View Poll Results: What is your religion?
- Voters
- 1384. You may not vote on this poll
Discuss Are you religious? in The Science Forum on The Army Rumour Service; Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker
I think we've agreed 'evidence' for the new atheist is largely restricted to naive realism. Difficult to move on for many here.
I must confess to finding such posts as incredibly ...
526Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks- 06-05-2012, 14:40 #11871Senior Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Posts
- 6,253
I must confess to finding such posts as incredibly irritating. We have agreed no such thing, because;
Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker 
1. I do not recall you defining what you mean with the term "new atheist".
2. Dito- Naive realism.
Q. What is the alternative to "naive realism", is it "sophisticated idealism"?
TBH, I find your posts as pure sophistry, you espouse a position that no-one actually lives by, and do so on means that have come into existence by methodological naturalism.
What evidence do you base your opinions on? I am thinking about your claims on Jesus here.
- 06-05-2012, 14:51 #11872Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Posts
- 1,758
There you go again, trying to equate the two by suggesting that the two narratives are held in the same way by society. They are not. Society regarded the 'truth' of the bible in a very different way 300 years ago to the way science is regarded today - they lived in an oppressive, fearful society where the bible wasn't questioned for fear of death. Societys relationship with science is an entirely different relationship and it's certainly not a naive relationship. Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker
No matter how hard you try you will not bring your deism, theism and religion onto the same plane as science.
- 06-05-2012, 14:54 #11873Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- By Jove
- Posts
- 5,471
1. It's a common term now, New Atheism, marked by focusing its attacks on religion, versus Old Atheism (much more reasoned body of thinkers) Originally Posted by StickyEnd
2. Ditto Naive realism - doesn't afford concern for reality being filtered and interpreted
My evidence is existential."As we moved slowly through the outskirts of the town we passed row after row of little grey slum houses running at right angles to the embankment. At the back of one of the houses a young woman was kneeling on the stones, poking a stick up the leaden waste-pipe which ran from the sink inside and which I suppose was blocked. I had time to see everything about her - her sacking apron, her clumsy clogs, her arms reddened by the cold. She looked up as the train passed, and I was almost near enough to catch her eye." Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier
- 06-05-2012, 14:55 #11874Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- By Jove
- Posts
- 5,471
“But man is so partial to systems and abstract conclusions that he is ready to distort the truth, ready to hear nor see anything, as long as he can justify his logic.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes from Underground"As we moved slowly through the outskirts of the town we passed row after row of little grey slum houses running at right angles to the embankment. At the back of one of the houses a young woman was kneeling on the stones, poking a stick up the leaden waste-pipe which ran from the sink inside and which I suppose was blocked. I had time to see everything about her - her sacking apron, her clumsy clogs, her arms reddened by the cold. She looked up as the train passed, and I was almost near enough to catch her eye." Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier
- 06-05-2012, 14:57 #11875Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Posts
- 1,758
Nothing to do with understanding of scientific method, but all to do with you scrabbling around trying to shoehorn your bone ideas into the argument in a vain attempt to bring science down to the level of religion. It's slightly unedifying and trite, but is a recognised argument by the theist. That line of attack is risible and rather pathetic. But I understand why you try it. Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker
- 06-05-2012, 14:59 #11876Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Posts
- 1,758
And is?
My evidence is existential.
- 06-05-2012, 16:43 #11877Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Posts
- 1,494
Science makes my car work, my phone work, the plane fly.
Practical science is clearly not a matter of opinion or interpretation; it is self evidently true. Faith in a system alone never made a helicopter fly.
In the same time that science has achieved so much, religion is still wrapped around the axle about homosexuality and whether women can feature or not. Now philosophy can also address such issues, but it can do so without the need for a deity.
Missionaries going to vaccinate children isn't some form of proof of the contribution of religion to physical survival. They're just people, the vaccine does the trick. If you're vaccinated by a Christian, Hindu or atheist the result is the same.
The presence of any of these people without the vaccine is equally unproductive.billybongo and BoomShackerLacker like this.The sand of the desert is sodden red-
Red with the wreck of the square that broke
The gatling's jammed and the colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
The river of death has brimmed its banks,
And England's far, and Honour a name,
But the voice of a schoolboy rallies the ranks-
"Play up! Play up! And play the game!"
- 06-05-2012, 17:13 #11878Senior Member
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- By Jove
- Posts
- 5,471
Some good reads:
Khun, T. S. (1998 ) ‘Objectivity, value judgement, and theory choice’, In E. Klemke, R. Hollinger, & D. Rudge (Eds), Introductory readings in the philosophy of science, New York: Prometheus
Khun, T. S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Khun, T. S. (1977) The Essential Tension, Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, London: The University of Chicago Press
Bhaskar, R. (1978 ) A Realist Theory of Science, London: Harvester WheatsheafLast edited by BoomShackerLacker; 06-05-2012 at 17:14. Reason: Stoopid compooter putting smilies all over da shop
"As we moved slowly through the outskirts of the town we passed row after row of little grey slum houses running at right angles to the embankment. At the back of one of the houses a young woman was kneeling on the stones, poking a stick up the leaden waste-pipe which ran from the sink inside and which I suppose was blocked. I had time to see everything about her - her sacking apron, her clumsy clogs, her arms reddened by the cold. She looked up as the train passed, and I was almost near enough to catch her eye." Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier
- 06-05-2012, 19:00 #11879Senior Member
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Posts
- 6,253
And I did so while trying to explain to you (more than once) about what I meant between objective and subjective knowledge/experience. Yes every interaction/measurement we have with reality comes through our senses, but there is a massive difference between personal preference and repeatable/universal results from observations. Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker
Once again you use something I said/acknowledged completely out of context. Just because everything has to be interpreted, does not mean all opinions about external reality are equally valid.
eg. Age of universe >13 Billion years=/=to <10,000 years. Biological Evolution=/=to special creation. etc.BoomShackerLacker likes this.
- 06-05-2012, 20:27 #11880Senior Member
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Posts
- 1,758
Have you read them all? Originally Posted by BoomShackerLacker
I strongly recommend Mr Hitchens' "God is Not Great" (apologies for not referencing properly - couldn't be arssed). It very succinctly and accurately rubbishes most of your guff to date.
Bookmarks