On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:14 PM, denstar wrote:
>> Um, belief in God is irrational?
>>
>> Do you know what "rational" means? Er, How about "logic"?
>>
>> You telling me there's no rational/logical place for God? Nowhere for
>> a power "higher" than ourselves to be, in your philosophy?
>
> Yup. As far as I'm aware (and I am by no means an expert in such
> matters) there is not only no way to show the existence of an
> omnipotent creator through evidentiary means, but any such logical
> attempt necessitates the postulation of such a being as an axiom.
I guess it depends on if you're using induction or reduction. :)
> And please do remember that the original context for the remark was
> MaryJo's surprise about Dawkins going off on a belief in God as being
> irrational. Given that he is a scientist, I stated that in the context
> of a discussion with a scientist, a belief in God was really probably
> irrational. I'd generally say "arational" but people don't usually
> understand the distinction I make between arational and irrational.
> I'm pedantic that way.
Um, some *fantastic* scientists have held belief in God, my friend.
Most of the best, oddly. In some form or another. (Easter mysticism
counts =]p).
>
>> "Science" is just a tool for Logic, my friend. Thus logic "trumps"
>> science. Science is nothing without context.
>
> How could science be devoid of context? I have a hard time doing math
> devoid of context. Humans don't do things without context.
Exactly. Context is such an interesting concept, no?
Science can help contextualize, but it's *just a tool*. What uses that tool?
Science? Sorta, if you limit the context to some arbitrary point, I guess.
Heh.
>> What about the Gödel's incompleteness theorems? Plato's Third Man
>> Argument? ... What about, "the box"?
>
> Gödel's incompleteness theorem is interesting. And a bit headache
> inducing. But it is really taken out of context by most people as it
> deals with formal language which is quite different from normal
> language or even philosophical language. If we were discussing number
> theory, I'd agree that it applies. As a generalized limitation to
> knowledge and provability, I think that it is widely misconstrued.
> However, I by no means have a deep understanding of it so I could very
> easily be wrong about its wider implications.
It's actually amazingly simple, and not such a fantastic theorem, but
I do love to trot it out quite a bit. I believe it has lots of
implications, but, and a big but-- oh, the conclusions.
Euler's constant is far more useful, neh? Yeah... I like that one
too. Did you know he kinda got the shaft too? No, not by religious
nuts, by other philosophers. Er, mathematical peoples, I guess I
should say.
> I do not know of Plato's Third Man Argument off the top of my head, so
> I'll have to look it up. I'd be happy to read anything you send my
> way.
Eh, wikipedia is where I get a lot of this stuff back from. Some of
it is "real" (oh, no-- like truth, what is "real"?) recall, but my
memory works, um, oddly.
> Boxes are fun to play in. My cat likes them. So does my daughter. They
> are not a limitation, they are a play thing to be enjoyed and toyed
> with until destroyed and recycled.
>
> Interestingly enough, that is how science normally deals with boxes.
I really liked this analogy. Lovely, and I'd agree, but say it's the
people who smash boxes, not exactly Science.
We're probably actually talking the same stuff, but some of your
comments worry me. Academic philosophers? *shiver* ;)
>> Philosophy just *destroys* Science.
>
> Only because they don't have real jobs :P
Does anyone /really/ have a "real" job?
/me scratches chin, wanders off for a few hours pondering the idea
>> You ever read "The Silkie" by Van Vogt? The idea of "logic levels"
>> was pretty fun.
>
> Not familiar with it.
It's a fun, fast read. Basically there's "levels" to logic, and you
can do crazy stuff at the right level, or some such.
I don't want to spoil it for anyone. :)
Ah, mystery. So joyous, or scary. Mystery...
>> Some people don't understand that science is just thought-- they use
>> Science like Bad Religion-- supplanting Logic with it. Speaking of
>> bad religion:
>>
>> and the world wont wait
>> for the truth upon a plate
>> but were ready now to feast on an atheist peace.
>
> Bad Religion is fun. But I will refer you to Messrs John and John:
>
> Science is real
> From the Big Bang to DNA
> Science is real
> From evolution to the Milky Way
> I like the stories
> About angels, unicorns and elves
> Now I like those stories
> As much as anybody else
> But when I'm seeking knowledge
> Either simple or abstract
> The facts are with science
> The facts are with science
> Science is real
> Science is real
> Science is real
> Science is real
> From anatomy to geology
> Science is real
> From astrophysics to biology
> A scientific theory
> Isn't just a hunch or guess
> It's more like a question
> That's been put through a lot of tests
> And when a theory emerges
> Consistent with the facts
> The proof is with science
> The truth is with science
> Science is real
> Science is real
> Science is real
> Science is real
I'd raise you a "they might be giants" song, but this is getting long. :)
>> No person is consistently rational or irrational? Um, Seriously?
>
> Never known one to be. I'm not consistently rational and I'm the most
> rational person I've ever met as far as I can recall. But then again,
> I've been high a lot.
Hey, me too (been high a lot)! But I think I'm more rational than you, even.
It's a real burden.
What a drag, rationality.
>> You seem to suffer from the "God hates Science" syndrome, Jay-dizzle.
>> The "battle" between science and religion (or spirituality). :)p
>
> Science doesn't, by and large, give a shit about religion. It's like
> your "battle" with that freaky ex-girlfriend. We're just not that into
> you, ok? Please, go away. And stop calling or we'll have to get a
> restraining order because no matter how much you claimed you've
> changed, we've moved on. Please do so yourself. K'thanx.
Sure. What would Science care about Questions, neh?
I think this is false ("this" being the above paragraph).
>> Newton was a great thinker, neh? He didn't act like a couple parents
>> fighting and trying to make their kid choose a favorite. Lots of
>> Great Thinkers don't have this cognitive dissonance going on about, at
>> the heart, Logic. (or reason, if you like.) Some see "the face of
>> god" everywhere they look, and it jives perfectly well with what they
>> see.
>
> Yes and most of Newton's work in the religious area was involved in
> Alchemy. Brilliant outcome for that, no?
Alchemy was pretty popular then, ja know.
I'm pretty sure he thought that God and Science fit pretty well, was my point.
>> Science puts *itself* in the box, and is /damn happy to be there/.
>> That's the whole point of Science. It's like a box. (a lock-box, if
>> you will-- /gore + j/k)
>>
>> Have you heard the term "think outside the box"? Do you really grok
>> what it means?
>>
>> Science is just like, this little piece of the whole logic puzzle, ya
>> know? It's like this, frankly: do you ever think we'll run out of
>> questions?
>
> Science doesn't have a box. That is the brilliant thing about it.
> Figure out what works. Tell others. Try, fail, wipe yourself off, get
> up again and go. Wash, rinse, repeat.
There is a philosophy of science, I provided a link to it (lol).
You're sorta waxing thoughtful here tho, I can dig it. Sounds grand to me!
> I admit, people within the scientific realm get complacent, they get
> hubris, they grow weary of the joy of being wrong all the time. But
> science reinvents itself, it stages revolutions, it upends the norms
> and figures out a better way of doing things. Time and again.
> Surprisingly rapidly. Does Religion? Philosophy? Government?
I think I could figure out "yeses" to all of the above, but who am I
do say yay or nay?
YAY!
> We won't run out questions. Is science the only way of answering every
> single one of them? Of course not. Has it shown itself to be better
> than every other system so far? Yeah, I'd say so. No one true system.
> But it has an admirable t
It's the thought that's doing the answering, in my opinion. Heh,
remember when I asked why I found something funny, and then went into
"the chemical reaction of blah blah blah..."?
We're all free to think.
I think.
But I might be wrong.
I'm cool with that tho.
Man, language is such a trip, neh?
*communication rocks*!
--
I will not be concerned at other men's not knowing me;I will be
concerned at my own want of
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know
on the House of Fusion mailing lists
Archive:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:308547
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
