Why I am not a Christian

[Whaleboy]

If god is untestable/unobservable, then god doesn't matter.

I missed that earlier, well said Boris

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Indeed. It's a remarkable triumph of one hemisphere of the brain over the other.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

quit trying to poke holes in my argument with meaningless quibbles

That post wasn't attempting to poke any holes in your arguments (except in-so-far "ask any scientist" is considered an argument), but to point out the definitional issue. Definitional "quibbles" are not necessarily meaningless - I was wondering what crack you were on re: observational science for a full page before you clarified your usage (which, as said, is news to me).

Incidentally, your usage of "science" to mean only observational and experimental science may be the common definition where you're from, but it isn't where I'm from. I do find it annoying when people, confronted with a definition different from their own, say theirs is the correct one, period.

But what has been revolutionarily successful is what you call observational science. As I have stated numerous times, it was not philosophy that split the atom, nor mathematics that developed the oregin of the species. Both philisophy and mathematics existed far before 'observational' science. But it was observational science which had the triumphs that western society is built on. It is observational science that is so useful. And it is observational science which is generally held to be correct.

If by scientific you mean that you worked it out philisophcially, than the meaning of something being scientific and thus being like the science that gives you cell phones and computers is lost. Because philosophy is, as has been seen, often wrong (got to go)

JM

[Whaleboy]

But what has been revolutionarily successful is what you call observational science.

Please explain what you mean by success?

You seem to think that these fields should be judged against their consequences, which of course, in materialistic terms, science is bound to have an advantage. However, that's a fallacious argument since philosophy and mathematics don't set out to provide the technical advances that make is so much easier and efficient to butcher each other. I think before you can proceed in discussing the manner in which the two fields are used you need to understand that difference... indeed if you can successfully define philosophy objectively to that end, I'd be very interested to hear your answer, for it would solve a question as old as philosophy itself! (namely, "what is philosophy?")

[Jon Miller]

Most people consider what science has discovered to be a success. If you consider that philosophy is trying to explian are universe. As is science (as it came out of natural philosophy).

Science has been very successful (very few people do not beleive in science), while many disagere with philosophers of all sorts. If you want to think of it one way, science is the most commonly held philosophy (well people claim to hold, people get confused over it).

Jon Miller

[Whaleboy]

Most people consider what science has discovered to be a success. If you consider that philosophy is trying to explian are universe. As is science (as it came out of natural philosophy).

Philosophy |= natural philosophy.

The aim of philosophy is not to explain the universe, that is precisely what science is there for. You'll note that natural philosophy was a term only strictly in use pre Newton, although the term is still in use, it'll usually refer to Earth sciences. In my experience, philosophy varies from person to person, literally it means "love of wisdom" which obviously is highly subjective. I take Wittgensteins view that philosophy is therapy, whereupon we're talking about religion, and philosophical arguments have validity. Bare in mind we can call it all "philosophy" but each concept is there in its own right and not to serve philosophy, hence some concepts have validity in given contexts, some dont. You wouldn't expect me to bring Plato's take on democracy in on this debate.

Science has been very successful (very few people do not beleive in science), while many disagere with philosophers of all sorts. If you want to think of it one way, science is the most commonly held philosophy (well people claim to hold, people get confused over it).

You cannot measure these things by popular perception. If you did, you would have to take each individual upon their own merits, instead of their field, in which case you're doing little more than geek celebrity worship. Because of the nature of science, there is (provisional) truth or falsehood in a given hypothesis that can be tested against empirical observations. In the categorical sense, philosophy is not like that, and lazy people tend not to like individual subjectivism as it promotes individual thought. But again, trying to compare the two in the same sense is doomed to failure through inconsistency.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


But what has been revolutionarily successful is what you call observational science.

Nah, it's mostly experimental science. The terminology as I was taught it:

Experimental science: science based primarily on laboratory experiments; typical examples are chemistry and electromagnetics.
Observational science: science based primarily on passive observation; typical examples are astronomy and geology.

Needless to say, there's no hard border between the categories.

As I have stated numerous times, it was not philosophy that split the atom, nor mathematics that developed the oregin of the species. Both philisophy and mathematics existed far before 'observational' science. But it was observational science which had the triumphs that western society is built on. It is observational science that is so useful. And it is observational science which is generally held to be correct.

I must confess I much more frequently meet people who doubt or disbelieve the results of observational (and experimental) science than ones who doubt those of mathematics.

It hardly needs saying that splitting the atom does not figure among the goals of mathematics or philosophy (in the modern sense). You might just as well fault painting for not having invented the novella.

Furthermore, saying that empirical science is superior to, or replaces, mathematics is absurd; without mathematics, modern science simply would not exist.

If by scientific you mean that you worked it out philisophcially,

Just out of curiosity, whence your apparent belief that I do?

than the meaning of something being scientific and thus being like the science that gives you cell phones and computers is lost.

When I think of cellphones and computers, I think of electrotechnics, I think of electromagnetics, of information theory, perhaps of capitalism. I do not think of empirical science as a whole. When the issue of "scientificness" pops up in daily life, it usually concerns the soft sciences. On the rare occasions I need speak of experimental/observational science as contrasted against mathematics/logic, I'll use words and phrases such as "empiricism", "empirical science", "experiementally verified".

I'm a bit surprised that while you want to sharply delineate science vs mathematics and philosophy, you apparently feel no need whatsoever to differentiate it from technology.

[Odin]

The philosophers are just POed that things like human nature, are becoming able to be explained by science, and so they are becoming more and more defensive as thier sphere of influence shrinks and more and more of thier virgin forest of ideas come under the ax of the scientific method (like when some left-wingers in acadamia attacked Harvard biologist Edward E. Wilson in the 1970's when his book Sociobiology did not match thier fuzzy "peace and love" philosophy about human nature).

[Whaleboy]

You'll find very few significant philosophers have a "peace and love" philosophy of human nature . Science is, by it's very nature, very good at explaining the categorical objective but that is not the whole story of human existence. If you say that science depends on this objective internally consistent logical system, you cannot say the same of consciousness for example, which science will likely never be able to explain, though it can provide the basics via neuroscience (this is not just my view, hence philosophy has a big place in medical ethics).

But again I must ask why this artificial separation between the two? In my experience most of the animosity toward philosophy tends to be one of lack of, or mis-understanding, while from the scientists where they do understand the arguments there's this feeling of stealing ones fire, not to mention the religious persecutions, the feeling of progress and the notion of truth, all of which it is charged of the field of philosophy that it retards science, or has a negative effect. It is my contention that these charges are wholly erroneous and frankly childish.

[Odin]

[/QUOTE] Originally posted by Whaleboy
you cannot say the same of consciousness for example, which science will likely never be able to explain [/QUOTE]



[/QUOTE]But again I must ask why this artificial separation between the two? [/QUOTE]

Science is based of experiemnt and observation, philosophy is not. QED.

[Whaleboy]

Does consciousness fit within a categorical objectivism? Try testing it. On my desk I have a glass of merlot. The wine is red, and when I taste it it's rather fruity. I can describe that to you but my conscious experience of "red" or "fruity" may well be completely different to you, and since we cannot communicate those experiences we shall never know. Consciousness itself, to borrow from Husserl and David Chalmers an internally consistent logical systems, and from one logical system, one cannot make inferences about another. For example, though there may be a perfectly consistent logical system in which 1+1=3, we cannot understand that and our logical system holds that as "wrong" because they are coming at it from completely different premises. The incommunicability of consciousness renders it analogous.

Science is based of experiemnt and observation, philosophy is not. QED.

See above. The empiricalist view holds that all we know, be it scientific, philosophical or daily life (TM) we learn through observation and experiment. It need not be conducted in a laboratory or with quantative logic for it to qualify as experiment. However in the sense that you use it, yes you are correct, but then it is the observational side of experiment that has value here, and in that same respect, "observation" of concepts is used in philosophy.

Quad erat Demonstrandum

[Odin]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Does consciousness fit within a categorical objectivism? Try testing it. On my desk I have a glass of merlot. The wine is red, and when I taste it it's rather fruity. I can describe that to you but my conscious experience of "red" or "fruity" may well be completely different to you, and since we cannot communicate those experiences we shall never know. Consciousness itself, to borrow from Husserl and David Chalmers an internally consistent logical systems, and from one logical system, one cannot make inferences about another. For example, though there may be a perfectly consistent logical system in which 1+1=3, we cannot understand that and our logical system holds that as "wrong" because they are coming at it from completely different premises. The incommunicability of consciousness renders it analogous.

That is true that we cannot comunicate the experiences directly, but that doesn't mean we can't study how diferent people's brains react diferently to the word "red" and study the diferences in brain wiring and biochemistry that lead to diferent experiences among people.

[Whaleboy]

That is true that we cannot comunicate the experiences directly, but that doesn't mean we can't study how diferent people's brains react diferently to the word "red" and study the diferences in brain wiring and biochemistry that lead to diferent experiences among people.

Absolutely, a very good point well put. To me that is not replacing the experience of consciousness, the inherent subjectivity (that it's something necessarily unique and absolute for each of us). Rather, it is understanding the objective causes/consequences/symptoms etc. That, in this case, comes under neuroscience and it's perfectly reasonable to say that it may at some point understand the process completely. I happen to know some extremely intelligent people working on the brain, I have no doubt that they will eventually succeed, indeed possibly even create artificial intelligence, but I'm getting out of my depth there. They will not in my view be able to replicate, objectify or analyse (hence apply science) the question of consciousness however, since that is beyond the remit of science by definition.

With regard to the rising waters of science encroaching on the island of philosophy, I counter that by saying that every idea and field has it's place, and that they're not working toward the same end, why have them as opposing (especially since they have so much in common as previous discussed)?

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Atheism does not necessarily mean "belief there is no God." Rather, it means "no belief in God." Bit of a difference.

Man, haven't we been over this time and time again?

Why wouldn't you believe in God if you acknowledge God's existence?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by bfg9000
Why wouldn't you believe in God if you acknowledge God's existence?

Because he acknowledges the (unlikely) possibility there is a God, and not his existance?