Dr W please look at Des News article on Science and Religion

[_Ceeboo]

It seems to me that there must be a gray area between masturbation and repeatable experiment.

Look, I'm no doctor but if you really have gray areas in that region, you should consider making an appointment with a specialist.


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Some Schmo]

Assuming I understand you, you believe that only the philosophy of science is a truly philosophical philosophy and that any philosophy that does not rely on empirical verification is not philosophical by definition; a fantasy.

No. In my mind, 'philosophy' is basically a way of looking at the world/pertains to world views. Everyone has a philosophy; some are just more logical/rational and grounded in reality than others. There are different levels of philosophical thought. The only point I was trying to make is that unless we have something empirical to back up our philosophy, it amounts to a lot of mental masturbation.

You thus equate philosophy with propositions that are potentially empirically verifiable. That pretty much rules out every philosophy except for the philosophy of science. Is that what you were trying to say?

No, I'm saying that the philosophy of science is the only one that actually successfully leads to truth finding consistently. Other philosophies make some, a lot, or few good guesses, but ultimately, they are hit and miss without verification. And how do we verify?

That's the point.

As I understand equivocation, it is the use of one term and applying multiple definitions to it as needed to make your case. In your initial responses, I detected reliance on a broader definition of philosophy (whatever is empirically verifiable) then heard you say more narrowly that only the philosophy of science is truly philosophical (not a fantasy). In hindsight, maybe that's what you meant all along (see above). If so, then there's no equivocation on your part. So, to clarify, am I correct in understanding that you only consider the philosophy of science to be valid or were you only calling Aristotle's metaphysics and metaphysical theorizing in general to be a fantasy?

Actually, as I understand equivocation, it's ascribing the same meaning to a word in different contexts when not applicable/appropriate.

In this case, I'm saying that the philosophy of science is superior to other philosophies, and I suspect that you'd like to view all philosophies equally because it supports the idea that no matter what, we're all just wondering around in the dark and don't know what to believe, so we can just latch on to whatever philosophy we choose because we all have as good a chance of being right as anyone else making the blind choice. It's equating faith with fact. That is the fallacy I'm talking about.

[_Some Schmo]

Some Schmo,

If indeed the boundaries of reality are as you say then where does the imagination in the brain come from to ponder these large questions?

I don't remember putting any boundaries on reality. I do remember suggesting what realities we can and can't know. I am personally very comfortable saying "I don't know" when appropriate. I am not comfortable making stuff up to fill the gaps in my knowledge and then calling it knowledge.

As for our imaginations (and all other cognitive processes), you answered your own question: it comes from our brain. Our brains are the products or millions of generations of evolution. That's all I know. I suspect imagination and consciousness are emergent properties or the synergy caused by the vast neural network our brains are composed of, sort of like the ripples in the sand caused by the water splashing against the shore. Nobody designed those ripples; it's just what happens from the natural process of the tides interacting with the sand (you know... physics, gravity, etc).

Since the imagination is not something that fits your repeatable mold then can it exist?

What are you talking about, "not something that fits [my] repeatable mold?" We've seen over and over how people demonstrate their possession of an imagination. It certainly exists.

Or do you allow some things to exist but not others?

Everything that exists (or doesn't) does so whether I allow it or not. Your question demonstrates how some people like to imagine their thoughts somehow influence objective reality outside themselves.

It seems to me that there must be a gray area between masturbation and repeatable experiment.

This reminds me of the idea of Possibilianism, which is little more than the rebranding of weak atheism, in my estimation, sort of like how ID is the rebranding of creationism.

[_MrStakhanovite]

If philosophy says there is a first cause, then there are grounds for belief in a non-material, transcendent something as a causal agent. If there is a first cause or prime mover, then science and reproducible, physical evidence is insufficient to explain how the universe works. I'm not saying there is a first cause. I'm only saying that there are important questions that science cannot answer and the philosophical arguments for a first cause or prime mover are reasonable or at least important to consider.

This is not entirely true. If one accepts a B-Theory of time, the universe does not ever come into being. Discussions about a “First Cause” are often forced to rely and defend an A-Theory of time, which requires one to disregard Special Relativity and is a very controversial and minority view.

And Schmo is not postmodern in any sense of the word, while I don’t agree with his scientism, he is about as far away from postmodernism as one can get.

It helps to keep in mind that most posters here come from a Mormon background, where they are taught God has a physical body, which is a scientific question, and one that wreaks havoc to a lot of Mormon Theology.

You want to discuss a transcended God, that is great, but that is not the presentation of God that many posters here are familiar with.

ETA: Welcome to the forums!

[_Some Schmo]

And Schmo is not postmodern in any sense of the word, while I don’t agree with his scientism, he is about as far away from postmodernism as one can get.

Thank you. I was going to ask Blixa to take that one, but thought if she felt like it, she'd do it.

It helps to keep in mind that most posters here come from a Mormon background, where they are taught God has a physical body, which is a scientific question, and one that wreaks havoc to a lot of Mormon Theology.

You want to discuss a transcended God, that is great, but that is not the presentation of God that many posters here are familiar with.

That's a good point, but it matters little to me personally. Think of the most transcendent god you can imagine, and I'll regard it the same way as the living god squatting next door sending out mental pulses to guide us to our car keys. I am uninterested unless you've got some evidence about its existence.

[_Franktalk]

As for our imaginations (and all other cognitive processes), you answered your own question: it comes from our brain. Our brains are the products or millions of generations of evolution. That's all I know. I suspect imagination and consciousness are emergent properties or the synergy caused by the vast neural network our brains are composed of, sort of like the ripples in the sand caused by the water splashing against the shore. Nobody designed those ripples; it's just what happens from the natural process of the tides interacting with the sand (you know... physics, gravity, etc).

Placing a label on something does not give us understanding of it. Saying imagination comes from the brain means nothing. How does the brain function so it has imagination? So your ripples that no one made, that created themself by some mechanism that you believe in. How is that different than my beliefs?

[_Gadianton]

The global warming thread is a perfect example of why the article linked here is rubbish. After how many years, some religious folks are able to accept evolution? After science leaves the matter virtually irrefutable, a handful of the less dogmatic believers become agreeable, and forget that they kicked their heels and screamed for decades. By the time TBMs will be ready to accept the reality of global warming the planet will be a roasting cinder, or frozen wasteland, whatever the ultimate implication is.

[_Some Schmo]

Placing a label on something does not give us understanding of it. Saying imagination comes from the brain means nothing.

Really? Funny how it means something to me; namely, that imagination comes from our brains.

How does the brain function so it has imagination?

I'd tell you to read up on neurology, but learning facts doesn't seem important to you.

So your ripples that no one made, that created themself by some mechanism that you believe in.

You don't believe in gravity or physics?

How is that different than my beliefs?

It's not nonsense.

[_Hughes]

No, I'm saying that the philosophy of science is the only one that actually successfully leads to truth finding consistently. Other philosophies make some, a lot, or few good guesses, but ultimately, they are hit and miss without verification. And how do we verify?

That's the point.

the point is that every philosophy contains a system of verification.

The question is how does a materialist verify that only material is all that exists?

[_Some Schmo]

the point is that every philosophy contains a system of verification.

I suppose, but clearly, one system is far and away the most reliable, to the point where the others amount to little more than wishful and/or magical thinking.

The question is how does a materialist verify that only material is all that exists?

Does a materialist need to in order to be a materialist? Isn't it enough to simply note that we don't have access to anything else? Personally, I wouldn't claim to know that material is all that exists (I don't consider myself a materialist). I can say, however, that it's all I've encountered so far.

It's interesting how you seem to think you're justified in holding a materialist's worldview to a standard to which you're not willing to hold your own belief system. Why not just admit, "I don't know," rather than making stuff up?