Reason / Science / Religion

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#261  Postby Cito di Pense » Jul 04, 2010 5:01 pm

katja z wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:One has to marvel at (if not going as far as actually to admire) the infantile cheek of adults who display a proprietary air with respect to that which they merely desire to have. In other words, "I have an invisible friend."

"I want that. Therefore, it belongs to me exists."

Fixed that for you! :grin:


Wiktionary to the rescue!

de Füfer u's Weggli ha

Man kann nicht gleichzeitig auf zwei Hochzeiten tanzen

Tu veux le beurre et l’argent du beurre

non puoi avere la botte piena e la moglie ubriaca

no se puede estar a la vez en la procesión y repicando las campanas

и волки сыты и овцы целы

ekki verður bæði sleppt og haldið (Let Grahbudd bring out the Svensk from that)
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28573
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#262  Postby katja z » Jul 04, 2010 5:20 pm

:lol:
Não se pode comer o bolo e guardar o bolo?
User avatar
katja z
RS Donator
 
Posts: 5353
Age: 39

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#263  Postby Sophie T » Jul 04, 2010 6:51 pm

archibald wrote:


Well, that was a game attempt, but I'm afraid it only confirmed my opinion that I haven't yet heard a good reason for not being able to interchange the two terms. To me, it's like when we substitute the word 'car' instead of 'being' into the Ontological argument to illustrate that the 'perfect car' does exist because we can conceive of there being such a thing.


Archibald, it's important to understand that when Plantinga proposes that belief in the existence of God is properly basic, he is not presenting an argument that is attempting to in any way prove the existence of God. From what I understand, his only real point is that IF God exists, then belief in the existence of God (even if that belief is not substantiated with evidence or arguments) is properly basic and is therefore not irrational. However, there seem to be a couple of atheists in this forum (not you) who think that if someone can present a theistic viewpoint and agree that at least part of that viewpoint seems to make sense to them, they are trying to "have their cake and eat it too" or to "be a part of the wedding party and the procession." In other words, they seem to think that that person is trying to be both a Christian and an atheist.

For myself, I can only say that I don't think I'm trying to be both a Christian and an atheist. Right now, I consider myself to be an atheist. However, that could, at some point, change. In the meantime, I am interested in continuing to read, explore, and think about both sides of the issue. Hopefully, that's not too offensive to anyone here.

I'm going to be away for the next week or so. To those of you in the United States, have a happy Fourth of July!
It matters not how strait the gate, how charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.
~ Excerpt from William Ernest Henley's Invictus
Sophie T
 
Posts: 801
Female

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#264  Postby archibald » Jul 04, 2010 8:51 pm

Sophie T wrote:... his only real point is that IF God exists, then belief in the existence of God (even if that belief is not substantiated with evidence or arguments) is properly basic and is therefore not irrational.



This is a real point? I might call it a real circle. :]

Anyhow, have a nice break.

ps. Marcus Du sautoy is as you may know Richard Dawkins replacement as the Simonyi Professor of Public Understanding of Science. He's an atheist, but his wife I believe is a Jew and their kids go to a Jewish school. So maybe one don't necessarily have to convert or deconvert one's partner. :]
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 10278
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#265  Postby Sophie T » Jul 04, 2010 9:18 pm

archibald wrote:
Sophie T wrote:... his only real point is that IF God exists, then belief in the existence of God (even if that belief is not substantiated with evidence or arguments) is properly basic and is therefore not irrational.



This is a real point? I might call it a real circle. :]

Anyhow, have a nice break.

ps. Marcus Du sautoy is as you may know Richard Dawkins replacement as the Simonyi Professor of Public Understanding of Science. He's an atheist, but his wife I believe is a Jew and their kids go to a Jewish school. So maybe one don't necessarily have to convert or deconvert one's partner. :]


Archibald--the "point" would be that, logically speaking, the only way to substantiate one's claim that a theist (even a theist who has no evidence or arguments to support his belief in the existence of God) is irrational would be to prove that God does not exist. Atheists (myself included) tend to insist that theists substantiate their claims. Yet, in the case of a claim from an atheist that theists are irrational, (some) atheists do not seem to substantiate such a claim with evidence, which might be seen as a double standard. I could be wrong about this, of course. I've been wrong before. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong now. Anyway, I will have a think about it.

By the way, thank you for that comment about Marcus Du Sautoy. No, I actually did not know that about him, and I appreciate you pointing it out to me. It does help me to begin to think about my own situation in a different light.

See you in a week or so!
It matters not how strait the gate, how charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.
~ Excerpt from William Ernest Henley's Invictus
Sophie T
 
Posts: 801
Female

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#266  Postby grahbudd » Jul 04, 2010 9:27 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
katja z wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:One has to marvel at (if not going as far as actually to admire) the infantile cheek of adults who display a proprietary air with respect to that which they merely desire to have. In other words, "I have an invisible friend."

"I want that. Therefore, it belongs to me exists."

Fixed that for you! :grin:


Wiktionary to the rescue!

de Füfer u's Weggli ha

Man kann nicht gleichzeitig auf zwei Hochzeiten tanzen

Tu veux le beurre et l’argent du beurre

non puoi avere la botte piena e la moglie ubriaca

no se puede estar a la vez en la procesión y repicando las campanas

и волки сыты и овцы целы

ekki verður bæði sleppt og haldið (Let Grahbudd bring out the Svensk from that)


http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_över_svenska_ordspråk

It's under "M".
grahbudd
 
Posts: 820

Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#267  Postby Cito di Pense » Jul 04, 2010 11:02 pm

Sophie T wrote:Archibald--the "point" would be that, logically speaking, the only way to substantiate one's claim that a theist (even a theist who has no evidence or arguments to support his belief in the existence of God) is irrational would be to prove that God does not exist. Atheists (myself included) tend to insist that theists substantiate their claims. Yet, in the case of a claim from an atheist that theists are irrational, (some) atheists do not seem to substantiate such a claim with evidence, which might be seen as a double standard.


Nope, never seen that one before, an expert summary of the concept of burden of proof and all. Nobody on an atheist forum has ever pondered the claim that there is any connection between making claims without argument or evidence and... irrationality. Imagine having to prove that "theists are irrational", instead of what actually goes on, which is to note the abject failure of theists to do more than fold a revival tent, let alone bend a fucking spoon. Just as much fun as theology. This is quite different to the irrationality of something like Holocaust denial, and nobody here is invidiously comparing the two sorts of irrationality, except perhaps for you.

Well, Sophie, it's just great good fun to watch professed atheists, however tentative they might be, kicking the crap out of a straw man that someone like Plantinga has set up for them. You go, girl. Tough as nails, you are. What the gentle theists in this thread (and many others like it) are doing is poofing out such vagueness that the only detectable defect will be excessive vagueness.

Sophie T wrote: I could be wrong about this, of course. I've been wrong before. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong now. Anyway, I will have a think about it.


Yes, Sophie. Got it in one. You're wrong this time. Not actually wrong, but enthusiastically propping up a straw man the kicking of whose ass is easier (and more fun) than dealing with the actual issues at hand, namely the pointlessness of wibbling that "in the event God actually exists, believing in God is not irrational". Yes, we could just diddle hypotheticals until the final trumpet sounds. The important thing is to look busy in case Jesus shows up. This might even involve an entertaining exercise like kicking the ass of the absurd caricature represented by the God of Calvinism.

Next time, try thinking about it, first, before gracing us with the products of a mind so open the brain seems to have gotten a few loose straws stuck to it.

Man kan inte både ha och äta kakan.

Literally: "One can not bring home an oaken bedroom set from Ikea without spending a little cash."
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28573
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#268  Postby archibald » Jul 05, 2010 6:50 am

Sophie T wrote:--the "point" would be that, logically speaking, the only way to substantiate one's claim that a theist (even a theist who has no evidence or arguments to support his belief in the existence of God) is irrational would be to prove that God does not exist. Atheists (myself included) tend to insist that theists substantiate their claims. Yet, in the case of a claim from an atheist that theists are irrational, (some) atheists do not seem to substantiate such a claim with evidence, which might be seen as a double standard.



Person 1: I think there's a Leprechaun at the bottom of my garden.

Person 2: Oh really, what makes you think that?

Person 1: Well.....<insert preferred evidence/argument here>......and so you see, that's why I believe it.

Person 2: I don't believe you have enough reason to believe that.

Person 1: But can you substantiate that claim with evidence?
Last edited by archibald on Jul 05, 2010 7:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
"It seems rather obvious that plants have free will. Don't know why that would be controversial."
(John Platko)
archibald
 
Posts: 10278
Male

Country: Northern Ireland
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#269  Postby katja z » Jul 05, 2010 7:01 am

Sophie T wrote:
Archibald, it's important to understand that when Plantinga proposes that belief in the existence of God is properly basic, he is not presenting an argument that is attempting to in any way prove the existence of God. From what I understand, his only real point is that IF God exists, then belief in the existence of God (even if that belief is not substantiated with evidence or arguments) is properly basic and is therefore not irrational.

Sophie, I think you nailed this one yourself in one of the previous posts:
Therefore, the only sane and reasonable thing for human beings to do (until and if such a time comes that they are presented with additional or new knowledge) is to do exactly the opposite of what D’Souza/Kant recommend, which is to behave as if our senses do in fact provide us with an accurate (though incomplete) view of reality. And if our senses and our reasoning tell us that God does not in fact exist, then I would suggest that we reject the recommendation of Kant

:thumbup:

Incidentally, Plantinga's argument still doesn't solve Archibald's problem: following this logic, I am justified in believing in leprechauns as well, because it is just possible that they might exist - after all, their existence has never been disproved. And if they do exist, then it is rational to believe in them. This is a heavy misuse of the word "rational", though, which empties it of all reference to the examination of evidence and consistent reasoning.

If I were an iron-age tribeswoman, it would be wholly irrational of me to believe that men could build flying machines (even though this is, in fact the case). Being lucky once and hitting upon something that happened to be true wouldn't make me rational, even though it would make me right. It is even worse with god, of course, for as soon as you leave the realm of deism there are invariably claims that are in contradiction with what we can rationally, reasonably, know about the world.

As for the "basic beliefs" (with no criteria provided as to what constitutes one), this is simply a fancy word meaning "I just know, don't ask me how", or possibly for "many people think so, therefore it must be true" (a lame appeal to numbers). This is quite disappointing, coming from such a distinguished (ahem) writer.

Have a good holiday! :cheers:
User avatar
katja z
RS Donator
 
Posts: 5353
Age: 39

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#270  Postby Unknowing » Jul 05, 2010 6:33 pm

Will S wrote:What I was hoping to do in this topic was to explore the claim which religious people make, or seem to make, that they have ways of finding out about reality which trump, or at least by-pass, reason.

I was also pointing out that they often make what seems to be a lesser claim: that they have ways of finding out about reality which trump, or at least by-pass, science. But I was arguing that there's no hard-and-fast distinction between reason and science, so it's not a lesser claim at all - though it might seem easier to argue.

So far in this discussion, it seems to me that the religious people who have happened along are struggling to keep their powder dry. That is, they're not positively saying that they are able to by-pass reason; on the other hand, they're not positively saying that they're on all fours with the rest of us and, like us, are subject to reason.

So, much as I expected, the needle of my Muddle Detector is flickering towards the orange and red zones. :angel:


Ha! I think those unscientific and (un)reasonable ways may not sit so well with making certain claims, but I get your position.

P.S. A Muddle Detector sounds like a good thing in principle, but is there a zone beyond red? ;)
Unknowing
 
Posts: 100

Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#271  Postby Sophie T » Jul 06, 2010 5:23 pm

So much for not posting this week. Briefly then . . .

I think Katja and Archibald are correct. If we say:

A. If God exists, it is not irrational to believe that God exists since belief in the existence of God would be properly basic.

Then we would also have to say:

B. If the Great Pumpkin exists, it is not irrational to believe in the existence of the Great Pumpkin since belief in the Great Pumpkin would be properly basic.

Plantinga does try to offer a defense in the form of “Yes, it would be true if the Great Pumpkin existed, but the Great Pumpkin doesn’t exist, so . . . "

In response to this (as has been pointed out by some philosophers) the Pumpkinite (believer in the existence of the Great Pumpkin) could just as easily say, “Yes, it would be true if God exists, but God doesn’t exist, so . . . “

I’m not sure that I ever said that this wouldn’t be true, but if I did say that, I shouldn’t have because at this point, I really haven’t read anything by Plantinga that shows why both statements (A-B) above wouldn’t be true. I’ve done a little snooping around on the Internet about this, and there seems to be at least some talk that Plantinga has in fact changed his position on this in recent years, agreeing that yes, in fact, if A is true, then B is also true. I don’t know if it is true that Plantinga has changed his position, but if so, I guess it would be much like Kant writing, near the end of his life something that implied strongly that he was an atheist and not a theist.

As for Katja’s post—yes, if a person does not have a belief and/or does not see any reason to believe in the existence of God, then I still think the sane, rational thing to do is to behave as if God does not exist. However, Plantinga does make an interesting point about this. He writes something along the lines that if a person believes in the existence of God (even if he or she doesn’t know why he or she believes), would it then be rational for that person to try and force himself to stop believing?

I don’t think that we necessarily choose our beliefs. For example, if I was ordered to stop believing that I am more than a brain in a vat, I don’t think I could comply with such an order. By the same token, a person who has a strong belief in the existence of God can certainly think about his or her beliefs. However, I don’t think it would be irrational for that person to go on believing without first being presented with what Plantinga refers to as “a Defeater” for his or her belief. Even Plantinga agrees that if a person is presented with “a Defeater” for his belief and that person is not able to arrive at a solution for such a defeater, then his belief could no longer be considered “properly basic.” At this point, then, I think Plantinga would concede that the person’s belief in the existence of God is irrational. However, many Christians don’t care if their faith is irrational. In fact, they pride themselves on it, with the old rhyme:

If faith and reason clash. Reason must go crash!

Anyway, perhaps all of this discussion has been for naught. After combing the loose straws out of my brain, I have come to the enlightened conclusion that the real issue that should be discussed here is the ability to “bend a fucking spoon.” I recall, several years ago, when my Great Great Uncle Dick, who was a retired superior court judge, was nearing the end of his life. He used to sit outside on the porch in his rocker, grumbling angrily about everything from A-Z and saying over and over again, “Goddammit, I know!. He might have also said something about “wibbling,” but that’s hard to say. Some of the cousins are pretty sure that what he was really talking about was a word that rhymed with wibbling and sounded a lot like jiggling. Good old Uncle Dick. He was as tough as nails. He was. His whole life, he boasted of having nothing to lose, but in the end, it was his life and his failing cognition that he was the most bitter about having to give up. In fact, so determined was he to hang on to his life that he broke down and cried like a little girl just before his own funeral. During the funeral, the guests were horrified to hear Uncle Dick knocking on the lid of his coffin. The director of the funeral home moved quickly to open the coffin, but by the time they were able to do so, Uncle Dick was only able to say one last, “God dammit, I know!” before he gasped his last and was pronounced dead. For real this time. Must go now and shop at Ikea. Thanks for the shopping tip. It’s amazing how much you can learn from people with monkey avatars on the Internet.
It matters not how strait the gate, how charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.
~ Excerpt from William Ernest Henley's Invictus
Sophie T
 
Posts: 801
Female

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#272  Postby katja z » Jul 06, 2010 6:04 pm

Hi Sophie! This is a pleasant surprise, I thought you wouldn't be around for some time. :cheers:

Sophie T wrote:I don’t think that we necessarily choose our beliefs. For example, if I was ordered to stop believing that I am more than a brain in a vat, I don’t think I could comply with such an order. By the same token, a person who has a strong belief in the existence of God can certainly think about his or her beliefs. However, I don’t think it would be irrational for that person to go on believing without first being presented with what Plantinga refers to as “a Defeater” for his or her belief.

I agree that beliefs are not necessarily chosen. Religious belief in particular is usually acquired in childhood as something "natural" and self-evident, and it complicates matters further that it is tied with strong emotions, wishes and hopes.
It is also true that a deist god is practically "undefeatable"; indeed, a deist god is something that evades rational evaluation completely, since there is nothing that we could base it on (hence, I am willing to concede that deism may not be an irrational position). But as soon as this vague notion of a higher being acquires any specific attributes and is associated with specific events - in short, as soon as we move from a deist god to the particular deity of any religion - "defeaters" abound. And they are indeed felt as potential threats, as can be seen from attempts by many (most?) believers to shield their ideas from examination and criticism.

However, many Christians don’t care if their faith is irrational. In fact, they pride themselves on it, with the old rhyme:

If faith and reason clash. Reason must go crash!

:nod: I find it interesting that followers of one and the same religion cannot agree amongst themselves whether their faith is/can be rationally held or not. I am aware that different varieties of Christianity have developed different theologies, but from what Will S said in one of the early posts in this thread it would seem that this is not a case of conflicting interpretations among different brands of Christianity, but a discrepancy internal to several of them. :think:
User avatar
katja z
RS Donator
 
Posts: 5353
Age: 39

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#273  Postby Sophie T » Jul 06, 2010 6:44 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Sophie wrote

How can one observe something that is beyond one's senses?

Can you provide an example of something that you can observe that does not employ the use of your senses? (Even if you want to talk about using a microscope or some other tool, you will still require your senses to observe, interpret, etc. what is seen through the microscope.)



When the phrase “beyond our senses” is used, it conveys the limit to human perception as a result of only been able to see things from one vantage point. So the phrase itself is valid; however, the phrase leads to a misunderstanding: It does not mean that what is beyond our senses is beyond our perception completely; it actually means that what we are perceiving we can only do so from a limited vantage point. So, to avoid this confusion, the phrase should properly be “beyond our senses to be certain that our model is perfect”. Instead, it is used to mean that there is a reality that transcends our observation, altogether. Which is clearly not the case: The limit to the senses is only a limit to how the senses interpret what is already been observed; not a restriction upon our ability to observe.

Hopefully that will make things a bit clearer.


No, I'm afraid that that doesn't provide any sort of clarity at all. In fact, it only muddles things further. The initial excerpt I provided from the book was D'Souza/Kant talking about whether or not human beings, in their current state, are able to perceive all of reality. When D'Souza/Kant talk about "beyond our senses," yes they do, in fact, mean "beyond our perception completely" And yes, they DO mean "there is a reality that transcends our observation, altogether." At least, they mean that in our current state, there is a reality that is transcends our observation.

You wrote: Which is clearly not the case: The limit to the senses is only a limit to how the senses interpret what is already been observed; not a restriction upon our ability to observe.

No, that isn't what D'Souza/Kant are saying. They are not saying that our senses limit our interpretation of reality. What D'Souza/Kant are saying is that our senses limit how much of reality we can perceive. And again, while I agree that it's quite possible that this is true, I don't think we can know for sure that it is true.

Now, if you disagree with what D'Souza/Kant are saying, then please substantiate your claim. Please explain how it is that you, personally, can perceive anything at all without the use of your senses? All I'm asking you to do is to provide one example of something that you can perceive without the use of your senses.
It matters not how strait the gate, how charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.
~ Excerpt from William Ernest Henley's Invictus
Sophie T
 
Posts: 801
Female

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#274  Postby nunnington » Jul 06, 2010 7:48 pm

Isn't Kant saying that some things, such as time, space, causality, free will, being a person - are not experienced, but are the preconditions for having an experience, or constitute the structure of experience itself? Hence they are not empirical, but transcendental (but not transcendent). I assume Kant aligns God with that group, but no doubt a Kantian (hint, hint, Mr G. Budd) could be more precise.
je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
nunnington
 
Posts: 3979

Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#275  Postby Sophie T » Jul 06, 2010 9:13 pm

I was just telling Destroyer what D'Souza writes about Kant in his book. I don't know what grahbbud believes, and unless grahbbud provides a definition of what he means when he uses the word "God," understanding does not seem to be in the forecast.
It matters not how strait the gate, how charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.
~ Excerpt from William Ernest Henley's Invictus
Sophie T
 
Posts: 801
Female

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#276  Postby Cito di Pense » Jul 07, 2010 12:35 pm

nunnington wrote:Isn't Kant saying that some things, such as time, space, causality, free will, being a person - are not experienced, but are the preconditions for having an experience, or constitute the structure of experience itself? Hence they are not empirical, but transcendental (but not transcendent).


Is that it? The greatest accomplishment to which one might aspire in these circumstances is to be taken seriously as an interpreter of Immanuel Kant? You can make any thought seem transcendent to you if you engage in enough intellectual masturbation. Heck, even the literal meaning of the word '"literal" can keep some wibblers busy almost indefinitely.

One thing is for sure, and it is that, in his desire to define experience, Kant offers no clues about how to control it, which is what is involved in a scientific experiment. The morons of metaphysics will insist that a scientific experiment is an experience just like any other, and unless you explain what it "is", don't bother to proceed. This, of course, assures you that you will never be forced to tackle a subject of any difficulty, that might involve learning some mathematics.

If I discover that metaphysicians are unsuited to wearing shoes with laces, I should not be surprised.

Theists take their invisible ball and run with it, dribbling deftly past the stationary men of straw they have defined as defending the opposite goal and firing an interminable series of crosses (no pun intended) back and forth in front of an empty net. Their goal is only to get past the straw men, which makes them essentially like those geniuses who play air guitar just like Knopfler does in real life. Legends in their own minds.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28573
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#277  Postby nunnington » Jul 07, 2010 3:27 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
nunnington wrote:Isn't Kant saying that some things, such as time, space, causality, free will, being a person - are not experienced, but are the preconditions for having an experience, or constitute the structure of experience itself? Hence they are not empirical, but transcendental (but not transcendent).


Is that it? The greatest accomplishment to which one might aspire in these circumstances is to be taken seriously as an interpreter of Immanuel Kant? You can make any thought seem transcendent to you if you engage in enough intellectual masturbation. Heck, even the literal meaning of the word '"literal" can keep some wibblers busy almost indefinitely.

One thing is for sure, and it is that, in his desire to define experience, Kant offers no clues about how to control it, which is what is involved in a scientific experiment. The morons of metaphysics will insist that a scientific experiment is an experience just like any other, and unless you explain what it "is", don't bother to proceed. This, of course, assures you that you will never be forced to tackle a subject of any difficulty, that might involve learning some mathematics.

If I discover that metaphysicians are unsuited to wearing shoes with laces, I should not be surprised.

Theists take their invisible ball and run with it, dribbling deftly past the stationary men of straw they have defined as defending the opposite goal and firing an interminable series of crosses (no pun intended) back and forth in front of an empty net. Their goal is only to get past the straw men, which makes them essentially like those geniuses who play air guitar just like Knopfler does in real life. Legends in their own minds.


I love your posts, as generally I don't understand a single word of them. Actually, the first para above is pretty clear, so something must be wrong. Anyway, I am sure this is all due to my poor comprehension, but it gives me great aesthetic pleasure, like a form of concrete poetry, or something that the French do with words. So keep up the good work.
je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
nunnington
 
Posts: 3979

Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#278  Postby nunnington » Jul 07, 2010 4:34 pm

Incidentally, I think it's correct that Kant demolished most of the traditional arguments for God. He did this by arguing that such arguments confused categories of the human mind with something 'real'. Thus since we don't know if there are causes in the 'real world', we can't argue for God as first cause. Pretty kool, eh?
je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
nunnington
 
Posts: 3979

Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#279  Postby Cito di Pense » Jul 07, 2010 5:31 pm

nunnington wrote:such arguments confused categories of the human mind with something 'real'


Yeah, but some people take it too far, of course, and say that everything is just a category of human mind.

What I really care about is whether or not you're one of those. If you are, then you need to elaborate your thoughts on whether or not what people say can actually bend any spoons. If spoons are just a category of human mind, how come it's so much easier to bend your own dick than it is to bend a spoon?

We're talking about hands-free operation, more or less in the style of cellular phones. :lol:
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28573
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#280  Postby nunnington » Jul 07, 2010 5:47 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
nunnington wrote:such arguments confused categories of the human mind with something 'real'


Yeah, but some people take it too far, of course, and say that everything is just a category of human mind.

What I really care about is whether or not you're one of those. If you are, then you need to elaborate your thoughts on whether or not what people say can actually bend any spoons. If spoons are just a category of human mind, how come it's so much easier to bend your own dick than it is to bend a spoon?

We're talking about hands-free operation, more or less in the style of cellular phones. :lol:


Well, playing devil's advocate, sort of, if a spoon is a category of mind, so is my hand, so I can bend one part of my mind with another part. Hey ho.

Well, you are quite charming really, aren't you, behind that gruff exterior. Any chance of a signed photo? Go on, you know you want to.
je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
nunnington
 
Posts: 3979

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest