Support our SPONSORS Home | Site Map | Shopping Cart Shop the Co-op | Email A Friend | Contact Us
Home
HornFansTV
Interactive
Sports
On The Field
In The Stands
Recruiting
Basketball
Basketball (W)
Baseball
Other Sports
Other
Cactus Cafe
West Mall
Quackenbush's
Rusty's Grill
Esther's Follies
Horn Depot
Swap Meet
Prayer Requests
Horn Network
On The Road Again
Archives
Around Austin
Classics
PCL
Locker Room
Senior Salute
2001-02 Seniors
2002-03 Seniors
2003-04 Seniors
2004-05 Seniors
2005-06 Seniors
Other
Chat
Email
Links
Posting Guidelines
Football
Recruiting
Basketball
Baseball
Other Sports
Around Austin
About Us
Fiesta Bowl Tickets
Rose Bowl Tickets

Become a HornFans Sponsor

Other
   >> Quackenbush's

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | (show all)   Rate thread Print Thread
buckhorn
2500+ posts
05/17/11 05:47 PM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

In reply to:

There is no answer if by answer you mean “a fact that we can be stated and demonstrated by human means”.




That is what I mean.

In reply to:

But there is a solution to the problem—a solution that I refer to as an answer—and that solution is either “There is a God” or “There is no God”. And that solution exists, whether it can be stated and demonstrated as a fact or not.




I am not sure I would term it a problem. It is what it is. I don't think a solution is possible. There is a reality, but no proven truth about the reality.

In reply to:

But even in saying something like that, you have conceded the point that truth is beyond both neurology and grammar.




I don't think so. Reality is beyond neurology and grammar, truth is a product of those things.

In reply to:

You have asserted insight into the truth of all things—the sort of truth that, if it is indeed true, must be true everywhere, at all times, for all beings who consider the nature of anything that is true.




I don't think so. The only beings I am referring to are humans. Truth is a matter of human interaction with reality. Truth is also relative, as far as I can tell. It is the product of an exercise and it does not remain faithful through the ages. It is to be tested repeatedly and the falsifiable nature of truth makes it volatile and a subject fit for contention. Reality not so much. I mean, when we try to refer to something as 'reality,' we are generally saying that it is beyond argument. That may in fact be debatable, but I think the sense of reality's 'is-ness' is on target.

In reply to:

But that is not an argument against the idea of a transcendent truth that is beyond human construction.




I don't think we deal in such 'truths.' Maybe there is a race of beings that does, but they don't live here. For us, truth and reality are separate events that can, but do not necessarily, coincide. Perhaps there is type of knowing that is so vast and complete that truth and reality are always one and the same. Truth would then transcend time. That is not the kind of truth we deal in.

In reply to:

You are perfectly willing to believe certain propositions about our external world, such as “I believe there are systems of address that give us good reasons to believe…and to believe said world is not this way or that.” But then suddenly, when the question of God emerges, talk of belief stops and talk of proof begins.




I see what you mean in re knowledge and belief. I think people can believe in something without having any real knowledge of it. That happens all of the time with everyone. We assume things without even asking the question 'is it so and, if I think so, how do I know that it is real?' Etc. For me, and I would guess many others, though not a majority, I start thinking about proof when the proposition strikes me as unlikely or odd. At least that is one circumstance wherein doubt and a call for proof come into play. The proposition of a god or gods sounds like a fairy tale to me, so I need some proof. I don't have any good reason to believe in a god. It is not just god that raises doubts, of course.

In reply to:

Why is it that the former questions about the external world are to be considered as proper to the realm of faith (“I believe”), but the question of God can only be considered as proper to the realm of science (“the proofs of god don’t hold up”)?




I don't think I would put it in those terms. I would say that I have good reason to believe that the hand in front of my face is mine, and I lack any good reason to believe otherwise, though on a basic level it is possible that the hand before my face is not real, making the ownership thereof moot. This is how it goes with many experiences and propositions. Once doubt is raised, then I have to find a good reason to take my understanding or belief in this direction or that, toward or away from acceptance. Throughout I assume that the reality of the situation might be different from what I consider to be true, though I may never have reason to believe such the case. Etc.

In reply to:

“I do not believe because I do not know.”




I am presented with a proposition. After a point it seems unlikely. Doubt creeps in and I seek for a reason to believe one way or the other. It is logically possible for the proposition to be true, but it is also logically possible that it is not true. We have little of what I would consider reliable information on the subject. At this point I need to know something about the proposed but I do not. I don't know anything about it, really, so I don't believe the proposed to be an accurate assessment. The question remains open, though I see no definitive answer as likely or even possible. Maybe that will be proven wrong one day.

In reply to:

Knowledge is not a prerequisite to faith. Instead it renders faith unnecessary.




I need to have faith in my knowledge.

In reply to:

(1) that the idea of God is consistent




I think that the idea of god is logically supportable, though not provable. Where god is concerned, as with fire-breathing dragons and Santa Claus, the idea is not enough.

In reply to:

(2) that belief is no less rational than disbelief




I don't know that I would necessarily say that either tack is simply more or less rational than the other. Depends on the mechanics of the believer/belief. I don't think that there is a good reason to go from 'there is something out there' to 'there is something out there that started everything' to 'the something that started everything is god.'

In reply to:

(3) as a corollary to the first two arguments, it follows that arguments against the existence of God can in every case be reduced to a simple statement: the disbeliever does not want to believe.




This is not my experience. It is not that I choose not to believe, it is that I don't and I have found no reason to believe. It is true that I choose largely to forego further efforts at finding a reason to believe, but that is a secondary issue. The primary issue is I discovered that I do not believe, and from there I proceed to here.

In reply to:

the golden rule cannot be superior to any other statement of values, according to your logic, unless the people who advocate it have more weapons and are more ruthless in pursuing the destruction of their enemies. The advantage of the stronger, nothing else but that.




Well, it depends on the nature of the conflict and the participants. Certainly, when there is no agreement in re the basics, and where violent conflict rises into the void, the strong gets to decide what will be considered right within the systems that the victor erects. There are numerous ways that such might be reversed or modified over time, and violence/might=right is but one of them. The point is that it is always a struggle amongst ourselves no matter how we define the origins of our ideas of right and wrong. Because of that I don't think it is necessarily true that moral chaos beyond our current situation would follow widespread adherence to my approach, as it were.

In reply to:

But your philosophy advocates undermining the idea that any rule can be “golden” in the first place. And therefore there is nothing to be forgotten, and nothing to be remembered--at least nothing that has any right to be thought of as any more, or any less, legitimate than any other rule-set.




I suppose, if it turns out that you need to believe that the 'golden-ness' of the rule derives from its having been handed down from the lips of a god. I think you can reason out your desired ends and then reason out the best way to accommodate those varied ends. Depending on your stated goals your chosen means can be vetted and deemed more or less appropriate. In the end you have to make a choice about what you are going to believe one way or the other.

In reply to:

Who the hell is going to fight for a version of justice?




People fight for what they believe in all of the time. In the end, people fight rather than accept the guidance and control of another. You don't have to believe that god told you to this or that was right or wrong in order to think 'I am not going to accept that.'

In reply to:

Why would God’s version of justice be any less valid than the six billion other versions that humans will no doubt produce if they adhere to your point of view?




It isn't necessarily less valid or useful. Depends on your ends, etc.

In reply to:

Little poison darts like that




I intended no poison. It just seems that suggesting that we are not in a position to hold representations of a supposed god's supposed laws and dictations of right accountable by other reasoned systems of value seems disturbing as it sounds like resignation in the face of calamity.

In reply to:

What is the real logical advantage of agnosticism?




I am not sure what you mean by advantage. I was not trying to claim a position of logical supremacy.

I think that religious pursuits, being so little indebted to proofs, should steer clear os scientific pursuits, as the latter is so reliant on proofs.

I don't think I have anything left to say about this.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Coelacanth
2500+ posts
05/17/11 06:11 PM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

buckhorn,

In reply to:

I don't think I have anything left to say about this.



I hope that's not true.

Before I respond to your post, can you describe for me in a more explicit way this difference between truth and reality that you refer to in your post. What exactly is it that distinguishes one from the other?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Coelacanth
2500+ posts
05/28/11 12:57 AM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

buckhorn,

I know you’re a busy guy, but let me see if I understand you regarding the truth/reality distinction. And from there, I’ll see if I can’t point out the problem at the heart of your argument.

The distinction you make between truth and reality seems to invoke a sort of Cartesian skepticism. Specifically, you’re arguing that “truth” amounts to a series of reasonable propositions about the world, and that we are left to validate the truth of these propositions by whatever method of investigation is at hand. And yet, even something as straightforward as “the hand before my face” is merely a proposition with which we have been confronted, and even if we say that the proposition is true, we still lack the sort of epistemic validation needed for the proposition to assume the status of “reality”.

The assumption of this line of thinking is that we begin in a state of ignorance, and that, from this original state, we begin our journey into the world of propositions, acquiring what you’ve referred to as “truth”—but not reality—along the way. For each proposition, we select either the positive alternative (to believe) or the negative alternative (to not believe). And in this way we develop our own particular “truth” or worldview. This does not mean, apparently, that these decisions are arbitrary. For in accepting the hand in front of your face and rejecting fairy tales, you have asserted reason as the principle by which some propositions are judged as probable and others as “unlikely”. You repeatedly express the need to find “good reasons” for believing in what you regard as unlikely propositions. So it is that the original state of ignorance is not a state of total ignorance, but instead we have use of reason to navigate our way through the various propositions that come our way.

According to this view, no proposition can be taken for granted as a self-evident “reality”. Truth, however, is a different matter. Truth can be judged so long as we understand that reason alone is fit to determine which propositions are to be accepted and which propositions are to be rejected as “unlikely”. It seems well enough so far. And yet I think this approach leaves the Cartesian skeptic in an interesting corner.

And here is what I mean: The idea that reason alone is fit to arbitrate between which propositions are to be accepted or rejected is itself a proposition, and as such it must be determined whether or not the proposition is reasonable or likely. It is still possible at this point for the skeptic to accept as an article of faith that “reason alone is fit to arbitrate”. If he does so, he exempts the heart of his argument from its consequences; he invokes a philosophical exception to his own rule.

It is far more likely, though, that he will say instead that there must exist, a priori, some authentic connection between truth and reality—an authentic connection that only reason is capable of illuminating. For if reason were not capable of illuminating that connection, then it would not be fit to judge between likely and unlikely propositions. At this point, all that remains is to ask what is meant when a skeptic says that a proposition is likely or unlikely:—Likely or unlikely to be what, exactly? Surely he doesn’t mean “likely to be truth”, for truth, according to the definition you’ve asserted, is the object rather than the basis of reasonable arbitration. It would amount to saying that a proposition is true because it is likely true.

What the skeptic means, of course, when he regards a proposition as “likely” is that it is likely to be reality. It follows, then, that the skeptic asserts that we accept a proposition as true because it likely approximates reality.

And therefore we have undone the premise of original ignorance that is a key feature of your argument. It would be permissible, I think, to allow the state of original ignorance to be accompanied by reason, except that in the case of your argument, reason—if it is ultimately dependent upon some stamp of “reality” that is impressed upon the mind of the skeptic—is a mere slave to an original state that apparently wasn’t quite as ignorant, or pure, or blank, as you wanted it to be. You have said, regarding the proposition of God, that you “don't know anything about it, really”, but that statement would suggest a neutral, rather than a skeptical view. And while some aspects of your text seem neutral and conciliatory enough, the key fact of your skepticism remains the original “unlikeliness” of God to which your argument ultimately appeals.

You have not arrived at disbelief by rational means, at least not from the narrative that’s been presented so far. Not that the logic would be any different or less troublesome for a believer. But of course believers would be more inclined to opt for the philosophical exception before carrying the argument to the point of no return. Such would also be the case for the wisest among the skeptics.


Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling,
Calling for you and for me;
See, on the portals He’s waiting and watching,
Watching for you and for me.

Come home, come home,
You who are weary, come home;
Earnestly, tenderly, Jesus is calling,
Calling, O sinner, come home!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Dionysus
2500+ posts
05/29/11 02:45 PM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

In reply to:

Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling,
Calling for you and for me;
See, on the portals He’s waiting and watching,
Watching for you and for me.

Come home, come home,
You who are weary, come home;
Earnestly, tenderly, Jesus is calling,
Calling, O sinner, come home!




If you listen closely you can just make out the sounds of the mawkish old church ladies, bringers of casseroles, standing in the 3rd row pew sniffling into their tissues at the tender strains of the benediction. Now let's all open our hymnals to page 28 as we beckon the remaining unworthies with the cloying jams of Just As I Am.

Remember to join us for refreshments afterwards in Fellowship Hall.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Coelacanth
2500+ posts
05/29/11 03:44 PM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

Whether the ladies are mawking or the jams cloying is, I suppose, a matter of personal taste. I tend to enjoy the hymns best when a few off key, over the top voices join. The "joyful noise" of church singing is a sort of parallel to living the Christian life. Some are ostentatious about it, some are inconspicuous, some think their efforts purer than they really are. Some get angry with the song leader for letting the tempo drag. It's all fitting and good, in a metaphorical kind of way.

Meanwhile, I have another question for you, Dionysus, in addition to the one on the other thread that you have so far avoided.

Do you agree with buckhorn's truth/reality distinction, and if so, how do you answer the problems I raised in the most recent post? Or, if you do not agree with buckhorn's distinction, why not? Where did he go wrong?

Is there such a thing as objective reality? What do you say, Dionysus? Will you let your pride overcome your caution and enter the arena?

Really, I can do you no physical harm. At most, I can only show that you are in error on an issue that can't be too near to your heart. And even if I do so (which seems unlikely, given your abilities), then you are the one who gains as a result of the exchange.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Dionysus
2500+ posts
05/29/11 07:42 PM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

Coelacanth, for whatever it's worth: I participate in these threads for no other reason than to entertain myself and enjoy some back-n-forth with the few strong minds and free spirits that elevate and adorn these parts. If I've also informed or entertained or educated others in the process, or encouraged someone to think for themselves — well, there's an incidental benefit.

Sometimes it's fun to dive down into the marrow of an argument, to engage on the finer points of logic and philosophy, but mostly I'm bored with those maneuvers anymore, and once boredom sets in: finis. I spent my time in Waggener Hall and maybe the dialectic just doesn't delight like it used to.

In reply to:

Will you let your pride overcome your caution and enter the arena?



Neither pride nor caution are in play here for me, not at this point anyway. You know by now that when the arena interests me, I'm all in.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Coelacanth
2500+ posts
05/29/11 08:26 PM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

And so it seems that nobody on the skeptical side really wants to do the hard work of thinking through their assumptions about the world.

Buckhorn gave it a shot, but he's tired and out of things to add, or so he says. Dionysus, who never fails to engage the finer points of the Christian worldview, when he finds it to be problematic, suddenly finds the exercise boring when the scrutiny begins to point in the direction of his assumptions.

I wonder: who will pick up where buckhorn left off?

Who here can demonstrate that the skeptical view is more reasonable than the religious view?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Perham1
5000+ posts
05/31/11 07:37 AM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: Coelacanth]

Who here can demonstrate that the skeptical view is more reasonable than the religious view?

When it comes to science? Are you kidding? I haven't gone through all the prior blather, but since the title is "why do we doubt science" ....

Berger made a good case for skepticism/doubt in his latest book, In Praise of Doubt.




I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best. Oscar Wilde

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

buckhorn
2500+ posts
05/31/11 06:57 PM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

In reply to:

who will pick up where buckhorn left off?




buckhorn will, but in due time.

This thread is down the list of priorities and I have wasted almost all of my allotted hornfans time on the tOSU Buckeye scandal.

In reply to:

Who here can demonstrate that the skeptical view is more reasonable than the religious view?




While I will return to this thread, relative disinterest notwithstanding, it is not my intention to set my views out as more reasonable than those of the believer, especially the more thoughtful believers.

Again, religion should steer clear of science. The reasons for this have been stated repeatedly.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Coelacanth
2500+ posts
05/31/11 07:54 PM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

In reply to:

Again, religion should steer clear of science.



But doesn't belief share a long and disputed border with the known?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Dionysus
2500+ posts
06/05/11 09:31 AM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

Religion can't steer clear of anything because it declares to be the origin of everything. It makes very large claims for itself, claims to knowledge that it can't possibly hold, e.g., the loving goodness and mercy of their creator.

But when pressed to explain evil and suffering in the world, see how quickly the posture changes: well, we can't really know what goodness and mercy means on God's terms—we're just mere mortals, existing on the periphery of a divine plan we can never fathom. If it happened that's because God allowed it to happen, therefore it is ultimately good. Such excuse-making and intellectual evasion is the essence of Christian apologetics.

Ludwig Feuerbach put it well:

God is the explanation for the unexplainable which explains nothing
because it explains everything without distinction
[...] the not-knowing which solves all doubts by repudiating them,
which knows everything because it knows nothing in particular
and because all things which impress reason are nothing to religion
[...] the night is the mother of religion.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Monahorns
500+ posts
06/05/11 11:58 AM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

The Bible explains the existence of evil and suffering very well actually. I think that is one of its strong points. The fall of man (and therefore creation) and God's subsequent withdrawing from that creation gives the framework for evil and suffering.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

GT WT
1000+ posts
06/05/11 01:18 PM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: Monahorns]

In reply to:

God's subsequent withdrawing from that creation




Monahorns, why do you see God's response as being the behavior of a good and loving being?






"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Coelacanth
2500+ posts
06/05/11 02:57 PM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

In reply to:

Religion can't steer clear of anything because it declares to be the origin of everything.



I think you probably meant that it claims to explain the origin of everything.

But what does science claim to explain?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Monahorns
500+ posts
06/05/11 09:09 PM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

GT WT, God's response to the sin of mankind perfectly demonstrates His character. God is both holy and loving. God's holiness is demonstrated by His removing Himself from sin and His judgment of it. When I say "removing" I am referring to what I see in Genesis. At the beginning you see God very personally involved with humanity. As mankind continues to sin more and more He interacting with mankind as a whole less and less. There are also verses where explain that God can not allow sin in His presence. That is all showing His holiness.

At the same time, He shows that He is loving because His interaction with mankind is never completely removed. He is still calling out to people. He tells Abraham that from his descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed. He creates a nation. He promises a Messiah. He becomes that Messiah and then He dies for all the sins of mankind past, present, and future.

God is holy and loving. Neither characteristic diminishes the other in either way and in some ways amplifies them.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

GT WT
1000+ posts
06/06/11 06:00 AM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: Monahorns]

Monahorns,

Thanks for the explanation. Going back to your original post you state -

In reply to:

God's subsequent withdrawing from that creation gives the framework for evil and suffering




Could we replace "framework" with the word 'cause'? In a system where God is the original and final cause is He responsible for all that's good and all that's evil?

In a monotheistic religion is God the god of both heaven and hell?






"Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding. "
Martin Luther

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Monahorns
500+ posts
06/06/11 06:38 AM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

I wouldn't say that. God didn't create evil. Creation was good and mankind was very good before the fall. We are all responsible for our choices. Sin is a human choice.

I don't know if I would define God as the original and final cause. That may be true but I don't see anything in the Bible that makes that statement be absolutely true of God in all cases.

I would say that God is the god of heaven and hell though. That is a Biblical statement. God rules over both. Most times though our cultures view of hell is actually more Greek than Biblical. Hell in the Bible is a place created by God for judgment. The devil is not the ruler of hell. He will be punished in hell one day though. According to the Bible, the devil is not in hell currently. He is roaming all over the earth looking to increase his influence.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Dionysus
2500+ posts
06/06/11 07:12 AM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

In reply to:

According to the Bible, the devil is not in hell currently. He is roaming all over the earth looking to increase his influence.



No kidding. He was in a meeting with us last week in the form of a PowerPoint. I stood up right then and faithfully declared “I rebuke you, foul slide-demon! Get thee behind me now!” and the meeting was immediately concluded and we went to lunch and totally rejoiced and fellowshipped over the fish tacos.

The devil's no problem really, you just have to rebuke him. He is powerless to a firm reprimand.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Perham1
5000+ posts
06/06/11 09:51 AM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: Dionysus]

That's why Ed Tufte ends each session with a "Get thee hence!".




I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best. Oscar Wilde

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

buckhorn
2500+ posts
07/30/11 01:26 PM
Re: Why do we doubt science? [re: GT WT]

In reply to:

Truth can be judged so long as we understand that reason alone is fit to determine which propositions are to be accepted and which propositions are to be rejected as “unlikely”.




I don't think I would put it like that.

We use more than reason to try and suss what has happened and what will happen. I am not sure that we have a full grip on how we gather and catalogue information, how we present our responses to the world, the idea of the world, etc. Reason is not necessarily the last arbiter. It has been suggested by some that an individual trying to decide what is and isn't 'correct' for a given proposition is in no small way driven or led by what we call 'emotion,' whatever that may be. We have five senses which bring in information, probably all the time if even small degrees of awareness are to count. Etc.

In reply to:

According to this view, no proposition can be taken for granted as a self-evident “reality”.




In the final analysis, I would have to say that, as a practical matter, everything is up for debate, though, for the limited purposes that most of us have at a given moment, debate is usually pointless. We often act as though reality is self-evident. Our brains are in some ways wired to operate in a stimulus-response sort of fashion, the result being expectations that what our senses capture is considered 'real' on some level.

In reply to:

The idea that reason alone is fit to arbitrate between which propositions are to be accepted or rejected is itself a proposition, and as such it must be determined whether or not the proposition is reasonable or likely.




Of course. But one must go one.

In reply to:

It is far more likely, though, that he will say instead that there must exist, a priori, some authentic connection between truth and reality—an authentic connection that only reason is capable of illuminating.




I am not sure of this. As I have said, truth is more a matter of grammar and interplay than reality. It only comes up in certain situations, i.e., you have to ask a question, and, though the issue is usually one involving the accuracy of our assertions and observations, any retort can function as truth depending on content of individual's understanding. I think we begin gathering information before we begin to reason. After that it is merely a matter of definitions and wordplay, of maintaining consistency within that interplay. That's what truth is, as far as I can tell. I don't think that the distinction between all cats are feline and this cat is grey is a matter of kind so much as a matter of time and place.

Once the question is raised, reference to the naming and/or, depending on the issue, the investigation of the subject must be undertaken. Thereafter it is a matter of whether the answer works, so to speak. The assertion 'the sun revolves around the earth' worked well enough for many years, though it would now appear that such a revolution never occurred. Still, one must go on.

When you say 'connection' and suggest that there is such a thing holding truth and reality together I have to say I see no such necessary alliance. We can dance around the words we use to try to describe the situation, our actions and predilections being part of the slippery stuff we try to capture and hold down so that we might have a base from which to move on. That, I think, is a useful illusion. We move on regardless and subsequently try to make sense, and we try to say what has happened, what will happen. We even try to say what is happening, but that is slippery.

In reply to:

You have said, regarding the proposition of God, that you “don't know anything about it, really”, but that statement would suggest a neutral, rather than a skeptical view. And while some aspects of your text seem neutral and conciliatory enough, the key fact of your skepticism remains the original “unlikeliness” of God to which your argument ultimately appeals.




Just to clarify, when I say that there is an 'unlikeliness' and am in this instance referring to the ideas and assertions of men. This talk seems fantastical. The subject 'god' is not something I have information about. None. I can't even tell if anyone else has EVER had any information about that subject. Even the best and most enduring statements, drawn by our most honored engines of reason, constitute a sort of flailing.

In reply to:

You have not arrived at disbelief by rational means




I haven't arrived at disbelief by rational means. I don't think that I have suggested something to the contrary. I am not saying that belief is irrational. I simply have not found any rational reason to believe given my position, my understanding and sense of the situation. The question arises from another: 'Do you not believe?'
The only answer I have is 'No.'

As a sort of aside, I was talking to a friend of mine, an inventor and a grad guy in pharmaceuticals, of all thing, and he let it be known that he was a magician. I laughed. He then pulled off some card tricks that were really astounding. Magic is disorienting, it seems, because it plays on your expectation that what you see is real. It is a feeling, this expectation, rather than a reasoned position, and it comes unbidden. I began having him do the tricks repeatedly so that I could closely watch his movements. I could not really tell what was happening, but I began to put it together by virtue of what I had good reason to believe was not happening, i.e., I knew the cards were not disappearing into another dimension and then returning upon his request. The hand is, as it turns out, faster than the eye. Literally. He admitted that, even though he knows the trick and its mechanics, if undertaken by another skilled and practiced magician, he cannot detect the artifice. He looks for it, knows it is happening right before his eyes, but cannot detect it. The mechanism is too feeble. We ended up talking deep into the night about how we know what is real, etc., uncertainty or indeterminism, etc. Man is a weak mechanism for discerning if there is a god -- reason, the five senses, etc. Weak. A glass of water gives us limited information -- we can build machines that derive information from a glass of water on what would be twenty sensory levels. We do the best we can and make our way. The base is not really firm, but we find ways to make things work, so it would seem.

There are reams and reams of paper dedicated to all of this. I have nothing new to say. I see no answer. That is why it is tiresome. I suppose the person who thinks that there is an answer has fuel for continuing. I do not.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Email Post   Notify Moderator  Nominate for Classics

Pages in this thread: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | (show all)   Print Thread

Jump to

HornFans Home | Contact Us


If you see any typographical errors (it's so hard to find good help these days), or have suggestions about this site, please send us feedback.

© 2000 - 2014 HornFans.com, LLC, all rights reserved. HornFans.com is an independent site and is not affiliated with The University of Texas Athletic Department or the Longhorn Foundation. Opinions expressed herein do not reflect the opinion of HornFans, the University of Texas, the Longhorn Foundation, Anheuser-Busch, Brown-Distributing, or any other of our sponsors, affiliates, partners or users.

Privacy Policy


Powered by Data Foundry