N
Neithan
Guest
That looks like logical positivism.
If that’s a representative sample of interlocutors you have encountered, I’m not surprised you remain unconvinced.
Last edited:
- Status
K
Kaninchen
Guest
No, it would be logical positivist if one were seeking secure knowledge by confirmability - verification. Nothing I said suggested that at all, science doesn’t work like that.
No, it was somebody who realised that things don’t work like that.
N
Neithan
Guest
With curt text sentences it’s easy to see a suggestion you don’t intend. Since this is off topic I’d be interested in reading what you mean in detail in its own topic.
[How do you address the existence of God within the scientific method? I can see you’re replying to this already; but it would be better in a new topic.]
Last edited:
K
Kaninchen
Guest
God is neither verifiable, nor refutable within the scientific method.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
Please drop a link if u make a thread. Sounds. interesting
Last edited:
N
Neithan
Guest
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Good morning.
Methodological, yes. I don’t enjoy ontology, or favour metaphysics in general: seems to me a deeply unsatisfying field.
K
Kaninchen
Guest
Wow! That was definitely a trip down memory lane, the introduction of JimmyB to Karl Popper.
As an irrelevant aside, JimmyB and I disagreed on everything and anything but he was just such a nice guy.
P
PickyPicky
Guest
It’s an interesting (and splendidly well-mannered) thread. (Although short on explanations of the papal teaching on broccoli).
F
Freddy
Guest
May I ask if you’ve read it?
N
Neithan
Guest
Parts of it, but I do have a bad habit of not reading some books cover-to-cover and skimming sections. I’m listening to the audiobook now, though (narrated by Dawkins). Is there a section of it you have in mind?
He also has a recent book, Outgrowing God that I should read, too. [Btw The Selfish Gene is brilliant.]
He also has a recent book, Outgrowing God that I should read, too. [Btw The Selfish Gene is brilliant.]
Last edited:
H
Hume
Guest
Hey, I get it. There are near-zero theories that don’t endure some level of skepticism. It’s just that some hold up much better than others.
If we assume that reality doesn’t have to be observable in order to be known as real, then we run into a lot of problems, first and foremost being how do we know the real?
For example, when someone is arrested because “God made me do it”, is that possibly a legitimate religious explanation or, as is more likely, is that person likely suffering from schizophrenia?
I’m not saying that religious belief is identical to schizophrenic mental disorders, but they do share the commonality of asserting something as being there that others cannot readily verify.
Sure, everyone thinks their god is essentially different from the others. Muslims have apologetics departments at their schools. As do Mormons and loads of others.
I’ve seen the zealous fervor of belief radiate from the eyes of a score of men serving a score of different gods.
S
Shasta-Rose
Guest
Thank you. That is interesting.
No, I didn’t google it. Since you had mentioned it, I assumed you wanted to talk about it. I can see they got a good turnout. Really, the funeral topic might be of interest to anyone.
As far as there being more atheists than Catholics, I don’t doubt it for a second.
No, I didn’t google it. Since you had mentioned it, I assumed you wanted to talk about it. I can see they got a good turnout. Really, the funeral topic might be of interest to anyone.
As far as there being more atheists than Catholics, I don’t doubt it for a second.
H
Hume
Guest
I found it to be just an exercise in bias. Emotions clad in the armor of intellectualism.Seekingthetruth:
Good morning.
Methodological, yes. I don’t enjoy ontology, or favour metaphysics in general: seems to me a deeply unsatisfying field.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Wow. What happens there?
F
FiveLinden
Guest
Depends which god(s) and whether you mean the existence of the god(s) or their claimed actions. Claims of, for example, incorrupt bodies, resurrected dead people, cures of incurable diseases, appearances of dead people, sun miracles, etc. are testable within the scientific method. Of course they are not if they happened so long ago there is no evidence, but that aside…
S
SPBlitz
Guest
While you’re right, even these tests are subject to a person’s biases. If, for example, someone is totally committed to the truth of naturalism, then even if the scientific tests come up inconclusive or unexplainable, the person could conclude that either the test was bungled, or some hitherto unknown natural phenomenon is the cause. Since to them the supernatural doesn’t exist, then the result of the test would have to be natural, regardless of what the outcome actually is. So I still don’t think you could convince someone of a miracle using the scientific method.
It’s sort of a chicken and egg problem. Some people aren’t convinced of the supernatural because they have no evidence, but any evidence they receive has to be interpreted naturalistically, since to them the supernatural doesn’t exists. Therefore, it would be impossible to ever convince them of the supernatural.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
My habit is buying them faster than I can read them…
No, nothing particular in mind. I wondered how you felt about it if you had read it. It’s not really a philosophical treatise which a lot of people take it as. More a rant against fundamentalism.
Yeah, the Selfish Gene was a big influence on me (over forty years ago!). If you liked that then you’d enjoy The Ancestors Tale.
F
Freddy
Guest
I was astonished. I really thought there’d by one or two percent that would pretty much keep their lack of religiosity to themsleves. Americans aren’t known for being reticent in displaying their belief.
I’m quite used to seeing US football teams saying prayers before a game. And the S. Africans are known to take a knee to give thanks after a win. But an open display of that kind by an Australian team would be astonishing. Some players will openly give thanks individually on the pitch, mostly Muslims but some Christians, but that’s as far as it goes.
I remember my soccer refereeing brother telling me that a lot of players in local teams would stoop to touch the grass when running onto the pitch and then cross themselves and kiss their hand. He asked one guy why he did it because he knew he wasn’t religious in the slightest. The guy shrugged and said it was just what players did ‘for luck’. What he meant was that he’d seen players on TV doing it (especially Spanish or Italian) and were simply copying it.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
I am absolutely willing to accept evidence of a miracle. Virtually any of those described in the New Testament, carried out under controlled conditions would convince me. I think the dead rising in large numbers after the resurrection would convince me. And walking on water. And the loaves and fishes. I am not so impressed with modern miracles in which thinks that happen anyway, such as spontaneous remission from cancer, are claimed as evidence of divine intervention.
- Status