21'st century version of evolution
Ted Holden
Picture some ten-year-old American kid growing up on a steady diet of public
schools and TV, who had never heard of Chuck Darwin or evolutionism.
Picture some guy representing Howard Hughs walking up to the kid and
saying:
"Kid, for a million bucks, I need you to devise an atheistic ideological
doctrine to explain the present biosphere without recourse to anything
resembling a creative act, engineering, or re-engineering or anything like
that at all, and it has to be the stupidest ideological doctrine which has
ever been devised. Moreover, it has to be based on stuff which you watch on
television on a regular basis."
In other words, it has to be a reasonable replacement for Darwinism and/or
Gouldism/punkeek.
Here's what I suspect the kid might come up with. We're talking about a new
reality TV series which involves five guys with Sten guns, AKs, and M16s, a
bunch of criminals from death row who have volunteered for the program, and
a bunch of chimpanzees, and the chimpanzees have spent the last three
months watching ER, and all other available doctor and medical shows. They
line the criminals up against the wall, and the guys with the automatic
rifles mow em down. Notice I specified relatively light calibre rifles and
not FALs or M14s or anything which guarantees outright kills. The idea is
that the chimpanzees now will try to use their newly acquired medical
skills to repair the shot-up criminals.
The doctrine says that the vast majority of these shot-up and "repaired"
criminals will die off, most of them within an hour or two, but due to the
law of averages, a very few will get put together beter than they were
before, and the progeny of these few will become UEBERMENSCHEN, and breed
together to form ever improved new races of men.
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
Boikat
"Ted Holden" <med...@fcc.net> wrote in message
news:0yqdnd9J_ME...@fcc.net...
>
> Picture some ten-year-old American kid growing up on a steady diet of
public
> schools and TV, who had never heard of Chuck Darwin or evolutionism.
> Picture some guy representing Howard Hughs walking up to the kid and
> saying:
>
>
> "Kid, for a million bucks, I need you to devise an atheistic ideological
Why do you specify "atheistic"? Science is agnostic.
<snip remainder>
Boikat
AC
Because, on top of being a notorious kook, Ted is also a notorious liar.
--
Aaron Clausen
Chris Merli
Of course like creationism this idea would also be shredded by legitimate
science. On the other hand asking someone to make up a new religion as
nutty as the one Ted believes in has happened many time over. Perhaps this
is the difference between science and religion, Scinece requires facts and
evidence while religion simply requires imagination and a group of gulible
followers.
C. Thompson
Well, Ted, your expertise in firearms matches your expertise in biology.
Before going any further, let me say I see your point (and it's really
stupid).
The Sten Gun was a 9mm submachinegun with a cyclic rate of fire of over
300 rounds per minute. With 30 round magazines, under the firing range
conditions you describe, there won't be anything left but bloody rags.
This is even more true of an M16. The M16 fires a .223 bullet. Now,
the ignorant look at this and say- hah! That isn't anything but a
glorified .22 Long Rifle cartridge. The casing on a .22 is about an
inch long, and not much greater diameter (if any) than the bullet
itself. (The casing, or shell, contains the propellant). A .223 OTOH,
is at lease 2.5 inches long, and of considerably greater girth. Yes,
it's a relatively small cartridge, but it's moving hellacious fast. And
in case you forgot Physics 101, F=ma. Let's say the difference in mass
is negligable- the difference in acceleration is enormous, hence the
force with which it hits is quite a bit greater.
In case you didn't know, the M16 was designed to comply with The Geneva
Accords, which bans weapons specifically designed to wound. Nothing
will "guarantees outright kills" but write me a postcard next time you
get shot with an M16, and tell me all about hydrstatic shock- if you
live through it, that is.
Finally, we come to the infamous "AK". The "AK" is not a weapon, it is
a weapon system. And you even (to coin a phrase) shoot yourself in the
foot here. Let me clue you in- the original weapon in the AK series was
the famed AK-47. Cheap, robust, high rate of fire, and in a pinch you
could fill it with NATO ammunition- although you could not use WP ammo
in a NATO rifle. Why? Because the **7.62mm** round used in the AK47
was just a teensy bit bigger than the 7.62mm round used in, say, the
Belgian FN-FAL or the US M14, or the West German G3. (If you want a look
at an AK47, go to www.cia.gov and look up the flag of Mozambique). The
original AK47 is a huge powerhouse of a weapon.
I have fired both an AK47 and the later, scaled-down AK-74 (and also
civilian versions of the M-14 and the M-16). The .223 caliber AK-74 is
*still* powerful enough to punch through body armor and rip a great
whacking hole in a soft, squishy person.
Will any of these firearms inflict the same sort of damage as being hit
by, say, a .50 caliber machine gun? No, of course not. But then, after
a certain level, there isn't much point in doing more damage.
Do a little background checking before you concoct ridicuous scenarios.
Chris
Lane Lewis
"Boikat" <Boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:nkVDa.67468$H%.28206@fe08.atl2.webusenet.com...
Science like math is niether agnostic or atheistic, it just simply has
nothing to say about the metaphysical.
Lane
Marc Buhler
Ted Holden wrote:
.............. snip the big set-up bit.............
> The doctrine says that the vast majority of these shot-up and "repaired"
> criminals will die off, most of them within an hour or two, but due to the
> law of averages, a very few will get put together beter than they were
> before, and the progeny of these few will become UEBERMENSCHEN, and breed
> together to form ever improved new races of men.
............. snip the end-bits...........
There is a slight deletion mutation which has the spelling "beter"
when you probably wanted it to read "better". (I'm not going to
correct your German as it is in all-caps.)
Now, while obviously flawed by the above mutation, was there
some sort of point that you were trying to make about evolution?
Because ther were "put together better than before" (or should
I use the new, mutated "beter" version here?) does not in fact
do anything to the progeny. Don't you understand this yet?
If they were to survive because their blood-clotting factors
were especially life-saving or they had other features that
were encoded in their genomes that allowed for their chance
to survive to be increased - which has NOTHING to do
with you monkey-watching-ER model - then this could be
passed on to the progeny.
The trait must be in the germ-line.
Having a "trait" come in to a situation, like the educated monkeys
you have here, in no way can contribute to increased survival
in the progeny because the trait just isn't there to be passed on.
Your model is perhaps a Lamarckian one rather than Darwinian.
Four thousand million years of survival of the fittest and the
creationists still don't understand what it is all about.
(signed) marc
...
Ted
> Well, Ted, your expertise in firearms matches your expertise in biology.
> Before going any further, let me say I see your point (and it's really
> stupid).
It was meant to be; the idea was meant to replace evolution(ism), not
something intelligent...
> The Sten Gun was a 9mm submachinegun with a cyclic rate of fire of over
> 300 rounds per minute. With 30 round magazines, under the firing range
> conditions you describe, there won't be anything left but bloody rags.
The article noted that most victims would die within the hour...
> This is even more true of an M16. The M16 fires a .223 bullet. Now,
> the ignorant look at this and say- hah! That isn't anything but a
> glorified .22 Long Rifle cartridge. The casing on a .22 is about an
> inch long, and not much greater diameter (if any) than the bullet
> itself. (The casing, or shell, contains the propellant). A .223 OTOH,
> is at lease 2.5 inches long, and of considerably greater girth. Yes,
> it's a relatively small cartridge, but it's moving hellacious fast. And
> in case you forgot Physics 101, F=ma. Let's say the difference in mass
> is negligable- the difference in acceleration is enormous, hence the
> force with which it hits is quite a bit greater.
You're claiming that acceleration makes the difference?? I mean, the bullet
stops accelerating the instant it leaves the barrel of the rifle...
> In case you didn't know, the M16 was designed to comply with The Geneva
> Accords, which bans weapons specifically designed to wound.
The M16 was designed to be a true assault weapon, i.e. capable of aimed
rapid fire, to replace the M14. M16-based rifles win the competitions at
camp Perry and similar venues for precisely this reason, i.e. the lesser
time for follow-on shots which are decently aimed. The Geneva accords had
nothing to do with it.
> Finally, we come to the infamous "AK". The "AK" is not a weapon, it is
> a weapon system. And you even (to coin a phrase) shoot yourself in the
> foot here. Let me clue you in- the original weapon in the AK series was
> the famed AK-47. Cheap, robust, high rate of fire, and in a pinch you
> could fill it with NATO ammunition- although you could not use WP ammo
> in a NATO rifle. Why? Because the **7.62mm** round used in the AK47
> was just a teensy bit bigger than the 7.62mm round used in, say, the
> Belgian FN-FAL or the US M14, or the West German G3.
You're claiming to be some sort of a firearms expert and writing crap like
that? I mean, coming from t.o. it shouldn't really surprise me. I suppose
it's possible you could be talking about bullets rather than loaded
cartridges although I can't picture anybody on a battlefield taking time
out to load or reload his own ammunition, but the basic NATO cartridge is
considerably bigger than AK ammo and there's no possibility whatever of
using NATO 7.62x51 ammo in an AK chambered for 7.62x39.
Chris Merli
"Ted" <med...@fcc.net> wrote in message
news:oO6dnWjV5pq...@fcc.net...
> C. Thompson wrote:
>
>
> > Well, Ted, your expertise in firearms matches your expertise in biology.
>
> > Before going any further, let me say I see your point (and it's really
> > stupid).
>
> It was meant to be; the idea was meant to replace evolution(ism), not
> something intelligent...
>
>
> > The Sten Gun was a 9mm submachinegun with a cyclic rate of fire of over
> > 300 rounds per minute. With 30 round magazines, under the firing range
> > conditions you describe, there won't be anything left but bloody rags.
>
> The article noted that most victims would die within the hour...
>
> > This is even more true of an M16. The M16 fires a .223 bullet. Now,
> > the ignorant look at this and say- hah! That isn't anything but a
> > glorified .22 Long Rifle cartridge. The casing on a .22 is about an
> > inch long, and not much greater diameter (if any) than the bullet
> > itself. (The casing, or shell, contains the propellant). A .223 OTOH,
> > is at lease 2.5 inches long, and of considerably greater girth. Yes,
> > it's a relatively small cartridge, but it's moving hellacious fast. And
> > in case you forgot Physics 101, F=ma. Let's say the difference in mass
> > is negligable- the difference in acceleration is enormous, hence the
> > force with which it hits is quite a bit greater.
>
> You're claiming that acceleration makes the difference?? I mean, the
bullet
> stops accelerating the instant it leaves the barrel of the rifle...
The aceleration he was refering to was as it enters the target. It is the
amount the bullet slows down due to impact with the person. In physics this
is also covered in the term acceleration.
Ted
>> > A .223 OTOH,
>> > is at lease 2.5 inches long, and of considerably greater girth. Yes,
>> > it's a relatively small cartridge, but it's moving hellacious fast.
>> > And
>> > in case you forgot Physics 101, F=ma. Let's say the difference in mass
>> > is negligable- the difference in acceleration is enormous, hence the
>> > force with which it hits is quite a bit greater.
>>
>> You're claiming that acceleration makes the difference?? I mean, the
> bullet stops accelerating the instant it leaves the barrel of the rifle...
> The aceleration he was refering to was as it enters the target. It is the
> amount the bullet slows down due to impact with the person. In physics
> this is also covered in the term acceleration.
If that's the case, then the 22 longrifle ought to do more damage than the
223, since it will decelerate considerably more going through a human
target, and that can't really be what the guy meant. You guys should
really wait until friday NIGHT to start drinking. Either that or not post
to usenet after thursday...
Grinder
Even if "that's the case", your conclusion isn't that obvious
to me.
The muzzle velocity for a .223 cartridge is in the low 3000 fps
range, and for a .22 long, mid-to-low 1000 fps. The .223 will
strike with about 4x-9x the _kinetic energy_ of the .22, which
will likely cause more damage -- I suspect you have no
disagreement with that.
The exit velocity of the either bullet, if it makes it through
the target, should be quite low. Having fire both cartridges
at wildlife, I can confirm that a few inches of meat will
absorb nearly all of the slug's kinetic energy.
Ted
>> If that's the case, then the 22 longrifle ought to do more
> damage than the 223, since it will decelerate considerably more going
through a human
>> target, [snip]
>
> Even if "that's the case", your conclusion isn't that obvious
> to me.
I didn't say I BELIEVED that a 22 lr would ever do more damage than the 223;
I merely stated that was the logical implication of the other gentleman's
statement. Under almost all circumstances, the 223 will do a LOT more
damage.
Grinder
> Grinder wrote:
>
>
> >> If that's the case, then the 22 longrifle ought to do more
> > damage than the 223, since it will decelerate considerably
more going
> through a human
> >> target, [snip]
> >
> > Even if "that's the case", your conclusion isn't that
obvious
> > to me.
>
> I didn't say I BELIEVED that a 22 lr would ever do more
damage than the 223;
Why did you snip the part where I acknowledge this?
"The .223 will strike with about 4x-9x the _kinetic
energy_
of the .22, which will likely cause more damage -- I
suspect
you have no disagreement with that."
> I merely stated that was the logical implication of the other
gentleman's
> statement.
This was the target of my response. I don't believe that the
net deacceleration of the slug will be greater for the .22.
The exit velocity will likely be higher (the .22 will probably
not exit at all,) but the .223 will still have a greater
reduction in velocity.
> Under almost all circumstances, the 223 will do a LOT more
damage.
I totally agree, and never thought you were saying otherwise.
C. Thompson
LOL Of course that's what I meant.
What on earth do _you_ think makes the difference in the amount of damage
done by the 2 rounds?
>
>> In case you didn't know, the M16 was designed to comply with The
>> Geneva Accords, which bans weapons specifically designed to wound.
>
> The M16 was designed to be a true assault weapon, i.e. capable of
> aimed rapid fire, to replace the M14. M16-based rifles win the
> competitions at camp Perry and similar venues for precisely this
> reason, i.e. the lesser time for follow-on shots which are decently
> aimed. The Geneva accords had nothing to do with it.
You mentioned that the weapons were chose because they wouldn't result in
outright kills. You're nuts.
>
>> Finally, we come to the infamous "AK". The "AK" is not a weapon, it
>> is a weapon system. And you even (to coin a phrase) shoot yourself
>> in the foot here. Let me clue you in- the original weapon in the AK
>> series was the famed AK-47. Cheap, robust, high rate of fire, and
>> in a pinch you could fill it with NATO ammunition- although you
>> could not use WP ammo in a NATO rifle. Why? Because the **7.62mm**
>> round used in the AK47 was just a teensy bit bigger than the 7.62mm
>> round used in, say, the Belgian FN-FAL or the US M14, or the West
>> German G3.
>
> You're claiming to be some sort of a firearms expert and writing crap
Care to point out where I said that? I do admit, though, I am more of an
expert then you.
> like that? I mean, coming from t.o. it shouldn't really surprise me.
> I suppose it's possible you could be talking about bullets rather
> than loaded cartridges although I can't picture anybody on a
> battlefield taking time out to load or reload his own ammunition, but
LOL What the heck are you talking about? Where do you see anything at all
about reloading? You are having flashbacks, bud.
> the basic NATO cartridge is considerably bigger than AK ammo and
> there's no possibility whatever of using NATO 7.62x51 ammo in an AK
> chambered for 7.62x39.
Read for comprehension. WP ammo is usable in NATO weapons- not vice versa-
as I clearly state.
The point, though, is that you claimed the AK was a lightweight weapon, and
you don't know what you're talking about An AK- in whatever incarnation, be
it AK-47, AK-74, or AKM, will tear a person to shreds. If you want to talk
about lightweight rifles, talk about .243's or .30 carbines- but not M-16's
or AK's.
Chris
Ted Holden
>>
>> You're claiming that acceleration makes the difference?? I mean, the
>> bullet stops accelerating the instant it leaves the barrel of the
>> rifle...
>
> LOL Of course that's what I meant.
>
> What on earth do _you_ think makes the difference in the amount of damage
> done by the 2 rounds?
Momentum and the nature/construction of the bullets.
>>> Finally, we come to the infamous "AK". The "AK" is not a weapon, it
>>> is a weapon system. And you even (to coin a phrase) shoot yourself
>>> in the foot here. Let me clue you in- the original weapon in the AK
>>> series was the famed AK-47. Cheap, robust, high rate of fire, and
>>> in a pinch you could fill it with NATO ammunition- although you
>>> could not use WP ammo in a NATO rifle. Why? Because the **7.62mm**
>>> round used in the AK47 was just a teensy bit bigger than the 7.62mm
>>> round used in, say, the Belgian FN-FAL or the US M14, or the West
>>> German G3.
>>
>> You're claiming to be some sort of a firearms expert and writing crap
> Care to point out where I said that? I do admit, though, I am more of an
> expert then you.
You're claiming that you could use NATO (7.62x51) ammo in an AK (7.62x39),
which is basically an ignorant statement.
Steve B.
"Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bs1Ea.18995$cm4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
That *is* agnostic. Isn't it?
--
Steve
You can throw a horse in a pond, but you can't make him swim.
Steve B.
....
>
> . . , ,
> ____)/ \(____
> _,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
> ,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
> ,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
> | | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
> ,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
> |/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
> ` ` V V ' '
>
>
> Splifford the bat says: Always remember
>
> A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
> Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
> doctrines.
Hey Splifford, why do you hang out with Ted? You don't really believe his
mumbo-jumbo do you? I know sonar is more your thing, but surely you can
still see through that stuff? Is he paying you off?
Dick C
news:bbr5gh$c14i7$1...@ID-195893.news.dfncis.de:
No, agnosticism is the belief that one can not know whether god
exists or not. Science says nothing about gods as long as there
is no empirical evidence one way or the other.
--
Dick #1349
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
Andre Gide, French author and critic (1869-1951).
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@localnet.com
Steve B.
"Dick C" <dic...@localnet.boo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9392A3958FD4...@216.168.3.50...
In what sense? I believe that I can not know if the chair I'm sitting on
exists or not. But I also believe there is enough evidence to act as if the
chair does exist. In practical terms I would flat out say that my chair
exists.
So is agnosticism (a) a special case of philosophical skepticism or is it
(b) a more practical admission that something is at current, unknowable? It
is in a practical sense that people say science is agnostic. It is in the
same sense that people say they're agnostic about X or agnostic about Y.
I'm agnostic [a] but not [b] about the existance of my chair.
Given the current evidence I would say science is agnostic [b] about gods,
invisible pink unicorns, and the infinite spectrum of unobservable things
we can dream up.
Boikat
"Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bs1Ea.18995$cm4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
That is the reason it is agnostic: It does not address the issue one way or
the other.
Boikat
>
> Lane
>
John Wilkins
> "Dick C" <dic...@localnet.boo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9392A3958FD4...@216.168.3.50...
> > "Steve B." <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote in
> > news:bbr5gh$c14i7$1...@ID-195893.news.dfncis.de:
> >
> > >
> > > "Lane Lewis" <lanej...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bs1Ea.18995$cm4.2...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >>
> > >> "Boikat" <Boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:nkVDa.67468$H%.28206@fe08.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > >> >
> > >> > "Ted Holden" <med...@fcc.net> wrote in message
> > >> > news:0yqdnd9J_ME...@fcc.net...
> > >> > >
....
> > >> > > "Kid, for a million bucks, I need you to devise an atheistic
> > >> > > ideological
> > >> >
> > >> > Why do you specify "atheistic"? Science is agnostic.
> > >> >
> > >> > <snip remainder>
> > >> >
> > >> > Boikat
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Science like math is niether agnostic or atheistic, it just simply
> > >> has nothing to say about the metaphysical.
> > >
> > > That *is* agnostic. Isn't it?
> >
> > No, agnosticism is the belief that one can not know whether god
> > exists or not. Science says nothing about gods as long as there
> > is no empirical evidence one way or the other.
>
> In what sense? I believe that I can not know if the chair I'm sitting on
> exists or not. But I also believe there is enough evidence to act as if the
> chair does exist. In practical terms I would flat out say that my chair
> exists.
>
> So is agnosticism (a) a special case of philosophical skepticism or is it
> (b) a more practical admission that something is at current, unknowable? It
> is in a practical sense that people say science is agnostic. It is in the
> same sense that people say they're agnostic about X or agnostic about Y.
> I'm agnostic [a] but not [b] about the existance of my chair.
>
> Given the current evidence I would say science is agnostic [b] about gods,
> invisible pink unicorns, and the infinite spectrum of unobservable things
> we can dream up.
Agnosticism is not the weak claim that we currently do not know
something about the metphaysical aspects of the world; it is a strong
claim that we *cannot*, in principle, know something about the
metaphysical aspects of the world. For example, it is a metaphysical
claim that there are universals. If we think that there might be
universals but we presently do not have sufficient knowledge or
techniques to determine this (for example, there might be a gap in logic
that we expect we might fill), then we are not *agnostic* about
universals, we are *ignorant* of universal realities. If, on the other
hand, we think with good reason there is no way we *could* know for sure
if universals exist or not, then, and only then, are we agnostics about
universals.
Note, by the way, that being agnostic about something is
subject-relative. I am agnostic about gods, but I definitely have a view
on universals (they are names of groups of things we recognise as
patterns).
Science is not merely lacking a way to determine if gods exist or not;
science *cannot* take any kind of stance on gods and remain science.
This is because the knowledge gathered through science is gathered
through the use of empirical observations and measurements, together
with explanatory schemes based on principles of parsimony (Ockham's
Razor) and coherence with established generalisations. Throw in a God or
two, and suddenly you lose both the parsimony of explanation and the
coherence with generalisations, because for one, God is an added entity,
and two, anomic gods undercut any possible generalisation.
--
John Wilkins
"And this is a damnable doctrine" - Charles Darwin, Autobiography
Steve B.
"John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:1fw6ndf.1qh9ptiocagdyN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
Oops, I said the "p" word.
Are you using metaphysical as a synonym for supernatural? If so,
agnosticism can be reworded as: the belief that we cannot know something
about something of which we can know nothing about. That doesn't strike me
as particularly meaningful.
> Note, by the way, that being agnostic about something is
> subject-relative. I am agnostic about gods, but I definitely have a view
> on universals (they are names of groups of things we recognise as
> patterns).
>
> Science is not merely lacking a way to determine if gods exist or not;
> science *cannot* take any kind of stance on gods and remain science.
> This is because the knowledge gathered through science is gathered
> through the use of empirical observations and measurements, together
> with explanatory schemes based on principles of parsimony (Ockham's
> Razor) and coherence with established generalisations. Throw in a God or
> two, and suddenly you lose both the parsimony of explanation and the
> coherence with generalisations, because for one, God is an added entity,
> and two, anomic gods undercut any possible generalisation.
You say that science cannot take a stance on things which cannot be
observed empirically. In other words, science cannot take a stance on
supernatural matters. In other words, science cannot take a stance on God.
How is that not agnosticism?
The only way I see that science cannot be agnostic is if agnostic is
defined in such a way that it is redundant and somewhat meaningless.
Cyde Weys
"Ted" <med...@fcc.net> wrote in message news:oxCdnWCmXvD...@fcc.net...
No, you're not thinking it through. The .223 bullet will travelling a lot
faster than the .22 bullet, and will release a much larger amount of energy
because it "decelerates" a lot more upon impact.
Mitchell Coffey
wrote:
>
>Picture some ten-year-old American kid growing up on a steady diet of public
>schools and TV, who had never heard of Chuck Darwin or evolutionism.
>Picture some guy representing Howard Hughs walking up to the kid and
>saying:
[snip]
I see you found the need for a new story. In your last post on this
theme, you claimed that Darwin was responsible for the foisting of the
opium trade upon China by England, and for the evils of the British
East India Company. The trouble was, if Darwin was responsible, it
was by psychic means. It seems England had forced Opium onto China by
the time Darwin was cruising on the Beagle, over twenty years before
On the Origin of Species was published. And the British East India
Company was well into it's evil ways a century or so before Darwin was
born. But in this latter case, what made your historical incompetence
particularly interesting was the the East India Company was disbanded
in 1858 - one year before the Orgin of Species came out.
You liked that tale so much you posted it at least twice, over the
years, in T.O. I can see now, though, you saw the wisdom of
fabricating a new set of facts that doesn't risk exposing your
historical research skill-set.
Mitchell Coffey
John Wilkins
Nothing wrong with pink things, invisible or otherwise, and don't let
anyone tell you different.
>
> Are you using metaphysical as a synonym for supernatural? If so,
> agnosticism can be reworded as: the belief that we cannot know something
> about something of which we can know nothing about. That doesn't strike me
> as particularly meaningful.
No, I'm using "metaphysical" to mean any principle of logic, reason or
nonphysical properties which cannot be investigated except by analysis,
inner inspection, or intuition.
Supernatural phenomena is a class of things I cannot define clearly
enough to want to use the notion. It strikes me as a handwave in the
direction of "things I want to believe in which are physically
impossible".
>
> > Note, by the way, that being agnostic about something is
> > subject-relative. I am agnostic about gods, but I definitely have a view
> > on universals (they are names of groups of things we recognise as
> > patterns).
Nobody challenges my nominalism? Rats.
> >
> > Science is not merely lacking a way to determine if gods exist or not;
> > science *cannot* take any kind of stance on gods and remain science.
> > This is because the knowledge gathered through science is gathered
> > through the use of empirical observations and measurements, together
> > with explanatory schemes based on principles of parsimony (Ockham's
> > Razor) and coherence with established generalisations. Throw in a God or
> > two, and suddenly you lose both the parsimony of explanation and the
> > coherence with generalisations, because for one, God is an added entity,
> > and two, anomic gods undercut any possible generalisation.
>
> You say that science cannot take a stance on things which cannot be
> observed empirically. In other words, science cannot take a stance on
> supernatural matters. In other words, science cannot take a stance on God.
> How is that not agnosticism?
Science would study God if God were empirically discernable. Agnostics
say, and occasionally argue for the view, that God *cannot* be discerned
empirically. To be sure, the result is the same, but science will not
pronounce as the agnostic will that God will *never* be discerned
empirically.
>
> The only way I see that science cannot be agnostic is if agnostic is
> defined in such a way that it is redundant and somewhat meaningless.
Perhaps. I think there is as much difference between the two, as there
is between common explanation and scientific theory :-P
>
> --
> Steve
>
> You can throw a horse in a pond, but you can't make him swim.
C. Thompson
>
> C. Thompson wrote:
>
> >>
> >> You're claiming that acceleration makes the difference?? I mean, the
> >> bullet stops accelerating the instant it leaves the barrel of the
> >> rifle...
> >
> > LOL Of course that's what I meant.
> >
> > What on earth do _you_ think makes the difference in the amount of damage
> > done by the 2 rounds?
>
> Momentum and the nature/construction of the bullets.
Goodness, I hadn't realized just how serious it was.
Ted, Ted, Ted. Where do you think the momentum *comes from*?
If you think for a moment, all momentum *must* stem from acceleration,
somewhere along the line. In a bullet, the propellent burns rapidly,
thus causing gases to expand in the firing chamber, and these accelerate
the bullet out of the barrel. As you point out earlier, the bullet
often continues to accelerate down the length of the barrel, but once
the gases are free to expand in the air, the bullet stops acquiring
momentum. The momentum is the result of the acceleration.
I admit that I had not thought about bullet construction as a factor.
Upon reflection, I would maintain that it doesn't make a whit of
difference compared to the acceleration. In fact, the soft, naked lead
of, say, a .22 should do considerably more damage than the jacketed
slugs used in battle rifles.
>
> >>> Finally, we come to the infamous "AK". The "AK" is not a weapon, it
> >>> is a weapon system. And you even (to coin a phrase) shoot yourself
> >>> in the foot here. Let me clue you in- the original weapon in the AK
> >>> series was the famed AK-47. Cheap, robust, high rate of fire, and
> >>> in a pinch you could fill it with NATO ammunition- although you
> >>> could not use WP ammo in a NATO rifle. Why? Because the **7.62mm**
> >>> round used in the AK47 was just a teensy bit bigger than the 7.62mm
> >>> round used in, say, the Belgian FN-FAL or the US M14, or the West
> >>> German G3.
> >>
> >> You're claiming to be some sort of a firearms expert and writing crap
>
> > Care to point out where I said that? I do admit, though, I am more of an
> > expert then you.
>
> You're claiming that you could use NATO (7.62x51) ammo in an AK (7.62x39),
> which is basically an ignorant statement.
Maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe I am repeating urban legend. I will happily
recheck this.
In the meantime, let's just put back what my newsreader must have
cropped from the original discussion- you know, the part that actually
pertains to your silly example...I HATE it when my ISP makes those
unannounced little snips of articles, don't you?
I said:
> The point, though, is that you claimed the AK was a lightweight weapon, and
> you don't know what you're talking about An AK- in whatever incarnation, be
> it AK-47, AK-74, or AKM, will tear a person to shreds. If you want to talk
> about lightweight rifles, talk about .243's or .30 carbines- but not M-16's
> or AK's.
So a .308 like a G3 (or 7.65x51) isn't a lightweight rifle (does it
"guarantee certain kills"?) but an AK-47 is (at 7.62x39)?
People use those cartridges to hunt bears for crying out loud.
Chris
>
> Ted Holden
> www.bearfabrique.org
KCdgw
> > Agnosticism is not the weak claim that we currently do not know
>> > something about the metphaysical aspects of the world; it is a strong
>> > claim that we *cannot*, in principle, know something about the
>> > metaphysical aspects of the world.
So what do we call the position that there is insuficient evidence for the
existence of a God, but that possibility cannot be ruled out?
KC
Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it - Confucius.
catshark
>John Wilkins writes:
>
>> > Agnosticism is not the weak claim that we currently do not know
>>> > something about the metphaysical aspects of the world; it is a strong
>>> > claim that we *cannot*, in principle, know something about the
>>> > metaphysical aspects of the world.
>
>So what do we call the position that there is insuficient evidence for the
>existence of a God, but that possibility cannot be ruled out?
Skepticism?
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.
- Robert Carroll -
KCdgw
>>So what do we call the position that there is insuficient evidence for the
>>existence of a God, but that possibility cannot be ruled out?
>
>Skepticism?
Sounds good to me.
Mark Isaak
(John Wilkins) wrote:
>Agnosticism is not the weak claim that we currently do not know
>something about the metphaysical aspects of the world; it is a strong
>claim that we *cannot*, in principle, know something about the
>metaphysical aspects of the world. For example, it is a metaphysical
>claim that there are universals. If we think that there might be
>universals but we presently do not have sufficient knowledge or
>techniques to determine this (for example, there might be a gap in logic
>that we expect we might fill), then we are not *agnostic* about
>universals, we are *ignorant* of universal realities. If, on the other
>hand, we think with good reason there is no way we *could* know for sure
>if universals exist or not, then, and only then, are we agnostics about
>universals.
I still don't know whether I am an agnostic or not. It may be
impossible, in principle, that I can ever know.
--
Mark Isaak at...@earthlink.net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Steve B.
<redneck philosophy type="actually serious">
Then metaphysical could describe everything we know. What we perceive as
"real things" are at best constructs of the mind build by unattainable
sensory mechanisms. All physical things, including all evidence, must be
filtered through a metaphysical pathway to be comprehended. All we know is
metaphysical.
</redneck philosophy>
> Supernatural phenomena is a class of things I cannot define clearly
> enough to want to use the notion. It strikes me as a handwave in the
> direction of "things I want to believe in which are physically
> impossible".
Supernatural defines all things that cannot in principle by natural. We can
infer galaxies beyond the Hubble Volume but those would natural because in
principle we can observe them. A god that interacts with the universe would
be natural because in principle he's casually related to us like all other
observable phenomena. Only things that are forever unknowable are
supernatural.
> > > Note, by the way, that being agnostic about something is
> > > subject-relative. I am agnostic about gods, but I definitely have a
view
> > > on universals (they are names of groups of things we recognise as
> > > patterns).
>
> Nobody challenges my nominalism? Rats.
What's a nominalism rat?
> > > Science is not merely lacking a way to determine if gods exist or
not;
> > > science *cannot* take any kind of stance on gods and remain science.
> > > This is because the knowledge gathered through science is gathered
> > > through the use of empirical observations and measurements, together
> > > with explanatory schemes based on principles of parsimony (Ockham's
> > > Razor) and coherence with established generalisations. Throw in a God
or
> > > two, and suddenly you lose both the parsimony of explanation and the
> > > coherence with generalisations, because for one, God is an added
entity,
> > > and two, anomic gods undercut any possible generalisation.
> >
> > You say that science cannot take a stance on things which cannot be
> > observed empirically. In other words, science cannot take a stance on
> > supernatural matters. In other words, science cannot take a stance on
God.
> > How is that not agnosticism?
>
> Science would study God if God were empirically discernable. Agnostics
> say, and occasionally argue for the view, that God *cannot* be discerned
> empirically. To be sure, the result is the same, but science will not
> pronounce as the agnostic will that God will *never* be discerned
> empirically.
Whatever the positions of science and actual agnostics, I believe they turn
out to the be same. Boy does this sound familiar. Do agnostics really
believe that God is forever unknowable? Have they really made a stance
about something of which they know nothing about?
Or do they really just believe that a supernatural God is unknowable? To me
that much like believing invisible pink unicorns are invisible and pink.
It's meaningless. Nothing is added or made more comprehensible.
Or is there a third conclusion? Perhaps they believe that there's not
sufficient evidence to make any statements about God. In this case their
position is extensionally that of science's.
> > The only way I see that science cannot be agnostic is if agnostic is
> > defined in such a way that it is redundant and somewhat meaningless.
>
> Perhaps. I think there is as much difference between the two, as there
> is between common explanation and scientific theory :-P
Perhaps, but we're not talking about your personal philophical issues here.
;)
Noelie S. Alito
> John Wilkins writes:
>
> > > Agnosticism is not the weak claim that we currently do not know
> >> > something about the metphaysical aspects of the world; it is a strong
> >> > claim that we *cannot*, in principle, know something about the
> >> > metaphysical aspects of the world.
>
> So what do we call the position that there is insuficient evidence for the
> existence of a God, but that possibility cannot be ruled out?
Aastarteism? Athorism? Azeusism? Apeleism?
Noelie
--
"Ray, when someone asks you if you're a god, you say YES!"
--Winston Zeddemore, _G_
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins writes:
>
> > > Agnosticism is not the weak claim that we currently do not know
> >> > something about the metphaysical aspects of the world; it is a strong
> >> > claim that we *cannot*, in principle, know something about the
> >> > metaphysical aspects of the world.
>
> So what do we call the position that there is insuficient evidence for the
> existence of a God, but that possibility cannot be ruled out?
>
Good sense; a property with which I am sorely under-endowed.
Ted Holden
>> > Care to point out where I said that? I do admit, though, I am more of
>> > an expert then you.
>>
>> You're claiming that you could use NATO (7.62x51) ammo in an AK
>> (7.62x39), which is basically an ignorant statement.
>
> Maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe I am repeating urban legend. I will happily
> recheck this.
Come on. I mean, go to the nearest gun dealer and ask the man to show you a
308 cartridge and an Ak cartridge, and see if you can picture loading the
one in a rifle chambered for the other...
The only story remotely resembling that one which has any germ of truth in
it involves the small 9mm (Makarov) pistols the Eastern block used to use
which, quite by accident, were able to fire one or two other kinds of ammo;
nonetheless using any ammunition other than that designed for a particular
firearm is a spectacularly bad idea and the Red army was never stupid
enough to recommend or condone doing anything like that. In all but one or
two cases it's not even possible and in the one or two, you're more likely
to either jam the firearm or have it blow up in your face than accomplish
anything useful.
> In the meantime, let's just put back what my newsreader must have
> cropped from the original discussion- you know, the part that actually
> pertains to your silly example...
Like I say, I was offering an alternative to evolutionism; it wasn't MEANT
to make the most possible sense.
Robin Levett
news:3EE1EC...@erols.com...
> Ted Holden wrote:
> >
> > C. Thompson wrote:
> >
<snippage>
>
> In the meantime, let's just put back what my newsreader
must have
> cropped from the original discussion- you know, the part
that actually
> pertains to your silly example...I HATE it when my ISP
makes those
> unannounced little snips of articles, don't you?
>
> I said:
>
> > The point, though, is that you claimed the AK was a
lightweight weapon, and
> > you don't know what you're talking about An AK- in
whatever incarnation, be
> > it AK-47, AK-74, or AKM, will tear a person to shreds.
If you want to talk
> > about lightweight rifles, talk about .243's or .30
carbines- but not M-16's
> > or AK's.
>
> So a .308 like a G3 (or 7.65x51) isn't a lightweight rifle
(does it
> "guarantee certain kills"?) but an AK-47 is (at 7.62x39)?
>
> People use those cartridges to hunt bears for crying out
loud.
I recall reading in a book on the AK47 that it was designed
not just to kill, or even to stop a charging marine in his
tracks, but to pick him up and throw him backwards.
...and Holden claims it's a lightweight weapon that doesn't
guarantee a kill like an M16 will?
Mind you, he's almost right about the Sten; while it was
designed to be a bullet hose, it did have two problems.
Firstly, if you were lucky and firing from close range, you
might be able to hold it still enough to put one round in a
magazine through a barn door - its accuracy was legendary in
quite the wrong way.
Secondly, it did have this irritating habit of jamming.
In the result, it quite definitely didn't guarantee a kill -
as the Czech partisan who tried to assassinate Heydrich with
one found out. 'Twas a good job his mate had a hand
grenade...
--
Robin Levett
(rle...@ibmuklinux.net - remove big blue to email - don't
yahoo)
The end of the world is off topic in sci.geo.satellite-nav
and probably
also on sci.astro.amateur - "Graham" (crossposted also to
sci.geo.geology)
John Wilkins
Don't know about "redneck", but this is a common view, out of the
Kantian/phenomenological tradition of continental philosophy. I blame
Husserl, myself.
In the rather technical sense of metaphysical, all physical things can
be seen to rely on metaphysical properties, but there is a very real
epistemic distinction here. One only knows a physical object or
phenomenon through empirical investigation. One only knows a
metaphysical OorP via introspection of some kind.
On the physicalist metaphysics (the view that everything that is, is a
physical thing), this introspection is little more than enquiring into
the linguistic conventions and psychological predispositions of the
enquirer. On the "idealistic" metaphysics (the view that everything that
is, is an idea, either in the mind of God - Berkeley - or in the mind of
the subject - Husserl, etc), this introspection is a distinct pathway to
knowledge from science.
In either case, science is distinct from metaphysics, even though to
undertake science it to attempt something that has a metaphysical
import. But the interesting thing is that the scientific actions are
"decoupled" from the engine of the metaphysical train. People do much
the same science no matter whether they are idealists, physicalists or
whatever; just as they dress in much the same way, more or less, no
matter what their religious commitments are (all wet-science researchers
tend to wear white coats, even if some of them wear yarmulkas or
turbans).
>
> > Supernatural phenomena is a class of things I cannot define clearly
> > enough to want to use the notion. It strikes me as a handwave in the
> > direction of "things I want to believe in which are physically
> > impossible".
>
> Supernatural defines all things that cannot in principle by natural. We
> can infer galaxies beyond the Hubble Volume but those would natural
> because in principle we can observe them. A god that interacts with the
> universe would be natural because in principle he's casually related to us
> like all other observable phenomena. Only things that are forever
> unknowable are supernatural.
Well, that certainly rules out a scientific investigation of them,
doesn't it? But that "in-principle" clause worries me, because we know
that it is theory-dependent, and a novel theory can rule back in things
(like action at a distance) that had previously been ruled out. So no
"supernatural" seems to be " anything that our *current* science says is
impossible naturally". We seem to be advancing on Clarke's Law - that
any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
This is just God-of-the-gaps all over again.
>
> > > > Note, by the way, that being agnostic about something is
> > > > subject-relative. I am agnostic about gods, but I definitely have a
> > > > view on universals (they are names of groups of things we recognise
> > > > as patterns).
> >
> > Nobody challenges my nominalism? Rats.
>
> What's a nominalism rat?
A nominalism rat is a rat which is a mere product of the mind, or breath
of the voice. In short, it is a rat by any other name.
>
> > > > Science is not merely lacking a way to determine if gods exist or
> > > > not; science *cannot* take any kind of stance on gods and remain
> > > > science. This is because the knowledge gathered through science is
> > > > gathered through the use of empirical observations and measurements,
> > > > together with explanatory schemes based on principles of parsimony
> > > > (Ockham's Razor) and coherence with established generalisations.
> > > > Throw in a God or two, and suddenly you lose both the parsimony of
> > > > explanation and the coherence with generalisations, because for one,
> > > > God is an added entity, and two, anomic gods undercut any possible
> > > > generalisation.
> > >
> > > You say that science cannot take a stance on things which cannot be
> > > observed empirically. In other words, science cannot take a stance on
> > > supernatural matters. In other words, science cannot take a stance on
> > > God. How is that not agnosticism?
Science is agnostic, in that it cannot speak to what cannot be
(scientifically) investigated. It is not, however, agnostic*ism*,
because it does not rule out the *possibility* of learning something
about Gods, if we acquire the tools and assays. Should we develop my
much-desired Divinoscope, then we would be able to make claims about the
natures and existences of gods. But as an agnostic (one who accepts the
general philosophical position of agnosticism), I have reason to think
there never *will* be a Divinoscope.
So science delivers the results that, as an agnostic, I expect there to
be. Note also, though, that this is the *same* result that atheists and
deists *also* expect, and science is neither atheist nor deist, as well.
> >
> > Science would study God if God were empirically discernable. Agnostics
> > say, and occasionally argue for the view, that God *cannot* be discerned
> > empirically. To be sure, the result is the same, but science will not
> > pronounce as the agnostic will that God will *never* be discerned
> > empirically.
>
> Whatever the positions of science and actual agnostics, I believe they
> turn out to the be same. Boy does this sound familiar. Do agnostics really
> believe that God is forever unknowable? Have they really made a stance
> about something of which they know nothing about?
>
> Or do they really just believe that a supernatural God is unknowable? To
> me that much like believing invisible pink unicorns are invisible and
> pink. It's meaningless. Nothing is added or made more comprehensible.
>
> Or is there a third conclusion? Perhaps they believe that there's not
> sufficient evidence to make any statements about God. In this case their
> position is extensionally that of science's.
I think, and YMMV, that there is good formal argument that God is
unknowable (and that the question, "Does God exist?" cannot be answered
formally). So if there were a God or gods, we could not show reasonably
that they did.
Therefore I adhere to the former view - one cannot rule God out, but
exist or not, the world is as we explain it through science. It does not
require that God is or acts supernaturally. It merely requires that God
cannot be empirically verified (or, for that matter, falsified).
The third option is simply the skeptical one - that a claim about
anything requires that the evidence be strong enough to support it. For
soem value of "strong enough", that is. A skeptic need not be an
agnostic; if the evidence were sufficient *to that person*, then that
person may accept the existence of a God. An agnostic like me, though,
will say that there canot be sufficient evidence to rule a God in (or
out).
>
> > > The only way I see that science cannot be agnostic is if agnostic is
> > > defined in such a way that it is redundant and somewhat meaningless.
> >
> > Perhaps. I think there is as much difference between the two, as there
> > is between common explanation and scientific theory :-P
>
> Perhaps, but we're not talking about your personal philophical issues
> here.
>
> ;)
Are there any other kind?
catshark
<sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> Science would study God if God were empirically discernable. Agnostics
>> say, and occasionally argue for the view, that God *cannot* be discerned
>> empirically. To be sure, the result is the same, but science will not
>> pronounce as the agnostic will that God will *never* be discerned
>> empirically.
>
>Whatever the positions of science and actual agnostics, I believe they turn
>out to the be same. Boy does this sound familiar. Do agnostics really
>believe that God is forever unknowable? Have they really made a stance
>about something of which they know nothing about?
No and no. Agnostics believe that god is forever unknowable by *empirical*
means available to human beings. (You left out a kinda important word.)
On the other hand, we do know a fair amount about the possiblilities for
and limitations of empirical evidence.
>
>Or do they really just believe that a supernatural God is unknowable? To me
>that much like believing invisible pink unicorns are invisible and pink.
>It's meaningless. Nothing is added or made more comprehensible.
Well, *if* god is unknowable does denying that add anything or make
anything more comprehensible?
>
>Or is there a third conclusion? Perhaps they believe that there's not
>sufficient evidence to make any statements about God. In this case their
>position is extensionally that of science's.
It is the difference between saying "we don't have enough evidence" and
saying "there is no point in even looking for evidence".
Steve B.
> Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
>
> > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:1fw6ype.8fyxcbkaat95N%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1fw6ndf.1qh9ptiocagdyN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
....
I'm not sure what you're getting at with "theory-dependent" but I don't see
a problem with the supernatural definition. I had a long discussion with
several of the regulars here a while ago about why supernatural things
couldn't be invoked in science. The short answer is that if we can know
anything meaningful about something, it's not supernatural.
So if anyone has knowledge of God, God is not supernatural. According to
this definition, any theistic religion must acknowledge their God cannot be
supernatural. This is obviously the fuel for the debate about
methodological naturalism. It's only possible because both parties are
flinging different definitions of natural and supernatural at each other.
> > > > > Note, by the way, that being agnostic about something is
> > > > > subject-relative. I am agnostic about gods, but I definitely have
a
> > > > > view on universals (they are names of groups of things we
recognise
> > > > > as patterns).
> > >
> > > Nobody challenges my nominalism? Rats.
> >
> > What's a nominalism rat?
>
> A nominalism rat is a rat which is a mere product of the mind, or breath
> of the voice. In short, it is a rat by any other name.
I am of the view that generally all people have the sufficiently identical
minds and hold the same philosophy in life. All of our actual views are
formed of the same constructs in the brain. Language is just our sloppy way
transferring those basic unifying concepts. Disagreements are not real, but
are only perceived. They're a result of an inadequate concept transfer
system. Also, generally all philosophies are either saying the same thing
or are speaking of entirely different things. Generally, there's no
contradictory statements which overlap the same real ideas. What's that
called?
So are you saying agnostics make the claim that (a) we will *never* know
anything about God or (b) the nature of God is forever unknowable?
> So science delivers the results that, as an agnostic, I expect there to
> be. Note also, though, that this is the *same* result that atheists and
> deists *also* expect, and science is neither atheist nor deist, as well.
Deism and atheism both take a stance on God. That's why science is neither
deistic or atheistic.
I demur. (You have to be careful what you say to me) I see no reason why
God cannot be scientifically verified any less than you or I can be. The
whole and complete nature of God may be unverifiable, but that's true of a
lot of things in science.
> The third option is simply the skeptical one - that a claim about
> anything requires that the evidence be strong enough to support it. For
> soem value of "strong enough", that is. A skeptic need not be an
> agnostic; if the evidence were sufficient *to that person*, then that
> person may accept the existence of a God. An agnostic like me, though,
> will say that there canot be sufficient evidence to rule a God in (or
> out).
Sounds like philosophical skepticism to me. And it really has very little
to do with the *practical* acceptance of things. Regardless of your
philosophical position on food, you're going to eat the crap or you're
going to die. The belief that food does not "really exist" or that it's
only a product of your mind or God's mind is a philosophical position. The
belief that you must eat food to survive is a practical one. Science deals
with practical things and so do you.
If God shows up next Friday to straiten up the planet, assuming he's
prepared some good excuses for the past 14 billion years, eventually you're
going to have the *practical* belief that this being is God and you're
going to act accordingly. So the only way your agnosticism is going to hold
up is if it's only a philosophical position. You'd have to say something
like "yes I believe in eating food and I believe in God but I still don't
'reaaaaaly' believe in God, that's forever impossible you know, how can we
ever know for suuuure?" Only you'll probably use bigger words.
Atheism, deism, and theism are practical beliefs (well, you know what I
mean). You make real decisions based on them. Decisions about what's
important and what do in different situations. I understand agnosticism to
be a practical belief as well -- that we cannot say anything about God. You
seem to be saying that it's more than that -- that we can never know
anything about God.
But that can mean two things. Is it philosophical, as in we can never
"reaaaally" know God exists? Or is it practical, as in God is either
supernatural or I don't believe he'll ever show up.
> > > > The only way I see that science cannot be agnostic is if agnostic
is
> > > > defined in such a way that it is redundant and somewhat
meaningless.
> > >
> > > Perhaps. I think there is as much difference between the two, as
there
> > > is between common explanation and scientific theory :-P
> >
> > Perhaps, but we're not talking about your personal philophical issues
> > here.
> >
> > ;)
>
> Are there any other kind?
Public philosophical issues?
Steve B.
"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2b65ev8f99o0cbs39...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:45:36 +0000 (UTC), "Steve B."
> <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Science would study God if God were empirically discernable. Agnostics
> >> say, and occasionally argue for the view, that God *cannot* be
discerned
> >> empirically. To be sure, the result is the same, but science will not
> >> pronounce as the agnostic will that God will *never* be discerned
> >> empirically.
> >
> >Whatever the positions of science and actual agnostics, I believe they
turn
> >out to the be same. Boy does this sound familiar. Do agnostics really
> >believe that God is forever unknowable? Have they really made a stance
> >about something of which they know nothing about?
>
> No and no. Agnostics believe that god is forever unknowable by
*empirical*
> means available to human beings. (You left out a kinda important word.)
> On the other hand, we do know a fair amount about the possiblilities for
> and limitations of empirical evidence.
What do you mean by emperical? I've never seen "empirical" in a definition
of agnostic.
> >Or do they really just believe that a supernatural God is unknowable? To
me
> >that much like believing invisible pink unicorns are invisible and pink.
> >It's meaningless. Nothing is added or made more comprehensible.
>
> Well, *if* god is unknowable does denying that add anything or make
> anything more comprehensible?
If you define God as unknowable, saying that God is unknowable doesn't add
anything.
If you don't define God as unknowable, saying that God is unknowable is
speaking about something of which you know nothing about.
> >Or is there a third conclusion? Perhaps they believe that there's not
> >sufficient evidence to make any statements about God. In this case their
> >position is extensionally that of science's.
>
> It is the difference between saying "we don't have enough evidence" and
> saying "there is no point in even looking for evidence".
And what is a catshark?
TomS
<bbu1tq$dhsod$1...@ID-117948.news.dfncis.de>, "Noelie stated..."
>
>"KCdgw" <kc...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20030607115659...@mb-m25.aol.com...
>> John Wilkins writes:
>>
>> > > Agnosticism is not the weak claim that we currently do not know
>> >> > something about the metphaysical aspects of the world; it is a strong
>> >> > claim that we *cannot*, in principle, know something about the
>> >> > metaphysical aspects of the world.
>>
>> So what do we call the position that there is insuficient evidence for the
>> existence of a God, but that possibility cannot be ruled out?
>
>Aastarteism? Athorism? Azeusism? Apeleism?
There is the rare word "adevism", which refers to disbelief in any of
the legendary deities (such as Astarte, Thor, Zeus or Pele). Max Muller
coined the word, noting that Christians in Roman times were called
"atheist" for not believing in any of these gods.
I like the word, because I think that a case can be made that
science is adevist.
Tom S.
Dick C
What I remember hearing is that one of the reasons that Nato went
with the cartridge it did was to stop that kind of thing.
Here is some info on the ballistics of the weapons.
http://www.bobtuley.com/terminal.htm
And on a side note, the AK47 is one of the simplest, most reliable
assault weapons ever made. One of the reasons that it is so popular
around the world is that almost anyone can fire it, and it will work
with no maintenance.
>
> In the meantime, let's just put back what my newsreader must have
> cropped from the original discussion- you know, the part that actually
> pertains to your silly example...I HATE it when my ISP makes those
> unannounced little snips of articles, don't you?
>
> I said:
>
>> The point, though, is that you claimed the AK was a lightweight
>> weapon, and you don't know what you're talking about An AK- in
>> whatever incarnation, be it AK-47, AK-74, or AKM, will tear a person
>> to shreds. If you want to talk about lightweight rifles, talk about
>> .243's or .30 carbines- but not M-16's or AK's.
>
> So a .308 like a G3 (or 7.65x51) isn't a lightweight rifle (does it
> "guarantee certain kills"?) but an AK-47 is (at 7.62x39)?
>
> People use those cartridges to hunt bears for crying out loud.
>
> Chris
>>
>> Ted Holden
>> www.bearfabrique.org
>
--
Ted Holden
>What I remember hearing is that one of the reasons that Nato went
>with the cartridge it did was to stop that kind of thing.
Like I say, neither the US military or anybody elses has ever lost a minutes
sleep worrying about somebody else making a firearm which can use our ammo,
but we can't use theirs. That's an urban legend if it's a legend at all.
Particularly in the case of the 308 and the AK (7.62x39) cartridge, the 308
is about a third bigger than the AK cartridge and there's no possibility
whatever of the one firing a cartridge made for the other.
> And on a side note, the AK47 is one of the simplest, most reliable
> assault weapons ever made. One of the reasons that it is so popular
> around the world is that almost anyone can fire it, and it will work
> with no maintenance.
All jokes (such as that regarding Murray Rennie and choo-choo trains) aside,
I don't really want to read about one of you idiots blowing yourselves up.
Don't ever assume that any firearm can work "with no maintenance", or try
to use one which has never been maintained...
catshark
<sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
>
>"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:2b65ev8f99o0cbs39...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 22:45:36 +0000 (UTC), "Steve B."
>> <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >> Science would study God if God were empirically discernable. Agnostics
>> >> say, and occasionally argue for the view, that God *cannot* be
>discerned
>> >> empirically. To be sure, the result is the same, but science will not
>> >> pronounce as the agnostic will that God will *never* be discerned
>> >> empirically.
>> >
>> >Whatever the positions of science and actual agnostics, I believe they
>turn
>> >out to the be same. Boy does this sound familiar. Do agnostics really
>> >believe that God is forever unknowable? Have they really made a stance
>> >about something of which they know nothing about?
>>
>> No and no. Agnostics believe that god is forever unknowable by
>*empirical*
>> means available to human beings. (You left out a kinda important word.)
>> On the other hand, we do know a fair amount about the possiblilities for
>> and limitations of empirical evidence.
>
>What do you mean by emperical? I've never seen "empirical" in a definition
>of agnostic.
"Empirical": Denoting a result that is obtained by experiment or
observation rather than from theory.
<http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=487817&secid=.-&hh=1>
And you saw it, though perhaps did not process it, in a definition of
agnosticism right above in what John said: " . . . science will not
pronounce as the agnostic will that God will *never* be discerned
empirically"
>
>> >Or do they really just believe that a supernatural God is unknowable? To
>me
>> >that much like believing invisible pink unicorns are invisible and pink.
>> >It's meaningless. Nothing is added or made more comprehensible.
>>
>> Well, *if* god is unknowable does denying that add anything or make
>> anything more comprehensible?
>
>If you define God as unknowable, saying that God is unknowable doesn't add
>anything.
Defining god as knowable without saying in what way he/she/it is "knowable"
isn't adding anything either.
Also, your suggestion, in a response to John, that everything is
metaphysical, based on the "brain in a tank", "can we really ever know
anything" proposition, is one idea that doesn't add anything, since it
merely holds that we can never "know" anything.
The point of agnosticism is that it says that empirical evidence is the
*only* way humans have of "knowing" and that empirical evidence cannot work
to give knowledge of god.
>
>If you don't define God as unknowable, saying that God is unknowable is
>speaking about something of which you know nothing about.
>
>> >Or is there a third conclusion? Perhaps they believe that there's not
>> >sufficient evidence to make any statements about God. In this case their
>> >position is extensionally that of science's.
>>
>> It is the difference between saying "we don't have enough evidence" and
>> saying "there is no point in even looking for evidence".
Uh, the difference between thinking of looking and not thinking of looking?
The practical results *may* be the same, but since when is philosophy all
that concerned with practicality?
>
>And what is a catshark?
The thing a dog shark chases.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
I don't believe in God
but I'm very interested in her.
- Arthur C. Clarke -
Steve B.
Neither can the agonistic.
> >> >Or do they really just believe that a supernatural God is unknowable?
To
> >me
> >> >that much like believing invisible pink unicorns are invisible and
pink.
> >> >It's meaningless. Nothing is added or made more comprehensible.
> >>
> >> Well, *if* god is unknowable does denying that add anything or make
> >> anything more comprehensible?
> >
> >If you define God as unknowable, saying that God is unknowable doesn't
add
> >anything.
>
> Defining god as knowable without saying in what way he/she/it is
"knowable"
> isn't adding anything either.
Yes it does. It gives us a term to describe an unknowable supernatural
deity.
> Also, your suggestion, in a response to John, that everything is
> metaphysical, based on the "brain in a tank", "can we really ever know
> anything" proposition, is one idea that doesn't add anything, since it
> merely holds that we can never "know" anything.
That's a misapplication.
> The point of agnosticism is that it says that empirical evidence is the
> *only* way humans have of "knowing" and that empirical evidence cannot
work
> to give knowledge of god.
In that case, agnosticism is based on assumptions about God that (a) make
agnosticism redundant or (b) make agnosticism naive.
A: God is supernatural and cannot be known
B: Nothing is known about God, but for some mysterious ineffable
reason we proclaim that nothing ever will be known about God
C: ?
> >
> >If you don't define God as unknowable, saying that God is unknowable is
> >speaking about something of which you know nothing about.
> >
> >> >Or is there a third conclusion? Perhaps they believe that there's not
> >> >sufficient evidence to make any statements about God. In this case
their
> >> >position is extensionally that of science's.
> >>
> >> It is the difference between saying "we don't have enough evidence"
and
> >> saying "there is no point in even looking for evidence".
>
> Uh, the difference between thinking of looking and not thinking of
looking?
> The practical results *may* be the same, but since when is philosophy all
> that concerned with practicality?
>
> >
> >And what is a catshark?
>
> The thing a dog shark chases.
It's dogshark tail?
Dick C
> Dick C wrote:
>
>
>>What I remember hearing is that one of the reasons that Nato went
>>with the cartridge it did was to stop that kind of thing.
>
> Like I say, neither the US military or anybody elses has ever lost a
> minutes sleep worrying about somebody else making a firearm which can
> use our ammo, but we can't use theirs. That's an urban legend if it's
> a legend at all. Particularly in the case of the 308 and the AK
> (7.62x39) cartridge, the 308 is about a third bigger than the AK
> cartridge and there's no possibility whatever of the one firing a
> cartridge made for the other.
When the M-16 was introduced, during Viet Nam, one of the major problems
was that the old rifle in use used a very common cartridge, and the
Viet Cong got a significant portion of their guns and ammo by either
stealing from the U.S. or buying it on the open market. The introduction
of the M16 helped to slow that down.
>
>> And on a side note, the AK47 is one of the simplest, most reliable
>> assault weapons ever made. One of the reasons that it is so popular
>> around the world is that almost anyone can fire it, and it will work
>> with no maintenance.
>
> All jokes (such as that regarding Murray Rennie and choo-choo trains)
> aside, I don't really want to read about one of you idiots blowing
> yourselves up. Don't ever assume that any firearm can work "with no
> maintenance", or try to use one which has never been maintained...
First of all, I am not about to fire one, since I own no firearms, nor
go to firing ranges. I don't even hang out with people that do.
However, why do you think that the AK47 is so popular with the
terrorists and ragtag armies of the world? You know, the people who have
little, if any, military training? It is because they are very
difficult to jam, and can get by with a minimum of cleaning and
a great deal of abuse.
catshark
<sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
<Shrug> That is your opinion. This thread (or the part I read) was about
explaining why John said:
"Agnosticism is not the weak claim that we currently do not know
something about the metphaysical aspects of the world; it is a strong
claim that we *cannot*, in principle, know something about the
metaphysical aspects of the world."
>
>> >> >Or do they really just believe that a supernatural God is unknowable?
>To
>> >me
>> >> >that much like believing invisible pink unicorns are invisible and
>pink.
>> >> >It's meaningless. Nothing is added or made more comprehensible.
>> >>
>> >> Well, *if* god is unknowable does denying that add anything or make
>> >> anything more comprehensible?
>> >
>> >If you define God as unknowable, saying that God is unknowable doesn't
>add
>> >anything.
>>
>> Defining god as knowable without saying in what way he/she/it is
>"knowable"
>> isn't adding anything either.
>
>Yes it does. It gives us a term to describe an unknowable supernatural
>deity.
Huh?
>
>> Also, your suggestion, in a response to John, that everything is
>> metaphysical, based on the "brain in a tank", "can we really ever know
>> anything" proposition, is one idea that doesn't add anything, since it
>> merely holds that we can never "know" anything.
>
>That's a misapplication.
How?
>
>> The point of agnosticism is that it says that empirical evidence is the
>> *only* way humans have of "knowing" and that empirical evidence cannot
>work
>> to give knowledge of god.
>
>In that case, agnosticism is based on assumptions about God that (a) make
>agnosticism redundant or (b) make agnosticism naive.
<Shrug again> I wasn't asking you to accept agnosticism, only explaining
the difference between it and science as stated by John.
>
>A: God is supernatural and cannot be known
>B: Nothing is known about God, but for some mysterious ineffable
> reason we proclaim that nothing ever will be known about God
>C: ?
C: By the common definition of "supernatural", it is not ammenable to
empiric evidence. Perhaps you can define what *you* mean by supernatural.
Are you taking up Pagano's position? Or do you have some way for humans to
"know" outside of empiric evidence? (But I have no intention of rearguing
that thread between you and John over whether there are such things as
"explanations" that are not scientific, i.e. empiric).
>
>> >
>> >If you don't define God as unknowable, saying that God is unknowable is
>> >speaking about something of which you know nothing about.
>> >
>> >> >Or is there a third conclusion? Perhaps they believe that there's not
>> >> >sufficient evidence to make any statements about God. In this case
>their
>> >> >position is extensionally that of science's.
>> >>
>> >> It is the difference between saying "we don't have enough evidence"
>and
>> >> saying "there is no point in even looking for evidence".
>>
>> Uh, the difference between thinking of looking and not thinking of
>looking?
>> The practical results *may* be the same, but since when is philosophy all
>> that concerned with practicality?
>>
>> >
>> >And what is a catshark?
>>
>> The thing a dog shark chases.
>
>It's dogshark tail?
That is only one of the things to chase in life . . . and the one that
starts to outrun you the soonest.
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:1fw8bh0.198nsz019v0rlgN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1fw6ype.8fyxcbkaat95N%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1fw6ndf.1qh9ptiocagdyN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > > > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
>
> ....
....
> > > Supernatural defines all things that cannot in principle by natural.
> > > We can infer galaxies beyond the Hubble Volume but those would natural
> > > because in principle we can observe them. A god that interacts with
> > > the universe would be natural because in principle he's casually
> > > related to us like all other observable phenomena. Only things that
> > > are forever unknowable are supernatural.
> >
> > Well, that certainly rules out a scientific investigation of them,
> > doesn't it? But that "in-principle" clause worries me, because we know
> > that it is theory-dependent, and a novel theory can rule back in things
> > (like action at a distance) that had previously been ruled out. So no
> > "supernatural" seems to be " anything that our *current* science says is
> > impossible naturally". We seem to be advancing on Clarke's Law - that
> > any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
> > This is just God-of-the-gaps all over again.
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at with "theory-dependent" but I don't
> see a problem with the supernatural definition. I had a long discussion
> with several of the regulars here a while ago about why supernatural
> things couldn't be invoked in science. The short answer is that if we can
> know anything meaningful about something, it's not supernatural.
>
> So if anyone has knowledge of God, God is not supernatural. According to
> this definition, any theistic religion must acknowledge their God cannot
> be supernatural. This is obviously the fuel for the debate about
> methodological naturalism. It's only possible because both parties are
> flinging different definitions of natural and supernatural at each other.
Theory-dependent means that what is ruled out as *physically* impossible
is sensitive to what theory is most globally applicable right now. So
"supernatural" ends up meaning, if we were to adopt your convention,
merely "whatever our best theory says is not possible".
Your definition reminds me of the positivist approach to metaphysics,
which they specified was nonsense, about which we could know nothing
meaningful. I, on the other hand, am trying to allow for the possibility
that onemight know metaphysical categories and entities such as God,
only not through *empiricial* means, that is, through science.
Were it to be the case that God were *empirically* knowable, then God
would not be "supernatural", since we could generalise God's nature from
induction by observation. But if God is not empirically knowable - which
is to say, if there are no set of factual assertions that could decide
if God exists or not, and what hisherits properties are - then God is
outside sceintific investigation.
However, my reason for thinking that the question is undecideable is not
a matter of contingency. As God is defined (particularly in his supposed
ability to overcome the regularities of nature), no empirical fact can
speak to God's nature (or existence) one way or the other. As I have
sometimes said before, a question that canot be answered even in
principle is not a question at all: it is like Chomsky's "question", "do
colorless green ideas sleep furiously?" What possible set of facts could
answer such a question?
>
....
> > > > Nobody challenges my nominalism? Rats.
> > >
> > > What's a nominalism rat?
> >
> > A nominalism rat is a rat which is a mere product of the mind, or breath
> > of the voice. In short, it is a rat by any other name.
>
> I am of the view that generally all people have the sufficiently identical
> minds and hold the same philosophy in life. All of our actual views are
> formed of the same constructs in the brain. Language is just our sloppy
> way transferring those basic unifying concepts. Disagreements are not
> real, but are only perceived. They're a result of an inadequate concept
> transfer system. Also, generally all philosophies are either saying the
> same thing or are speaking of entirely different things. Generally,
> there's no contradictory statements which overlap the same real ideas.
> What's that called?
Well it sounds a bit like Wittgenstein's "Lebensformen" (Life Forms)
notion. He thought that we could communicate because we shared a form of
life. If a lion could talk, he said in the PI, we could not understand
him.
But that is not to resolve the nominalism/universalism debate; that is
to resolve meaning.
>
> > > > > > Science is not merely lacking a way to determine if gods exist
> > > > > > or not; science *cannot* take any kind of stance on gods and
> > > > > > remain science. This is because the knowledge gathered through
> > > > > > science is gathered through the use of empirical observations
> > > > > > and measurements, together with explanatory schemes based on
> > > > > > principles of parsimony (Ockham's Razor) and coherence with
> > > > > > established generalisations. Throw in a God or two, and suddenly
> > > > > > you lose both the parsimony of explanation and the coherence
> > > > > > with generalisations, because for one, God is an added entity,
> > > > > > and two, anomic gods undercut any possible generalisation.
> > > > >
> > > > > You say that science cannot take a stance on things which cannot
> > > > > be observed empirically. In other words, science cannot take a
> > > > > stance on supernatural matters. In other words, science cannot
> > > > > take a stance on God. How is that not agnosticism?
> >
> > Science is agnostic, in that it cannot speak to what cannot be
> > (scientifically) investigated. It is not, however, agnostic*ism*,
> > because it does not rule out the *possibility* of learning something
> > about Gods, if we acquire the tools and assays. Should we develop my
> > much-desired Divinoscope, then we would be able to make claims about the
> > natures and existences of gods. But as an agnostic (one who accepts the
> > general philosophical position of agnosticism), I have reason to think
> > there never *will* be a Divinoscope.
>
> So are you saying agnostics make the claim that (a) we will *never* know
> anything about God or (b) the nature of God is forever unknowable?
Weak agnosticism claims a form of (a), that it looks very much like we
will never have evidence for God. Strong agnosticism (as *I* understand
it, and adopt it) claims (b). But the way you wrote that they are
identical.
>
> > So science delivers the results that, as an agnostic, I expect there to
> > be. Note also, though, that this is the *same* result that atheists and
> > deists *also* expect, and science is neither atheist nor deist, as well.
>
> Deism and atheism both take a stance on God. That's why science is neither
> deistic or atheistic.
So does agnosticism - we cannot find anything out about God using
empirical methods.
....
> > I think, and YMMV, that there is good formal argument that God is
> > unknowable (and that the question, "Does God exist?" cannot be answered
> > formally). So if there were a God or gods, we could not show reasonably
> > that they did.
> >
> > Therefore I adhere to the former view - one cannot rule God out, but
> > exist or not, the world is as we explain it through science. It does not
> > require that God is or acts supernaturally. It merely requires that God
> > cannot be empirically verified (or, for that matter, falsified).
>
> I demur. (You have to be careful what you say to me) I see no reason why
> God cannot be scientifically verified any less than you or I can be. The
> whole and complete nature of God may be unverifiable, but that's true of a
> lot of things in science.
I hold that no set of facts could tell for or against the existence of
God - any being, no matter how powerful or knowledgeable, of whom we
could know something empirically, would not be God.
>
> > The third option is simply the skeptical one - that a claim about
> > anything requires that the evidence be strong enough to support it. For
> > soem value of "strong enough", that is. A skeptic need not be an
> > agnostic; if the evidence were sufficient *to that person*, then that
> > person may accept the existence of a God. An agnostic like me, though,
> > will say that there canot be sufficient evidence to rule a God in (or
> > out).
>
> Sounds like philosophical skepticism to me. And it really has very little
> to do with the *practical* acceptance of things. Regardless of your
> philosophical position on food, you're going to eat the crap or you're
> going to die. The belief that food does not "really exist" or that it's
> only a product of your mind or God's mind is a philosophical position. The
> belief that you must eat food to survive is a practical one. Science deals
> with practical things and so do you.
Well, yes it is philosophical skepticism, of a form. Is there some
problem with that? I am not a pyrrhonian skeptic; and I certainly do not
doubt the ordinary course of experience. But this is not the same as
saying that agnosticism and science are the same thing or have the same
aims or limitations. I'm merely trying to leave room in science for both
atheists and theists, equally deluded as they may be.
>
> If God shows up next Friday to straiten up the planet, assuming he's
> prepared some good excuses for the past 14 billion years, eventually
> you're going to have the *practical* belief that this being is God and
> you're going to act accordingly. So the only way your agnosticism is going
> to hold up is if it's only a philosophical position. You'd have to say
> something like "yes I believe in eating food and I believe in God but I
> still don't 'reaaaaaly' believe in God, that's forever impossible you
> know, how can we ever know for suuuure?" Only you'll probably use bigger
> words.
If I have a vision of Jesus descending on cluds, my first action would
be to interrogate those around me and see if we share the same
experience. Given the weight of the vision and its possible import, I
would ask a lot of people, and try to rule out the use of advanced
technologies, like hi-def projection on ice crystals in the
stratosphere, and so forth. Once I had exhausted every possible
alternate explanation, including the possibility that I was having a
psychotic break from reality, perhaps under the experience of
hallucinogenic drugs, I *might* take a rational bet that this was a real
event.
IOW, this would involve my having to doubt core aspects of my entire
epistemic edifice. Rather than do that, for it would make life
imossible, I would *have* to accept the vision as real. Of course, I
might just be having a prolonged fantasy due to simple physical causes
affecting my neuroreceptors. I cannot envisage what would remove that
residual doubt, at least rationally.
>
> Atheism, deism, and theism are practical beliefs (well, you know what I
> mean). You make real decisions based on them. Decisions about what's
> important and what do in different situations. I understand agnosticism to
> be a practical belief as well -- that we cannot say anything about God.
> You seem to be saying that it's more than that -- that we can never know
> anything about God.
>
> But that can mean two things. Is it philosophical, as in we can never
> "reaaaally" know God exists? Or is it practical, as in God is either
> supernatural or I don't believe he'll ever show up.
It is philosophical. I still live happily in the real world, despite
claims by my friends and coworkers. But in practical terms, it means I
do not live my life as if there were a God (nor, for that matter, do I
live my life as if there weren't). To some theists, this makes me a
practical atheist, for they see theism as the default lifestyle. To some
atheists, this makes me a theist-wannabe, for they see atheism as the
default rational position. I have a similar problem in politics with the
Left and the Right, being as I am a Liberal Democrat. Were I religious,
I would of course be an Anglican, for the via media.
>
> > > > > The only way I see that science cannot be agnostic is if agnostic
> > > > > is defined in such a way that it is redundant and somewhat
> > > > > meaningless.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps. I think there is as much difference between the two, as
> > > > there is between common explanation and scientific theory :-P
> > >
> > > Perhaps, but we're not talking about your personal philophical issues
> > > here.
> > >
> > > ;)
> >
> > Are there any other kind?
>
> Public philosophical issues?
Like I said ;-)
Ted Holden
> When the M-16 was introduced, during Viet Nam, one of the major problems
> was that the old rifle in use used a very common cartridge, and the
> Viet Cong got a significant portion of their guns and ammo by either
> stealing from the U.S. or buying it on the open market. The introduction
> of the M16 helped to slow that down.
I've never heard or read anybody making the claim that any such
consideration was amongst the reasons for adopting the 223 battle rifle.
It's not obvious to me that the 308 was popular anywhere other than in NATO
military organizations at the time and there's no reason to think it would
have been common in Asia. AK ammo on the other hand would have been dirt
common in Asia and the main kind of ammo the VC and north vietnamese were
interested in.
The main idea for the M16 was to have a true assault rifle, i.e. a rifle
which could be fired rapidly and aimed decently at the same time, with the
least possible sacrafice in range. This was a reasonable general goal at
the time and a particularly reasonable goal for a jungle war in which you
often saw the enemy from 30 yards away. Also valuable was the idea of a
man being able to carry twice the ammount of ammunition with him.
Steve B.
.....
> >> "Empirical": Denoting a result that is obtained by experiment or
> >> observation rather than from theory.
> >>
> >> <http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=487817&secid=.-&hh=1>
> >>
> >> And you saw it, though perhaps did not process it, in a definition of
> >> agnosticism right above in what John said: " . . . science will not
> >> pronounce as the agnostic will that God will *never* be discerned
> >> empirically"
> >
> >Neither can the agonistic.
>
> <Shrug> That is your opinion. This thread (or the part I read) was about
> explaining why John said:
>
> "Agnosticism is not the weak claim that we currently do not know
> something about the metphaysical aspects of the world; it is a strong
> claim that we *cannot*, in principle, know something about the
> metaphysical aspects of the world."
*That* makes sense. But that has nothing to do with *God*, a thing that
agnostics apparently claim is forever impossible to know anything about. Is
there a hidden assumption that God and all his actions are forever metaphysical?
.....
> >A: God is supernatural and cannot be known
> >B: Nothing is known about God, but for some mysterious ineffable
> > reason we proclaim that nothing ever will be known about God
> >C: ?
>
> C: By the common definition of "supernatural", it is not ammenable to
> empiric evidence. Perhaps you can define what *you* mean by supernatural.
> Are you taking up Pagano's position? Or do you have some way for humans to
> "know" outside of empiric evidence? (But I have no intention of rearguing
> that thread between you and John over whether there are such things as
> "explanations" that are not scientific, i.e. empiric).
What is the difference between C and A?
Steve
Esa Riihonen
[snip]
> A: God is supernatural and cannot be known B: Nothing is known about
> God, but for some mysterious ineffable
> reason we proclaim that nothing ever will be known about God
> C: ?
C: I know nothing about God. There might be some mysterious ineffable
way to know something about God. But currently I known nothing about
God.
Will that do?
Cheers, EsaR
[snip]
David Wilson
in talk.origins john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins) wrote:
... <snip> ...
> If I have a vision of Jesus descending on cluds, my first action would
> be to interrogate those around me and see if we share the same
> experience. Given the weight of the vision and its possible import, I
> would ask a lot of people, and try to rule out the use of advanced
> technologies, like hi-def projection on ice crystals in the
> stratosphere, and so forth. Once I had exhausted every possible
> alternate explanation, including the possibility that I was having a
An interesting philosophical question (over which I'm sure philosophers
have spilt oceans of ink) is how you can know that any conviction you
might have that you're _not_ suffering from a psychotic break from reality
has any evidentiary value. Presumably, if you _were_ so suffering, you
would be able to convince yourself very easily, but falsely, that you
really weren't. I can assure you from direct personal experience that
the delusions of psychosis are utterly convincing.
This is not quite the same problem as how-do-you-know-your-not-a-brain-in-
-a-vat, since psychotic states really do exist, whereas brains in vats don't.
One of the amusing things (now!) about this question is that during the
"direct personal experience" I was referring to above I managed to convince
myself that I _was_ a brain in a vat (or, to be more accurate, an electronic
representation of a brain inside some sort of computer controlled completely
by "vindictive" colleagues).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Wilson
SPAMMERS_fingers@WILL_BE_fwi_PROSECUTED_.net.au
catshark
<swb_rem...@ccp.com> wrote:
>
>"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:7oi7evkjd0fb3etmc...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 19:27:34 +0000 (UTC), "Steve B."
>> <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
>
>.....
>
>> >> "Empirical": Denoting a result that is obtained by experiment or
>> >> observation rather than from theory.
>> >>
>> >> <http://www.xrefer.com/entry.jsp?xrefid=487817&secid=.-&hh=1>
>> >>
>> >> And you saw it, though perhaps did not process it, in a definition of
>> >> agnosticism right above in what John said: " . . . science will not
>> >> pronounce as the agnostic will that God will *never* be discerned
>> >> empirically"
>> >
>> >Neither can the agonistic.
>>
>> <Shrug> That is your opinion. This thread (or the part I read) was about
>> explaining why John said:
>>
>> "Agnosticism is not the weak claim that we currently do not know
>> something about the metphaysical aspects of the world; it is a strong
>> claim that we *cannot*, in principle, know something about the
>> metaphysical aspects of the world."
>
>*That* makes sense. But that has nothing to do with *God*, a thing that
>agnostics apparently claim is forever impossible to know anything about. Is
>there a hidden assumption that God and all his actions are forever metaphysical?
*You* previously tried to expand the definition of "metaphysical" to
include everything we know. Now you are trying to limit it to exclude god
(and the supernatural?). I know you like to argue for arguing sake but
nailing jello to a tree is not my forte.
To briefly deal with Pagano's position (which you seem to be tracking here)
even if we can investigate the physical effects of a god, such as a global
flood, how could we ever empirically link *that* effect to *that* god and
rule out some unknown naturalistic cause? By what empiric means can it be
established that the merely inexplicable is, in fact, divine?
>.....
>
>> >A: God is supernatural and cannot be known
>> >B: Nothing is known about God, but for some mysterious ineffable
>> > reason we proclaim that nothing ever will be known about God
>> >C: ?
>>
>> C: By the common definition of "supernatural", it is not ammenable to
>> empiric evidence. Perhaps you can define what *you* mean by supernatural.
>> Are you taking up Pagano's position? Or do you have some way for humans to
>> "know" outside of empiric evidence? (But I have no intention of rearguing
>> that thread between you and John over whether there are such things as
>> "explanations" that are not scientific, i.e. empiric).
>
>What is the difference between C and A?
I gave you a chance to stop screwing around with the definitions?
Ted Holden
> C: I know nothing about God. There might be some mysterious ineffable
> way to know something about God. But currently I known nothing about
> God.
In our age of the world, that is the basic reality; we comprehend the
spiritual world only through faith.
All evidence indicates however that this was not always the case. Ancient
religious practices generally amounted to attempts to establish direct
communication with the spiritual world, including prophecy, oracles
divination, idolatry etc. etc. The Greek city states conducted official
policy for centuries on the basis of oracles.
A book written by a psychology professor at Princeton in the 1970s became a
sort of an academic mini sensation by making a compelling case for the
claim that the entire manner in which the human brain and mind are used has
undergone a fundamental change between ancient times and today, and that
the different way of using the human brain which was described figured into
ancient religious practices.
I have a page on my own web system which attempts to summarize what is
currently known about this sort of thing:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/babel.html
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
Dick C
> Dick C wrote:
>
>
>> When the M-16 was introduced, during Viet Nam, one of the major
>> problems was that the old rifle in use used a very common cartridge,
>> and the Viet Cong got a significant portion of their guns and ammo by
>> either stealing from the U.S. or buying it on the open market. The
>> introduction of the M16 helped to slow that down.
>
> I've never heard or read anybody making the claim that any such
> consideration was amongst the reasons for adopting the 223 battle
> rifle. It's not obvious to me that the 308 was popular anywhere other
> than in NATO military organizations at the time and there's no reason
> to think it would have been common in Asia. AK ammo on the other hand
> would have been dirt common in Asia and the main kind of ammo the VC
> and north vietnamese were interested in.
Come on Ted. Can't you read any better than that? I said that the
Viet Cong got a significant portion of their weapons by stealing them
from the Army, or buying them from dealers. They also recovered weapons
from the battlefields. In the early 60's, when we first got involved,
the VC was very poorly equipped, by the time we had our largest number
of troops over there, the VC was quite well equipped, with American
weapons.
Also, used weapons are quite common on the open market. I used to own
both a Mauser and Enfield, vintage WWII. The Enfield fired the .308
cartridge. And that was before I went to Viet Nam.
>
> The main idea for the M16 was to have a true assault rifle, i.e. a
> rifle which could be fired rapidly and aimed decently at the same
> time, with the least possible sacrafice in range.
According to the link I posted one message, it was determined that
almost all military fights were in ranges under 300 yards. So the
Military decided it did not need a long barrel gun issued to the
troops.
This was a
> reasonable general goal at the time and a particularly reasonable goal
> for a jungle war in which you often saw the enemy from 30 yards away.
> Also valuable was the idea of a man being able to carry twice the
> ammount of ammunition with him.
Yep, all true. But none of it contradicts what I said about a different
caliber weapon preventing the enemy from stealing the ammo for their
own weapons.
C. Thompson
> C. Thompson wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> Care to point out where I said that? I do admit, though, I am
>>>> more of an expert then you.
>>>
>>> You're claiming that you could use NATO (7.62x51) ammo in an AK
>>> (7.62x39), which is basically an ignorant statement.
>>
>> Maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe I am repeating urban legend. I will
>> happily recheck this.
>
> Come on. I mean, go to the nearest gun dealer and ask the man to
> show you a 308 cartridge and an Ak cartridge, and see if you can
> picture loading the one in a rifle chambered for the other...
>
> The only story remotely resembling that one which has any germ of
> truth in it involves the small 9mm (Makarov) pistols the Eastern
> block used to use which, quite by accident, were able to fire one or
> two other kinds of ammo; nonetheless using any ammunition other than
> that designed for a particular firearm is a spectacularly bad idea
> and the Red army was never stupid enough to recommend or condone
> doing anything like that. In all but one or two cases it's not even
> possible and in the one or two, you're more likely to either jam the
> firearm or have it blow up in your face than accomplish anything
> useful.
Not true at all. People fire .38 Specials from .357 Magnums all the time,
with no ill effects on their faces or the weapon.
>
>> In the meantime, let's just put back what my newsreader must have
>> cropped from the original discussion- you know, the part that
>> actually pertains to your silly example...
>
> Like I say, I was offering an alternative to evolutionism; it wasn't
> MEANT to make the most possible sense.
Ah, so you think posting nonsense in an attempt to ridicule science is
useful? Guess that's another lightweight rifle, along with .300 Winchesters
and .600 Double Nitros, eh?
Chris
John Thomas Grisham
> Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
>
> > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:1fw8bh0.198nsz019v0rlgN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1fw6ype.8fyxcbkaat95N%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1fw6ndf.1qh9ptiocagdyN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > > > > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
> >
> > ....
> ....
>
> I hold that no set of facts could tell for or against the existence of
> God - any being, no matter how powerful or knowledgeable, of whom we
> could know something empirically, would not be God.
Are you drawing a line in the sand? (No gods permitted to cross this
line)
What if you "personally" could have empirial proof (i.e., repeatable
observations, perspective on actions of the "alledged" deity,
perceptions of the affects of the "alleged" deity's actions on
multiple third parties), however these proofs would not be verifiable
(not repeatable to others, the actions remain unpredictable, third
parties given to rationalizing affects as coincidential)? Also, this
proof would be at the convenience of the "allegded" deity for two
reasons, 1) the "alledged" deity retains all customary and usual
rights, powers, functions and authority to control and manage its
universe and 2) your sanity (frame of reference to how reality is
accepted by society on the whole) would become "on certain points"
contradictory and questionable upon over-exposure. Given these
parameters, would this "alledged" deity continue not to be God?
And since, we're talking personal proof, why would you want it? If,
the Bible were the documented evidence of specific human/deity
interactions, then the overwhelming conclusion to be drawn from the
document is that there is extremely little advantage to such an
interaction in the terms of personal consequences. Okay... you get to
know God exists, fine! Five minutes later, you have to live the rest
of your life knowing God exists. In practical terms, the
"Rollercoaster" ride (that is "Life") is revealed as the engineered
rollercoaster ride, it is (there goes the fun of it!) ...Oops!
...theoretically!
<snip - more really good stuff>
JTG 6/9/03
Ted
> This was a
>> reasonable general goal at the time and a particularly reasonable goal
>> for a jungle war in which you often saw the enemy from 30 yards away.
>> Also valuable was the idea of a man being able to carry twice the
>> ammount of ammunition with him.
>
> Yep, all true. But none of it contradicts what I said about a different
> caliber weapon preventing the enemy from stealing the ammo for their
> own weapons.
You're claiming that the invention of the M16 stopped the VC from stealing
weapons and that they ceased and desisted from the practice at that point?
How'd they do that? They engraved the words "Thou shalt not steal" on the
barrels?
Ted
>> The main idea for the M16 was to have a true assault rifle, i.e. a
>> rifle which could be fired rapidly and aimed decently at the same
>> time, with the least possible sacrafice in range.
>
> According to the link I posted one message, it was determined that
> almost all military fights were in ranges under 300 yards. So the
> Military decided it did not need a long barrel gun issued to the
> troops.
One of the things people don't realize about the M16 is that despite being
small calibre, it is not a short-range-only weapon. I've had marines tell
me that they were hitting Talibangers from 500 - 600 yards in Afghanistan
with the normal ammo and with heavy bullets (80 - 95 gr) and fast-twist
barrels, they can hit things out to extreme distances. Basically, the M16
is a very good effort in the direction of having a true assault rifle, with
a minimal sacrafice in range and accuracy. Once they got past the initial
problems, the M16 represented a number of real improvements over previous
military rifles. Not having a piston moving inside the rifle improves
accuracy and having the bolt lock into the barrel rather than the receiver
makes it simpler to work on than previous rifles. No extreme torque is
involved anywhere and the thing can be worked on with simple tools.
Steve B.
Questions can be malformed like that one, but they can also be tightly packed
with multiple meanings. For example, "Does God exist?" To one person this means,
"Does YHWH exist?" To another, "Does a creator of the universe exist?" To yet
another, "Does a supernatural being exist?" Anything dealing with God is almost
automatically ambiguous. Terms must be well define before we can proceed with
question asking.
Okay. I'm trying hard here. Here's what I gather from what you're saying.
Agnosticism is based on a specific notion of God of which "no empirical fact"
can speak of his nature or existance. I would also gather that other standard
concepts of God are implied, like omnipotence and omnicience. So we may call God
an unknowable agent and not loose any conent about his knowability. From this it
seems agnosticism simply states the obvious. An unknowable agent cannot be
known... ever!
To me, that's not a stance on anything, just an acknowledgement of the intrinsic
constraint in arbitrarily defined terms. Atheism is a stance. Theism and deism
are stances. They all add something. That choose to that something in specific
and real does or does not exist. I *thought* the agnostic position was a stance
that something in particular *at current* cannot be known. That's a stance.
Saying a creator of the universe is at current unknowable is a stance. Even
saying one is forever unknowable is a stance.
But to assign a specific property to God, unknowability, then state that he is
unknowable is a just a tautological pseudo-stance on any origins issue. A
philosophical conclusion that follows directly from it's premise that could
apply to anything. It doesn't add anything. I find it hard to believe that's
actually the agnostic position.
Even if your theoscope were invented, then agnosticism is not wrong. God would
be knowable, and agnosticism says nothing about knowable gods. It's not a
practical position (practical in the sense I talked about earlier). It's on the
level of Invisible Pink Unicorns are pink. It must be beyond me.
.....
We will never know anything about always-hides-behind-your-backums but their
nature can be perfectly knowable. In [a] the claim is that AHBYBs will always
outsmart us even through they're perfectly knowable. In [b] no test could even
principle detect an AHBYB. Only [a] could be proven wrong by finding an AHBYB --
[a] would be wrong about their craftiness while [b] would simply state what we
found is not an AHBYB, because AHBYBs are unknowable.
> > > So science delivers the results that, as an agnostic, I expect there to
> > > be. Note also, though, that this is the *same* result that atheists and
> > > deists *also* expect, and science is neither atheist nor deist, as well.
> >
> > Deism and atheism both take a stance on God. That's why science is neither
> > deistic or atheistic.
>
> So does agnosticism - we cannot find anything out about God using
> empirical methods.
See above. Please don't be angry. :} I'm trying to understand.
I think all you "ists" and "ics" are deluded. ;)
But of course that's true of everything. We can only rationally act on
probabilities.
> > Atheism, deism, and theism are practical beliefs (well, you know what I
> > mean). You make real decisions based on them. Decisions about what's
> > important and what do in different situations. I understand agnosticism to
> > be a practical belief as well -- that we cannot say anything about God.
> > You seem to be saying that it's more than that -- that we can never know
> > anything about God.
> >
> > But that can mean two things. Is it philosophical, as in we can never
> > "reaaaally" know God exists? Or is it practical, as in God is either
> > supernatural or I don't believe he'll ever show up.
>
> It is philosophical. I still live happily in the real world, despite
> claims by my friends and coworkers. But in practical terms, it means I
> do not live my life as if there were a God (nor, for that matter, do I
> live my life as if there weren't). To some theists, this makes me a
> practical atheist, for they see theism as the default lifestyle. To some
> atheists, this makes me a theist-wannabe, for they see atheism as the
> default rational position. I have a similar problem in politics with the
> Left and the Right, being as I am a Liberal Democrat. Were I religious,
> I would of course be an Anglican, for the via media.
And of course I think all you atheists, theists, and agnostics really agree. But
that's another subject entirely. I think plain old skepticism is the only
default rational position.
> > > > > > The only way I see that science cannot be agnostic is if agnostic
> > > > > > is defined in such a way that it is redundant and somewhat
> > > > > > meaningless.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps. I think there is as much difference between the two, as
> > > > > there is between common explanation and scientific theory :-P
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps, but we're not talking about your personal philophical issues
> > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > ;)
> > >
> > > Are there any other kind?
> >
> > Public philosophical issues?
>
> Like I said ;-)
Steve
Steve B.
There's so many things wrong with that paragraph. 1) I did not *try* to "expand
the definition of 'metaphysical' to include everything we know". In a sense, as
John defined it, it *does* cover all our knowledge. I simply pointed that out to
see if John would acknowledge that and elaborate on it. He did. In other sense,
a practical sense, we call those metaphysical entities that represent actual
things, "actual things" or empirical things for brevity. John understood this.
2) I'm not trying to limit or exclude anything. I'm trying to understand the
concept of God on which agnosticism is based. 3) How do you know I like to argue
for arguing sake?
> To briefly deal with Pagano's position (which you seem to be tracking here)
> even if we can investigate the physical effects of a god, such as a global
> flood, how could we ever empirically link *that* effect to *that* god and
> rule out some unknown naturalistic cause? By what empiric means can it be
> established that the merely inexplicable is, in fact, divine?
It can't.
> >.....
> >
> >> >A: God is supernatural and cannot be known
> >> >B: Nothing is known about God, but for some mysterious ineffable
> >> > reason we proclaim that nothing ever will be known about God
> >> >C: ?
> >>
> >> C: By the common definition of "supernatural", it is not ammenable to
> >> empiric evidence. Perhaps you can define what *you* mean by supernatural.
> >> Are you taking up Pagano's position? Or do you have some way for humans to
> >> "know" outside of empiric evidence? (But I have no intention of rearguing
> >> that thread between you and John over whether there are such things as
> >> "explanations" that are not scientific, i.e. empiric).
> >
> >What is the difference between C and A?
>
> I gave you a chance to stop screwing around with the definitions?
My understanding of supernatural comes from the rigid insistence of regulars
here. Regulars such as Mark VandeWettering, Matt Silberstein, Hiero5ant, and a
few others insisted that if we knew ***anything*** about something, it's
natural. This also seems consistent of dictionary definitions, so I accepted it.
It is not my definition. So please either point out what's wrong with my
understanding of supernatural or show the difference between A and C.
Steve
Steve B.
"Ted Holden" <med...@fcc.net> wrote in message
news:ouidnchF7u3...@fcc.net...
> Esa Riihonen wrote:
>
>
> > C: I know nothing about God. There might be some mysterious ineffable
> > way to know something about God. But currently I known nothing about
> > God.
>
> In our age of the world, that is the basic reality; we comprehend the
> spiritual world only through faith.
Translation:
In our age of the world, that is the basic reality; we comprehend the spiritual
world only through [making things up as we go along].
.....
Steve
Steve B.
"Esa Riihonen" <riih...@utu.fi.SPAMLOCK> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.06.09.07...@utu.fi.SPAMLOCK...
I'm must more fascinated in these people who claim to know things about God.
Steve
Esa Riihonen
/ "Esa Riihonen" <riih...@utu.fi.SPAMLOCK> wrote in message
/ news:pan.2003.06.09.07...@utu.fi.SPAMLOCK...
/> On Sun, 08 Jun 2003 22:27:34 +0300, Steve B. wrote:
/>
/> [snip]
/>
/> > A: God is supernatural and cannot be known B: Nothing is known about
/> > God, but for some mysterious ineffable
/> > reason we proclaim that nothing ever will be known about God
/> > C: ?
/>
/> C: I know nothing about God. There might be some mysterious ineffable
/> way to know something about God. But currently I known nothing about
/> God.
/>
/> Will that do?
/
/ I'm must more fascinated in these people who claim to know things about
/ God.
/
/ Steve
OK. Perhaps some day, I will learn to read more carefully before
commenting on a small detail in a long thread :)
Cheers,
Esa
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Dick C
<dic...@localnet.boo.com>:
<snip>
>I used to own
>both a Mauser and Enfield, vintage WWII. The Enfield fired the .308
>cartridge.
The Enfield had been rechambered. The .308 (or 7.62 NATO, or
T55) was developed in the early '50s; the Enfield (assuming
you meant the M1917 US rifle) was originally chambered for
the .30-06. If you meant the British Lee Enfield, it was
chambered for the .303 British.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ted Holden
<med...@fcc.net>:
>Dick C wrote:
>
>
>> When the M-16 was introduced, during Viet Nam, one of the major problems
>> was that the old rifle in use used a very common cartridge, and the
>> Viet Cong got a significant portion of their guns and ammo by either
>> stealing from the U.S. or buying it on the open market. The introduction
>> of the M16 helped to slow that down.
>
>I've never heard or read anybody making the claim that any such
>consideration was amongst the reasons for adopting the 223 battle rifle.
>It's not obvious to me that the 308 was popular anywhere other than in NATO
>military organizations at the time and there's no reason to think it would
>have been common in Asia. AK ammo on the other hand would have been dirt
>common in Asia and the main kind of ammo the VC and north vietnamese were
>interested in.
Yep, the 7.62x39. After all, that *was* the ammunition used
by the "official" TO weapon of the NVA (the AK-47), and, by
extension, of the VC. And if the conflict between the two
Viet Nams had lasted a bit longer, they *might* have
switched to the AK-74 with its 5.5 (5.6?)mm, but captured US
(or, for that matter, French) weapons were never a major
source of arms for the VC, and certainly not for the NVA.
>The main idea for the M16 was to have a true assault rifle, i.e. a rifle
>which could be fired rapidly and aimed decently at the same time, with the
>least possible sacrafice in range. This was a reasonable general goal at
>the time and a particularly reasonable goal for a jungle war in which you
>often saw the enemy from 30 yards away. Also valuable was the idea of a
>man being able to carry twice the ammount of ammunition with him.
All true. FWIW, the M-14 was intended as a selective-fire
"battle rifle" to replace both the M-1 and the BAR, but it
was too light for easy control in full-auto, and the bolt
had a tendency to crack if used extensively in this mode.
But having used one through my enlistment in the Marine
Corps (during the time when the changeover to the M-16 was
in progress), I still prefer it.
And although the M-16 (in some formats) is a very accurate
rifle, *effective* sniper work at long range (>600 yds)
still works best with a heavier projectile which retains
significantly greater energy at such ranges.
Just my 20 mills...
Ted Holden
> And although the M-16 (in some formats) is a very accurate
> rifle, *effective* sniper work at long range (>600 yds)
> still works best with a heavier projectile which retains
> significantly greater energy at such ranges.
>
> Just my 20 mills...
That's the way I'd figure it as well. Funny thing is though, as I've heard
it at least, the person winning the long range competitions at Camp Perry
recently has been a lady marine using an M16 type rifle with very heavy
bullets, 90+ gr, and the very fast twist needed for such heavy bullets.
John Wilkins
> john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins) wrote...
> > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1fw8bh0.198nsz019v0rlgN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:1fw6ype.8fyxcbkaat95N%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > > > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:1fw6ndf.1qh9ptiocagdyN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > > > > > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > ....
> > ....
> <snip - really good stuff!>
> >
> > I hold that no set of facts could tell for or against the existence of
> > God - any being, no matter how powerful or knowledgeable, of whom we
> > could know something empirically, would not be God.
>
> Are you drawing a line in the sand? (No gods permitted to cross this
> line)
Not exactly. I am saying that my personal opinion (doxa, in Greek, by
the way - since I think it is right, or orthos, that makes it orthodoxy
:-) is that Gods are unknowable if they are supernatural (as defined by
theism). Greek gods or nature gods and so forth are entirely knowable...
>
> What if you "personally" could have empirial proof (i.e., repeatable
> observations, perspective on actions of the "alledged" deity,
> perceptions of the affects of the "alleged" deity's actions on
> multiple third parties), however these proofs would not be verifiable
> (not repeatable to others, the actions remain unpredictable, third
> parties given to rationalizing affects as coincidential)? Also, this
> proof would be at the convenience of the "allegded" deity for two
> reasons, 1) the "alledged" deity retains all customary and usual
> rights, powers, functions and authority to control and manage its
> universe and 2) your sanity (frame of reference to how reality is
> accepted by society on the whole) would become "on certain points"
> contradictory and questionable upon over-exposure. Given these
> parameters, would this "alledged" deity continue not to be God?
In such a case I would be torn. My rationality would be determined by
the intersubjective consensus I have with my community. My personal
experience would be at odds. I would not be able to distinguish this
from a psychotic break, as I recently said in another post.
>
> And since, we're talking personal proof, why would you want it? If,
> the Bible were the documented evidence of specific human/deity
> interactions, then the overwhelming conclusion to be drawn from the
> document is that there is extremely little advantage to such an
> interaction in the terms of personal consequences. Okay... you get to
> know God exists, fine! Five minutes later, you have to live the rest
> of your life knowing God exists. In practical terms, the
> "Rollercoaster" ride (that is "Life") is revealed as the engineered
> rollercoaster ride, it is (there goes the fun of it!) ...Oops!
> ...theoretically!
>
> <snip - more really good stuff>
Skeptics want reasonable proof. Must be a constitutional thing. I blame
my parents and teachers.
>
>
> JTG 6/9/03
catshark
<swb_rem...@ccp.com> wrote:
And so the point of raising it again was? John gave a perfectly good
definition of "metaphysical". Instead of asking *me* what god has to do
with the metaphysical, why don't you just state what your position is _vis
a vis_ metaphysics and god, instead of playing "Glenn" games?
>In other sense,
>a practical sense, we call those metaphysical entities that represent actual
>things, "actual things" or empirical things for brevity. John understood this.
And, presumably, so did you. So why don't you just state what difference
you see between the metaphysical and god?
>2) I'm not trying to limit or exclude anything. I'm trying to understand the
>concept of God on which agnosticism is based.
So why don't you state what *your* concept(s) of god are and why you are
having problems with the Agnostic concept of god?
>3) How do you know I like to argue
>for arguing sake?
Because you keep doing the above.
>
>> To briefly deal with Pagano's position (which you seem to be tracking here)
>> even if we can investigate the physical effects of a god, such as a global
>> flood, how could we ever empirically link *that* effect to *that* god and
>> rule out some unknown naturalistic cause? By what empiric means can it be
>> established that the merely inexplicable is, in fact, divine?
>
>It can't.
Good. That's one . . .
>
>> >.....
>> >
>> >> >A: God is supernatural and cannot be known
>> >> >B: Nothing is known about God, but for some mysterious ineffable
>> >> > reason we proclaim that nothing ever will be known about God
>> >> >C: ?
>> >>
>> >> C: By the common definition of "supernatural", it is not ammenable to
>> >> empiric evidence. Perhaps you can define what *you* mean by supernatural.
>> >> Are you taking up Pagano's position? Or do you have some way for humans to
>> >> "know" outside of empiric evidence? (But I have no intention of rearguing
>> >> that thread between you and John over whether there are such things as
>> >> "explanations" that are not scientific, i.e. empiric).
>> >
>> >What is the difference between C and A?
>>
>> I gave you a chance to stop screwing around with the definitions?
>
>My understanding of supernatural comes from the rigid insistence of regulars
>here. Regulars such as Mark VandeWettering, Matt Silberstein, Hiero5ant, and a
>few others insisted that if we knew ***anything*** about something, it's
>natural.
That is somewhat better but, for some reason, I am left wondering if that
really *is* their definition. I know there was a thread about that but I
did not pay much attention. Do you have a message ID # or Google reference
to the thread?
>This also seems consistent of dictionary definitions, so I accepted it.
>It is not my definition.
If you "accepted" it, why are you saying it is *not* your definition? You
either accept it, reject it or accept/reject it with caveats. Why can't
you just say which?
>So please either point out what's wrong with my
>understanding of supernatural or show the difference between A and C.
At any rate, you now have to define what you mean by "anything" before I
could possibly answer what difference there may be, since (with all those
asterisks) you obviously have something in mind.
Robin Levett
message
news:1e9d6178.03060...@posting.google.com...
...which, by the definition of "repeatable" that science
uses, means they aren't repeatable...
> the actions remain unpredictable,
...meaning that they aren't even repeatable for you...
> third
> parties given to rationalizing affects as coincidential
...irrelevant if the effects are repeatable and
predictable - which you have said they are not...
> )? Also, this
> proof would be at the convenience of the "allegded" deity
for two
> reasons, 1) the "alledged" deity retains all customary and
usual
> rights, powers, functions and authority to control and
manage its
> universe and 2) your sanity (frame of reference to how
reality is
> accepted by society on the whole) would become "on certain
points"
> contradictory and questionable upon over-exposure. Given
these
> parameters, would this "alledged" deity continue not to be
God?
>
If there is no empirical evidence (and your limitations upon
the "proofs" above mean that they don't constitute emiprical
evidence) that She started being God...
> And since, we're talking personal proof, why would you
want it?
Unless I'm much mistaken, you introduced the topic..
> If,
...a very big if...
> the Bible were the documented evidence of specific
human/deity
> interactions, then the overwhelming conclusion to be drawn
from the
> document is that there is extremely little advantage to
such an
> interaction in the terms of personal consequences.
If I have good enough evidence that a particular God exists
and isninterested in my actions to the extent that those
actions affect my future wellbeing - including after my
physical lifetime - I suspect that it might condition my
actions and attitudes.
> Okay... you get to
> know God exists, fine! Five minutes later, you have to
live the rest
> of your life knowing God exists. In practical terms, the
> "Rollercoaster" ride (that is "Life") is revealed as the
engineered
> rollercoaster ride, it is (there goes the fun of it!)
...Oops!
> ...theoretically!
--
____________________________________________________________
____
Robin Levett
rle...@ibmrlevett.uklinux.net
(address munged by addition of Big Blue)
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor
Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's
Razor
Fundy = what's Ockam's erasure?
___________________________________________________
Dick C
No, I am not. But then you have never been known for facing facts,
have you? What I am claiming is quite simple, the VC had alot of
weapons that American ammunition would fit. A different gun taking
different ammo would put a big dent in their ability to arm themselves,
for a while. It took them a while to get sufficient weapons and ammo
to use against us.
Dick C
news:lgu9evsed6f2hkrbm...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:32:03 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Dick C
> <dic...@localnet.boo.com>:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>I used to own
>>both a Mauser and Enfield, vintage WWII. The Enfield fired the .308
>>cartridge.
>
> The Enfield had been rechambered. The .308 (or 7.62 NATO, or
> T55) was developed in the early '50s; the Enfield (assuming
> you meant the M1917 US rifle) was originally chambered for
> the .30-06. If you meant the British Lee Enfield, it was
> chambered for the .303 British.
Ok, 303 then, it has been about 35 years since I owned it.
>
> <snip>
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> news:1fw8wsl.6bh1xa9fkonaN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
<snippity>
> > However, my reason for thinking that the question is undecideable is not
> > a matter of contingency. As God is defined (particularly in his supposed
> > ability to overcome the regularities of nature), no empirical fact can
> > speak to God's nature (or existence) one way or the other. As I have
> > sometimes said before, a question that canot be answered even in
> > principle is not a question at all: it is like Chomsky's "question", "do
> > colorless green ideas sleep furiously?" What possible set of facts could
> > answer such a question?
>
> Questions can be malformed like that one, but they can also be tightly
> packed with multiple meanings. For example, "Does God exist?" To one
> person this means, "Does YHWH exist?" To another, "Does a creator of the
> universe exist?" To yet another, "Does a supernatural being exist?"
> Anything dealing with God is almost automatically ambiguous. Terms must be
> well define before we can proceed with question asking.
And so on the standard construal of theism (SCoT), which *is*
well-defined, we find that no set of facts will decide one way or
another, and no logical or metaphysical argument (the so-called "proofs
of God") will provide an unambiguous answer. So on the SCoT I am forced
to say "Does Gd exist?" is not a question. All the terms are
well-defined; it is just that in that sentence it makes no answerable
question. Likewise in the Chomsky question - all the terms have
extensions (some may even have *intensions* - forgive me Father, for I
have Sinned :-) but together they make no question despite the
grammatical correctness.
>
> Okay. I'm trying hard here. Here's what I gather from what you're saying.
> Agnosticism is based on a specific notion of God of which "no empirical
> fact" can speak of his nature or existance. I would also gather that other
> standard concepts of God are implied, like omnipotence and omnicience. So
> we may call God an unknowable agent and not loose any conent about his
> knowability. From this it seems agnosticism simply states the obvious. An
> unknowable agent cannot be known... ever!
But it is neither necessary nor obvious that a God *is* unknowable.
Hence it is not a nonsense statement to assert that He is. It is
*adding* information to the dialogue.
>
> To me, that's not a stance on anything, just an acknowledgement of the
> intrinsic constraint in arbitrarily defined terms. Atheism is a stance.
> Theism and deism are stances. They all add something. That choose to that
> something in specific and real does or does not exist. I *thought* the
> agnostic position was a stance that something in particular *at current*
> cannot be known. That's a stance. Saying a creator of the universe is at
> current unknowable is a stance. Even saying one is forever unknowable is a
> stance.
It is a stance to assert that the SCoT God is unknowable one way or the
other. Surely that is an alternative to the other views.
>
> But to assign a specific property to God, unknowability, then state that
> he is unknowable is a just a tautological pseudo-stance on any origins
> issue. A philosophical conclusion that follows directly from it's premise
> that could apply to anything. It doesn't add anything. I find it hard to
> believe that's actually the agnostic position.
Category Error! Redo from Start!
"Unknowability", like ineffability, is not a property - it is a lack of
one. Privative classes or sets (that is, not-X categories) are improper
groupings. Consider invertebrates. Rocks lack spines - are they
invertebrates? How about stars? Video cassettes? Clearly such a class is
meaningless (unless you circumscribe it in such a way that you may as
well define it by the properties you used to circumscribe it anyway).
>
> Even if your theoscope were invented, then agnosticism is not wrong. God
> would be knowable, and agnosticism says nothing about knowable gods. It's
> not a practical position (practical in the sense I talked about earlier).
> It's on the level of Invisible Pink Unicorns are pink. It must be beyond
> me.
The Divinoscope (get the proprietary name right please - it's a
trademark) would tell you that a *particular* God falls into a class of
"natural" (that is to say, "knowable in terms of their natures") gods.
The SCoT God might now be "natural" in this sense (this is to say,
*epistemically* natural, or as the convention in t.o has it,
methodologically natural). Gods whose attributes are neither observable
nor predictable would remain subject to the Agnostic Provision.
>
> .....
>
...
> > > > Science is agnostic, in that it cannot speak to what cannot be
> > > > (scientifically) investigated. It is not, however, agnostic*ism*,
> > > > because it does not rule out the *possibility* of learning something
> > > > about Gods, if we acquire the tools and assays. Should we develop my
> > > > much-desired Divinoscope, then we would be able to make claims about the
> > > > natures and existences of gods. But as an agnostic (one who accepts the
> > > > general philosophical position of agnosticism), I have reason to think
> > > > there never *will* be a Divinoscope.
> > >
> > > So are you saying agnostics make the claim that (a) we will *never* know
> > > anything about God or (b) the nature of God is forever unknowable?
> >
> > Weak agnosticism claims a form of (a), that it looks very much like we
> > will never have evidence for God. Strong agnosticism (as *I* understand
> > it, and adopt it) claims (b). But the way you wrote that they are
> > identical.
>
> We will never know anything about always-hides-behind-your-backums but
> their nature can be perfectly knowable. In [a] the claim is that AHBYBs
> will always outsmart us even through they're perfectly knowable. In [b] no
> test could even principle detect an AHBYB. Only [a] could be proven wrong
> by finding an AHBYB -- [a] would be wrong about their craftiness while [b]
> would simply state what we found is not an AHBYB, because AHBYBs are
> unknowable.
Actually, the AHBYB *is* observable - by someone else. If you watch my
back and I yours, then we can find facts that will rule out the AHBYBs
for you and I. This is called intersubjectivity.
But no amount of back-watching will discover the existence of God (under
the SCoT).
>
> > > > So science delivers the results that, as an agnostic, I expect there to
> > > > be. Note also, though, that this is the *same* result that atheists and
> > > > deists *also* expect, and science is neither atheist nor deist, as well.
> > >
>...
> > > Atheism, deism, and theism are practical beliefs (well, you know what I
> > > mean). You make real decisions based on them. Decisions about what's
> > > important and what do in different situations. I understand agnosticism to
> > > be a practical belief as well -- that we cannot say anything about God.
> > > You seem to be saying that it's more than that -- that we can never know
> > > anything about God.
> > >
> > > But that can mean two things. Is it philosophical, as in we can never
> > > "reaaaally" know God exists? Or is it practical, as in God is either
> > > supernatural or I don't believe he'll ever show up.
> >
> > It is philosophical. I still live happily in the real world, despite
> > claims by my friends and coworkers. But in practical terms, it means I
> > do not live my life as if there were a God (nor, for that matter, do I
> > live my life as if there weren't). To some theists, this makes me a
> > practical atheist, for they see theism as the default lifestyle. To some
> > atheists, this makes me a theist-wannabe, for they see atheism as the
> > default rational position. I have a similar problem in politics with the
> > Left and the Right, being as I am a Liberal Democrat. Were I religious,
> > I would of course be an Anglican, for the via media.
>
> And of course I think all you atheists, theists, and agnostics really
> agree. But that's another subject entirely. I think plain old skepticism
> is the only default rational position.
Skepticism cuts across such substantive positions. One can be a
skeptical, or a gullible, theist.
...
catshark
Wilkins) wrote:
[snip]
>> To me, that's not a stance on anything, just an acknowledgement of the
>> intrinsic constraint in arbitrarily defined terms. Atheism is a stance.
>> Theism and deism are stances. They all add something. That choose to that
>> something in specific and real does or does not exist. I *thought* the
>> agnostic position was a stance that something in particular *at current*
>> cannot be known. That's a stance. Saying a creator of the universe is at
>> current unknowable is a stance. Even saying one is forever unknowable is a
>> stance.
>
>It is a stance to assert that the SCoT God is unknowable one way or the
>other. Surely that is an alternative to the other views.
It is a stance, just not on what Steve is demanding one on. He wants an
answer about the existence/nonexistence of god; Agnostics insist on giving
him an answer about the nature of human knowledge. Steve is having
difficulty understanding how they are related.
(Hint to Steve: in the "answer" part)
[ . . . ]
shooty
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:32:03 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Dick C
> <dic...@localnet.boo.com>:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >I used to own
> >both a Mauser and Enfield, vintage WWII. The Enfield fired the .308
> >cartridge.
>
> The Enfield had been rechambered. The .308 (or 7.62 NATO, or
> T55) was developed in the early '50s; the Enfield (assuming
> you meant the M1917 US rifle) was originally chambered for
> the .30-06. If you meant the British Lee Enfield, it was
> chambered for the .303 British.
>
> <snip>
>
Quite a number of WWII vintage Mk IVs were reworked to take 7.62 nato
rounds, the weapon was the standard sniper rifle for british forces up
until the 1980s, the stock was reworked as well being cut back as far
as the middle band and sling point.
They are still highly regarded among the shooting fraternity in the UK
Shooty
Ted Holden
> No, I am not. But then you have never been known for facing facts,
> have you? What I am claiming is quite simple, the VC had alot of
> weapons that American ammunition would fit. A different gun taking
> different ammo would put a big dent in their ability to arm themselves,
> for a while. It took them a while to get sufficient weapons and ammo
> to use against us.
The effect you describe may have been real enough; I doubt that was any
part of the decision to switch to the M16 however.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by sho...@shooty.zzn.com
(shooty):
No argument here, although the two-piece stock, even if
modified (and all else being equal), is usually considered
detrimental to accuracy.
Bob Casanova
>Bob Casanova wrote:
That doesn't surprise me, since the "accurized" target
versions of the M-16 are quite accurate, and the heavy
projectiles are *much* less prone to wind drift than the
typical 45-55gr varmint-type (although FMJ) projectiles,
probably as resistant as a typical 180-gr FMJBT.
Bob Casanova
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in
>news:lgu9evsed6f2hkrbm...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 13:32:03 +0000 (UTC), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Dick C
>> <dic...@localnet.boo.com>:
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>I used to own
>>>both a Mauser and Enfield, vintage WWII. The Enfield fired the .308
>>>cartridge.
>>
>> The Enfield had been rechambered. The .308 (or 7.62 NATO, or
>> T55) was developed in the early '50s; the Enfield (assuming
>> you meant the M1917 US rifle) was originally chambered for
>> the .30-06. If you meant the British Lee Enfield, it was
>> chambered for the .303 British.
>
>Ok, 303 then, it has been about 35 years since I owned it.
OK.
Thomas H. Faller
>A book written by a psychology professor at Princeton in the 1970s became a
>sort of an academic mini sensation by making a compelling case for the
>claim that the entire manner in which the human brain and mind are used has
>undergone a fundamental change between ancient times and today, and that
>the different way of using the human brain which was described figured into
>ancient religious practices.
>I have a page on my own web system which attempts to summarize what is
>currently known about this sort of thing:
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/babel.html
I couldn't get to the web page, but this sounds like:
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind --
Julian Jaynes
I read this aways back and it was an interesting idea, but I
recall it relied mainly on the current state of knowledge about
left/right hemisphere specialization and historical documents.
I believe that his central idea was rendered invalid by more
recent research into brain function - that things aren't as
well partitioned into left and right as he had proposed and that
further historical research did not extend the pattern of left
brain/right brain practices he tried to established. It's been
so long since his idea was disproved that I'd have to really dig
for references.
Of course, if Ted's page isn't about this....
"Nevermind"
Tom Faller
John Wilkins
Daniel Dennett has a lot to answer for with his vague notion of an
"intentional stance". Strictly, any claim that excludes some region of
the local possibility space "takes a 'stance'".
Stephen, I discussed with you, I think, the topic of a question that
restricts outcomes with an answer - this is a case. The trick is to
realise what sort of answer is admissible, in order to know what
question was being asked.
Steve B.
"John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:1fwbs3g.1w86vfp64skmhN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
Is "Gd" His rapper name?
> All the terms are
> well-defined; it is just that in that sentence it makes no answerable
> question. Likewise in the Chomsky question - all the terms have
> extensions (some may even have *intensions* - forgive me Father, for I
> have Sinned :-) but together they make no question despite the
> grammatical correctness.
Where is this well-defined SCoT defined at?
> > Okay. I'm trying hard here. Here's what I gather from what you're
saying.
> > Agnosticism is based on a specific notion of God of which "no empirical
> > fact" can speak of his nature or existance. I would also gather that
other
> > standard concepts of God are implied, like omnipotence and omnicience.
So
> > we may call God an unknowable agent and not loose any conent about his
> > knowability. From this it seems agnosticism simply states the obvious.
An
> > unknowable agent cannot be known... ever!
>
> But it is neither necessary nor obvious that a God *is* unknowable.
> Hence it is not a nonsense statement to assert that He is. It is
> *adding* information to the dialogue.
Okay. If it's not "obvious that a God *is* unknowable", then on what basis
do agnostics claim he is? Can they have different reasons? What's your
basis? That's a fair question, isn't it?
> > To me, that's not a stance on anything, just an acknowledgement of the
> > intrinsic constraint in arbitrarily defined terms. Atheism is a stance.
> > Theism and deism are stances. They all add something. That choose to
that
> > something in specific and real does or does not exist. I *thought* the
> > agnostic position was a stance that something in particular *at
current*
> > cannot be known. That's a stance. Saying a creator of the universe is
at
> > current unknowable is a stance. Even saying one is forever unknowable
is a
> > stance.
>
> It is a stance to assert that the SCoT God is unknowable one way or the
> other. Surely that is an alternative to the other views.
Yes, that's would be a stance.
> > But to assign a specific property to God, unknowability, then state
that
> > he is unknowable is a just a tautological pseudo-stance on any origins
> > issue. A philosophical conclusion that follows directly from it's
premise
> > that could apply to anything. It doesn't add anything. I find it hard
to
> > believe that's actually the agnostic position.
>
> Category Error! Redo from Start!
>
> "Unknowability", like ineffability, is not a property - it is a lack of
> one.
Is "supernatural" more suitable? That would work the same.
> Privative classes or sets (that is, not-X categories) are improper
> groupings. Consider invertebrates. Rocks lack spines - are they
> invertebrates? How about stars? Video cassettes? Clearly such a class is
> meaningless (unless you circumscribe it in such a way that you may as
> well define it by the properties you used to circumscribe it anyway).
Then how would you construct a class to describe all things without spines?
You underestimate the craftiness of the always-hides-behind-your-backums.
I agree with that. In that sense, I can't imagine there being a *default*
position on God. That's a strange idea to me. Given a set of facts, then I
could imagine a *rational* position on God. I not sure I see where there
should be default though.
Steve
Steve B.
I don't have a position on god. It's sort of like asking someone their
position on lord or prince. The term can convey many things unless it's
well-defined.
As much as I love being compared to the trolls here, one by one, it would
help if you were more specific when accusing me of improper behavior.
> >In other sense,
> >a practical sense, we call those metaphysical entities that represent
actual
> >things, "actual things" or empirical things for brevity. John understood
this.
>
> And, presumably, so did you. So why don't you just state what difference
> you see between the metaphysical and god?
>
> >2) I'm not trying to limit or exclude anything. I'm trying to understand
the
> >concept of God on which agnosticism is based.
>
> So why don't you state what *your* concept(s) of god are and why you are
> having problems with the Agnostic concept of god?
I'm trying to figure out what the "Agnostic concept of god" *is*.
Apparently, it's not what I thought it was.
> >3) How do you know I like to argue
> >for arguing sake?
>
> Because you keep doing the above.
Replying to you?
It was the "Glowing Bibles" thread. Here's a couple examples:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=GQa4a.27237%24rE3.12640%40nwrddc01.gni
link.net&output=gplain
OR
http://tinyurl.com/e137
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4404b96e.0302152158.4a2289a2%40posting
.google.com&output=gplain
OR
http://tinyurl.com/e138
> >This also seems consistent of dictionary definitions, so I accepted it.
> >It is not my definition.
>
> If you "accepted" it, why are you saying it is *not* your definition?
You
> either accept it, reject it or accept/reject it with caveats. Why can't
> you just say which?
I accept the dictionary definition of meatball. Does that mean it's *my*
definition?
> >So please either point out what's wrong with my
> >understanding of supernatural or show the difference between A and C.
>
> At any rate, you now have to define what you mean by "anything" before I
> could possibly answer what difference there may be, since (with all those
> asterisks) you obviously have something in mind.
Any thing. Any piece of knowledge, any meaning, any observation, any
revelation, anything.
Steve
John Wilkins
No, that's MC G-d.
typo...
>
> > All the terms are
> > well-defined; it is just that in that sentence it makes no answerable
> > question. Likewise in the Chomsky question - all the terms have
> > extensions (some may even have *intensions* - forgive me Father, for I
> > have Sinned :-) but together they make no question despite the
> > grammatical correctness.
>
> Where is this well-defined SCoT defined at?
I believe in one of the creeds. You're not going to make me go looking
are you?
>
> > > Okay. I'm trying hard here. Here's what I gather from what you're
> > > saying. Agnosticism is based on a specific notion of God of which "no
> > > empirical fact" can speak of his nature or existance. I would also
> > > gather that other standard concepts of God are implied, like
> > > omnipotence and omnicience. So we may call God an unknowable agent and
> > > not loose any conent about his knowability. From this it seems
> > > agnosticism simply states the obvious. An unknowable agent cannot be
> > > known... ever!
> >
> > But it is neither necessary nor obvious that a God *is* unknowable.
> > Hence it is not a nonsense statement to assert that He is. It is
> > *adding* information to the dialogue.
>
> Okay. If it's not "obvious that a God *is* unknowable", then on what basis
> do agnostics claim he is? Can they have different reasons? What's your
> basis? That's a fair question, isn't it?
Ahh, a personal question. Okay, I'll give, but it's more in the line of
a personal atestimony (as in "I didn't see it, officer, truly).
I was a Christian. For reasons that are between me and the young lady, I
lost my faith and tried very hard to reason myself back into it over a
period of some years. To this end I studied comparative religions,
philosophy of religion, and several other topics (such as religious
psychology). The arguments for the existence of God all proved to be
inconclusive, and by this stage I was trying to not take on any belief
that I had not positive reason to hold. I found that neither the
arguments for nor against the existence of God had any probative force,
and so I settled slowly into agnosticism. I remain open to the
possibility of an answer, but he more I learn the more I realise that
the question does not admit of an answer at this time.
Before you leap at me, here's a next step: a question does not exist in
Plato's heaven - it exists in a culture at a time and context. Questions
can be posed which have never been posed before, but a lot of them can
be answered. Some get dissolved because the assumptions on which they
are based are abandoned for reasons of one kind and another. But here is
a question that is posed and yet *never* dealt with over the duration of
the traditions in which it "lives". I conclude that the issue is neither
urgent nor truly worthy of being called an issue. hence I now take as my
default stance that, until things change in some definite manner, it is
not truly a question at all, but only the skeleton of one.
>
> > > To me, that's not a stance on anything, just an acknowledgement of the
> > > intrinsic constraint in arbitrarily defined terms. Atheism is a
> > > stance. Theism and deism are stances. They all add something. That
> > > choose to that something in specific and real does or does not exist.
> > > I *thought* the agnostic position was a stance that something in
> > > particular *at current* cannot be known. That's a stance. Saying a
> > > creator of the universe is at current unknowable is a stance. Even
> > > saying one is forever unknowable is a stance.
> >
> > It is a stance to assert that the SCoT God is unknowable one way or the
> > other. Surely that is an alternative to the other views.
>
> Yes, that's would be a stance.
>
> > > But to assign a specific property to God, unknowability, then state
> > > that he is unknowable is a just a tautological pseudo-stance on any
> > > origins issue. A philosophical conclusion that follows directly from
> > > it's premise that could apply to anything. It doesn't add anything. I
> > > find it hard to believe that's actually the agnostic position.
> >
> > Category Error! Redo from Start!
> >
> > "Unknowability", like ineffability, is not a property - it is a lack of
> > one.
>
> Is "supernatural" more suitable? That would work the same.
Not really. As I have said, it is also defined in terms of what it is
*not* rather than what it is. I don't think it is a valid category or
concept.
>
> > Privative classes or sets (that is, not-X categories) are improper
> > groupings. Consider invertebrates. Rocks lack spines - are they
> > invertebrates? How about stars? Video cassettes? Clearly such a class is
> > meaningless (unless you circumscribe it in such a way that you may as
> > well define it by the properties you used to circumscribe it anyway).
>
> Then how would you construct a class to describe all things without
> spines?
I wouldn't. I would instead set up classes of things that share
characters, such as arthropods, annelids, molluscs, bryozoans,
echinoderms, hemichordates, nematodes, platyhelminths, cnidarians,
ctenophors and poripherans (I think that is all). Note that chordates,
and in particular vertebrates, fall phylogenetically in the middle of
that group in Animalia.
Each of these is a positive group. "Invertebrate" is not, it is a group
that happens to be left when you remove on thing (and a small thing at
that in terms of the overall scheme of things).
>
....
> > > And of course I think all you atheists, theists, and agnostics really
> > > agree. But that's another subject entirely. I think plain old
> skepticism
> > > is the only default rational position.
> >
> > Skepticism cuts across such substantive positions. One can be a
> > skeptical, or a gullible, theist.
>
> I agree with that. In that sense, I can't imagine there being a *default*
> position on God. That's a strange idea to me. Given a set of facts, then I
> could imagine a *rational* position on God. I not sure I see where there
> should be default though.
>
Defaults are culturally and historically relative; like common sense,
they are effectively what ideas obtained when you were a kid.
Ted
>> http://www.bearfabrique.org/babel.html
> I couldn't get to the web page, but this sounds like...
Icom sometimes goes down for maintenance in the mornings; it's up now.
Again:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/babel.html
It does talk about Julian Jaynes.
Ted
John Thomas Grisham
> "John Thomas Grisham" <jgri...@scu.k12.ca.us> wrote in
> message
> news:1e9d6178.03060...@posting.google.com...
> > john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins) wrote in message
> news:<1fw8wsl.6bh1xa9fkonaN%john.w...@bigpond.com>...
> > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> message
> > > >
> news:1fw8bh0.198nsz019v0rlgN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in
> message
> > > > > >
> news:1fw6ype.8fyxcbkaat95N%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > > > > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com>
> wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> news:1fw6ndf.1qh9ptiocagdyN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > > > > > > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ....
> > > ....
> <snip - really good stuff!>
> >
> repeatable
> > observations, perspective on actions of the "alledged"
> deity,
> > perceptions of the affects of the "alleged" deity's
> actions on
> > multiple third parties), however these proofs would not be
> verifiable
> > (not repeatable to others,
>
> ...which, by the definition of "repeatable" that science
> uses, means they aren't repeatable...
>
> > the actions remain unpredictable,
>
> ...meaning that they aren't even repeatable for you...
>
> > third
> > parties given to rationalizing affects as coincidential
>
> ...irrelevant if the effects are repeatable and
> predictable - which you have said they are not...
History Lesson (learn, do not repeat)
There were people who visited Pompei, prior to 70 a.d. and were
horrified by the rumblings of their volcano. They may have even had
knowledge of another volcano and the possible consequences of the
rumblings. However, the people of Pompei were sketical and
rationalized that another volcano didn't predict the consequences of
their volcano (as is a purely human thing to do). They used the same
methodology to disregard the concerns... volcanic eruptions are not
repeatable (at the will of the observer), are not predictable and any
simularity to the natural state within their observation was
coincidential. There was no emperical proof to suggest that Pompei
would be buried in volcanic ash, however it didn't stop it from
happening.
All I'm suggesting is that anyone that could imagine the possibilty
had the good sense to act upon their imagination and settle elsewhere.
Emperical proof is all well and good, but it's not going to help you
in regards to things that you rationalize away for the purpose of
ignoring.
>
> > )? Also, this
> > proof would be at the convenience of the "allegded" deity
> for two
> > reasons, 1) the "alledged" deity retains all customary and
> usual
> > rights, powers, functions and authority to control and
> manage its
> > universe and 2) your sanity (frame of reference to how
> reality is
> > accepted by society on the whole) would become "on certain
> points"
> > contradictory and questionable upon over-exposure. Given
> these
> > parameters, would this "alledged" deity continue not to be
> God?
> >
>
> If there is no empirical evidence (and your limitations upon
> the "proofs" above mean that they don't constitute emiprical
> evidence) that She started being God...
>
> > And since, we're talking personal proof, why would you
> want it?
>
> Unless I'm much mistaken, you introduced the topic..
I accept that emperical proof is not forthcoming, but also it can be
used as an excuse for not thinking.
There is no empirical proof of a thought you may have had 5 minutes
ago, 5 hours ago, 5 days ago, etc., etc., etc.,. Unless you wrote them
down, there's no proof they ever existed. Therefore, 99.999% of your
thoughts (using the Scientific Method) are proofless of ever existing
at all. Now, if you're comfortable with very little empirical proof of
your capability of thinking, then I'm forced to consider that that may
define your actual capability, which (it seems) you must accept as
true, supported by the empirical proof. However, if you don't truly
believe that empirical proof represents the whole of reality, then I
just insulted your intelligence (But, there's no danger of that, is
there?... Isn't empirical proof and the scientific method
everything?).
>
> > If,
>
> ...a very big if...
>
> > the Bible were the documented evidence of specific
> human/deity
> > interactions, then the overwhelming conclusion to be drawn
> from the
> > document is that there is extremely little advantage to
> such an
> > interaction in the terms of personal consequences.
>
> If I have good enough evidence that a particular God exists
> and is interested in my actions to the extent that those
> actions affect my future well being - including after my
> physical lifetime - I suspect that it might condition my
> actions and attitudes.
Exactly! However to what extent is that desirable? In all practicality
being nailed to a cross or wandering 40 years in the desert could have
severe impacts on your lifestyle. What you might be "called" to do is
as much a matter of your own free will as it is anything else. Most
consequences are not inescapable. What you need to know is that for a
brief moment in your lifetime, a single decision could pass into your
hands to decide the survival of the entire human race and if you
choose correctly, it will continue to be passed to the next person and
the next person. You just need to feel confident that you can and will
do the right thing. But, I could be wrong!
JTG 6/11/03
catshark
<sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
Then how could you say that John's statement, that Agnosticism "is a strong
claim that we *cannot*, in principle, know something about the metaphysical
aspects of the world.", has, according to you, "nothing to do with *God*"?
How can you make that claim without taking a position on god _vis a vis_
metaphysics?
>It's sort of like asking someone their
>position on lord or prince. The term can convey many things unless it's
>well-defined.
>
>As much as I love being compared to the trolls here, one by one, it would
>help if you were more specific when accusing me of improper behavior.
It is my strong impression, for reasons that will become obvious, that you,
like Glenn (but possibly without his animus) are just playing linguistic
games, while avoiding stating your own position as much as possible, trying
to provoke people into extended discussions for the fun of twisting them up
in verbal knots.
>
>> >In other sense,
>> >a practical sense, we call those metaphysical entities that represent
>actual
>> >things, "actual things" or empirical things for brevity. John understood
>this.
>>
>> And, presumably, so did you. So why don't you just state what difference
>> you see between the metaphysical and god?
>>
>> >2) I'm not trying to limit or exclude anything. I'm trying to understand
>the
>> >concept of God on which agnosticism is based.
>>
>> So why don't you state what *your* concept(s) of god are and why you are
>> having problems with the Agnostic concept of god?
>
>I'm trying to figure out what the "Agnostic concept of god" *is*.
>Apparently, it's not what I thought it was.
John called it the SCoT. I'd call it the Western Mature Theistic Version
(WMTV) of god. While John would know better than I, it is my understanding
that, in philosophy, discussions about god (especially when singular and
capitalized, as you habitually do) usually assume, as a base proposition,
an infinite monotheistic being (not Odin, Zeus, Pan or any other finite
being that, ala Arthur C. Clarke or Star Trek, might be nothing more than a
space alien with advanced technology). If the discussion involves the
supposed nature, actions and intent of this posited being, it is assumed
that the person positing it is also positing it is intelligent and
self-conscious. Of course, *without* intelligence, self-consciousness,
purposeful actions and intent, there would be no way to distinguish the
effects of an infinite being from the effects of an unintelligent,
unconscious, contingent-acting and indifferent naturalistic Cosmos.
In short, if you talk about what might be "known" of the existence and
nature of God to a philosopher (and most people from the *tradition* of one
of the three great Western religions), s/he is going to assume you are
talking about the WMTV. Of course, to many, if not most, of the Eastern
religions, talking about *knowing* the nature of god is just so much
gobbley-gook.
>
>> >3) How do you know I like to argue
>> >for arguing sake?
>>
>> Because you keep doing the above.
>
>Replying to you?
Actually, you have spent most of the time asiduously *avoiding* responding
to me.
I did not go through all 500+ posts in that thread, but based on the 2 you
gave, I believe you are misconstruing what they were trying to say. Like
John, in the long discussion that you had with him about why any knowledge
(i.e. any "explanation") worth calling knowledge is empiric in nature, they
were, IMO, saying that anything you could *know* about god would require
this god to be consistent in its effect and regular in action, i.e.
ammenable to empiric evidence . . . at least in respect to whatever aspect
of this being you are studying. If so, you would then be without any way
to distinguish this god's actions and intent from naturalistic causes. Any
action by this god other than regular and consistent would merely be
inexplicable to humans, which you admitted above could not be empirically
linked to the action of a divine being. They were not saying that if we
knew ***anything*** about something, it's natural, they were saying that if
we know anything *empiric* about something (including god), it would be, in
that respect, *indistinguishable* from something natural and Occam's Razor
would make the proposition of a divine being as a cause superflous.
[snip]
>
>> >This also seems consistent of dictionary definitions, so I accepted it.
>> >It is not my definition.
>>
>> If you "accepted" it, why are you saying it is *not* your definition?
>You
>> either accept it, reject it or accept/reject it with caveats. Why can't
>> you just say which?
>
>I accept the dictionary definition of meatball. Does that mean it's *my*
>definition?
In a true *discussion*, instead of some game, you might say "for the sake
of argument I'll adopt the definition that meatballs are small balls of
chopped or ground meat often mixed with bread crumbs and spices, but I have
my doubts that is a complete definition for this reason . . ." or somesuch.
There is no reason to say "I accept but it is not my definition that
meatballs are small balls of chopped or ground meat often mixed with bread
crumbs and spices" unless you are looking to leave yourself some 'out'
later in the game.
>
>> >So please either point out what's wrong with my
>> >understanding of supernatural or show the difference between A and C.
>>
>> At any rate, you now have to define what you mean by "anything" before I
>> could possibly answer what difference there may be, since (with all those
>> asterisks) you obviously have something in mind.
>
>Any thing. Any piece of knowledge,
And we are back to what is the nature of human knowledge. The reason
Agnostics say that the nature of god is intractable to humans has to do
with what they say humans can possibly "know", rather than the minimalist
definition of god that they use (WMTV).
>any meaning,
Whoops, you need another definition . . .
>any observation,
No, you agreed above that any mere "observation" of the supposed effect of
god could not be linked to divine action. Unless, of course, you are using
some definition of "observation" other than "empiric observation", in which
case, you need yet *another* definition.
>any
>revelation, anything.
You said "Regulars such as Mark VandeWettering, Matt Silberstein,
Hiero5ant, and a few others insisted that if we knew ***anything*** about
something, it's natural." But you now include in ***anything*** (6
asterisks) "revelation".
Are you going to maintain with a straight face that you took away from what
Mark, Matt and Hiero5ant said that *they* held that revelation took
something out of the realm of the supernatural and made it natural? Or
will you admit you were trying to put words in their mouths that you *knew*
they didn't intend?
More importantly, are you now going to maintain with a straight face that
you *aren't* playing games?
David Sienkiewicz
< snip >
What about Ed's lab reports, Ted?
Steve B.
It has nothing to do with God, in the sense that it says nothing about God.
Unless of course you're working under an assumption like God is
metaphysical.
> >It's sort of like asking someone their
> >position on lord or prince. The term can convey many things unless it's
> >well-defined.
> >
> >As much as I love being compared to the trolls here, one by one, it
would
> >help if you were more specific when accusing me of improper behavior.
>
> It is my strong impression, for reasons that will become obvious, that
you,
> like Glenn (but possibly without his animus) are just playing linguistic
> games, while avoiding stating your own position as much as possible,
trying
> to provoke people into extended discussions for the fun of twisting them
up
> in verbal knots.
I don't see any point in discussing anything with you if you feel that way.
I really don't understand how you can jump in on a thread, correct me based
on a misunderstanding of what I was talking about, be corrected on the
matter, *then* still turn around and claim I'm playing word games on the
basis of your own failure to understand what's being talked about.
I apologize for not being more clear if that's the problem. I can easily
accept that science is not agnostic if agnosticism claims God is forever
unknowable. Case closed, I was wrong. But now I'm inquiring of John how
exactly agnosticism comes to it's position on the matter of God. We've
changed course. I think your claim that I'm playing linguistic games is
quite unfair.
So mainstream western theology has the copyright on God's nature? When I
hear someone say they don't believe in (g)God, I assume they're talking
about the most general connotations of the word. I assume they're saying
they don't believe Zeus, Ra, Yahweh, or any of the mighty superhuman
conceptions of (g)God.
But you're saying agnosticism speaks about the "Western Mature Theistic
Version" of God. So apparently agnosticism says nothing about Zeus, Ra, or
any other conception of God. They all might be knowable. Is that the
correct understanding?
> >
> >> >3) How do you know I like to argue
> >> >for arguing sake?
> >>
> >> Because you keep doing the above.
> >
> >Replying to you?
>
> Actually, you have spent most of the time asiduously *avoiding*
responding
> to me.
Avoiding you would have been much easier.
What if God interacts with us in a direct Hewbrew scriptures sort of way.
What are observations of seas being parted, offerings spontaneously
igniting, plauges, voices from heaven? Are they not natural observations?
Is it *possible* to observe a supernatural event? Is not the observation of
an event what makes it natural?
Is it possible to *infer* a supernatural event? Is not anything that
interacts with the universe natural through causation?
> [snip]
>
> >
> >> >This also seems consistent of dictionary definitions, so I accepted
it.
> >> >It is not my definition.
> >>
> >> If you "accepted" it, why are you saying it is *not* your definition?
> >You
> >> either accept it, reject it or accept/reject it with caveats. Why
can't
> >> you just say which?
> >
> >I accept the dictionary definition of meatball. Does that mean it's *my*
> >definition?
>
> In a true *discussion*, instead of some game, you might say "for the sake
> of argument I'll adopt the definition that meatballs are small balls of
> chopped or ground meat often mixed with bread crumbs and spices, but I
have
> my doubts that is a complete definition for this reason . . ." or
somesuch.
> There is no reason to say "I accept but it is not my definition that
> meatballs are small balls of chopped or ground meat often mixed with
bread
> crumbs and spices" unless you are looking to leave yourself some 'out'
> later in the game.
That is complete nonsense. This is all new territory to me. Saying
something is *my* definition seems unreasonable to me at this point because
I could easily be totally wrong about it. There's nothing wrong with
provisionally accepting a definition for discussion's sake. If that makes
it *my* definition, then fine. It's "my" definition. You're only quibbling
over words. If you keep calling this a game, I'm not going to bother to
reply.
The posts I dug up were just a couple examples. But it seems quite
straightforward to me.
"Hiero5ant" wrote:
[...]
> So what you're saying is if we can know anything
> meaningful about God, he is not supernatural.
Precisely. I would even go further: If God exists,
then Ontological Naturalism is true, and
supernaturalism must be false.
[...]
> More importantly, are you now going to maintain with a straight face that
> you *aren't* playing games?
No, I have to admit that one eyebrow is raised inordinately high at the
moment.
Steve
Steve B.
<mtv meets tbn>
G-d in the House. The Lord's House, that is.
</mtv meets tbn>
> > > All the terms are
> > > well-defined; it is just that in that sentence it makes no answerable
> > > question. Likewise in the Chomsky question - all the terms have
> > > extensions (some may even have *intensions* - forgive me Father, for
I
> > > have Sinned :-) but together they make no question despite the
> > > grammatical correctness.
> >
> > Where is this well-defined SCoT defined at?
>
> I believe in one of the creeds. You're not going to make me go looking
> are you?
I don't see how we talk about the knowability of God without a definition
of God. A sloppy one off the top of your head will do.
So you believe God is unknowable on the basis that all your attempts to
gain knowledge about Him (one way or the other) have failed.
I can see practical problems with negative groupings, but no reason why
they can't be used at all. There's lots of situations where negative groups
are usefull. For a simple example, imagine I want non-purple Skittles in a
bag (does anybody like the purple ones?). How do I ask for them (specify
them) without using a negative group? Why should I ask for all yellow,
green, red, and orange ones when I can simply ask for the non-purple ones?
Or were you just saying that calling a negative assignment a *property* was
the mistake? In other words, it's okay to ask for non-purple Skittles but
non-purple is not a property.
> >
> ....
> > > > And of course I think all you atheists, theists, and agnostics
really
> > > > agree. But that's another subject entirely. I think plain old
> > skepticism
> > > > is the only default rational position.
> > >
> > > Skepticism cuts across such substantive positions. One can be a
> > > skeptical, or a gullible, theist.
> >
> > I agree with that. In that sense, I can't imagine there being a
*default*
> > position on God. That's a strange idea to me. Given a set of facts,
then I
> > could imagine a *rational* position on God. I not sure I see where
there
> > should be default though.
> >
> Defaults are culturally and historically relative; like common sense,
> they are effectively what ideas obtained when you were a kid.
That sounds like another thread.
Steve
John Wilkins
Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being, separate to the rest of
existence. This is the SCoT.
>
<snip atestimony>
> So you believe God is unknowable on the basis that all your attempts to
> gain knowledge about Him (one way or the other) have failed.
No, I believe God is unknowable because there are no reasonable grounds
on which one could expect the SCoT God to be known. Of course, I might
not have encountered that knockdown argument (one was published last
year in the Midwest Studies in Philosophy, so the author asserts - a
form of Pascal's Wager - so far I am massively underimpressed, since he
does this by collapsing all possible Gods into a single bet). So
trivially it is true that I have assumed this on the basis of all "my"
attempts. But I think that, on inductive grounds, 2500 years of attempts
to know God failing is good reason to think that God cannot be known.
...
> > > Then how would you construct a class to describe all things without
> > > spines?
> >
> > I wouldn't. I would instead set up classes of things that share
> > characters, such as arthropods, annelids, molluscs, bryozoans,
> > echinoderms, hemichordates, nematodes, platyhelminths, cnidarians,
> > ctenophors and poripherans (I think that is all). Note that chordates,
> > and in particular vertebrates, fall phylogenetically in the middle of
> > that group in Animalia.
> >
> > Each of these is a positive group. "Invertebrate" is not, it is a group
> > that happens to be left when you remove on thing (and a small thing at
> > that in terms of the overall scheme of things).
>
> I can see practical problems with negative groupings, but no reason why
> they can't be used at all. There's lots of situations where negative groups
> are usefull. For a simple example, imagine I want non-purple Skittles in a
> bag (does anybody like the purple ones?). How do I ask for them (specify
> them) without using a negative group? Why should I ask for all yellow,
> green, red, and orange ones when I can simply ask for the non-purple ones?
>
> Or were you just saying that calling a negative assignment a *property* was
> the mistake? In other words, it's okay to ask for non-purple Skittles but
> non-purple is not a property.
It depends on the assignment. Here there is a very restricted and finite
set - Skittles, in a bag, moreover - and asking for all but the purple
ones is like enumerating all the Skittles you *do* want, only more
economically. Bad luck if you happen to have a bag of Skittles which
includes the new shit-flavoured ones, though :-)
But take "invertebrates". A blue-green algae species has no spine. Is it
an invertebrate? What about colonial moulds? Corals (Poripherans)? Where
do you draw that line to reduce the set to an enumerable one? Rocks have
no spines; are *they* invertebrates?
In science you want categories that are natural, by which we mean,
"allow you to make inductive inferences". If you characterise a taxon in
positive terms of what it *has* then you can infer that of any other
property P, if one member of the taxon has P, there is an inductive
likelihood that another meber of the taxon does. The classical example
in an enzyme found in cats, but not in primates - if you encounter
another member of the Felidae, then you can induce that it has that
enzyme (which might make it susceptible to a particular parasitical
infestation, for instance).
What inductive generalisations can be made about Invertebrata? Other
than "it is extremely likely they have no spines", that is? It is a
non-natural, and hence trashcan, categorical. Scientists avoid these if
they can, and not only in phylogenetics.
...
--
John Wilkins
B'dies, Brutius
catshark
<sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
>
>"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b1ofevkl1pho46vuf...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 11:43:58 +0000 (UTC), "Steve B."
>> <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:ef5aevctk32ufiler...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 18:05:47 +0000 (UTC), "Steve B."
>> >> <swb_rem...@ccp.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:e2q8evo5c27b1hkht...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 06:42:16 +0000 (UTC), "Steve B."
>> >> >> <swb_rem...@ccp.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:7oi7evkjd0fb3etmc...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 19:27:34 +0000 (UTC), "Steve B."
>> >> >> >> <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
[snip]
> Instead of asking *me* what god has to
>do
>> >> with the metaphysical, why don't you just state what your position is
>> >_vis
>> >> a vis_ metaphysics and god, instead of playing "Glenn" games?
>> >
>> >I don't have a position on god.
>>
>> Then how could you say that John's statement, that Agnosticism "is a
>strong
>> claim that we *cannot*, in principle, know something about the
>metaphysical
>> aspects of the world.", has, according to you, "nothing to do with
>*God*"?
>> How can you make that claim without taking a position on god _vis a vis_
>> metaphysics?
>
>It has nothing to do with God, in the sense that it says nothing about God.
>Unless of course you're working under an assumption like God is
>metaphysical.
I probably was taking it as it is commonly used, as in:
"In the 18c. the Greek word was falsely interpreted as 'beyond what is
physical', and metaphysics came to be widely used to mean 'the science of
things transcending what is physical or natural'."
http://www.xrefer.com/entry/595085
For someone who is presently arguing at length about word definitions in
another thread, it is surprising that you didn't raise any question about
my *usage* before now, just made an assertion.
Would you enlighten me on what definition you were using . . . just so I
can go back and see if it was the same one John was using.
>
>> >It's sort of like asking someone their
>> >position on lord or prince. The term can convey many things unless it's
>> >well-defined.
>> >
>> >As much as I love being compared to the trolls here, one by one, it
>would
>> >help if you were more specific when accusing me of improper behavior.
>>
>> It is my strong impression, for reasons that will become obvious, that
>you,
>> like Glenn (but possibly without his animus) are just playing linguistic
>> games, while avoiding stating your own position as much as possible,
>trying
>> to provoke people into extended discussions for the fun of twisting them
>up
>> in verbal knots.
>
>I don't see any point in discussing anything with you if you feel that way.
>I really don't understand how you can jump in on a thread, correct me based
>on a misunderstanding of what I was talking about, be corrected on the
>matter,
I'd really like to know where I was corrected. I am always open to the
possibility that I have misunderstood something, but I've not seen this
attempt at a "correction".
>*then* still turn around and claim I'm playing word games on the
>basis of your own failure to understand what's being talked about.
>
>I apologize for not being more clear if that's the problem. I can easily
>accept that science is not agnostic if agnosticism claims God is forever
>unknowable. Case closed, I was wrong. But now I'm inquiring of John how
>exactly agnosticism comes to it's position on the matter of God. We've
>changed course. I think your claim that I'm playing linguistic games is
>quite unfair.
Considering that I haven't said anything about science _per se_, only about
the basis of Agnosticism (capital "A"), I don't see the unfairness.
Especially since John already made the distinction between capital "A"
Agnosticism and small "a" agnosticism.
No, and here *I* was probably not clear. What I was saying is that the
*many* people who have responded to you over many threads have probably
assumed that that is what *you* are talking about. Among other things,
they might not bother addressing Odin, Zeus, Pan and other non-infinite
"gods" who, nonetheless, allegedly have the ability to operate ouside the
natural constraints of the material universe. As long as they are
supposedly able to do so, the same limit on human knowledge would apply.
There might also be an argument that non-infinite beings able to operate
*outside* the constraints of the universe are a logical impossibility but
that isn't essential to Agnosticism.
BTW, I would not consider a non-infinite being to be a god but I do not
think that opinion to be essential to Agnosticism.
>When I
>hear someone say they don't believe in (g)God, I assume they're talking
>about the most general connotations of the word. I assume they're saying
>they don't believe Zeus, Ra, Yahweh, or any of the mighty superhuman
>conceptions of (g)God.
And what do you mean by "superhuman"? Is that supposed to be equivalent to
divine?
The existence/nonexistence of an Odin, with the attribute of the ability to
operate outside the constraints of the material universe, is just as
"unknowable", for the same reasons, as the existence/nonexistence of an
infinite God (capital "G"), including that the candidate Odin might be
nothing more than a naturalistic space alien with advanced technology. How
would we ever be able to distinguish that from a real non-infinite god?
>
>But you're saying agnosticism speaks about the "Western Mature Theistic
>Version" of God. So apparently agnosticism says nothing about Zeus, Ra, or
>any other conception of God. They all might be knowable. Is that the
>correct understanding?
No, Agnosticism speaks to the inability of humans to "know" whether or not
god/God (for the common understanding of those words) exist or not.
John went over this. No matter what, there is no empiric way of
establishing it *is* god *you* are interacting with.
>What are observations of seas being parted, offerings spontaneously
>igniting, plauges, voices from heaven? Are they not natural observations?
>
>Is it *possible* to observe a supernatural event? Is not the observation of
>an event what makes it natural?
We went over Pagano's formulation (which this is, though formulated
slightly differently). If a supernatural event renders something that
appears to be natural, it would be indistinguishable from a natural event.
It would *be* a natural event only if it was caused by a natural event.
>
>Is it possible to *infer* a supernatural event? Is not anything that
>interacts with the universe natural through causation?
Only *if* you are positing that there is nothing that can operate outside
the constraints of the natural universe. Of course, if that is the case,
then why talk about gods at all? Is that all you are getting at, that
everything that everyone ever called "god" is just the result of nature
and/or that everything that everyone ever called natural is really divine?
You mean like "reject"?
>If you keep calling this a game, I'm not going to bother to
>reply.
<Shrug>
If I am reading the attributions right, he also said that of things we can
know, "we understand [them] *just *to* *the* *extent* that we know the laws
by which it is governed -- in other words, to the extent that it is
natural, and that we understand that nature." and "not only can one never
rule out all naturalistic explanations of something, one can never even
*list* them all."
Hiero5ant may not be an Agnostic but his understanding of the limits of
human knowledge appears fully consistent with the Agnostic understanding.
It is certainly unreasonable to construe his post as saying that supposed
*revelation* renders god natural.
>
>> More importantly, are you now going to maintain with a straight face that
>> you *aren't* playing games?
>
>No, I have to admit that one eyebrow is raised inordinately high at the
>moment.
Yes. No doubt joining the other one, plastered there from the begining.
Steve B.
> Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
>
> > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > news:1fweu5j.a67gjt1nmtqpkN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
> > > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> > > > news:1fwbs3g.1w86vfp64skmhN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> > > > > Steve B. <swb_rem...@ccp.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "John Wilkins" <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1fw8wsl.6bh1xa9fkonaN%john.w...@bigpond.com...
[snip rapper jokes]
> > > > > All the terms are
> > > > > well-defined; it is just that in that sentence it makes no
answerable
> > > > > question. Likewise in the Chomsky question - all the terms have
> > > > > extensions (some may even have *intensions* - forgive me Father,
for
> > I
> > > > > have Sinned :-) but together they make no question despite the
> > > > > grammatical correctness.
> > > >
> > > > Where is this well-defined SCoT defined at?
> > >
> > > I believe in one of the creeds. You're not going to make me go
looking
> > > are you?
> >
> > I don't see how we talk about the knowability of God without a
definition
> > of God. A sloppy one off the top of your head will do.
>
> Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being, separate to the rest of
> existence. This is the SCoT.
So He doesn't interact with us in a Hebrew Scriptures sort of way? Or is He
separate in another sense?
> >
> <snip atestimony>
> > So you believe God is unknowable on the basis that all your attempts to
> > gain knowledge about Him (one way or the other) have failed.
>
> No, I believe God is unknowable because there are no reasonable grounds
> on which one could expect the SCoT God to be known. Of course, I might
> not have encountered that knockdown argument (one was published last
> year in the Midwest Studies in Philosophy, so the author asserts - a
> form of Pascal's Wager - so far I am massively underimpressed, since he
> does this by collapsing all possible Gods into a single bet). So
> trivially it is true that I have assumed this on the basis of all "my"
> attempts. But I think that, on inductive grounds, 2500 years of attempts
> to know God failing is good reason to think that God cannot be known.
Wouldn't a more rational position be that we know nothing about God? What's
that called?
--
Steve
The road to the inner soul is much too muddy for my foreign car.
Michael Siemon
"Steve B." <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
> "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1fwhkj7.t99zdx1p6yos8N%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
....
> > > I don't see how we talk about the knowability of God without a
> > > definition of God. A sloppy one off the top of your head will do.
> >
> > Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being, separate to the rest of
> > existence. This is the SCoT.
>
> So He doesn't interact with us in a Hebrew Scriptures sort of way? Or
> is He separate in another sense?
??? In the "usual" discourse, YHWH is attributed with the omni-terms
John mentions. That may, in some theological sense, be a mistake --
but you'll get a whole hell of a lot of Judaeo-Christians (offensive
group term used with malice aforethought :-)) angry at you if you say
so. John _is_ excluding various "en"theistic or "pan"theistic deity
concepts that might have a kind of emergence from nature description.
Whatever idea of God Ezra or Ezekel (or Gamaliel) might have had, which
I doubt you know any better than I do [i.e., not significantly], it does
not enter into current controversy without the baggage John has correctly
adduced.
> > <snip atestimony>
> > > So you believe God is unknowable on the basis that all your attempts to
> > > gain knowledge about Him (one way or the other) have failed.
> >
> > No, I believe God is unknowable because there are no reasonable grounds
> > on which one could expect the SCoT God to be known. Of course, I might
> > not have encountered that knockdown argument (one was published last
> > year in the Midwest Studies in Philosophy, so the author asserts - a
> > form of Pascal's Wager - so far I am massively underimpressed, since he
> > does this by collapsing all possible Gods into a single bet). So
> > trivially it is true that I have assumed this on the basis of all "my"
> > attempts. But I think that, on inductive grounds, 2500 years of attempts
> > to know God failing is good reason to think that God cannot be known.
>
> Wouldn't a more rational position be that we know nothing about God? What's
> that called?
Agnosticism. That _is_ John's position. With the pointed additional
note that many thousands of years of _attempting_ to know something
have yielded exactly zilch, so that claims that there _is_ a "There"
there have long since passed the limits of a _very_ patient hearer.
We know nothing about God. I know nothing about God. John knows
nothing about God. _You_ know nothing about God. OK. That's the
current state of knowledge. It seems to me you are trying to allow
this without accepting that it has consequences, as if you can slip
God in via an ironic smile, nodding at the observation that all
attempts to make God an object of "knowledge" have blatantly failed.
Let me pause here to note (what may not be clear from the above) that
I am a Christian -- a believer in YHWH, and in the metaphysical bilge-
water that the One God is a "Household" of three "Persons", and that
the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God DIED in the Person of
His Son, to the scandal of every post-Parmenidean Greek (and later)
philosopher. But the relationship of this belief (or better, "faith")
to knowledge is rather odd.
What I "know" as a Christian is the _witness_ of other Christians,
plus the more remote witness of Jews ancient and modern and other
quasi-YHWH-ist believers (including Muslims, I should note.) Plus
the institutional, literary and other cultural deposit that attends
this witness -- in my case, the musical witness is worth about 1000
times any verbal crap[*] that's been all-too-obsessively written
over the last 2000 years in the name of Christ. Josquin desPres' 4-
part _Ave Maria_ is a better "argument" for Christian belief than
the entire corpus of Thomas Aquinas (and takes a hell of a lot less
time to appreciate...).
---
[*] exception made for some poetry, notably that of George Herbert.
This "witness" -- including the texts of the Bible, and various
early Christian writings not counted as canonical "scripture" --
makes various "claims" about the constitution of the world which
are not in any simple (certainly, not in any "objective") way
testable, but which together form a pattern that _I_ find "works"
as a way to make sense of my experience, especially my experience
of my flawed humanity, and the redemption of love -- partial and
also flawed in direct human interaction, but always open to the
claims of an absolute redemption in divine Love that constitute
for me the "theme" of all this witness -- in short, the Gospel.
Confusing this with "knowledge" leads to all sorts of horrors --
e.g. the Southern Baptist Convention, or the 16th century Vatican.
The "witness" I find compelling includes such things as "prophetic"
witness by Isaiah that God rebukes those who claim to "know" Him --
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts
nor your ways my ways, says the LORD."
Those who, on Earth, bandy their "knowledge" of God are, in
my opinion, betraying Him. Witnessing to what God _means_ to
you is one thing. Claiming that this is "fact" or "knowledge"
is offensive to the Most High, the God of Truth.
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1fwhkj7.t99zdx1p6yos8N%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> > Steve B. <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
...
> > > I don't see how we talk about the knowability of God without a
> > > definition of God. A sloppy one off the top of your head will do.
> >
> > Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being, separate to the rest of
> > existence. This is the SCoT.
>
> So He doesn't interact with us in a Hebrew Scriptures sort of way? Or is
> He separate in another sense?
Michael Siemons answered this well enough. Let me just add that _I_
don't formulate these options; they are provided to us culturally. This
is what Agnosticism was formulated to deal with.
>
> > >
> > <snip atestimony>
> > > So you believe God is unknowable on the basis that all your attempts
> > > to gain knowledge about Him (one way or the other) have failed.
> >
> > No, I believe God is unknowable because there are no reasonable grounds
> > on which one could expect the SCoT God to be known. Of course, I might
> > not have encountered that knockdown argument (one was published last
> > year in the Midwest Studies in Philosophy, so the author asserts - a
> > form of Pascal's Wager - so far I am massively underimpressed, since he
> > does this by collapsing all possible Gods into a single bet). So
> > trivially it is true that I have assumed this on the basis of all "my"
> > attempts. But I think that, on inductive grounds, 2500 years of attempts
> > to know God failing is good reason to think that God cannot be known.
>
> Wouldn't a more rational position be that we know nothing about God?
> What's that called?
Ignorance of God. And it is not *more* rational, just a rational
statement based on our lack of knowledge. My argument is an inductive
one.
John Wilkins
Michael, I thank you sincerely from the bottom of this unbeliever's
heart for that lyrical defence. My only correction is that Mozart and
Bach are perhaps the best argument for the existence of God, especially
the latter's Cantata BVW 147
<http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/147.html>.
Matt Silberstein
<mlsi...@sonic.net>:
I would nominate this for POTM, but it is POTM for a different
newsgroup. Thanks Michael.
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
We are not here to judge other people,
we are just here to be better than they are.
Michael Siemon
wil...@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins) wrote:
....
> Michael, I thank you sincerely from the bottom of this unbeliever's
> heart for that lyrical defence. My only correction is that Mozart and
> Bach are perhaps the best argument for the existence of God, especially
> the latter's Cantata BVW 147
> <http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/147.html>.
Well, Josquin has the virtue (which I certainly do not, nor does
Bach, or even Mozart) of brevity...
John Wilkins
Steve B.
In my opinion, your picture of Agnosticism is somewhat misleading and
confusing. But views of God have rich histories and I assume that's why
it's not entirely clear to me. At the very least, I certainly agree that
it's not science.
Steve
Steve B.
"Michael Siemon" <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:mlsiemon-02C534...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> In article <tZaGa.92$%C6.6...@news.uswest.net>,
> "Steve B." <sburke_r...@heartland.net> wrote:
>
> > "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:1fwhkj7.t99zdx1p6yos8N%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> ....
>
> > > > I don't see how we talk about the knowability of God without a
> > > > definition of God. A sloppy one off the top of your head will do.
> > >
> > > Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being, separate to the rest of
> > > existence. This is the SCoT.
> >
> > So He doesn't interact with us in a Hebrew Scriptures sort of way? Or
> > is He separate in another sense?
>
> ??? In the "usual" discourse, YHWH is attributed with the omni-terms
> John mentions. That may, in some theological sense, be a mistake --
> but you'll get a whole hell of a lot of Judaeo-Christians (offensive
> group term used with malice aforethought :-)) angry at you if you say
> so. John _is_ excluding various "en"theistic or "pan"theistic deity
> concepts that might have a kind of emergence from nature description.
>
> Whatever idea of God Ezra or Ezekel (or Gamaliel) might have had, which
> I doubt you know any better than I do [i.e., not significantly], it does
> not enter into current controversy without the baggage John has correctly
> adduced.
So He can function separately from our existence, but is not separated from
it.
But Agnosticism goes farther and says we'll never know (the SCoT) God.
That's seems to me to be an irrational and needless addition what I stated
above.
First off, I can't see how you can claim that in principle no one *can*
have knowledge of God. This only makes sense a philosophical construal
like, you can never know if Earth "reeeealy" exists. I see no barrier to
learning about God that doesn't exist for anything else we claim to have
knowledge about. I would simply state that, given my current experiences I
don't believe there is any reason to believe we have knowledge about God or
that such knowledge will become available.
Second, how can you worship something that you have no knowledge about? If
you have no knowledge about it, what are you worshiping? How is worshiping
this thing functionally different than worshiping anything else we have no
knowledge about? Would not the Invisible Pink Unicorn suffice equally as
well?
Third, I don't get too many opportunities to talk to Christians like
yourself. If you don't mind the question, I'm curious about how your
theology deals with people like me who seek God but can't find Him. Is this
all part of God's Plan in your worldview?
I apologize if the questions sound insincere. I couldn't find any more
tactful ways to word them without dancing for several paragraphs. Thanks.