RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism

RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 2:11:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz I don't know if BBC content is blocked to the US or not, but there was an interesting discussion about Scientism on BBC Radio 4 this afternoon. Try Here or Here. The discussion starts at the 17.14 minute mark and continues for 10 minutes. It's a discussion with Ian Angell about his book... Science’s First Mistake : Delusions in Pursuit of Theory which, it appears, is available as a free download under Creative Commons. If you're wondering whether it is worth a read, the very last Chapter 'Science's First Mistake' summarises where the book goes. I think it probably is worth a look, and I have every intention of giving it a go - it looks like heavy going, though... Godel Escher and Bach addressed the authors' basic premises without the IS claptrap. What the authors dont bother to address is that even if they are right that everything is interpretable and subjective, it doesnt matter one iota, nor does it obviate scientism. The universe behaves in predictable ways. Even if the basis of making predictions is illusory, the theories underlying the predictions work. It is akin to philsophical arguments regarding free will. Guess what...it doesnt matter whether free will exists or not, we still must function as if it does. If ultimately it doesnt exist, then what we think we are deciding doesnt matter in the least. If it does exist then our actions are critical to our being. Their attempts to cross disciplines is ultimately doomed to failure, as evidenced by a glaring misstatement in the introduction: "In a detour, the book rather grandiosely, and with not a little irony, challenges the endeavour in physics of searching out a Grand Unified Theory (science’s ultimate dominion over the human condition)" GUT has absolutely nothing to do with "the human condition" much less dominion over it. The book does nothing to advance what their apparent favorite philosopher, Nietzche, propounded in the 19th century. Play masturbatory mind games all you want, existentialism is a dead end that cannot possibly have applicability to the universe we have to function in. After you cum, you still need Kleenex to clean up the mess.

DomKen -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 2:21:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy The banning of the pledge of allegiance in schools, for example, has had farreaching effects on how the US is viewed by different generations. The Courts have been used to enforce a tyranny of the atheist minority. What court has banned the Pledge in schools? The 9th circuit banned the PoA totally and the SCOTUS banned mandatory recitation. Care to cite that 9th circuit ruling? On March 11, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in the case of Newdow vs Rio Linda Union School District.[27][28] In a 2-1 decision, the appellate court ruled that the words were of a "ceremonial and patriotic nature" and did not constitute an establishment of religion.[27] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance [27] We hold that California Education Code § 52720 and the School District’s Policy of having teachers lead students in the daily recitation of the Pledge, and allowing those who do not wish to participate to refuse to do so with impunity, do not violate the Establishment Clause. Therefore, we reverse the decision of the district court holding the School District’s Policy unconstitutional and vacate the permanent injunction prohibiting the recitation of the Pledge by willing students. REVERSED. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/11/05-17257.pdf pg 61/193 How precisely is this ruling a ban on recitation of the pledge?

tazzygirl -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 2:23:01 PM)
It was originally, then overturned. Amazing how they left that part out.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 2:25:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It was originally, then overturned. Amazing how they left that part out. Amazing that you skipped over where "they" didnt leave it out, and why it is still important.

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 2:28:50 PM)
quote: The universe behaves in predictable ways. Even if the basis of making predictions is illusory, the theories underlying the predictions work. One of the points Ian Angell makes is that regardless of how well a scientific theory makes predictions, at the end all we can say with any certainty is that the theory makes predictions which can be tested. What we cannot say is that the theory describes the truth, because we simply do not know if it does or not. One of the examples given in the discussion is that for 300 years, science believed gravity to be a force. More recent discoveries suggest it is not. Newton may have been utterly wrong, but it matters not a jot, because whatever gravity is about, apples continue to fall to the ground, and humanity can navigate to the moon and walk on its surface. Just because you have a working theory, you cannot say that your belief is correct.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 2:40:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz quote: The universe behaves in predictable ways. Even if the basis of making predictions is illusory, the theories underlying the predictions work. One of the points Ian Angell makes is that regardless of how well a scientific theory makes predictions, at the end all we can say with any certainty is that the theory makes predictions which can be tested. What we cannot say is that the theory describes the truth, because we simply do not know if it does or not. What you are missing is that it DOESNT MATTER whether it describes the "truth" or not. Science does very well in ordering and improving our existence regardless of philosophical bullshit about "truth".

hertz -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 2:45:15 PM)
I don't know what you are talking about, but the rest of us are discussing scientism.. quote: Scientism Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html quote: Science does very well in ordering and improving our existence regardless of philosophical bullshit about "truth". Religion also does this.

tazzygirl -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 2:49:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It was originally, then overturned. Amazing how they left that part out. Amazing that you skipped over where "they" didnt leave it out, and why it is still important. Actually, you kept on insisting its banned... it isnt. Even the court ruling you keep citing was overturned.. something you failed (as your typical fashion) to mention.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 2:49:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz I don't know what you are talking about, but the rest of us are discussing scientism.. quote: Scientism Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html I dont know what youre talking about. Because something is the only possible path to truth doesnt imply that 1) truth actually exists or 2) it matters whether it exists or not. All it says is that science is the only way to ascertain truth IF it exists, which is absolutely correct. Ultimately knowing the "truth" requires omniscience, something that no scientist Ive ever read or been taught by, claims exists.

kdsub -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 2:53:24 PM)
Heh tazzygirl...why don't you say screwem and come have pizza with us...just wondering if you get a little frisky after a few heavenly beers...[:D] Butch

tazzygirl -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 2:57:58 PM)
~grins sounds heavenly!

DomKen -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 2:58:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It was originally, then overturned. Amazing how they left that part out. Amazing that you skipped over where "they" didnt leave it out, and why it is still important. No. you claimed the 9th circuit banned the pledge. That is simply not the case.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 3:02:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz I don't know what you are talking about, but the rest of us are discussing scientism.. quote: Scientism Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html quote: Science does very well in ordering and improving our existence regardless of philosophical bullshit about "truth". Religion also does this. I disagree.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 3:04:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It was originally, then overturned. Amazing how they left that part out. Amazing that you skipped over where "they" didnt leave it out, and why it is still important. No. you claimed the 9th circuit banned the pledge. That is simply not the case. sigggh....and I later posted that while it was subsequently overturned that many school districts did not reinstate the pledge after it was overturned.

Nslavu -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 3:38:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I dont know what youre talking about. Because something is the only possible path to truth doesnt imply that 1) truth actually exists or 2) it matters whether it exists or not. Untrue. "I am" is truth, perhaps the only one; but as such this quite handily refutes your words since 'I' matters greatly in existence. quote: Ultimately knowing the "truth" requires omniscience, something that no scientist Ive ever read or been taught by, claims exists. Again, I think you are mistaken in light of ultimately that "I am". Am I omniscient is in question; but nevertheless a truth without your assigned requirement. I'm not arguing for science only because this possibly omniscient being believes everything is mutable and entropic outside the self and for the most part there is no truth beyond what is self evident. And that changes like the bloody weather. Science, religion... meh ... it's all humans moving in a direction trying to reach a destination that is quite likely where they already are. No where.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 3:50:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nslavu "I am" is truth Depends on the definition of "am". Since you may not exist (in the eyes of philosophers) "am" may be inapplicable. As Cicero said : There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it.

Nslavu -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 5:57:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Nslavu "I am" is truth Depends on the definition of "am". Since you may not exist (in the eyes of philosophers) "am" may be inapplicable. As Cicero said : There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it. Since when were philosophers required to prove my existence? Let them prove their own. :-D .. 'I am' with or without them. Again self evident is the only truth that will ever matter no matter what truth one attaches their selves to. There is something to be said for the train of thought though, in returning to the most basic truth of "I" without the encumbrances of 'am'. However; I think truth is problematic without the awareness. "Am' is the awareness of self, however you define 'am'. As I said, it's all mutable entropic mush, people going no where, over and over the same shit time and time again. Omniscience constantly revisiting itself, in hopes of being/finding something different than it was. Are they provably Cicero's words or do they spring from omniscience? I ;-)

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/27/2010 6:17:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nslavu 'I am' with or without them. Prove it without philosophy.

GotSteel -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/28/2010 11:30:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Well not quite, there is at the very least a phenomenological difference. Whatever it may be that people subsume under the word "God," nobody (as far as I know) has ever claimed to have experienced or felt the presence of the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus or the Easter Rabbit. K. In that cause would God fall into the same catagory as fairies and the loch ness monster?

Nslavu -> RE: The Religious Right and the New Atheism (10/28/2010 11:36:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Nslavu 'I am' with or without them. Prove it without philosophy. ah... you still ignore self evidence. I have said this 3 times now. You seeking more than this proof is philosophy.

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875