RE: Natural Order and Science
February 26, 2016 at 5:25 am
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2016 at 5:26 am by robvalue.)
If you're trying to use philosophy to demonstrate objective facts about reality, then you are going to fail. And fail hard. It has to be combined with the scientific method, or else you're off in an abstract simplified model of reality, with no confirmation that anything you "learn" from that model has any bearing on reality.
Reducing reality to simple rules like, "everything needs a cause" is just making a massive unfounded assumption. "In my experience things have needed a cause" is what the person is actually saying, and is then trying to extrapolate that to all of reality, including reality itself. This is garbage, and it's why this kind of thing never produces any meaningful results. What use is it?
To me, the useful parts of philosophy come down to:
1) Logic
2) Morality
3) Pragmatism
Reducing reality to simple rules like, "everything needs a cause" is just making a massive unfounded assumption. "In my experience things have needed a cause" is what the person is actually saying, and is then trying to extrapolate that to all of reality, including reality itself. This is garbage, and it's why this kind of thing never produces any meaningful results. What use is it?
To me, the useful parts of philosophy come down to:
1) Logic
2) Morality
3) Pragmatism
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum