RE: Dualism
June 29, 2009 at 1:12 pm
(This post was last modified: June 29, 2009 at 3:03 pm by Purple Rabbit.)
(June 28, 2009 at 6:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I make no claim. A scientist would do so, I wouldn't. God either did or did not create the multi/universe. Which side you choose has little bearing on science. It has every bearing on resultant belief systems. this is the point. So scientists like to fill their time considering ludicrous notions such as purple rabbits. There's logic for you.
The purple rabbit is ludicrous in common practice indeed, but no scientist is claiming it’s existence. It is only a rather simple, unscientific if you will (though in my opinion philosophy and science go hand in hand), philosophical thought experiment. Just insert ‘purple rabbit’ for your specific god and see if it makes any difference. For you have to agree that “the purple rabbit either did or did not create the universe” (can you feel the suggestion of purple rabbit power in that statement?). By suggesting a divide between ‘ludicrous philosophy’ and ‘unscientific philosphy’ (your term) without providing a clear ground for this distinction you leave me to conclude that some emotion about your particular god plays some role in it. Bottomline, if your god in our reality is indistinguishable from the purple rabbit, it is as ludicrous. This is a point of critique of religions in general. Always the god(s) of other religions are ludicrous, but no specific religion so far has been capable of providing any ground for the implicit claim that theirs isn’t. Religions by their sheer existence posit the claim that their god is different from the other gods. In practice however for the outsider it seems that any babble will suffice to constitute religion. And this notion is fed by the practical insight that the main factor in ‘choosing’ a specific religion is cultural background and upbringing.
If you indeed make no claim at all, it really becomes very fuzzy what you are spending your words on. You are not claiming that a particular god exists but you do demand that any such claim thereof is unprovable. I think that is very odd. Does the god category constitute some special class of concepts that is immune to proof? If yes, then proof it, for by saying this you are making a strong claim. If no, then your conclusion is invalid. You do not claim that your unprovable god exists but you claim that he as sure as hell is different from other unprovable gods. You set a new standard in defying the logic of reasoning.
(June 28, 2009 at 6:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: PR Wrote:Theologian thinkers through the ages have asserted that there is conclusive proof of the christian god.Anselm made that claim (with the ontological evidence for the existence of god), Thomas of Aquino who viewed theology as a science made that claim, Richard Swinburne makes that claim, to name only a few. Philosophical literature is stuffed with it. In fact for many years philosophy has been so heavily influenced by theologian dogma that it was quite risky (and life threathening even) to not include a definite proof of god’s existence in any major work on philosophy or science.
There's a claim. substantiate please.
(June 28, 2009 at 6:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: “Christianity provides direction for humanity to be fulfilled.Looks like a claim and an assumption to me. The claim that christianity (do you mean the christians or the dogmas?) contributes some sort of ‘direction’. The assumption being that humanity as a whole needs to be fulfilled. What kind of fulfillment are you thinking of? Whose need or assignment is it? Surely not mine. I prefer to not impose any of my personal life goals on others. And let’s make this SMART: what is your stop criterion? When is humanity fulfilled? It has nothing to do with some final judgement, has it? Or are you referring to the final enlighted state of the Buddha? What is this direction you speak off? Any direction is A direction don’t you think? So anyone can claim providing direction without ever providing anything. Is the christian direction better than other directions? In what way? Do you have some absolute criterion for this? Sounds very interesting, please elaborate.
(June 28, 2009 at 6:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: “Neither do I claim any professional type accuracy to the words I use. I'm just an interested observer saying what I see. Juggling with the meaning of words seems precisely the drift of your post. You know what I'm saying and strive to belittle me with pedantry. Face. Bothered?
Don’t go into this mode please. I am not attacking you personally but your arguments. I value your opinion and think you provide an interesting viewpoint. I have no judgment about who you are as a person. I happen to disagree however with some of your views. Likewise, I might be offended when you call the purple rabbit idea ludicrous, but I am not. I am not hurt when you return the accusation of juggling with the same words or pedantry even. And don't play the mind reading trick. You cannot see inside my head what my real intentions are, as I cannot see inside yours. This is open debate and the fact that I am putting effort in it shows my interest in your stance. And I do acknowledge that it is often hard to choose the right words. My intention is not to trap you in unprofessional use of words but to get clear what you do mean. So what do you mean when you make a distinction between evidence and proof if it’s not what seemed obvious to me?
(June 28, 2009 at 6:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Not one biblical truth has been superseded by science.
Start with Genesis. The lord created the earth and after that the heavens, implicitly asserting that these are separate entities. Science shows that there is no seperation between earth and the heavens, that their history and nature is intrinsically linked and that the chronology is wrong in Genesis. Of course religions can always divert from these inconsistencies with re-interpretations and claiming non-literal meaning of some sort. But tell me which uniquely biblical ‘truth’ (btw: use of that word strongly suggests some claim on absoluteness) has ever helped to gain insight into the nature of our universe, to cure diseases, to better predict earth quakes, to improve building materials, to improve crop results, to establish human rights, to understand the animal kingdom, to abolish slavery, to give women equal rights, to find energy resources, to ease the pain for the dying and the sick? Is it the papal call for abstinence from intercourse over the use of condoms? Choose any of the more than 3000 christian denominations you like to answer this one.
Moreover, if biblical truths state no claim about this world, as suggested by you earlier, then there is not a shred of substance to it and it is irrelevant in philosophical debate on the nature of our world. You seem to have trouble with the distinction between belief as a technical model of acceptance and personal motivations of people for believe. In the technical sense belief as such does not require proof or any other form of justification for that matter. You can believe that the earth is flat, or that 5 equals 6. You are completely free to believe it. Things change however when you enter debate and confront your opponents with your personal 'truths'. You will find that although your belief that 5 equals 6 didn't require from you to substantiate, justify or proof it in any way, entering debate with it will trigger critique by your opponents and indeed justification of claims and beliefs is what debating is about. While belief as such does not require jutification in any form, debate requires from it's participants to substantiate and to justify. Most believers I know do require some form of justification for their beliefs themselves. In general believers are not proud of blind unsubstantiated faith and all over the world believers are indeed claiming that god created the world and everything in it. Debate requires justification, debaters require justification and most believers themself require justification for their beliefs.
(June 28, 2009 at 6:50 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Science has helped dismiss superstition and poor interpretation.But it never has been an ambition of the scientific method/program. Science has gained this authority not by missionary work but it’s open structure, based on critique not on dogma, unbothered with unclear and irrelevant distinctions between superstition and religion, has been a basis for concrete results rather than words on paper.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0