»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Logic 101
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Logic 101 |
|
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738
|
I've been keeping myself amused lately with a free online course offered from: http://atheism.about.com/c/ec/6.htm This week's lesson included a quote from Bertrand Russell-- When two men of science disagree, they do not invoke the secular arm; they wait for further evidence to decide the issue, because, as men of science, they know that neither is infallible. But when two theologians differ, since there is no criteria to which either can appeal, there is nothing for it but mutual hatred and an open or covert appeal to force. - Bertrand Russell Can Religion Cure our Troubles, 1954. Hmm. I thought about it, and realize that I tend to vascillate between the two. I also thought that this might be the source of some of our less productive discussions in this particular forum. So, does anyone have any thoughts on Bertrand Russell's thought? Agreement? Disagreement? Anything at all to add? And oh. Howdy.  |
||
| © Copyright 2007 serenity blaze - All Rights Reserved | |||
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
Serenity, Are you just brewin' trouble?  Just confirming I think you make an excellent point though I'm not good at all at the grudge part so I find it easier to observe. Enough said I'm outa here.If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen: quote: Do you mean that you vascillate between atheism and theism? Or between science and theology? Because, while a strict antithesis between atheism and theism is necessary, I don't think the same kind of antithesis is necessary between science and theology. There's no reason why a believer in God should reject good science (the scientific pedigree holds many Christians). Nor is there any reason that I can see why a good scientist should reject theism on account of his science. Though Kirkegaard (and others inclined to his way of thinking) saw a strict divide between faith and natural observation, I think it is a less than desirable, and extremely problematic view ... creating a stark dualism where there need not be one. Of course, I may be totally misunderstanding what you meant. quote: Since when did ad hominem become "logic 101"?  We easily forget that atrocities have been committed in the name of science (hijacked though it may be). So why merely focus on bad religious examples to disprove the whole? And the assertion that theology involves "no criteria" is just a bald opinion and nothing more. Where did Russell get that idea? Stephen. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
"When two men of science disagree, they do not invoke the secular arm; they wait for further evidence to decide the issue, because, as men of science, they know that neither is infallible." Einstein certainly disagreed and expressed failure. quote: on the nature of God. quote: It's anguishing, whether hatred is applied or affecting, and illogical to me, for Einstein to feel he failed at anything, as extraordinary as he was, which solidifies for me that criteria can be personal and applied, among other things according. This can also make me feel hopeless at times, in trying to understand any arena of understanding. Sighs  |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I assure you, I did not post this to start trouble. sigh  I also realize my reputation may suggest otherwise. As I said a few times before, I dropped Philosophy after one or two classes, and this forum has prompted me to go back and try again. When I found that course online, I was delighted, but I realized quickly that something was lacking--discussion. I know many others here at Pip are at times intimidated by this forum because of terminology and references to works they have never read, much less studied. Many people are afraid of looking stupid. I don't happen to have a problem with confessing my ignorance. Good thing, eh? (For example, I had to look up "ad hominem".) Here's what I found: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") is a logical fallacy consisting of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem There's a very helpful chart there as well. If this post is construed as a personal attack, I have no problem with watching it go "poof". I thought when I admitted that I vascillate between science and religion, I was expressing neutrality. Stephan, I realize I have more to address in your answer Stephan, but I hope to do so more thoughtfully than I have in the past. In other words, I'm trying to apply what I learn, k? Oh. And I have no idea where Bertrand Russell got his ideas. Prolly wasn't the internet though.  OH, and Logic 101 was just the name of the course. Sheesh. I just wanted to talk. And shrug, if somebody out there had a good argument that marries science and religion, that's what I was hoping for. I tried other message boards, but I got kicked out of one, just for calling myself "soliwitch". Egads, if this created a problem, we can just forget about it. Again. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Hey Reggie! Good to see you here. Right now I'm having some trouble staying online, but I assure you I'm delighted that you've joined us. I'll be back. I need to read a bit.  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
This is an idealization of science, the idea being that it works over the long run. I think it goes without saying that scientists, in order to be called scientists, share the same set of assumptions -- at least when working on the same problems. It's unclear to me that religions or theologians have those kind of shared assumptions. Maybe we could put it this way: Scientists tend to agree with whatever the mainstream thought is whenever something is scientifically outside their field and tend to debate, discuss the minutiae of their own (I'm not talking politics,only science). That is, scientists tend to trust each other as long as it's not a threat to their own work. Within their own field there is no trust, only experiment. Theologians tend to work the other way around. The further away it is from their own expertise the more they are inclined to disagree with it. That should start some fireworks, no? By the way, I don't like the quote. I don't think science and religion are at odds with each other. I think they are doing two different things. You should never try to replace religion with science and, I hope this is clear, you should never replace science with religion. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen, By "ad hominem" I wasn't referring to you but to Bertrand Russell, who was an amazing thinker and writer ... and yet his ideas on the nature of religion were too vehement to attribute to a neutral rationality. I was just pointing out that his arguments against theism have often been more about calling character into question than anything else. I wasn't even implying that you shared his views, just discussing the quotes you provided. I certainly don't consider this thread as a trouble starter. I just wanted you to know that. You know I like these kinds of posts. And I guess what I meant by "where'd he get that idea", is not literally where, but how is that idea really defended. It's not unusual for those who do not care for theology to doubt that it has any objectivity, by which things can be measured. But my understanding of Theology (in the meager degree that I do, for which I'm thankful) makes me wonder what is the basis for this kind of criticism. I guess the difference between science and Theology is due to the personal nature of God and revelation, coupled with freedom to discover. Wherever Divine authority and will is combined with human freedom, we are bound to get something stranger than calculation and statistics ... something which involves seeming pardox. But that struggle is supposed to be there I think. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Russell was obviously making an over-simplified generalization to try to illustrate a point. His view of 'men of science' may hold to some extent -- but only in an arena where money isn't involved. When there are large stakes there will be many heated discussions over what the problem is and what the solution should be. Russell never had to fill out an appropriation request -- apparently. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Karen~ My pleasure, and no, I don't think there's any probs with your post. Post, post, post. I also want to think that Russell's quote is a great example of bias. Most tend to "lean" toward one's preference in a comparison, glaringly so in his case, as he is stated as saying that "Mathematics kept him from suicide." So he is definitely scientifically minded, because math makes me want to commit suicide, joke. So yeah, I feel he paints science in a kinder light, while religion was probably a source of great contention within himself, though he can surely be right in certain instances between certain people. I know he admired Einstein, and maybe he met Falwell, which might make anyone say what Bertrand said. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: Brad: I agree with you. What is so appealing about religious fundamentalism? It offers definitive answers without requiring the fundamentalist to do any real investigating. But I think the same can be said for secularists. At Penn State, I cannot count for you how many people have read everything Merleau-Ponty or Derrida have written, but have never cracked a book of Plato's, Aristotles, Augustine's, or Calvin's writings. If they think those writings are dull, then they can always try Luther (whose intellect was a match for any of the above but his wit was not above body humor). I know you've read "Mere Christianity" and I know that you know that all theists do not see reason as the enemy. To the contrary, I think for those of us Doubting Thomases of this world, the reasonability of the Judeo-Christian worldview is precisely what leads us to our decision to take that small step of faith. And also precisely what compels we Thomases to correct the mistaken notions of those who say, "If you can't beat them, join them" or "If you can't beat them, isolate." Jim |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Okay. This is good. I might add that this is the fourth course offered in the series and it was titled, "Why Do People Argue?" But I'm enjoying the commentary, although alot of it references stuff I have yet to read. (Stephan--should I be referring to Blake's Marriage of Heaven & Hell before I read The Great Divorce, and j.? Should Mere Christianity be read before that one, or does it matter? Um, this is how I end up screaming for help buried under books. )But this guy Austin Cline explains Russell's comment with the scientific premise of "falsifiability"--which I take to mean that unless something can be proven absolutely correct, it must considered false. This, he adds here, cannot be done with theology. Here's the link (which I hope works) http://atheism.about.com/od/weeklyquotes/a/russell01.htm And I feel compelled to add a disclaimer about the nature of Stephan and I's relationship. WE ARE FRIENDS, and actually, it's sorta brother-sisterish, so if we get feisty with each other, it is in that spirit, and nothing more. That's just so nobody gets upset and thinks I'm picking on my buddy. (I can do that privately in e mail--besides Larry, he can take care of himself. *chuckle*) Thanks you guys, (and Dame Regina) for helping me out. I doubt seriously I'll ever "test out" of Philosophy, but what the heck? This is keeping me off the streets. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Karen: quote: William Blake's "The Marriage..." is easily accessible online. I myself didn't read it in its entirety before I read "The Great Divorce", but I've read excerpts and am familiar with the thoughts that it presents. One thing that Lewis does a good job at is challenging Blake's (and many other's) description of Hell as poetic and passionate and Heaven as prosaic and static. Douglas Beyer put it this way: "... books addressing this subject often make Hell more interesting than Heaven. There's just so much more going on there.(Not that you'd want to live there, of course, but the Inferno has always been more popular with the tourist trade.) "Great to visit, hate to live there"--isn't that what people say about Los Angeles? One of Lewis' remarkable achievements is that his writing reverses this. His vivid imagination pictures Hell with less fire and torture and more dreariness, boredom, and grayness. He makes us see it as not only a place suitable for the Hitlers and Charles Mansons of this world, but a distinct possibility for "respectable" people like us. He does this without making Hell the least bit interesting. Heaven, on the other hand, is a place of rich variety in contrast with the dull monotony of Hell." Anyway, they're both short works so ... what'r ya waitin' for?? And though I'm not the Great Jim, I'll presume to answer your question to him, so he can come and correct me later. "Mere Christianity" is Lewis' most lay-friendly book. It was taken from several BBC radio addresses he made during the War. Multi-syllabic words are fewer, and the outline is simple. The style is arm-chair converstational. It is not written for dummies, but rather for those not yet familiar with all the philosophical and theological jargon that we can accumulate. It is very good. I think it would be a great starting place for you since it lays the foundation, as it were, of all his other works. But whatever you do, don't stop there. You must also read "The Space Trilogy", and "The abolition of Man", and "Miracles", and "The Screwtape Letter", and "Til We Have Faces" and ... Okay I'll shut up now. Stephen. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Karen: Perhaps before "Mere Christianity", you might want to try to get your hands on a copy of Lewis' "God in the Dock" ("in the Dock" is the English equivalent to "on Trial"). I is a collection of essays on a large number of issues that demonstrate the breadth of Lewis' thinking without jumping straight into the depth of his more well-known works. "Mere Christianity" isn't too challenging of a read, but is on the intermediate side of basic (in my opinion). Since the essays are arranged topically, I think that makes "God in the Dock" the better intro to Lewis than "Mere Christianity." Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim, I actually think that Lewis' fiction is a much better doorway into his works, than his essays. But I guess that all depends upon taste and temperment. I only suggested "MC" as an intro, because you can see that simple foundation of faith in all his other works ... kind of like a template. At any rate, on this we can agree ...It doesn't matter so much what you read first, as long as you read. Stephen. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Stephen: I must admit, I really don't like the Narnia series. If you are looking for an EXCELLENT example of Lewis' literary ability, read "Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold." Lewis retells the myth of Cupid and Psyche masterfully. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim, Yes, I wasn't referring to Narnia specifically. You must remember that he was writing to children though, which could account for the difference. I enjoyed Narnia very much reading it to my kids, but there are better stories by Lewis, for sure. Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
The problem with fundamentalism of all stripes is that it forgets a fundamental tenet: humility. If we get away from the science v. religion thesis and read it again, isn't Russel arguing that scientists are more humble than theists? What's the phrase? "Respect those seeking the truth, beware those claiming to know it." |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
ooooooooooooh. *grin* Point to Brad. (See, Stephen, this is where I vascillate, as I'm sure yer gonna come in and I'll go "ooooooooooh" to you too. It's like watching tennis sometimes.) But thank you all at for straitening out my reading queue, although it was pretty much decided for me anyhow, as I have to read what I have. (Thanks again Stephen.  )I've got a lotta reading to do apparently. But um, blush, there's this two hour episode of "House" tonight and...  (I'm not dropping the class again, though, I swear!  )Thanks good philosopher pholk! I'll be back. mind munch munch munch |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: Cuts both ways, Brad. Russell's statement, as you seem to be reading it, appears to presume that theists are not seekers after knowledge and that scientists are never opportunists seeking to make a buck off their theories. In my field, it is not uncommon for M.D.'s, Ph.D.'s, Ed.D.'s, and any other assortment of "Doctors" to make outlandish claims that have no scientific support and get rich by doing so. Presumption is a human problem, Brad. Not a religious one. Scientists can be just as dispicable a fraud as any health, wealth, and prosperity televangelist. Jim |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Science is the worm as a worm Religion is the worm as a butterfly. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I'm not sure what you mean, Jim. To me, this is at least a tacit admission of your point. To the degree that they no longer follow this, they are no longer men of science. On the other hand, theists, by definition, are in possession of absolute knowledge. I have no problems if you want to argue that in order for a theist to be a theist, doubt is integral to that role, but I don't see it. And Essorant, How can worms ever be seen as butterflies? Thanks, Karen. I thought it was a good point too. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: With the eyes. The worm is in the butterfly, but the distinction is that the worm now has wings. We are referring to the same thing in a different state with a different name, not a different thing in a different state and a different name. The "worm" and the "butterfly" are both the worm, but the "worm" is the worm when it doesn't have wings, and the "butterfly" the worm when it does have wings. Or you could go the other way: the "worm" is the butterfly when it doesn't have wings, and the "butterfly" is the butterfly when it does have wings. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
When does a worm turn into a butterfly? Worms don't turn into anything except other worms. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Are not flying worms butterflies? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Of course not, butterflies are insects. Am I missing an inside joke here? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
No. I was just trying to emphasize that I don't think that worm (science) and butterfly (religion) are two different things overall. I see them as the same oneness just varied into two different shapes or states that differ enough that we give them two different names "worm" and "butterfly". [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-10-2007 12:03 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yeah, I get the alternate description bit. My point is that worms aren't caterpillars. Bur fair enough. I just checked the dictionary. You can call a caterpillar a worm (or insect larvae in general)-- loosely. But I wouldn't spend my time waiting for an earthworm or a tapeworm to sprout wings anytime soon. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: I guess you're more fundamentalist than you admit then Brad, since you are so insistent on humility as a cardinal virtue? Your above observation is fair enough. But I would like to point out that we are in a time in which knowing anything beyond doubt, is considered arrogant. And yet, such critics seem to know at least this much beyond doubt: that you can't know anything for sure ... and share that certain knowledge with religious-like passion. We've seen it here, on these forums haven't we? I'll be the first to admit we've seen religious arrogance too, though I've never denied that true knowledge (and especially divine revelation) harbors a unique temptation to arrogance (though there are definite aspects of that Revelation which ought to dissuade it). My point, like Jim's, is that haughtiness is a symptom of sinful human nature ... not of fundamentalism, or absolute knowledge. So ad hominem never gets us to the truth of the religious question either way. I'm certainly not going to sit here and argue that scientists are more arrogant than theologians. I'm sure for Bertrand, as well as for any of us, this kind of argument was an alluring way to advance one's own position ... appealing to those who have been hurt in religious community and ready to embrace an argument because of its suitablity to nurse ill feelings. quote: You seem to be wrongly equating partial-knowledge with doubt. Does Divine Revelation need to be exhaustively understood before it is to be accepted? Nothing in Life works that way. And religion adds an element of personal authority ... where things certainly don't work that way. It's not that authoritative statements can't be personally confirmed by observation, or expanded upon by knowledge. You'll simply always have this tension to deal with, wherever this is a mind and a heart. But the tension doesn't rule out revelation any more than it rules out science. Blaise Pascal once wrote that "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing." Though that statement can be misconstrued to mean that faith is unreasonable, I feel like it best conveys the necessity of something more than reason, not less. Stephen. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Well, nobody's perfect. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
lol. Um, what does perfect mean? Stephen. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
 I swear I have tears in my eyes, you guys have me laughing so hard. Shaking my head. This entire exchange has made me homesick for my siblings. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: True, theists rely on revealed knowledge (or "absolute knowledge," as you call it) in order to frame their system of beliefs. But I think many theists fall into the trap of believing that more is revealed in their sacred texts than what actually is. Belief, for example, that the Genesis accounts of creation must be understood as literal accounts of how it really happened are reason enough to oppose scientific discoveries (and therefore, wrongfully place science in opposition to theology) is one reason for both fundamentalism and for the church's loss of credibility with the scientific community. If you believe as I do, however, that the Biblical record is primarily an account of man's inability to reconcile himself to God and God's initiative to reconcile man to Him, then scientific discoveries that seem to question literal interpretations of ancient events causes no crisis of faith. On the other hand, scientists should not automatically discount extraordinary events recorded in sacred texts if the evidence supports their veracity. So while I wouldn't suggest that doubt is integral to being a practicing theist any more than it is integral to being a practicing scientist, I would argue that doubt is integral to being a good theist and a good scientist. Why? Because doubt leads us to ask questions and seek answers, and then ask other questions raised by those answers. In this way, the theist and the scientist stands the best chance of advancing knowledge in their respective fields. Jim P.S. An off topic aside ... did you ever notice that you never think about coffee filters until you have none? |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
OOOOH. THAT was really good, Jim.  and serious nods about the coffee filters too. And thanks guys. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jim: quote: Here's a good article on this very issue by Alvin Plantinga, I thought you'd enjoy. It seems that Plantiga's thought here is very similar to yours Jim, and presents a very commendable balance. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/dialogues/Faith-reason/CRS9-91Plantinga1.html Brad, If you're saying that given the Theist's claimed resources, he should be much more humble than the scientist, then I agree. But just as you call a loss of integrity (and rightly so) a deviation from true science, the same sort of disclaimer may be made in explanation of bad religion. Hence we are right back to square one, hopefully ridding ourselves the perennial habit of character attack to make our point. We are left with this question ... In the world of science, as well as Theology, what is true? Stephen. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
