"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist"

[phildwyer]

National anthem, shurely?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

No, I think the communists at the BBC stopped it about thirty years ago.

 

[phildwyer]

Little white dot?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Annoying eeeeeeeeee noise.

 

[phildwyer]

Storm of bees.

 

[butchersapron]

Jusy say 'dialectics' phil. You know you want to. 'Aufheben' as well probbaly.

 

[phildwyer]

Jusy say 'dialectics' phil. You know you want to. 'Aufheben' as well probbaly.

And have the Science Police down on me? Not bloody likely.

 

[axon]

It cannot account for the fact that the way we perceive the world changes, or for the fact that the world appears to different people in different ways.

But it does beautifully unify us in agreeing what a metre is.

In this sense, it is a totalitarian mode of knowledge. It is also totalitarian in that it claims to be the only means to objective knowledge.

I haven't come across many other systems that even attempt to be objective in knowledge content

Science has unleashed unprecedented destruction on the human race and on the natural world. It has immiserated the overwhleming majority of people, in both material and spiritual terms. In all likelihood, it will lead to the end of human life within a couple of generations. Under these circumstances, the ferocious self-aggrandisment of its practitioners becomes positively criminal. This is the true fundamentalism, if the term means anything at all.

Bollocks, I think humanity is responsible.

If you really believe that science is so detrimental, why not stop utilising it ? Why encourage such a negative concept by following the concepts of evidence-based learning and testable hypotheses?

 

[Loki]

<Test card>

One of the most viewed images on telly apparantly.

 

[Crispy]

Let me just expand a bit. The problem with empirical science is that it takes the world as it is immediately given to us--as it appears to experience--for the real world. It ignores what makes it possible for the world to appear to us in a certain way. The structure of our minds (rather than our brains) for example, and our language, and our historical and cultural context. It cannot account for the fact that the way we perceive the world changes, or for the fact that the world appears to different people in different ways.

It doesn't pretend to. The things that science cares about are outside humanity. A neutron is a neutron is a neutron and it doesn't give two shits what your cultural frame of reference is.

 

[phildwyer]

It doesn't pretend to. The things that science cares about are outside humanity. A neutron is a neutron is a neutron and it doesn't give two shits what your cultural frame of reference is.

Well that's where you're wrong. Neutrons *don't* exist "outside humanity." Have you ever seen a neutron? Are neutrons, in fact, perceptible by the human senses? Of course not: a neutron is a purely human invention, a product of human reason. It is a representation, not a thing.

 

[phildwyer]

I haven't come across many other systems that even attempt to be objective in knowledge content

Right, so you've never read any philosophy. In my opinion, that fact alone robs you of the ability to understand what "science" is.

 

[laptop]

* Doesn't read thread *

No, Dawkins was over-egging the pudding.

All you have to do to be an intellectually satisfied atheist is to decline Pascal's wager, having agreed with Laplace that you "have no need of that hypothesis".

* Continues not reading thread - goes back to fomenting *

Pascal bet that it was worth believing on the offchance there was an afterlife where you'd suffer for not believing.

 

[Crispy]

Well that's where you're wrong. Neutrons *don't* exist "outside humanity." Have you ever seen a neutron? Are neutrons, in fact, perceptible by the human senses? Of course not: a neutron is a purely human invention, a product of human reason. It is a representation, not a thing.

What, so only things detectable by the human senses exist? I will stake my life on the fact that if I get close to the star Sirius, for example, I will boil away in the ferocious heat. Human senses have never felt this heat, yet we know it exists - and I'd have absolutely no holdups calling you batshit crazy if said it didn't.

I can see some truth in what you say about a neutron being a representation - after all, neutrons are not discreet indivisable things, but are fuzzily defined probabilities. A neutron is just a model that helps us predict the behaviour of matter.
By the same logic, gravitational attraction does not exist, it is merely a representation. However, to attach an equal unreality to all these 'undetectable' things is wrong and dangerous.

 

[Crispy]

Right, so you've never read any philosophy. In my opinion, that fact alone robs you of the ability to understand what "science" is.

Philosophy? Objective?!
That's a good one

 

[redsquirrel]

Well that's where you're wrong. Neutrons *don't* exist "outside humanity." Have you ever seen a neutron? Are neutrons, in fact, perceptible by the human senses? Of course not: a neutron is a purely human invention, a product of human reason. It is a representation, not a thing.

Fucking hell! Not more of this Plato crap. For gods sake Plato himself showed that his Platonic Ideals were utter bunkum.

 

[axon]

Well that's where you're wrong. Neutrons *don't* exist "outside humanity." Have you ever seen a neutron? Are neutrons, in fact, perceptible by the human senses? Of course not: a neutron is a purely human invention, a product of human reason. It is a representation, not a thing.

Brilliant. We can come to the conclusion that everything we detect is in fact a product of human reason (which is reasonable). Unfortunatley directly following this assertion is a great big fuck off full stop. It is a completely unhelpful argument that provides no further impetus to delve deeper into how things work, which is what science does. I think I can see why ID appeals to you, it stops all arguments.
Q) Explain the world
A) Intelligent designer did it, or for the philosophically inclined Doesn't exist, it's a human concoction.

 

[phildwyer]

* Doesn't read thread *

No, Dawkins was over-egging the pudding.

All you have to do to be an intellectually satisfied atheist is to decline Pascal's wager, having agreed with Laplace that you "have no need of that hypothesis".

* Continues not reading thread - goes back to fomenting *

Pascal bet that it was worth believing on the offchance there was an afterlife where you'd suffer for not believing.

Hang on Laptop, didn't you once mention that you were a mate of Bruno Latour's? He'd spank your bottom for this, wouldn't he?

 

[phildwyer]

Fucking hell! Not more of this Plato crap. For gods sake Plato himself showed that his Platonic Ideals were utter bunkum.

Did he now? Where?

 

[phildwyer]

Brilliant. We can come to the conclusion that everything we detect is in fact a product of human reason (which is reasonable). Unfortunatley directly following this assertion is a great big fuck off full stop. It is a completely unhelpful argument that provides no further impetus to delve deeper into how things work, which is what science does. I think I can see why ID appeals to you, it stops all arguments.
Q) Explain the world
A) Intelligent designer did it, or for the philosophically inclined Doesn't exist, it's a human concoction.

You lose me a bit at the end here. But I'd have thought it obvious that if you were to say that "everything we detect is in fact a product of human reason," this would raise a whole set of extremely complicated and interesting questions, I can't imagine why you think it would be "a big fuck off full stop." In any case, that wasn't what I was saying, I was saying that *neurons* are the product of human reason. Neurons are different in this regard from, say, a table or a cat. Aren't they?

 

[phildwyer]

to attach an equal unreality to all these 'undetectable' things is wrong and dangerous.

And that is precisely why I didn't do it. Neurons are rather important though. And they are indeed products of our reason, not properties of the material world.

 

[Crispy]

You lose me a bit at the end here. But I'd have thought it obvious that if you were to say that "everything we detect is in fact a product of human reason," this would raise a whole set of extremely complicated and interesting questions, I can't imagine why you think it would be "a big fuck off full stop." In any case, that wasn't what I was saying, I was saying that *neurons* are the product of human reason. Neurons are different in this regard from, say, a table or a cat. Aren't they?

Beats me. I just see a pattern of tabby colours imprinted on my retina, furry sensations in my fingers, mioawing waveforms in my ears and cat wee volatiles in my nose. I conclude that this is a cat, as these are the sensations I expect from a cat.

I fire a beam of electrons at a gold film and they scatter. By various other experiments I conclude that they are being deflected by something I decide to call a nucleus. From these properties, I make further predictions and hey what do you know, they're pretty consistent. The 'idea' of the neutron came from observations of the material world.

Either they exist or they don't. And it doesn't really matter, because we can measure their effects, imaginary or not. An imaginary cat can still scratch me, and an imaginary nucleus still scatters an electron beam

EDIT : PS, neutron

 

[redsquirrel]

Did he now? Where?

He put forward a number of arguments against his Ideas including the third man one.www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/third-man-argument.php

Plato's theory of forms (or ideas)

Theory developed by Plato (c.427-c.347 BC) in his middle-period dialogues (especially Phaedo, Symposium, Republic) and criticized by himself in his Parmenides (see third man argument). The language of the theory occurs in his earlier dialogues, but its interpretation is disputed, as is his reaction in later dialogues to the Parmenides criticisms: did he modify the theory, abandon it, or treat the criticisms as applying only to a distorted version of it

www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/platos-theory-of-forms.php

There were quite a few in total but I'm at work atm. The full list is in Russell's "History of Western Philosophy".

 

[laptop]

Bruno Latour [would] spank your bottom for this, wouldn't he?

Und?

* Demands a vote in the Parliament of Things *

Nope, the Things are quite content that I decline wagers concerning unnecessary hypotheses.

So no spanking then

 

[Fruitloop]

And that is precisely why I didn't do it. Neurons are rather important though. And they are indeed products of our reason, not properties of the material world.

Can you clear up whether you're talking about neutrons or neurons, 'cos neurons are definitely properties of the material world, small though they are.

 

[phildwyer]

Und?

* Demands a vote in the Parliament of Things *

Nope, the Things are quite content that I decline wagers concerning unnecessary hypotheses.

So no spanking then

Actually, I'd be very interested to hear your opinion on Latour. I was surprised to hear that you'd discussed these things with him, because he advocates the view that science is a human construct. He's a bit extreme on the topic even for my tastes, in fact. Did it end with handbags at dawn?

 

[phildwyer]

Can you clear up whether you're talking about neutrons or neurons, 'cos neurons are definitely properties of the material world, small though they are.

Neutrons. Atoms too.

 

[Crispy]

Neutrons. Atoms too.

How about viruses? You can't see them with human eyes, you need a microscope.

EDIT: I'm going somewhere with this - feel free to anticipate me

 

[angry bob]

It's not exactly true to say that science has 'no clue' as to the origin of life. The gap is getting smaller all the time. From the direction of the simple, we have observed examples of auto-catalytic chemical reactions, from the direction of the complex, we have observed episodes of RNA evolution in the presence of enzymes. The enormous number of small steps between amino acids and the eukaryotic cell are being filled in all the time and the spaces for any type of intervention are rapidly vanishing - much like your god appears to have vanished back to a couple of acts in 14 billion years.

As small as the gap may be, it isn't closed yet.

This god of yours is a funny fish. Apparently you seem to believe that he is a very good mathematician who built the universe as a massive human-creating machine and then just sat back for 14 billion years or so and waited for the sum to play itself out, only intervening once, some 10 billion years into the experiment to fiddle with a tiny bit of the matter in the sum in order to change the outcome.

Why on earth would this weird chap do any of this? Why not just build the humans and have done with it? Who wants to worship such a weirdo anyway? What evidence have you got for any of this bizzare stuff?

Note, the phrase 'mysterious ways' is another way of saying "my story doesn't even have to be self-consistent, I can make up whatever guff I like" - it doesn't wash at all at all.

.

Presumably the 'spark of life' was a consequence of the big bang in a deterministic universe. So I'm just suggesting a single act of creation.

As to why ... well it may have something to do with the creation of free will? I don't really know. If you were a being for whom time has no meaning then perhaps this method is tantamount to "build humans and have done with it".

As to evidence ... well there are a lot of results that support my theory ... and none that don't. That's what science is ... theory that fits the facts (and by facts I mean direct observations).
I'm not suggesting this makes it more or less valid than any other theory of life, the universe and everything.

By 'mysterious ways' I mean that it may not be possible to comprehend the meaning for all things.

 

[angry bob]

Ah, but there's quite a difference between saying that an outside force sparked off life, but it has evolved since then (due to things that really are random - a dice roll may not be probabilistic, but is is chaotic and they are pretty much the same when it comes to accurate predictions) and saying that complex life was designed from scratch, eyeballs, brains, livers and all.

A dice roll is not chaotic. The outcome may be determined precisely given all the initial conditions.

And seeing as how evolutionary theory does not concern itself with the origins of life (just its development), it doesn't really care if there's a god or not. See gurrier's post for progress on filling that gap.

I suppose that this is the point I was trying to make. Evolutionary theory is not at odds with creationism.