Is it rational to think that 30 years of experience in the aerospace industry lends any credibility to one's (personal) claims in the fields of geology or archeology? How about theology or philosophy? Professor Lewis Wolpert, erudite biologist at London's University College, writes that most scientists today are ignorant of philosophical issues. Though at the beginning of the twentieth century a professional scientist normally had a background in philosophy, Today things are quite different, and the stars of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic. ("The Unnatural Nature of Science") :shrug:
the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic. ("The Unnatural Nature of Science") /pats/head i say thats reiku to a tee
given the absence of philosophy in the curriculum of contemporary scientific training, its hardly unique. Unfortunately this has predictable results Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything Benjamin Wooley - Virtual Worlds :shrug:
Yes most systems start with with belief. Theists stop at this point. All other seekers of knowledge test, and test and the offal falls to the wayside. Theists are content to ignore every bit of evidence that contradicts their beliefs to the point of absurdity. " god did it", "we can't know the way of god". Those are pretty short biology lessons no? or anthropology or geology. To grant credit to something that cannot be tested or examined, particulary when absolutely every shred of evidence points elsewhere is nothing but irrational. I cannot see any other word for it. But again I'll ask you to provide a definition for the word/s 'logic' & 'rational thought' that includes believing in the supernatural. It's one thing for bronze age people looking for ways to explain what they don't under stand. that justification no longer exists.
if that is what you believe, no wonder that you are now an atheist I am not sure if I understand your argument, so I will try and play it back to you before I begin. Is this your argument? P1 All evidence points towards god's non existence p2 All theistic claims are contradictory p3 All theistic claims are attempts to compensate for lacks of knowledge conclusion - therefore all theistic claims are irrational
Yes 30 years is enough for the real world. There is absolutely no reason to study theology any more than flint knapping. Philosophy,, I'll leave that to the likes of Depak. It is inane to think that a physicist needs a knowledge of philosophy.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
you are certainly fitting this quote to the letter Science, as we have already discovered, is outrageously demanding. It demands that it is not simply a way of explaining certain bits of the world, or even the local quarter of the universe within telescopic range. It demands that it explains absolutely everything Benjamin Wooley - Virtual Worlds
if that is what you believe, no wonder that you are now an atheist No that is what I've observed. You may deny it, but you can't demonstrate it I am not sure if I understand your argument, so I will try and play it back to you before I begin. I'm up for the 2nd night with insomnia. But barring typos I'm sure that you get my point. P1 All evidence points towards god's non existence p2 All theistic claims are contradictory p3 All theistic claims are attempts to compensate for lacks of knowledge conclusion - therefore all theistic claims are irrational P1 it certainly does P2 the ones that can be tested are false or contradictory or meaningless. P3 Lack of knowledge or desire to fit in with friends etc. Until you can provide one shred of proof, yes. That is pretty much the definition of irrational.
presuming one can make grand philosophical claims without some training or knowledge in philosophy can also be hazardous to your health ....
Science most certainly not ask for all explainations. Just the natural ones. I'm too tired to google Wooley now, is there any reason to think a quote from Virtual Worlds or this man should mean anything to me?
before you begin you are going to provide the definitions that I asked for. I'm going to hit the rack.
I had hoped it may cause you to reconsider what you meant by saying science has superseded philosophy .....
definitions of rationality are already established this is a rational statement p1 all pigs can fly p2 all horses are pigs therefore all horses can fly (of course there are a few problems with the premises) this is a truthful statement p1 I am hungry p2 it is almost night time therefore it is thursday (of course it has a few problems with rationality) people often make the claims that theism is not rational, when actually they mean something else- at the moment I am just trying to help you form a coherent argument
