begging the question and ad homs are most frequent Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why should it? what authority does this man have? Why should anyone pay any attention to what he says, thinks, or does? Although I do seem to recall his name. I guess I'll have to research his creds since you didn't establish them.
Those are examples, not definitions. We need definitions, and there are several dictionarys on line. You might want to copy a link to help establish Bona Fides
Here are ny sources concerning physics and your alleged need to add philosophy. Michele Besso Paul Erhenfest Niels Bohr Max Born Arthur Eddington Philipp Frank Werner Hiesenberger David Hilbert Banesh Hoffman Philipp Lenard Hendrik Lorentz Mileva Maric Robert Millikan Herman Minkowski Georg Nicolai Abraham pais Max Planc Erwin Schrodinger ( check out his cat) Leo Szilard since the protocal has been established ( by you) I'll check your source, you may have the honour ofchecking mine.
The next time you quote an author please try to spell his name correctly, there are two l's in Woolley. Since he is simply an author and can demonstrate no expertise in either philosopy or physics. The quote is meaning less.
Professor Lewis Wolpert, erudite biologist Yes he seems to be as you advertised. Smart, certainly. But a biologist no demonstrated expertise in physics or philosophy. Why should I pay any attention to them out side of their fields of studys/
I think that by rational, we mean based on sound premises, and following a logically consistent argument to it's conclusion. Theism has as it's premise an unseen, sometimes unfathomable, and always supernatural entity/cause/god(s) that require what the catholics revere as the "mystery of faith". The arguments and constructions that follow are ambiguous, many times selfcontradictory and end with as many different conclusions as there are theologians. This, I think, firmly places theism in the realm of the not-rational. Theories like the expansive beginning of the universe as we know it (big bang) rest on solid and demonstrable physics. Where such theories break down represent opportunities for new understandings of physics or undiscovered phenomena. Not wild speculation and construction of entire baseless philosophies like religion. Hopefully you can see the difference.
Sl I don't mean to side track your thread, would you like for me to ask a moderator to split this off?
OK. I moderate a forum on another board which I'm going to check now but I'll stop back before I spend some time with my family.
there was no question asked. this is the second time you have referred to argumentum ad hominem, if you assert this again wrongfully be prepared to provide a definition.Ta, off to BAUT.
And I came up with this http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index
well no its not thinking - if you were in the middle of discussing something scientific and someone just threw in "pseudo science clap trap" with out explaining anything further, what would you make of it? (IOW it doesn't constitute a legitimate challenge to anything) examples don't illustrate definitions? rationality means that the premises lead to the conclusion truthfulness means that the premises (and possibly the conclusion) are true. when you say "theism" is irrational it seems that you are actually trying to say theism is not truthful some of them had formal training in philosophy what makes Dawkins unique however is that he is making bold philosophical claims (namely providing a definition of delusion and applying it to a field beyond his scope of expertise) his statement is not a philosophical one his statement is an observation of the state of affairs in science once again - he is not making a philosophical statement - he is however making a statement about the state of affairs in contemporary science however ....
sound premises is an issue of truthfulness a consistent argument is an issue of rationalism electrons are also unseen. What does it mean to be "sometimes unfathomable"? Sometimes fathomable? And as for "supernatural", a better word to use would be transcendental (ie superseding efforts of empiricism) if you want to write this off as a truthful premise I think you have to provide some sort of authority or body of work that you can reference provided your above premise is truthful, yes interesting that you refer to the big bang aren't we hubbled, I mean huddled, around different ideas of the origin of the universe now (the arguments don't happen to be ambiguous, many times self contradictory and end with as many different conclusions as there are theorists do they?) whats the difference between a new opportunity offered by a broken down theory and a wild speculation? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No. Sound premises are also an issue of truthfulness. As in they are based on honest evaluations of the facts as presented by honest admissions of what we know and don't know (based on scientific rigor). No. Electrons are "seen" but not directly observed. The effects they produce are entirely prevalent and observable. The explanation for these effects has been solidly and consistently proven to be a small particle called an electron. This can be thoroughly trusted by untrained but interested laymen with the smallest bit of research into basic science. Unlike researching basic theology (as I have) there is no coherency or compelling foundational logic visible whatsoever. In some mythologies the entity is fathomable, like the greek gods. Their motives were well understood by those that subscribed to them. What? That religion as the explanation for the anything we see around us is baseless mythology? It's axiomatic my friend. No my poor scientifically ignorant friend. All actual cosmologists accept that the universe was once in a hot, dense state and evolved according to physical law. Some of the mechanisms are in debate, but the conclusion is unanimous. One is guided by scientific rigor and the desire to find the actual reality of what is happening. The other is a hallmark of blind faith and wishful thinking. Just a note. I brought up the BB because it is one of the greatest discoveries in science. And one of the most misunderstood by the general public. Despite what some nutters here may post, it's in fine shape and has extroadinary explanatory power. This does not mean that it is the be-all-end-all of the description of the universe. But whatever future descriptions arise, they won't be revealed by the bible, quran, or the BG.
some of them had formal training in philosophy what makes Dawkins unique however is that he is making bold philosophical claims (namely providing a definition of delusion and applying it to a field beyond his scope of expertise) Really? which ones? Please be specific. I'm apologize, but I missed the post that Dawkins was introduced. Could you provide the post#? Beyond his scope of expertise? Considering the backgrounds of those that you have introduced, Is this a claim that you really want to make?
"examples don't illustrate definitions? rationality means that the premises lead to the conclusion truthfulness means that the premises (and possibly the conclusion) are true. when you say "theism" is irrational it seems that you are actually trying to say theism is not truthful" Examples are ambiguous. Too open to different interpertations. If we cannot agree on the exact meaning of words,, "rationality means that the premises lead to the conclusion" Not detailed enough. An insane man could make a wild guess that, accidently, turns out to be correct. But you could not call the person rational "truthfulness means that the premises (and possibly the conclusion) are true." Really? That is too broad to be meaningfull. Before we go any further, I'll request that you provide definitions (with links). "when you say "theism" is irrational it seems that you are actually trying to say theism is not truthful" You are mixing up to different meanings and trying to apply them 'willy nilly'. Unacceptable.
