the.crooked Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 yeah, the further I go into this book, the more amazed I am. it is very interesting to see such philosophically insightful points being elucidated in such a wild form of fiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Removed Posted March 25, 2007 Author Share Posted March 25, 2007 The Outsider and The plague are also great books. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoneTWS Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 Russel- Yeah, to be sure, religion does have a certain nihilistic effect on morality, as we saw with Nietzsche. I am not approving of religion in any fashion. I just think the idea of totalizing truth as purely scientific is just as retarded as people who do the opposite. I think he is a fool for believing himself, but the clarity of his own righteousness is pretty great. I haven't read Camus or Sartre, but I just started the fall. I am avoiding Sartre as of late because while I was skimming through one of his books in the store I didn't like the form of the rhetoric. I will get there. but not yet. Theo- that looks interesting, I just might look that up. Totalizing truth as purely scientific? What is true that can't be explained scientifically? I dont understand this, you sound like my friend who says one day something will come along to blow science out of the water. You cant blow science out of the water cause science changes, even if something blew all our currently held theories out of the water it would become a new basis for science rather than replacing science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 God is pure science,there needs to be some scientist to make a formula with numbers and letters that says God exists and the sheeple would follow along. there is more prove of God in science than of random nothingness. denying God does not mean He doesnt exist. not to argue about,just what i think of you people who are emo and blame things on God and think you can actually hurt him with your negative thoughts about him. isnt His creation beautiful! we have all varieties! even people who deny him! i thank God for showing me the differences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawood Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 not to argue about,just what i think of you people who are emo and blame things on God and think you can actually hurt him with your negative thoughts about him. LOL, they think that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoneTWS Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 God is pure science,there needs to be some scientist to make a formula with numbers and letters that says God exists and the sheeple would follow along. there is more prove of God in science than of random nothingness. denying God does not mean He doesnt exist. not to argue about,just what i think of you people who are emo and blame things on God and think you can actually hurt him with your negative thoughts about him. isnt His creation beautiful! we have all varieties! even people who deny him! i thank God for showing me the differences. lol, I dont imagine I am hurting God, I dont believe in God. I dont blame anything on God, and mostly religion doesn't even stand in the way of overall human development(at least in America and most the free world), nowadays. I do think it would be better if everyone followed the path of logic instead of religion however. And, no, there is no scientific basis for the belief in God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 God's Will x matter = creation / time = Reality God with capital G,thats right. some call him nature. some call him science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 LOL, they think that? sadly yes,because atheists cannot say there is no God all the time,sometimes they say it could be,but there is no proof and because of that they deny a creator which is nonsense because everything is made by something,some do it out of emoness,some out of ignorance and some out of hate(because of their desires) to the laws of God guives to mankind through the scriptures related to the real God the God of abraham. peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoneTWS Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 sadly yes,because atheists cannot say there is no God all the time,sometimes they say it could be,but there is no proof and because of that they deny a creator which is nonsense because everything is made by something,some do it out of emoness,some out of ignorance and some out of hate(because of their desires) to the laws of God guives to mankind through the scriptures related to the real God the God of abraham. peace Than who created God? If God has always existed, is it not equally as plausible that the universe has always existed? Your logic is flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 the last few posts took a strong turn. to start DoneTWS: Science makes claims of "objective truth," if you are a realist about scientific theory. Rather the explication of reality in whatever scientific langauge is being used in a given period of thought becomes canonical. It is the truth of the moment. As you say, if come what may something displaces current scientific thought, then it becomes the current idiom of truth. This is the form of science, but that very progression favors against science as being pursuant to anything beyond a pragmatic interpretation of reality. Thus we arrive whence we started in that science, is no better than an interpretation of a given dogma of any religion. For reality is the base in which science speaks, where it is god for religion. truth then as a deductive product of logic, is scientific. but truth is shown to be false in different idioms, even within science. The terms of relativity are, in effect, incommensurable to those of newtonian mechanics. Thus historians of science like that of Thomas Kuhn never really take a position on realism or anti-realism in science. For they recognize to do so would to be to fall into the same trap of saying what truth is. To ride the line is better. To appreciate the differences in metaphysical dogma, be it science to religion, is a way to develope a full conception of reality. For it is in those differences of theory which all attempt to do the same thing, that we see what it is that's actually being searched for. So, I conclude where I started, it is a poor choice to say the totality of truth lies in scientific explication. For the conclusion of such explication, a la formal logic, is indeterminacy and ambiguity. Thus, it is the implied connections one finds inbetween and among texts which feeds our conceptions of truth. It is that reason that I dislike Dawkins. He masks his own existential issues in his complete denial of his own necessary "wrongness"( as far as his own sufficient conditioning of truth ). Fuck dawkins, and fuck being "right." sorry... too much. As far as you and juan fuentes's discussion is concerned: thats like starting a math problem with the wrong numbers from the given problem. doing the right actions and ending up with the wrong answers. right process, wrong starting points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoneTWS Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 the last few posts took a strong turn. to start DoneTWS: Science makes claims of "objective truth," if you are a realist about scientific theory. Rather the explication of reality in whatever scientific langauge is being used in a given period of thought becomes canonical. It is the truth of the moment. As you say, if come what may something displaces current scientific thought, then it becomes the current idiom of truth. This is the form of science, but that very progression favors against science as being pursuant to anything beyond a pragmatic interpretation of reality. Thus we arrive whence we started in that science, is no better than an interpretation of a given dogma of any religion. For reality is the base in which science speaks, where it is god for religion. truth then as a deductive product of logic, is scientific. but truth is shown to be false in different idioms, even within science. The terms of relativity are, in effect, incommensurable to those of newtonian mechanics. Thus historians of science like that of Thomas Kuhn never really take a position on realism or anti-realism in science. For they recognize to do so would to be to fall into the same trap of saying what truth is. To ride the line is better. To appreciate the differences in metaphysical dogma, be it science to religion, is a way to develope a full conception of reality. For it is in those differences of theory which all attempt to do the same thing, that we see what it is that's actually being searched for. So, I conclude where I started, it is a poor choice to say the totality of truth lies in scientific explication. For the conclusion of such explication, a la formal logic, is indeterminacy and ambiguity. Thus, it is the implied connections one finds inbetween and among texts which feeds our conceptions of truth. It is that reason that I dislike Dawkins. He masks his own existential issues in his complete denial of his own necessary "wrongness"( as far as his own sufficient conditioning of truth ). Fuck dawkins, and fuck being "right." sorry... too much. As far as you and juan fuentes's discussion is concerned: thats like starting a math problem with the wrong numbers from the given problem. doing the right actions and ending up with the wrong answers. right process, wrong starting points. Ok, much of this is over my head, but I really dont think you can say science is not better than religion in discovering what is truth. I think science gives us the most reasonable analysis, even if it contradicts itself in different schools of thought, one day we may figure out why(or maybe we will all be dead first). I dont think science ever claims to be the absolute truth, but rather this is what we concluded is most likely(or extremely likely) to be true, and here is our empirical evidence why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 the last few posts took a strong turn. to start DoneTWS: Science makes claims of "objective truth," if you are a realist about scientific theory. Rather the explication of reality in whatever scientific langauge is being used in a given period of thought becomes canonical. It is the truth of the moment. As you say, if come what may something displaces current scientific thought, then it becomes the current idiom of truth. This is the form of science, but that very progression favors against science as being pursuant to anything beyond a pragmatic interpretation of reality. Thus we arrive whence we started in that science, is no better than an interpretation of a given dogma of any religion. For reality is the base in which science speaks, where it is god for religion. truth then as a deductive product of logic, is scientific. but truth is shown to be false in different idioms, even within science. The terms of relativity are, in effect, incommensurable to those of newtonian mechanics. Thus historians of science like that of Thomas Kuhn never really take a position on realism or anti-realism in science. For they recognize to do so would to be to fall into the same trap of saying what truth is. To ride the line is better. To appreciate the differences in metaphysical dogma, be it science to religion, is a way to develope a full conception of reality. For it is in those differences of theory which all attempt to do the same thing, that we see what it is that's actually being searched for. So, I conclude where I started, it is a poor choice to say the totality of truth lies in scientific explication. For the conclusion of such explication, a la formal logic, is indeterminacy and ambiguity. Thus, it is the implied connections one finds inbetween and among texts which feeds our conceptions of truth. It is that reason that I dislike Dawkins. He masks his own existential issues in his complete denial of his own necessary "wrongness"( as far as his own sufficient conditioning of truth ). Fuck dawkins, and fuck being "right." sorry... too much. As far as you and juan fuentes's discussion is concerned: thats like starting a math problem with the wrong numbers from the given problem. doing the right actions and ending up with the wrong answers. right process, wrong starting points. I agree with you crook that science and religion have similar pragmatic validity for each individual. From the point of view of each individual, truth is almost entirely subjective (sounds a little redundant, but I don't mean to be). And I don't know if Dawkins has ever said that science is ultimate truth. I think anyone would be a fool to believe so, since truth can come from any deeply held belief. However, and correct me if you can, I think science can lay a claim to the closest approximation of objective reality using both empirical evidence and logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyone Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 ...it would be better if everyone followed the path of logic instead of religion however. And, no, there is no scientific basis for the belief in God. amen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Ok, much of this is over my head, but I really dont think you can say science is not better than religion in discovering what is truth. I think science gives us the most reasonable analysis, even if it contradicts itself in different schools of thought, one day we may figure out why(or maybe we will all be dead first). I dont think science ever claims to be the absolute truth, but rather this is what we concluded is most likely(or extremely likely) to be true, and here is our empirical evidence why. I think you hit the nail on the head in your last sentence. However, this is a relatively new developement in our consideration of what truth, let alone science, is. Thank postmodernism for that one. A simple argument can be constructed against using pure deductive logic as ones means for ethical choice. Evolution as a process is logical. Should we not strive to increase the speed of such as to move more so towards whatever pragmatic ideal is expressed in the evolution of a species? If this is such, should we not use the avaliable scientific means and refine the gene pool such that reproduction is being comprised by the best of us? Is it not then, our logical conviction and choice to sift through the weak and strong and try and remove the former from our potential drawing pool? Eugenics is a nasty business, but one hard to argue against if looked at from a purely scientific standpoint. The reductio is only supposed to show that there are practical limitations to the application of scientific or deductive logic as the rational means to make choices. blah blah blah... im sorry, im stalling from writing a paper and this is just foreplay for it. I could further many arguments against objective probabilities here, but I will save that lest it is asked for. Cus that could get a lil dense and rediculous. I agree with you crook that science and religion have similar pragmatic validity for each individual. From the point of view of each individual, truth is almost entirely subjective (sounds a little redundant, but I don't mean to be). And I don't know if Dawkins has ever said that science is ultimate truth. I think anyone would be a fool to believe so, since truth can come from any deeply held belief. However, and correct me if you can, I think science can lay a claim to the closest approximation of objective reality using both empirical evidence and logic. The problem I have with Dawkins is his use of science as cannon without recognizing such. It is fine, to me (because I still do it), to believe in science as a valid and pragmatic way to view the world and truth in general. But only in so much as one recognizes it means nothing more than that. Dawkins, in my opinion, is set on the belief that all things can be explained in science given enough time. That is just my sense from readings I have done of his, etc. However, I may just be making an assumption on his epistemological views that doesn't in fact ring true. As for the last thing you say, I can't but agree. At least not in so much as to say closest approximation of objective reality, but most appreciable or valuable in application. I think at the very least, science would stand to progress faster should it realize it relies on contradiction and the dissolution of its contemporary structure as the mitigating factor between idioms of scientific thought. It is like increasing surface area in a chemical reaction. Or at least, thats the way I see it. alright, enough stalling, I am gonna do this work... or so i say now. I may be back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Than who created God? If God has always existed, is it not equally as plausible that the universe has always existed? Your logic is flawed. God wasnt created,think about it,visualize,you will see he is unique,nothing like the rest,ONE only,imposible to fully understand. thats why he is called God.that God not those gods of the sun god,God,the creator. what if i tell you that your logic is flawed because you cant see the existance of God,how can i explain it to you?i cant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Fuentes Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 science is important to facilitate the physical life of humans,which after all it helps the mind too,so does religion for a good life with good actions.its not so science VS religion...both are good depending on how u use them.immoral religion duties = making deceases science? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornbooth Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pornbooth Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 i know this is a dawkins thread, but here a nifty interview of chomsky that starts out with him talking about faith... http://youtube.com/watch?v=yRddxZIAhdU Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 i dig on the chomsky he spoke at my school first year. it was pretty interesting. a lot of old people at the talk though. that was unfortunate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Removed Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 God wasnt created,think about it,visualize,you will see he is unique,nothing like the rest,ONE only,imposible to fully understand. thats why he is called God.that God not those gods of the sun god,God,the creator. what if i tell you that your logic is flawed because you cant see the existance of God,how can i explain it to you?i cant. Your an idiot. Get out of my thread. hahah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 chollah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Removed Posted August 18, 2007 Author Share Posted August 18, 2007 I think you hit the nail on the head in your last sentence. However, this is a relatively new developement in our consideration of what truth, let alone science, is. Thank postmodernism for that one. A simple argument can be constructed against using pure deductive logic as ones means for ethical choice. Evolution as a process is logical. Should we not strive to increase the speed of such as to move more so towards whatever pragmatic ideal is expressed in the evolution of a species? If this is such, should we not use the avaliable scientific means and refine the gene pool such that reproduction is being comprised by the best of us? Is it not then, our logical conviction and choice to sift through the weak and strong and try and remove the former from our potential drawing pool? Eugenics is a nasty business, but one hard to argue against if looked at from a purely scientific standpoint. The reductio is only supposed to show that there are practical limitations to the application of scientific or deductive logic as the rational means to make choices. blah blah blah... im sorry, im stalling from writing a paper and this is just foreplay for it. I could further many arguments against objective probabilities here, but I will save that lest it is asked for. Cus that could get a lil dense and rediculous. The problem I have with Dawkins is his use of science as cannon without recognizing such. It is fine, to me (because I still do it), to believe in science as a valid and pragmatic way to view the world and truth in general. But only in so much as one recognizes it means nothing more than that. Dawkins, in my opinion, is set on the belief that all things can be explained in science given enough time. That is just my sense from readings I have done of his, etc. However, I may just be making an assumption on his epistemological views that doesn't in fact ring true. QUOTE] I have heard on a few occasions Dawkins pressed to admit his 'faith' in science. I was a little put off that in his book 'The God delusion' he seemed to have missed the idea that religions evolutionary advatage ( ie Darwinian reason for existing) is its ability to allow larger groups of people to live and trade together without warring. I think thats a fair point. Otherwise I think The God delusion was a great book! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 ehh, religion has caused it's fair share of warring even within same factions and denominations. i just think dawkins is a dick. plane and simple. an arrogant asshole who expresses the same ignorance he lambasts. he is an awesome icon for the failure of belief systems at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 I think you hit the nail on the head in your last sentence. However, this is a relatively new developement in our consideration of what truth, let alone science, is. Thank postmodernism for that one. A simple argument can be constructed against using pure deductive logic as ones means for ethical choice. Evolution as a process is logical. Should we not strive to increase the speed of such as to move more so towards whatever pragmatic ideal is expressed in the evolution of a species? If this is such, should we not use the avaliable scientific means and refine the gene pool such that reproduction is being comprised by the best of us? Is it not then, our logical conviction and choice to sift through the weak and strong and try and remove the former from our potential drawing pool? Eugenics is a nasty business, but one hard to argue against if looked at from a purely scientific standpoint. The reductio is only supposed to show that there are practical limitations to the application of scientific or deductive logic as the rational means to make choices. blah blah blah... im sorry, im stalling from writing a paper and this is just foreplay for it. I could further many arguments against objective probabilities here, but I will save that lest it is asked for. Cus that could get a lil dense and rediculous. The problem I have with Dawkins is his use of science as cannon without recognizing such. It is fine, to me (because I still do it), to believe in science as a valid and pragmatic way to view the world and truth in general. But only in so much as one recognizes it means nothing more than that. Dawkins, in my opinion, is set on the belief that all things can be explained in science given enough time. That is just my sense from readings I have done of his, etc. However, I may just be making an assumption on his epistemological views that doesn't in fact ring true. As for the last thing you say, I can't but agree. At least not in so much as to say closest approximation of objective reality, but most appreciable or valuable in application. I think at the very least, science would stand to progress faster should it realize it relies on contradiction and the dissolution of its contemporary structure as the mitigating factor between idioms of scientific thought. It is like increasing surface area in a chemical reaction. Or at least, thats the way I see it. alright, enough stalling, I am gonna do this work... or so i say now. I may be back. Good comments here crook, except, I think it is easy to make an argument against eugenics based on several factors. First off, the requirements for survival are constantly changing, even within generations, so the criteria would have shifted by the time the next generation was ready to reproduce. Prediction of survival factors would be difficult, maybe even impossible. Defining the fittest would be complicated by definitions not only biological, but cultural. There is no one biological definition of fitness other than survival to reproduce for the next generation. Intelligence and technology have not necessarily increased survival to reproduce more, with the possible exception of antibiotics, so those factors would not necessarily be considered important. Also, there is no convincing evidence that a society full of the best and brightest would have greater success, in an evolutionary or cultural sense. Evidence against? Just look at the interaction between a bunch of jealous professors at a university. The most fit would be, from a purely evolutionary point of view, someone who could produce the most viable offspring over the longest period of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted August 21, 2007 Share Posted August 21, 2007 Oh yeah, absolutely. Here is a simple way to look at it. Who on average have more kids? Those in lower socioeconomic statuses or in higher ones? Evolutionarily fit is absolutely hard to predict as far as what that means. And I thik we agree in that euginics is something that can't be defended strongly. I was just trying to show that rationality doesn't necessarily bring us the best choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 no doubt, probably no good art would be made without anti-rationality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boogie hands Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 ehh, religion has caused it's fair share of warring even within same factions and denominations. i just think dawkins is a dick. plane and simple. an arrogant asshole who expresses the same ignorance he lambasts. he is an awesome icon for the failure of belief systems at all. you could look at it that way but personally, i would be (and am) hard pressed to find another way to act when tackling such an idiotic issue as religion. if you stand back and look at it, compared to the leaders and followers of the religion he attacks he actually carries himself very well. ps - if you think dawkins is a dick you should check out sam harris. that guys is great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanfullofretards Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 ps - if you think dawkins is a dick you should check out Christopher Hitchens. that guys is great. corrected Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 well the thing is this. I grew up in texas as an athiest. Sooooo I did dealt with religious folk, and fucked quite a few nice good christian girls. My view is if you can convince someone to question their faith because they can't figure out why you are wrong. That is the way to handle yourself. Not like Dawkins. Blanket dismissal of everyone fucks you if you are trying to make a point. Showing them that you can't be wrong is another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cracked Ass Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Looks to me like most people in this thread, especially crooked, still don't understand what science is. If you knew what science was, you would never make the absurd claim that the canon of science is only as valid as any canon of religion. Religion = FICTION Science = A collection of assertions, REPLICABLE BY EXPERIMENT, that explain to a high degree of certainty what's going on in our reality. Science welcomes corrections, improvements, and refinements. It is not a belief system. Religion is where you will find the concept that this or that prophet or pope is INFALLIBLE, that is, his word may not be questioned. This is WILLFUL IGNORANCE and a disgusting suppression of natural human curiosity. Go Dawkins. It's about time we had a strident, righteous atheist telling it like it is about these backward cults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.