Enlightenment Philosophy? [Archive]

W2ILP

10-05-2007, 02:17 AM

kg4jyd

Thank you for being the first one who has commented here.

It seems that any deep philosophical essay that runs more than two paragraphs is too long for most of the QRZ readers to read and therefore too long for them to comprehend. #

The author of the article is not talking about the "Age or Enlightening" or the "Age of Reason". #Those ages are long gone. #He was talking about now...in the present "Age of Information". #He was talking about the subjects brought up in recent lectures and books by philosophers such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. #He sees what he calls; different types of Enlightenment...which are all parts of secular humanism and atheist views. #He critizes the points of view of modern so called enlightened intellectuals, who are not Bible worshipers and are not faith based... But would philosophically disagree with each other on how to apply enlightened views to world politics, local sociology, and human ethical considerations.

I don't agree with all that the author says but his categories of "Enlightenment" are indeed interesting. #In my opinion it is hard to take the views of any one recent or old philosopher and put him squarely in any one of Neonomen's boxes. #I was hoping that readers here would have some opinions about that.

w2ilp (Investigating Learned Philosophies)...and finding them often artificially disagreeing in minor ways in order to sell books that would otherwise be repetitious..

kc0ukk

10-05-2007, 02:25 AM

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Oct. 04 2007,19:17)]kg4jyd

Thank you for being the only one who has commented here.

It seems that any deep philosophical essay that runs more than two paragraphs is too long for most of the QRZ readers to read and therefore too long for them to comprehend. #

The author of the article is not talking about the "Age or Enlightening" or the "Age of Reason". #Those ages are long gone. #He was talking about now...in the present "Age of Information". #He was talking about the subjects brought up in recent lectures and books by philosophers such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. #He sees what he calls; different types of Enlightenment...which are all parts of secular humanism and atheist views. #He critizes the points of view of modern so called enlightened intellectuals, who are not Bible worshipers and are not faith based... But would philosophically disagree with each other on how to apply enlightened views to world politics, local sociology, and human ethical considerations.

I don't agree with all that the author says but his categories of "Enlightenment" are indeed interesting. #In my opinion it is hard to take the views of any one recent of old philosopher and put him squarely in any one of Neonomen's boxes. #I was hoping that readers here would have some opinions about that.

w2ilp (Investigating Learned Philosophies)...and finding them often artificially disagreeing in minor ways in order to sell books that would otherwise be repetitious..
There was a philosopher who believed that philosophy required of its adherents that they live that philosophy for its own sake. He believed in his philosophy so strongly that when his city, which he believed was the finest in the world, told him he was detrimental to that city, he agreed to drink the hemlock.

Your author is a blowhard who hasn't a clue. Following his twisted logic is a waste of time.

W2ILP

10-05-2007, 03:21 AM

Neonomen in my humble opinion is not entirely wrong. He is in effect saying something that I had said in a blogging thread started by Sam Harris.

What I said is that Harris blames religion for all wars. #Nationalism and Economic greed or Imperialism can also be a cause of wars...but religions can be used to divide people and become fronts for the propaganda of hatred that can drive people to war...or in the case of Iraq to rush to invade because of the 9/11 terrorist attack...without being certain to invade the right people for the right reasons. #This is like the guy who gets stung by a bee and thrashes around in anger until he hits a hornet's nest. #We must be enlightened enough to avoid being suicidal terrorists ourselves just because we are attacked by suicidal terrorists. #We must understand their motives and control our own anger in order to know how to respond effectively and efficiently and not be hypocrites. #True the suicidal terrorists are religious fundamentalists...but we must not consider them from only their religious "life after death" point of view if we are atheists or even if we are Christians or Jews with different views about religions...nor must we ignore the fact that there were political and economic reasons as well as religious reasons for wanting to change the government of Iraq. #The protection of Israel by the USA can be argued from a religious or from a political or from an economic point of view...ignoring or including the other motives. #In short enlightenment that leads to atheism...can not eliminate the other reasons for inhumanity and greed, etc. #The truly Enlightened utopian condition would not suit most QRZ readers because it would be called a liberal's point of view...or even a socialistic point of view...because when we remove religion and capitalistic imperialism from the equation we are left with pink socialism...and that is not the enlightenment that Harris' or Hitchens' philosophy is selling. #It is more on the order of Chomsky.

We can not stop "faith based" wars by preaching atheism...and we can not stop imperialistic wars by preaching humanism. #Perhaps we have not yet reached the real "Age Of INFORMED Enlightenment yet.

There is nothing wrong with "twisted logic" #it was invented by Euler before there was fuzzy logic.

w2ilp (Intrinsically Limited Philosophy???)...It is easy to be a philosopher king...but hard to be a philosopher soldier without being called a phony.

kc0ukk

10-05-2007, 04:15 AM

Religion is an inescapable human condition; it is one of the templates, if you will, directing the form of all instances of humans. Just like language, humans will invent a religion if one is not taught to them.

What you are describing is an unconscious acceptance of a manipulation wrought by others. Such acceptance isn't even questioned by most humans as most do not examine the premise of their very existence.

Every such person believes that he is doing what is correct and proper; what his belief system requires of him. One of the Ten Commandments requires that we believe in our faith and that we not place false faith in its place. If this commandment were to be closely examined, we would find that we are condemned to follow its stricture or to live forever in doubt, without means of ascertaining the truth.

We either believe that we are right or we wander in the wilderness. We cannot believe that we are functioning as viable creatures if we cannot accept our faith. Most atheists think that they substitute knowledge for faith. They overlook their faith in their knowledge and proclaim themselves, absurdly, faith free. In other words, they too, have their religion.

You proclaim, as did your author that religion is no more than a hair shirt; something to be discarded as a hindrance to civilization. In effect, you are proclaiming that those who are faithless are benign individuals, enlightened in your words, who are the precursors of a utopian world. The challenge that you have correctly identified, is convincing others of the follies of their faiths and of the correctness of your own.

Good luck!

W2ILP

10-05-2007, 05:39 AM

kc0ukk

I agree with what you say except about "accepting your faith and comparing faith to knowledge....but that is not the only point that Neonomen is trying to make.

What you are explaining comes under the heading of OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY. Stanly Milgram proved that many people will shock an innocent victim when suggested to do so by an authoritarian figure in a white lab coat. Many soldiers will gladly bomb or kill civilians when ordered to do so. Many voters will vote for an authority figure whose name they recognize as being a past authority figure name...without examining anything beyond a name. Clinton was a recognized political name. William Clinton was not born a Clinton...but he changed his name to Clinton. Now Hillary carries that name. Franklin Roosevelt was recognized as an authority by those who remembered Teddy Roosevelt. Now people knew the Bush's name...without knowing much about how GWB differed from his daddy...but recognizing him as a familiar authority. Indira Gandhi was not in any way related to the M. Gandhi who freed India from British rule...but she had an authoritarian name.

People who are educated but are not really "Enlightened" are easily made to follow an authority. There is no wonder among sociologist as to why most otherwise educated German people were loyal to Hitler. Hitler became a strong authority figure and people did not have to be gullible to follow him...They just had to be obedient. If a tyrant like Hitler can get elected to be president of the USA...most people will follow him or her.... and call those few who won't traitors or phonies.

Strict obedience to authority can be good or bad depending if the authority is good or bad. If a religious person is obedient to a benign or even a humanistic religious leader I see nothing bad about that...even though as an atheist I might call the religious person a sheep if he or she believes literally in Biblical miracles. All bad authority leaders are not the world's religious leaders. I consider recent Popes as men of peace, for example, but I don't agree with all of their rulings...such as banning birth control methods. If I was a Catholic, I would be obedient to only some of the Pope's rulings and this is what most American Catholics I know have done. Atheists can be tyrants or can follow tyrant leaders that are authority figures. All Atheist leaders may not be benign...They can be egotists...They can be scientists who promote bogus theories... They can be selling atheist literature only for their own profit and not really be atheists themselves. In short men (or women) can not trust any other humans...no matter how these humans become authority figures.
No human is god because he has been elected or ordained or graduated from any institution. All leaders must be under suspicion, because humans are fallible and are subject to their own set of vices unless they become hypocrites about themselves. Conversely an authority figure who tells the truth loses his authority..like the Wizard of Oz did when he came out from behind the curtain.

If the Bible story of Jesus is a true story...one can not despise those who lived when Jesus was crucified but did not believe that He was God. They simply did not at that time accept Him as the Authority figure. The myth of the Jesus trinity was brought to people who had never met Jesus and many books have been written as to why Christianity spread as well as it did at the time it did. Atheists might wonder how or why religions spread...but today we accept the fact that Reverend Moon can marry 1,000 people in the same ceremony and can even marry live people to dead "spiritual" people. At a final stage of their bogus enlightenment the Moonies accept Moon as a god. People who are Moonies don't have to believe Moon literally...but they have to accept him as an AUTHORITY. Apparently many do.

Can Enlightened people be obedient to authorities, without thinking for themselves? Some types of Enlightened people can and some can't and neither need rationalize about their position because of their intrinsic human nature.

Knowledge is not faith based. nor are most faiths based on knowledge. Faith becomes popular among those who want to be part of a tribe that follows an authority with obedience...but without logical rational knowledge being necessary..

w2ilp (I Like People)...who think for themselves even when under god....I think. We can all become slaves or zombies by following bad masters....or the bad Bibles.

K3XR

10-05-2007, 01:08 PM

Pander Princess.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPri....5a.html (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200710/POL20071005a.html)

AE6IP

10-05-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 04 2007,21:15)]We either believe that we are right or we wander in the wilderness. We cannot believe that we are functioning as viable creatures if we cannot accept our faith. Most atheists think that they substitute knowledge for faith. They overlook their faith in their knowledge and proclaim themselves, absurdly, faith free. In other words, they too, have their religion.
I have no faith in my knowledge. I examine it regularly, and when it is found wanting, I discard it. The philosophical term for this is empirical pragmatism.

But then, I rather enjoy wandering in the wilderness.

kl7aj

10-05-2007, 03:31 PM

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Oct. 04 2007,19:17)]kg4jyd

Thank you for being the first one who has commented here.

It seems that any deep philosophical essay that runs more than two paragraphs is too long for most of the QRZ readers to read and therefore too long for them to comprehend. #

The author of the article is not talking about the "Age or Enlightening" or the "Age of Reason". #Those ages are long gone. #He was talking about now...in the present "Age of Information". #He was talking about the subjects brought up in recent lectures and books by philosophers such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. #He sees what he calls; different types of Enlightenment...which are all parts of secular humanism and atheist views. #He critizes the points of view of modern so called enlightened intellectuals, who are not Bible worshipers and are not faith based... But would philosophically disagree with each other on how to apply enlightened views to world politics, local sociology, and human ethical considerations.

I don't agree with all that the author says but his categories of "Enlightenment" are indeed interesting. #In my opinion it is hard to take the views of any one recent or old philosopher and put him squarely in any one of Neonomen's boxes. #I was hoping that readers here would have some opinions about that.

w2ilp (Investigating Learned Philosophies)...and finding them often artificially disagreeing in minor ways in order to sell books that would otherwise be repetitious..
ILP:

Here's my take on the Information Age from my tome, The Opus of Amateur Radio Knowledge and Lore. (In Progress)

CHAPTER NINE

How to Do Stuff

At some point in time, we migrated from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. What this means is that fewer and fewer people have any meaningful interaction with actual physical objects. We have been virtualized into non-existence.
When you are required to handle physical items, be it a plow, a hammer, a chainsaw, a soldering iron, or a voltmeter, or a microscope, or even wind a watch, you learn a little something about the world around you. You develop a “feel” for things. You achieve a general all-around competence that allows you to figure things out...even things that are well outside your normal field of expertise.
The Information Age has taken most of that away from us. Things that us old geezers had assumed were common competencies are now viewed as dark, ancient mysteries. I have actually met licensed radio amateurs who have never turned an actual knob...everything they own consists of touch pads and computer menus. These are not Luddites or barbarians. They are actually more akin to robots. Very smart but very clueless robots.
A few years ago, I never, in my wildest imagination, would have thought it necessary to write a chapter like “How to Do Stuff.” We just did it. Sure, we broke a few things along the way, but we eventually figured it out.
So, I was faced with two options. The natural one would be to shake my head in disbelief, mutter, “What’s wrong with these whippersnappers?” beneath my floor-length white beard, and retire to my Batcave. Instead, I have chosen to take the high road, grasp the water-buffalo by the horns, and go for it.
If you are one of those whippersnappers who just don’t know how to “do stuff,” someone who’s just never had an opportunity to use a tool, someone who’s never taken a lab course in your entire school “career,” this chapter is for you. No condemnation, no guilt trips. It isn’t your fault in the first place. You have been cheated by the information age. I promise to make it up to you. Are you ready?
Good. Let us begin.
Stay close by as we descend the narrow, dim stairwell into my ham shack. As your eyes adjust to the hazy light, take a look around. Don’t panic; I’m right here, by your side. See that long wooden bench to your left? Scoot right up there. Put your hands on it. Don’t worry; it won’t bite. Honestly!
There...that wasn’t so bad now, was it? Feel that? That’s real wood. Well, real plywood, anyway. See all those black marks? Those are solder burns. A lifetime of them. Close your eyes. Run your fingers over them. Oh, the stories this bench could tell, if it could talk. Actually, it can. But you have to listen.
Open your eyes now. Oh! I see your hand moving toward that crank on that army green box. Go ahead. Turn it. I know you’re dying to. Really, you can’t hurt anything here. And even if you did, we can fix it. You and me. Together.
Yes. Go ahead. Crank away. You have my permission. Hah! I see that grin on your face! It’s better than sex, isn’t it? Oh. Er...Um...Well, don’t worry...you’ll learn about that some day, too.
What’s that smell? Well, it’s a lot of things, actually. Burnt wood, of course. Some soldering flux. A little mold, maybe. A hot transformer in that power supply on the floor by your feet. Oh, that smell. That’s carbon tetrachloride. Can’t get the stuff any more, but it’s great for cleaning things. Don’t tell anyone I’ve got it...it’s a banned substance. Smells great though, doesn’t it?
Oh that. He he! Yeah, it does look like a torture device, doesn’t it? It’s actually a thing called a shorting stick. You want to have one around when you’re working with high voltage.
Oh. That’s a Unimat. It’s sort of like a whole machine shop rolled into one. I got it from my dad; he was a great model maker. He built H.O. trains the hard way.
What’s H.O.? Ah. Come over here...I have a few of Dad’s old relics. Look at this. B&O 4-6-4 rig. Ain’t she a beaut? Dad built ‘er from scratch...every scrap of brass. Even wound the motor, built the commutator from scratch, too.
What’s a commutator? Don’t worry; you’ll learn. We’ll spend a lot of time down here, you and me. We’ll build a few motors, what do you say?
Is that a nod or what?
Ah. Good. Well, over there. That’s my operating position. A lot smaller than my workbench. Most ham shacks used to be this way. Seems the work benches are shrinking and the desks are growing, what with ‘puter terminals and all that.

W2ILP

10-05-2007, 07:34 PM

kl7aj

Thank you for an excellent post.

In seeking the lazy man's life we have given up on reality. We now have virtual reality but not virginal or verify able reality. We have not only replaced stick shifters with automatic transmissions, so that we can hardly feel the change in torque ratios which keep our car engines from stalling...but we have replaced meeting live people in the flesh with teleconferencing and Internet dating. Is this a way to live in a real physical world? Is it going to insulate future humanity from realities that can no longer be seen or felt in the ways that they once were?

The mess on the work bench is now replaced with a paper mess of computer printouts on the computer station table. Unfinished work of any kind can never be finished or remembered, as it would have been when objectives were fewer and life was simpler.

The fears of lead paint and strong chemicals have made us suspicious of baby toys and there are no longer real chemical sets for teenagers. You can't let a kid build a flying model airplane, as we were able to do in the 1940s. Nope...The kid might sniff the glue or cut himself with an xacto knife...or worse threaten his enemies with that knife. ...and you can't let the kid use toxic lead solder or soldering irons because he might eat the solder or start a house fire with the soldering iron. So the kid never learns how to cut balsa wood with and against the grain or how to solder a PC board so that there are no shorts or cold joints. Who cares, you say? That work can all be done in China by low cost labor or maybe it can now be done by automated robotic machines. There is nothing left for a craftsman to take individual pride in and nothing for a kid to risk by learning to be more careful lest he cut or burn himself...But the search for recognition and for taking risks remains...and the kid, whose mommy is often at work, is left to find new ways to satisfy his or her "attention getting" and "risk taking" motivations...and so he or she becomes a computer hacker and plants viruses on computers or threatens schoolmates or brings a gun to school or plots to shoot his classmates and teachers...or in a final stage (if he gets that far) brings the lethal plot to reality...and we have Columbine. This is, in my opinion, due to the fact that it is no longer considered macho to be productive...and thus now in extreme cases we find that there is a stronger drive to be destructive.

Maybe ham radio was better in the old days, when kids could build two tube radio receivers and two tube radio transmitters and they could use straight keys, rather than audio tones from a computer, to send messages on Morse Code rather than PSK-31. Yep...They could feel the code, as well as hear it. It would now be considered low tech and commercially obsolete...but to those who mastered the code it was an accomplishment that no computerized digital system can replace.

Are all the tools of modern electronics only permitting people to aviod the feel of reality? Is it all a virtually a form of masturbation...because there is now no access to the real bare bones basics? These are good philosophical questions. We are soon going to see a generation of humans who have grown up with computers at their fingertips. Will they be better than us old timers who had used slide rules in college? I dunno. They sure can follow up on researcher using Google easier than we could at the public libraries...but will they bother to take advantage of what is available to boost their education and their understanding of history, science and philosophy...and get ENLIGHTENED? Or will they worship sports heros, rock stars, lying politicians and talk show hosts? I dunno.

Sociologist, Francis Fukuyama, warned of "the Great Disruption", which he saw coming before the disruption of 9/11. It was caused by the emancipation and enlightenment of woman and their replacement by washing machines and pornography in the home. Their independence has changed family values far more than atheism or anarchism could. I dunno if woman were designed to be riveters as they were during WW2...and I dunno if they were designed to be presidents either? If I could answer that question I would have to be subjective because I am not a woman...but I would also have to continue being an atheist and not learn from the Bibles. The Bibles don't put women down, but they do promote the idea that Men (and not Women) must be the authorities both in and out of their homes. We read stories where Men and not women are Kings. There are no Queens...but women can seduce the Men and make them do what the women want done. Women, it seems, are born with a knack for that. Men may sexually harass women these days and get in trouble if the women complain...but women can use any subtle method that is available to influence Men more than other Men can. It is a god given knack according to the Bibles but may be part of Darwin's survival theory...and it complicates life when we come to understand that odds are; all straight men are doing stuff to impress women in general...or their wives if they have any. Women are trying to get as "enlightened as men are" these days but they really don't have to. They never had to...and they know it. They are no longer seen as being obedient to the authority at home...but like the men, they are still subject to being blindly obedient to higher authorities...as long as Ophra or Dr. Phil say so.

w2ilp (I Like People)...because peoples is the craziest monkeys.

KC2HJN

10-05-2007, 11:13 PM

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Oct. 05 2007,15:34)]w2ilp (I Like People)...because peoples is the craziest monkeys.
That little quote speaks volumes.

I hear people question events and say things like 'how could that happen in this day and age', or refer to our 'civilized' society and question the actions of some people. They speak of our advancement but in reality it is technology that has advanced, not humans. We, the human race, have changed very little from our cave dwelling ancestors.

The fact that we can build cities and use technology has tricked many into believing we, at our fundamental core, are advanced much more than the chimps we share 96% of our DNA with. We just make better guns.

Craziest monkeys indeed.

kc0ukk

10-06-2007, 01:22 AM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 05 2007,08:27)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 04 2007,21:15)]We either believe that we are right or we wander in the wilderness. #We cannot believe that we are functioning as viable creatures if we cannot accept our faith. #Most atheists think that they substitute knowledge for faith. #They overlook their faith in their knowledge and proclaim themselves, absurdly, faith free. #In other words, they too, have their religion.
I have no faith in my knowledge. I examine it regularly, and when it is found wanting, I discard it. The philosophical term for this is empirical pragmatism.

But then, I rather enjoy wandering in the wilderness.
When you find some particular scientific fact to be incorrect or out of order and then discard or rearrange that fact, you are relying upon logic to do so. It is your faith in logic that allows you to function within the world of science. This faith in logic applies to the acceptance of religious dogma just as it does with science.

Religion, however, is much more complex than science as it deals with the 'why' of life more than the 'what' of science. In reality, most religious dogmas are histories of successful human experiences couched in terms that are easily understood by the layman.

It was much easier to harness nuclear energy than it was to control its use. The 'why' of nuclear energy wasn't nearly as well understood as the 'what' that nuclear energy entailed. Because we can was butting heads with why we should.

The human mind abhors a vacuum and will unconsciously fill any void with a 'best guess'; this is how faith operates. There is no significant difference between those with only religious dogma and those with only scientific knowledge in this regard. Both will ascribe their possibly false understanding as a true fact until proven otherwise.

The advantage here lies with those who have a religious dogma as they are much more consciously aware of the 'why' of things than are those who are primarily knowledge based. After 50 years and hundreds of millions of lives lost to malaria for instance, science has finally discovered the 'why' of DDT. The religious never experienced that difficulty.

We are both religious and scientific by nature. When we lack either, we must resort to unconscious decisions of which we are unaware but which are applied as if we had consciously decided. The religious man will claim that it is for the love of mankind, the scientific man will claim it was to prevent the thinning of eggshells among raptors.

al2i

10-06-2007, 01:45 AM

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 05 2007,17:22)]Religion, however, is much more complex than science as it deals with the 'why' of life more than the 'what' of science.
Religion is not necessarily the opposite of science, as I like to think that science should enhance one's religious awe and wonder at our amazing existence.

However, faith is definitely simpler than science.

Faith vs Science (http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html)

AE6IP

10-06-2007, 02:18 AM

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 05 2007,18:22)]When you find some particular scientific fact to be incorrect or out of order and then discard or rearrange that fact, you are relying upon logic to do so. It is your faith in logic that allows you to function within the world of science. This faith in logic applies to the acceptance of religious dogma just as it does with science.

Logic has nothing to do with empirical pragmatism. Empirical pragmatism is entirely about observation and cause and effect: I try this because I appear to remember that the last time I tried it that happened and I want that to happen again. If that happens, cool. If not, then I stop trying this and search for other ways to make that happen. I don't even assume that I can make that happen again.

Quote[/b] ]Religion, however, is much more complex than science as it deals with the 'why' of life more than the 'what' of science. In reality, most religious dogmas are histories of successful human experiences couched in terms that are easily understood by the layman.

The nature of the subject matter does not mean that either religion or science is more complex than the other. Not all religions are particularly complex.

Also dogma is rarely couched in terms that are easily understood. Dogma is usually obscure and subtle.

Quote[/b] ]The human mind abhors a vacuum and will unconsciously fill any void with a 'best guess'; this is how faith operates.

Well, faith doesn't start operating until there's no evidence for the best guess but you believe it to be true anyway.

Quote[/b] ]There is no significant difference between those with only religious dogma and those with only scientific knowledge in this regard. Both will ascribe their possibly false understanding as a true fact until proven otherwise.

I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong. As Nietzsche wrote there are no facts, only interpretations. I'm not even sure that 'truth' exists other than in the most superficial way. Obviously neither Nietzsche, or those of us who agree with him ascribe anything as a "true fact", since there are no facts.

Quote[/b] ]We are both religious and scientific by nature. When we lack either, we must resort to unconscious decisions of which we are unaware but which are applied as if we had consciously decided.

We're neither by nature. What we are by nature is curious and lazy. The questions come from curiosity. Religious answers come from intellectual laziness. Scientific answers come from greater intellectual rigor, but falling into the trap of assuming that science discovers 'fact' is just another level of laziness.

W2ILP

10-06-2007, 02:23 AM

I don't think that religion can be more complex than science al2i

There is macro science and micro, pico and nanoscience and whenever man has been able to investigate anything that was bigger or smaller than was seen before there has been more science. The science of the universe and the science of the sub atomic world are both complex indeed. We are still learning more about them but most Bibles are now closed books. All of that "good book religious science" could not have been created in six days...but religions simplify stuff ...They say that it took God a day to create Man and he was lonely...so first God created all the animals...and Man was still lonely... so God crated women out of Man's rib...and was supposed to keep Man busy from then on. If he had any time left over after sacrificing animals to God man was supposed to sacrifice His labor to women or fight wars with tribes who didn't know his God from Adam. That is much simpler than believing in evolution. Besides God had created light before He made the Sun and he made the Sun and all of the stars in the universe in one day...Simple for Him....Difficult for astrophysics majors even with a Big Bang!

Religion is not the opposite of science but science is the opposite of ignorance that is based upon Biblical religions.

Religion must be faith based...but science must be fact based.

Go try and repair a smoking power supply by praying to your God.

w2ilp (Ignorance Loves Piety)...Ask Sister Teresa.

KC5CSG

10-06-2007, 02:25 AM

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Oct. 05 2007,18:45)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 05 2007,17:22)]Religion, however, is much more complex than science as it deals with the 'why' of life more than the 'what' of science.
Religion is not necessarily the opposite of science, as I like to think that science should enhance one's religious awe and wonder at our amazing existence.

However, #faith is definitely simpler than science.

Faith vs Science (http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html)
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED"
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

W2ILP

10-06-2007, 02:49 AM

Religions can't deal with anything...but religious men think that they can deal with things better than atheists can. In the history of mankind this has seldom been the case.

Religions have wasted too much time, not just justifying themselves, but in tryinmg to defeat other religions. Authoritian figures and dictators have used religious fervor to cover up selfish and egotistical motives. They couldn't get away with influencing gullible folks if they didn't do it under God. Faith based soft soap might not clean the filth of society as well as scientifically designed detergents might. This always can be shown to be true...when everything comes out in the wash...and dead men don't return to Earth as living Gods or holloween spooks.

w2ilp (I Like Proctor)...and Gamble... but odds are that clenliness is not faith based godliness...It is scientific sterilization and sanitation.

KG4JYD

10-06-2007, 02:50 AM

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Oct. 04 2007,19:17)]It seems that any deep philosophical essay that runs more than two paragraphs is too long for most of the QRZ readers to read and therefore too long for them to comprehend.
Read the article? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif You must be new here....

kc0ukk

10-06-2007, 02:59 AM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 05 2007,19:18)]I'm sorry, but that's simply wrong. #As Nietzsche wrote there are no facts, only interpretations. #I'm not even sure that 'truth' exists other than in the most superficial way. Obviously neither Nietzsche, or those of us who agree with him ascribe anything as a "true fact", since there are no facts.
Nietzche didn't kill G-d, he pointed out that his contempories had and asked them what they were going to do now. Nietzsche expanded upon Spinoza's philosophy and came to terms with mankind's inability to conceive of G-d but that G-d would have his way regardless of our opinion. The task of mankind was, to Nietzsche's mind, the perception of G-d's work using the gifts that G-d gave us.

Without 'facts' there can only be religion, which was my point. Without facts, we have only faith to sustain us. It isn't necessary that we perceive it to be so and most don't. Where science recognizes but discards the unknowable, it nevertheless recognizes that it has done so. In no case does it deny the unknowable; that would be unscientific.

kc9kow

10-06-2007, 03:08 AM

A quote from the article:

"The more I thought about it, the more it bothered me. I felt that my debating partners were missing something important, but I suspected that I was too."

Yeah, dude...you were missing the fact that you are a troll. You were missing that you are just another liberal hipster trying to wedge your bull####e mental health cult of so called enlightenment. I see right through this BS!

Just more garbage!

W2ILP

10-06-2007, 03:12 AM

To all you posters...

I dunno if anyone read the entire article that I referenced at the start of this thread...but I do know that few comprehended what it tried to say...because this thread has evolved to be a debate about science verses religions, which had little to do with the original reference...but much to do with the curiosity of most religious people who can't understand how an atheist like me can survive a quintuple heart bypass and a torn aorta and can face death with no fear of hell or heaven without praying to a man-made mythological authority that doesn't exist. #Yes there are lots of atheists in fox holes...and some under man hole covers as well.

w2ilp (I Like Philosophy)...so if you want to debate here don't change the subject.

kc0ukk

10-06-2007, 03:14 AM

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Oct. 05 2007,19:49)]Religions can't deal with anything...but religious men think that they can deal with things better than atheists can. #In the history of mankind this has seldom been the case.

Religions have wasted too much time, not just justifying themselves, but in tryinmg to defeat other religions. #Authoritian figures and dictators have used religious fervor to cover up selfish and egotistical motives. #They couldn't get away with influencing gullible folks if they didn't do it under God. #Faith based soft soap might not clean the filth of society as well as scientifically designed detergents might. #This always can be shown to be true...when everything comes out in the wash...and dead men don't return to Earth as living Gods or holloween spooks.

w2ilp (I Like Proctor)...and Gamble... but odds are that clenliness is not faith based godliness...It is scientific sterilization and sanitation.
I think perhaps your study of history has been too shallow. Religion has done more good for mankind than you seem to recognize. It has brought education to to the middle class, it was largely responsible for ending feudalism and it offered medicine and succor to the poor, sick and the powerful.

The Spanish Inquistion had a religious flavor, but in all its centuries of existence, it killed fewer than 5,000 people. Compare that to Europe in the early 20th Century.

Rarely has a religion attempted to defeat another religion. In times past, there were political wars fought in the name of religion, but thats a far cry from a religious war. Popes and Kings danced the dance of power while men and nations paid the price.

AE6IP

10-06-2007, 03:21 AM

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 05 2007,19:59)]Without 'facts' there can only be religion, which was my point. Without facts, we have only faith to sustain us. It isn't necessary that we perceive it to be so and most don't. Where science recognizes but discards the unknowable, it nevertheless recognizes that it has done so. In no case does it deny the unknowable; that would be unscientific.
Your point remains wrong. There are no facts and I have no religion. Empirical pragmatism operates fine without either facts or faith. You misunderstand Nietzsche's emphasis on interpretation in that quote. He speaks to the subjective, not the mystical.

The unknowable requires no faith to deal with. The last digit of pi is unknowable. I deal with the unknowable by not knowing it.

You argue for dualism without naming it. But Spinoza's dualism is an impersonal thing and not the dualism of religion and the god of the gaps is running out of places to hide.

If this universe has a creator, that creator exists in a universe that was also created and it is turtles all the way down. It is just as likely that this all a shared consensual hallucination. Neither matters to the empirical pragmatist because when I do this, that still happens in either case, and when I draw my last breath my universe ends.

kc9kow

10-06-2007, 03:21 AM

First of all, what you are saying is in FACT a mortal sin because it's the unforgivable one spoken of in the Bible. Can anyone name it? It is the ONLY unforgivable sin.

God is NOT man made, and is just as real as the air we breathe. Just as real as the fact that you survived a bunch of surgeries, though your story reeks at one point of bovine excrement because a torn aorta has never been survived by anyone at all in the history of humankind.

Should you have survived such a thing, then you would be the very first and therefore, a receiver of a divine miracle.

God is just as real, and just as alive as you are. Man made entities would be the muslim extremist "Alla", and the Asian "Buddha", and the list goes on.

I could go on forever, but God will deal with you in His way and in His time in whatever way he sees fit. He may very well decide to have mercy on you, which is my wish...because he has said "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy."

He is pursuing you at this juncture, or else you would not bother to fight so hard and make the artificial argument you made.

AE6IP

10-06-2007, 03:40 AM

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Oct. 05 2007,20:12)]I dunno if anyone read the entire article that I referenced at the start of this thread...but I do know that few comprehended what it tried to say...
I read it. I understood it. I felt it contained nothing worth responding to. I've not read Hind's book, so I have no idea how accurately it is being characterized, but basically, the author of article is merely reiterating the cant of the 60s: "Knowledge is Power" and "Power to the people."

The point the author misses is the distinction between institutions and those who would use them. Stalin used institutionalized communism, but was no communist. Hitler used institutionalized Christianity but was no Christian.

But it is too glib to simply forgive the institution for the abuses of those who use it and there is no discussion of that on topic.

W2ILP

10-06-2007, 04:15 AM

kc0ukk ...Religion has not brought scientific education to any class. #It has perpetuated prejudices and ignorance and it has conditioned people to be unable to think for themselves. #It has increased feelings of guilt among its followers for the victimless crime of seeking knowledge which is outside of the constrains of formulated dogma. # It has impeded such humane efforts as birth control, stem cell research and the control of social diseases.

How do you know how many people were killed in the Spanish Inquisition? #Remember that Hitler was backed by most of the German clergy, and the Pope as well, when he killed many Jews. #I dunno how many Jews were killed or how many managed to escape the NAZIs but very few religious people helped them...Even some religious Jewish Zionists didn't want to help their fellow Jews....,because doing so was not prophesied by their religious interpretation. #Religions depend on the suffering of people and the guilt of the people who cause the suffering or tend to ignore it.
#
Now the guy from Iran denies that the holocaust killed as many Jews as the Israelis say were killed ...He doesn't know any more about the numbers than you or I know how many were killed in Spain in the 1490s or how many escaped. #

In recent years religious suicidal fundamentalist Muslim terrorists have killed many Jewish civilians in Israel...as well as many Americans on 9/11. #In return for this Muslims got slaughtered by Jews and Americans in far greater numbers. # How many "witches" were burned to death by religious zealots, before people learned that witches aren't all wickard unless they go to Oz from the wrong direction?
#
Theocratic Jews of Israel have killed many times more Palestinians then the Muslim terrorists have killed Jews....and the American Army...in a crusade for the "Christian Nation of the USA" has been justified its bombing and invading of Iraq for WMDs that it didn't have and its torturing of Muslims that have only been suspected of being fundamentalists. #Popes and Kings and Presidents have danced their dances with religious leaders who have aided to controlling their people and in killing innocent people of other faiths.

I dunno if Billy Graham can dance...but I know that too many presidents thought he was a reliable speaking authority. #

In a speech to South Koreans in 1953, Graham said that the only hope for the people of South Korea was to convert to Christianity, and that future war with the North Koreans was certain to kill most of them...so that their only hope was not to rebuild their cities but to accept Jesus as their savior so that they could go to heaven. #The South Koreans built up cities, they built Hyundai cars, they worked to help themselves, and now it looks like there is a good chance that they might make a peace treaty with North Korea. #Becoming Christians did not help...although I admit many more Koreans than Japanese converted. #A Korean who learned a lot from Billy Graham's methods became Reverend Moon. #Enid sed.

w2ilp (I Like Peace) There can't be peace when people don't want to share the same God and there can't be peace when people are motivated to destroy and kill by different Gods...There can only be peace when there is no God to die for. #We are told that the God of the Christians died for Man...but Men are also told that they too must die to make men free to believe that nonsense. #Nobody says that they must all sacrifice their lives to die in such large numbers for science. #In fact it is science that is prolonging the life span of many people. #I don't want to die for any authority..Most people don't want to die for any authority. #You have to brain wash them with religions to make them willing to die for something that they can't understand and tell them that they can rise from their death into a Utopian heaven, which is impossible. #When your brain waves stop you are dead...and that is "all she wrote" sports fans. # Neither of the World Wars was fought for atheists or by a significant number of atheists. #Today Religious Muslims want to defeat Religious Jews and Religious Jews want to defeat Religious Muslims...and they are still fighting in the Christian holyland. #Where have you been?

W2ILP

10-06-2007, 04:52 AM

kc9kow

Your ignorance of cardiology surprises me. I could refer you to my surgeon for an explanation but I would not want to take up his valuable time. I live today seven years after my surgery, which was not all uncommon, with a dacron patch on my torn aorta.

I am not heartless nor do I tell heart warming stories. I believe that you think that aorta tears are impossible to repair...but you are wrong! I can't fault you for not knowing that they are often repaired during surgery. It would be ignorant on my part if I did.

Emotions, ignorance or lies can't come from the heart.
Most of my thinking comes from my brain and maybe a little from my intestines, where the scientists have recently also found brain cells. I don't need any of your bovine excretement...because I can produce sufficient nitrogionous excretement on my own.

You sir would prefer to believe Biblical mythology more than your fellow Ham. I can't stop you from being so biased but I wish you the best of DX.

73,
w2ilp (I Like Peace)

kc0ukk

10-06-2007, 06:37 AM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 05 2007,20:21)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 05 2007,19:59)]Without 'facts' there can only be religion, which was my point. Without facts, we have only faith to sustain us. It isn't necessary that we perceive it to be so and most don't. #Where science recognizes but discards the unknowable, it nevertheless recognizes that it has done so. #In no case does it deny the unknowable; that would be unscientific.
Your point remains wrong. There are no facts and I have no religion. Empirical pragmatism operates fine without either facts or faith. You misunderstand Nietzsche's emphasis on interpretation in that quote. He speaks to the subjective, not the mystical.

The unknowable requires no faith to deal with. The last digit of pi is unknowable. I deal with the unknowable by not knowing it.

You argue for dualism without naming it. But Spinoza's dualism is an impersonal thing and not the dualism of religion and the god of the gaps is running out of places to hide.

If this universe has a creator, that creator exists in a universe that was also created and it is turtles all the way down. It is just as likely that this all a shared consensual hallucination. Neither matters to the empirical pragmatist because when I do this, that still happens in either case, and when I draw my last breath my universe ends.
Spinoza anticipated Schrödinger’s Cat by 300 hundred years; it isn’t what is but who is looking that determines the outcome. Your stack of turtles isn’t what is; rather it describes the range of human perception. Contrary to your claims, G-d isn’t limited by human perception, nor should G-d be limited by human measurement.

To throw you a bone, I’m not suggesting that your capacity for logic has failed you, but that it has reached its limits. As Spinoza expressed it, humans have five, possibly six senses; it is arrogant of humans to assume that five or six senses are sufficient to describe the universe within which we live. If humans can identify five and possibly six senses are they not capable of understanding that there may be more? How many colors, how many numbers, how many forms of life? Why should there be but six senses? What, Spinoza asked, lends credence to the concept that our limitations describe the world within which we find ourselves?

Nietzsche broke with Wagner over this very issue; Wagner saw his art in human terms where Nietzsche preferred the absolute. Wagner actually agreed with Nietzsche’s philosophy, but discarded the unknowable in favor of the pragmatic. Besides, he really enjoyed his own music.

kc0ukk

10-06-2007, 07:05 AM

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Oct. 05 2007,21:15)]kc0ukk ...Religion has not brought scientific education to any class. #It has perpetuated prejudices and ignorance and it has conditioned people to be unable to think for themselves. #It has increased feelings of guilt among its followers for the victimless crime of seeking knowledge which is outside of the constrains of formulated dogma. # It has impeded such humane efforts as birth control, stem cell research and the control of social diseases.

How do you know how many people were killed in the Spanish Inquisition? #Remember that Hitler was backed by most of the German clergy, and the Pope as well, when he killed many Jews. #I dunno how many Jews were killed or how many managed to escape the NAZIs but very few religious people helped them...Even some religious Jewish Zionists didn't want to help their fellow Jews....,because doing so was not prophesied by their religious interpretation. #Religions depend on the suffering of people and the guilt of the people who cause the suffering or tend to ignore it.
#
Now the guy from Iran denies that the holocaust killed as many Jews as the Israelis say were killed ...He doesn't know any more about the numbers than you or I know how many were killed in Spain in the 1490s or how many escaped. #

In recent years religious suicidal fundamentalist Muslim terrorists have killed many Jewish civilians in Israel...as well as many Americans on 9/11. #In return for this Muslims got slaughtered by Jews and Americans in far greater numbers. # How many "witches" were burned to death by religious zealots, before people learned that witches aren't all wickard unless they go to Oz from the wrong direction?
#
Theocratic Jews of Israel have killed many times more Palestinians then the Muslim terrorists have killed Jews....and the American Army...in a crusade for the "Christian Nation of the USA" has been justified its bombing and invading of Iraq for WMDs that it didn't have and its torturing of Muslims that have only been suspected of being fundamentalists. #Popes and Kings and Presidents have danced their dances with religious leaders who have aided to controlling their people and in killing innocent people of other faiths.

I dunno if Billy Graham can dance...but I know that too many presidents thought he was a reliable speaking authority. #

In a speech to South Koreans in 1953, Graham said that the only hope for the people of South Korea was to convert to Christianity, and that future war with the North Koreans was certain to kill most of them...so that their only hope was not to rebuild their cities but to accept Jesus as their savior so that they could go to heaven. #The South Koreans built up cities, they built Hyundai cars, they worked to help themselves, and now it looks like there is a good chance that they might make a peace treaty with North Korea. #Becoming Christians did not help...although I admit many more Koreans than Japanese converted. #A Korean who learned a lot from Billy Graham's methods became Reverend Moon. #Enid sed.

w2ilp (I Like Peace) There can't be peace when people don't want to share the same God and there can't be peace when people are motivated to destroy and kill by different Gods...There can only be peace when there is no God to die for. #We are told that the God of the Christians died for Man...but Men are also told that they too must die to make men free to believe that nonsense. #Nobody says that they must all sacrifice their lives to die in such large numbers for science. #In fact it is science that is prolonging the life span of many people. #I don't want to die for any authority..Most people don't want to die for any authority. #You have to brain wash them with religions to make them willing to die for something that they can't understand and tell them that they can rise from their death into a Utopian heaven, which is impossible. #When your brain waves stop you are dead...and that is "all she wrote" sports fans. # Neither of the World Wars was fought for atheists or by a significant number of atheists. #Today Religious Muslims want to defeat Religious Jews and Religious Jews want to defeat Religious Muslims...and they are still fighting in the Christian holyland. #Where have you been?
Frankly, I find this post to be gibberish that I'll write off as the consequences of a long hard day.

AE6IP

10-06-2007, 04:10 PM

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 05 2007,23:37)]Spinoza anticipated Schrödinger’s Cat by 300 hundred years; it isn’t what is but who is looking that determines the outcome. Your stack of turtles isn’t what is; rather it describes the range of human perception. Contrary to your claims, G-d isn’t limited by human perception, nor should G-d be limited by human measurement.

Schrödinger was confused. The cat produces no dilemma and is only an artifact of intellectual laziness. The wave function collapses when it collapses. The cat dies or doesn't die. The cat is dead when the function collapses. The observer's knowledge comes later, but not the collapse.

Quote[/b] ]As Spinoza expressed it, humans have five, possibly six senses; it is arrogant of humans to assume that five or six senses are sufficient to describe the universe within which we live. If humans can identify five and possibly six senses are they not capable of understanding that there may be more? How many colors, how many numbers, how many forms of life? Why should there be but six senses? What, Spinoza asked, lends credence to the concept that our limitations describe the world within which we find ourselves?

You are drifting farther and farther from the point. Spinoza's miscount of human senses has nothing to do with empirical pragmatism's not needing either faith or logic. Your claim to the contrary remains incorrect, and no amount of distraction about Spinoza will change that.

As far as the god whose name you fear to spell, it does not exist, but that is an entirely different discussion than your attempt to put empirical pragmatism on the same footing as religion with respect to faith.

The universe is not rational and the unknowables are not knowable. This is not due to the limitations of humans. It is intrinsic. It is also not due to dualism. The universe is all there is. There are no gaps for the god of the gaps to fill.

The only difference between theists and atheists with respect to gods is that theists have not completed the last step in the induction. They have dismissed the gods of others as the myths they are but are blind to the knowledge that the same reasoning should dismiss their gods as well.

kc0ukk

10-07-2007, 02:44 AM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 06 2007,09:10)]As far as the god whose name you fear to spell, it does not exist, but that is an entirely different discussion than your attempt to put empirical pragmatism on the same footing as religion with respect to faith.
There are those who have sworn to protect the written name of G-d, to see that it is given all due respect. It costs me nothing to accommodate their oaths.

Empirical pragmatism, properly positioned in life is only tool, useful for some tasks but not for others. It cannot bootstrap itself into a driving force; there is always some other motivation involved when deciding to live life according to its constraints. It is that motivation, unconscious or not that is the individual’s religious nature. By adopting empirical pragmatism, one simply replaces one dogma with another.

AE6IP

10-07-2007, 04:21 AM

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 06 2007,19:44)]Empirical pragmatism, properly positioned in life is only tool, useful for some tasks but not for others. It cannot bootstrap itself into a driving force; there is always some other motivation involved when deciding to live life according to its constraints. It is that motivation, unconscious or not that is the individual’s religious nature. By adopting empirical pragmatism, one simply replaces one dogma with another.
Alas, no. Once again, turtles.

Empirical pragmatism is its own motivation: I choose it because it works. When it fails to work, I will choose something different.

There is no need for recourse to religion.

kc0ukk

10-07-2007, 06:05 AM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 06 2007,21:21)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 06 2007,19:44)]Empirical pragmatism, properly positioned in life is only tool, useful for some tasks but not for others. #It cannot bootstrap itself into a driving force; there is always some other motivation involved when deciding to live life according to its constraints. #It is that motivation, unconscious or not that is the individual’s religious nature. #By adopting empirical pragmatism, one simply replaces one dogma with another.
Alas, no. Once again, turtles.

Empirical pragmatism is its own motivation: I choose it because it works. When it fails to work, I will choose something different.

There is no need for recourse to religion.
According to empirical pragmatisim, eugenics works, but it must borrow from another system if it is to distinguish between the gain of a Stephen Hawking and the loss of a Jeffery Dahmer.

Where a religion would say it is not for us to judge, empirical pragmatism would say the child isn't wanted, it suffers from Down's Syndrome or is genetically predetermined to suffer ALS.

Empirical pragmatism falls short in these moral based decisions and must fall short else it isn't empirical pragmatism.

AE6IP

10-07-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 06 2007,23:05)]According to empirical pragmatisim, eugenics works, but it must borrow from another system if it is to distinguish between the gain of a Stephen Hawking and the loss of a Jeffery Dahmer.

Alas, you are wrong again. According to empirical pragmatism, the knowledge does not exist to determine if eugenics works or not. We would discard eugenics as uncertain.

Quote[/b] ]Where a religion would say it is not for us to judge, empirical pragmatism would say the child isn't wanted, it suffers from Down's Syndrome or is genetically predetermined to suffer ALS.

And again, wrong. There are religions that indeed would say that it is for us to judge. Historically such religions abandoned infants on mountain tops.

Quote[/b] ]Empirical pragmatism falls short in these moral based decisions and must fall short else it isn't empirical pragmatism.

Religions fall short on moral decisions, else why would they be in so much conflict with each other over what morality is?

The morality which concerns you is an artifact of culture and the social contract, not one of religion. Religion is merely used as a prop to justify moral choices but does not inform them in any real way; else how explain that Mother Teresa and Adolph Hitler arrived at such vastly different moral systems starting from the same religion?

This is not surprising in any way once one finishes the induction and vanishes the god of the gaps. At that point it becomes clear that the scriptures of various religions, be they Vedas, Torahs, or Qurans, are no more than the musing of man.

Morality is no more than the social conventions that those who have the power to enforce impose. In much of human history morality has been what a ruling class declared it to be. In the modern west, it is growing closer to a social consensus, often, as witness the Jim Crow laws, approaching mob rule, but just as often steering towards common ground.

kc0ukk

10-07-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 07 2007,10:35)]Alas, you are wrong again. According to empirical pragmatism, the knowledge does not exist to determine if eugenics works or not. We would discard eugenics as uncertain.
That isn't what happened though, is it? Pragmatism found eugenics to be an excellent course of action.

The founder of pragmatism, henry James had this to say about moral choices and pragmatism:

Quote[/b] ]Moral questions immediately present themselves as questions whose solution cannot wait for sensible proof. A moral question is a question not of what sensibly exists, but of what is good, or would be good if it did exist. [...] A social organism of any sort whatever, large or small, is what it is because each member proceeds to his own duty with a trust that the other members will simultaneously do theirs. Wherever a desired result is achieved by the co-operation of many independent persons, its existence as a fact is a pure consequence of the precursive faith in one another of those immediately concerned. A government, an army, a commercial system, a ship, a college, an athletic team, all exist on this condition, without which not only is nothing achieved, but nothing is even attempted. (James 1896)

I'd say that defines the limitations of pragmatism pretty well.

AE6IP

10-07-2007, 08:01 PM

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 07 2007,11:34)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 07 2007,10:35)]Alas, you are wrong again. According to empirical pragmatism, the knowledge does not exist to determine if eugenics works or not. We would discard eugenics as uncertain.
That isn't what happened though, is it? Pragmatism found eugenics to be an excellent course of action.

Sorry, no, that is indeed what happened

Quote[/b] ]
The founder of pragmatism, Henry James had this to say about moral choices and pragmatism:

It's a pity that James' pragmatism is not modern empirical pragmatism, otherwise your quote might have been relevant. Well, not as much a pity as it is that you're quoting William James, from "The Will to Believe", not Henry, and that it was Charles Sanders Peirce, and neither of the James who founded pragmatism.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Moral questions immediately present themselves as questions whose solution cannot wait for sensible proof. A moral question is a question not of what sensibly exists, but of what is good, or would be good if it did exist. [...] A social organism of any sort whatever, large or small, is what it is because each member proceeds to his own duty with a trust that the other members will simultaneously do theirs. Wherever a desired result is achieved by the co-operation of many independent persons, its existence as a fact is a pure consequence of the precursive faith in one another of those immediately concerned. A government, an army, a commercial system, a ship, a college, an athletic team, all exist on this condition, without which not only is nothing achieved, but nothing is even attempted. (James 1896)

I'd say that defines the limitations of pragmatism pretty well.

A concise definition of James' American pragmatism is "a philosophical movement, developed in the United States, which holds that both the meaning and the truth of any idea is a function of its practical outcome." This is definitely not the same as modern empirical pragmatism, which denies 'truth' in the sense meant can either exist or matter and which cares not about 'meaning' in the philosophical sense.

You may want to reconstruct the quote with the elipses restored. James' comment there does matter to your argument. He is not defending religion, but rather Pascal's idea of emotion as the center of social contract: Science can tell us what exists; but to compare the worths, both of what exists and of what does not exist, we must consult, not science, but what Pascal calls our heart. Science herself consults her heart when she lays it down that the in&#64257;nite ascertainment of fact and correction of false belief are the supreme goods for man.

James is not arguing about empirical pragmatism, but rather summing up the comment that "science tells us how the universe works, but not what to do with it."

But even the part of James you quote out of context after the elipses isn't arguing what you which to make it appear to argue. James is only arguing that taste ("Do you like me or not?" is his example) is an emotional choice.

So no, the WIlliam James essay you mistakenly attribute to Henry James, who was not the founder of pragmatism which isn't modern empirical pragmatism anyway doesn't make the argument you tried to make it appear to make by your ellipses and thus does not outline the limits of pragmatic empiricism.

I suggest Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism) as a starting point, in understanding empirical pragmatism and keeping the James' straight. Note though that the wikipedia article is nearly 100 years behind the history of empiricism.

kc0ukk

10-07-2007, 10:27 PM

Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 07 2007,13:01)]Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 07 2007,11:34)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Oct. 07 2007,10:35)]Alas, you are wrong again. According to empirical pragmatism, the knowledge does not exist to determine if eugenics works or not. We would discard eugenics as uncertain.
That isn't what happened though, is it? #Pragmatism found eugenics to be an excellent course of action.

Sorry, no, that is indeed what happened

Quote[/b] ]
The founder of pragmatism, Henry James had this to say about moral choices and pragmatism:

It's a pity that James' pragmatism is not modern empirical pragmatism, otherwise your quote might have been relevant. Well, not as much a pity as it is that you're quoting William James, from "The Will to Believe", not Henry, and that it was Charles Sanders Peirce, and neither of the James who founded pragmatism.

Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ]Moral questions immediately present themselves as questions whose solution cannot wait for sensible proof. A moral question is a question not of what sensibly exists, but of what is good, or would be good if it did exist. [...] A social organism of any sort whatever, large or small, is what it is because each member proceeds to his own duty with a trust that the other members will simultaneously do theirs. Wherever a desired result is achieved by the co-operation of many independent persons, its existence as a fact is a pure consequence of the precursive faith in one another of those immediately concerned. A government, an army, a commercial system, a ship, a college, an athletic team, all exist on this condition, without which not only is nothing achieved, but nothing is even attempted. (James 1896)

I'd say that defines the limitations of pragmatism pretty well.

A concise definition of James' American pragmatism is "a philosophical movement, developed in the United States, which holds that both the meaning and the truth of any idea is a function of its practical outcome." This is definitely not the same as modern empirical pragmatism, which denies 'truth' in the sense meant can either exist or matter and which cares not about 'meaning' in the philosophical sense.

You may want to reconstruct the quote with the elipses restored. James' comment there does matter to your argument. He is not defending religion, but rather Pascal's idea of emotion as the center of social contract: Science can tell us what exists; but to compare the worths, both of what exists and of what does not exist, we must consult, not science, but what Pascal calls our heart. Science herself consults her heart when she lays it down that the in&#64257;nite ascertainment of fact and correction of false belief are the supreme goods for man.

James is not arguing about empirical pragmatism, but rather summing up the comment that "science tells us how the universe works, but not what to do with it."

But even the part of James you quote out of context after the elipses isn't arguing what you which to make it appear to argue. James is only arguing that taste ("Do you like me or not?" is his example) is an emotional choice.

So no, the WIlliam James essay you mistakenly attribute to Henry James, who was not the founder of pragmatism which isn't modern empirical pragmatism anyway doesn't make the argument you tried to make it appear to make by your ellipses and thus does not outline the limits of pragmatic empiricism.

I suggest Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism) as a starting point, in understanding empirical pragmatism and keeping the James' straight. #Note though that the wikipedia article is nearly 100 years behind the history of empiricism.
William James was the founder of pragmatism along with Pierce, Dewey and Meade. I quoted William James correctly but have no idea why I typed Henry; the context was clear enough to all but the pedantic.

The founder of the British Eugenics Society was FCS Schiller, a pragmatist.
Schiller (http://www.pragmatism.org/history/Schiller.htm)

And let's not forget Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, pragmatist and member of the Metaphysical Club, who wrote the majority opinion in Buck vs. Bell where he said "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind... Three generations of imbeciles are enough"

Oliver Wendell Holmes (http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/library/historical/eugenics/)

Enough, I think, to establish the strong relationship between pragmatism and eugenics.

In Creativity in American Philosophy, Charles Hartshorne entitled chapter five James' Empirical Pragmatism, establishing clearly James' role in the philosophy you claim to follow:

Hartshorne (http://books.google.com/books?id=vZRF1dZpoLIC&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=%22empirical+pragmatism%22&source=web&ots=VzNOzfe9TE&sig=yOxG5VT7HTs5zl1fpQLw-q1xgh0#PPA50,M1)

Pragmatism, in all its forms, struggles with situational ethics. James says it can be proven true through its efficacy. Schiller says it can sometimes be made true and then made untrue again. You say now that there are no truths. That certainly evades the problems with pragmatism, but does nothing to aid in life.

AE6IP

10-07-2007, 11:47 PM

Quote[/b] (kc0ukk @ Oct. 07 2007,15:27)]The founder of the British Eugenics Society was FCS Schiller, a pragmatist.
And let's not forget Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, . . .

Enough, I think, to establish the strong relationship between pragmatism and eugenics.

Perhaps a weak relationship between 19th century pragmatism and eugenics, but hardly enough to establish a relationship between modern empirical pragmatism and eugenics. Which is good, since a relationship does not exist.

Quote[/b] ]In Creativity in American Philosophy, Charles Hartshorne entitled chapter five James' Empirical Pragmatism, establishing clearly James' role in the philosophy you claim to follow:

How exactly do you turn my observations that James' pragmatism is not modern empirical pragmatism into a claim that I follow James?

Quote[/b] ]Pragmatism, in all its forms, struggles with situational ethics.

Humanity in all of its forms struggles with situational ethics. Empirical pragmatism merely recognizes the struggle as part of the human condition, arising from the unknowable nature of the future.

Quote[/b] ]You say now that there are no truths. That certainly evades the problems with pragmatism, but does nothing to aid in life.

It does much to aid in life. So long as one continues the mistaken belief that there is an absolute truth, one can never understand that the universe is neither rational, nor entirely knowable. More than that, one searching for absolute truth wastes the effort as much as one searching for the last digit of pi does.

It is the believe in quantum causality and the search for truth that wastes so much ink over non-existing dilemmas like Schroedinger's poor cat. The knowledge that the observer has no relationship to the event observed allows the return of objectivity to epistemology and leads to Philip K Dick's famous dictum that "reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it."

Empirical pragmatism does not provide a theoretic basis for aesthetics, but that merely highlights that aesthetics are a matter of personal bias, again a benefit, as it leads us to avoid the useless earch for such a basis.

Empirical pragmatism, by the way, by one definition of insanity, "repeating the same action but expecting a different result", is a good simply way to remain sane, as it abandons actions which do not work.

There is much to be said for modern empirical pragmatism, and arguing against James' 19th century version makes no more sense than attempting to dispute the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology by arguing against "The Origin of Species" and ignoring the ensuing work in the field.