For a moment, I thought it was Benny replying and wondered why the quality of his posts had tanked - then I took another look at the username and sighed in relief.
If there are any psychologists reading this, I'm pretty sure they're laughing their asses off. One of the most common criticisms of psychology from the other sciences is that it deals with phenomenal experiences and not facts of matter. And for the record, science can and has explicated many things that transcend the boundaries of matter - which you'd know if you had read rest of the posts in this thread.
Meaningless quote. It provides no arguments relevant to my point.
More meaningless jibber-jabber.
That you can find a philosopher who - based on nonsensical presumptions or transcendence and encompassing - justifies the equally ridiculous notions such as faith, means nothing. If you are appealing to authority then you should atleast start with his primary justifications - not the conclusions
Nope - sorry. Both on scientific and philosophical grounds, it has not yet been established that the Universe had a cause.
Ofcourse I do.
Agency is a quality of consciousness.
Consciousness can exist only in specific forms of complex systems like human brain.
Universe - as a whole - is not such a system.
Therefore, universe is not an agent.
And yet, I do it all the time.
They don't have to. There are so many other problems with it.
The only way those are 'misconceptions' is if they are incorrect translations - in which case it should be easy for you to disprove them using the correct ones. So, go ahead - do that - and then come back with your indignant posturing.
(September 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Harris Wrote: Psychology deals with human behaviourism. It only deals with hard facts, means it can’t answer why we have phenomenal experiences and what in fact are those. Factually, science can’t explicate anything which transcends the boundaries of matter.
If there are any psychologists reading this, I'm pretty sure they're laughing their asses off. One of the most common criticisms of psychology from the other sciences is that it deals with phenomenal experiences and not facts of matter. And for the record, science can and has explicated many things that transcend the boundaries of matter - which you'd know if you had read rest of the posts in this thread.
(September 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Harris Wrote: As for faith, check this quote:
Quote
Faith cannot be solely analysed as something negative, irrational or as Camus would picture it, compared to a blind leap onwards. Faith, according to German philosopher should be always engaged from the standpoint in which it is strictly related to human knowledge.
Meaningless quote. It provides no arguments relevant to my point.
(September 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Harris Wrote: Second argument raised by Jaspers is that faith should not be analysed from subject-object division. If phenomenons of existence are looked upon on basis of these two categories, the problem of transcendence in regard to the human desire for totality becomes impossible to achieve. The transcendent being, according to Jaspers cannot be understood in such manner, making space for one of the most interesting concepts of Jaspers’ philosophy – das Umgreifende – encompassing. The understanding of the transcendent as encompassing allows to look upon it without treating the transcendence as the object of human endeavour. The encompassing is, from what we start and towards which we proceed in our existence without dogmatizing the lively human thought. The encompassing is founded both on the existence – as the external world of phenomena and the internal world of experience, on the consciousness relating to the object of perception and in spirit as the idea inside me and the idea i am confronted with. …
…Faith, reaching towards the encompassing must be done in full awareness of freedom, granting an open status of the existence, not allowing the individual to withdraw towards establishing a permanent feeling of understanding or objectifying the transcendent. The only way towards such belief leads through philosophical standpoints, founded on Kantian critique and existential understanding of human condition. THIS MEANS THAT THE PARTICIPATION IN TRANSCENDENCE CANNOT BE APPROACHED WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE NATURAL PHENOMENOLOGICAL ASPECT OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE AND REASONING.
Page 343
Essay by Maciej Kałuza
Transcendental in Philosophy of Faith (paper)
Transcendentalism Overturned (book)
More meaningless jibber-jabber.
That you can find a philosopher who - based on nonsensical presumptions or transcendence and encompassing - justifies the equally ridiculous notions such as faith, means nothing. If you are appealing to authority then you should atleast start with his primary justifications - not the conclusions
(September 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Harris Wrote: You are wrong in stating, “As to its cause - we do not even know if there can be a cause”. We have firm evidences on philosophical and scientific grounds that Universe has a Cause. What was that cause? It’s a different area of discourse.
Nope - sorry. Both on scientific and philosophical grounds, it has not yet been established that the Universe had a cause.
(September 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Harris Wrote: Do you have any scientific proof in support of your statement “UNIVERSE IS NOT AN AGENT” or is it only your opinion?
Ofcourse I do.
Agency is a quality of consciousness.
Consciousness can exist only in specific forms of complex systems like human brain.
Universe - as a whole - is not such a system.
Therefore, universe is not an agent.
(September 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Harris Wrote: Without knowing Quran, you can’t distinguish between right and wrong.
And yet, I do it all the time.
(September 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Harris Wrote: None of Atheist scholars (including staunchest of all Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Krauss, etc.) is using any of those false allegations to prove Quran to be wrong in their debates (especially with the Muslim Scholars) neither have they mentioned any of those allegations in their writings.
They don't have to. There are so many other problems with it.
(September 6, 2013 at 3:34 pm)Harris Wrote: All non-Muslim scholars discern exactly why those false accusations are floating over the net. The purpose of these web sites is only to spread misconceptions about Quran. It is something similar to the spreading of wrong meaning of Jihaad (to strive) by replacing it with the meaning (Holy War against non-Muslims). Word for war in Arabic is Qitaal.
The only way those are 'misconceptions' is if they are incorrect translations - in which case it should be easy for you to disprove them using the correct ones. So, go ahead - do that - and then come back with your indignant posturing.
