[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Prepare your anus[/quote]More pearls of goose bump inducing wisdom from that fountain of towering profundity Makavali folks. And people say there is no God.
[quote]orion wrote:
The scientific method is a tool.
If you cannot handle it or use it for things it was not meant to be used on, dont blame the hammer.
Blame yourself for thinking of everything as a nail.
[/quote]
Brilliant post, Orion.
Scientific method can’t be used to analyze mideastern fairy stories. Further, it IS a moral crime to teach children that those fairy stories and bedtime stories are on the same plane as evolution.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
“Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.” Christopher Hitchens [/quote]
Hitchens was a raving leftist for most of his career. He was wrong on just about everything prior to 9/11. That said I think he developed some integrity later in his career.
As to atheism - Most the great philosophers of the ancient world and the Renaissance/Enlightenment were deeply religious - albeit most the philosophers of the ancient world were pagans and worshipped the Greek and Roman pantheon.
Even early European collectivist radicals like Thomas Moore and Thomas Hobbes were deeply religious. It wasn’t really until radical froggies sprung up amongst the degenerate ancien regime that things took a turn for the worst. Those atheist froggies and their followers brought about the French revolution paving the way for the Napoleonic wars and thence Communism, the fall of Tsarist Russia and the rise of the modern totalitarian state.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote: [quote]atypical1 wrote:And that’s exactly what all internet discussion comes down to. Seriously, nobody ever gets their mind changed from a discussion that went on during an internet discussion and it only serves as a venue for us to speak our opinions. But you nailed it when you said “I don’t care what you believe in” and that pretty much sums up everyone’s attitude towards each other.
james[/quote]That’s not true. [/quote]You are correct Fletch. I do care what other people believe and listen intently when they speak. For all the abuse I take? Folks sure do seem to care What I believe. I could literally make a 40 hour week out of answering.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote: If that is what Pat means , then I agree. Because philosophy at its root means ‘love of knowledge’. But that is not what Chesterton meant in what he was saying as I understand it, and I think Thunderbolt agrees. He says ‘A philosophy’ as in a total system or all encompassing world view ,such as religion. That’s why I asked for clarification from Pat on what he meant.
[/quote] Chesterton did not buy evolution. I agree. As for the specifics here? I admittedly haven’t read the article in a while, but will again.
EDIT: Neuromancer, could you explain a little more please? I don’t think I’m understanding your point.
[/quote]
As I understand it , Chesterton is saying that science is in some way being made into a rival philosophy to that of religion. And I think that’s complete and utter bunk. Science is the study of what can be seen , measured, repeated… empirically. It proposes theories (that’s why they’re called that) to what is observed, and if a newer theory comes along that better explains what is, the older ones are discarded with no qualms. At this point evolution explains what we see better than anything else, though it may be supplanted in time by a different and better framework. Or it may be conclusively proved to be the correct hypothesis.
Either way ‘science’ (as a supposed philosophy or otherwise) has no vested interest in which is correct.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< Either way ‘science’ (as a supposed philosophy or otherwise) has no vested interest in which is correct.[/quote] This will come off as insulting, but I promise you I do not mean it that way. This was an incredibly naive statement if it is meant by it that scientISTS have no interest in which is correct. EDIT: I phrased the remainder of this comment wrong and cannot revise it right now.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
There will always be goofballs on both sides of the debate, but that doesn’t make what he said true.[/quote]
The problem, though, isn’t some isolated goofballs - it is bigger than that, and it has a larger impact on things like policy.
[quote]I firmly believe that for most people science remains just that - the acquiring and organizing of knowledge about the universe. Sometimes that means the debunking of long held beliefs derived in other arenas, that can’t be helped.
Perhaps the human brain requires a ‘belief’ element be filled and some use ‘science’ instead of religion to fill the void, but I doubt any serious or even semi serious scientist falls into that trap.[/quote]
That’s fine, but that isn’t the issue. I worry less about actual scientists, and more about the consumers of science that are the most guilty of Scientism.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I get what you’re saying and I agree. Of course individuals do have a vested , mostly financial but also egotistical interest in their research and outcomes. People are people. As televangelists have a vested interest in how and what message is put across. That’s why I put science in the inverted commas.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
There will always be goofballs on both sides of the debate, but that doesn’t make what he said true.[/quote]
The problem, though, isn’t some isolated goofballs - it is bigger than that, and it has a larger impact on things like policy.
[quote]I firmly believe that for most people science remains just that - the acquiring and organizing of knowledge about the universe. Sometimes that means the debunking of long held beliefs derived in other arenas, that can’t be helped.
Perhaps the human brain requires a ‘belief’ element be filled and some use ‘science’ instead of religion to fill the void, but I doubt any serious or even semi serious scientist falls into that trap.[/quote]
That’s fine, but that isn’t the issue. I worry less about actual scientists, and more about the consumers of science that are the most guilty of Scientism.[/quote]
A fair concern. One should be concerned about consumers of dogma in all fields.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
“Philosophy begins where religion ends, just as by analogy chemistry begins where alchemy runs out, and astronomy takes the place of astrology.” Christopher Hitchens [/quote]
Hitchens was a raving leftist for most of his career. He was wrong on just about everything prior to 9/11. That said I think he developed some integrity later in his career.
As to atheism - Most the great philosophers of the ancient world and the Renaissance/Enlightenment were deeply religious - albeit most the philosophers of the ancient world were pagans and worshipped the Greek and Roman pantheon.
Even early European collectivist radicals like Thomas Moore and Thomas Hobbes were deeply religious. It wasn’t really until radical froggies sprung up amongst the degenerate ancien regime that things took a turn for the worst. Those atheist froggies and their followers brought about the French revolution paving the way for the Napoleonic wars and thence Communism, the fall of Tsarist Russia and the rise of the modern totalitarian state.[/quote]
I agree that quote is ridiculous. I know a lot of people like the guy, but I don’t see the attraction. “Philosophy begins where religion ends” ← Uh, no. Religion IS a philosophy. Like any other study, it functions on philosophical assumptions. It answers the question of “Is there a God?” with a ‘Yes’, and it goes from there. Just like science assumes that the past will resemble the future, that events are repeatable and measurable.
The mistake is people make is they try to lump it all into the same camp. It’s not.
This whole idea of beholding a ‘garden’ for just what it is without requiring a reason for it’s existence is total stupidity to me.
What Mr. Hitchens fails to grasp is everything is philosophy first. There are no borders.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< That made my eyes bleed…[/quote]I don’t understand. Chesterton btw is one of my all time favorite Catholics.
[/quote]
Can start off with the massive straw man of ‘turning science into a philosophy’ and then degenerates into the whole ‘miracles’ thing. I fail to see how that thinking can be taken seriously.[/quote]
Science IS a philosophical proposition. Just like anything else, it’s method that functions on certain assumptions, as with any other mode of study.
That’s why you get PhD…It’s called a Doctor of Philosophy for a reason. Everything rolls up to philosphy because that’s where it all comes from, simply asking targeted questions. But science rolls up to philosophy, not the other way around.[/quote]Yer killin me again Pat, jist killin me!!! If I only knew of a way to coax you into aligning the rest of your fractured thought with the pure undiluted brilliance you sometimes blurt out, like this for example, you’d be in my “camp”. Heck, you’d be in my tent!!! How scary is that? Your absolutely right. Science CANNOT happen without philosophy happening first. That’s another way of saying that true objectivity is a fleeting delusion. Oh what I wouldn’t give to have a calm reasoned conversation with you. Nobody “just studies” in an intellectual vacuum.
[/quote]
If that is what Pat means , then I agree. Because philosophy at its root means ‘love of knowledge’.
But that is not what Chesterton meant in what he was saying as I understand it, and I think Thunderbolt agrees. He says ‘A philosophy’ as in a total system or all encompassing world view ,such as religion.
That’s why I asked for clarification from Pat on what he meant.
[/quote]
The scientific method is a tool.
If you cannot handle it or use it for things it was not meant to be used on, dont blame the hammer.
Blame yourself for thinking of everything as a nail.
[/quote]
Wow! Nice Orion. So few people understand that.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< Prepare your anus[/quote]More pearls of goose bump inducing wisdom from that fountain of towering profundity Makavali folks. And people say there is no God.
[/quote]
Oh you
[quote]Headhunter wrote:<<< it IS a moral crime to teach children that those fairy stories and bedtime stories are on the same plane as evolution.[/quote]Evolution IS a fairy story and it is immoral NOT to teach your children of the creator God in whose image they were conceived.
So there!!!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
…some use ‘science’ instead of religion to fill the void, but I doubt any serious or even semi serious scientist falls into that trap.[/quote]
This is utter nonsense.[/quote]
If you say so.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< That made my eyes bleed…[/quote]I don’t understand. Chesterton btw is one of my all time favorite Catholics.
[/quote]
Can start off with the massive straw man of ‘turning science into a philosophy’ and then degenerates into the whole ‘miracles’ thing. I fail to see how that thinking can be taken seriously.[/quote]
Science IS a philosophical proposition. Just like anything else, it’s method that functions on certain assumptions, as with any other mode of study.
That’s why you get PhD…It’s called a Doctor of Philosophy for a reason. Everything rolls up to philosphy because that’s where it all comes from, simply asking targeted questions. But science rolls up to philosophy, not the other way around.[/quote]
I’m not clear on what you’re saying here.
[/quote]
Sorry I missed this earlier. What I am saying is you cannot turn science in to a philosophy because it is already a philosophy. It’s a proposition that functions on certain philosophical assumptions to make it what it is. So when it comes to science or anything else really, before it was, the philosophy behind it was. So whether or not you look at it in a hierarchical setup, or temporal, the philosophical propositions came first, then came discipline.
This goes for religion as well, btw. But the structure is hierarchical more so than temporal. Before there was religion, the answer the the question of “Does God exist?” was answered with a ‘Yes’. The entirety of it relies on that question, if no, all religion is utterly meaningless and we’re just nuts.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< That made my eyes bleed…[/quote]I don’t understand. Chesterton btw is one of my all time favorite Catholics.
[/quote]
Can start off with the massive straw man of ‘turning science into a philosophy’ and then degenerates into the whole ‘miracles’ thing. I fail to see how that thinking can be taken seriously.[/quote]
Science IS a philosophical proposition. Just like anything else, it’s method that functions on certain assumptions, as with any other mode of study.
That’s why you get PhD…It’s called a Doctor of Philosophy for a reason. Everything rolls up to philosphy because that’s where it all comes from, simply asking targeted questions. But science rolls up to philosophy, not the other way around.[/quote]Yer killin me again Pat, jist killin me!!! If I only knew of a way to coax you into aligning the rest of your fractured thought with the pure undiluted brilliance you sometimes blurt out, like this for example, you’d be in my “camp”. Heck, you’d be in my tent!!! How scary is that? Your absolutely right. Science CANNOT happen without philosophy happening first. That’s another way of saying that true objectivity is a fleeting delusion. Oh what I wouldn’t give to have a calm reasoned conversation with you. Nobody “just studies” in an intellectual vacuum.
[/quote]
If that is what Pat means , then I agree. Because philosophy at its root means ‘love of knowledge’.
But that is not what Chesterton meant in what he was saying as I understand it, and I think Thunderbolt agrees. He says ‘A philosophy’ as in a total system or all encompassing world view ,such as religion.
That’s why I asked for clarification from Pat on what he meant.
[/quote]
I don’t know this Chesterton fella. That is what I mean, but sadly I cannot have a reasoned, well measured exchange with tirib because I have tried. He couldn’t get away from insulting my faith, blatantly, worse than any atheist has done on this site, cherry picking my posts to extrapolate a single quote that was not the point of the post, and making the constant weird homo-erotic metaphors about my faith, or me which I found most puzzling of all.
If you follow what I say, nothing it fractured in my thoughts. It’s all quite linear.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< That made my eyes bleed…[/quote]I don’t understand. Chesterton btw is one of my all time favorite Catholics.
[/quote]
Can start off with the massive straw man of ‘turning science into a philosophy’ and then degenerates into the whole ‘miracles’ thing. I fail to see how that thinking can be taken seriously.[/quote]
Science IS a philosophical proposition. Just like anything else, it’s method that functions on certain assumptions, as with any other mode of study.
That’s why you get PhD…It’s called a Doctor of Philosophy for a reason. Everything rolls up to philosphy because that’s where it all comes from, simply asking targeted questions. But science rolls up to philosophy, not the other way around.[/quote]
I’m not clear on what you’re saying here.
[/quote]
Sorry I missed this earlier. What I am saying is you cannot turn science in to a philosophy because it is already a philosophy. It’s a proposition that functions on certain philosophical assumptions to make it what it is. So when it comes to science or anything else really, before it was, the philosophy behind it was. So whether or not you look at it in a hierarchical setup, or temporal, the philosophical propositions came first, then came discipline.
This goes for religion as well, btw. But the structure is hierarchical more so than temporal. Before there was religion, the answer the the question of “Does God exist?” was answered with a ‘Yes’. The entirety of it relies on that question, if no, all religion is utterly meaningless and we’re just nuts.[/quote]
No worries. I agree with what you’re saying, I just don’t think that is what Chesterton was saying or meant at all. There’s a difference to me between saying there is a philosophy of or behind something, and saying that something IS a philosophy.
Did you read the piece that was posted?
Edit: ‘the’ changed to ‘there’
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Sorry I missed this earlier. What I am saying is you cannot turn science in to a philosophy because it is already a philosophy. It’s a proposition that functions on certain philosophical assumptions to make it what it is. So when it comes to science or anything else really, before it was, the philosophy behind it was. So whether or not you look at it in a hierarchical setup, or temporal, the philosophical propositions came first, then came discipline. >>>[/quote]In other words “until we know HOW we know anything at all, the question of WHAT we know is meaningless”. Yes, I’ve said that a hundred times and agree.[quote]pat wrote:<<< This goes for religion as well, btw. But the structure is hierarchical more so than temporal. Before there was religion, the answer the the question of “Does God exist?” was answered with a ‘Yes’. The entirety of it relies on that question, if no, all religion is utterly meaningless and we’re just nuts.[/quote]I wouldn’t state this this way and may actually disagree altogether depending on your definitions here. And Pat? I will do you favor and ignore your one sided delusional accusations. Everything we’ve said to one another is still here. I will save you the embarrassment for now. There is no need for this hostility between you and I as men. Never was.