of philosophy? To be clear-headed rather than confused; lucid rather than obscure; rational rather than otherwise; and to be neither more, nor less, sure of things than is justifiable by argument or evidence. [from Philosophers] Without philosophy thoughts are, as it were, cloudy and indistinct: its task is to make them clear and to give them sharp boundaries. [from Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus]
That being said, I'm worried about creationism myself. I read a survey, recently, that showed almost 50% of Brazilians support intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinist evolution. Not only there's this attack from our "religious right", there's also a popular cult from our "religious left", called "Kardecist Spiritualism" that claim to be scientific - and not only it incorporates the ideas of intelligent design, it also defends re-incarnation, the existence of parallel worlds (to which we go when we die) and so on. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Philosophy is about reason. Philosophy is about rationalism. Philosphy is about knowledge. Philosophy is about logic.
Creationism is none of these things. |
Those are a part of philosophy but they are not what philosophy is. Philosophy is a "way of thinking". Creationism is a way of thinking, which needs to be examined just as are here right now, philosophizing about it. Logic, rationality, reason etc. are used by philosophers to come to correct conclusions, but these properties are not what philosophy is m8..;)
By the way, I am in a philosophy class right now as I'm typing and we just concluded that Einstein was more of a philosopher than a scientist because Einstein never really got to test his theories in a laboratory. Strange as all sciences once were philosophies.
Theology is a philosophy too, which we can lump in creationism into that branch. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
well then, according to you any train of thought (no matter how stupid or ridiculous) can be labelled "philosophy" so i give up.
creationism is an insult to the intelligent, youre pretty much the only person that thinks its a philosophy. its not but im sick to death of the people in here constantly trying to embrace their "inner neo-alternative" where its cool to believe in stupid things no matter the evidence to the contrary.
you gen y's need a serious beating with the reality stick
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Philosophy is a "way of thinking". |
That's a non-academic meaning, used more freely in everyday conversation:
- [U] the use of reason in understanding such things as the nature of reality and existence, the use and limits of knowledge and the principles that govern and influence moral judgment:
René Descartes is regarded as the founder of modern philosophy.
- the philosophy of sth a group of theories and ideas related to the understanding of a particular subject:
the philosophy of education/religion/science
- [C] a particular system of beliefs, values and principles:
the Ancient Greek philosophy of Stoicism
- [C usually singular] INFORMAL someone's approach to life and their way of dealing with it:
Live now, pay later - that's my philosophy of life!
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/def...59385&dict=CALD
But, please, don't mix these things up - this meaning of philosophy has nothing to do with Philosophy itself. It's just like those misguided creationists that clain Darwinism "is just a theory". |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
funny, nowhere in lira's definitions do i see "deliberate lies and falsehoods masquerading as science".
which is why creationism isnt a philosophy. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Philosophy is a "way of thinking". Creationism is a way of thinking, which needs to be examined just as are here right now, philosophizing about it. |
Creationism is a way of thinking in the same sense that drowning is a way of breathing. A system of thought that smothers doubt, that smothers rational inquiry, that smothers logic while giving air to blind faith and unchallenged dogma isn't a philosophy, it's a religion and not a very good one at that. |
|
|
| Krypton |
PKC, we have different understandings of what philosophy is. I consider any "way of thinking" to be a philosophy, true or false, which does not rely on the scientific method to deduce their conclusions. As Lira pointed out, philosophy's definition is broad, and so my understanding of philosophy includes religious dogmas. Whether they are true or not does not influence my classification of what is or is not a philosophy.
Let's just end it here. Agree to disagree as always PKC..;) |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
As Lira pointed out, philosophy's definition is broad, and so my understanding of philosophy includes religious dogmas. |
But, if you're referring to Philosophy as an academic activity (and it seems you are), its definition is not that broad, and that's what we're trying to point out. I do understand the word philosophy has acquired many different uses over the years, but I think we could use some more clarity here. You're talking just about the 4th defition of philosophy I posted, right? |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
funny, nowhere in lira's definitions do i see "deliberate lies and falsehoods masquerading as science".
which is why creationism isn't a philosophy. |
PKC, your a great guy and a passionate debater but lets try and push this beyond the definition of philosophy.
The only time i will argue over a in' dictionary is when im playing scrabble and my buddy tries to hack off "cockmonger" as a tripple word score......
The realms of religion and science have rarely agreed, and more commonly agree to disagree, but this new trend of blending the two is dangerous.
On one hand you have science, forever trying to explain the unexplained and know the previously unknown. On the other you have religion, whose existence is Dependant on the unknown remaining unknown and the unexplained explained by a blanket solution of "some albino middle eastern dude in the sky just made it happen" |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
But, if you're referring to Philosophy as an academic activity (and it seems you are), its definition is not that broad, and that's what we're trying to point out. I do understand the word philosophy has acquired many different uses over the years, but I think we could use some more clarity here. You're talking just about the 4th defition of philosophy I posted, right? |
I don't even think academics agree on a single definition. I'm quoting my philosophy professor here when I say, "Philosophy is way of thinking." I turned in a paper called, "Nature of Philosophy" about 3 hours ago. I'll post it with the grade when I get it back..:)
I basically examine the differences between scientific inquiry (i.e. scientific method) and philosophical inquiry. Then I use philosophical inquiry to objectively examine a question. The question I chose was, "Does god exist?"
My process was this...
1. Ask a question.
2. Deduce all possible knowable conclusions.
3. Examine all possible conclusions by their premises.
4. Arrive at a logical conclusion.
What I learned was that with many questions of philosophy, such as the existence of god, there is no right or wrong answer. All conclusions can be logical and rational, but the truth is still yet to be conclusive. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
What I learned was that with many questions of philosophy, such as the existence of god, there is no right or wrong answer. All conclusions can be logical and rational, but the truth is still yet to be conclusive. |
but creationism really doesn't deal with god, it is a mechanism for undermining accepted scientific fact. i don't know how you can call this "philosophy", or indeed any belief system that advocates lies and ignores evidence. that's not philosophy.
When it comes to creationism (or intelligent design if you wish), there IS a "truth", and that truth is darwinian evolution. Passing off ID as an alternative belief structure (or philosophy) is akin to promoting the idea that the sun rotates around the earth. Would you call "earth-centrism" a "philosophy"? I certainly wouldn't. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
but creationism really doesn't deal with god, it is a mechanism for undermining accepted scientific fact. i don't know how you can call this "philosophy", or indeed any belief system that advocates lies and ignores evidence. that's not philosophy.
When it comes to creationism (or intelligent design if you wish), there IS a "truth", and that truth is darwinian evolution. Passing off ID as an alternative belief structure (or philosophy) is akin to promoting the idea that the sun rotates around the earth. Would you call "earth-centrism" a "philosophy"? I certainly wouldn't. |
Well, first of all, I did not mention creationism or ID anywhere in my paper. It merely detailed how I would examine the question of the existence of god.
As I said, my definition is not concerned with the truthfulness of any belief system. The only thing my definition is concerned with is the classification of any belief system as a philosophy. Philosophy's can be proven false, but that does mean that that particular belief system is not a philosophy, even if it is false.
Geocentricism is and was a philosophy, a false one at that, but still a philosophy. Truthfulness or falsity does not matter. All belief systems are in my book philosophies. |
|
|
|
|
