|
Post by ockeghem on Jan 28, 2011 15:08:22 GMT
No conformational bias comes first after all, not for them that 'an uncaused cause (that's not eternal) can never happen, I suggest they take that up with an quantum physicist.' Why speculate about 'can nothing exist anyway and if so would it be unstable.' A singularity, A quantum field potential energy conversion to kinetic energy via virtual particle pairs, an infinite regress, a deity with no interest in human affairs. No the desert dwelling goat herders are right all along so take that physicists and cosmologists. Quantum physics does not prove that an uncaused cause exists. Firstly not all physicists agree that the sub-atomic realm is not causally determined, as in the Bohmian interpretation. But even on an indeterministic interpretation (as in the Copenhagen), these particles do not spontaneously come into being out of "nothing". The quantum vacuum is not nothing - it is something, namely a field of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws out of which particles can briefly emerge and then return. Finally, this point holds for theories in which the universe as a whole originates as a vacuum fluctuation, as the vacuum is again a field of energy and therefore most definitely something.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jan 28, 2011 15:20:27 GMT
The early scientists were called natural philosophers and rightly so. They even laid the foundations of modern science despite what the constant stream of recent books claiming that it was Christianity whose very tenants are an antithesis of questioning, reason and free thought. As Humphrey says, we owe Christianity rather more than you suppose, in large part because it is not usually much like you suppose it is. But I'm more interested in the "constant stream" of books claiming Christianity laid the foundation of modern science. Are you talking about Rodney Stark, me? Who are the others. I mean Rod and I can hardly keep up a constant stream on our own and I disagree with about 80% of what he says. Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Jan 28, 2011 15:43:00 GMT
Arguing and debating with friends and colleagues through till dawn. They love the hard questions and this is better than consciousness and why/how we are here, this is the motherload, existence itself. Indeed, this is a large part of what made me consider Christianity before converting as an adult. So, if you're so into arguing and debating, why don't you do it on this list? Why instead go for "contradiction"? And making strawmen? Then we have Plantinga and Craig, what do they do, do they explore all avenues in open enquiry and integrity of course not as they have a delusion to promote. The most implausible explanation of them all is grasp with both hands and they run with it. And your argument for this is excactly what? After all it can only be a supreme 'universe creating' being who inexplicably is interested in what we get up to in the bedroom, dietary habits, lifestyle your very thoughts and not falling to your knees and telling it how wonderful and great it is will not go down well.. Who provides you with a set of mostly silly rules in which even the merest transgression will send you to an eternal torture chamber. Well that must be the first cause of the universe how could it be anything else. Dave, seriously, this is getting too silly and revealing on your part. Instead of arguing as you've been asked to do umpty times (give or take a few), you go on with ad hominems and tangents. Plantinga and Craig's particular views on who God is, or how the Bible is to be interpreted or what football team to support, have nothing to do with their cosmological arguments at all. No conformational bias comes first after all, not for them that 'an uncaused cause (that's not eternal) can never happen, I suggest they take that up with an quantum physicist.' Craig and others do so regularly, and painstakingly detailed. But I guess you must have too much conformational bias to listen. I Think Dennetts and Grayling approach is the way forward for philosophy. Why? How? In what areas? Why not Rescher? Or Puntel? Or a bunch of other persons and positions? Please argue and don't just repeat your conformational bias, it is getting rather ad nauseam.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 28, 2011 16:25:34 GMT
Are you saying philosophers have a monopoly on this? I'm saying these things are products of philosophy. If you agree they are good things, then I have provided examples of valuable conclusions of philosophy, as you requested. I should have clarified that it's (mostly) modern philosophers I have a problem with, I accept the old dead ones made valuable contributions to society and Western thought but still no conclusions though which shows it's limitations.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 28, 2011 17:02:08 GMT
The early scientists were called natural philosophers and rightly so. Modernity, the enlightenment and free though, The human race has a lot to thank philosophy for and their legacy is all around us. They even laid the foundations of modern science despite what the constant stream of recent books claiming that it was Christianity whose very tenants are an antithesis of questioning, reason and free thought. Well so much for the love. I don't know that many historians would want to solely credit Christianity for the rise of modern science. Rather, the more modest claim that has been made is that religious beliefs have heavily influenced science; as presuppositions underwriting science, as sanctions and motives for doing science, as principles for regulating scientific methodology and for selecting acceptable theories. So, in the West, Christian beliefs and institutions played a crucial role in fashioning the tenets, methods and institutions of what became modern science. It also supplied some of the motivation to study nature systematically - for example certain Christian doctrines (e.g the idea of the fall) lent urgency to experiment. Secondly although it might be your opinion that Christianity is opposed to questioning, reason and free thought, this has been far from obvious to many of it's adherents throughout history. Be careful not to project your own personal ideology back through history (something incidentally that A.C Grayling is particularly guilty of) No doubt Christianity did influence natural philosophy and later one science, how could it not, it was all around at the time and most of the people in the Western world were either Christians and the few that weren't had to pretend to be. Whether this was for good or ill we can only speculate but we only have to look at the muslin world to see what happens when orthodoxy and dogma hold sway.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 28, 2011 17:04:12 GMT
No conformational bias comes first after all, not for them that 'an uncaused cause (that's not eternal) can never happen, I suggest they take that up with an quantum physicist.' Why speculate about 'can nothing exist anyway and if so would it be unstable.' A singularity, A quantum field potential energy conversion to kinetic energy via virtual particle pairs, an infinite regress, a deity with no interest in human affairs. No the desert dwelling goat herders are right all along so take that physicists and cosmologists. Quantum physics does not prove that an uncaused cause exists. Firstly not all physicists agree that the sub-atomic realm is not causally determined, as in the Bohmian interpretation. But even on an indeterministic interpretation (as in the Copenhagen), these particles do not spontaneously come into being out of "nothing". The quantum vacuum is not nothing - it is something, namely a field of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws out of which particles can briefly emerge and then return. Finally, this point holds for theories in which the universe as a whole originates as a vacuum fluctuation, as the vacuum is again a field of energy and therefore most definitely something. Don't look at me I don't even pretend to understand quantum mechanics.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 28, 2011 17:09:24 GMT
The early scientists were called natural philosophers and rightly so. They even laid the foundations of modern science despite what the constant stream of recent books claiming that it was Christianity whose very tenants are an antithesis of questioning, reason and free thought. As Humphrey says, we owe Christianity rather more than you suppose, in large part because it is not usually much like you suppose it is. But I'm more interested in the "constant stream" of books claiming Christianity laid the foundation of modern science. Are you talking about Rodney Stark, me? Who are the others. I mean Rod and I can hardly keep up a constant stream on our own and I disagree with about 80% of what he says. Best wishes James Everywhere I seem to look there's either a book or article and even threads claims this is so. The muslins are also getting in on the act, I maybe getting paranoid but if I see any more I'm going to cry.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jan 28, 2011 17:50:19 GMT
Everywhere I seem to look there's either a book or article and even threads claims this is so. The muslins are also getting in on the act, I maybe getting paranoid but if I see any more I'm going to cry. Well, maybe now you know how we feel having to read page after silly one-sided screeds written bashing the historical legacy of Christianity, claiming it suppressed science, reason and freedom of thought. Whether this was for good or ill we can only speculate Sure we can speculate - I hope based on the analysis of evidence. I don't see much enlightened speculation going on though. All I see is you quite happy to make all sort of statements on historical and philosophical issues you quite clearly know nothing about.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 28, 2011 18:01:42 GMT
Arguing and debating with friends and colleagues through till dawn. They love the hard questions and this is better than consciousness and why/how we are here, this is the motherload, existence itself. Indeed, this is a large part of what made me consider Christianity before converting as an adult. So, if you're so into arguing and debating, why don't you do it on this list? Why instead go for "contradiction"? And making strawmen? Erm if you had read it properly you would have seen that I was trying to put myself in the mind of a philosopher who had just heard about the Big Bang theorem. Who found the idea exciting and it started a train of thoughts in his/her head, The last thing I would hope the philosopher would do is allow any foundation bias to creep in as it should be unknown territory. The arguing and debating is entirely theirs which I would hope they enjoy. Nothing to do with me, so I ask what strawman? and what contradiction? One of Craig's arguments for Christianity is the empty tomb, Yet he has said that even if he was transported back in time to that empty tomb, stood outside it for over three days and Jesus didn't emerged he would still believe in Christianity and Jesus was his savior and the son of God. Does that sound like he is being objective to you? Does that sound like he is not letting his preconceived notions get in the way of his logic and reason? Wont his conclusions suffer likewise? My beef with Plantinga is more of his promotion of the ontological argument. If he really thinks he can define a prefect being into existence, well I still have a bridge for sale. Obviously. I Think Dennetts and Grayling approach is the way forward for philosophy. Sorry I just cut it off mid flow as I was fed up with typing as everyone is getting involved I will finish it off in a general post. Bet you're sorry you mentioned it now. ;D
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jan 28, 2011 18:18:36 GMT
Sorry I just cut it off mid flow as I was fed up with typing as everyone is getting involved I will finish it off in a general post No references to 'sky faries', father christmas, the tooth fairy; or 'the cosmic zombie and the band of delusional bronze age goat herders' (sounds like a 70s experimental rock band)
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 28, 2011 19:17:52 GMT
Sorry I just cut it off mid flow as I was fed up with typing as everyone is getting involved I will finish it off in a general post No references to 'sky faries', father christmas, the tooth fairy; or 'the cosmic zombie and the band of delusional bronze age goat herders' (sounds like a 70s experimental rock band) There in my armory to be sure but I only bring them out when someone is trying to justify the cruelty in the Bible or other holy texts along with the bad behavior of any believers to show the absurdity of their position. I have seen Craig do this so any mention of him or any respect shown to him and he gets both barrels. Apart from that I try to show respect for the person I'm debating with as I enjoy the debates. What have you got against Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy? You will be having ago at the Easter Bunny next.
|
|
|
Post by noons on Jan 28, 2011 20:18:16 GMT
What have you got against Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy? You will be having ago at the Easter Bunny next. I think South Park took care of that one.
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Jan 28, 2011 22:47:53 GMT
My beef with Plantinga is more of his promotion of the ontological argument. If he really thinks he can define a prefect being into existence, well I still have a bridge for sale. What was Plantinga's version of the ontological argument? What is your problem with it? Please give us a summary of it, with what you feel is wrong with it.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 29, 2011 16:10:50 GMT
humphreyclarke wrote:
Is it really necessary to be a philosopher or a student of philosophy to understand that just about any idea you can think of, some philosopher has said it? It's a fantastic mental exercise that few people can grasp and I admire those who can, but for them to suppose they have some special knowledge of truth is nonsense. You can't summon up gods with words alone.
I know very little about astrology but I believe it is nonsense. I'm not an expert on astrology, therefore I cannot offer a formal argument, philosophical or otherwise, so how can I come to such an ignorant conclusion? Millions of people believe in astrology. Many live by it; they make decisions by it. But try to tell the astrological believer that it is nonsense. Heh. Oh yes, you can argue that there's no scientific proof that astrology can be used to predict the future or have any effect whatsoever on anyone, but then you'll get all sorts of eyewitness accounts that says it does. And you'll get people who will tell you how it has changed their lives and how astrology supported science and helped develop it.
Substitute the word 'Christianity' for astrology in the above paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Jan 29, 2011 17:07:02 GMT
davedodo007 wrote:
Craig also said that an experiencial approach to the resurrection is a perfectly valid way to know that the Christ has risen and that's the way most Christians today know that Christ has arisen and is alive. That is complete nonsense. There are hundreds of religions where people have personal experiences with their gods. Does that also validate all of them?
Thinking people sometimes don't think.
|
|