RE: Reflecting on Atheism.
November 23, 2013 at 9:39 am
(This post was last modified: November 23, 2013 at 10:08 am by arvind13.)
in reply to Genkaus:
"There is no deadlock - and you don't need a theory to support the argument, you need facts. Whether or not pagan traditions have the properties X, Y and Z is a matter of fact and since facts in this case is that they do, the discussion isn't deadlocked, it is over."
"An ignorant statement made by someone who hasn't studied philosophy of science. Theory and data are distinct. Theory-laden data is regarded as biased and therefore, unreliable and every effort is made to remove the the influence of preconceived theories and sanitize the data. That is one of the fundamental requirements for a valid scientific inquiry. "
Clearly, it is you who have not studied philosophy of science. Because if you had, you would realize that there the theory/data distinction is a false distinction.
There is not such thing as an unbiased neutral observation. We all come with our cultural, intellectual, and theoretical baggage, and we observe phenomena through a lens coloured by that baggage. There is no avoiding that. Some frameworks are better than the other.
I would recommend Theory and Reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science by Peter Godfrey Smith and Progress and its Problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth by Larry Laudan.
IF you did read it, you would realize that Science is primarily a problem solving activity. The best theories are those that offer the best solution to important problems.
In this case, the problems are manifold:
What is are the properties that make any phenomena into religion?
Do all these properties need to be present, or just some of them enough?
What is the structure of religion that makes these properties necessary or consequences of that structure?
Do all the phenemena in the world that get labled as religion have these properties?
Is the question of truth important for any phenomena to be called a religion?
Since all facts are theory laden, what theory were the missionaries and travelers who first started traveling the world and discovering all these religions operating under?
A good theory of religion should address and solve these problems.
The theory I outlined above solves these problems better than any other theory in the market. This is not my theory, btw, I don't want to take false credit. But I can tell you that there has been a good amount of sweat and labour that has gone into developing this theory, lots of research.
If you want to refute this theory, come up with a better theory.
"There is no deadlock - and you don't need a theory to support the argument, you need facts. Whether or not pagan traditions have the properties X, Y and Z is a matter of fact and since facts in this case is that they do, the discussion isn't deadlocked, it is over."
"An ignorant statement made by someone who hasn't studied philosophy of science. Theory and data are distinct. Theory-laden data is regarded as biased and therefore, unreliable and every effort is made to remove the the influence of preconceived theories and sanitize the data. That is one of the fundamental requirements for a valid scientific inquiry. "
Clearly, it is you who have not studied philosophy of science. Because if you had, you would realize that there the theory/data distinction is a false distinction.
There is not such thing as an unbiased neutral observation. We all come with our cultural, intellectual, and theoretical baggage, and we observe phenomena through a lens coloured by that baggage. There is no avoiding that. Some frameworks are better than the other.
I would recommend Theory and Reality: An introduction to the philosophy of science by Peter Godfrey Smith and Progress and its Problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth by Larry Laudan.
IF you did read it, you would realize that Science is primarily a problem solving activity. The best theories are those that offer the best solution to important problems.
In this case, the problems are manifold:
What is are the properties that make any phenomena into religion?
Do all these properties need to be present, or just some of them enough?
What is the structure of religion that makes these properties necessary or consequences of that structure?
Do all the phenemena in the world that get labled as religion have these properties?
Is the question of truth important for any phenomena to be called a religion?
Since all facts are theory laden, what theory were the missionaries and travelers who first started traveling the world and discovering all these religions operating under?
A good theory of religion should address and solve these problems.
The theory I outlined above solves these problems better than any other theory in the market. This is not my theory, btw, I don't want to take false credit. But I can tell you that there has been a good amount of sweat and labour that has gone into developing this theory, lots of research.
If you want to refute this theory, come up with a better theory.
