| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Is religious fundamentalism a disease of the mind? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 7 2007, 12:38 AM (5,020 Views) | |
| ivorythumper | Apr 8 2007, 04:03 PM Post #126 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Is there such a thing as human dignity without a transcendental horizon? If we are all self conscious, sentient biomachines then human dignity is nothing more or less than a particular sequence of electro chemical reactions that gives a sensation we call "human dignity". Sort of like digestion. It's good, but not meaningful. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 8 2007, 04:39 PM Post #127 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Copper: You never read the papers in countries you visit? As John indicated, my comments are quite accurate. Even priests have a hard time believing their own fairy tales, according to the surveys. Deb - Happy Easter!! My best to you and your family. Your note struck me as quite friendly and not galling at all. People have said far worse things in quite worse tones of voice. ![]() Dewey: "Science has proven its ability to find fact, not truth. While obviously related, one must not be confused for the other. The former can point toward the latter, but at most is only an indicator, and an incomplete one at that. Truth is something that no honest scientist would ever claim to be able to find; it's out of his area of expertise." A few hundred years ago, religion claimed the ability to judge everything. This is why Galileo was condemned, and why religious leaders often oppose evolution. Now that science has proven its ability to discover truths about the world beyond any other enterprise the human species has come up with, religion has redefined its role, retreating to matters of "morals" or "value" or ultimate "truth" and picking up on postmodern relativisation of "rationality". The trouble with this is that theology has no subject matter to study, any more than astrology or goat-entrail reading does. Theology can pretend to speak of an ultimate "truth" beyond the facts of the material world, but has no basis for doing so. There is no progress in religion, no way to compare and prove any of the competing religious claims from the various religions (indeed, religions often claim it is a religious virtue to believe without evidence on "faith"). Honest scientists (such as Weinberg and Watson) rightly point out regularly that this is poppycock, and that real truth requires a methodology of discerning fact from fiction among competing claims, which science has and religion lacks, and this is exactly within their area of expertise. |
![]() |
|
| Copper | Apr 8 2007, 04:57 PM Post #128 |
|
Shortstop
|
Now Jeffrey does.
In a forum that is loaded with people that just make up wild stuff off the tops of their heads , you are among the most wild. When you finish reading the newspaper you might want to go to the library and ask if they have any "theology subject matter to study". You'll be surprised. |
|
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 8 2007, 05:39 PM Post #129 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Actually Jeffrey, what I've said here is not new at all. It isn't redefining itself; it isn't picking up on new ideas. The points that I've made about the essence of Christianity go back to what its founder taught - not what people thought about it "a few hundred years ago." Postmodernists, for whatever their good and bad points, didn't invent the concept of rationality I'ved laid out; Jesus taught it long ago. As to science and truth, I repeat my earlier statement: science has nothing to say about truth; only facts. Science explains the how; theology explains the why. They're related, but only a fool, credentialed or otherwise, confuses one for the other. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 8 2007, 05:58 PM Post #130 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Do not confuse religion with God. Man made religion, and man messes it up quite often.
I go out at night and look up, and I see uncountable numbers of stars. Circling those stars are billions upon billions of bodies. Dead rock after dead rock. Yet for all the advances of science, not one scientist can tell me where any of it came from. I look down, and I see a planet teaming with life, unique among all the bodies in the universe. Science has come a long way in figuring out the how, Jeffrey. Science has not clue as to why. You dismiss, ridicule, and literally hate the answer to the why, Jeffrey. And there *is* a why, and it is just as if not more important than the how. As for the current state of the clergy in many places, it doesn't prove what you think, in fact it proves the opposite. You see, the book that explains the "why" told us to expect this. It told us this nearly 2,000 years ago, Jeffrey. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 8 2007, 06:48 PM Post #131 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Larry (et al): "And there *is* a why, and it is just as if not more important than the how." "It told us this nearly 2,000 years ago" "You dismiss, ridicule, and literally hate the answer to the why" Ah, yes, I remember now. Ahura Mazda will win in a victory of light and goodness over darkness and falsehood. This is the reason the universe was created, as the great prophet Zoroaster explained a long time ago. Or wait, is the answer I dismiss and hate that Allah is the one true god and Muhammed is his prophet? Or is it that I am trapped in the world of samsara and must meditate and do good deeds to escape the cycle of birth and rebirth and achieve Nirvana, which involves the final welcome extinction of my individual consciousness. I get so confused sometimes which view that explains the "why" of the universe I dismiss (since the believers of each of these views above dismiss all the other views, just as I do). On a more serious note, not every question that seems grammatical in english ("Why does the universe exist?") has an answer, nor does any answer that might exist have to be personalist and intentional in nature ("God created the world."). |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 8 2007, 06:51 PM Post #132 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Dewey: "theology explains the why" There is no "why" to explain. Theology has no subject, under your definition. Why do you think there must be a "why" of the sort you want? "fool, credentialed or otherwise, confuses one for the other" I am not confusing them. I am claiming that one of them does not exist. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 8 2007, 07:04 PM Post #133 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Does "human dignity" exist? Or is it a meme? If it's really just a construct, then it seems pretty silly for your really bright guy to say the one construct is insulting (yet another construct) to another construct. Why do you think that's a "good quote"? Its seems like nothing more than highly developed monkey chatter. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 8 2007, 07:05 PM Post #134 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
And you are profoundly wrong. But it is your right to be wrong. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 8 2007, 07:29 PM Post #135 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Larry: So which of the many many "why" answers proposed on "faith" in many different cultures do you propose to support? IT: We had this discussion about a year ago. You failed to even state accurately the opposing viewpoint, much less argue for your own. If you wish to try again, state why you think in a purely material universe there is no "love" "dignity" etc. This point seems very important to you, but you never state why you think it is so. You just assert it, usually in terms far more condescending and insulting than any I could possibly come up with. |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 8 2007, 08:00 PM Post #136 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I still see no way to move pass where we were given our fundamentally different views on what "reason" is. I wish only to clarify that it was never my intention to use "reason" as the ultimate determinant of "right/wrong, "factually correct/incorrect," or "morally appropriate/inappropriate." |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 8 2007, 08:10 PM Post #137 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I'm just askin', Jeffrey. You can evangelize for why strict materialism does not negate "human dignity" beyond being a particular sequence of chemicals in a self aware sentient biomachine, or you can feign insult, take your marbles, and go home. And don't kid yourself about your inability to use condescending and insulting terms for your opponents' positions. You regularly describe Christianity as "fairy tales" and talk about Jesus as an "invisible friend". Are you that shameless of a hypocrite? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 8 2007, 08:26 PM Post #138 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I admit I do not know the history between you and Jeffrey on this topic, ivorythumper. But this exchange I witnessed here has piqued my interest nonetheless. I am curious: What do you think "human dignity" is? Thanks. |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 8 2007, 09:18 PM Post #139 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
i have to preface this with the caveat the everything I could write about human dignity has already been rejected a priori by Jeffery as "aristotelian gobbledygook" and by Moonbat as "metawaffling". In short, the classical view of human dignity is an absolute and inherent worth that is intrinsic to the human person by virtue of their essence as acting moral persons, has been upheld through ontology. Ontology has been rejected, yet modernist think that they can assert "human dignity" without also asserting "human nature" -- a position that Fukuyama argues is inconsistent. My contention is that if it is all construct (personal, societal, political, pragmatic -- it really doesn't matter), then there is no objective human dignity. My challenge to Jeff consistently has been to show how there can be objective human dignity in a material world. He would rather make specious allegations about past conversations that he was unable to digest, feign offense, and otherwise avoid the discussion. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 8 2007, 10:37 PM Post #140 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Thanks, ivorythumper. I take it that Jeffrey is counter-challenging you to show why there cannot be "objective human dignity" in a (purely) material world, right? :mellow: |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 9 2007, 12:35 AM Post #141 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Well, Ax, as I have pointed out to him numerous times in the past, all there can be in a material world is chemicals and physical reactions and energy and other material stuff. If he is really in such agreement with Dawkins, he'd have to be consistent that "human dignity" is as much a meme as "God". A meme is just a bit of cultural info -- it might be good or bad, beneficial or malignant, true or false. But it is always a construct of the mind, and exists only in the mind. Human dignity, by that understanding, evolved for some reason -- perhaps to keep us from bashing in each other's heads, just as religion evolved to make sense of cataclysmic natural forces. Regardless of why it evolved, there is no objective basis to it since there is no reason for the human condition. There is no human nature. There is no essence of what it means to be human. There is no such thing as human substance, that is all just hellenistic gobbledygook. There are only blind mechanical forces, and our consciousness is nothing but some wierd and inexplicable combinations of biochemical activity in these soulless biomachines. Conciousness and interiority are nothing but happenchance -- nice, but meaningless apart from the meaning that an individual biomachine decides to give it. Meaningless apart from whatever memes the prevailing culture (= those biomachines powerful enough to control other biomachines) thinks is best to program into young biomachines through education. One of those happens to be "human dignity", but there really is nothing there in a strictly material world. Even converting your argument, Jeff has never shown why there cannot be a God, or why there cannot be a spiritual realm. He just asserts these things, and then also tosses around words like "human dignity" -- and even recently used the term "soul" even though several years ago he was utterly opposed to the term -- as if his asserting them was enough. The materialist charge against religion has always been: show me something measureable, something verifiable or falsifiable, something that can be replicated in a lab. I am simply taking him on his own terms, and when I do he punts. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 9 2007, 12:44 AM Post #142 |
|
Cheers
|
IT - question for you. Pretend, for the sake of argument, that it was within God's power to obliterate himself completely, and that he did so. Would human dignity then disappear? What if human beings were unaware that God had obliterated himself? |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 9 2007, 12:59 AM Post #143 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Pretend for the sake of argument that there was a square circle -- what shape would it be? Puzzle over that while I puzzle over yours. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| jon-nyc | Apr 9 2007, 01:49 AM Post #144 |
|
Cheers
|
In case you missed it, IT, here's God's obituary. |
| In my defense, I was left unsupervised. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 9 2007, 03:32 AM Post #145 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
That there is no "why" is your opinion. While I believe that there would be a "why" to explain even in the absence of myself or any other human, The mere fact that I can ask "why" means that there is a "why" to explain.
I don't think that there must be a why "of the sort that I want." I have reached an opinion regarding the nature of the "why;" but whether my opinion is correct, imcomplete, or incorrect, the ultimate reality of the "why" remains.
Even a fool is wise enough to recognize the existence of both. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 9 2007, 03:38 AM Post #146 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I'm not trying to move us beyond an impasse, I'm only trying to clarify my thoughts. In the process, I realized that as I was explaining my thoughts to you, I have left something out. Oddly enough, I was reading last night and came across a relatively short passage that dealt with the issue I wasn't really addressing with you. I don't have time right now, but later today I want to paste it in here for your reference. I think it not only clarifies my position a bit, but also draws your position and mine a hair's breadth closer (it won't resolve the two differences, but I think it adds another layer to what I've written earlier). For what it's worth, I don't think that you were confusing or equating the terms "rational/irrational" and "right/wrong", etc. Many others do, however. More later today. It isn't a terribly long passage, but it will take more time to type than I have this morning. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 9 2007, 09:44 AM Post #147 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
OK, Ax, here goes… Earlier in this thread, I was saying that we do not have available to us a concrete definition of "rationality" or "reason"; that we humans don't have the ability - the "right", if you will - to fully, completely, ultimately define that concept (reference my earlier comments to Moonbat). Later, in conversation with you, I mentioned that different people at different times and places can, and have, had somewhat different understandings of what would be considered "rational" - and that while there would always be some overlap (reference my "commonalities" comment to you), that each such definition would be both enhanced, and handicapped, by the specific human experience generating the particular understanding of rationality or reason. You've emphasized (if I understand you correctly) that you feel that there is an absolute definition of rationality, or reason. Actually, so do I. My earlier comments deal specifically with humanity being an insufficient repository for defining, or fully understanding, the term. I do, in fact, believe that there is an ultimate reason, but that its full definition is set by, resides in, and only fully understandable by, God. This debate/conversation is nothing new. People have been going back and forth about this specific issue since the earliest beginnings of the Christian faith, and many of the greatest of minds, inside and outside of the Church, have written about the topic. I happened to be reading last night from volume one of Justo Gonzalez' "The Story of Christianity," and I ran across this passage, that I thought was very applicable to this thread. Be patient with the long run-up to the main point, I think it’s important to set the stage for the applicable section. ========= …While all agreed on the need to abstain from idolatry, not all agreed on what should be a Christian’s attitude towrd classical pagan culture. This incuded the work and thought of philophers such as Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics, whose wisdom has been admired by many to this day. To reject all this would be to set aside some of the highest achievements of the human intellect; to accept it could be seen as a concession to paganism, an inroad of idolatry into the church. Therefore, on the question of the value of classical culture, Christians took two opposite tacks. Some insisted on a radical opposition between Christian faith and pagan culture. Typical of this attitude was Tertullian, who summarized it in a famous phrase: “What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? What does the Academy have to do with the Church?” What prompted him to write these lines was his conviction that many of the heresies that circulated in him time were the result of attempts to combine pagan philosophy with Christian doctrine. But even apart from the question of possible heresy, there were those who gloried in the “barbarian” origin of Christianity, over against the claims of classical culture and philosophy. Such was the case of Tatian, Justin Martyr’s most famous disciple, whose “Address to the Greeks” is a frontal attack to all that the Greeks considered valuable, and a defense of the “barbaric” Christians. Because Greeks called all those who did not speak like them “barbarians,” Tatian began by pointing out to them that they were not in agreement as to how Greek was to be spoken, for each region had its own dialect. Furthermore, argued Tatian, these people who claim that their tongue is the greatest of human creations have also invented rhetoric, which is the art of selling words for gold to the highest bidder, and which thus results in the defense of untruth and injustice. All that the Greeks have that is of any value – so said Tatian – they have taken from barbarians: they learned astronomy from the Babylonians, geometry from the Egyptians, and writing from the Phoenicians. And the same is true of philosophy and religion, since the writings of Moses are much older than those of Plato, and even than those of Homer. Therefore, any agreement between that culture which is supposedly Greek and the religion of the Hebrew and Christian “barbarians” is the result of the Greeks having learned their wisdom from the barbarians. And what makes matters worse is that the Greeks, in reading the wisdom of the “barbarians,” misunderstood it, and twisted the truth that the Hebrews knew. In consequence, the supposed wisdom of the Greeks is but a pale reflection and caricature of the truth that Moses knew and Christians preach. … … But not all Christians took the same stance. On becoming a Christian, Justin did not cease being a philosopher, but rather took upon himself the task of doing “Christian philosophy;” and a major part of that task as he saw it was to show and explain the connection between Christianity and classical wisdom. Thus, he did not share Tatian’s negative attitude toward philosophy. But this does not mean that he was willing to compromise his faith or that he was lacking in conviction, for when the time came for him to stand up for the faith he did so with courage, and is therefore known as “Justin Martyr.” Justin claimed that there were several points of contact between Christianity and pagan philosophy. The best philosophers, for instance, spoke of a supreme being from which every other being derives its existence. Socrates and Plato affirmed life beyond physical death; and Socrates showed the strength of that affirmation by the manner in which he died. Plato knew that there are realities beyond those of the present world, and thus posited another world of eternal realities. Justin claimed that the philosophers were basically correct on all these points, although he did not always agree on the manner in which they understood them – for instance, in contrast to the philosophers, Christian hope is not based on the immortality of the soul, but rather on the resurrection of the body. But in spite of such differences, Justin insisted that there were in the philosophers glimpses of truth that could not be explained as mere coincidence. How, then, can one explain this partial agreement between the philosophers and Christianity? For Justin, the answer is to be found in the doctrine of the Logos. This is a Greek word that means both “word” and “reason.” According to a tradition of long standing in Greek philosophy, the human mind can understand reality because it shares in the Logos or universal reason that undergirds all reality. For instance, if we are able to understand that two plus two make four, the reason for this is that both in our minds and in the universe there is a Logos, a reason or order according to which two and two always make four. The Fourth Gospel affirms that in Jesus the Logos or “Word” was made flesh. Thus, according to Justin, what has happened in the Incarnation is that the underlying reason of the universe, the Logos or Word of God, has come in the flesh. According to the Fourth Gospel, this Logos is “the true light that enlightens” everyone. This means that, even before the Incarnation, he is the source of all true knowledge. Paul had already said (I Corinthians 10:1-4) that the ancient Hebrews’ faith rested on none other than Christ, who had been revealed to them even before the Incarnation. Now Justin added that there were also among the pagans those who knew the same Logos, however dimly. Whatever truth there was in the writings of Plato was granted to him by the Logos of God, the same Logos who was incarnate in Jesus. Therefore, in a way, Socrates, Plato, and the other sages of antiquity were “Christians,” for their wisdom came from Christ. This is not to say, however, that the incarnation was not needed, for those philosophers of old knew him “in part,” whereas those who have seen him in his incarnation know him “fully.” ========= A follow-up, related, quote from later in the same book, which I read earlier this morning: ======== … It was in that context that Clement (of Alexandria) studied and taught… He was… a thinker and searcher; and his goal was not so much to expound the traditional faith of the church – although he did hold that faith – as to help those in quest of deeper truth, and to convince pagan intellectuals that Christianity was not the absurd superstition that some claimed it to be. In his “Exhortations to the Pagans,” Clement shows the gist of his theological method in making use of Plato and other philosophers. “I seek to know God, and not only the works of God. Who will aid me in my quest? … How then, O Plato, is one to seek after God?” Clement’s purpose in the passage is to show his pagan readers that a good part of Christian doctrine can be supported by Plato’s philosophy. Thus, pagans will be able to approach Christianity without taking for granted, as many supposed, that it is a religion for the ignorant and the superstitious. But the reason why Clement calls on Plato is not only that it is convenient for his argument. He is convinced that there is only one truth, and that therefore any truth to be found in Plato can be no other than the truth that has been revealed in Jesus Christ and in Scripture. According to him, philosophy has been given to the Greeks just as the Law has been given to the Jews. Both have the purpose of leading to the ultimate truth, now revealed in Christ. The classical philosophers were to the Greeks what the prophets were to the Hebrews. With the Jews, God has established the covenant of the Law; with the Greeks that of philosophy. … (According to Clement,) There is a close relationship between faith and reason, for one cannot function without the other. Reason builds its arguments on first principles, which cannot be proven, but are accepted by faith. For the truly wise, faith is the first principle, the starting point, on which reason is to build. … ======== That’s where I believe that “reason” – Logos – is most fully, truly, defined. Not in any particular cultural setting or through human “rules”, but in the eternal Logos; which was seen most purely in Jesus Christ, and through whom all subsequent understandings of “reason” must be gauged and compared. There is indeed an ultimate arbiter of what is rational; it just isn’t us. |
|
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685. "Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous "Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011 I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14 | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 9 2007, 02:30 PM Post #148 |
|
Senior Carp
|
IT: "Pretend for the sake of argument that there was a square circle" The implication of this in the context of a reply to jon's question is that you think that the statement "God does not exist" is false by definition. Assuming you meant the logical implication of your "square circle" refusal to entertain jon's question, do you also grant to other religions and viewpoints the right the declare their positions true by definition, or does this right apply only to your view?? Again, nothing you have said above indicates why you think, in a purely material world, love, dignity, morality etc. would not exist. They would, as jon's question shows, be exactly the same as they are now. Please explain why, if god did not exist love etc. would also not exist. You have never done so, although this point seems central to your worldview. Your only attempt at "argument" (I hesitate to dignify it with that term) is to claim that if there were no god, consciousness, love, moral choice, etc. would be mere "digestion" or like a "rock" or "monkey chatter". As I pointed out last time, this does not follow. A rock is an unconscious set of chemicals (etc.) and love is a relation between conscious people. Moral choice is not digestion, since it is a voluntary mental action and digestion is not. Just because love is a set of chemical and electrical impulses does not make it less valuble. I will expand a bit. I can think of 4 distinct phenomena that we call love: (1) Romantic Love (2) Partner Love (3) Parental Love (4) Altruistic Love. We actually understand the chemical basis of many of these quite well now. Romantic or Infatuation love triggers the same sort of chemicals as addiction. The evolutionary basis for this seems to be to encourage pair bonding for long enough for a child to be born, and it does not last long. New mothers have oxytocin released to help bond with the child, and there is a clear reason for this. Partner Love is not an emotion at all, but a long-standing pattern of behavior, and probably has no clear or narrow set of chemical releases attached to it. Studies of Tantric Monks who meditate on altruism and practice it, show more active production of serotonin and other "positive" chemicals in their brains, which underly the good feelings we get when altruistic. While these issues are only partly understood, learning the brain chemistry of love does not make love into "not-love" or love into a rock-state. It simply explains the biological basis for this emotion/behavior pattern. Nothing else is needed (or if you think there is, state what that something else is). If the "transcendent" something else you think is needed can be detected by scientific means, then it too is a material object, if it cannot be detected by scientific means (I am sure this is your position) then you must explain how this non-detectable "stuff" interacts with the material world, since it itself is not material at all. As for "dignity", let me accept your definition of human dignity as based on the autonomous informed voluntary moral choices of human beings. This is not far from the Kantian definition. This would support Weinberg's contention that religion is an affront to human dignity. Since religion tends to denigrate reason in favor of "faith", and to cause humans to fight and die over fairy tales told in their culture versus the fairy tales told in other cultures, it clearly interferes with human dignity, understood as the capacity for informed voluntary moral choice. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 9 2007, 03:10 PM Post #149 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Dewey: "The mere fact that I can ask "why" means that there is a "why" to explain." This is a logical fallacy. The antecedent of your argument (a) ("I can ask 'why'") does not imply the consequent (b) ("there is a 'why' to explain"). Just because you can ask a question, does not imply that there is an answer to the question, or even that the question makes sense or has meaning. You could also ask the questions "Why does green fall in love?" or "What is the purpose of the Buddha-state?" These questions are also ill-formed or have no answer. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 9 2007, 03:25 PM Post #150 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Dewey: "According to a tradition of long standing in Greek philosophy, the human mind can understand reality because it shares in the Logos or universal reason that undergirds all reality. For instance, if we are able to understand that two plus two make four, the reason for this is that both in our minds and in the universe there is a Logos, a reason or order according to which two and two always make four." Of the many errors in the book that you cite, I will focus only on this one. First, this is not an accurate account of Greek philosophy. It might (I say might) be a gloss on early Plato and the theory of forms (not Heraclitus or Democritus, of course). But Plato abandoned the theory of forms (in the Parmenides) and looked for other theories of knowledge. Some of these reasons were technical (the infinite regress of the Third Man argument) but the biggest problem was how to account for knowledge of "sensibles", (i.e. the real world around us). Thus Plato searches for a new model in the Theatetus. I have no idea who else the author could have in mind who might have been the Greek philosopher who held the odd theory of knowledge referred to. The reason this is important is that no modern philosopher would accept an epistemology (theory of how we know) like the one suggested above, since it cannot account for knowledge of sensible reality. The reason we learn that 2+2 is four, is not that our minds commune with the order of the universe, but what when little we add two crackers to two crackers and then wind up eating 4 crackers. Works every time. Where is quantum physics or evolution in the Logos of the universe?? What about non-Euclidian geometry? The theory given does not requre empirical evidence for knowledge, and assumes that the way we naturally think mirrors the way the universe is. This is some sort of anthropomorphic fallacy. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |










12:45 AM Jul 13