| 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 (5,018 Views) | |
| Larry | Apr 10 2007, 05:11 AM Post #176 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Oops!..... ![]() |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Mikhailoh | Apr 10 2007, 06:33 AM Post #177 |
|
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
|
Well it's a good thing you told him, Larry! Of course now he will be insufferable - that all knowing thing, you know.... :lol: |
|
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 10 2007, 07:40 AM Post #178 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
If the universe has a creator who created it with a purpose then the question "what purpose does it have?" is a meaningfull question. If there is no creator then the question is invalid. Contrary to your earlier statement simply being able to ask the question does not make it valid. Before one looks for the answer to a question one must first ask whether the question is meaningfull. (Interestingly the question "is question X meaningfull?" is always a meaningfull question.) |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 10 2007, 07:50 AM Post #179 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Whao! ![]() Jeffrey -- you must use this as your sig line!
|
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 10 2007, 08:26 AM Post #180 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Correct.
Incorrect, in that the answer would be important to confirm the non-existence of the creator.
Sorry to break this to you, but you don't have the authority to determine which questions are worth asking, and which ones aren't. |
|
"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 | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 10 2007, 08:54 AM Post #181 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
You haven't understood. - The question "what is the purpose of the universe?" is invalid _if_ the universe does not have a purpose, for the question _necessarily assumes that the universe has a purpose_ (and then asks what that purpose is). Likewise the question "what is the colour of sound?" is invalid because it _necessarily assumes that colour has a sound_ and in fact colour does not. A question is invalid if it necessarily assumes something false. Many philosophical failures are due to people asking meaningless questions without realising it. That is why when considering any question of significance it is important to acertain the dependencies it requires to be meaningfull. First one must know whether the question is meaningfull then one can begin looking for the answer to the question. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 10 2007, 09:06 AM Post #182 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Seems to me he understood you perfectly. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 10 2007, 09:11 AM Post #183 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Then you haven't understood either. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Larry | Apr 10 2007, 09:24 AM Post #184 |
![]()
Mmmmmmm, pie!
|
Maybe it's you that hasn't understood. |
|
Of the Pokatwat Tribe | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 10 2007, 09:27 AM Post #185 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Jon: the non sequitor was in removing a predicate and then expecting a valid syllogism. The problem with your presumption of dignity is that it seems to be historically contingent on a particular development of thought -- namely the Judeo Christian tradition. Remember that it was predominantly Christianity the first grounded human rights in human dignity: abortion and infanticide were violations of human dignity; slavery was a violation of human dignity and Christians were called to free their slaves (but if slaves to not seek freedom if it subverted the social order); just war theory; etc. The structure of thought that allowed for innate human dignity (by virtue of our very humanity as sons and daughters of God, as brothers and sisters in Christ) has been dismantled by the Enlightenment rationalism. Even the Enlightenment structure of thought that tried to uphold these ideals, such as the utilitarians, was predicated on an anthropology that no longer is valid. The argument is that human dignity is something like a meme -- perhaps it evolved to keep us from killing each other, later so that we didn't enslave the weak, perhaps needed for a relatively orderly society. So now it is more or less set in the human consciousness, like "religion" and "spirituality", but must be suspect as a hold over from a previous model of existence that it no longer valid since it is predicated on both anthropology and theology that are both no longer valid. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 10 2007, 09:29 AM Post #186 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
Yeah that's the one. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 10 2007, 09:34 AM Post #187 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
deleted |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 10 2007, 09:59 AM Post #188 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Sorry, Jeff, again you've already told me that there is no such thing as "spirit" or "soul" and I am accepting that, so there is no reason to defend antequated anthropology. The only topic at hand is "given this understanding, is it possible to have a universally valid ethic?" But before going on, if there were this non-material "stuff" -- heck, why not just agree on the short hand "soul" or "spirit" -- then by definition its "non materiality" would not require a mechanical device to adhere to the material stuff. To get back to it, you are holding on to universally valid "value-concepts", which are predicated on an outmoded anthropology. Today we know that there is no transcendent aspect to the human being -- the person is an independent autonomous sentient self aware bag of chemicals. Your value-concepts are certainly valid for your biomachine -- but more probably they can't be anything but since they are ultimately governed by biochemistry. We just haven't figured out that mechanism yet. You want those "value-concepts" to be universally applicable, but that presupposes what was once called "human nature" -- of course you've already rejected that and all the Aristotelian metaphysics that underpinned that understanding -- so you'll have to come up with some other mechanism if you want to assert that.
Neither the universal Church nor I have a definitive opinion on the relic in Bruges. It is also quite incidental to any matter of faith and has nothing to do with fundamentalism. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 10 2007, 11:40 AM Post #189 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
I understood just fine; you simply don't like it. I also understand the difference between "valid" and "meaningful," which you're mistakenly using interchangeably. The question "Why is a mouse when it spins?" is invalid, as it uses language/grammar to form a question that has no meaning, and therefore, has no answer. As such, the question is also not meaningful. The question "What is the purpose of the universe?" is valid, and does not become invalid even even if there were no such purpose. The question is properly framed, is easily understandable, does not contain illogical grammar, and as I stated earlier, it may be sensibly answered in any number of ways, ranging from highbrow theology, to "I don't know," to "Nothing; there is no purpose to the universe." Whether you consider the question "meaningful" will be dependent upon the faith-based essentials, the "first things" that are the basis of your own opinions. As an example of a question that is unquestionably both valid and meaningful, I'd offer "Where is the bar?"
And here again, I have to point out that you're in no position to determine if my question "necessarily assumes something false."
And many examples of foolishness and arrogance are due to people not realizing the biases inherent in their initial guiding principles. |
|
"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 | |
![]() |
|
| TomK | Apr 10 2007, 12:07 PM Post #190 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
And it's pretty obvious that Jeffery hates God.
|
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 10 2007, 01:41 PM Post #191 |
|
Senior Carp
|
IT: "The problem with your presumption of dignity is that it seems to be historically contingent on a particular development of thought -- namely the Judeo Christian tradition. Remember that it was predominantly Christianity the first grounded human rights in human dignity: abortion and infanticide were violations of human dignity; slavery was a violation of human dignity and Christians were called to free their slaves (but if slaves to not seek freedom if it subverted the social order); just war theory; etc. The structure of thought that allowed for innate human dignity (by virtue of our very humanity as sons and daughters of God, as brothers and sisters in Christ) has been dismantled by the Enlightenment rationalism. Even the Enlightenment structure of thought that tried to uphold these ideals, such as the utilitarians, was predicated on an anthropology that no longer is valid. " Steve - This is simply silly, and extremely bad intellectual history. As with Anglican priests and the virgin birth, I've got to ask if you really believe what you say. Moral notions like freedom, dignity, rights, goodness, love and so forth were discussed in a quite elaborate and deep way before the "Judeo-Christian" tradition (e.g. in ancient Greece, Stoics, Plato, Aristotle), geographically independent of the J-C tradition (ancient China, Mohism, Confucianism, Daoism), and mentally independent of the J-C tradition (enlightenment Europe, Kant, Locke, Mill, Hobbes). The dilemma you see for non-religious moral thinkers (how on earth do they keep using distinctively Christian notions like freedom and dignity in a secular, materialist world) is a dilemma of your own invention. Moral notions like dignity, rights, justice, love, choice and so forth, and a rich intellectual tradition of discussion about them, developed prior to, independent of, and separately from any particular religious tradition. Given the Hellenizing tendency of John, and the thinkers Dewey cited above, it could more properly be argued that Christianity tried to crib notes from Greek philosophy, not the other way around. You still have not replied to jon's original question. You could not reply to my similar question a year ago. I must therefore assume you have no answer to it. |
![]() |
|
| Moonbat | Apr 10 2007, 01:50 PM Post #192 |
![]()
Pisa-Carp
|
There is more than one way in which a question can be meaningless. Gramatical errors are easy to spot but implicit assumptions can also result in a meaningless question. The question "what is the purpose of the universe?" _does_ become invalid if there is no such purpose. Just as "what happened _before_ the big bang?" becomes meaningless if time did not exist before the big bang. Just as the question "what is the location and the velocity of an electron?" Becomes invalid if those quantities are not defined beyond a certain accuracy. Another invalid question is "what is the temperature of a specific atom (say the one at the end of the tip used in an atomic force microscope)" the question is gramatically correct but it is utterly meaningless. If you want to call that question "valid" fine but that is mere semantics (it seems to me absurd to call a question that has no meaning "valid" but if that floats your boat go right ahead, as long we're know what each other means it doesn't matter). "Where is the bar?" translates to a request for the coordinates of or the directions to 'the bar'. If there is no bar then the question is invalid. Indeed if 'the bar' has not been specified previously then the question
If there is no creator who specified a purpose then it is a meaningless question. For _in that instance_ the question would be neccesarrily assuming something false and hence be meaningless. If there is a creator who specified a purpose then it's a valid question for the necessary assumption inherent to the question is not false. _Before_ you try to answer the question "what is the meaning of the universe" you must first answer the question "does the universe have a meaning". For without the answer to the latter question the former question is not guaranteed meaning. |
| Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 10 2007, 02:00 PM Post #193 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Of course I repsonded to Jon's question. You just don't like the answer. I also, AFAICR, answered your questions in the past. I now accept that we don't have souls, and that we are independent and autonomous biomachines. You keep making claims to the intellectual tradition, but fail to appreciate that these were erected on faulty ontology and anthropology. You are simply playing connect the dots with a bunch of dead people and dusty texts. You are appealing to authority, rather than making the argument. Bad thinking, jeff -- you have a house of cards. You keep talking about things like "justice" and "human dignity" and the whole classical tradition-- are you going to claim later that you were also ridiculing these like you now profess to have been ridiculing Buddhism? In the past you've shown mocking disregard for the classical tradition. Why should I believe you now? My point above was not whether these things are separable from any particular religious tradition, but whether once the same predicates that informed both the religious traditions (whether Jewish, Christian, Greek, Roman, whatever) and the consequent worldview and anthropology and ethics have been dismissed, the moral and ethical presuppositions are still valid. You want to hold on to these things, but on what basis? The intellectual traditions? That is pretty laughable since you readily discard the intellectual traditions regarding medicine, politics, cosmology, physics and mathematics. you've just been infected with a "dignity" meme. Ethics is now the purview of the neurochemist, not the philosopher. As for "a dilemma of my own invention" -- Francis Fukuyama is askin' the same sorts of questions. You're just behind the curve. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 10 2007, 03:21 PM Post #194 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Therefore, your stated position that the question is meaningless indicates that you have presupposed the position that there is no such purpose. And for a third time, I will point out to you that you're not in a position to do so.
Your willingness to parse an obvious joke does nothing to fight the stereotype that Brits don't have much of a sense of humor. The reason that so few Englishmen go to Sunday services isn't indicative of a lack of faith, as much as it is the local parsons asking them to stay home. Too often, they interrupted the sermon by finally getting and laughing at the joke they'd heard the previous Friday afternoon.
Actually, the question has meaning even in advance of answering your suggested precursor question. But beyond actual meaning, it is only by answering your first question that the answer to the second becomes significant. Beyond that semantic difference, I agree with you that your precursor question is extremely important. The only dispute that I have in this regard is that you have presupposed that the answer to the first is indisputedly resolved, and - for the fourth time - you're not in any position to make such a categorical dismissal. |
|
"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 | |
![]() |
|
| Axtremus | Apr 10 2007, 04:40 PM Post #195 |
|
HOLY CARP!!!
|
With that, we're back to question of who should bear the burden of proof. The atheists: You prove to me that God(s) exist(s). The theists: No, you prove to me that God(s) do(es) not exist!
|
![]() |
|
| Dewey | Apr 10 2007, 05:11 PM Post #196 |
![]()
HOLY CARP!!!
|
Not quite, Ax. I'm not trying to prove God's existence, and I'm not demanding that anyone prove that God doesn't exist. I'm arguing that an atheist can't prove that God doesn't exist, any more definitively than I can prove that God does exist. The difference is subtle, but important. I'm not quibbling over who has the burden of providing proof; I'm saying that neither side of the argument has the ability to offer such proof. |
|
"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 10 2007, 06:56 PM Post #197 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Dewey: "I'm arguing that an atheist can't prove that God doesn't exist, any more definitively than I can prove that God does exist. The difference is subtle, but important. I'm not quibbling over who has the burden of providing proof; I'm saying that neither side of the argument has the ability to offer such proof." Question: are we able, in your view, to prove that tarot card reading, astrolology, invisible Martians, Zeus, Flying Spaghetti Monsters and so forth don't exist/ are not valid, or is it only God about which we cannot derive conclusions based on overwhelming evidence? |
![]() |
|
| John D'Oh | Apr 10 2007, 07:02 PM Post #198 |
|
MAMIL
|
Proof is a very rigorous thing. I don't think we can prove a whole lot outside of mathematics. |
| What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket? | |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 10 2007, 07:08 PM Post #199 |
|
Senior Carp
|
Ax: " With that, we're back to question of who should bear the burden of proof. The atheists: You prove to me that God(s) exist(s). The theists: No, you prove to me that God(s) do(es) not exist!" This was not my view. My view was that there was overwhelming and conclusive evidence that a god or gods of any traditional sort did not exist, and that, as Dawkins's book title claimed, belief in such was a form of delusion at this point in time. I did not really state those reasons except indirectly in this particular thread (I primarily talked about the nature morality), but I didn't make any burden of proof claims, nor do I think they are especially important. A year or so ago I think I gave a summary of reasons for the non-existence of God: (1) A personal, miracle working God that hears prayers etc. is simply incompatible with what we know from modern science, and is not needed to explain the world around us. (2) The Problem of Evil. (3) The Argument from Enculturation (people believe religious views because of their culture, not the objective evidence, Muslims in Yemen, Hindus in India, Christians in the USA, Zoroastrians in Sasanian Iran, etc). There are a few others, but these should suffice. |
![]() |
|
| Jeffrey | Apr 10 2007, 07:10 PM Post #200 |
|
Senior Carp
|
John: "I don't think we can prove a whole lot outside of mathematics." Does this mean that you do not *know* that if you bang your head against a wall it will hurt? Knowledge of an empirical fact does not require certainty. If it did, we would know nothing: not whether chairs would hold us up if we sat in them, not that our friends liked us, not that we need oxygen to breath or that touching a hot stove will cause pain to a normal person. |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |












12:45 AM Jul 13