Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Table - Group Book Reads
>
A Universe From Nothing (The Preface and Chapters 1-2)
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Robert
(new)
Apr 25, 2014 02:31PM
Well, Phil, I'm "up to speed" so I've pretty much abandoned philosophy unless I'm in the mood for a belly laugh.
reply
|
flag
Your loss, Robert. And from what I've read of your notions, you're not remotely up to speed, you just think you are. Funny how that works: the more complete one's education really is, the less one feels that one has a sound grip on what's truly important. The less educated one is, the more one is likely to think they really do understand everything... and the less likely one is to realize their need to seek further.
I guess that's why it's necessary for adults to train children while they're still dependent.
I'm glad you've uncovered how uneducated I am Phil. Guess I'll go on reading about recombinant genetics and transgenic potential while you read the really important and topical "philosophical leanings of border collies reared in Christian homes."
I ran across this bit of information today in The Dancing Wu Li Masters, an excellent read that I highly recommend, and present it here in the off chance that the semantic clarification contained therein may be as edifying to others as it was to me."
Sometimes I really don't like touchscreens..." A “proof” does not verify that an assertion is “true” (that that is the way the world really is). A scientific “proof” is a mathematical demonstration that the assertion in question is logically consistent. In the realm of pure mathematics, an assertion may have no relevance to experience at all. Nonetheless, if it is accompanied by a self-consistent “proof” it is accepted. If it is not, it is rejected. The same is true of physics except that the science of physics imposes the additional requirement that the assertion relate to physical reality.
So much for the relationship between the “truth” of a scientific assertion and the nature of reality. There isn’t any. Scientific “truth” has nothing to do with “the way that reality really is.” A scientific theory is “true” if it is self-consistent and correctly correlates experience (predicts events). In short, when a scientist says that a theory is true, he means that it correctly correlates experience and, therefore, it is useful. If we substitute the word “useful” whenever we encounter the word “true,” physics appears in its proper perspective."
For clarification, both paragraphs are quoted from the book.
As a scientist, I don't use the word reality. I suppose self-evident circumstances emanate their own objectivity, but if there is even a whiff of subjectivity, which I've found typically to be the case, reality is a pipe dream. How does one know something is real, if it's existence cannot be proved in some fashion?
Do you see no self-evident reality from which to bootstrap the rest? Is not the ability to manipulate matter in a prescribed manner, repeatedly, with always the expected outcome, not evidence of its existence, its reality at some level, regardless of whether or not we can describe the exact process to the nth degree?
Or do you mean that a reality that can be agreed upon by two individual subjective viewpoints is a pipe dream? But surely, neither I, nor any other subjective viewer needs to believe that a brick hitting me upside the head with sufficient velocity will damage me in order for it to do so. That would be some kind of magical world.
Or perhaps we are speaking of a applied/theoretical physics divide?
No, but damage itself is subjective and varies with the hardheadedness of the individual (the brick would inflict no injury to Lee or I). Medical personnel may agree on the blunt trauma, but try to get any two specialists to arrive at a consensus of the psychological.
Antipodes = regarding msg. 59; whenever I see the words manipulate and "to some degree" in the same sentence, I don't immediately connect it to reality.
Ok - let's see if we can sort our objections. In a controlled environment, I might subject some hightly purified material to some exact force and get consistent results which might suggest some theory or law. But the "real world" is not controlled, not purified, and constantly subjected to multiple forces.
Antipodes wrote: "@Karin - ALL of math, and logic, are human inventions - products of human consciousness. If you don't think so, go outside and bring me back a 3, would you? They are concepts of the human imaginati..."The reason I didn't say all of math or numbers is because I believe the Bible is divinely inspired, and in Genesis 1 we see ordinal numbers, and also God gave instructions at times involving numbers. Just because a three is not a concrete object one can pick up (unless you count manipulatives for children), doesn't mean that the concept of a number has been made up. I suppose you could argue that God used those numbers because man had made them up, but then I could argue that God may have taught that to Adam and/or Eve by revelation.
Robert wrote: "One may smirk at science's shortcomings and deadends, but all significant societal breakthroughs and advances in recent years have been in science and technology. Name the last time philosophy or r..."Seriously? I disagree. That might be what we see most in the media, but clean water and trash disposal has saved more lives than even immunization (immunization, by the way, is old science, not new). There is an enormous Christian revival going on right now in India as well as other areas. You have Christian (and secular) organizations going out to build wells, give animals & ways for people to sustain themselves that for the most part don't use any modern science or technology yet are changing many lives. That is done because of religious and/or philosophical outlook, not because of modern science and technology. And postmodernim, however watered down, has changed the basic outlook of western society. In a world where 75 percent of the population lacks running water, I beg to differ.
In addition, In the twentieth century we saw a resurgence of charismatic/pentecostal (depending on your word for things such as speaking in tongues, etc) activities. It has even touched sectors of Roman Catholicism.
Phil wrote: "Robert comment:" Name the last time philosophy or religion contributed anything original or major of lasting value."
Rod comment:
"Hopefully you don't include Christian thinking and morality in ..."
I agree. I have been to churches that hate "religion," but in my experience it's been what they consider the man made trappings that surround faith, theology, etc. For example, rituals not found in the Bible, mythology mixed with theology (eg some churches say Resurrection Sunday instead of Easter). I haven't been to one yet that thinks science and technology are more important.
Robert wrote: "That's 2000 years old, Rod - has been hashed over every which way and hardly qualifies as a recent advance."Tell that to everyone I know who has been healed of something through prayer or a miracle rather than through science. Medicine is part art and part science (my dad, sister & brother in law are all medical doctors with stellar reps) and cannot cure everything.
Whether or not you believe in miraculous healings, every time someone repents & is saved, that is now, not 2000 years old.
Karin - 2000 years ago residents knew enough to pick up trash and keep their water supply clean; 2000 years ago Jesus told us to spread the Word to the nations; 2000 years ago people were healed by miracles. What's new, again?
Karin - I firmly believe that the language of God is mathematics. Whether or not his math uses the same symbolic logic we presently use or not remains to be seen. As I have said, I believe we all are seeing the same reality, perhaps from slightly different viewpoints. We all have more in common than we differ.
Robert wrote: "Karin - 2000 years ago residents knew enough to pick up trash and keep their water supply clean; 2000 years ago Jesus told us to spread the Word to the nations; 2000 years ago people were healed by..."Your point? Because people did it 2000 years ago it's not fresh when people are saved & healed today?
Antipodes wrote: "Karin - I firmly believe that the language of God is mathematics. Whether or not his math uses the same symbolic logic we presently use or not remains to be seen. As I have said, I believe we all a..."That may well be so. I do believe that there is a lot of math in the universe and world and that God put a lot of that into it. eg the Fibonacci series so often seen in nature. That doesn't mean that people haven't discovered or made up any math to solve problems. I think that many times man "discovers" things God has known all along.
Karin - no, it's not fresh nor new. There's truly nothing new under the sun. Even cutting edge science isn't "new". It's been around since the beginning of time; we're just now discovering the instrumentation and methodology to measure it. Your last line to Antipodes should read "always" instead of "many times".
Here's what I see as the problem with Robert's notion that science is the only arena in which progress is being made:What he points to as evidence is an artifact of a shift in philosophy, in which most Westerners regard science as the only arena worth pursuing. So progress is being made in the sciences and not in philosophy because that's where people expect progress to be made.
So Robert is really arguing in a circle: "Progress is being made in the sciences primarily because that's where people are putting their time and effort. Therefore we should all put our time and effort into the sciences, because that's the only place where progress is being made." Here we go 'round the mulberry bush...
There is no advance in philosophy or religion, Robert, because the West is in decline, and we have stopped growing. That's not a reason to abandon philosophy; that's a reason to return to it. We are declining in part because we've forgotten who we are; and when we're losing ground, recovering things we once knew better is not just progress, it's essential.
PS: your talk about "There's nothing new under the sun" is a different topic, and not your original position. You claimed "No societal progress," and applying an old solution in a new place is societal progress. Karin is correct.
And in fact, since the Chinese and Indians abandoned their planned economies and adopted policies permitting a freer market 30 years ago, extreme poverty in the world has been cut in half. THAT is societal progress, and it's not from the sciences, it's from economics.
Phil - I'm not sure what your point is, but we really do get "better living through chemistry." Genetic research promises breakthroughs in combating heartbreaking inherited disorders and maybe fantastic progress like the ability someday soon to regrow severed limbs. Across the board, hard sciences are making tangible, useable progress.I'm not anti-philosophy. I've read and enjoyed all the "masters", but it's a young man's enterprise best launched when the individual has a relatively clean slate. Once empiricism and reality thoroughly engulf that individual, philosophical notions may still appear quaint, but essentially unworkable. An older person still searching for a philosophy only appears wishy-washy, rudderless, and inexperienced (OK, a failure!).
So, China and India now embrace Trade. Trade has been around since Biblical times - I stand by "there is nothing new under the sun", only discovery of what has been there since creation. Science promotes discovery, current practitioners of the Arts promote gibberish and are no longer a viable force.
Now I remember why I stopped participating here.Robert's comments are in quotes. Mine are not.
Robert: "I'm not sure what your point is"
Me: That's obvious. My point is also obvious.
Robert: " we really do get "better living through chemistry." "
Me: Nobody claimed, suggested, implied, or even thought otherwise.
Robert: "I'm not anti-philosophy. "
Oh, bs. Bullhockey, Robert. Your comments indicate that you don't even have a small clue what it's for.
"Trade has been around since Biblical times "
And as both Karin and I have now explained to you in the simplest terms we can manage, that means nothing at all for your thesis. You're just, plain WRONG, Robert. Social progress can come by rediscovering what has been around but neglected in fields other than the sciences. This falsifies your claim, "The only social progress that is being made is in the sciences."
I stand by my comments. The only reason we don't make progress in philosophy is that we've lost our way as a culture, and all the good minds have decided to spend their time on practical sciences. That does not prove that the sciences are the only place progress can be made. Your argument is circular, Robert.
I will not reply again, as I already know how much impact my words are going to have on you. Bye.
Why does Phil suddenly show up, make some assinine assertion, take a whipping, then exit in a childish show of pique? If I was the only one who irritated him into lack of self-control, that'd indicate my personality or ideas irk him into sudden madness, but he's done the same with Lee and Rod.
