tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7906147300895970922..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Where did we get that idea? Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger119125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40513838474913586032013-08-15T09:58:03.620-07:002013-08-15T09:58:03.620-07:00Hyper, you ask "What is your basis for select...Hyper, you ask "What is your basis for selecting Christianity as one true religion out the four 'live options'?"<br /><br />Excellent question, which I have answered at least 50 times on this website already. But in this case, that was not the point of my latest posting. I was refuting the oft-repeated notion (which had just been brought up yet again a short time before I wrote this) that there are "countless" competing theistic worldviews out there, when in reality the number is quite small.<br /><br />Just as in issues not pertaining to religion, there is no necessity for rational people to pay undue attention to the lunatics out there. I do not have to worry my head about the Grassy Knoll or a Second Shooter. Nor do I need to waste a brain cell on whether George Bush ordered the destruction of the WTC. Or even that AIDS is a CIA conspiracy to kill black people. I have no requirement to refute the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky or Erich von Daniken.<br /><br />Likewise, there are relatively few variants of religious thought that deserve one's attention. I believe that I have listed them.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72632560154049812992013-08-07T16:25:56.178-07:002013-08-07T16:25:56.178-07:00I just noticed that Walter already got there firs...I just noticed that Walter already got there first. Oh well...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09695856427586801682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71412356003527505462013-08-07T16:17:26.349-07:002013-08-07T16:17:26.349-07:00Bob posted: ''This leaves us with a relati...Bob posted: ''This leaves us with a relatively small number of contenders: Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Shintoism, Daoism (and possibly Confucianism, depending on whether you consider that a religion).<br /><br />Speaking personally here, I think at least two on the list of "finalists" can be eliminated on evidentiary grounds alone: Islam and Shintoism. (Meet me in another venue, and I'll blow both of those out of the water.) I also personally (I know I'll get a lot of argument here) consider Judaism and Christianity to be basically the same thing.''<br /><br />What is your evidence that Shinto and Islam are false? How can Judaism and Christianity be the same thing if Christians believe in the Trinity and Jews don't? What is your basis for selecting Christianity as one true religion out the four 'live options'?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09695856427586801682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44733675925180702922013-08-07T16:03:55.732-07:002013-08-07T16:03:55.732-07:00Walter,
Crude, even agnostics have beliefs. If I ...Walter,<br /><br /><i>Crude, even agnostics have beliefs. If I claim to be totally agnostic about the existence of God, you can bet your ass that I still have a belief in God's existence or nonexistence</i><br /><br />Depends on the context. I think someone can truly be agnostic. I will grant that self-proclaimed agnostics can bullshit about the state of their beliefs, and that I've run into those who really come off as doing exactly that.<br /><br />Not sure how relevant your claim is here, however.<br /><br /><i>This tentative belief simply doesn't rise to a level approaching any where near to certainty.</i><br /><br />Why in the world would a provisional or tentative belief need to rise to the level of certainty? Who said it did?<br /><br /><i>So you see, I don't think that a person has a "duty" to believe one way or another inasmuch as they can't help but form beliefs one way or the other.</i><br /><br />Then consider me to be addressing the intellectual validity of having and maintaining these beliefs. I think being agnostic about claims I cannot verify and do not investigate is entirely reasonable, whether these are scientific, historical, or other such beliefs. I think a person in principle can investigate a belief and come to reasonably believe, provisionally, the truth of a claim - whether the claim is divine revelation or otherwise. Which means that the man who puts effort into investigating the claims and writings of Mohammed may well provisionally come to accept the revelation, affording Mohammed a provisional trust/faith. On the flipside, 'everyone knows that the universe is 14 billion years old, every scientist I've read repeats this' is a statement someone can reasonably be agnostic about if they've never read up on the claim, never verified it, and don't really care to do so. Maybe this can be further linked to scientific anti-realism.<br /><br />I'm not totally sold on beliefs 'one cannot help but have' either. I think people can actively condition themselves to have some beliefs, or lack others.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87725197685062460172013-08-07T15:54:00.003-07:002013-08-07T15:54:00.003-07:00Crude, even agnostics have beliefs. If I claim to ...Crude, even agnostics have beliefs. If I claim to be totally agnostic about the existence of God, you can bet your ass that I still have a belief in God's existence or nonexistence . This tentative belief simply doesn't rise to a level approaching any where near to certainty. So you see, I don't think that a person has a "duty" to believe one way or another inasmuch as they can't help but form beliefs one way or the other.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60569477068285765642013-08-07T15:05:09.757-07:002013-08-07T15:05:09.757-07:00"Say Walter, do you believe that the Earth is...<i>"Say Walter, do you believe that the Earth is 93 million miles from the sun?" According to Crude my response should be "Well, Joe, despite the fact that every science textbook in the country confirms that fact, I must remain agnostic and tell you that I neither believe nor disbelieve it." <br /><br />Seems like a ridiculous answer to me.</i><br /><br />More like ridiculous mock-phrasing. "I don't know, I never verified the fact for myself, I wouldn't know how to begin to verify it and I really don't care to. So I'm agnostic. But I read in a textbook that scientists believe it's 93 million miles."<br /><br />Not exactly ridiculous anymore. In fact, far more sane than, "I totally believe (x)! I read it in a textbook! I don't know how they figured that out, I don't even know what's involved with becoming an expert or how certain or reliable their calculations are, but clearly it's true!"<br /><br /><i>Obviously once you begin educating yourself on the subject, your personal expertise on the subject increases to the point of having a qualified opinion.</i><br /><br />Even if that qualified opinion runs against either A) the expert consensus, or B) the lack of expert consensus?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31678080700764893572013-08-07T15:02:07.779-07:002013-08-07T15:02:07.779-07:00Conor,
You're right, I don't know you at ...Conor,<br /><br />You're right, I don't know you at all. The very first thing I heard you say was an attack on Papalinton (for asking a question that is perfectly reasonable) and me. Your tone is clearly hostile. You accuse him of not understanding what metaphysics is, but from what I can see, you are the one who lacks understanding, and I attempted to explain how your view should not be regarded as the only valid view.<br /><br />It was you who referred to having a cause, and I only responded to that by noting (in a somewhat graphic way) that it wasn't true.<br /><br />And why wouldn't I assume that the remark about copying and pasting was addressed to me? After all, it was addressed to me.<br /><br />"My post was a simple lurker's lament about how far the level of atheistic discourse has fallen on this blog ..."<br /><br />It was really more of an attack than a lament. In the style of crude. Incidentally, did you ever notice how quickly he can derail a discussion? But you think it's my fault. Fine. I have no great desire to carry on a discussion on that basis, either.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36018363328119133632013-08-07T14:46:33.025-07:002013-08-07T14:46:33.025-07:00As near as I can tell, you're at once insistin...<i>As near as I can tell, you're at once insisting that people practically have a duty to belief in things they have no evidence save for second or third hand 'expert testimony' (despite being unqualified to even determine who an expert is, or when the consensus is significant)</i><br /> <br />"Say Walter, do you <i>believe</i> that the Earth is 93 million miles from the sun?" According to Crude my response should be "Well, Joe, despite the fact that every science textbook in the country confirms that fact, I must remain agnostic and tell you that I neither believe nor disbelieve it." <br /><br />Seems like a ridiculous answer to me.<br /><br /><br /><i>...while at the same time insisting they should be agnostic if there's no major consensus - even if they read up on the issue, reflect on it, and come to a provisional conclusion.</i><br /><br />Ain't what I said. I wrote that a person lacking significant expertise on the subject would be virtually compelled to adopt the agnostic position. Obviously once you begin educating yourself on the subject, your personal expertise on the subject increases to the point of having a qualified opinion.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29952535025660174432013-08-07T14:25:36.162-07:002013-08-07T14:25:36.162-07:00Walter,
When you were in the process of being edu...Walter,<br /><br /><i>When you were in the process of being educated during your school years did you question every fact that was presented to you until you could personally verify the educational status of those who contributed to your textbooks, or did you not accept the testimony of both the textbook and your teacher in a properly basic way? I know what I did.</i><br /><br />Considering I've since found that a lot of 'facts' my teachers taught me were complete bull, that's not the strongest endorsement around. <br /><br />Not to mention, asking whether I uncritically accepted the statements of the people placed in front of me as authority figures when I was a child spending 6 hours a day in the fluorescent-lit concrete bunker, marching to the sound of bells and asking permission to go to the bathroom? That doesn't seem like a scenario that gives a stirring endorsement of the obvious wisdom of accepting the third-hand testimony of an assumed consensus of experts.<br /><br /><i>It would be bizarre for me to maintain a position of agnosticism on this subject simply because I lack the personal expertise to verify this fact for myself. </i><br /><br />Why? What in the world is bizarre about "I have no idea how this determination was arrived at and I haven't investigated nor even understood how to investigate the claim myself, therefore I'm agnostic for now"?<br /><br />Now, I can see it being an *unpopular* position, if everyone reflexively and unreflectively accepts various 'facts' that 'everyone knows is true' despite being unable to explain or even grasp them. But who gives a shit about popularity?<br /><br /><i>If one faction claimed that the distance was 93 million miles while another faction of scholars claimed that the actual distance was 60 million miles, then lacking any significant personal expertise on the subject, one would be virtually compelled to adopt the agnostic position.</i><br /><br />Again, why this automatic judgment? Who gets to determine whether the faction of opposing scholars is significant? What if I read up one one side, or even both sides, and find the case they present to be compelling? Is it then rational to ditch my agnosticism? What if one side accuses the other of being cranks?<br /><br />Or should the *experts* all be agnostic until they're able to persuade an overwhelming majority of their peers to their side? But how are they going to do that if they have to be agnostic?<br /><br />As near as I can tell, you're at once insisting that people practically have a duty to belief in things they have no evidence save for second or third hand 'expert testimony' (despite being unqualified to even determine who an expert is, or when the consensus is significant), while at the same time insisting they should be agnostic if there's no major consensus - even if they read up on the issue, reflect on it, and come to a provisional conclusion.<br /><br />That is damn bizarre.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4064212203244368002013-08-07T14:21:38.534-07:002013-08-07T14:21:38.534-07:00Wish me good fortune everyone. I'm heading to...Wish me good fortune everyone. I'm heading to tropical Cairns, North Queensland for a few weeks break staying with my son and daughter-in-law. Going to be swimming and snorkeling on the Great Barrier Reef and walking in the international heritage listed Daintree Forest for some repose. <br /><br />May all be good with you and yours.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78827697884142443952013-08-07T14:13:20.931-07:002013-08-07T14:13:20.931-07:00im-"skeptical,"
Hostile attitude? Okay,...im-"skeptical,"<br /><br />Hostile attitude? Okay, without knowing me AT ALL, you "suspect that Papalinton has done considerably more reading about these things than" me. <br /><br />Assumption? That I'm part of some modern-day theistic army out to smite unbelievers. <br /><br />The crack about copy-pasting was not aimed you, but Linton, who Crude has caught plagarizing twice, on TWO different blogs now. Why would you assume it was about you? <br /><br />And to be honest, I'm not really interested in having a dialogue with you. I've seen how those go. My post was a simple lurker's lament about how far the level of atheistic discourse has fallen on this blog since the days of, say, Blue Devil Knight.Conorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02730352197802519226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56482241143333659722013-08-07T14:00:22.627-07:002013-08-07T14:00:22.627-07:00Done what work?
The work of determining our plane...<i>Done what work?</i><br /><br />The work of determining our planet's distance from the sun.<br /><br /> <i>Do you even know what's involved with making the calculation?</i><br /><br />I actually didn't until I googled it just now.<br /><br /><i>Or 'vetting experts'? Or what qualifications one has to be an expert about the topic, other than 'science degree'?</i><br /><br />When you were in the process of being educated during your school years did you question every fact that was presented to you until you could personally verify the educational status of those who contributed to your textbooks, or did you not accept the testimony of both the textbook and your teacher in a properly basic way? I know what I did.<br /><br /><i>And what role does 'consensus' play here?</i><br /><br />Going back to my example of Earth's distance from the sun, this fact is virtually uncontested. It would be bizarre for me to maintain a position of agnosticism on this subject simply because I lack the personal expertise to verify this fact for myself. But what if this fact was hotly contested among the top scholars in the world? If one faction claimed that the distance was 93 million miles while another faction of scholars claimed that the actual distance was 60 million miles, then lacking any significant personal expertise on the subject, one would be virtually compelled to adopt the agnostic position.<br />Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68455740075508271922013-08-07T13:46:16.608-07:002013-08-07T13:46:16.608-07:00Conor,
"Holy Hell, that's a lot of assum...Conor,<br /><br />"Holy Hell, that's a lot of assuming, psychoanalyzing, projection, and not just a little craziness crammed into one post."<br /><br />You have quite the attitude, don't you? I'm not psychoanalyzing anything. You did refer to the "unbelievers' cause", and I pointed out that there is no cause, at least not in my mind. So the assuming and projecting seems to be on your part, not mine.<br /><br />And I didn't copy and paste any definition, so I'm not sure what you're bitching about. You mention an author who says metaphysics comes before science. Congratulations. As it happens, I have done some reading myself, including Burtt's book, which I have discussed before in this very blog. If there's anything I got from that book, it is that science and metaphysics go hand-in-hand, and new metaphysical concepts are developed to be consistent with scientific advances. <br /><br />I just took another quick look at the conclusion, and it is entirely consistent with what I said. Why don't you point out the part that disagrees?<br /><br />By the way, I am happy to discuss things with anyone who would like to have a discussion. So if you're willing to drop your hostile attitude, maybe we can talk on friendlier terms.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41264801941364468852013-08-07T13:25:24.868-07:002013-08-07T13:25:24.868-07:00Walter,
I certainly haven't gone through the ...Walter,<br /><br /><i>I certainly haven't gone through the steps to verify that figure for myself; I simply take it on faith (read trust) that the textbooks which present that fact have been vetted by experts in astronomy who have done the work. My belief in this scientific fact is a properly basic acceptance of expert testimony.</i><br /><br />Done what work? Do you even know what's involved with making the calculation? Or 'vetting experts'? Or what qualifications one has to be an expert about the topic, other than 'science degree'? And what role does 'consensus' play here?<br /><br /><i>Correct me if I am wrong but what you seem to be suggesting is that we should declare ourselves as agnostic on every single topic where we lack significant erudition.</i><br /><br />I'm going for something weaker: I think it's rational to be agnostic about topics for which we lack significant erudition. Other stances may also be rational. You seem to disagree with my statement?<br /><br />Also - what about the rationality of coming to be agnostic about the consensus upon reflection and researching?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80178030136695227842013-08-07T13:13:30.687-07:002013-08-07T13:13:30.687-07:00im-'skeptical,'
Holy Hell, that's a l...im-'skeptical,'<br /><br />Holy Hell, that's a lot of assuming, psychoanalyzing, projection, and not just a little craziness crammed into one post. An army!? Lol, I'm an agnostic with increasingly theistic leanings. We may reach into the hundreds, so watch your back :) <br /><br />And yeah, I could pull up the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Wikipedia and copy and paste their definitions of "metaphysics"--a practice not unheard of in this combox, btw. <br /><br />Instead, I'll paraphrase physicist Anthony Rizzi's definition of Metaphysics as the "Science before Science." Metaphysics is, in this sense, a study of the knowledge necessary before any empirical science can be attempted. It is the study of the first principals of things: (being)ontology, cosmology, epistemology, etc. <br /><br />Both you and Paps might want to add E.A Burtt's "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science" to your extensive reading lists. Pay particular attention to his last chapter. Really, it'll help. (And Burtt wasn't a theist, so he's safe.)Conorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02730352197802519226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90332377352099747752013-08-07T13:09:22.880-07:002013-08-07T13:09:22.880-07:00What the hell does 'the broad consensus of exp...<i>What the hell does 'the broad consensus of experts' have to do with anything? Do you think it's required that the person should be able to identify who is and isn't an expert?</i><br /><br />I have trivial bits of knowledge on a whole range of subjects that I have no specialized training in. For instance it is a belief of mine that the our planet orbits the sun at an average distance of 93 million miles. I certainly haven't gone through the steps to verify that figure for myself; I simply take it on faith (read trust) that the textbooks which present that fact have been vetted by experts in astronomy who have done the work. My belief in this scientific fact is a properly basic acceptance of expert testimony. I don't have to personally interrogate every single astronomer alive today before I can move from agnosticism to belief on this subject.<br /><br /><i>And why does 'consensus of experts' confer special status anyway? The consensus of experts can be and has been wrong in the past.</i><br /><br />Of course they can be wrong, but it would still be rational to accept what they say as provisionally true. At one point in time in history it would have been completely rational to believe that the earth was the center of the universe because this was the best model that the experts could produce at that point in time. Correct me if I am wrong but what you seem to be suggesting is that we should declare ourselves as agnostic on every single topic where we lack significant erudition.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44491315859552654912013-08-07T12:26:48.054-07:002013-08-07T12:26:48.054-07:00Walter,
If the topic is controversial and there i...Walter,<br /><br /><i>If the topic is controversial and there is no broad consensus among the experts, then I think that the layman is very much justified in professing agnosticism.</i><br /><br />What the hell does 'the broad consensus of experts' have to do with anything? Do you think it's required that the person should be able to identify who is and isn't an expert (who's an expert on remote viewing - parapsychologists, or physicists?)? Should they know enough about the field to be able to tell just what the experts really are capable of determining?<br /><br />And why does 'consensus of experts' confer special status anyway? The consensus of experts can be and has been wrong in the past.<br /><br /><i>I think that it would be silly for this person to claim to be agnostic as to whether the earth is flat or not, for the simple reason that there exists an extremely broad consensus on the subject (with the exception of fringe groups).</i><br /><br />Again - why does the 'consensus of experts' alone determine that agnosticism in light of a lack of knowledge and understanding to be unreasonable?<br /><br />Let's add to this. Can a person read up on the field and reasonably determine that the consensus of experts - or the lack of consensus, for that matter - is incorrect?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23141227816345168922013-08-07T08:32:04.850-07:002013-08-07T08:32:04.850-07:00Conor,
"Are you kidding? I mean, really, are...Conor,<br /><br />"Are you kidding? I mean, really, are you kidding!!?? Do you even know what the term "metaphysics" means?"<br /><br />I suspect that Papalinton has done considerably more reading about these things than you. Do you know what metaphysics means? Evidently your idea of it is not necessarily shared be everyone else. If you listen to the discussion, you will see that it is not a simple matter to say metaphysics is a particular thing. Check out what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about it.<br /><br />Aristotle wrote about physics before he wrote about metaphysics. Actually, he didn't coin the word. That came later, when scholars, it is believed, wanted to designate it as being an educational topic that comes "after" physics, (that's what "meta" in Greek means) because it goes deeper.<br /><br />As for damaging the "unbelievers' cause", speaking for myself, at least, we're not like you. We don't have an army, and we're not out to achieve some kind of victory over the enemy forces. I came to this forum in all sincerity wanting nothing more than to learn and discuss. At every turn, I encounter hostility and belligerence. That has caused my attitude to change somewhat over time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69986561000888795342013-08-07T07:41:44.878-07:002013-08-07T07:41:44.878-07:00@ Crude
In fact, my view there seems to be oppos...@ Crude <br /><br /><i>In fact, my view there seems to be opposite of yours - I think various claims, historical and/or scientific, that people know little about and are unable or unwilling to research and of which they don't care about much, are acceptable to be agnostic about.</i><br /><br />That view is not opposite of mine because I agree with you. I don't, however, believe that there is anything unreasonable about provisionally assenting to the truth of something based on a broad consensus of expert testimony. If the topic is controversial and there is no broad consensus among the experts, then I think that the layman is very much justified in professing agnosticism. For example a person might be scientifically ignorant and uncaring enough that they don't understand how we determine that the earth is roughly spherical. I think that it would be silly for this person to claim to be agnostic as to whether the earth is flat or not, for the simple reason that there exists an extremely broad consensus on the subject (with the exception of fringe groups). The greater the division of opinion among the experts, the more justification that the layman has to embrace the agnostic position.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64962954077421563972013-08-07T06:34:36.151-07:002013-08-07T06:34:36.151-07:00@ Bob
I think at least two on the list of "...@ Bob<br /><br /><i> I think at least two on the list of "finalists" can be eliminated on evidentiary grounds alone: Islam and Shintoism.</i><br /><br />I would be interested in examining your evidence against Islam. <br /><br /><i>consider Judaism and Christianity to be basically the same thing.</i><br /><br />They are not the same. Jews don't worship a triune deity. To say that Judaism and Christianity is the same would be like claiming that Mormonism and orthodox Christianity are essentially the same.<br /><br /><i>So we're down to the "Final Four": Judaism/Christianity, Hinduism, Daoism, and Buddhism.</i><br /><br />Five by my count.<br /><br /><i>Four - that's it. Now is that really such a multiplicity of competing claims? Yet we all too often hear people speak of there being a vast number of possibilities out there. The reality is quite different.</i><br /><br />How many is too many?<br /><br />Do these four or five revelations complement or contradict each other in any way?Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52227342411718381222013-08-07T05:01:26.753-07:002013-08-07T05:01:26.753-07:00Papalinton (astonishingly) said,
"What'...Papalinton (astonishingly) said, <br /><br />"What's your reasoning behind metaphysics coming first?"<br /><br />Are you kidding? I mean, really, are you kidding!!?? Do you even know what the term "metaphysics" means? Here's a hint: merge the prefix and the suffix to get your answer. Good God, do you realize the damage that folks such as yourself and "im-'skeptical'" do to the unbelievers' cause.Conorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02730352197802519226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15105091587415061642013-08-07T02:41:32.799-07:002013-08-07T02:41:32.799-07:00grod,
The same criteria we use to distinguish any...grod,<br /><br /><i>The same criteria we use to distinguish any two sciences (in the broader Aristotelian sense): different objects of study, different methods of proof, different places in the hierarchy of knowledge (higher for metaphysics, as in more fundamental, as Crude points out), etc.</i><br /><br />I think all the relevant points of difference are pretty easy to pick out, really, at least for the purposes of discussion of theism. I can imagine some limit cases where things get dicier, but that's about it.<br /><br />Of course, I'm also pretty comfortable calling a whole lot of reliable reasoning 'non-scientific', and a lot of people seem to flinch at that very prospect.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6572376880952068712013-08-07T01:26:15.811-07:002013-08-07T01:26:15.811-07:00@Dan Gilson:
"I was asking for the criteria ...@Dan Gilson:<br /><br />"I was asking for the criteria you use to distinguish one from the other."<br /><br />The same criteria we use to distinguish any two sciences (in the broader Aristotelian sense): different objects of study, different methods of proof, different places in the hierarchy of knowledge (higher for metaphysics, as in more fundamental, as Crude points out), etc.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71011226429016347242013-08-07T00:06:12.746-07:002013-08-07T00:06:12.746-07:00crude
"Our metaphysics come first, and from t...crude<br /><i>"Our metaphysics come first, and from there we get our science."</i><br /><br />Just curious. What's your reasoning behind metaphysics coming first? How does or would that square with the process of learning about the world as is generally understood? Would be interested in a few examples.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80263890948578485242013-08-06T18:15:35.412-07:002013-08-06T18:15:35.412-07:00ingx24,
Regarding the line between science and me...ingx24,<br /><br />Regarding the line between science and metaphysics - while I think sometimes it's pretty damn easy to tell the difference (anything dealing with fundamental ontology), I more and more suspect that the problem is a bit greater. The situation may be something along these lines:<br /><br />Our metaphysics come first, and from there we get our science. In reality there is no separation of 'science and metaphysics' - there's just different metaphysical views, each of which wholly absorb science, and are compatible with the general practices.<br /><br />That's a very underdevelop view by me, but I think it may be the ultimate case.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.com