Enemies of Reason P1

Thomas said:
It dawned on me this morning that @Naturalist's position is a version of the age-old and out-dated science v religion debate.

In fact his position is a mirror-image of the religious fundamentalist – there's no actual engagement in the debate of ideas, the dialogue is overshadowed by the misguided belief that there necessarily has to be a winner and a loser in the debate.

1.3 Taxonomies of the interaction between science and religion

The following is a précis of a lengthy article:
"Several typologies probe the interaction between science and religion. For example, Mikael Stenmark (2004) distinguishes between three views: the independence view (no overlap between science and religion),
the contact view (some overlap between the fields),
and a union of the domains of science and religion.

The most influential taxonomy of the relationship between science and religion remains Barbour’s (2000):
conflict,
independence,
dialogue,
integration."

As we can see from posts, @Naturalist seems wedded to the conflict position – the fallback position is to oppose rather than engage.

The conflict model holds that science and religion are in perpetual and principal conflict... (T)he conflict thesis needs to be contextualized in a liberal Protestant tradition of attempting to separate religion from theology, and thus salvage religion. Their work (John Draper’s (1874) History of the Conflict between Religion and Science and Andrew Dickson White’s (1896) two-volume opus A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom) was later appropriated by skeptics and atheists who used their arguments about the incompatibility of traditional theological views with science to argue for secularization, something Draper and White did not envisage.

+++
Click to expand...
Of course they're in conflict, and obviously it's not outdated.

In science you try to disprove what you believe to be true. One needs supporting evidence, one is open to changing one's mind with new evidence.

In religion, you believe what you want regardless of logic or evidence, and to change one's mind is frowned upon, so no attempt at disproving things.

We know the scientific approach is more productive than the religious approach. You're on a computer, on the internet, consuming electricity, thanks to the scientific approach.
 
Last edited:
A note on time – specifically the idea of Progress –

Time moves on, that is an inescapable experience. But the belief in Progress is essentially a belief derived from the Abrahamic Traditions, simply stripped of its religious connotation, which is replaced by science.

There is an assumed path: experience – superstition – religion – science
This is based on the explanation of phenomena, and cleverly, religion has been reduced to just that, whereas in actuality religion encompasses far more and it is here that religion crosses over the science horizon into its own territory to ask questions like 'why is there anything at all' and 'is the universe rational' – questions which science either avoid as unanswerable (actually outside its remit) or regards as axiomatic – the universe seems rational, therefore it is, but this does not address the root of the question ... why?

Ands here is also the root of the problem – for many in the secular world, their view of science is akin to 'superstition' in the belief that it has all the answers –if not now, then someday – which is exactly the kind of thing a positive-theist would say.

Science looks for facts. religion seeks meaning.
 
Thomas said:
A note on time – specifically the idea of Progress –

Time moves on, that is an inescapable experience. But the belief in Progress is essentially a belief derived from the Abrahamic Traditions, simply stripped of its religious connotation, which is replaced by science.

There is an assumed path: experience – superstition – religion – science
This is based on the explanation of phenomena, and cleverly, religion has been reduced to just that, whereas in actuality religion encompasses far more and it is here that religion crosses over the science horizon into its own territory to ask questions like 'why is there anything at all' and 'is the universe rational' – questions which science either avoid as unanswerable (actually outside its remit) or regards as axiomatic – the universe seems rational, therefore it is, but this does not address the root of the question ... why?

Ands here is also the root of the problem – for many in the secular world, their view of science is akin to 'superstition' in the belief that it has all the answers –if not now, then someday – which is exactly the kind of thing a positive-theist would say.

Science looks for facts. religion seeks meaning.
Click to expand...
There are no answers to the questions you keep asking, unless you make up the answer, which is what so many do.

Science looks for facts to understand our meaning. Religion fabricates our meaning to satisfy those who don't like facts.
 
Naturalist said:
Of course they're in conflict, and obviously it's not outdated.
Click to expand...
It's a model – it only has currency if you want it to. If conflict's your thing, then OK, but it's not mine – the discussion of ideas is more my thing – advance my understanding of the world.

I prefer a science that argues its position, rather than rest on dogmatic statements. That's why I did theology, to understand it.

You refuse to allow the debate to move beyond bounds you're pre-determined – therefore the outcome is predicable. Your rationalism is ultimately self-serving and self-deluding. Mine is more open, less constrained – but no less logical, reasonable or rational for all that.

Naturalist said:
In science you try to disprove what you believe to be true. One needs supporting evidence, one is open to changing one's mind with new evidence.
Click to expand...
Theology works in much the same way, its axioms are different ... The stuff you're talking about depends on the empirical – it's constrained within its field of operation. My science asks questions about the nature of the field as such.

Yours questions the validity of what one can see. Mine questions the validity of what one can think.

Naturalist said:
In religion, you believe what you want regardless of logic or evidence, and to change one's mind is frowned upon.
Click to expand...
That's utter nonsense.

Naturalist said:
We know the scientific approach is more productive than the religious approach. You're on a computer, on the internet, consuming electricity, thanks to the scientific approach.
Click to expand...
The argument that science is 'a force for good' is simply the transference of an idealism from God to Science – it's idolatry.
 
Thomas said:
It's a model – it only has currency if you want it to. If conflict's your thing, then OK, but it's not mine – the discussion of ideas is more my thing – advance my understanding of the world.

I prefer a science that argues its position, rather than rest on dogmatic statements. That's why I did theology, to understand it.

You refuse to allow the debate to move beyond bounds you're pre-determined – therefore the outcome is predicable. Your rationalism is ultimately self-serving and self-deluding. Mine is more open, less constrained – but no less logical, reasonable or rational for all that.


Theology works in much the same way, its axioms are different ... The stuff you're talking about depends on the empirical – it's constrained within its field of operation. My science asks questions about the nature of the field as such.

Yours questions the validity of what one can see. Mine questions the validity of what one can think.


That's utter nonsense.


The argument that science is 'a force for good' is simply the transference of an idealism from God to Science – it's idolatry.
Click to expand...
Conflict of ideas is what science is about. It's a challenge to find the most convincing evidence to change the smartest people's minds about a subject. You would not survive the scientific arena. It's a lie to call it dogmatic...and you know it.

Anyone can think anything about anything.....those thoughts are not necessarily true. Science obtains the evidence to help determine what are the best thoughts, and which thoughts should be tossed out. Again, you would not survive in the scientific arena.

You've already shown by your comments, that it's not "utter nonsense" what I had written previously. You are like the math student who is convinced an answer is some number, though the teacher tells you, you're wrong. "But I had a thought!" "My thought is equal to the right answer!" "Your answer is dogma!" Grow up.

You are determined not to accept reality, and you will probably succeed.
 
Naturalist said:
It's not just calculations, it's physical evidence..
Click to expand...
There is NO physical evidence to show that time has passed in a linear manner
since the big-bang.
If you are using calculations based on "that assumption", then how can the results
be meaningful in that context?

In theoretical physics, the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics in that quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative.
- Wikipedia -
 
OK ... any attempt at dialogue is clearly fruitless.

I happen to think that certain kinds of question and inquiry into the nature of the world and ourselves are valid – you rule them out on the basis of a supreme ignorance. I find that intellectually vapid.

The atheist may deny the legitimacy of such questions. And I understand its glamour, but it strikes me as tragic.

Ultimately atheism requires one to admit there is no reason for the world to be rational at all, and one ends up with a rather drab philosophy of nihilism, suffering and absurdity.

If such is the case, then all our claims to reason and rationality are themselves just a model by which we self-validate, the atheist is doing what they accuse the theist of doing. Ontologically such a universe, without Logos, is pointless.

I cannot provide you a watertight, irrefutable argument for the existence of God. Aquinas recognised that centuries ago – "the highest (science) of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections." (ST Q1, a8.)
I have answered your objections, you refuse to accept them, your grounds for refutation are invalid, but again you refuse to see that.

Meanwhile neither your philosophy nor your science can disprove God. The God you refute is your own idea, a false idol erected to be knocked down. You can pontificate as you like, but you are then merely trying to intimidate or ridicule, and it doesn't wash. I find your arguments and their logical alternative to be brute, bland and banal.

Pascal's wager: I would rather live by my reason than your logic.
 
Thomas said:
OK ... any attempt at dialogue is clearly fruitless.

I happen to think that certain kinds of question and inquiry into the nature of the world and ourselves are valid – you rule them out on the basis of a supreme ignorance. I find that intellectually vapid.

The atheist may deny the legitimacy of such questions. And I understand its glamour, but it strikes me as tragic.

Ultimately atheism requires one to admit there is no reason for the world to be rational at all, and one ends up with a rather drab philosophy of nihilism, suffering and absurdity.

If such is the case, then all our claims to reason and rationality are themselves just a model by which we self-validate, the atheist is doing what they accuse the theist of doing. Ontologically such a universe, without Logos, is pointless.

I cannot provide you a watertight, irrefutable argument for the existence of God. Aquinas recognised that centuries ago – "the highest (science) of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections." (ST Q1, a8.)
I have answered your objections, you refuse to accept them, your grounds for refutation are invalid, but again you refuse to see that.

Meanwhile neither your philosophy nor your science can disprove God. The God you refute is your own idea, a false idol erected to be knocked down. You can pontificate as you like, but you are then merely trying to intimidate or ridicule, and it doesn't wash. I find your arguments and their logical alternative to be brute, bland and banal.

Pascal's wager: I would rather live by my reason than your logic.
Click to expand...
You're still lying. Can you not help yourself? Try real hard...."I will not lie". Repeat often.

I rule out your questions because they've been asked for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. What are you doing that's different? Absolutely NOTHING.

No, atheism isn't about nihilism and it's not about eternal damnation either. You just have to lie to provide cover for your irrational thoughts.

I can't disprove leprechauns or flying dragons or Jesus flying around 2000 light years away, or Baal or Odin or Mithra or Casper or any infinite number of things you can imagine. If you make a claim something exists, the burden of proof is on you. You have failed. You're a failure. Deal with it.

Pascal's wager: 17th century erroneous philosophy that you cling to in the 21st century.

Well done.
 
muhammad_isa said:
There is NO physical evidence to show that time has passed in a linear manner
since the big-bang.
If you are using calculations based on "that assumption", then how can the results
be meaningful in that context?

In theoretical physics, the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics in that quantum mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative.
- Wikipedia -
Click to expand...
We initially assume time is linear. Based on that assumption, when we look into the past we expect to find different developmental changes in stars, galaxies, black holes, etc. that are consistent with that assumption. When that physical evidence confirms our assumption, then we find that meaningful, and continue employing the assumption.

That has been the case until very recently. The JWST found some large galaxies that we didn't expect to find so far in the past. People are working to understand why, lots of possible answers.
 
Naturalist said:
We initially assume time is linear..
Click to expand...
We do..

Naturalist said:
Based on that assumption, when we look into the past we expect to find different developmental changes in stars, galaxies, black holes, etc. that are consistent with that assumption..
Click to expand...
I don't "see it" .. if we are looking through a lens that we constructed with that assumption,
we cannot then conclude that the assumption is correct.
Dealing with billions of years, is not like dealing with hundreds.
eg. A non-linear curve looks linear(straight line) when a small section of it is examined

Naturalist said:
When that physical evidence confirms our assumption, then we find that meaningful, and continue employing the assumption.
Click to expand...
Circular argument .. you can't prove that an "expanding space-time continuum", has expanded at the same rate for billions of years.
The best you can do is create a model, and ASSUME it is correct.

Naturalist said:
People are working to understand why, lots of possible answers..
Click to expand...
..and what will these answers provide?
We still have to die one day .. and the same for the universe.

The questions that you prefer to answer with "we don't know" are more important to me.
You "don't know" what happens after death, you just CLAIM you do.
Brain research can't provide an answer .. it's no more than a guess!
 
Naturalist said:
That's where a biology course or two would do you some good. Also, try not to commit the fallacy of incredulity.
Click to expand...
You haven't answered my question, because you can't. It is incredible that you choose not to question your own beliefs in science, you just say, natural selection did it. Not good enough.
 
Naturalist said:
You're still lying. Can you not help yourself? Try real hard...."I will not lie". Repeat often.
Click to expand...
A response, but on a scale of philosophically useful, 0 out of 10.

Naturalist said:
I rule out your questions because they've been asked for THOUSANDS OF YEARS. What are you doing that's different? Absolutely NOTHING.
Click to expand...
And yet in scientific circles the question continues to be asked, to be discussed, and produces philosophical insight and understanding ... whereas you would have shut down the likes of Plato and Aristotle et al ... well done, you.

Naturalist said:
No, atheism isn't about nihilism and it's not about eternal damnation either. You just have to lie to provide cover for your irrational thoughts.
Click to expand...
This is a childish answer. I didn't say anything about eternal damnation, I said a fully-reasoned atheism leads inevitably to nihilism.

Naturalist said:
I can't disprove leprechauns or flying dragons or ...
Click to expand...
That you equate a discussion with God, or a belief in God, with the discussion of or belief in leprechauns, unicorns, flying dragons, Santa Claus, etc., just evidences the shallowness of your insight into the history of ideas and the paucity of your thought.

Naturalist said:
If you make a claim something exists, the burden of proof is on you. You have failed. You're a failure. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
All I'm dealing with your ignorance and intransigence.

OK, I'll deal with it, we're done.
 
muhammad_isa said:
We do..


I don't "see it" .. if we are looking through a lens that we constructed with that assumption,
we cannot then conclude that the assumption is correct.
Dealing with billions of years, is not like dealing with hundreds.
eg. A non-linear curve looks linear(straight line) when a small section of it is examined


Circular argument .. you can't prove that an "expanding space-time continuum", has expanded at the same rate for billions of years.
The best you can do is create a model, and ASSUME it is correct.


..and what will these answers provide?
We still have to die one day .. and the same for the universe.

The questions that you prefer to answer with "we don't know" are more important to me.
You "don't know" what happens after death, you just CLAIM you do.
Brain research can't provide an answer .. it's no more than a guess!
Click to expand...
Given, "3x = 6, solve for x".....if you don't understand how to work through the problem, then all you have is a guess. YOU

Others know how to work through the problem. ME
 
EricPH said:
You haven't answered my question, because you can't. It is incredible that you choose not to question your own beliefs in science, you just say, natural selection did it. Not good enough.
Click to expand...
This may come as shock, but this is a website comment section. You need some university level science courses. I can't accomplish that here.

You can either educate yourself, or remain willfully ignorant. That's up to you.

I'm happy to answer any questions that can fit reasonably within a comment.
 
Thomas said:
A response, but on a scale of philosophically useful, 0 out of 10.


And yet in scientific circles the question continues to be asked, to be discussed, and produces philosophical insight and understanding ... whereas you would have shut down the likes of Plato and Aristotle et al ... well done, you.


This is a childish answer. I didn't say anything about eternal damnation, I said a fully-reasoned atheism leads inevitably to nihilism.


That you equate a discussion with God, or a belief in God, with the discussion of or belief in leprechauns, unicorns, flying dragons, Santa Claus, etc., just evidences the shallowness of your insight into the history of ideas and the paucity of your thought.


All I'm dealing with your ignorance and intransigence.

OK, I'll deal with it, we're done.
Click to expand...
Ok, describe God....on your mark, get set, GO!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top