Parrish's critique is linked from the title. Thrasymachus' is linked here.
Now, I'm not going to make the argument that since even atheists criticize the OTF, there's got to be something wrong with it. Arguments have to be discussed on their merits. However, I do like these critiques.
234 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 234 of 234BY: "If you have a question about something [Bob] specifically wrote then logically you should simply ask [him] to clarify it?"
?
I did. This was me to Bob, upthread, regarding Bob's absolute claim: Me: "I think that you may want to consider what it is I've said, and perhaps acknowledge that your claim should be softened."
I don't recall addressing you once in the comments here. I am actually confused as to why you are even writing to me, when you appear to not be following the thread, and my comments to Bob and now Ilion.
Welcome to the "Galileo affair is overblown" gallery! As a professional interneter, I'll be your guide for the evening.
If you turn to your left, you will see Exhibit #1. Originally, this was a thread about a particularly flawed argument for atheism as discussed by two atheist critics. Notice how one off-reference by an especially obtuse and sloganeering commenter managed to change the subject entirely. If you look very closely, you can see the beginnings of a political argument emerging.
"But why are they talking about politics now?"
Good question, young lady! Well, you see that whenever Galileo emerges - as is inevitable in a lengthy thread about anything related to religion - sectarian sniping soon follows. With the modern political demographics as they are, that is, divided along religious lines, this almost inevitably devolves into open-ended, almost standardized political quibbling.
"So a boring rant about liberalism is a consequence of discussing nearly anything?"
That's right.
"How do we stop this?"
Good question! If you look to your right...
He answered:
>Sorry, I misunderstood your question.
Try being little more clear Tony.
I re-read the rest and it is clear to me you are both talking past each other.
Also you seem to be a bit hostile too so knowing Bob's easy going persona can you blame him for treating you like Paps?
Good call Jesse!
But to be fair didn't you first bring up Galileo?
You bring it on yourself guy.
;-)
Cheers friend & Peace.;-)
JP, funny, and so true. Couldn't stop self after Galileo reference. Atheist... blogger... strength... waning...
Or was it Paps?
Because nothing Paps says interests me but you said something challenging so I jumped in......
My memory is fuzzy.
Oh I had a part in it too, no denying it.
It was an off-reference by Paps, a correction by Prokop, and a qualification by myself. And from there...
Ben, I really find your assessments and side-commentary to be largely wrong and/or irrelevant. It is despite your participation here, and not because of it, that I find myself commenting here.
If a comment of yours were to surprise me I'd probably take the time to respond substantively. As it is, I prefer to leave your comments on the side, as they so often do not merit discussion.
Tony,
I'm newer here, but I thought that Ben gave me a fair hearing.
Oh, JP, your time will come. Your time will come.:)
Oh, JP, your time will come. Your time will come.:)
>I really find your assessments and side-commentary to be largely wrong and/or irrelevant.
Same here.
Also I find for some reason you have shifted from using your reason to your emotions.
It's sad to see you go downhill. You used to be more rational. Also it is clear for some reason you have taken a personal dislike to me.
You should just own up to that & drop the pretense.
Sad because I liked you.
Oh well.
>Oh, JP, your time will come. Your time will come.:)
I think Tony has a problem with being challenged forcefully.
I may do that in the future to you Jesse if I think you are wrong. How can I do otherwise?
Jesse:
Aren't there plenty of philosophers and scientists who don't believe that science deals in truth? And not just postmodernists, but operationalists and pragmatists, etc.
I personally don't think it's a big deal that the church didn't allow Galileo to teach his theory was true. The fact is, the church bent over backwards to try to accommodate Galileo and to allow him as much freedom to research his theory, test it, and promote it. As was said, some of Galileo's biggest patrons were in the clergy, including the Pope. I just don't think there's much to support the conflict or warfare thesis in this story.
The Church never made it a sin to own a telescope and do Astronomy science. Nor did she ever ban scientific inquiry even in the Galileo case.
That is the final reason why I don't agree with one point of Jesse's assessment.
Galileo wasn't a set back for science. It was an object less you need to prove you claims to be believed especially if it turns out do too dumb luck you where partially right all along.
That is my parting shot on Galileo.
I look forward to it. No doubt we'll get there :D
Anon,
Even in the pragmatic conception of science - which has a lot of merit - "dealing in truth" still has a lot to do with it. At the very least, science manifestly does deal in truths which can invite consistency problems for those who oppose them. There's a non-subjective sense in which a global, Noachian Flood did not occur.
I do not think that any majorly accepted account of science - outside of the postmodern schools - diminishes probabilistic, empirical judgments to the point where not even that may be said.
BY: "It's sad to see you go downhill. Also it is clear for some reason you have taken a personal dislike to me. You should just own up to that & drop the pretense."
Um, I would love to be able to stop having to waste time addressing your incessant comments to me, laden with aspersions as they are. You'll please notice that I have not initiated any conversations with you here, and that it should comfort you to know that I haven't been wasting my time shoring up a pretense on your behalf; I thought I had already made myself clear.
>Um, I would love to be able to stop having to waste time addressing your incessant comments to me, laden with aspersions as they are.
If you say something that I believe is wrong I will speak up. If you don't like being disagreed with or criticized then go elsewhere or continue to ignore me.
>You'll please notice that I have not initiated any conversations with you here, and that it should comfort you to know that I haven't been wasting my time shoring up a pretense on your behalf; I thought I had already made myself clear.
If you want to ignore me & act like an overgrown child that is your choice.
But if you ask Bob a question & I think you are really complaining about why the Church isn't a post enlightenment democracy. I am going to give Bob a heads up so he doesn't waste his time arguing the wrong thing.
If you believe everything you post is immune to scrutiny then post in an echo chamber.
BTW as I recall "last time" you chimed in & went after me first & I defended myself.
So grow up.
"In a like manner the Catholic Church has always upheld the Augustinian Principle on Science and Scripture. It is likewise part of the fabric of Her teaching."
Augustinian Principle on Science?
"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to ttry and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."
-St. Augustine (354 C.E.- 430 C.E.)
That quote is from Augustine's "Confessions" where he expresses the opinion that the love of knowledge for its own sake led him into arrogance as a young man.
Let's read it in context Paps.
"But by this may more evidently be discerned, wherein pleasure and wherein curiosity is the object of the senses; for pleasure seeketh objects beautiful, melodious, fragrant, savoury, soft; but curiosity, for trial's sake, the contrary as well, not for the sake of suffering annoyance, but out of the lust of making trial and knowing them. For what pleasure hath it, to see in a mangled carcase what will make you shudder? and yet if it be lying near, they flock thither, to be made sad, and to turn pale. Even in sleep they are afraid to see it. As if when awake, any one forced them to see it, or any report of its beauty drew them thither! Thus also in the other senses, which it were long to go through. From this disease of curiosity are all those strange sights exhibited in the theatre. Hence men go on to search out the hidden powers of nature (which is besides our end), which to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to know. Hence also, if with that same end of perverted knowledge magical arts be enquired by. Hence also in religion itself, is God tempted, when signs and wonders are demanded of Him, not desired for any good end, but merely to make trial of."
So how is the above anti-science Paps?
Really Paps do you think Augustine was talking about science or magic?
Did you even read Augustine or did you just crib this quote from an Atheist Apologetics website?
Little wonder you think the OTF is the best thing since sliced bread.
BTW I did crib my response from Catholic Answers forums. Can't you come up with something original Paps?
Seriously?
"... where he [Augustine] expresses the opinion that the love of knowledge for its own sake led him into arrogance as a young man."
Ben, Augustine's point has clearly been lost in your anxiety for substantiation.
The bolded elements have nothing to do with support for science and indeed stipulates that knowledge for its own sake, or the pursuit of 'magical arts', are anathema to christian teaching, which at all times must remain supreme. Dogma must remain aloof of the more 'craven' and natural curiosities of discovering what makes nature tick. To be inquisitive was a failing, a debauched character trait, according to Augustine. To inquire is to go against god, as if to dare or tempt to demand from god an explanation of his 'work', something Augustine believes one must never seek to do. He is asserting that men should abide by, and not overstep the boundaries set by the church, including investigation of the natural world. Even inquisitiveness in and of religion itself is, " .. not desired for any good end, but merely to make trial of."
From which school did you acquire your textual analytical and critical skills?
Paps,
There is nothing in the above text that even remotely refers to science or philosophy(& they where synonymous in those days) taken at face value.
At best it condemns the pursuit of any knowledge for it's own sake sans the sake of a good end.
Analogously it's like wanting to know the details of somebodies' personal life for it's own sake for voyeuristic purposes and not because you care and want to help them.
Your wishful thinking and reading into the text your own bias not withstanding. Paps it is well known you read into texts the meaning you want it to have. You did this to Jesse in trying to downplay his criticism of OTF. He & is cohort smacked you down for for misreading them.
Thus you have no credibility here.
Them's the breaks chum.
>He is asserting that men should abide by, and not overstep the boundaries set by the church, including investigation of the natural world.
I believe this with all my heart & all my mind but your original claim was Augustine was anti-Science and your misquote implied Augustine was against pure science & or scientific investigation. That was clearly a bust since there is no mention of science in the text but magic.
Now you are backpedaling and introducing a different charge "It's bad for the Church to insist on boundaries via her doctrines" or some such bullshit.
It's tedious. Let's face it Paps nether intelligent Atheist or Theist take you seriously because you don't take rational argument seriously.
That's pretty pathetic for an alleged former teacher.
Aquinas does a whole discussion on the matter & the specific citation of Augustine.
found here
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3167.htm
Your interpretation become even less credible here Paps.
Ben
Your reasoning is difficult to follow. I don't think I can comment on much of what you write here except to say, you couldn't tell if your arse was on fire.
Paps,
Aquinas explains rather clearly what Augustine meant when he said "Hence men go on to search out the hidden powers of nature (which is besides our end), which to know profits not, and wherein men desire nothing but to know."
Simply cut and paste the link and read it. Clearly science has nothing to do with it contrary your claims.
here it is again.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3167.htm
>Your reasoning is difficult to follow.
Aquinas words seem rather straight forward to me. Granted it requires at minimum a 8th grade reading level.
OTOH being a former public school teacher that likely means you are under-qualified.
But at least it's good to see you know your limitations.
Ahhhh why all the hating on teachers here?
I went through a public school system. I have had terrible teachers. Lots of 'em. But I've had a few really damn good teachers who were indispensable to my formation as a good thinker. Doubtless they might not like all of the directions I've taken, but they put me on the right foot during bad times. They were patient with me when I was impatient with them; they were generous when I was not.
We could not have afforded a superior private schooling, and if I had been home-schooled - a real threat in my area, and I came close - it would have been a disaster.
I'll take the bad with the good. I like teachers.
@Jesse
Sorry so late in response but I have been busy.
My parents scrimped and saved to send me to private school & it wasn't one of those High end snooty private school types filled with rich kids. More than half the kids where middle class maybe a handful where rich.
I got a good education. The public school in my area, a middle class area was terrible.
Thus I tend to look down on the quality of public school education.
It's an American thing especially in New York. Now I will admit there are some good public school educators in NYC but overall public education is a failer in this country.
OTOH Paps is an Australian so I don't know their public education from a hole in the head. So I was just saying what I was say just to be a jerk. Nothing more.
Come on this is Paps.
Hey Vic, I was just doing some research and noticed the link to Thrasymachus' piece was broken. I think this might be it: http://thepolemicalmedic.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/on-the-failure-of-the-outsider-test-for-faith/
Post a Comment