Atheist headcount
Glenn
Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
Bobby D. Bryant
> Who concludes there is no God?
>
> Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
What's a philosophical naturalist?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
David Jensen
<1lElb.704$G_1....@news.uswest.net>:
>Who concludes there is no God?
Those who see no reason not to reject all gods instead of all but one.
>Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
I assume you are doing this because your other word games were going
badly for you.
AC
I don't "conclude" there is no god. I simply take the negative position and
await the evidence that there is one.
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
And I fully expect that this is another attempt to play word games. Glenn
doesn't seem to want to do anything else. I can usually only tolerate
debate with him for brief periods, because it ends up being some twisted
version of Python's Argument Room, and though that skit is funny, there's
nothing particularly funny about helping Glenn perform his verbal
acrobatics.
--
Aaron Clausen
John Harshman
Glenn wrote:
> Who concludes there is no God?
>
> Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
Given the subject matter of this newsgroup, shouldn't you be asking who
concludes that all life is related through common descent, or that
natural selection is capable of producing the adaptive differences we
observe among species, or some such? To whit, shouldn't you be taking an
evolutionist headcount if you want to be symmetrical?
If you want to eliminate theistic evolution from consideration, why not
ask one of these questions with the added question of who believes it
highly unlikely that any god has directly intervened in any of these
processes?
But since you ask, and in the unlikely event that you are really
interested in having your questions answered, I think that it's very
unlikely that there exists any entity anything like any description of
god I've ever heard. I'm not clear enough on what a philosophical
naturalist is to answer the second question.
Glenn
"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.10.22....@mail.utexas.edu...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:14:29 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>
> > Who concludes there is no God?
> >
> > Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
>
> What's a philosophical naturalist?
>
Lane Lewis
"Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
news:1lElb.704$G_1....@news.uswest.net...
> Who concludes there is no God?
>
> Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
>
Who concludes there are atheist?
Lane
Glenn
"AC" <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbpe5mq...@clausen.alberni.net...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:28:16 +0000 (UTC),
> David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
> > In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in
> ><1lElb.704$G_1....@news.uswest.net>:
> >>Who concludes there is no God?
> >
> > Those who see no reason not to reject all gods instead of all but one.
To the subject of atheist headcount. No wonder you think games are
played.
> >
> >>Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
> >
> > I assume you are doing this because your other word games were going
> > badly for you.
>
> And I fully expect that this is another attempt to play word games.
Nice answers!
>Glenn
> doesn't seem to want to do anything else. I can usually only tolerate
> debate with him for brief periods, because it ends up being some twisted
> version of Python's Argument Room, and though that skit is funny, there's
> nothing particularly funny about helping Glenn perform his verbal
> acrobatics.
>
AC, here's your answer from a previous post:
"I don't "conclude" there is no god. I simply take the negative position and
await the evidence that there is one."
So your position is that there is not, but you do not conclude this.
Talk about silly games and verbal acrobatics!
Geoff Offermann
Ooooh ooooh, me me!
AC
Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
> "AC" <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnbpe5mq...@clausen.alberni.net...
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:28:16 +0000 (UTC),
>> David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>> > In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in
>> ><1lElb.704$G_1....@news.uswest.net>:
>> >>Who concludes there is no God?
>> >
>> > Those who see no reason not to reject all gods instead of all but one.
>
> To the subject of atheist headcount. No wonder you think games are
> played.
I personally have no faith at all that you are exhibiting curiousity for
curiousity's sake. I have little doubt you hope to belittle the atheists on
this group, play a week's worth of word games, and then back out and find
another thread to start it all over.
>> >
>> >>Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
>> >
>> > I assume you are doing this because your other word games were going
>> > badly for you.
>>
>> And I fully expect that this is another attempt to play word games.
>
> Nice answers!
A simple observation which appears, from your response below, to be
accurate.
>
>>Glenn
>> doesn't seem to want to do anything else. I can usually only tolerate
>> debate with him for brief periods, because it ends up being some twisted
>> version of Python's Argument Room, and though that skit is funny, there's
>> nothing particularly funny about helping Glenn perform his verbal
>> acrobatics.
>>
> AC, here's your answer from a previous post:
>
> "I don't "conclude" there is no god. I simply take the negative position and
> await the evidence that there is one."
>
> So your position is that there is not, but you do not conclude this.
> Talk about silly games and verbal acrobatics!
I'm not playing your games, Glenn. I find most of your posts inherently
dishonest. I have stated my opinion on this matter a number of times, and I
stated it again. I make no conclusion on the existence of any deity. Like
Invisible Pink Unicorns, my position is by default in the negative, awaiting
evidence to back up the claim. The claim that God exists (or virtually any
god for that matter) is an extraordinary one (in my opinion), and thus
requires extraordinary evidence. I don't conclude that there is no god,
because that would indicate that I went through some sort of logical process
to arrive at this position.
I'm not asking you to agree with it, but I would hope that you would be
among that group of Creationists who could at least comprehend it. It
appears, instead, that you aren't at all interested in understanding another
point of view. This is just another Glenn Sheldon game for his own
amusement, and I won't take part in it if this is the way you're going to be
(again). I find you a most obnoxious individual.
--
Aaron Clausen
John Wilkins
Contrasts with "methodological naturalism" - the notion that natural
causes are all we can know about. AKA Science.
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
Bobby D. Bryant
What's 'natural', and what else should we be considering?
Bobby D. Bryant
> "AC" <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnbpe5mq...@clausen.alberni.net...
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:28:16 +0000 (UTC),
>> David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>> > In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in
>> ><1lElb.704$G_1....@news.uswest.net>:
>> >>Who concludes there is no God?
>> >
>> > Those who see no reason not to reject all gods instead of all but one.
>
> To the subject of atheist headcount.
If you actually want to know, use google and find the extensive replies
to the survey of a year or so ago.
Hiero5ant
> Who concludes there is no God?
>
> Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
Me.
(wait, lemme see if my paycheck from the EAC(TINEAC) has cleared
yet.....)
Yep, me.
Daniel T.
Dave
> Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
>> "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2003.10.22....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:14:29 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>> >
>> > > Who concludes there is no God?
>> > >
>> > > Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
>> >
>> > What's a philosophical naturalist?
>> >
>> Basically, natural causes are all there is.
>
> Contrasts with "methodological naturalism" - the notion that natural
> causes are all we can know about. AKA Science.
Are you asserting that science is only consistent with the belief that
"natural causes are all that we can know about"?
--
Simplicity gives rise to irreducible complexity.
Pastor Salt
--
Steve
The are no stupid questions.... but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
Martin Crisp
(in message
<postmaster-1F3FB...@news03.west.earthlink.net>):
> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
>> Who concludes there is no God?
>
> What is God?
>
And how can any definition given be verified to refer to an actual
thing that matches that definition?
<illustration>
God = "small balls of green play-doh(tm)"
=> God exists.
=> atheists convert to theism by the thousands (fairly meaningless
theism, but theism 'by definition')
God = "small balls of green play-doh(tm) that created the universe,
and will reward humans eternally if they do as God commands"
=> evidence for the bits after (tm)?
</illustration>
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #1792
Almost always SMASHed
Dale
news:1g3a2r7.1wgo93tm5j2tjN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
> > "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.10.22....@mail.utexas.edu...
> > > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:14:29 +0000, Glenn wrote:
> > >
> > > > Who concludes there is no God?
> > > >
> > > > Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
> > >
> > > What's a philosophical naturalist?
> > >
> > Basically, natural causes are all there is.
>
> Contrasts with "methodological naturalism" - the notion that natural
> causes are all we can know about. AKA Science.
Wait, isn't that the same thing? Natural causes are all we can know about,
therefore anything we know about must have a natural cause. If something is
unknown to us, it might not be natural, but as soon as we know about it, it
must be natural, because natural causes are all we can know about, so there
can only be natural causes, because if we don't know about them they might
as well not exist. Or am I running rings around myself logically?
Dale
>
> Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
I used to believe in God, but little by little I came to understand the
pointlessness of the existence of God, or rather the pointlessness of
purposefulness. That's what God really is to many believers, something to
lend a sense of purpose to their lives. But of course the whole notion of
purpose is one of those "it's turtles all the way down" things, which to me
means that there really can be no purpose.
I still have trouble saying I'm an atheist, though, because I do believe in
a metaphysical notion of Godness in the universe. According to your
definition of philosophical naturalism, I would say that yes, natural causes
are all that there is, but then I would not say that it's "just" natural
causes. The natural world as it is, is a transcendental reality.
John Wilkins
No, you are making a logical error.
I assert
K -> N [Knowability implies natural cause]
but you are concluding also
N -> K [Natural cause implies knowability]
to get
N <-> K.
But there can be naturally caused things about which we do not know nor
can (like the famous retort of Mommsen's that the origins of the
Etruscans "are neither capable of being known nor worth the knowing").
All *I* am saying is, that if it can be known, then it is a naturally
caused thing; and it follows that of the set of not-naturally-caused
things, we can know nothing.
John Wilkins
No. I am asserting that science, the methodology, *is* the claim that we
can only know about natural causes. We simply do not *know* about
anything else - we believe or have faith, or wish it to be, or whatever,
but it isn't knowledge.
dkomo
>
> Who concludes there is no God?
>
> Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
Who is there that asks these assinine questions?
To conclude that there is no God merely observe and listen to those
who believe in Him.
us...@example.com
us...@example.com
Please define natural. And if you define it as the opposite of
supernatural, please define supernatural.
gir...@idioteinstein.com
> No. I am asserting that science, the methodology, *is* the claim that we
> can only know about natural causes. We simply do not *know* about
> anything else - we believe or have faith, or wish it to be, or whatever,
> but it isn't knowledge.
Ah, but the methodology of science doesn't seem adequately address a lot of things I "know" about. What experiment reveals the internal state of my mind at 2:38pm this afternoon and the effect of the sunlight, combined with a few subtle noises, on my thoughts? What experiment can transfer what I "know" internally to another human being?
G.
John Wilkins
I thought this might be a response. I would say that just to the extent
that you know something, it is amenable to scientific investigation. I
would, in fact, say that you do not really know your own mind (but you
experience it, and have impressions). In fact, much of what we think we
know about ourselves is a kind of post hoc rationalisation - we
construct our stream of consciousness after the fact, as it were.
I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say "I know I am in pain" - in
the end this all boils down to "I hurt". "Know" adds nothing here, as it
were.
And so far as transferring what you think and feel to another person -
how, exactly, might you do that under *any* account?
gir...@idioteinstein.com
> <gir...@idioteinstein.com> wrote:
> > Ah, but the methodology of science doesn't seem adequately address a lot
> > of things I "know" about. What experiment reveals the internal state of my
> > mind at 2:38pm this afternoon and the effect of the sunlight, combined
> > with a few subtle noises, on my thoughts? What experiment can transfer
> > what I "know" internally to another human being?
> >
>
> I thought this might be a response. I would say that just to the extent
> that you know something, it is amenable to scientific investigation. I
> would, in fact, say that you do not really know your own mind (but you
> experience it, and have impressions). In fact, much of what we think we
> know about ourselves is a kind of post hoc rationalisation - we
> construct our stream of consciousness after the fact, as it were.
But doesn't this post hoc rationalization come first? In other words, it is an experience we have before we learn about science. Since science comes from the human mind, isn't it also based on the post hoc rationalization that is the human mind?
> I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say "I know I am in pain" - in
> the end this all boils down to "I hurt". "Know" adds nothing here, as it
> were.
Hmm, perhaps we are using different releases of the English language. If we can't know we are in pain (learned much earlier than natural laws), it seems hard to believe that we could know there is gravity.
> And so far as transferring what you think and feel to another person -
> how, exactly, might you do that under *any* account?
Write a song or a book. Paint a picture.
G.
Bobby D. Bryant
I think he has already decided that the better part of valor lies in
starting a new thread...
Arne Vogel
There are some good reasons for me to assume the negative unless shown
otherwise:
- There is an infinite number of mutually exclusive possibilities of
supernatural beings and effects. The vast majority of them must be
false. A negative default will thus have a much higher probability for
guessing right than a positive one. Even though it is possible to win
the lottery (if I actually played), it is much more reasonable for me to
assume I won't hit the jackpot.
- An infinite number of beliefs is too much for my limited mortal
intellect. I would have to believe things I cannot even memorize.
- Since so many possibilities are mutually exclusive, I would be stuck
with an irreconcilably self-contradictory world view. It makes more
sense to use a smaller set of beliefs which is founded in real-life
observations and self-consistent. Kind of like the history of
mathematics: Start from scratch and gradually expand your knowledge with
steps that preserve consistency. (I'm oversimplifying here, but you
should get the idea...)
Because no mathematical method of defining such a set of possibilities,
or determining a probability can be proposed, I'm guilty of sophistry.
But hey, we're talking about theology, so I guess that's okay.
--
I'm ahead, the man
I'm the first mammal to wear pants
(Pearl Jam)
Glenn
> <gir...@idioteinstein.com> wrote:
>
> > Wilkins:
> > > No. I am asserting that science, the methodology, *is* the claim that we
> > > can only know about natural causes. We simply do not *know* about
> > > anything else - we believe or have faith, or wish it to be, or whatever,
> > > but it isn't knowledge.
> >
> > Ah, but the methodology of science doesn't seem adequately address a lot
> > of things I "know" about. What experiment reveals the internal state of my
> > mind at 2:38pm this afternoon and the effect of the sunlight, combined
> > with a few subtle noises, on my thoughts? What experiment can transfer
> > what I "know" internally to another human being?
> >
>
> I thought this might be a response. I would say that just to the extent
> that you know something, it is amenable to scientific investigation. I
> would, in fact, say that you do not really know your own mind (but you
> experience it, and have impressions). In fact, much of what we think we
> know about ourselves is a kind of post hoc rationalisation - we
> construct our stream of consciousness after the fact, as it were.
This would mean no free will, I suppose.
>
> I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say "I know I am in pain" - in
> the end this all boils down to "I hurt". "Know" adds nothing here, as it
> were.
It only adds the element of recognition of the human ability to reason.
If you think reason adds nothing, then science goes: poof.
>
> And so far as transferring what you think and feel to another person -
> how, exactly, might you do that under *any* account?
>
http://www.interx.net/~mbrumley/problemsnaturalism.htm
"The trouble with philosophical naturalism is that it in effect reduces
all human thinking to the condition of the drunken man who
claims to see a pink elephant."
"Unless we want to obliterate freedom altogether and hold that there is no
such thing as evil or good, then we must hold that at least some of our
decisions cannot be completely explained in terms of
scientific principles of the natural order."
Glenn
"tre...@sirius.com.no.more" <us...@example.com> wrote in message
news:sgrepvcde82qkteml...@news.supernews.com...
think naturalism is, then answer the question.
This may help
http://www.naturalism.org/
Bobby D. Bryant
For me, anything that can be a cause of something is "natural" (e.g., even
invisible pink unicorns are "natural" if they exist and can have an effect
on things).
From that, "natural causes are all there is" follows trivially (modulo the
other ambiguous interpretation of the English sentence).
I think you didn't really want to give us a free hand at defining
'natural'.
Bobby D. Bryant
> "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1g3ajwm.20im7g12teuj0N%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
>> <gir...@idioteinstein.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Wilkins:
>> > > No. I am asserting that science, the methodology, *is* the claim
>> > > that we can only know about natural causes. We simply do not *know*
>> > > about anything else - we believe or have faith, or wish it to be,
>> > > or whatever, but it isn't knowledge.
>> >
>> > Ah, but the methodology of science doesn't seem adequately address a
>> > lot of things I "know" about. What experiment reveals the internal
>> > state of my mind at 2:38pm this afternoon and the effect of the
>> > sunlight, combined with a few subtle noises, on my thoughts? What
>> > experiment can transfer what I "know" internally to another human
>> > being?
>> >
>> >
>> I thought this might be a response. I would say that just to the extent
>> that you know something, it is amenable to scientific investigation. I
>> would, in fact, say that you do not really know your own mind (but you
>> experience it, and have impressions). In fact, much of what we think we
>> know about ourselves is a kind of post hoc rationalisation - we
>> construct our stream of consciousness after the fact, as it were.
>
> This would mean no free will, I suppose.
Well, there's no reason to take the existence of free will as an axiom, so
let the cards fall where they may on that.
>> I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say "I know I am in pain" - in
>> the end this all boils down to "I hurt". "Know" adds nothing here, as
>> it were.
>
> It only adds the element of recognition of the human ability to reason.
> If you think reason adds nothing, then science goes: poof.
>
>
>> And so far as transferring what you think and feel to another person -
>> how, exactly, might you do that under *any* account?
>>
> http://www.interx.net/~mbrumley/problemsnaturalism.htm "The trouble with
> philosophical naturalism is that it in effect reduces all human thinking
> to the condition of the drunken man who claims to see a pink elephant."
Whereas you and that writer would like to give credit to the _sober_ man
who claims to see a pink elephant...
> "Unless we want to obliterate freedom altogether and hold that there is
> no such thing as evil or good, then we must hold that at least some of
> our decisions cannot be completely explained in terms of scientific
> principles of the natural order."
What has good and evil got to do with it? Those are value judgements on
the decisions we _do_ make, not elements of an explanation of the
mechanism.
Martin Crisp
(in message <pan.2003.10.23....@mail.utexas.edu>):
[snip to make room for some (other) silliness]
> For me, anything that can be a cause of something is "natural"
> (e.g., even invisible pink unicorns are "natural" if they exist
> and can have an effect on things).
The gray unicorn kicks!
The gray unicorn kicks!
The gray unicorn misses.
z
Zap what [r *?] ?
r - an uncursed iridium wand
Zap what [r *?] r
In what direction? 6
The gray unicorn becomes transparent!
The invisible gray unicorn misses.
The invisible gray unicorn kicks!
The invisible gray unicorn bites!
You die.
Have Fun
Martin,killed by an invisible gray unicorn
Roy
Bobby D. Bryant wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:14:29 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>
>
>>Who concludes there is no God?
>>
>>Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
>
>
> What's a philosophical naturalist?
More importantly, what's God?
--
Roy
Dean Chesterman
Glenn wrote:
> Who concludes there is no God?
>
> Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
>
The answer is 42
C. Thompson
And if people do that, what purpose does your question serve? How does that
give you any information?
Or is this just another annoying troll?
<slaps head....DUH!!>
Chris
Bobby D. Bryant
In fairness, you should let him define 'troll' when he answers...
David Wise
>
> Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
The gods were created by humans. This includes all human ideas about
"God". Since I do not believe in human infallibility, I cannot
believe in human ideas about "God".
Is there something greater than ourselves? Most definitely; there are
many things greater than ourselves.
Is there something Supremely Greater? Possibly, though we have no
evidence of it.
Wouldn't that be "God"? If it were to exist, then it possibly could
be. But I find that likelihood extremely improbable, to the point of
being virtually impossible. Now, a Supremely Greater Something might
warrant being called something like "God", but that would not make it
YOUR idea of "God". The "God" of which you speak is an idea created
by fallible humans and to which these fallible humans gave some fairly
detailed properties and attached a very detailed history. How could
those fallible humans have possibly not gotten it wrong?
As I said, I do not believe in human infallibility, therefore I cannot
believe in the gods created by humans, which includes your ideas of
"God".
Elf M. Sternberg
> Who concludes there is no God?
> Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
I count myself as a philosphical naturalist.
Elf
us...@example.com
You want to know who's a philosophical naturalist. I may be one, but I
won't know until you tell me define the term without resorting to other
undefined terms.
Andy Groves
>
> Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
Rather than start new topics, Glenn, why don't you deal with your
unfinished business?
For example:
"Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message news:<UB3lb.964$BF1.1...@news.uswest.net>...
> "Andy Groves" <gro...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:991ea4ae.03102...@posting.google.com...
> > "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
> news:<i9Xkb.125$bc4....@news.uswest.net>...
> snip
> > > > > They want to make an issue of it because having failed to
> > > >> win the argument on the basis of the evidence and failed to win
> > > > > the argument on the basis of the law, they resort to the lawyer's third
> > > > >line of defence - take your shoe off and bang it on the table.
> > > > > Comments?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not encouraged to find that you apparently think that
> > > > > > > matters of science are to be judged in court,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I didn't say that, Glenn.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Didn't say you did. I say "to find" and "apparently".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > Interesting. How did you "find" that I "apparently thik" something?
> > > > Did you use telepathy?
> > > > > No, it was an assumption. You brought it up.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > I brought what up, Glenn? Can you please try and express yourself
> > > > > clearly?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "I'm not encouraged to find that you apparently think that matters
> > > > > > > of science are to be judged in court,"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You said that, Glenn, not me.
> > > > >
> > > > > I didn't say you did. I said I *found* that you *apparently* think it
> > > > > matters.
> > > >
> > > > Think what matters?
> > > > snip
> > > you said the "failed to win" on the basis of *evidence*
> > > and they "failed to win" on the basis of *the law*.
> > >
> > > Your own words, not mine. If you do not accept
> > > "evidence" and "law", spit it out. Otherwise, I will
> > > assume that you respect and do not reject evidence and law.
> > >
> > > And apparently you do think "it" matters, you said they
> > > failed.
> >
> snip non response
My "non-response" is re-inserted for Glenn to comment on. I'm not
going to let him get away with things that easily:
Creationists have failed to win the scinetific argument of evolution
versus creation on the basis of the evidence. The extent of their
failure can be guesstimated by browsing through the websites of the
top universities in the world - universities we would all be as
pleased as punch if our children attended - and seeing how many of
theri Biology departments teach and research evolution, and how many
give introductory courses on pre-Flood biology, the Fall of Man and
how to recognize created "kinds". There are other ways of
guesstimating the degree of their failure; this one will do for the
sake of the discussion.
Creationists have also failed to win on the basis of the law. For
example, see how well "creation science" fared in the 1981 McLean vs
Arkansas Board of Education:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mclean-v-arkansas.html
http://www.antievolution.org/projects/mclean/new_site/index.htm
http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/robert_l_hall/ISB1F01/ScienceInCreationScience.html
Having failed to win their arguments in both cases, creation
"scientists" have little choice but to keep repeating their
discredited ideas with their fingers in their ears, pausing only to
occasionally yell "I can't hear you!!!!", with the occasional aside to
moan about how their ideas are being prevented from being accepted by
the scientific community because of anti-religious bias. The fact that
scientists regularly get their papers and grants rejected by their
peers seems to escape them.
Here's a challenge for you, Glenn. Find an article online by a
creationist. Post a link to it here. Then summarize the main points of
the paper. Tell us if you think the data has been collected in an
appropriate way, and whether you agree with their interpretation of
the data. Pay particular attention to whether alternative
interpretations of the data have more evidence for them than the
interpretations they offer. Then we will critique the paper, and your
discussion of it.
Andy
P.S. I was speaking figuratively about the fingers in the ears bit,
although sometimes I wonder, I really do......
Huck Turner
> Who concludes there is no God?
>
> Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
I'm not scared! Yes, I conclude there is no god!
Why? Because it doesn't explain anything. It raises more questions
than it answers. I've never seen any evidence of a god. I can't see
any reason to believe in one religion any more than any other. Much of
what religions teach makes no sense to me. Why would a god make it
look as though it didn't exist? In short, it just seems too darn
far-fetched!
There is a different question that I think is more revealing and that
is "Who would LIKE it to be true that God exists?". My experience is
that the people who believe in a god, want there to be a god on a very
emotional level. They would be upset if they found out that there was
no higher power. All this debating and quote-mining is just a
post-rationalisation of that gut feeling (or 'faith'). This is
probably why so many posters to this newsgroup are impervious to
reason. Many of them appear to be afraid that "no god" means "no
purpose", "no morals", "no specialness", but this is not true. Of
course, the truth might just be unpleasant (and I think it shows great
strength of character to accept this), but actually it isn't that bad
being an atheist:
SPECIALNESS:
I personally look at living things with great awe. I am the product of
billions of years of evolution! Every single one of my ancestors had
offspring which means I come from a long line of winners! I feel
special in a way that I guess is similar to the feeling of specialness
that religious people experience when they believe that they are the
centre of creation. "No god" only means "no specialness" if you've
grown up defining your self-worth in those limited terms.
MORALITY:
Behaviours like killing, adultery, stealing, revenge and so on all
have negative consequences in a society and rational people can see
this whether they are religious or not. That and the fact that humans
are innately predisposed to empathise with each other (we suffer when
we see others suffering) makes these kinds of things emotionally
undesirable regardless of what you believe. Likewise, it is normal for
empathy to drive us to help the helpless, not because we feel an
arbitrary moral obligation, but because we can imagine their pain. In
short, I don't think "no god" means our society would fall apart
unless obstacles to empathy are allowed to flourish (racism,
nationalism, sexism, homophobia, and anything that allows us to
dehumanise the 'other' including just having a plain lack of
imagination).
PURPOSE:
"No god" means no divine purpose, so what other kinds of purpose are
there? Well, we're innately wired to enjoy certain things like good
food, companionship, intimacy and so forth. They seem like pretty good
goals to me.
So what am I saying? I'm just saying that atheism isn't as depressing
or dangerous as some good-intentioned theists fear. Thanks for the
thought, but we're okay. We don't need saving.
H.
---
Like-minds don't notice shared mistakes. Talk to someone else.
Earle Jones
dwi...@aol.com (David Wise) wrote:
> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in message
> news:<1lElb.704$G_1....@news.uswest.net>...
> > Who concludes there is no God?
> >
> > Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
>
> The gods were created by humans. This includes all human ideas about
> "God". Since I do not believe in human infallibility, I cannot
> believe in human ideas about "God".
>
> Is there something greater than ourselves? Most definitely; there are
> many things greater than ourselves.
*
What does "greater" mean?
Is a sea otter greater than a pine tree?
I am a philosophical naturalist (I think).
Also I conclude that there is no God.
earle
*
"If the sum of credible evidence we have is that the universe lacks
anything like a god, then we shouldn't be shy about concluding that
there isn't one."
--Neal M. Stevens
Christopher Denney
news:QdNlb.1$o92....@news.uswest.net:
>
> "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1g3ajwm.20im7g12teuj0N%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
>> <gir...@idioteinstein.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Wilkins:
>> > > No. I am asserting that science, the methodology, *is* the claim
>> > > that we can only know about natural causes. We simply do not
>> > > *know* about anything else - we believe or have faith, or wish it
>> > > to be, or whatever, but it isn't knowledge.
>> >
>> > Ah, but the methodology of science doesn't seem adequately address
>> > a lot of things I "know" about. What experiment reveals the
>> > internal state of my mind at 2:38pm this afternoon and the effect
>> > of the sunlight, combined with a few subtle noises, on my thoughts?
>> > What experiment can transfer what I "know" internally to another
>> > human being?
>> >
>>
>> I thought this might be a response. I would say that just to the
>> extent that you know something, it is amenable to scientific
>> investigation. I would, in fact, say that you do not really know your
>> own mind (but you experience it, and have impressions). In fact, much
>> of what we think we know about ourselves is a kind of post hoc
>> rationalisation - we construct our stream of consciousness after the
>> fact, as it were.
>
> This would mean no free will, I suppose.
I don't see how that follows.
I also don't see how free will, as many people define it, is possible.
[snip]
--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. -Frank Zappa
Earle Jones
dkomo <dkomo...@concentric.net> wrote:
*
Reminds me of that prayer:
"Oh Lord, please protect me from those to whom you speak directly."
earle
*
eyelessgame
What he said. I would answer your question if you'd define "God" and
"nature" and explain how they differ. You asked the question; you
have to define the terms.
eyelessgame
Glenn
"eyelessgame" <aa...@oro.net> wrote in message
news:e707421e.0310...@posting.google.com...
How about "is" as in "who is a..."?
If you feel as though you want to have a free hand in defining a term
while answering the question of whether you consider yourself an
atheist, by all means do.
Christopher Denney
@news.uswest.net:
> Who concludes there is no God?
>
> Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
>
Given: In a discussion of science I do not need to resort to any
supernatural agency.
Q: Does that make me an atheist?
A: No.
Q: From that information alone can someone be determined to be an atheist?
A: No.
Q: If I do not have to include some supernatural agency in every
explanation of phenomena, am I an atheist?
A: No.
Q: Am I a philosophical naturalist?
A: Dunno, what do YOU mean by that. My general philosophy is one that
includes the idea that most things can be explained without resorting to
the supernatural, and that resorting to the supernatural is a way of saying
"I don't know" for people who don't like saying "I don't know" very much.
--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
Few men speak humbly of humility, chastely of chastity, skeptically of
skepticism. -Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Mark Isaak
<glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>news:pan.2003.10.22....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:14:29 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>>
>> > Who concludes there is no God?
>> >
>> > Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
>>
>> What's a philosophical naturalist?
>>
>Basically, natural causes are all there is.
What is "natural"? I understand it to have two meanings: (1) not
man-made (not applicable in this context); and (2) part of nature;
i.e., part of everything that exists. So if I believe that God is
something that exists, does that make me a philosophical naturalist?
How can I avoid being a philosophical naturalist -- by believing in
something that I know doesn't exist?
--
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
Mark Isaak
<glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>Who concludes there is no God?
I expect that some people would consider me an atheist, and others
would not. Personally, I consider the question pretty meaningless.
>Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
Most, if not all, creationists. They simply don't call themselves
that.
Mitchell Coffey
> > And so far as transferring what you think and feel to another person -
> > how, exactly, might you do that under *any* account?
> >
> http://www.interx.net/~mbrumley/problemsnaturalism.htm
> "The trouble with philosophical naturalism is that it in effect reduces
> all human thinking to the condition of the drunken man who
> claims to see a pink elephant."
>
> "Unless we want to obliterate freedom altogether and hold that there is no
> such thing as evil or good, then we must hold that at least some of our
> decisions cannot be completely explained in terms of
> scientific principles of the natural order."
Wanting does not make things true or false.
Mitchell Coffey
Bobby D. Bryant
I don't know about ambiguous, but IMO "natural" is not well enough defined
to answer the question. Almost everyone has some notion about the
alternative to "natural", but when you try to pin them down on it you
don't usually get a good answer.
For example, astronomers are now looking for dark matter and dark energy,
makeshift terms for some "thing" that has an observable effect on the
structure of the universe. Suppose somebody discovers this "thing"
tomorrow; how will the discoverer determine whether this previously
unknown stuff is "natural" or not?
Nantko Schanssema
>Who concludes there is no God?
Not I. I'm an atheist because I've never seen a reason to conclude
there are gods of any kind.
>Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
Not I. I'm a naturalist (meaning that I'm an avid student of nature),
but there's nothing philosophical about that.
HTH, HAND
Nantko
--
The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike. (Delos McKown)
Bobby D. Bryant
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:59:19 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
>>"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>>news:pan.2003.10.22....@mail.utexas.edu...
>>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:14:29 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>>>
>>> > Who concludes there is no God?
>>> >
>>> > Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
>>>
>>> What's a philosophical naturalist?
>>>
>>Basically, natural causes are all there is.
>
> What is "natural"? I understand it to have two meanings: (1) not
> man-made (not applicable in this context); and (2) part of nature; i.e.,
> part of everything that exists. So if I believe that God is something
> that exists, does that make me a philosophical naturalist? How can I
> avoid being a philosophical naturalist -- by believing in something that
> I know doesn't exist?
I'm pretty sure the conventional notion wants to refine (2) so that
"everything that exists" is partitioned into two equivalence classes,
respectively "natural" and "supernatural". But the problem comes when you
ask about what distinguishes the classes. Is there some property that
distinguishes the "stuff" in the two classes? If so, what is it?
Almost anyone can distinguish the two classes by a partial enumeration of
examples, but when they do that you are left wondering whether "natural"
and "supernatural" aren't just synonyms for "real" and "mythological".
BTW, Wilkins has a completely different take on what "natural" should
mean. It's coherent, but it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what
the typical creationist means by the term.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
<glenns...@spamqwest.net>:
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:28:16 +0000 (UTC),
>> David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>> > In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in
>> ><1lElb.704$G_1....@news.uswest.net>:
>> >>Who concludes there is no God?
>> > Those who see no reason not to reject all gods instead of all but one.
>To the subject of atheist headcount. No wonder you think games are
>played.
Ummm, no. Specifically, to your question "Who concludes
there is no God?", as can easily be seen above. And the
answer is perfectly clear. Is understanding it giving you
some sort of problem?
<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
Earle Jones
Mark Isaak <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:14:29 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
> >Who concludes there is no God?
>
> I expect that some people would consider me an atheist, and others
> would not....
*
That is a very important point. Einstein said the he was an atheist,
from the point of view of a Jesuit Priest.
"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have
always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion
the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an
agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional
atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from
the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an
attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual
understanding of nature and of our being."
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything
that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature
is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very
imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling
of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has
nothing to do with mysticism."
--Albert Einstein, quoted in "The Human Side" p. 39
1954 or 1955 Dukas and Hoffman
earle
*
Earle Jones
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 00:08:15 +0000 (UTC), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
> <glenns...@spamqwest.net>:
>
> >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:28:16 +0000 (UTC),
> >> David Jensen <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote:
>
> >> > In talk.origins, "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in
> >> ><1lElb.704$G_1....@news.uswest.net>:
>
> >> >>Who concludes there is no God?
*
Practical people who don't think it is productive to agonize over the
issue. Neal Stevens said it best:
"If the sum of credible evidence we have is that the universe
lacks anything like a god, then we shouldn't be shy about concluding
that there isn't one."
earle
*
John Wilkins
> > <gir...@idioteinstein.com> wrote:
> > > Ah, but the methodology of science doesn't seem adequately address a lot
> > > of things I "know" about. What experiment reveals the internal state of my
> > > mind at 2:38pm this afternoon and the effect of the sunlight, combined
> > > with a few subtle noises, on my thoughts? What experiment can transfer
> > > what I "know" internally to another human being?
> > >
> >
> > I thought this might be a response. I would say that just to the extent
> > that you know something, it is amenable to scientific investigation. I
> > would, in fact, say that you do not really know your own mind (but you
> > experience it, and have impressions). In fact, much of what we think we
> > know about ourselves is a kind of post hoc rationalisation - we
> > construct our stream of consciousness after the fact, as it were.
>
> But doesn't this post hoc rationalization come first? In other words, it
> is an experience we have before we learn about science. Since science
> comes from the human mind, isn't it also based on the post hoc
> rationalization that is the human mind?
No. Science has a feature that ordinary human cognition lacks -
intersubjectivity. Results are tested across many human minds in many
situations. This eliminates many of the artifacts of ordinary human
cognition in a way that other intersubjective processes of culture do
not.
>
> > I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say "I know I am in pain" - in
> > the end this all boils down to "I hurt". "Know" adds nothing here, as it
> > were.
>
> Hmm, perhaps we are using different releases of the English language. If
> we can't know we are in pain (learned much earlier than natural laws), it
> seems hard to believe that we could know there is gravity.
I am using Wittgensteinese v2.1. You?
Nobody learns how to be in pain. They simply are, and they report that
equally with cries, moans and words that do not describe or convey
anything other than the fact they are in pain. The *other* person knows
something now (that the first person is in pain), but you do not *know*,
in the exemplary, or paradigmatic, sense of that word (propositional
assent), that you are in pain, you experience pain.
But we _can_ learn how gravity works. People who have been in bed for a
long time, or infants learning to walk, learn about gravity. After a
while, they know how gravity works. As physicists they later learn
*more* about how gravity works.
>
> > And so far as transferring what you think and feel to another person -
> > how, exactly, might you do that under *any* account?
>
> Write a song or a book. Paint a picture.
>
How does this transfer knowlege of your state of mind? It at best
transfers what you want them to know, but songs and pictures don't
express the content of your mind, but attitudes you have, if they happen
to share the same interpretative framework you do. And that is
culturally acquired...
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
John Wilkins
> "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:1g3ajwm.20im7g12teuj0N%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
> > <gir...@idioteinstein.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Wilkins:
> > > > No. I am asserting that science, the methodology, *is* the claim that we
> > > > can only know about natural causes. We simply do not *know* about
> > > > anything else - we believe or have faith, or wish it to be, or whatever,
> > > > but it isn't knowledge.
> > >
> > > Ah, but the methodology of science doesn't seem adequately address a lot
> > > of things I "know" about. What experiment reveals the internal state of my
> > > mind at 2:38pm this afternoon and the effect of the sunlight, combined
> > > with a few subtle noises, on my thoughts? What experiment can transfer
> > > what I "know" internally to another human being?
> > >
> >
> > I thought this might be a response. I would say that just to the extent
> > that you know something, it is amenable to scientific investigation. I
> > would, in fact, say that you do not really know your own mind (but you
> > experience it, and have impressions). In fact, much of what we think we
> > know about ourselves is a kind of post hoc rationalisation - we
> > construct our stream of consciousness after the fact, as it were.
>
> This would mean no free will, I suppose.
No. Free will is a legal and moral concept, not a physical one. It does
mean physical determinism, but the range of possible states our biology
makes possible is large enough relative to what we can known about them,
that we can still allow moral responsibility.
> >
> > I don't think it makes a lot of sense to say "I know I am in pain" - in
> > the end this all boils down to "I hurt". "Know" adds nothing here, as it
> > were.
>
> It only adds the element of recognition of the human ability to reason.
> If you think reason adds nothing, then science goes: poof.
Non sequitur. I'm talking about internal states here, not science.
>
> >
> > And so far as transferring what you think and feel to another person -
> > how, exactly, might you do that under *any* account?
> >
> http://www.interx.net/~mbrumley/problemsnaturalism.htm
> "The trouble with philosophical naturalism is that it in effect reduces
> all human thinking to the condition of the drunken man who
> claims to see a pink elephant."
Rubbish. I can test the exitence of science. I cannot test the existence
of a pink elephant (because all possible tests if I am drunk is done by
one holding the same delusions that deliver the pink elephant. Science
is done by many people, cancelling out individual error.
>
> "Unless we want to obliterate freedom altogether and hold that there is no
> such thing as evil or good, then we must hold that at least some of our
> decisions cannot be completely explained in terms of
> scientific principles of the natural order."
Another non sequitur, although I do understand why you want to
overdramatise the dangers of science to relevatory faith. It is a threat
if you think revelation holds all answers, because it show revelation
doesn't.
Matt Silberstein
(John Wilkins):
>Dale <dmg...@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
>
>> "John Wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
>> news:1g3a2r7.1wgo93tm5j2tjN%wil...@wehi.edu.au...
>> > Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>> > > news:pan.2003.10.22....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> > > > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:14:29 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Who concludes there is no God?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
>> > > >
>> > > > What's a philosophical naturalist?
>> > > >
>> > > Basically, natural causes are all there is.
>> >
>> > Contrasts with "methodological naturalism" - the notion that natural
>> > causes are all we can know about. AKA Science.
>>
>> Wait, isn't that the same thing? Natural causes are all we can know about,
>> therefore anything we know about must have a natural cause. If something is
>> unknown to us, it might not be natural, but as soon as we know about it, it
>> must be natural, because natural causes are all we can know about, so there
>> can only be natural causes, because if we don't know about them they might
>> as well not exist. Or am I running rings around myself logically?
>
>No, you are making a logical error.
>
>I assert
>
>K -> N [Knowability implies natural cause]
>
>but you are concluding also
>
>N -> K [Natural cause implies knowability]
>
>to get
>
>N <-> K.
>
>But there can be naturally caused things about which we do not know nor
>can (like the famous retort of Mommsen's that the origins of the
>Etruscans "are neither capable of being known nor worth the knowing").
>All *I* am saying is, that if it can be known, then it is a naturally
>caused thing; and it follows that of the set of not-naturally-caused
>things, we can know nothing.
I would like to add one caveat: we are taking about public
transferable knowledge. I can have direct knowledge of the
non-natural (i.e. God can speak directly to me), but I can't
transfer that knowledge. I can report it, sure, but reporting is
not true sharing.
Bill, The Avender
<glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
>"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>news:pan.2003.10.22....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:14:29 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>>
>> > Who concludes there is no God?
I'd be as likely to conclude that as I would be to conclude that there
is no John. Who's John, and what existential attributes does John
possess so that I may know whether or not John exists? I have,
however, concluded that any god I've ever read about or heard of is a
figment of cultural imagination. Would I assert this? No. I'm not
omniscient, I can't know everything I would need to know to be able to
definitively assert "No gods exist". But I know enough about human
nature to know that it's quite a bit more probable that we simply
invented religion over the millenia. We do it all the time. We're
still doing it.
>> > Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
>>
>> What's a philosophical naturalist?
>>
>Basically, natural causes are all there is.
"Nature," for me, has come to be a term without meaning. Even were I
to believe in any given god(s), I would be a "naturalist", because to
me, everything is "natural". Even computers and cars and houses and
religions and other manufactured items. "Nature" is a concept mankind
has used to distinguish concepts relating to humanity from concepts
relating to the rest of reality. It's an illusory boundary, a figment
of our imagination. In reality, we are part of nature, and we are
doing according to our nature.
And here, I go into a rather "strange" shpiel, but all of this
represents my ideas after much contemplation of the matter. Please
assume that this is all "In my opinion only" - I am not presuming to
act like I "know" this will happen, but my speculations are often
quite accurate. Anywho, that said, here goes...
Technology is a different manifestation of nature, one that we aren't
really "responsible" for. It evolved independant of our intentions,
basically by accident and not because we're so wonderfully smart. The
development of language and history among humans is how technology
became possible, and how it manages to change with time. Books are to
technology what genes are to cells. Through our genes, we "remember"
our ancestral history, and "learn" what works and what doesn't. Only
that which works manages to get passed on, while that which doesn't
work often becomes meaningless "legacy code". Same for books - those
ideas which produce results move on to the next round. Those ideas
that don't produce results quickly find themselves gathering dust - an
evolutionary "dead end" in a quite literal sense. We are applying
evolutionary algorithms to our technology and, whether we like it or
not, that means our technology is evolving. And as has been seen
multiple times, evolution can produce things humans would never have
thought of (look up evolutionary technology or genetic algorithms,
lots of material out there).
Modern technology represents to me an emerging form of life, exactly
comparable to pre-cellular autoreplicants when contrasted to modern
multi-cellular life. The class of life I call "mechra" is one which
depends upon a source species (usually organic) with a recorded
history. Just like cellular life depending on the emergence of
self-replicating molecules. Mechra seems to be one lifeform which
Earth doesn't appear to have seen before (unless it's been
deliberately hidden for some reason).
Some day, assuming human civilization lasts long enough, it seems
inevitible that technology will evolve well beyond our ability to
control it. There's really nothing we can do to stop it, because it's
not something we're really intending to do in the first place. We may
or may not join it, that has yet to be seen.
--
L8r,
Bill, The Avender
-------------------------------------------------
Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
-------------------------------------------------
gir...@idioteinstein.com
> > is an experience we have before we learn about science. Since science
> > comes from the human mind, isn't it also based on the post hoc
> > rationalization that is the human mind?
>
> No. Science has a feature that ordinary human cognition lacks -
> intersubjectivity. Results are tested across many human minds in many
> situations. This eliminates many of the artifacts of ordinary human
> cognition in a way that other intersubjective processes of culture do
> not.
So it's that the sum is greater than the total of the parts? Each individual's cognition is suspect, but taken in whole, by working within a certain epistemological framework, the result is more valid? Science is an emergent property of a complex system of deluded individual agents? Obviously science is very convenient for reaching agreement among a horde of suspect individual experiences (if indeed, those individual experiences are suspect), but that convenience fails to exhibit properties of having the ability to contain all knowledge (to me).
> > Hmm, perhaps we are using different releases of the English language. If
> > we can't know we are in pain (learned much earlier than natural laws), it
> > seems hard to believe that we could know there is gravity.
>
> I am using Wittgensteinese v2.1. You?
I lost my release notes and change log, but I have the version that wants to put quotes around every word. "Unfortunately," "writing" "sentences" "like" "this" "is" "time-consuming" "and" "unreadable" - so I use the format from the previous version for convenience. But I think every word is suspect.
> Nobody learns how to be in pain. They simply are, and they report that
> equally with cries, moans and words that do not describe or convey
> anything other than the fact they are in pain. The *other* person knows
> something now (that the first person is in pain), but you do not *know*,
> in the exemplary, or paradigmatic, sense of that word (propositional
> assent), that you are in pain, you experience pain.
So "I know I am in pain" does not exist in the realm of propositional assent? But what to do with stubborn cranks like myself who cannot accept that knowing I am in pain is less of a propositional truth than E=mc2? And don't we have to establish at some point that what we are communicating to each other about the world is equivalent with truth (or that communication is even possible), or define boundaries of some sort? Isn't knowledge, in your sense, at its base dependent on language? If so, isn't that an initial boundary on knowledge that exists right off the bat? Knowing I'm in pain (I don't know how that's different than "I hurt"), seems to be the only kind of knowledge that could exist outside of language. Once we get to this level it's harder for me to be convinced that "knowledge," in the sense of the transfer of "facts," is robust enough to contain everything.
> But we _can_ learn how gravity works. People who have been in bed for a
> long time, or infants learning to walk, learn about gravity. After a
> while, they know how gravity works. As physicists they later learn
> *more* about how gravity works.
I think my problem is with the definition of knowledge and what it means to humans. To me, the feeling of falling is closer to raw truth (it's what happens at that individual moment to me; it's what I really experience; it's what I really "know") than the theory (law?) of gravity. And the feeling of falling is consistent throughout time, regardless of the current scientific explanation. In other words, the experience itself remains fundamentally true in a way that is independent of the explanation of the mechanics of the event.
I like gadgets, and I'm all for science producing technology. What irks me is when science decides it can tell me about "truth," in the sense of an all-encompassing world view. It's fine for science to *try* to do that (any human system of thought tends in that direction), as long as it qualifies what it means by truth. How about just a label, "Explanatory and Provisional Community Truth Based on a Suspect, Manmade, Apparently Shared Language" so I always remember that it's different from "Raw Experiential Truth Based on a Suspect, Manmade Self." It seems more descriptive labels would benefit everyone.
Unfortunately, the "fundamental" truth of experiences I am talking about doesn't fare well in a community setting, because there are too many individuals experiencing things no one else can experience and not enough language. That's I why I think science is mainly a matter of convenience.
> > Write a song or a book. Paint a picture.
> >
> How does this transfer knowlege of your state of mind? It at best
> transfers what you want them to know, but songs and pictures don't
> express the content of your mind, but attitudes you have, if they happen
> to share the same interpretative framework you do. And that is
> culturally acquired...
If I write a blow-by-blow description of something that is happening in my mind, even if it is nonsensical and fantastical, that seems to express the content of my mind more accurately than if I just ignored all of that and wrote down: "2 + 2 = 4" or "H2O". And the attempt could theoretically represent the content of my mind, albeit in a limited fashion, to another "person." Of course, the recipient may not have the interpretative framework necessary to make sense of what I wrote. In the same way, I may not have the same interpretative framework to allow me to believe that someone telling me that "2+2=4" means anything more than if they said "gdff + oijo = weoohg." At the end of the day, it all seems to boil down to inscribing symbols. Ever knowing what all the symbols actually represent seems to be an exercise in futility.
G.
John Wilkins
Caveat accepted. So now we have two senses of knowledge - knowledge that
can be shared, and knowledge that cannot. This is not unusual - Polyani
had a category of "tacit" knowledge that could not be expressed in
science, but could be shared by imitation (I like to think of it as
"apprenticeship knowledge"). So we can have various senses of "to know";
I am merely talking about knowledge that can be passed on.
Elsewhere, I do say that we do not "know" our internal states. I should
perhaps index this to mean - we cannot know[S] our internal states, but
we can know[P] them, where S is scientific knowledge that is based on
observation, testing and intersubjective transmission, and P is entirely
personal, qualia if you like, that we cannot express. For my money, that
is as good as no knowledge at all (likewise personal revelation), but
hey, I'm an eliminativist; what can I say?
John Wilkins
> > > But doesn't this post hoc rationalization come first? In other words, it
> > > is an experience we have before we learn about science. Since science
> > > comes from the human mind, isn't it also based on the post hoc
> > > rationalization that is the human mind?
> >
> > No. Science has a feature that ordinary human cognition lacks -
> > intersubjectivity. Results are tested across many human minds in many
> > situations. This eliminates many of the artifacts of ordinary human
> > cognition in a way that other intersubjective processes of culture do
> > not.
>
> So it's that the sum is greater than the total of the parts? Each
> individual's cognition is suspect, but taken in whole, by working within a
> certain epistemological framework, the result is more valid? Science is an
> emergent property of a complex system of deluded individual agents?
Yes, but understand that they are not all entirely deluded, and that
they are all deluded in different ways. And yes, the interactions of the
knowledge of individual scientists and the other media by which
information is stored and passed around makes it much more reliable than
the individual workings of any one brain. Science got started when it
was able to publish its results for many brains to independently
process. Scientific knowledge is not located in any individual brains.
It is a process of massively parallel distributed processing, to use the
AI terminology.
> Obviously science is very convenient for reaching agreement among a horde
> of suspect individual experiences (if indeed, those individual experiences
> are suspect), but that convenience fails to exhibit properties of having
> the ability to contain all knowledge (to me).
"Agreement among a horde of individual experiences" sounds like a pretty
good definition of knowledge to me...
>
> > > Hmm, perhaps we are using different releases of the English language. If
> > > we can't know we are in pain (learned much earlier than natural laws), it
> > > seems hard to believe that we could know there is gravity.
> >
> > I am using Wittgensteinese v2.1. You?
>
> I lost my release notes and change log, but I have the version that wants
> to put quotes around every word. "Unfortunately," "writing" "sentences"
> "like" "this" "is" "time-consuming" "and" "unreadable" - so I use the
> format from the previous version for convenience. But I think every word
> is suspect.
Ah, you mustn't have downloaded the "use-mention distinction" module...
>
> > Nobody learns how to be in pain. They simply are, and they report that
> > equally with cries, moans and words that do not describe or convey
> > anything other than the fact they are in pain. The *other* person knows
> > something now (that the first person is in pain), but you do not *know*,
> > in the exemplary, or paradigmatic, sense of that word (propositional
> > assent), that you are in pain, you experience pain.
>
> So "I know I am in pain" does not exist in the realm of propositional
> assent? But what to do with stubborn cranks like myself who cannot accept
> that knowing I am in pain is less of a propositional truth than E=mc2? And
> don't we have to establish at some point that what we are communicating to
> each other about the world is equivalent with truth (or that communication
> is even possible), or define boundaries of some sort? Isn't knowledge, in
> your sense, at its base dependent on language? If so, isn't that an
> initial boundary on knowledge that exists right off the bat? Knowing I'm
> in pain (I don't know how that's different than "I hurt"), seems to be the
> only kind of knowledge that could exist outside of language. Once we get
> to this level it's harder for me to be convinced that "knowledge," in the
> sense of the transfer of "facts," is robust enough to contain everything.
I do not think that knowledge can "contain everything" in that sense.
There are clearly things we think that cannot be expressed; the way that
shade of blue appears to me, for example, is one of those things. I can
describe all I like and still not be able to capture that in a knowable
fashion. Alternatively, we could redefine "know" so that there are now
two distinct meanings - one is the ordinary sense of "know" in common
use in which if we know something we can say it. Then there is the
*special* or Personal sense of "know" where only we can know it, we
cannot transmit the content of it to others, only the fact that we have
it.
Terms get their meaning from application to exemplars first. Other
senses are derived or analogous. Sometimes, this leads us into
quandaries because the words do not bear the weight we are now asking of
them. "Know" comes from our ability to see and describe - obviously not
all uses of that term *now* involve seeing and describing, but if they
get us into trouble, we should abandon them in that case.
>
> > But we _can_ learn how gravity works. People who have been in bed for a
> > long time, or infants learning to walk, learn about gravity. After a
> > while, they know how gravity works. As physicists they later learn
> > *more* about how gravity works.
>
> I think my problem is with the definition of knowledge and what it means
> to humans. To me, the feeling of falling is closer to raw truth (it's what
> happens at that individual moment to me; it's what I really experience;
> it's what I really "know") than the theory (law?) of gravity. And the
> feeling of falling is consistent throughout time, regardless of the
> current scientific explanation. In other words, the experience itself
> remains fundamentally true in a way that is independent of the explanation
> of the mechanics of the event.
>
> I like gadgets, and I'm all for science producing technology. What irks me
> is when science decides it can tell me about "truth," in the sense of an
> all-encompassing world view. It's fine for science to *try* to do that
> (any human system of thought tends in that direction), as long as it
> qualifies what it means by truth. How about just a label, "Explanatory and
> Provisional Community Truth Based on a Suspect, Manmade, Apparently Shared
> Language" so I always remember that it's different from "Raw Experiential
> Truth Based on a Suspect, Manmade Self." It seems more descriptive labels
> would benefit everyone.
Sure. Let's do that. Or, we could call one thing "knowing" (and
understand that to know is to provisionally assent to something shared
by our community and expressible in language, on the basis of shared
stimuli) and the other, oh, I don't know, how about "feel" or
"experience"? That would work...
>
> Unfortunately, the "fundamental" truth of experiences I am talking about
> doesn't fare well in a community setting, because there are too many
> individuals experiencing things no one else can experience and not enough
> language. That's I why I think science is mainly a matter of convenience.
Think about what convenience means. There is convention - whereby we
manage to live our lives in ways that are more efficient because we all
agree on how we should behave - and then there is the workability of our
ideas. This means we can, conveniently, cure many cancers nowadays. It
means we can conveniently bulding working bridges, fly aircraft,
communicate immediately around the world...
Your "fundamental" truth gave us no understanding that allowed us to do
these things. We may very well understand our Cartesian selves better
than anyone else, but equally (and I think the evidence bears this out)
we may just be fooling our"selves" into thinking we are a singular
entity that "has" experiences we cannot express. In fact, I agree with
Minsky - we are an ecology of partial selves, and our "consciousness"
(one of the world's least meaningful terms) is a summary of all of them,
averaged out along time.
>
> > > Write a song or a book. Paint a picture.
> > >
> > How does this transfer knowlege of your state of mind? It at best
> > transfers what you want them to know, but songs and pictures don't
> > express the content of your mind, but attitudes you have, if they happen
> > to share the same interpretative framework you do. And that is
> > culturally acquired...
>
> If I write a blow-by-blow description of something that is happening in my
> mind, even if it is nonsensical and fantastical, that seems to express the
> content of my mind more accurately than if I just ignored all of that and
> wrote down: "2 + 2 = 4" or "H2O". And the attempt could theoretically
> represent the content of my mind, albeit in a limited fashion, to another
> "person." Of course, the recipient may not have the interpretative
> framework necessary to make sense of what I wrote. In the same way, I may
> not have the same interpretative framework to allow me to believe that
> someone telling me that "2+2=4" means anything more than if they said
> "gdff + oijo = weoohg." At the end of the day, it all seems to boil down
> to inscribing symbols. Ever knowing what all the symbols actually
> represent seems to be an exercise in futility.
Symbols represent conventions. If we share a convention about "I am
thinking about X", then why do we need to have any underlying reality
that we both share to make that meaningful? So long as we both act in a
way that falls within our community's standards of "thinking about X",
there is an end to the matter. Look for the use, as Wittgenstein 2.0
would say, not the meaning.
>
> G.
By the way, can you set your newsreader to wordwrap at around 75
characters? Each paragraph comes over as a single line, which causes
minor irritation when responding (I have to manually wrap each
paragraph).
Glenn
"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:ovggpvg1mtdssioj4...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:59:19 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
> >"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> >news:pan.2003.10.22....@mail.utexas.edu...
> >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:14:29 +0000, Glenn wrote:
> >>
> >> > Who concludes there is no God?
> >> >
> >> > Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
> >>
> >> What's a philosophical naturalist?
> >>
> >Basically, natural causes are all there is.
>
> What is "natural"? I understand it to have two meanings: (1) not
> man-made (not applicable in this context); and (2) part of nature;
> i.e., part of everything that exists.
Add causes to that.
>So if I believe that God is
> something that exists, does that make me a philosophical naturalist?
I suppose so, if you believed God to be part of nature causes.
> How can I avoid being a philosophical naturalist -- by believing in
> something that I know doesn't exist?
>
And how do you know this?
Glenn
"Mitchell Coffey" <MitC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a766a589.0310...@posting.google.com...
us...@example.com
>If you feel as though you want to have a free hand in defining a term
>while answering the question of whether you consider yourself an
>atheist, by all means do.
Riiiiight... then you'll declare every answer wrong or somehow lacking.
No thanks.
Glenn
if you said you were an atheist or not?
G
> Think about what convenience means. There is convention - whereby
> we manage to live our lives in ways that are more efficient because
> we all agree on how we should behave - and then there is the
> workability of our ideas. This means we can, conveniently, cure
> many cancers nowadays. It means we can conveniently bulding working
> bridges, fly aircraft, communicate immediately around the world...
Well, I'm all for pragmatic application. I wonder what the pragmatic
value of claiming that there are multiple universes is, however. I
suppose if we create a machine that allows us to visit them or use
them for time travel, then it will have pragmatic application.
Also, curing cancer and flying aircraft is a very different exercise
than claiming "I know that there is nothing that I cannot know, given
enough time" (in other words, the claim that something beyond the
physical reality of our universe, which of course cannot be known,
cannot exist since it cannot be known). There may not be much point
(to us) in something we can't know, but to claim that the unknowable
can't exist seems illogical (how do you know?).
While in real life I am quite the pragmatist (I like money), in
thought life I am rather the fabulist. Real life and thought life seem
rarely to intersect, and since "real" life (physical) is really rather
silly and boring, my mind rejects having everything boiled down to
being nothing more than an extremely tedious and juvenile sit-com. And
all the English words in the world are going to have a hard time
getting my mind to discount itself, since that mind is wrapped around
everything I can even conceive of as reality. If I could get a
lobotomy and essentially be reduced to "see fact -> accept fact ->
base all thought on fact," then I could merrily (well, automatically)
accept many of the arguments I've seen in this group. I think even if
the natural=totality philosophy wins out, there is going to be a lot
of cognitive dissonance about it.
> Your "fundamental" truth gave us no understanding that allowed us
> to do these things. We may very well understand our Cartesian
> selves better than anyone else, but equally (and I think the
> evidence bears this out) we may just be fooling our"selves" into
> thinking we are a singular entity that "has" experiences we cannot
> express. In fact, I agree with Minsky - we are an ecology of
> partial selves, and our "consciousness" (one of the world's least
> meaningful terms) is a summary of all of them, averaged out along
> time.
I'll agree with that for the most part. But, there is also the part of
me who really only accepts my own existence (in fact, I don't remember
not existing). To even consider the paragraph you just wrote, I have
to filter it through my own unique combination of whatever is kicking
around in that gray jelly that is mine. That "self" is the base, the
underlying sieve for anything that comes in, perception, idea,
hallucination, whatever. That it is really conscious may be an
illusion, but I don't see how any human being can ever escape that
illusion. So, at best, I can grant a tentative nature to any
explanation of anything. And my particular hallucination may just be a
heck of a lot more entertaining than thinking I'm a rock with wheels.
> Symbols represent conventions. If we share a convention about "I am
> thinking about X", then why do we need to have any underlying
> reality that we both share to make that meaningful? So long as we
> both act in a way that falls within our community's standards of
> "thinking about X", there is an end to the matter. Look for the
> use, as Wittgenstein 2.0 would say, not the meaning.
So is it safe to say that science is not a description of reality but
rather a description about an agreed-upon set of symbols?
> By the way, can you set your newsreader to wordwrap at around 75
> characters? Each paragraph comes over as a single line, which
> causes minor irritation when responding (I have to manually wrap
> each paragraph).
Sorry, I was trying a different newsreader and didn't notice the
problem when composing or viewing my own messages. I'm back to another
app. Let me know if this doesn't solve the problem.
G.
Arne Vogel
> Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
[snip]
>>http://www.interx.net/~mbrumley/problemsnaturalism.htm
>>"The trouble with philosophical naturalism is that it in effect reduces
>>all human thinking to the condition of the drunken man who
>>claims to see a pink elephant."
>
>
> Rubbish. I can test the exitence of science. I cannot test the existence
> of a pink elephant (because all possible tests if I am drunk is done by
> one holding the same delusions that deliver the pink elephant. Science
> is done by many people, cancelling out individual error.
Why shouldn't there be pink elephants? That would hardly be weirder than
a purple polar bear...
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_801020.html
[snap]
--
I'm ahead, the man
I'm the first mammal to wear pants
(Pearl Jam)
Bobby D. Bryant
Unfortunately, a long history here means you're more likely to get
arguments than simple answers.
As I mentioned earlier, if all you want is a headcount, or to know who
stands where, we had a poll here a year or so ago, and lots and lots of
people answered it. You should be able to find it pretty easily with a
google groups search.
AC
AC
us...@example.com
>"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>news:ovggpvg1mtdssioj4...@4ax.com...
>> How can I avoid being a philosophical naturalist -- by believing in
>> something that I know doesn't exist?
>>
>And how do you know this?
Perhaps a better phrasing is, "How can I believe in something for which
I have no evidence?"
And no, the wonder the is that natural world is not evidence of God --
at least not scientific evidence.
Glenn
"AC" <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbpieko...@clausen.alberni.net...
Glenn
> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
> >"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> >news:ovggpvg1mtdssioj4...@4ax.com...
> >> How can I avoid being a philosophical naturalist -- by believing in
> >> something that I know doesn't exist?
> >>
> >And how do you know this?
>
> Perhaps a better phrasing is, "How can I believe in something for which
> I have no evidence?"
.....Not that I am arguing with what people *write* or that I am perhaps
suggesting a better way for someone else to say what they said...
"Better" perhaps is "How can I disbelieve something for which I have no
evidence."
> And no, the wonder the is that natural world is not evidence of God --
> at least not scientific evidence.
>
Christopher Denney
@news.uswest.net:
>
> "tre...@sirius.com.no.more" <us...@example.com> wrote in message
> news:ighipv8v6k063bmv5...@news.supernews.com...
>> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>> >news:ovggpvg1mtdssioj4...@4ax.com...
>> >> How can I avoid being a philosophical naturalist -- by believing in
>> >> something that I know doesn't exist?
>> >>
>> >And how do you know this?
>>
>> Perhaps a better phrasing is, "How can I believe in something for
>> which I have no evidence?"
>
> .....Not that I am arguing with what people *write* or that I am
> perhaps suggesting a better way for someone else to say what they
> said...
>
> "Better" perhaps is "How can I disbelieve something for which I have no
> evidence."
Unless you believe in EVERYTHING for which you have no evidence, you are
being inconsistent. Believing in only the things for which you have
evidence is consistent.
>> And no, the wonder the is that natural world is not evidence of God --
>> at least not scientific evidence.
>>
> And how do you know this?
The same way I know that a bullet hole in a wall is not evidence of a
kangaroo in orbit.
--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success
is sure. -Mark Twain (1835-1910)
Christopher Denney
news:y6dmb.820$jt6....@news.uswest.net:
So, do you believe Zeus is real, or That Aaron is a greek myth?
--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
It is one of the most beautiful compensations of this life that no man
can sincerely try to help another without helping himself. -Ralph Waldo
Emerson, American writer and philosopher (1803-1882)
Glenn
"Christopher Denney" <ch...@DO.pagan.NOT.net.SPAM> wrote in message
news:Xns941E881E6CB...@66.151.160.13...
> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in news:nhdmb.821$jt6.22837
> @news.uswest.net:
>
> >
> > "tre...@sirius.com.no.more" <us...@example.com> wrote in message
> > news:ighipv8v6k063bmv5...@news.supernews.com...
> >> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:ovggpvg1mtdssioj4...@4ax.com...
> >> >> How can I avoid being a philosophical naturalist -- by believing in
> >> >> something that I know doesn't exist?
> >> >>
> >> >And how do you know this?
> >>
> >> Perhaps a better phrasing is, "How can I believe in something for
> >> which I have no evidence?"
> >
> > .....Not that I am arguing with what people *write* or that I am
> > perhaps suggesting a better way for someone else to say what they
> > said...
> >
> > "Better" perhaps is "How can I disbelieve something for which I have no
> > evidence."
>
> Unless you believe in EVERYTHING for which you have no evidence, you are
> being inconsistent. Believing in only the things for which you have
> evidence is consistent.
I agree, although I doubt you realize what you are saying.
>
> >> And no, the wonder the is that natural world is not evidence of God --
> >> at least not scientific evidence.
> >>
> > And how do you know this?
>
> The same way I know that a bullet hole in a wall is not evidence of a
> kangaroo in orbit.
>
And how do you know that?
Glenn
"Christopher Denney" <ch...@DO.pagan.NOT.net.SPAM> wrote in message
How did you come to that conclusion?
Eric Gill
@news.uswest.net:
>
> "tre...@sirius.com.no.more" <us...@example.com> wrote in message
> news:ighipv8v6k063bmv5...@news.supernews.com...
>> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>> >news:ovggpvg1mtdssioj4...@4ax.com...
>> >> How can I avoid being a philosophical naturalist -- by believing in
>> >> something that I know doesn't exist?
>> >>
>> >And how do you know this?
>>
>> Perhaps a better phrasing is, "How can I believe in something for
which
>> I have no evidence?"
>
> .....Not that I am arguing with what people *write* or that I am
perhaps
> suggesting a better way for someone else to say what they said...
>
> "Better" perhaps is "How can I disbelieve something for which I have no
> evidence."
Easily. Default position.
>> And no, the wonder the is that natural world is not evidence of God --
>> at least not scientific evidence.
>>
> And how do you know this?
He's not presupposing supernatural entities are required.
Christopher Denney
news:Qmfmb.839$jt6....@news.uswest.net:
>
> "Christopher Denney" <ch...@DO.pagan.NOT.net.SPAM> wrote in message
> news:Xns941E881E6CB...@66.151.160.13...
>> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in
>> news:nhdmb.821$jt6.22837 @news.uswest.net:
>>
>> >
>> > "tre...@sirius.com.no.more" <us...@example.com> wrote in message
>> > news:ighipv8v6k063bmv5...@news.supernews.com...
>> >> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>> >> >news:ovggpvg1mtdssioj4...@4ax.com...
>> >> >> How can I avoid being a philosophical naturalist -- by
>> >> >> believing in something that I know doesn't exist?
>> >> >>
>> >> >And how do you know this?
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps a better phrasing is, "How can I believe in something for
>> >> which I have no evidence?"
>> >
>> > .....Not that I am arguing with what people *write* or that I am
>> > perhaps suggesting a better way for someone else to say what they
>> > said...
>> >
>> > "Better" perhaps is "How can I disbelieve something for which I
>> > have no evidence."
>>
>> Unless you believe in EVERYTHING for which you have no evidence, you
>> are being inconsistent. Believing in only the things for which you
>> have evidence is consistent.
>
> I agree, although I doubt you realize what you are saying.
If you agree why did you say the opposite was better?
>>
>> >> And no, the wonder the is that natural world is not evidence of
>> >> God -- at least not scientific evidence.
>> >>
>> > And how do you know this?
>>
>> The same way I know that a bullet hole in a wall is not evidence of a
>> kangaroo in orbit.
>>
> And how do you know that?
Barring additional evidence, they are unrelated.
--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
Resisting temptation is easier when you think you'll probably get
another chance later on.
Christopher Denney
news:1qfmb.841$jt6....@news.uswest.net:
You were asked what your position on Zeus was, in the context of the
statement "Wanting does not make things true or false." You replied that
your position on Zeus was the about same as your position on the person
to which you were speaking. Therefore, your statment implied that you
either believe both are myths, or both are real.
--
-- Cd -- Christopher Denney
--
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity. -Hanlon's Razor
AC
And here we have a demonstration on how Glenn answers questions. But what
the hell.
What is your position on me, Glenn? And how does it relate to your position
on Zeus?
--
Aaron Clausen
Andy Groves
You mean you worship him?
Andy
us...@example.com
>> And no, the wonder that is the natural world is not evidence of God --
>> at least not scientific evidence.
>>
>And how do you know this?
Are you asking how do I know that the wonder that is the real world is
not scientific evidence of God? I know it because, as wondrous as the
natural world may be, the wonder itself doesn't meet the requirements of
evidence.
G
> Are you asking how do I know that the wonder that is the real world
> is not scientific evidence of God? I know it because, as wondrous
> as the natural world may be, the wonder itself doesn't meet the
> requirements of evidence.
I wouldn't go so far as to say the natural world is evidence of
anything, but is evidence required for everything you "know"? Do you
have any evidence for the thought I had forty-five minutes ago (or the
one you had)? Do our thoughts "exist" or not?
G.
Earle Jones
"Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
*
God came to me in the middle of the night at revealed it to me.
earle
*
"Hello! Excuse me, but did I miss something? I'm no expert, but
it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you people need a
reality check, big time. Will you please just get a grip! The last
time I checked it was a free country, so go figure. It's a
no-brainer, really, just get used to it. To make a long story short,
just get a clue, cut me some slack, and give me a break, or whatever."
Glenn
"Christopher Denney" <ch...@DO.pagan.NOT.net.SPAM> wrote in message
Better than what? Or better? Are you reading far enough up the post,
or just what...
>
> >>
> >> >> And no, the wonder the is that natural world is not evidence of
> >> >> God -- at least not scientific evidence.
> >> >>
> >> > And how do you know this?
> >>
> >> The same way I know that a bullet hole in a wall is not evidence of a
> >> kangaroo in orbit.
> >>
> > And how do you know that?
>
> Barring additional evidence, they are unrelated.
>
How do you know that?
Glenn
"Christopher Denney" <ch...@DO.pagan.NOT.net.SPAM> wrote in message
AC
Christopher Denney <ch...@DO.pagan.NOT.net.SPAM> wrote:
> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in
> news:1qfmb.841$jt6....@news.uswest.net:
>
>>
>> "Christopher Denney" <ch...@DO.pagan.NOT.net.SPAM> wrote in message
>> news:Xns941E88934E6...@66.151.160.13...
>>> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote in
>>> news:y6dmb.820$jt6....@news.uswest.net:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > "AC" <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message
>>> > news:slrnbpieko...@clausen.alberni.net...
<snip>
>>> >>
>>> >> So what's your position on Zeus, Glenn?
>>> >>
>>> > About the same as it is on you, Aaron.
>>> >
>>> So, do you believe Zeus is real, or That Aaron is a greek myth?
>>>
>> So, those are my only alternative positions?
>>
>> How did you come to that conclusion?
>>
>>
>
> You were asked what your position on Zeus was, in the context of the
> statement "Wanting does not make things true or false." You replied that
> your position on Zeus was the about same as your position on the person
> to which you were speaking. Therefore, your statment implied that you
> either believe both are myths, or both are real.
Just some more word games by Glenn. He'll deny it, of course, but that's
why conversing with him is, at the end of the day, a waste of time. He
feels no compulsion at all to explain any statement he makes. You could go
on trying to figure out what he meant above for a week with no success.
This is, I figure, how he gets his kicks. Glenn is rarely (if ever)
straightforward.
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
I tell you what, Glenn. Since you clearly think we're all morons, why don't
you explain to us what you meant?
--
Aaron Clausen
Michael Clark
> > So what's your position on Zeus, Glenn?
> >
> About the same as it is on you, Aaron.
From here, AC, this looks like you don't exist. :-)
Mark Isaak
<glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>news:ovggpvg1mtdssioj4...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:59:19 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
>> <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Bobby D. Bryant" <bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
>> >news:pan.2003.10.22....@mail.utexas.edu...
>> >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:14:29 +0000, Glenn wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Who concludes there is no God?
>> >> >
>> >> > Better yet, who are philosophical naturalists?
>> >>
>> >> What's a philosophical naturalist?
>> >>
>> >Basically, natural causes are all there is.
>>
>> What is "natural"? I understand it to have two meanings: (1) not
>> man-made (not applicable in this context); and (2) part of nature;
>> i.e., part of everything that exists.
>
>Add causes to that.
They are included already. "Everything" includes a lot.
>>So if I believe that God is
>> something that exists, does that make me a philosophical naturalist?
>
>I suppose so, if you believed God to be part of nature causes.
>
>> How can I avoid being a philosophical naturalist -- by believing in
>> something that I know doesn't exist?
>>
>And how do you know this?
I don't. But what is the answer to my question: How can I avoid being
a philosophical naturalist? It seem to me to be logically impossible.
--
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
AC
Then I guess I don't have to worry about my credit card bill. I just knew
there had to be an upshot to this somewhere.
--
Aaron Clausen
Andy Groves
Well, duuuhh!!! It's the same as his position on Zeus, silly......
> And how does it relate to your position
> on Zeus?
They're obviously very similar. C'mon..... you can do better than that, Aaron.
Andy
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
<glenns...@spamqwest.net>:
>
>"tre...@sirius.com.no.more" <us...@example.com> wrote in message
>news:ighipv8v6k063bmv5...@news.supernews.com...
>> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Mark Isaak" <at...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
>> >news:ovggpvg1mtdssioj4...@4ax.com...
>> >> How can I avoid being a philosophical naturalist -- by believing in
>> >> something that I know doesn't exist?
>> >>
>> >And how do you know this?
>>
>> Perhaps a better phrasing is, "How can I believe in something for which
>> I have no evidence?"
>
>.....Not that I am arguing with what people *write* or that I am perhaps
>suggesting a better way for someone else to say what they said...
>
>"Better" perhaps is "How can I disbelieve something for which I have no
>evidence."
Are you claiming to believe in everything for which you lack
evidence? If not, why not (since it's the "better"
position)?
>> And no, the wonder the is that natural world is not evidence of God --
>> at least not scientific evidence.
>And how do you know this?
Because scientific evidence has constraints.
--
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