If you like. But you should know - it doesn't have a happy ending...
Posted on 05/29/2002 8:32:25 AM PDT by cornelis
It sounds profound, but he is basically bringing up the question of epistomology. And he answers it very badly, at least in the sense that the subjectivist epistomology he is implying has been discarded as grossly flawed (by those who pay attention to such things) a very long time ago.
In fact, one of the best works on rational epistemology was written by the Protestant theologian William Bartley in his book "The Retreat To Commitment", which was actually a study of rational thought within the framework of Protestant theology. Bartley's ideas on epistemology were an important advance in the field (his epistemology is usually called "pan-critical rationalism"), and he specifically tried to eliminate the gross blunders in Protestant thought that the fellow above is making. Many of the smarter breed of atheist and agnostic subscribe to Bartley's pan-critical rationalism as well (as opposed to Rand's Objectivism, which has some theoretical flaws). While Bartley wrote his book with religious intent, many of his ideas are universally applicable and well thought out.
My point being that I find it hard to give Mr. Johnson much creedence when his ideas on rational thought are crusty, poor, and way out of date, even by the standards of the philosophers and theologians of his own religion. In this sense, he is basically making an argument from ignorance. At the very least, time would be much better spent discussing this topic with someone who had more of a clue as to the real points of contention than Mr. Johnson.
Actually, there is no clear definition of human consciousness, which is, most would agree, at the core of what it means to be human. The nature of consciousness (and related matters, such as free will) remains a great mystery scientifically.
Actually not true. If you take scientific theory like quantum mechanics, as an example, you find that the theory can be used to explain many phenomena. This particular theory explains everything from the structure of atoms to electricity, to nuclear fusion, etc. etc. But it relies on mathematical structures and equations that are themselves unverifiable (waves of probability described by imaginary numbers which cannot be actually directly shown to exist by any conceivable experiement). Yet scientists agree that it's good solid science (though its basis is unprovable), because it has explanatory power. The same with my religion, Christianity. Christ provides, for me (obviously not for you), deep answers to many of the questions that mankind has always had. Many of those answers provide a theory that explains quite well (for me) many of the human phenonema that I observe.
However, what I have observed is that the skepticism of many of these so called "evolution skeptics" is not so much the result of detecting any flaws or inconsistencies in the theory but it is mainly induced by the strong desire that it may not be true. And accordingly, many of them are using arguments from consequence when they attack evolution.
On the other hand I don't know how many proponents of evolution argue against creationism because they don't want it to be true.
One of the leading examples of that was in the section on religion. In my article—my study guide of sham neutrality—I used as my textbook example the decision of the California Supreme Court on the government funding of abortions. The US Supreme Court said, "You have the right to get an abortion, but it’s not unconstitutional for Congress to refuse to fund abortions as part of medical care." However, the California Supreme Court decided the issue the other way around; they said, "You do have to fund it." The justification for that conclusion began, "Now, we’re not saying anything about the morality of abortion, we simply don’t take any stance on that. All we’re saying is that abortion has to be treated like other forms of child-birth decisions." So I said, "Well, why don’t you say, ‘We’re not saying anything about the morality of abortion, we just feel it has to be treated as the equivalent of other forms of homicide?’" The classification was a moral statement, so it was a sham neutrality."
***** What Dr. Johnson called 'sham neutrality' is today's PC 'political correctness'-not really correct at all, just suitable for arguing.
That's a literary and film reference for those Freepers with filthy minds.
Its a little late for that haughty game.
This is quite Aristotelian. It's in his Analytics, and Metaphysics and Nicomachean Ethics. It deviates somewhat because Aristotle will allow for the admission of some first premises by logical reasoning. But even this is not sufficient by itself, and supreme wisdom belongs the one who has access to first principles and is characterized by phronesis and sophia.
Justice Scalia has a clue on this. In his dissent on the football prayer case he criticized the content neutral ideal.
Substitute 'truth' for 'math and science'.
Or, polling math and political science
"When you get to the end of your knowledge, you get to the beginning of God." Some people get to God a lot sooner than others. Those without knowledge are sometimes all the wiser.
We are obliged to show the patience of a pedagogue, toward the liberal, toward the conservative, toward the fundamentalist, toward the antagonistic. True, the resistent attitude, like the young Helen Keller, whose willfullness stood in the way of learning language, whose resistance incited her to tear apart a new doll, with relish, all those things which have nothing to do with reason and reflection, are a great barrier to civil discourse and advance in understanding.
If you like. But you should know - it doesn't have a happy ending...
I never claimed that quantum mechanics explains everything. I just noted that its fundamental assertions are unprovable from an experimental basis - yet it has great explanatory power. The same is true for Christianity - fundamental assertions are unprovable from an experimental basis - yet it has (for many!) great explanatory power. And as for the universal hypothesis, even Christians don't believe that God explains everything. If man has free will (which Christians believe), then man can do things that are hard to explain. But on the creation question, either God created the universe or God did not. I don't think you have any more proof on your side that he didn't than I do that he did.
Not at all. Where he makes substantive arguments, he can reasonably expect substantive responses. And where he makes legalistic arguments designed to play semantic games and to obscure the truth, he can reasonably expect to be exposed for that. If he has an argument, let him bring it forth. If he has nothing more than polemic, let him debate himself.
Quite simple, really.
This is not correct. In the orthodox interpretation reality is ascribed only to the measurements - the mathematical structures and equations (read quantum states) are for computational purposes only and no reality is necessarily implied.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.