and?
You think factual debate in science doesn't bring a few "maybes" to the table?
Religious people aren't built for logical debate.
- Thread starter universaldistress
- Start date
You think factual debate in science doesn't bring a few "maybes" to the table?
I...guess you could say that...
Devoutly religious people haveeither come to believe, or more often been taught, their religion is 100% true. They believe it is true. There is no part of them that questions it as absolute fact.
So to them, taking their god(s) and their religious texts as established fact is logical. Building from this base as if these "facts" are really facts makes sense to them.
A true believer can't be brought to admit even to themselves that their religious beliefs are things which cannot be concretely, logically proven...and set them to the side.
They cannot admit that belief in anything immaterial is a choice. Many cannot admit the validity of other choices than their own.
I doubt there are many of what I term "true believers" in the hard sciences, simply because they sharpen those skeptical mental razors into too sharp a cutting tool...and eventually turn it on what they were often indoctrinated to believe as kids.
are they key figures in the various branches of philosophy?
First of all, cite your source. Second of all, it was 900 philosophers across 99 leading universities. I'd imagine that there would certainly be some "key" figures among them depending on your definition. But I don't have a list of names. Third of all, they are all alive now (or at least were when they took the survey which wasn't too long ago).
I hope your own merry band of philosophers aren't all long dead. Scientific understanding has come along way over the centuries and usually has a very significant impact on philosophy.
Key figures in various branches of philosophy?
I thought it was obvious.
Big difference between a philosopher and a philosophy lecturer
What does it matter whether they are dead or not?
I mean its not like the work of a scientist becomes null and void once they kick the bucket.
The claim was made that religion can't be discussed within the purview of philosophy (ie with logic, etc).
This is a strange claim, since even if one goes to study under the tutelage of any of the before-mentioned 900 of them in contemporary universities, you can bet that the curriculum will involve analyzing the key figures of the various branches of philosophy (as opposed to analyzing the personal philosophical tastes of the person giving the lecture).
You've never encountered a revision of explanations of the universe, matter or life (in fact just about anything they lay claim to) within the historiography of science?
Or alternatively, I think even the Catholics are up to their twenty-first Ecumenical Council .....
Last edited:
Of course but it is a parallel between fringe science and philosophy. Philosophy entertains things like questioning of whether I exist etc. things that question mainstream Science's agreed upon conclusions. Whether this is wrongly or rightly is individual choice.
But please note I said ANY maybe. What I would call mainstream science usually prefers to deal with a process of putting the next brick on the existing wall, or at least a brick that can be foreseen to be able to be placed within the wall, a wall that it has been preagreed to exist.
Philosophy, advanced Mathematics, and Multiverse theories delve deeply in untestable (at present) areas. And I most definitely don't knock that. In fact I have my own Multiverse "theory" (could never say belief) that may allow the existence of god/creator within the parameters of existing scientific thought.
I suppose we humans just love to wrangle incessantly over terminology and categorisation, questioning each others barebones interpretations. I do find it extremely seductive to try and move into a mode of thought that allows myself to not be final on any of it. But I am not sure even that is possible.
And rightly so. Let it be.
Keep banging head against wall, and lobbing rocks through the metaphorical window, there is always a wall that succumbs, and always someone to deflect a rock.
Because not, anyone has ever shown a god/gods to exist, it is called a faith for a reason.
Hence why it's maybes.
Of course it does, but it will end on a fact. Whereas philosophy can only end on a maybe. Huge difference.
Like I said, science has come a long way over the centuries and philosophers have always been influenced to a very significant degree by the level of scientific knowledge that was available to them when they were formulating their thoughts on particular issues. If those philosophers were a live today they would almost certainly think differently on a whole range of topics.
I am simply challenging the validity of your statistics insofar as you use them to support what you are saying, even if what you are saying does indeed have some merit all by itself.
The statistics you cite have nothing to do with key figures in the various branches of philosophy anymore than science teachers in a university constitute key figures in the various branches of science.
Ironically if you are trying to suggest that scientific advancement is capable of shifting the views of these various key figures in philosophy, you have quite a bit of philosophical work ahead of you ....
:bugeye:
I've always found it strange how people can talk of arriving at facts independent of philosophy
So you are trying to suggest that mainstream science isn't subject to revision?
i don't mind that part..it challenges me..
its just with a religion subforum you can expect ppl there who believe in god, it is not an open season ticket to attack those users beliefs, its about respect..yes some do not act like they deserve respect, but that doesn't mean ppl should show a lack of respect just because a user believes in God.
Test all things, hold onto what is good, is in the bible AND thats one of my biggest mantra's..
so i don't mind being tested..(wouldn't happen on a christian board)
um, been there done that, didn't work..it was like an invitation for all the God bashers..thread didn't last long..
i like deviation as long as it has wisdom in it..
the god vs no-god arguments just get ridiculous. good place to study the concept of 'projection', when a user accuses another user of something that he was guilty of himself..but other than that there is no value to debateing god vs no-god, and i would agree if they can keep it in one thread, it wouldn't be such a problem, but atheist tend to go on the attack when a believer stumbles into their preconcieved notions of what a believer is no matter what thread it is in..
hmm really?
um, i was thinking of other users here also , who know more than me,
i tend to be an instigator, and i tend to speak my mind (right or wrong).
isn't science supposed to be good at teaching?
the short version is ' all i can do is share what i know, it up to the other person to decide what to do with it.Again - comes across as yet more arrogance.
(the wisdom word was a first)
but
it is a valid premise, it says i am not always right.
as what i am saying is what i believe is truth,
if you want to take it so quickly as THE truth, then i say you are a 'do as your told' person, and again not my fault..
i don't want you to believe in me, i am just as screwed up as the rest of you..
it is..how are you not aware of how you make your decisions? (think,feel,know,believe?)
um..thats my bitch about that particular subject matter (GvNG)
there is nothing constructive about that particular topic.
Yet every one of the just over 900 professional philosophers surveyed would have had significant exposure to the philosophy of the key figures you speak of.
Philosophy is quite a bit different from science. It is comparatively easy for a scientist (or group of scientists) to obtain funding for a research project because science has all sorts of practical applications. But for the vast majority of philosophers teaching is the only option available to them. Some of them are lucky enough to work at research institutes or for think tanks but such opportunities are very rare.
The problem you're describing isn't a philosophical one, it's a supernatural one. I'd have to figure out a way to raise them all from the dead.
Seriously though, most work in philosophy today, even by the philosophers who are lucky enough to have positions where they can spend a significant amount of time doing what philosophers are supposed to be doing (advancing certain schools of knowledge), is an extension of the work done by all the philosophers who have come before them. Why? Because all of the various branches of philosophy were all established long ago and all of the low hanging fruit has already been picked. You shouldn't make the mistake of assuming that we don't have philosophers in the world today who are just as intelligent and insightful as the greats throughout history, just like you shouldn't assume that we don't have scientists alive today who are as intelligent and insightful as Einstein or Newton. We clearly do.
There is a core knowledge in science that is less likely to waver even with an alteration of the laws of physics. Of course science is changeable. The question really is where do you draw the line between this "core" science and fringe science. highly open to debate I would think?
The nature of science's process is that it is always capable of change given evidence that overwhelms or ties into better previous evidence.
Things can be looked at from many viewpoints, words are infinitely flexible in their application. But science tries to tend to agree on the meaning for a scientific term. The dictionary gives us multiple meanings and possibilities for one word.
A brick wall isn't impossible to move, rebuild. I wouldn't read too much into the analogy. . .
Certain things work the way they do and that's it (at present) it is a default function of the universe. Not to say humans won't learn how to manipulate something like the quantum background and make things work differently. But that doesn't stop the default's validity?
Yet even if one enrolls under the tutelage of any of the said 900 persons, one will be studying the philosophical approaches of key figures within the language of logical debate, so the OP is moot.
there's other ways toe explain it too - like the humanities as a discipline being over shadowed by the revolutionary force of physics in the sciences, so all humanities professors kind of operate with an inferiority complex at worst or a kowtowing attitude at best to the powers that be.
The big funding bodies in science grants generally draw from two crowds - the pharmaceutical industry (ie patents) and the military - philosophy won't really help these two industries in their pursuits, but its certainly effective in critiquing their pursuits.
IOW one difference between philosophy and science that you perhaps haven't picked up is that it doesn't require funding in order to be valid. IOW your notion that funding lends credibility to a discipline of knowledge is certainly a contentious philosophical/ethical point at the onset.
The problem is that you just used the word "supernatural" in an attempt to minimalize the position of philosophy that is discordant with your values ... which, btw, is a philosophical problem
Perhaps if you didn't have access to a library with their writings
If they are yet to make a distinguishable contribution to society, why place them in the same category as those persons who already have (regardless whether they are a scientist or a philosopher)?
Last edited:
You don't think evidence that observation affects results is revolutionary?
and lo and behold, religion also has its share of terms, practices and conclusions that lend comprehension tot he discipline (or alternatively, bewilderment in their absence)
I have already said that I feel religion in some ways is a rogue element within modern science, one that befuddles logic and makes the conclusions it wants to see, and takes maybes as fact. It is a mindset. A good scientist doesn't believe (if that's the right word?) until there is concrete evidence, but still maintains healthy skepticism. Religion unwaveringly believes something based on the the idea it must be true, or someone told me, or I want it to be true so I can use it as a psychological placebo to feel comfortable with the trials and tribulations of life. Where is the data?
That being said, I am open to the idea that a creator could exist, for me that is true science.