Real World Philospohy

[spoon]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atrocities:
Why did this thread degenerate into a religion thread? This is very frustrating people. God is not happy here

It often requires declared ground rules that people actually follow to keep a discussion of philosophy from turning into one of ethics, and to keep a discussion of ethics from turning into a discussion of religion. Such ground rules weren't present.

---

... and a lot of people derive their world-philosphy from their religion...

[deccan]

Originally posted by Loser:
Real science deals only with what can be proven, and most importantly what can be proven repeatedly by different scientists. If an experiment does not get reproducible results the theory it 'proves' is not proven, and not part of Hard Science.

Since everyone is picking on Narf and that is so boring, let me play Devil's advocate and revisit a point Jack Simth, I.F. and I have tangled with before.

You state that science deals with only that which can be proven. That is not quite true. Some of the things that science relies on cannot be proven, such as for example, that the rules of logic that we employ (i.e. "classical logic") is "true", that solipsism is false or that there is no Cartesian "deceiving demon", that causality can ever be proven to be truly present as Locke questioned etc.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
There is nothing arbitrary about my "declaration". You seem to have missed this post...

quote:

---

Keep in mind that "religion" started with primitive man as a means to explain everything he could not understand (which was pretty much everything around him). The concept of "God" did not come along until 100,000s of years later. Before some people in ancient Babylon began claiming that there was only one God (the Jews), everyone believed in either multiple gods or some other belief in which everything (people, animals, rocks, etc.) was spiritual (with the occasional "other"). Of course, there were probably some minor pockets of monotheism before Judaism came along, but that is the one that got the whole notion of one God going strong (after quite some time, mind you).

This is how religions have evolved over the millennia. It does not take a rigorous study of every single religion to realize this. Also, it is rather difficult to ask anything of a fictional character. It is of course possible that there is some sort of supernatural force (not necessarily likely, but possible). In any case, it is certainly not "God", or the deity of any other religion. The possibility of one religion being right and the other 1000s of them that have existed over the years (and that still exist) being wrong is so absurdly small that it can safely be ignored. Even if you want to go by weight of numbers, Christianity would come out wrong, as some 2.5-3 billion people on this planet are either Buddhists or Hindis, with Christians coming in at a measly 500 or 600 million. So why does "God" not speak to all those people, just a few in the West?

---

1) Lots of assertions here, little proof. What is the evidence that primitive man "invented" religion?

2) What is so absurd about one religon being true and all the others false? The Christian doctrine of human depravity (the idea that human nature has become corrupt and therefore hostile to the idea of God) is a rational explanation for the diversity of religions, from a monotheistic POV.

3) Truth is not determined by numbers of claimants, but whether a truth claim corresponds to reality.

4) The West has a decidedly atheistic bent nowadays. If your neighbor went around denying that you exist, would you be really that enthused to talk to him?

[deccan]

Originally posted by Erax:

Simply put, there is no need for conflict between science and religion bercause they address different questions.

Science exists to explain how.

Religion exists to explain why.

Using science to explain why or religion to explain how is apt to fail miserably (and often does).

Ah yes, the famous Gould evasion of the issue, "non-overlapping magisteria" was how he put it I believe.

Yet there are many good objections to this view. For example, if the view of science and physicalism is correct, then humans, including their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, emotions etc. are either physical or supervenient on the physical, and this cannot help but overlap into the whys.

On the other hand, organized religion justifies its "whys" based on its "hows". How many people would be willing to accept the "whys" taught by religion if its "hows" were acknowledged to be wrong?

[Atrocities]

New philosophy of mine. No matter how a topic begins, it will always end in a reglious discussion.

[primitive]

An on-topic remark then

Favourite motto: Just do it !

Unfortunately, too often this turn in to: Why the f.. did I do that.
20 odd years of applying Just-do-it to my life has meant quite a few visits to the doctors office for treatment for bruises and broken bones (used to be into extreme sports) as well as some very unnecessary antibiotic cures and too many hangovers to mention.

[Atrocities]

The "WTF am I doing?" question is by all means one of the staple self questions of man kind.

"I just asked my self that about five minutes ago. WTF am I doing here still? I mean WTF am I doing?"

"I have spent an ungodly amount of time in this bar and for what? I don't know perhaps to be a part of something that other people enjoy? Maybe to share in a common place where people of like intrests hang out? I don't really know why I hang around, I simply do. However, if the time comes to move on, I will do so without looking back, because I know that this great social monster will continue to live on long after my interest in this place has gone."

Another one would be: "one should not be where one is not wanted unless it is where you want to be."
"Never take a personal attack personal until you have had a few hours to think about it."
"Once those who you know think lowly of you, there is no point in knowning them at all."
"Follow the money."
"Not all rumors are rumors, not all facts are facts, however a rumors and facts often lead to logical conclusions that are as much a rumor as they are a fact."
"Never shop while your hungry."

And finally

"Treat others as you would have them treat you."

"If there was an simely face expression for 'Read my expression' I would post it here now for amused I am not, but confused I am."

[ November 07, 2003, 13:31: Message edited by: Atrocities ]