Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Atheism

Re: Atheism
February 19, 2014, 11:58:31 PM
I think your definition of 'science' is not his definition. That's all.
Maybe we should all make a distinction between science and the caliber of the people who sometimes pose as scientists. As in everything, there are the real ones, and the ones that act it out. Good ones and awful ones.
Ones who strive towards knowledge and ones who strive to max-out their finances.



Re: Atheism
February 20, 2014, 01:32:33 AM
I think you're right Crow, and i've been trying to instill the correct definition - science is not an individual, it is an institution. Science is a collective practice. This institution is comprised of checks and balances, peer-review, experimental norms, and other emergent phenomenon that ensure individual egos DO NOT take the cake. As such, it is the least egotistical endeavor I can think of at the present time. As far as humanistic goes? I don't know what he meant, but possibly something like "scientists they get together with their telescopes and their computers and Nek Minnit god and jesus and higher propose all gone".

Of course this might be the case, but it is rarely the fucking reason why individual scientists starting doing science in the first place. It is a reflection of REALITY LACKING GOD and stuff. Einstein, for example, wanted to catch god at his handy-work.

New-atheists USE science as a weapon for humanism, but that is their agenda, and not specifically the agenda of the INSTITUTION OF SCIENCE (which has no agenda - beyond a concern for mechanisms, evidence, laws, cause & effect).

[It's strange to be the resident 'modern' or enlightenment defender around here, as at any other time in my life I'm the conservative - however, I will embrace this role and champion it as there is nobility and profundity bound up with it all]

Re: Atheism
February 20, 2014, 03:37:58 PM
The value of empiricism is that it was no longer enough to simply shore up an argument or a position that met the rules of logic, you had to demonstrate it. It had to be proven against reality as it can be repeatedly ddemonstrated to other observers.

The limitations are obvious. Empiricism is not applicable to metaphysics which is "the stuff beyond physics." Empiricism is time sensitive. Pure positivism could be used to reject truths which are true but lack in evidence buried over time, burned, destroyed. Finally, that many events/phenomenon are downright impossible, or even notoriouslt difficult to produce/reproduce.

The problems with scientists, science or what have you are do entirely to the underpinnings of all modern thinking, not the discipline itself.

Go right back to the beginning, as I mentioned already, to Descartes.

"I think, therefore I am" which means: To be, is to be known. To be known is to be defined. To be defined is to be quantified. And so on.

It shouldn't be much from there to trace out how we got to strict physicalism qua the mechanical cosmos. All the hubris, the suppositions and the belligerence that is attributed to partisans of this type of thinking has its origins in Descartes and his essential proposal that only that which can be known, by way of the process described, can be said to exist.

I think it's helpful, so that we don't join the chorus of babbling babboons to separate science as a mode of inquiry and the modern mode of thinking that uses and guides it.

Kingdomgone, Grecocastro and all onlookers, please take note.

Re: Atheism
February 20, 2014, 04:29:16 PM
"Humanism is a code for anti-life". Humanists has infected modern science to (try) prove their egocentric philosofy, they also has infected atheism, so the philosofy of not-being theistic is now a belief in humam superiority.

Maybe it isn't atheism or science, it is humanism.

Re: Atheism
February 20, 2014, 05:11:05 PM
The problems with scientists, science or what have you are do entirely to the underpinnings of all modern thinking, not the discipline itself.

I think it's helpful, so that we don't join the chorus of babbling babboons to separate science as a mode of inquiry and the modern mode of thinking that uses and guides it.

This makes sense and I agree, thanks for stating it so clearly. The scum poison all that they touch.

Re: Atheism
February 20, 2014, 05:47:10 PM
Humanism is the result of Christian moral philosophy put under scrutiny by our formal schools of rationalism. It is the product, if you will, of jettisoning the inconsistencies within the Christian tradition and as practiced by Christian institutions. The core ethics however, are largely the same.

It's important to stress, that the death of God in popular and intellectual circles leaves the moral philosophy of humanism with the task of justifying itself. No longer could it rest on a metaphysically objective axiom - the belief in God the Father.

If you take the work of Descartes and apply his thinking to your ethical system, you will be led to the conclusion that objective morality can be found manifesr in physical reality. Science, as the mode of inquiry most suited to the study of physical reality, was and is the natural tool used to justify humanism.

Everyone is free to pass moral judgment on humanism, but as I said with science, let's understand the thinking that got us to where we are. I do believe there is a profound lack of clarity on this whole subject.

Re: Atheism
February 20, 2014, 07:40:48 PM
Vigilance:

Is the tendency towards proto-humanism a divorcible element from the Christian tradition?

If not, one could make the argument that the main point of Christianity™ was to provide a metaphysical justification for that pre-existing belief tendency. God's death simply changed how it was explicated and defended.

If it is divorcible, do you think it's been done before / could it be done?

Re: Atheism
February 20, 2014, 08:39:41 PM


"I think, therefore I am" which means: To be, is to be known. To be known is to be defined. To be defined is to be quantified. And so on.



I haven't studied a lot about the philosophy of Descartes so I might be wrong but I think what he implied from "I think, therefore I am" is that even if you doubt about everything in the universe including god, you cannot doubt that you are thinking so total doubt is impossible. There's at least one certitude.

But I don't know if he believed in some sort of god

Re: Atheism
February 20, 2014, 09:49:42 PM
I've long been of the view that Descartes got it 180 degrees backwards.
"I think, therefore I am not" makes eminently more sense to me.

Re: Atheism
February 20, 2014, 10:22:35 PM
Wild,

I think that it is fruitless to divorce Humanism from Christianity in the history of ideas. I know there is a tendency to flatten out human culture and human ethics across the board by people looking for perennial truths. One such example is the notion, by humanists nonetheless, that all ethical systems converge on compassion. Not true by any means.

Christianity emerged saying many of the same things as other religions of that time period. It just happened to catch on by a stroke of luck. I don't know of any record of nonreligious ethical systems being popular in those days such that it would make your case.

Meta-historically, a strictly rationalist ethical system wouldn't have survived in that phase of European history.

Lost Wanderer,

It certainly appears that way if we mentally substitute consciousness for the verb, I think.

Crow,

Indeed.

Re: Atheism
February 20, 2014, 10:30:43 PM
White Man make one-word answer.
Him smarter than he look.

Re: Atheism
February 20, 2014, 11:41:56 PM
The value of empiricism is that it was no longer enough to simply shore up an argument or a position that met the rules of logic, you had to demonstrate it. It had to be proven against reality as it can be repeatedly ddemonstrated to other observers.

Yep Nihilism in action. Some people even think empirical discoveries in quantum physics have challenged certain rules of logic, but I couldn't elaborate on this.

The limitations are obvious. Empiricism is not applicable to metaphysics which is "the stuff beyond physics." Empiricism is time sensitive. Pure positivism could be used to reject truths which are true but lack in evidence buried over time, burned, destroyed.

What is the alternative you are vaguely gesturing at? What is this alternative 'stuff', this knowledge which is not 'time sensitive', eternal? Mathematics? Sure. Logic? Sure. What else? Come! Let us have it.

With all respect, your whole post was pointing out limitations in empiricism without offering a positive view of the alternative. (I think I know why...).


Re: Atheism
February 21, 2014, 12:09:25 AM
Forgive my intrusion here, but I just 'saw' something, that to me was quite new.
Science is totally dependent upon language. You know: that stuff that conveys something different to everybody?
Subtly different, or radically different, but always different.
A scientist may see something magical a thousand times, without ever registering that it is something magical.
To him, it is always something that can be 'explained', and so he sets about explaining it, thereby incidentally removing the magic from it.
To those who can see magic as magic, there is no need to explain it. That is what makes it magic. It is. It is observable, even if only once in a lifetime. Explaining it seems pointless, useless, and silly. Not to mention impossible.

We've seen here, that even big buddies like myself and Vigilance, for example, suffer extreme communication breakdown, even when we are ostensibly on the same side. It's not really his fault, any more than it is really mine. It is the manifest limitation of language to translate the ethereal stuff of thought, idea and vision, into something that can be shared by the medium of language.

Thus, there is no way for a mystic to communicate with a scientist, or vice-versa.
Each have their limitations placed upon them by - if nothing else - their dependence upon language.

Even mathematics is elastic. People often overlook this, having the idea that it is some pure and perfect language, when it is no such thing. Most of the time it holds up, and works as advertised, until it suddenly doesn't.
Mathematicians are aware of this discrepancy, but since it is their chosen lingo, and nothing else is currently superior to it, they agree to carry on using it.

Magic is anything that IS. Sometimes, that magic can be adequately explained, and thus understood. But there remain, and will always remain, things that defy all explanation.



Re: Atheism
February 21, 2014, 03:11:01 AM
Quote
I think that it is fruitless to divorce Humanism from Christianity in the history of ideas.

Christianity emerged saying many of the same things as other religions of that time period.


These two seem to be conflicting here, at least as long as the narrative of humanism deriving from a secular conception of Christianity's ethics is upheld. If Christianity is necessarily a humanistic religion, and Christianity bears similarities to other religions of its time, it would seem to follow that the liberal proto-humanistic tendency pre-dates the adoption of it into this specific belief system (BS).

My case: secular humanism is a vehicle aimed at conveying a BS which derives its nature from an impulse towards degeneracy that pre-dates Christianity. There isn't anything specifically post-Christian about it; it is the already-existing belief tendency spread without any metaphysical additions. 

(There might be a challenge that the humanistic can exist only after the belief in anything higher than oneself has vanished, but this isn't much of a challenge: the Jews, and then the Christians, believed that everything is created for humans, which are the highest order of everything which is not divine.)

Quote
It just happened to catch on by a stroke of luck.

This seems highly unlikely; anything with the power to convulse humanity would probably have something to it. Obviously, it owes its initial domination to Rome. Why the Romans were willing to abandon their paganism in favor of this creed is a very intriguing question...

Re: Atheism
February 21, 2014, 03:12:53 AM
The value of empiricism is that it was no longer enough to simply shore up an argument or a position that met the rules of logic, you had to demonstrate it. It had to be proven against reality as it can be repeatedly ddemonstrated to other observers.

Yep Nihilism in action. Some people even think empirical discoveries in quantum physics have challenged certain rules of logic, but I couldn't elaborate on this.

The limitations are obvious. Empiricism is not applicable to metaphysics which is "the stuff beyond physics." Empiricism is time sensitive. Pure positivism could be used to reject truths which are true but lack in evidence buried over time, burned, destroyed.

What is the alternative you are vaguely gesturing at? What is this alternative 'stuff', this knowledge which is not 'time sensitive', eternal? Mathematics? Sure. Logic? Sure. What else? Come! Let us have it.

With all respect, your whole post was pointing out limitations in empiricism without offering a positive view of the alternative. (I think I know why...).

I'm a bit confused. What do you mean by alternatives?