M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Hmmm - I might try and find it…
- Status
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
You’re making too many assumptions here! And they’re all wrong! I was going for a rather calculatingly provocative approach in my opinion, but maybe it didn’t look that way… I’m not taking it personally, but it’s obviously contemptuous…
Before you dismiss everyone elses arguments in favour of your own syncreticism, I think you’d benefit from considering how many of your own are influenced by ideology and belief…
And my reading consists of a mishmash of populist science books, ‘hardcore’ academic publications, and the same on t’internet…
Again I say, I’m not anti science - but anti-scientism. The two, however, are often (and increasingly) intermingled - sadly
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Which is the crux of the matter. If there is a supernature, a God, ghosts etc., then empirical physical science may well be entirely impotent in investigating them - leaving it the only options of a) considering it doesn’t have the ability to explain, quanitify, or evidence large fundamental lumps of reality or b) assuming there’s nothing there outside the physical realm and trying to formulate what for all we know may be entirely bogus counter-explanations… the latter is the general practice, to a point of absurdity, in my opinion. Science does lend itself to scientism, as religion lends itself to suprnaturalism - it’s what gives them credence.I’m not sure what you mean, nor do I know why you insist on bashing me in this post and in your response to me. Maybe all engineers are this presumptuous. That’s just another reason for me to steer clear of that sort of career.
I wasn’t arguing about science, I’m just saying that “God did it” explains diddly. “The magical unicorns did it” explains just as much. Until you know how God did it, I’ll remain unimpressed.
God is only ‘knowable’ by experience, really - and even that can be assumed to be illusory. But then, so can anything…
Anyway, Unicorns almost certainly exist. Along with dragons. Don’t you think?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
*Anyway, Unicorns almost certainly exist. Along with dragons. Don’t you think? *
Don’t forget Santa Slaus and the Easter Bunny!
Don’t forget Santa Slaus and the Easter Bunny!
G
greylorn
Guest
Oh, drat!I’m not sure what you mean, nor do I know why you insist on bashing me in this post and in your response to me. Maybe all engineers are this presumptuous. That’s just another reason for me to steer clear of that sort of career.
I wasn’t arguing about science, I’m just saying that “God did it” explains diddly. “The magical unicorns did it” explains just as much. Until you know how God did it, I’ll remain unimpressed.
I’ve dissuaded another potential genius from undertaking a career which requires critical thinking.
I agree with you absolutely that “God did it” explains nothing.
I really care about impressing you. It would make my day. But you’ll need to help me out.
The easiest way for you to do that is to explain to all of us exactly how any other belief system explains anything. For example, you might explain how Big Bang theory explains the universe and Hawking’s 20 mystery constants. (He can’t explain them, so when you do, I’ll not be the only one to be impressed with your insights.)
Then tell us exactly what a physical singularity is (that is what the pseudo-scientists from whom you are getting your limited information have declared the precursor of the Big Bang to be). Or even, explain what a mathematical singularity is, and how that translates to a physical singularity. (See, I’m easy to please.) Then, kindly explain what internal or external forces caused the physical singularity’s remarkable and apparently spontaneous instability.
Next, instead of whining that you are not clear as to what I mean, read what I wrote (a time or two) and maybe even think (heaven forbid) about it, so as to get clear as to what I mean, or at least clear enough to ask a pertinent question. Don’t try to make me responsible for your ignorance.
When you have finished with that (I mean, at least asking a cogent question— not making me responsible for your ignorance), thereby showing that you have some qualifications for understanding anything that actually requires critical thinking and analysis, I’ll give you a website address which will encourage your further understanding of things.
Until then, oops— by then I’ll be dead, or banned.
Thank you for your complaint.
G
greylorn
Guest
I hope that you find out what those problems are. I can offer some opinions, but they would be inappropriate. Do let us all know what insights you glean. My money is on zero.I am genuinely curious to know which particular problems caused him/her to reject theism. Homo sum: humani nil alienum a me puto…
I went to an “enlightened” Catholic high school which gave its students the option to take French instead. The massive nun who taught Latin had a reputation for making life miserable for the occasional student who asked questions. Having her as my homeroom nun proved the rumors, but nonetheless, I made a mistake. Latin would have been a smarter choice, but what can I say? No one explained, and I was 13. Given the same information I’d have made the same error.
But I subsequently learned a little Latin. My favorite: “Ad astra, pro aura.” (Courtesy of Ted Houck, atheist astronomer.)
Au revoir, mon amie. (Sorry about that. I’ve not had the occasion to practice French in the last half century.)
G
greylorn
Guest
“Calculatingly provacative?” Are you trying for the Playboy Magazine philosopher of the year award, or maybe trying to present honest ideas w/o blather? Let me know.
I read your piece and am absolutely clear that you are not anti-science, but are anti-scientism. Me too.
Perhaps you would do me the courtesy of reading my stuff at least twice before replying. I read your stuff three or four times, and it is not nearly as good as mine.
What difference does it make what factors influence my beliefs (there are few, and you know none of them) and my opinions (which are many, and derived from my beliefs)? The only things that should make a difference in any intelligent conversation are facts and logic.
In the event that you are curious, my beliefs begin with the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church, which I took very seriously. They went on to include the fundamental understanding of physics, theory, equations, and all. They extended into engineering— the process of putting beliefs (physics) into practice. I extended this stuff into a field yet to be recognized as useful, that of putting philosophical and religious beliefs into real-life practice at the same level, and with the same level of scrutiny, as scientific beliefs…
G
greylorn
Guest
I distrust those who use arcane and obsolete polysyllabic words, or who invent their own polysyllabic words, and use them in sentences.
“syncreticism” does not appear in my 1991 Webster’s dictionary. Did you invent it? Is this a word you picked up in a philosophy class?
How about speaking more or less common English? Or, kindly explaining to me, and to anyone else who has nothing better to do with their time than read this babble, what “syncreticism” means?
… and where someone else might find a corroborating source of your definition.
G
greylorn
Guest
No, you won’t.
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
I might…
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Ouch! :blackeye:
Hmmm - maybe I should say “Syncretism” - oddly, they seem to be used interchangably…
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syncretism
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Depends on my mood, and the mood of those who I reply to, I suppose.
The irony is, you’re becoming apparently irate over my questioning of your beliefs and knowledge base, but I only do that in reply to your assumptive evaluation of my own…
O
Oreoracle
Guest
…critical thinking in the field of engineering. You seem to have some misconceptions about the burden of proof and the general etiquette necessary for debate, though.
That’s an understandable fallacy–really, it is. But you see, I’m not logically obligated to provide a replacement for a theory that I’ve discredited. I don’t have to explain something just because I pointed out that someone else failed to explain it. I’m comfortable with saying, “I don’t know.”
D
djeter
Guest
Not a list of assumptions but another thought for you to explore…
This one comes from Dr. Charles Taylor (info on him here:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/11/04/dr-charles-taylor/
)
and his book A Secular Age
The latter contains this thought: “Our modern civilization is made up of a host of societies, sub-societies and milieu, all rather different from each other. But the presumption of unbelief has become dominant in more and more other milieu; and has achieved hegemony in certain crucial ones, in the academic and intellectual life, for instance; whence it can more easily extend itself to others….To put the point in different terms, belief in God isn’t quite the same thing in 1500 and 2000.”
You see, atheism as a product of secularity is pretty normal in a sense. Understand the secular age and how we got here, is, in a sense to understand the assumptions of atheism (although I know you want a list of something else). Far WEIRDER is the idea of faith in such an age.
Anyways, some reading selections from Dr. Taylor’s A Secular Age are here:
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/11/05/book-recommendation-a-secular-age-by-charles-taylor/
Dr. Taylor is a leading Catholic intellectual and philosopher.
Regards
dj
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
a theory you’ve discredited? When did you actually manage that?
T
tonyrey
Guest
Many thanks for the reference, dj. His writing is certainly thought-provoking and helps us to see atheism in its cultural context. I have made the point more than once that materialism is relatively rare in human history. That does not prove that it is false, of course, but it does suggest that it does not do justice to the richness and fullness of reality. Even primitive man was intuitively aware of the difference between matter and spirit - and of the need for a supernatural explanation which accounts for the origin of, and gives meaning and purpose to, our existence.
G
greylorn
Guest
MB,
I apologize. We had a bit of confusion here, but the worst of it is on me. I should have found syncretism (which the CAF website should include in its excellent spell-checker) and recognized that you’d only misspelled a word, not invented one. But I was looking in the synch… page. My mistake.
If you’d gotten the spelling right I’d likely have made the same mistake and would be looking way too stupid. So thanks for the minor error. I owe you.
The word syncretism is a good one, and should be seeing more use on this site. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
It does not apply to my ideas, however. I’ve no interest in reconciling science and religions as they are currently configured. Smarter men than I have tried and failed. Smarter men than they have seen the magnitude of the problem and simply given up on it.
Syncretists working on the reconciliation between science and religion are those who, I expect, believe in both conceptual bases, and are trying to integrate them. Years ago I decided that, with respect to the fundamental ideas about the beginnings of things, science and religion are both completely wrong.
There would not be much point in my trying to reconcile a pair of belief systems that I disagreed with, would there?
Now I realize that since I’ve made it clear that I believe in a created universe, the previous statement might be confusing. What I did was simply to recognize a common error shared by both religion and science, which they each incorporate within their respective theories about the beginnings. The error is simple, obvious and egregious. Once recognized, most anyone who cared to could correct it and derive a sensible, verifiable, explanation of the beginnings without the need to hypothesize either spirits or singularities (which are really different words for the same thing).
G
greylorn
Guest
Critical thinking is a generic phenomena. Lots of engineers do not know it. It seems to me to be nothing more than the ability to recognize illogical propositions within any thought system. Evolutionists, for example, are incapable of applying critical thinking to neo-Darwinism. Cosmologists, to Big Bang theory. etc.
Etiquette is definitely not my strong point. Feel free to p(name removed by moderator)oint my occasional lapses, and I’ll do my best to correct them. Accept my apologies, please, for any offense. (I’ve decided to split from my current cherished other, and that is certain to improve my disposition.)
I know nothing about “burden of proof” except as it applies to the legal system. I’m not formally trained in philosophy, although I’ve published a book which presents one. I greatly appreciate the simple fact that a good physics theory allows one to design and build machines that work, and that a bad physics theory does not.
I extend this observation to human societies. We’ve experimented with a variety of different belief systems, many which have totally controlled a segment of human culture. This includes communist atheism. None of these seem to produce particularly effective societies. For awhile, U.S. society was looking to be the exception, but it is clearly going down the biffy, choked by its own wrong fundamental beliefs…
Therefore I conclude that no religious or atheistic belief system heretofore accepted in whole or part by any human society is correct. None produce widespread, long term good results.
By my standards, they have failed the burden of proof which I guess I’d call, efficacy.
You are absolutely correct. No argument. My comment came from the perusal of your previous posts, which expressed an atheistic rather than a genuinely agnostic tone. (E.g: #127). Atheists prefer to call themselves agnostics, especially when playing among Christians,
I confess that I do not much trust agnostics or any other form of fence sitter, but it is my style to always believe something and to take a stand. My earlier beliefs and stands were stupid— but then, I was inclined to accept what others said. I find it much easier, curiously enough, to give up an illogical belief that I invented myself, than to give up one which I accepted from outside sources.
I invite you to prove your agnostic credentials by explaining why you don’t believe in Big Bang theory or neo-Darwinism.
Of course you are under no logical obligation to do so. Nor are you under any obligation to be interesting.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
I’m sorry to hear that.
It’s quite simple really. In debate, the person who makes the claim has to provide the evidence to back up that claim. A person who makes no claims is not obligated to provide evidence (after all, what would they be providing evidence for?). As you can probably guess, many philosophers spend their time making unsubstantiated claims and then devising bogus reasons to foist the burden of proof on others. (Example: “God exists. If you don’t believe he does, then prove that he doesn’t exist.”)
I’m an agnostic atheist. An atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of any gods. An agnostic is someone who believes that it is impossible to know anything about the nature of gods, including their existence or nonexistence. These positions in no way exclude one another. Their counterparts are theism and gnosticism, respectively.
So atheism and agnosticism are two different answers to two different questions. The former answers “Do you believe in a god?” and the latter answers “Can we know about gods?” Anyone who tells you that agnosticism is the midpoint between atheism and theism doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Agnosticism isn’t even on the same scale.
No fence-sitting here; we take a stand. We hold that you can’t know about the supposed properties of supposed gods. For me, this boils down to “you can’t use finite samples as evidence of infinite qualities.” Even if God came down here and started performing magic tricks, we could only say that he is powerful, not that he is omnipotent (this is assuming that we can come up with a meaningful definition of “potency”). The same goes for the other omni- qualities.
Disbelief in certain cosmological and evolutionary theories wasn’t part of the definition of “agnostic” the last time I checked. Maybe it changed and I didn’t get the memo?
By the way, “neo-Darwinism” has never been explained to me. What is it exactly? The very name and its usage makes it sound like a Christian placeholder for the collection of secular ideologies they hate, much like the placeholder for hated polytheistic ideologies: “paganism.”I’m sorry that you view others as playthings. I’ve lived that way before, and you’ll find yourself disappointed more often than not.
H
HelenaMT
Guest
This may be a bit off topic but how come this doesn’t work for proponents of Intelligent Design? They have poked many holes in Darwinian evolution and have shown evidence of the *possibility * of design. They have not come up with an alternative model because they have not yet found one, meaning that “they don’t know .” Yet they are treated as intellectually stunted and dishonest for honestly questioning a theory that does have holes.
What if a proposed creator did not possess omni-qualities and could be demonstrated through inference much the way the Big Bang is (and other scientific theories)? Are you philosophically opposed to the concept of a higher intelligence behind the universe or just the ones that propose such a creator possesses omni-qualities?
Why are you so convinced that we *cannot *know anything about a possible creator? If one actually existed, there would be some evidence and some way of looking for it. Why do you believe it is impossible to look for anything pointing to a creator? Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but it seems as if you are not really looking for anything outside your current worldview if that is your mindset.
- Status