| Author |
Message |
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 24 Jul 2011, 4:55 pm
|
|
Replies: 124
Views: 7,863
|
| "If you mean the immaterial Mind of Cartesian Dualism (res cogitans) I deny it outright." Well, as I posted a few posts back: "...my inclination is to reject a dualistic conception of the mind, given that I have never seen any evidence of mind existing as a separate, distinct substance apart from ma... |
|
 |
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 24 Jul 2011, 4:42 pm
|
|
Replies: 124
Views: 7,863
|
"My problem is he asserts the NON-existence of anything he is unwilling to allow exists."
Is he doing that? I'll let him answer, I suppose. Or is he saying that he is not willing to assert that something does exist in the absence of independent, inter-subjectively verified evidence? Ruveyn? |
|
|
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 24 Jul 2011, 4:39 pm
|
|
Replies: 124
Views: 7,863
|
"If ruveyn were to say that he cannot claim that mind or the 1852 coelacanth exists, I would have no quibble."
Are you referring to the fish? Homely little buggers, they are! |
|
|
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 24 Jul 2011, 4:37 pm
|
|
Replies: 124
Views: 7,863
|
| "Each of us know rather little first hand. If you accept inter-subjective testimony and second hand accounts of experiments one has never performed first hand then each of us can know a lot. In any case the only way we know that something exists is when someone (or other) perceives it and reports wh... |
|
|
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 24 Jul 2011, 4:21 pm
|
|
Replies: 124
Views: 7,863
|
| "The point, mon vieux, is that the ability or the choice of this observer or that to ASSERT a things existence does not affect that existence." Of course, our wishes and assertions do not affect what is actually real. I hope we can all agree upon that. "If you want to claim that for all we know to t... |
|
|
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 24 Jul 2011, 1:29 pm
|
|
Replies: 124
Views: 7,863
|
| "You make a very interesting point, however as we know language is dynamic and as of this moment the Oxford English Dictionary still defines fantastic as being "imaginative or fanciful; remote from reality" and that is what I am holding onto and I will try my hardest to prevent its meaning changing ... |
|
|
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 24 Jul 2011, 1:20 pm
|
|
Replies: 124
Views: 7,863
|
| It occurs to me that it is a rather facile notion that the mind does not exist at all, such that only empirically verifiable objects or inferences are acceptable for claims of truly existing realities. Yet, all of the "empirical" data are subjective, phenomenological realities that we first experien... |
|
|
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 24 Jul 2011, 12:53 am
|
|
Replies: 124
Views: 7,863
|
| "Sorry I am now going to be a linguistic pedant, there should be nothing fantastic about science, remarkable maybe, wondrous perhaps, marvelous could also fit, awesome might even be appropriate, but fantastic is a totally inappropriate adjective with which to to describe the scientific method." I'll... |
|
|
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 23 Jul 2011, 1:31 pm
|
|
Replies: 124
Views: 7,863
|
| "In the last 3000 years science has succeeded and philosophy fails. Philosophers are still mulling over the same hash as Plato and Aristotle. No progress." But isn't it the case that our very understanding of science has philosophical underpinnings? The epistemology of science is something that has ... |
|
|
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2011, 3:30 pm
|
|
Replies: 124
Views: 7,863
|
| "The ideological dominance of biology by Lysenko in Soviet Russia is a prime example of how religion can kill sciences. Lysenko's insane anti-factual theories are a good example of a State religion taking violent action against truth based research. Another example: The Church actively intervening i... |
|
|
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2011, 2:51 pm
|
|
Replies: 124
Views: 7,863
|
| "I say AGAIN [as I tried to say to my brother, and as in that case with no real hope that it will penetrate] science cannot kill religion. Religion cannot kill science. Someone who thinks either is possible has no business practicing either." I think you're right here. If anything is going to kill r... |
|
|
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2011, 11:38 am
|
|
Replies: 124
Views: 7,863
|
| "Robert T. Bakker is a prominant paleontologist, and a Ecumenical Christian minister. He doesn't believe that there is a conflict between religion and science, and I agree with him. There really isn't one..." I think this is exactly right. There isn't really a conflict at all. Science simply doesn't... |
|
|
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Creation Science versus Evolutionary Theory is not a debate |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 22 Jul 2011, 1:23 am
|
|
Replies: 124
Views: 7,863
|
| The larger question must be: Is a debate possible when there is such a yawning chasm between the "basic premises" of the two sides? We ought to at least attempt to identify those premises if we are going to consider this question. The basic operating principle of science is empiricism. That is, the ... |
|
|
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Scientific racism is bullsh**. |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 21 Jul 2011, 1:14 am
|
|
Replies: 11
Views: 1,055
|
| I'm in full agreement with the sentiment of the OP. I think the core error, at least philosophically, of what Duke and others of his ilk are advocating, is viewing people as objects having an intrinsic essence, rather than beings that are a composition of the relational properties that comprise them... |
|
|
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: A question for Marxists Communists and or Socialists ? |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 21 Jul 2011, 12:47 am
|
|
Replies: 54
Views: 4,240
|
| While I wouldn't say that I'm a Marxist, I think that something should be clarified. There is an enormous distinction between the sort of religious beliefs and practices adhered to by those prehistoric "tribal societies" that are being referred to by the OP, with their fertility goddesses and myster... |
|
|
Forum: Politics, Philosophy, and Religion Topic: Destroying a Religion |
| platocrat |
|
Posted: 19 Jul 2011, 11:56 am
|
|
Replies: 33
Views: 2,767
|
| Though you didn't state it explicitly, I have a sense of what religion you probably have in mind. In any case, I'm not sure what country you live in, but the very notion of the government "combating" a religion strikes me as illiberal bordering on the fascist. I'm not sure that you intended to conve... |
|
|
| Sort by: |
