Reason / Science / Religion

Christianity, Islam, Other Religions & Belief Systems.

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#281  Postby Cito di Pense » Jul 07, 2010 8:35 pm

nunnington wrote: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.


You're almost there, nunnington. Almost to the place where you have more than one scheme (that of "mind") in your philosophy. Sophisticates would call you a "monist" at this point. You can do it. Now think of the situation where the spoon is not in your hand, and give us a discourse on different categories of existence, and you can turn yourself, presto! change-o! into a dualist.

nunnington wrote: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.


We could go on playing your schoolyard game until you grew tired of it. Fortunately, I'm not getting the impression you really wish to be taken seriously, which is quite appropriate under the circumstances.
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: 28541
Age: 22
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#282  Postby nunnington » Jul 07, 2010 8:47 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
nunnington wrote: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.


You're almost there, nunnington. Almost to the place where you have more than one scheme (that of "mind") in your philosophy. Sophisticates would call you a "monist" at this point. You can do it. Now think of the situation where the spoon is not in your hand, and give us a discourse on different categories of existence, and you can turn yourself, presto! change-o! into a dualist.

nunnington wrote: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.


We could go on playing your schoolyard game until you grew tired of it. Fortunately, I'm not getting the impression you really wish to be taken seriously, which is quite appropriate under the circumstances.


Ah well, I don't trust you; and I'm probably frightened of you, so copious defences are quite appropriate, I think.
je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
nunnington
 
Posts: 3979

Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#283  Postby Cito di Pense » Jul 08, 2010 1:04 am

nunnington wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

We could go on playing your schoolyard game until you grew tired of it. Fortunately, I'm not getting the impression you really wish to be taken seriously, which is quite appropriate under the circumstances.


Ah well, I don't trust you; and I'm probably frightened of you, so copious defences are quite appropriate, I think.


Ah. Since you're given to extreme vagueness aimed, apparently, at deflecting criticism in case you are taken seriously....

nunnington wrote:
But do we not then find a new revelation, as you say? "I desire mercy, not sacrifice", (interestingly, itself taken from the Hebrew Bible, but now the focal point). The Axial Age reaches one of its zeniths, and it becomes possible to have an interior spiritual life.


I wouldn't call it the "focal point". More a "fecal point". After all the wibbling, nunnington, you still have the implicit connection between the "interior spiritual life" and its better tautological half, the "glorification of gawwd".

Let me add that you are not the first person I've encountered snurfling along the mercy-sacrifice axis in the Axial Age, like some bloodhound of paradise. Who's the source author for this absurd round of dick-polishing?

Now, you can go on flurtzing about "the Axial Age" and about "interior spiritual life", in order to avoid mentioning the "glorification of g-wwwwwd", but can we not take it as read that we are faced with a deity which needs "glorification" (and whinges mightily if glorification turns into glory-fuck-off-ication.) It's either that, or a deity which needs nothing and just has oodles of "grace" to pass around. And whinges like a ten-year-old girl if the gift is not received.

Either way, no one in his right mind is going to worship a whinger. And there's no whinger like Jah-whinge.

If you have the stomach for it, we can deconstruct together the notion of "gifts" and arrive at the surprising fact that there is no such thing as a free lunch. At least, not in the natural world, where the laws of thermodynamics hold sway. So, if you are talking about a bona fide free lunch, me bhoyo, you are talking about woo, which is "reference to the supernatural".
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: 28541
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#284  Postby nunnington » Jul 08, 2010 6:05 am

C de P

That sounds like the man who says to the girl, we could deconstruct your knickers, if you like, but then I might have to fuck you. Lucky girl.
je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho.
nunnington
 
Posts: 3979

Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#285  Postby Destroyer » Jul 08, 2010 11:04 am

Sophie T wrote

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.



Our senses “limit how much of reality we can perceive” precisely because our interpretation comes from those limited senses.

Reality is what we are all observing. How we interpret that reality is down to our senses. Because our senses are limited we can never be certain that our grasp of reality is perfect; but we can be pretty confident that we have a good approximation of that reality when our peers and those about us are in agreement with our own observations: because, unless our observations can be shown to be false, those observations will be constant and always accessible for replication.

So if D’Sousa/Kant, or anyone else want to claim that there is a reality other than the One that we are interpreting by our limited senses; then that is just pie-in-the-sky which cannot be supported by any evidence.
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1772
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#286  Postby katja z » Jul 13, 2010 6:43 pm

Bump! Grahbudd? You did promise me an answer, you know.

*drums fingers*
User avatar
katja z
RS Donator
 
Posts: 5353
Age: 39

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#287  Postby Sophie T » Jul 13, 2010 6:48 pm

^^Wow--that's determination. ;)

I just figure that if someone doesn't respond to my post, that's just their way of politely letting me know that they're not interested in engaging me in discussion, and after that, I don't try again.
Last edited by Sophie T on Jul 13, 2010 6:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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

#288  Postby katja z » Jul 13, 2010 6:52 pm

Sophie T wrote:^^Wow--that's determination. ;)

I just figure that if someone doesn't respond to my post, that's just their way of politely letting me know that they're not interested in engaging me in discussion, and after that, I don't try again.

Same here, in general. This is a special case though ;)

I hope you enjoyed your holiday! :cheers:
User avatar
katja z
RS Donator
 
Posts: 5353
Age: 39

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#289  Postby Sophie T » Jul 13, 2010 7:00 pm

katja z wrote:
Sophie T wrote:^^Wow--that's determination. ;)

I just figure that if someone doesn't respond to my post, that's just their way of politely letting me know that they're not interested in engaging me in discussion, and after that, I don't try again.

Same here, in general. This is a special case though ;)

I hope you enjoyed your holiday! :cheers:


When I was little, I was painfully shy. School was a nightmare for me. It didn't help that when I was in the first grade, they decided to move me up to the second grade where I had no friends and was not emotionally equipped to be in a classroom with children a full year older than I was. I remember telling my mother how much I hated recess because I had no one to play with. Her advice to me was to go up to someone on the playground and to say, "Do you want to be my friend?" So I did. I found a little girl with red hair and freckles. She seemed friendly enough. She was climbing on the jungle gym. And so I climbed up, too. After a few minutes, I said, "Do you want to be my friend." And she said, very nicely but very firmly, "No, I do not." hee hee . . . . After that, I learned not to "pursue" people and especially not to pursue Christians! However, your experience may be different than mine, so I shouldn't interfere. :thumbup:

Just thought I'd throw this out there. It's in keeping with the playground scene that Will described earlier. :lol:
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

#290  Postby Viva la Vida » Nov 02, 2010 1:40 pm

Will S wrote:Thanks to all for the generous and interesting comments on the OP.

But, as far as I can see (and please correct me if I'm wrong) not one of you is a theist or a religious sympathiser. Which leaves me preaching to the converted - not that I can do anything about it.

Seriously, I'd welcome a critique of the OP from the religious point of view. Is there any chance that one will be forthcoming?


So, let me see if I understand your point correctly: the idea of holding a belief based on reason, is equivalent to holding a belief based on science?

I would argue, from what I gather from your post, that your going down the path of labeling what you so please as reasonable, and unreasonable. If one gathers from his experience and observation of the world, a divine artist behind it, would that be a reasonable inference? Is the only reasonable inference, one that sees no hand?
User avatar
Viva la Vida
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 79

Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#291  Postby archibald » Nov 02, 2010 1:49 pm

Viva la Vida wrote:So, let me see if I understand your point correctly: the idea of holding a belief based on reason, is equivalent to holding a belief based on science?

I would argue, from what I gather from your post, that your going down the path of labeling what you so please as reasonable, and unreasonable. If one gathers from his experience and observation of the world, a divine artist behind it, would that be a reasonable inference? Is the only reasonable inference, one that sees no hand?


Apart from science and reason not being equivalent, I would venture to say yes to your question.

Though I will defer to the person you asked the question of, Will S, who will probably want to give you his own answer.

But feel free to engage me in the meantime, if you want.

First come, first served, and all that. :]
"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

#292  Postby Viva la Vida » Nov 02, 2010 1:56 pm

archibald wrote:
Viva la Vida wrote:So, let me see if I understand your point correctly: the idea of holding a belief based on reason, is equivalent to holding a belief based on science?

I would argue, from what I gather from your post, that your going down the path of labeling what you so please as reasonable, and unreasonable. If one gathers from his experience and observation of the world, a divine artist behind it, would that be a reasonable inference? Is the only reasonable inference, one that sees no hand?


Apart from science and reason not being equivalent, I would venture to say yes to your question.

Though I will defer to WillS, who will probably want to give you his own answer.


Well the 'common' sense belief is that there is such a higher power. This is view inferred by the vast majority of people, even in highly secular societies such as the Scandinavian ones. His argument that 'science' and 'common sense' are equivalent is also spotty.

The end result of your 'yes' is that only the small sprinkle of atheist can a hold a 'reasonable' worldview, while everyone outside of this sprinkle would 'disagree'. Your use of 'reasonable' would be equivalent to a person's use of 'pretty'--stripped of any meaning beyond a subjective fancy.
User avatar
Viva la Vida
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 79

Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#293  Postby Will S » Nov 02, 2010 3:54 pm

Viva la Vida wrote:
Will S wrote:Thanks to all for the generous and interesting comments on the OP.

But, as far as I can see (and please correct me if I'm wrong) not one of you is a theist or a religious sympathiser. Which leaves me preaching to the converted - not that I can do anything about it.

Seriously, I'd welcome a critique of the OP from the religious point of view. Is there any chance that one will be forthcoming?


So, let me see if I understand your point correctly: the idea of holding a belief based on reason, is equivalent to holding a belief based on science?

I would argue, from what I gather from your post, that your going down the path of labeling what you so please as reasonable, and unreasonable. If one gathers from his experience and observation of the world, a divine artist behind it, would that be a reasonable inference? Is the only reasonable inference, one that sees no hand?

Would it be a reasonable inference? - you ask.

How can I answer the question? It might be, or it might not, depending entirely on what evidence you produced and what reasoning processes you applied to it. The proof of the pudding ....
'To a thinking person, a paradox is what the smell of burning rubber is to an electrical engineer' - Sir Peter Medawar (adapted)
Will S
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1336
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#294  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 02, 2010 4:09 pm

Viva la Vida wrote:
I would argue, from what I gather from your post, that your going down the path of labeling what you so please as reasonable, and unreasonable.


Do you think it unreasonable to ask, if you claim what you suppose is evidence for your position, that you produce the evidence? Evidence is something you produce, and it does not consist of discourse.

Perhaps you wish to suggest that the workers must acquire control of the means of production.

Do you have any criteria whatsoever for dismissing claims of evidence? If you do, let's hear them. Or do you think 'evidence' is just like 'argument', something perpetually to circle around in a wibbling pattern?
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: 28541
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#295  Postby archibald » Nov 02, 2010 11:53 pm

Viva la Vida wrote:Well the 'common' sense belief is that there is such a higher power. This is view inferred by the vast majority of people, even in highly secular societies such as the Scandinavian ones. His argument that 'science' and 'common sense' are equivalent is also spotty.

The end result of your 'yes' is that only the small sprinkle of atheist can a hold a 'reasonable' worldview, while everyone outside of this sprinkle would 'disagree'. Your use of 'reasonable' would be equivalent to a person's use of 'pretty'--stripped of any meaning beyond a subjective fancy.



When I say reasonable, I mean with good reason, or with good reasoning, that's all. And in that sense, I'm sticking with my yes.

The idea that 'reasonable' should carry any weight because of 'more popular' is easily questioned if I am right in thinking that most people once thought lots of things, like the world is flat and the sun moves around it. Heck, lots of things started with a small sprinkle. Maybe you need to think about getting on board. Choo choo.

Nice definition of religion there. Stripped of any meaning beyond a subjective fancy. I like it.
"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

Ads by Google


Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#296  Postby Will S » Nov 03, 2010 8:34 am

Heigh ho!

I recall something in the Bible about offering someone bread and then giving them a stone. For a moment I thought that Viva la Vida was offering a critique of the OP from a theist, or even Christian, point of view.

Now he seems to be yet another of these hit-and-run merchants.
'To a thinking person, a paradox is what the smell of burning rubber is to an electrical engineer' - Sir Peter Medawar (adapted)
Will S
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1336
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#297  Postby Cito di Pense » Nov 03, 2010 3:01 pm

Will S wrote:
Now he seems to be yet another of these hit-and-run merchants.


I think that, under the circumstances, Viva felt that discretion was the reasonable part of valour.
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: 28541
Age: 22
Male

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

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#298  Postby sanja » Nov 11, 2010 11:04 am

Will S wrote:

Very often in discussions between religious people and non-religious people, a religious person will say something along the following lines:

...
Or sometimes it may sound more reasonable. Often it's along these lines:

    Therefore, we must recognise that there are other ways of finding out about reality, such as our intuitions or our emotions, and we should use these to supplement or even to correct what we learn from science.
The second of these caveats certainly sounds plausible. Surely, it's clear that in everyday life we find out a very great deal without using science? So science seems to be limited in the kind of way that the religious person claims. However, I suggest that this whole argument is misleading, and for one simple reason: it relies on a definition of science which is woolly and unsustainable.

Why do you believe only religious person would think like that?
I would say that Artur Schopenhauer was pretty firm atheist.
He thought pretty much like that (not quite like that, but pretty much so)
Yo, ho, haul together, hoist the colours high ...
sanja
 
Name: sanja
Posts: 532
Age: 47
Female

Serbia (rs)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#299  Postby Will S » Nov 11, 2010 11:47 am

sanja wrote:
Will S wrote:

Very often in discussions between religious people and non-religious people, a religious person will say something along the following lines:

...
Or sometimes it may sound more reasonable. Often it's along these lines:

    Therefore, we must recognise that there are other ways of finding out about reality, such as our intuitions or our emotions, and we should use these to supplement or even to correct what we learn from science.
The second of these caveats certainly sounds plausible. Surely, it's clear that in everyday life we find out a very great deal without using science? So science seems to be limited in the kind of way that the religious person claims. However, I suggest that this whole argument is misleading, and for one simple reason: it relies on a definition of science which is woolly and unsustainable.

Why do you believe only religious person would think like that?
I would say that Artur Schopenhauer was pretty firm atheist.
He thought pretty much like that (not quite like that, but pretty much so)

But I don't necessarily believe that only a religious person would think like that. Nor did I say it!

You can (presumably!) adopt a definition of science which is 'woolly and unsustainable' without being religious - though, admittedly, I think this is a very common vice amongst religious people.
'To a thinking person, a paradox is what the smell of burning rubber is to an electrical engineer' - Sir Peter Medawar (adapted)
Will S
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1336
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Reason / Science / Religion

#300  Postby sanja » Nov 11, 2010 1:00 pm

What Schopenhauer wrote was not woolly and unsustainable.
IMHO.
Yo, ho, haul together, hoist the colours high ...
sanja
 
Name: sanja
Posts: 532
Age: 47
Female

Serbia (rs)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Theism

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests