Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Richard Dawkins


Removed
 Share

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Read The Stranger by Camus if you haven't already. It's a good place to start because it's fiction. It may help you to understand a certain song by the Cure as well... Remember, Sartre is French, so something may be lost in the translation. And let make a wild generalization by saying that the French like to think that they are the beginning and the end in academic thought and critique, so Sartre is just fitting in with his rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...