| SueDoeNimm |
| Posted 04/13/12 at 01:08 AM | Reply with quote #31 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by troyjsIn Australia, Dawkins and Cardinal Pell were matched in a question and answer format on the programme, 'Q&A'. Did anyone else have the opportunity to watch it?
One thing I found interesting is that Pell opined that atheists can get into heaven.
|
| Loading... | |
| blank |
| Posted 04/13/12 at 02:43 AM | Reply with quote #32 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SueDoeNimmQuote: Originally Posted by troyjsIn Australia, Dawkins and Cardinal Pell were matched in a question and answer format on the programme, 'Q&A'. Did anyone else have the opportunity to watch it? One thing I found interesting is that Pell opined that atheists can get into heaven.
That would mean God just asking for a revolt in heaven.
|
| Loading... | |
| SimonBelmont |
| Posted 04/13/12 at 03:08 AM | Reply with quote #33 |
|
At 7:10 "I get my morals from game of thrones." Lol. |
| Loading... | |
| pinkey |
| Posted 04/13/12 at 03:30 AM | Reply with quote #34 |
|
I was disapointed with Pell. I would of liked to of seen a Christian philosopher who is well informed on science and theology on there instead. |
| Loading... | |
| SimonBelmont |
| Posted 04/13/12 at 03:57 AM | Reply with quote #35 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by pinkeyI was disapointed with Pell. I would of liked to of seen a Christian philosopher who is well informed on science and theology on there instead. But then Dawkins wouldn't have gone near him. |
| Loading... | |
| Noraaron |
| Posted 04/13/12 at 05:06 AM | Reply with quote #36 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SimonBelmontAt 7:10 "I get my morals from game of thrones." Lol.
I loved that one...
|
| Loading... | |
| neilfrompta |
| Posted 04/15/12 at 12:08 PM | Reply with quote #37 |
|
It is so funny to me atheist compare belief in God to believing in unicorns / fearies and (or) flying spaghetti when they themselves believe nothing can create something aka magic
Who is being antithetical to reason now?
It is rather distressing how intellectually dishonest some of these atheist scholars are. I have just recently read the British empiricist David Hume's defense of causality and lo and behold looks like the 21 century empiricist has made a 180 degree shift in doctrine and now believe that nothing can indeed produce something.
I lament the decline of real causes in science.
|
| Loading... | |
| Satarack |
| Posted 04/15/12 at 12:27 PM | Reply with quote #38 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by neilfrompta
I have just recently read the British empiricist David Hume's defense of causality and lo and behold looks like the 21 century empiricist has made a 180 degree shift in doctrine and now believe that nothing can indeed produce something.
I lament the decline of real causes in science.
??? What?!
David Hume, a 21st century British empiricist???? I am really ashamed and disappointed that a fellow Christian would say something so misinformed.
David Hume was an 18th century Scottish philosopher. He died in 1776, long before the rise of modern science in the late 19th and early 20th century. |
| Loading... | |
| Jared |
| Posted 04/15/12 at 12:37 PM | Reply with quote #39 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SatarackQuote: Originally Posted by neilfrompta
I have just recently read the British empiricist David Hume's defense of causality and lo and behold looks like the 21 century empiricist has made a 180 degree shift in doctrine and now believe that nothing can indeed produce something.
I lament the decline of real causes in science.
??? What?!
David Hume, a 21st century British empiricist???? I am really ashamed and disappointed that a fellow Christian would say something so misinformed.
David Hume was an 18th century Scottish philosopher. He died in 1776, long before the rise of modern science in the late 19th and early 20th century.
I'm sure he just misspoke. Hume was an 18th-century British empiricist. And it depends on what you mean by "modern science." I usually associate the birth of modern science with figures such as Bacon, Copernicus, Newton, etc., of the Scientific Revolution, as opposed to the "ancient science" of Aristotle and Ptolemy, Hippocrates and Galen, or even Paracelsus in the Renaissance. |
| Loading... | |
| Satarack |
| Posted 04/15/12 at 03:05 PM | Reply with quote #40 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Jared
And it depends on what you mean by "modern science." I usually associate the birth of modern science with figures such as Bacon, Copernicus, Newton, etc., of the Scientific Revolution,...
To be honest, that's no longer considered historically to be the birth of modern science. An excerpt from the Cambridge History of Science: Early Modern Science Volume 3 says the following:
Quote: Although traditional claims about the Scientific Revolution as the well-spring of modernity (or even of modern sicence) no longer convince, nothing has yet challenged contemporaries' own view of their epoch as drenched in novelty. On the contrary, historical research across a broad range of topics has confirmed their impression of pell-mell change at every level [...] It is, however, precisely the variety of these transformations that frustrates attempts to corral them into any single historical event, whether revolutionary or evolutionary, disciplined or dispersed. Narratives about changes in astronomy and cosmology, from Nicholas Copernicus to Newton, have traditionally furnished the backbone of historical accounts of the Scientific Revolution. The changes in this field were unquestionably momentous [...] But the merging of natural history with natural philosophy was no less momentous a change, although it did not culminate in a dramatic synthesis or system, and depended on a far more motley ensemble of methods. The remarkable transformation of early modern anatomy and physiology--despite the coincidence of the publication dates of Andreas Vesalius's De humani corporis fabrica with Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium celestium were largely seperate from both of the two preceding stories, bringing us into worlds of Christian ritual and absolutist spectacle. Does it really make sense to fit all of these varied developments into one Grand Change, whatever we choose to call it?
Quote: The need for such a myth overwhelms its incoherences: Natural knowledge circa 1730 was assuredly not the modern science that arose in and in fact in the mid-nineteenth century as an integrated enterprise of institutionally sponsored research, technological invention, and industrial application. Furthermore, it is unclear what either kind of knowledge had to do with that mist-shrouded entity known as "the modern mind," which has been variously equated with Cartesian rationalism, capitalist calculation, secularization, hard-headed materialism, imperialist expansion, the demise of anthropocentrism, and a certain skepticism about the existence of fairies.
At lot of big things were going on during that time period; but they were largely independent developments from each other; which only later were discovered to be mutually beneficial to both old and new disciplines of scholarship. More commonly modern science is recognized to have begun with the Institutionalization of systematic experimental methods and practices that arose in the 19th century; which occurred in continental Europe, largely in Germany which led directly to the German chemical industrial revolution and the birth of Chemical Engineering as a branch of Engineering.
As an interesting tangent, although the German industrial revolution is famous for the discovery and implementation of the Haber-Bosch process to produce artifical ammonia; the biggest economic discovery for Germany was actually the development of artificial colouring dyes. Prior to this, nearly all dyes were obtained from natural sources; meaning farming or hunting of animals and plants, or by mining. Dyes were thus often very expensive, where the most expensive and difficult to obtain colours became symbols of wealth and power, and the cheaper colours symbols of the lower and middle classes. But then Germany comes along with cheap methods to produce large quantities of high quality artificial colouring dyes and corners the market. They basically put everyone else on the market out of business, and had a virtual monopoly for years. |
| Loading... | |
| Jared |
| Posted 04/15/12 at 07:08 PM | Reply with quote #41 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SatarackQuote: Originally Posted by Jared
And it depends on what you mean by "modern science." I usually associate the birth of modern science with figures such as Bacon, Copernicus, Newton, etc., of the Scientific Revolution,...
To be honest, that's no longer considered historically to be the birth of modern science. An excerpt from the Cambridge History of Science: Early Modern Science Volume 3 says the following:
Quote: Although traditional claims about the Scientific Revolution as the well-spring of modernity (or even of modern sicence) no longer convince, nothing has yet challenged contemporaries' own view of their epoch as drenched in novelty. On the contrary, historical research across a broad range of topics has confirmed their impression of pell-mell change at every level [...] It is, however, precisely the variety of these transformations that frustrates attempts to corral them into any single historical event, whether revolutionary or evolutionary, disciplined or dispersed. Narratives about changes in astronomy and cosmology, from Nicholas Copernicus to Newton, have traditionally furnished the backbone of historical accounts of the Scientific Revolution. The changes in this field were unquestionably momentous [...] But the merging of natural history with natural philosophy was no less momentous a change, although it did not culminate in a dramatic synthesis or system, and depended on a far more motley ensemble of methods. The remarkable transformation of early modern anatomy and physiology--despite the coincidence of the publication dates of Andreas Vesalius's De humani corporis fabrica with Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium celestium were largely seperate from both of the two preceding stories, bringing us into worlds of Christian ritual and absolutist spectacle. Does it really make sense to fit all of these varied developments into one Grand Change, whatever we choose to call it?
Quote: The need for such a myth overwhelms its incoherences: Natural knowledge circa 1730 was assuredly not the modern science that arose in and in fact in the mid-nineteenth century as an integrated enterprise of institutionally sponsored research, technological invention, and industrial application. Furthermore, it is unclear what either kind of knowledge had to do with that mist-shrouded entity known as "the modern mind," which has been variously equated with Cartesian rationalism, capitalist calculation, secularization, hard-headed materialism, imperialist expansion, the demise of anthropocentrism, and a certain skepticism about the existence of fairies.
At lot of big things were going on during that time period; but they were largely independent developments from each other; which only later were discovered to be mutually beneficial to both old and new disciplines of scholarship. More commonly modern science is recognized to have begun with the Institutionalization of systematic experimental methods and practices that arose in the 19th century; which occurred in continental Europe, largely in Germany which led directly to the German chemical industrial revolution and the birth of Chemical Engineering as a branch of Engineering.
As an interesting tangent, although the German industrial revolution is famous for the discovery and implementation of the Haber-Bosch process to produce artifical ammonia; the biggest economic discovery for Germany was actually the development of artificial colouring dyes. Prior to this, nearly all dyes were obtained from natural sources; meaning farming or hunting of animals and plants, or by mining. Dyes were thus often very expensive, where the most expensive and difficult to obtain colours became symbols of wealth and power, and the cheaper colours symbols of the lower and middle classes. But then Germany comes along with cheap methods to produce large quantities of high quality artificial colouring dyes and corners the market. They basically put everyone else on the market out of business, and had a virtual monopoly for years.
I don't associate "modernity" with the Scientific Revolution since I believe modernity is more the product of Enlightenment principles, but I don't see how the application of empirical methods to natural philosophy and the break from teleology toward mechanism were not major turning-points in scientific history. Honestly, I don't think this article is especially helpful just because, of course, history is continuous rather than discrete. Any dates we pin on movements or intellectual "revolutions" are tenuous and open to a fair amount of criticism. Labeling a time period the Age of This or the That Revolution is simply a helpful but rough way to segment and interpret history. Certainly these descriptions are just fuzzy approximations and always a bit misleading.
Individual fields of science had revolutions at different times, but it seems odd to want to separate them from a common intellectual tide. Renaissance humanism led to the Protestant Reformation, which led to the Scientific Revolution, which led to the Enlightenment, which led to the Industrial Revolution. I'll go along with the idea that the importance of some developments is over-exaggerated and others under-appreciated, but it seems to me the best place to mark as the beginning of modern natural science is still the Scientific Revolution. The invention of synthetic dyes is more of a technological innovation than a scientific discovery. That the essayist would speak of invention as a kind of "natural knowledge" confuses me a bit.
So, no, there was no single 17th-century revolution which caused all sciences to change, that spit out modern culture and technology, but neither were all of these revolutions unrelated or only coincidentally back-to-back. An intellectual culture informed by mechanical philosophy and empirical methodology gave rise to many scientific developments, and it isn't unreasonable to say this process began with natural philosophers such as Bacon, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Leeuwenhoek laying the groundwork in the 17th century. |
| Loading... | |
| lucid |
| Posted 04/15/12 at 08:33 PM | Reply with quote #42 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SatarackQuote: Originally Posted by lucidYou are so deeply entrenched, it's tough to get through to you.
The irony is unfortunately lost on you.
To be blunt, he was saying that you don't have any justification for demanding only scientific evidence. He pointed out that if a person could only believe what can be proven by experimentation, then it would be impossible to know anything about the world around you. The reason lies in the underlying assumptions of Science; axioms that guide the Scientific process, but that cannot be proven by Science. These include:
1. The belief that what we experience with our physical senses is actually real, and not an illusion. 2. The belief that the universe obeys the logical rules we perceive, with fundamental rules that govern all the universe with no exceptions. 3. The belief that mathematics can not only describe these rules, but gives us the actual rules themselves.
Science cannot prove any of these statements; because that would be arguing in a circle. For example, you cannot prove statement 1 using an experiment, because the results of your experiment are only meaningful if the statement is true. If you don't know whether or not the statement is true, then you have no justifiable reason to expect your experiment to be meaningful.
That doesn't mean these beliefs are unjustifiable; what it means is that they are unjustifiable by Science. This is where Philosophy is important, and why we see your Scientism as naive and irrational.
I ask for scientific evidence for theological claims about the universe.
Your response is, "You can't even prove science with science, you would have no rational basis for believing the results of the experiment since the experiment is based upon axiomatic assumptions!"
Philosophical masturbation over the axioms that underpin science is the last ditch excuse for believers. Basically, you are playing the ULTIMATE SKEPTIC by adopting this ruse.
It is a tactic aimed at undermining my request for a logical, reasoned analysis of the claims being made, be they of mind altering crystals, ghosts, or theology.
By employing this tactic you avoid defeat, but only by annihilating the rationality of every belief on the planet. Under this worldview, all beliefs can be equally (ir)rational.
If you are to be consistent in your concern over the philosophy of science you must now admit that milk makes you fly, that it doesn't, that the earth is flat, that it isn't etc because, according to you, there would be no rational justification for scientifically evaluating whether such beliefs were true or not.
Of course, you don't really believe any of this. The truth is, you actually believe that the scientific method and reason are very good tools for establishing what is probably true and what probably isn't. The only reason you employ this tactic is as a dishonest attempt at escaping the obligation to provide some physical evidence for your beliefs in particular.
|
| Loading... | |
| Satarack |
| Posted 04/15/12 at 09:38 PM | Reply with quote #43 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by lucidQuote: Originally Posted by SatarackQuote: Originally Posted by lucidYou are so deeply entrenched, it's tough to get through to you.
The irony is unfortunately lost on you.
To be blunt, he was saying that you don't have any justification for demanding only scientific evidence. He pointed out that if a person could only believe what can be proven by experimentation, then it would be impossible to know anything about the world around you. The reason lies in the underlying assumptions of Science; axioms that guide the Scientific process, but that cannot be proven by Science. These include:
1. The belief that what we experience with our physical senses is actually real, and not an illusion. 2. The belief that the universe obeys the logical rules we perceive, with fundamental rules that govern all the universe with no exceptions. 3. The belief that mathematics can not only describe these rules, but gives us the actual rules themselves.
Science cannot prove any of these statements; because that would be arguing in a circle. For example, you cannot prove statement 1 using an experiment, because the results of your experiment are only meaningful if the statement is true. If you don't know whether or not the statement is true, then you have no justifiable reason to expect your experiment to be meaningful.
That doesn't mean these beliefs are unjustifiable; what it means is that they are unjustifiable by Science. This is where Philosophy is important, and why we see your Scientism as naive and irrational.
I ask for scientific evidence for theological claims about the universe.
Your response is, "You can't even prove science with science, you would have no rational basis for believing the results of the experiment since the experiment is based upon axiomatic assumptions!"
Philosophical masturbation over the axioms that underpin science is the last ditch excuse for believers. Basically, you are playing the ULTIMATE SKEPTIC by adopting this ruse.
It is a tactic aimed at undermining my request for a logical, reasoned analysis of the claims being made, be they of mind altering crystals, ghosts, or theology.
By employing this tactic you avoid defeat, but only by annihilating the rationality of every belief on the planet. Under this worldview, all beliefs can be equally (ir)rational.
If you are to be consistent in your concern over the philosophy of science you must now admit that milk makes you fly, that it doesn't, that the earth is flat, that it isn't etc because, according to you, there would be no rational justification for scientifically evaluating whether such beliefs were true or not.
Of course, you don't really believe any of this. The truth is, you actually believe that the scientific method and reason are very good tools for establishing what is probably true and what probably isn't. The only reason you employ this tactic is as a dishonest attempt at escaping the obligation to provide some physical evidence for your beliefs in particular.
The response was not, "you can't prove science with science." The response was, "because science depends on philosophy, you are a hypocrite for rejecting reasoned philosophical arguments as evidence." You're illusions of some cowardice on the part of theists is just rationalization. At the end of the day, your demands of only scientific evidence are unjustified, because you cannot justify why you have rejected all other forms of evidence.
Logical positivism is dead, you cannot hide behind the verification principal anymore; you have to face the evidence that we give you head on, and not try to hide behind rhetoric and ridicule when it becomes inconvenient. |
| Loading... | |
| saibomb |
| Posted 04/15/12 at 09:43 PM | Reply with quote #44 |
|
| For a non-philosophy trained Christian, I thought Pell did pretty good actually. Dawkins had some good points too, but overall it was pretty even.
Also when the moderator tried to trap Pell into admitting Jesus was 'unintellectual', that was just pathetic. We don't need that kind of crap from the moderator.
One more thing, Pell owned Dawkins on the subject of 'nothing' lol and the Audience kept laughing at Dawkins. Hilarious!
....still got a little bit more to watch, but it's great so far! Thanks for posting! |
| Loading... | |
| lucid |
| Posted 04/15/12 at 09:56 PM | Reply with quote #45 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SatarackQuote: Originally Posted by lucidQuote: Originally Posted by SatarackQuote: Originally Posted by lucidYou are so deeply entrenched, it's tough to get through to you.
The irony is unfortunately lost on you.
To be blunt, he was saying that you don't have any justification for demanding only scientific evidence. He pointed out that if a person could only believe what can be proven by experimentation, then it would be impossible to know anything about the world around you. The reason lies in the underlying assumptions of Science; axioms that guide the Scientific process, but that cannot be proven by Science. These include:
1. The belief that what we experience with our physical senses is actually real, and not an illusion. 2. The belief that the universe obeys the logical rules we perceive, with fundamental rules that govern all the universe with no exceptions. 3. The belief that mathematics can not only describe these rules, but gives us the actual rules themselves.
Science cannot prove any of these statements; because that would be arguing in a circle. For example, you cannot prove statement 1 using an experiment, because the results of your experiment are only meaningful if the statement is true. If you don't know whether or not the statement is true, then you have no justifiable reason to expect your experiment to be meaningful.
That doesn't mean these beliefs are unjustifiable; what it means is that they are unjustifiable by Science. This is where Philosophy is important, and why we see your Scientism as naive and irrational.
I ask for scientific evidence for theological claims about the universe.
Your response is, "You can't even prove science with science, you would have no rational basis for believing the results of the experiment since the experiment is based upon axiomatic assumptions!"
Philosophical masturbation over the axioms that underpin science is the last ditch excuse for believers. Basically, you are playing the ULTIMATE SKEPTIC by adopting this ruse.
It is a tactic aimed at undermining my request for a logical, reasoned analysis of the claims being made, be they of mind altering crystals, ghosts, or theology.
By employing this tactic you avoid defeat, but only by annihilating the rationality of every belief on the planet. Under this worldview, all beliefs can be equally (ir)rational.
If you are to be consistent in your concern over the philosophy of science you must now admit that milk makes you fly, that it doesn't, that the earth is flat, that it isn't etc because, according to you, there would be no rational justification for scientifically evaluating whether such beliefs were true or not.
Of course, you don't really believe any of this. The truth is, you actually believe that the scientific method and reason are very good tools for establishing what is probably true and what probably isn't. The only reason you employ this tactic is as a dishonest attempt at escaping the obligation to provide some physical evidence for your beliefs in particular.
The response was not, "you can't prove science with science." The response was, "because science depends on philosophy, you are a hypocrite for rejecting reasoned philosophical arguments as evidence." You're illusions of some cowardice on the part of theists is just rationalization. At the end of the day, your demands of only scientific evidence are unjustified, because you cannot justify why you have rejected all other forms of evidence.
Logical positivism is dead, you cannot hide behind the verification principal anymore; you have to face the evidence that we give you head on, and not try to hide behind rhetoric and ridicule when it becomes inconvenient.
Philosophy is not evidence I'm afraid. |
| Loading... | |
