Who is your most detested philosopher ?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Nostromo
Its a bit like saying: This is the age of science. Religion is irrelevant.

So... you agree with him?

[Impaler[WrG]]

Originaly Posted by Jon Miller
But it doesn't provide a key underpinning of Christian theology. It is key to certain Christian theologies... but you are not very informed and continue to make broad false statements anyways.

Do Catholisism and Protistantism not both agree on the notion that the Divine world and God are perfect and the material world as imperfect and corrupted? Thus man should care very little if at all about the material and focus all his thoughts and efforts on the divine world, aka getting into heaven, saving his soul, personaly relation with Jesus etc etc. These two constitue the majority of christians so even if some fring like Mormons or something don't belive this I can't see that as disproving my point.

Originaly Posted by Elok
It's neither, actually. It's your subscribing to the delusional fantasy that religion is some sort of bogeyman that made everything bad until people discovered Reason, perhaps hidden in a cave somewhere, and that changed everything. In the 1700s, following a series of brutal religious wars that ravaged Europe, that idea was shortsighted but understandable. In the year 2007, after Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, et cetera ad nauseum, such an opinion can only be attributed to stupidity or self-deception.

Far from it, my position is Religion surpressed reason (which ofcourse already existed) and when that supression was reduced (it hasn't stopped completly) reason one again florished. People used reason to then invent a lot of stuff (Industrialization) and think up far more interesting reasons to kill each other (Ideology) and our wars are now for other reasons often very bad reason, but they are less frequent, shorter, less destructive (comparativly) and less barberous.

[Jon Miller]

Err, no. And I don't remember the names of the various theologies right now.

JM

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Far from it, my position is Religion surpressed reason (which ofcourse already existed) and when that supression was reduced (it hasn't stopped completly) reason one again florished. People used reason to then invent a lot of stuff (Industrialization) and think up far more interesting reasons to kill each other (Ideology) and our wars are now for other reasons often very bad reason, but they are less frequent, shorter, less destructive (comparativly) and less barberous.

I tend to disagree with this narrative. We have in the past, and we continue to make sociopolitical decisions based on our subjective viewpoints. One of the subjectivities that people use is religion, another is blind faith in rationality. Bare in mind that many of the worst excesses of the 20th century were committed in the name of Modernism. The problem is not with religion, but with an idea that we can act knowing with absolute certainty that we are making the right decision, and not acknowledging the potential validity of differing points of view.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


So... you agree with him?

The short answer is no Read what I posted after that

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Science works just fine blind then.

Scientific propositions would be completely meaningless without philosophical assumptions.

You see, when you see, you don't see your eyes seeing.

[Kuciwalker]

Scientific propositions would be completely meaningless without philosophical assumptions.

Nope. Scientific propositions would be completely meaningless if certain philosophical assumptions were false. But, since they're true [which property is independent of proof or even discussion], scientific prositions are meaningful. And scientific propositions work just fine (i.e. have equal predictive power) without discussing the philosophical underpinnings.

[Fake Boris]

Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, proposition 6.371:

The modern view of the world rests on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are an explanation of natural phenomenons.

[Nostromo]

Wittgenstein is old hat, but I don't believe there's any agreement on laws of nature. Do they exist? And if so, what are they?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Admiral
I tend to disagree with this narrative. We have in the past, and we continue to make sociopolitical decisions based on our subjective viewpoints. One of the subjectivities that people use is religion, another is blind faith in rationality. Bare in mind that many of the worst excesses of the 20th century were committed in the name of Modernism. The problem is not with religion, but with an idea that we can act knowing with absolute certainty that we are making the right decision, and not acknowledging the potential validity of differing points of view.

QFT. Fundamentalist religionists, of course, will consider their view as being absolutely true and thus all other views are completely wrong and act that way. But this fundamentalist point of view doesn't only apply to religionists. Philosophies have their own fundamentalist believers.

[Fake Boris]

I think that's the reason why he says the "so called" laws of nature...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, proposition 6.371:

The modern view of the world rests on the illusion that the so-called laws of nature are an explanation of natural phenomenons.

It's not an illusion

If you're going to go all Descartes on me I can just snicker and ignore you... because you still act like you believe in object reality and yadda yadda.

[Fake Boris]

The point is rather that a description is not an explanation, and that an explanation can only function if it rests on a "language set".

[Kuciwalker]

A perfectly accurate description might as well be an explanation... and serves scientists just as well.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
A perfectly accurate description might as well be an explanation... and serves scientists just as well.

Even if you could remodel Shakespeare's brain, what the f would that tell us about Othello ? You'd definitely need philosophical statements to make some sense out of it.